The Long War: Rethinking American Options in the War on Terror
Feroz R Khan June 14, 2006
#57 Posted by nasah on June 16, 2006 12:14:31 pm
``the United States and its allies are ``engaged in a global war on terror, a long and demanding struggle against an adversary that is driven by hatred of American values and that is committed to imposing, by the use of terror, its repressive ideology throughout the world.`` It also declares that ``the terrorists have declared Iraq to be the central front in their war against all who oppose their ideology.``(hamidm)
this shitty republican resolution in the House of republican Hores has some language problem that if reformed will bring the desired results of ending this Eye-rock war with nobody losing the eye or their pet rock forever.
it should read -- the United States and its allies are ``engaged in a global war of terror, a long and demanding struggle against an adversary that is driven by hatred of seeing Ugly Bushy American butt in every third world country`s dinner plate and that is committed to imposing, by the use of terror, its Abu Gharib ideology throughout the world.``
It also declares that ``the Haditha Bushys were the FIRST to have declared Iraq to be the central front in their war against all who oppose the beating-up-the-little-guy-for-oil Ideology.
this shitty republican resolution in the House of republican Hores has some language problem that if reformed will bring the desired results of ending this Eye-rock war with nobody losing the eye or their pet rock forever.
it should read -- the United States and its allies are ``engaged in a global war of terror, a long and demanding struggle against an adversary that is driven by hatred of seeing Ugly Bushy American butt in every third world country`s dinner plate and that is committed to imposing, by the use of terror, its Abu Gharib ideology throughout the world.``
It also declares that ``the Haditha Bushys were the FIRST to have declared Iraq to be the central front in their war against all who oppose the beating-up-the-little-guy-for-oil Ideology.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#56 Posted by zeemax on June 16, 2006 9:15:14 am
#54 by hamidm2
So you agree you`re a utilitarian and would take off the painting to hang the shoe in its place ....
So you agree you`re a utilitarian and would take off the painting to hang the shoe in its place ....
#55 Posted by tahmed32 on June 16, 2006 8:03:59 am
#54 ``......... all you have to do is compile masadi`s posts``
That would indeed require a Herculean effort, comparable to cleaning the Augean Stables.
That would indeed require a Herculean effort, comparable to cleaning the Augean Stables.
#54 Posted by hamidm2 on June 16, 2006 7:46:34 am
utilitarian use for the shoe hanging on the wall ? )
........... the United States and its allies are ``engaged in a global war on terror, a long and demanding struggle against an adversary that is driven by hatred of American values and that is committed to imposing, by the use of terror, its repressive ideology throughout the world.`` It also declares that ``the terrorists have declared Iraq to be the central front in their war against all who oppose their ideology.``
........ this is what the resoulution being debated in the house states and anyone who disagrees with it should be beaten upside the head with the shoe that hangs on the wall .......... all you have to do is compile masadi`s posts and you will realize the truth in the statement that these people are truly driven by their hatred of american values .......... and these people - terrorists and their sympathizers - are all around us, in toronto and in detroit ........... let me tell you, boys and girls, if we don`t fight them there we will have to fight them here and that won`t be a good thing ........
.......... ferox k is an honorable man and i always read his ilogs with great interest, but on this one he is wrong ......... trying to apply the normal standards of political discourse and diplomacy in dealing with people who are blinded by an ideology of hatred is an exercise in futility ..............
#53 Posted by zeemax on June 16, 2006 6:09:41 am
#29 by hamidm2
With due respect to your list of 19 contra-Utilitarian things to do, allow me to add my one Utilitarian:
#1. Taking down the painting and hanging your shoes on the wall instead so you wouldn`t have to bend to pick them up.
With due respect to your list of 19 contra-Utilitarian things to do, allow me to add my one Utilitarian:
#1. Taking down the painting and hanging your shoes on the wall instead so you wouldn`t have to bend to pick them up.
#52 Posted by arjun_m on June 16, 2006 4:51:44 am
#33 by masadi on June 15, 2006 3:44pm PT
The answer is NO.
That pretty much confirms what I already knew..
The war in Afghanistan was as justified as any war can ever be...only pro-jihadi/islamic terrorist people are against this war as far as i`m concerned..
Feroz: See what I mean...this is about the majority of muslims being against ANY war by a non-muslim country on an muslim country..This is the clash of civilizations..
The answer is NO.
That pretty much confirms what I already knew..
The war in Afghanistan was as justified as any war can ever be...only pro-jihadi/islamic terrorist people are against this war as far as i`m concerned..
Feroz: See what I mean...this is about the majority of muslims being against ANY war by a non-muslim country on an muslim country..This is the clash of civilizations..
#51 Posted by tahmed32 on June 16, 2006 4:50:01 am
further to #50: and when i say ``mullahs``, i refer not just to the bearded mullahs but to all those masadi-types who look for negative things in the west while ignoring the vast amount of good coming out of it.
#50 Posted by tahmed32 on June 16, 2006 4:41:09 am
hamidm #29 That was as close to bulls eye as anyone can get. i basically agree with you here - if something cannot be clearly shown as being for the greater good, then it is better to sit and watch the grass grow. this begs the question, of course, of what is the ``greater good``. from everything i have seen, there is no question that things coming from west have been for the greater good while things coming from muslim countries lately (i.e. in the past few centuries) have been for the greater bad.
in the 19th century , the west ended human slavery and put pressure on the ottomans to do the same - while the mullahs opposed it tooth and nail as being a western conspiracy to attack Islam (and it is of course implicitly sanctioned by the Quran). Saudi Arabia, as usual did not get around to abolishing slavery until 1962!! (all this is of course, now forgotten by muslims who never talk of resurrecting slavery anymore even though they passionately oppsed it in the 19th century).
in the 18th and 20th centuries , the west ended the Rule of Kings and introduced democracy to the world. And the mullahs now are oppose it tooth and nail (with many going over the edge into terrorism and violence) as being a western conspiracy to attack Islam. Saudi Arabia, of course, is the laggard among the laggards as usual. This too shall pass - and a century from now terrorists will be forgotten and the Rule of Kings will be over and would-be Caliphs will be sitting in the lunatic asylums rather than as dictators and autocrats in muslim countries.
in the 19th century , the west ended human slavery and put pressure on the ottomans to do the same - while the mullahs opposed it tooth and nail as being a western conspiracy to attack Islam (and it is of course implicitly sanctioned by the Quran). Saudi Arabia, as usual did not get around to abolishing slavery until 1962!! (all this is of course, now forgotten by muslims who never talk of resurrecting slavery anymore even though they passionately oppsed it in the 19th century).
in the 18th and 20th centuries , the west ended the Rule of Kings and introduced democracy to the world. And the mullahs now are oppose it tooth and nail (with many going over the edge into terrorism and violence) as being a western conspiracy to attack Islam. Saudi Arabia, of course, is the laggard among the laggards as usual. This too shall pass - and a century from now terrorists will be forgotten and the Rule of Kings will be over and would-be Caliphs will be sitting in the lunatic asylums rather than as dictators and autocrats in muslim countries.
#49 Posted by nazarhayatkhan on June 16, 2006 4:03:56 am
What the Islamic radicals would have done to non-Muslims is another matter.
But they have or had already become a pain in the ... for the spineless moderate or non-practising Muslims. America came to their rescue accepting no excuses from these reptiles. Its soldiars are dying for a far-away cause and US has lost in terms of its respect.
Thank you. America. For showing courage.
Muslim leaders were cowards and had no courage to go for them.
I am producing below some parts of a document found in Zarqavi`s hide out. Read it fully at http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/15/zarqawi.document.ap/index.html
Zarqavi`s analysis of how insurrection was losing:
1.By allowing the American forces to form the forces of the National Guard, to reinforce them and enable them to undertake military operations against the resistance.
2.By undertaking massive arrest operations, invading regions that have an impact on the resistance, and hence causing the resistance to lose many of its elements.
3.By undertaking a media campaign against the resistance resulting in weakening its influence inside the country and presenting its work as harmful to the population rather than being beneficial to the population.
4.By tightening the resistance`s financial outlets, restricting its moral options and by confiscating its ammunition and weapons.
5.By creating a big division among the ranks of the resistance and jeopardizing its attack operations, it has weakened its influence and internal support of its elements, thus resulting in a decline of the resistance`s assaults.
6.By allowing an increase in the number of countries and elements supporting the occupation or at least allowing to become neutral in their stand toward us in contrast to their previous stand or refusal of the occupation.
7.By taking advantage of the resistance`s mistakes and magnifying them in order to misinform.
Future Plans
To avoid mistakes that will blemish the image of the resistance and show it as the enemy of the nation. Consequently, to embroil America in another war against another enemy is the answer that we find to be the most appropriate, and to have a war through a delegate has the following benefits:
1..To occupy the Americans by another front will allow the resistance freedom of movement and alleviate the pressure imposed on it.
2..To dissolve the cohesion between the Americans and the Shiites will weaken and close this front.
3.To have a loss of trust between the Americans and the Shiites will cause the Americans to lose many of their spies.
4.To involve both parties, the Americans and the Shiites, in a war that will result in both parties being losers.
5.Thus, the Americans will be forced to ask the Sunni for help.
6.To take advantage of some of the Shiite elements that will allow the resistance to move among them.
7.To weaken the media`s side which is presenting a tarnished image of the resistance, mainly conveyed by the Shiites.
8.To enlarge the geographical area of the resistance movement.
9.To provide popular support and cooperation by the people.
`Benefits`
The resistance fighters have learned from the result and the great benefits they reaped, when a struggle ensued between the Americans and the Army of Al-Mehdi.
However, we have to notice that this trouble or this delegated war that must be ignited can be accomplished through:
1. A war between the Shiites and the Americans.
2. A war between the Shiites and the secular population (such as Ayad Allawi and al-Jalabi.)
3. A war between the Shiites and the Kurds.
4. A war between Ahmad al-Halabi and his people and Ayad Allawi and his people.
5. A war between the group of al-Hakim and the group of al-Sadr.
6. A war between the Shiites of Iraq and the Sunnis of the Arab countries in the gulf.
7. A war between the Americans and Iraq.
`Best war`
We have noticed that the best of these wars to be ignited is the one between the Americans and Iran, because it will have many benefits in favor of the Sunni and the resistance, such as:
1. Freeing the Sunni people in Iraq, who are (30 percent) of the population and under the Shiite Rule.
2. Drowning the Americans in another war that will engage many of their forces.
3. The possibility of acquiring new weapons from the Iranian side, either after the fall of Iran or during the battles.
4. To entice Iran towards helping the resistance because of its need for its help.
5. Weakening the Shiite supply line.
Hence, it is necessary first to exaggerate the Iranian danger and to convince America and the west in general, of the real danger coming from Iran, and this would be done by the following:
1. By disseminating threatening messages against American interests and the American people and attribute them to a Shiite Iranian side.
2. By executing operations of kidnapping hostages and implicating the Shiite Iranian side.
3. By advertising that Iran has chemical and nuclear weapons and is threatening the west with these weapons.
4. By executing exploding operations in the west and accusing Iran by planting Iranian Shiite fingerprints and evidence.
5. By declaring the existence of a relationship between Iran and terrorist groups (as termed by the Americans).
6. By disseminating bogus messages about confessions showing that Iran is in possession of weapons of mass destruction or that there are attempts by the Iranian intelligence to undertake terrorist operations in America and the west and against western interests.
may be it were these political scientists of al Kayda who diverted US from Afghanistan to Iraq. Saddam was as great a pest for Al Kayda Jihadis as the US?
nhk
But they have or had already become a pain in the ... for the spineless moderate or non-practising Muslims. America came to their rescue accepting no excuses from these reptiles. Its soldiars are dying for a far-away cause and US has lost in terms of its respect.
Thank you. America. For showing courage.
Muslim leaders were cowards and had no courage to go for them.
I am producing below some parts of a document found in Zarqavi`s hide out. Read it fully at http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/15/zarqawi.document.ap/index.html
Zarqavi`s analysis of how insurrection was losing:
1.By allowing the American forces to form the forces of the National Guard, to reinforce them and enable them to undertake military operations against the resistance.
2.By undertaking massive arrest operations, invading regions that have an impact on the resistance, and hence causing the resistance to lose many of its elements.
3.By undertaking a media campaign against the resistance resulting in weakening its influence inside the country and presenting its work as harmful to the population rather than being beneficial to the population.
4.By tightening the resistance`s financial outlets, restricting its moral options and by confiscating its ammunition and weapons.
5.By creating a big division among the ranks of the resistance and jeopardizing its attack operations, it has weakened its influence and internal support of its elements, thus resulting in a decline of the resistance`s assaults.
6.By allowing an increase in the number of countries and elements supporting the occupation or at least allowing to become neutral in their stand toward us in contrast to their previous stand or refusal of the occupation.
7.By taking advantage of the resistance`s mistakes and magnifying them in order to misinform.
Future Plans
To avoid mistakes that will blemish the image of the resistance and show it as the enemy of the nation. Consequently, to embroil America in another war against another enemy is the answer that we find to be the most appropriate, and to have a war through a delegate has the following benefits:
1..To occupy the Americans by another front will allow the resistance freedom of movement and alleviate the pressure imposed on it.
2..To dissolve the cohesion between the Americans and the Shiites will weaken and close this front.
3.To have a loss of trust between the Americans and the Shiites will cause the Americans to lose many of their spies.
4.To involve both parties, the Americans and the Shiites, in a war that will result in both parties being losers.
5.Thus, the Americans will be forced to ask the Sunni for help.
6.To take advantage of some of the Shiite elements that will allow the resistance to move among them.
7.To weaken the media`s side which is presenting a tarnished image of the resistance, mainly conveyed by the Shiites.
8.To enlarge the geographical area of the resistance movement.
9.To provide popular support and cooperation by the people.
`Benefits`
The resistance fighters have learned from the result and the great benefits they reaped, when a struggle ensued between the Americans and the Army of Al-Mehdi.
However, we have to notice that this trouble or this delegated war that must be ignited can be accomplished through:
1. A war between the Shiites and the Americans.
2. A war between the Shiites and the secular population (such as Ayad Allawi and al-Jalabi.)
3. A war between the Shiites and the Kurds.
4. A war between Ahmad al-Halabi and his people and Ayad Allawi and his people.
5. A war between the group of al-Hakim and the group of al-Sadr.
6. A war between the Shiites of Iraq and the Sunnis of the Arab countries in the gulf.
7. A war between the Americans and Iraq.
`Best war`
We have noticed that the best of these wars to be ignited is the one between the Americans and Iran, because it will have many benefits in favor of the Sunni and the resistance, such as:
1. Freeing the Sunni people in Iraq, who are (30 percent) of the population and under the Shiite Rule.
2. Drowning the Americans in another war that will engage many of their forces.
3. The possibility of acquiring new weapons from the Iranian side, either after the fall of Iran or during the battles.
4. To entice Iran towards helping the resistance because of its need for its help.
5. Weakening the Shiite supply line.
Hence, it is necessary first to exaggerate the Iranian danger and to convince America and the west in general, of the real danger coming from Iran, and this would be done by the following:
1. By disseminating threatening messages against American interests and the American people and attribute them to a Shiite Iranian side.
2. By executing operations of kidnapping hostages and implicating the Shiite Iranian side.
3. By advertising that Iran has chemical and nuclear weapons and is threatening the west with these weapons.
4. By executing exploding operations in the west and accusing Iran by planting Iranian Shiite fingerprints and evidence.
5. By declaring the existence of a relationship between Iran and terrorist groups (as termed by the Americans).
6. By disseminating bogus messages about confessions showing that Iran is in possession of weapons of mass destruction or that there are attempts by the Iranian intelligence to undertake terrorist operations in America and the west and against western interests.
may be it were these political scientists of al Kayda who diverted US from Afghanistan to Iraq. Saddam was as great a pest for Al Kayda Jihadis as the US?
nhk
#48 Posted by ballukhan on June 16, 2006 3:56:55 am
This is what happens when the `institutions` becomes weak -- the mullahs get wilder-- the dictators become bolder - and the `educated` Pakistanis start fantasising about Islamic GUTS theory..........
Bali bombings God`s will: Bashir
By Rob Taylor in Ngruki, Central Java
June 15, 2006
THOSE killed in the 2002 Bali bombings had been destined to die by God, radical Muslim cleric Abu Bakar Bashir said today.
The families they have left behind should now convert to Islam, he said.
Conversion would give the bereaved relatives ``salvation and peace``.
``For the Bali bomb families, those who are non-Muslims, my suggestion is just convert to Islam so they can be saved and find some peace from Allah,`` he said at his home inside his Ngruki Islamic boarding school near the city of Solo in Central Java.
Bashir was released from a Jakarta jail yesterday after serving 25 months for his association with the 2002 Bali bomb blasts, that killed 202 people among them 88 Australians.
But he denies any involvement in terrorism or allegations that he is the spiritual head of militant group Jemaah Islamiah.
He said the families of the dead should understand that they were killed by bombs, not bombers, and that it was ``God`s will``.
Earlier Bashir called on Australian Prime Minister John Howard to convert to Islam or face eternity in hell.
Bali bombings God`s will: Bashir
By Rob Taylor in Ngruki, Central Java
June 15, 2006
THOSE killed in the 2002 Bali bombings had been destined to die by God, radical Muslim cleric Abu Bakar Bashir said today.
The families they have left behind should now convert to Islam, he said.
Conversion would give the bereaved relatives ``salvation and peace``.
``For the Bali bomb families, those who are non-Muslims, my suggestion is just convert to Islam so they can be saved and find some peace from Allah,`` he said at his home inside his Ngruki Islamic boarding school near the city of Solo in Central Java.
Bashir was released from a Jakarta jail yesterday after serving 25 months for his association with the 2002 Bali bomb blasts, that killed 202 people among them 88 Australians.
But he denies any involvement in terrorism or allegations that he is the spiritual head of militant group Jemaah Islamiah.
He said the families of the dead should understand that they were killed by bombs, not bombers, and that it was ``God`s will``.
Earlier Bashir called on Australian Prime Minister John Howard to convert to Islam or face eternity in hell.
#47 Posted by masadi on June 16, 2006 2:39:25 am
HP sahib from your link to CSIS, http://www.csis.org/about/trustees/ look at the members and trustees of this group, similar to what you find in most think tanks whose members make consequential decisions and float around between the corporate and political world. When the setup of all decision making units at the pinnacles of consequential institutions resembles this more or less, we cannot expect any democracy in this country- when international decisions take precedence over domestic issues, the political institution has to weaken, the executive becomes all powerful and that is exactly what we see.
(I highlighted one that I found particularly interesting)
Members CSIS
George L. Argyros -- Chairman & CEO, Arnel & Affiliates
Betty Beene -- Former President & CEO, United Way of America
Reginald K. Brack -- Former Chairman & CEO, Time, Incorporated
William E. Brock** -- Counselor and Trustee, CSIS
Harold Brown -- Counselor and Trustee, CSIS
Zbigniew Brzezinski -- Counselor and Trustee, CSIS
William S. Cohen** -- Chairman & CEO, The Cohen Group
Ralph Cossa -- President, Pacific Forum/CSIS
Jeffrey M. Cunningham -- Chairman & CEO, Directorship Services LLC
Richard Fairbanks -- Counselor and Trustee, CSIS
Michael P. Galvin* -- President, Harrison Street Capital, LLC
John J. Hamre* -- President & CEO, CSIS
Linda W. Hart -- Vice Chairman & CEO, The Hart Group, Inc.
Ben W. Heineman, Jr. -- CSIS Trustee and Senior Adviser
Thomas O. Hicks -- Chairman, Hicks Holdings LLC
Carla A. Hills -- Chairman & CEO, Hills & Company
Ray L. Hunt -- Chairman & CEO, Hunt Consolidated, Inc.
E. Neville Isdell -- Chairman & CEO, The Coca-Cola Company
Henry A. Kissinger** -- Chairman & CEO, Kissinger Associates, Inc.
Kenneth G. Langone -- President & CEO, Invemed Associates, LLC
Donald B. Marron -- Chairman & CEO, Lightyear Capital
Joseph Nye -- Distinguished Service Professor, Harvard University, Kennedy School of Government
E. Stanley O’Neal -- Chairman and CEO, Merrill Lynch & Company, Inc.
Felix G. Rohatyn -- President, Rohatyn Associates, LLC
David M. Rubenstein -- Cofounder and Managing Director, The Carlyle Group
Charles A. Sanders -- Former Chairman & CEO, Glaxo Inc.
James R. Schlesinger** -- Senior Adviser, Lehman Brothers, Inc.
William A. Schreyer* -- Chairman Emeritus, Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.
Brent Scowcroft**-- President, Forum for International Policy
Rex Tillerson -- Chairman & CEO, Exxon Mobil Corporation
Murray Weidenbaum -- Hon. Chair, Weidenbaum Center, Washington University
Dolores D. Wharton -- Retired Chairman & CEO, The Fund For Corporate Initiatives, Inc.
Frederick B. Whittemore -- Advisory Director, Morgan Stanley
(I highlighted one that I found particularly interesting)
Members CSIS
George L. Argyros -- Chairman & CEO, Arnel & Affiliates
Betty Beene -- Former President & CEO, United Way of America
Reginald K. Brack -- Former Chairman & CEO, Time, Incorporated
William E. Brock** -- Counselor and Trustee, CSIS
Harold Brown -- Counselor and Trustee, CSIS
Zbigniew Brzezinski -- Counselor and Trustee, CSIS
William S. Cohen** -- Chairman & CEO, The Cohen Group
Ralph Cossa -- President, Pacific Forum/CSIS
Jeffrey M. Cunningham -- Chairman & CEO, Directorship Services LLC
Richard Fairbanks -- Counselor and Trustee, CSIS
Michael P. Galvin* -- President, Harrison Street Capital, LLC
John J. Hamre* -- President & CEO, CSIS
Linda W. Hart -- Vice Chairman & CEO, The Hart Group, Inc.
Ben W. Heineman, Jr. -- CSIS Trustee and Senior Adviser
Thomas O. Hicks -- Chairman, Hicks Holdings LLC
Carla A. Hills -- Chairman & CEO, Hills & Company
Ray L. Hunt -- Chairman & CEO, Hunt Consolidated, Inc.
E. Neville Isdell -- Chairman & CEO, The Coca-Cola Company
Henry A. Kissinger** -- Chairman & CEO, Kissinger Associates, Inc.
Kenneth G. Langone -- President & CEO, Invemed Associates, LLC
Donald B. Marron -- Chairman & CEO, Lightyear Capital
Joseph Nye -- Distinguished Service Professor, Harvard University, Kennedy School of Government
E. Stanley O’Neal -- Chairman and CEO, Merrill Lynch & Company, Inc.
Felix G. Rohatyn -- President, Rohatyn Associates, LLC
David M. Rubenstein -- Cofounder and Managing Director, The Carlyle Group
Charles A. Sanders -- Former Chairman & CEO, Glaxo Inc.
James R. Schlesinger** -- Senior Adviser, Lehman Brothers, Inc.
William A. Schreyer* -- Chairman Emeritus, Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.
Brent Scowcroft**-- President, Forum for International Policy
Rex Tillerson -- Chairman & CEO, Exxon Mobil Corporation
Murray Weidenbaum -- Hon. Chair, Weidenbaum Center, Washington University
Dolores D. Wharton -- Retired Chairman & CEO, The Fund For Corporate Initiatives, Inc.
Frederick B. Whittemore -- Advisory Director, Morgan Stanley
#46 Posted by ballukhan on June 16, 2006 2:05:04 am
US must move out of Iraq......but should turn towards Iran as well as N.Korea and Pakistan....once it takes care of them the axis of evil would have lost its` biggest allies.........then a win would be just a matter of time.........
#45 Posted by masadi on June 16, 2006 12:37:41 am
#41 by bbabu <<<
masadi # 37
you might not like the US war in Iraq. Do you really think Iraq under Saddam was going anywhere ? >>>
Wherever it was going or not going 1. Does not justify the barbaric invasion of the US 2. All social indicators suggest that even at the worst point during debilitating sanctions fewer people were dying of violence and more had access to basic amenities compared to what they have now.
It is not the person that matters, it is the institutions and those institutions have been, through outside interference, ever since the token independence been kept at a malnourished, underdeveloped state through crisis after crisis. As with people that are malnourished, mortality and disease are high so with underdeveloped institutions. Give them breathing space, provide basic necessities for the people and institutions are bound to fluorish. War imposed from the outside, in a most barbaric and inhumane fashion, with ulterior motives as the goal, do nothing to improve the situation.
masadi # 37
you might not like the US war in Iraq. Do you really think Iraq under Saddam was going anywhere ? >>>
Wherever it was going or not going 1. Does not justify the barbaric invasion of the US 2. All social indicators suggest that even at the worst point during debilitating sanctions fewer people were dying of violence and more had access to basic amenities compared to what they have now.
It is not the person that matters, it is the institutions and those institutions have been, through outside interference, ever since the token independence been kept at a malnourished, underdeveloped state through crisis after crisis. As with people that are malnourished, mortality and disease are high so with underdeveloped institutions. Give them breathing space, provide basic necessities for the people and institutions are bound to fluorish. War imposed from the outside, in a most barbaric and inhumane fashion, with ulterior motives as the goal, do nothing to improve the situation.
#44 Posted by harish_hyd on June 16, 2006 12:31:51 am
#42 by HisExcellency
With weapons America can only fight terrorists, not terrorism.
Well at least it is fighting terrorism instead of fanning it as you Pakis have been doing over the decades.
With weapons America can only fight terrorists, not terrorism.
Well at least it is fighting terrorism instead of fanning it as you Pakis have been doing over the decades.
#43 Posted by HP on June 15, 2006 11:52:17 pm
We have reached a point in Iraq that this admin and Pentagon have resorted to lying and distorting facts abt the situation in Iraq.
The fact is that when we discuss the US policy, the first thing we have to assume that the US admin is not lying or distorting facts to sugarcoat its humongous policy failure in Iraq. This admin not only lies to the US public but they are also lying to the US congress and that cannot be and should not be acceptable.
The administration’s latest quarterly report to Congress issued last month by the Pentagon, “Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq.” http://www.defenselink.mil/news/may2006/d20060530SecurityandStabiltyRptFinalv2.pdf
mostly consist of bs.
This report is “deeply flawed” and “fundamentally false.” Those words are from Anthony H. Cordesman, who holds the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. He has formerly served as national security assistant to Senator John McCain of the Senate Armed Services Committee, as director of intelligence assessment in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and as civilian assistant to the deputy secretary of defense.
Some comments from him:
“The quarterly report to Congress issued by the Department of Defense, “Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq” is supposed to be a key document to achieve this goal. Like the State Department weekly status report on Iraq, however, it is deeply flawed. It does more than simply spin the situation to provide false assurances. It makes basic analytical and statistical mistakes, fails to define key terms, provides undefined and unverifiable survey information, and deals with key issues by omission.
• It provides a fundamentally false picture of the political situation in Iraq, and of the difficulties ahead. It does not prepare the Congress or the American people for the years of effort that will be needed even under “best case” conditions and the risk of far more serious forms of civil conflict.
• The economic analysis is flawed to the point of absurdity.
• No meaningful assessment is provided of the success and failures of the US aid effort, and no mention is made of the corruption and mismanagement in the aid effort.
• There is no meaningful analysis of oil developments, budget and revenue
problems, and future needs for aid.
• The threat analysis is fundamentally flawed; serious understates the level of civil conflict, and fails to provide a meaningful risk assessment.
• Very real progress in the development of Iraq regular forces is exaggerated and the need for major continued support and aid is largely omitted.
• The basic problems in the police, justice system, and governance that represented a major threat and risk are omitted to the point where the analysis is so distorted as to be useless.
Full report can be read here.
http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/0605_iraqquarterlyreport.pdf
This person is not a Dem or a Muslim fundamentalist sympathizer.
The first thing the US needs to do is to bring in a new congress in Nov that is not a rubberstamp and is ready to force this admin to honestly answer questions abt its colossal failure in Iraq that has effective put a vast area, brimming with huge resources , within the grasp of Islamic fundamentalist. If Iraq is lost due to this admin’s continued stupidly designed policies, the fundamentalist would go after Saudi Arabia and that would bring down the whole Middle East under the religious fundamentalism nightmare.
I think Feroz must read the Pentagon report in full and also read Mr. Cordesman response to understand the gravity of the problem. It is not just a few errors here and there; this admin is seriously damaging the democratic system in the US to hide its failures.
It is impossible to believe that this admin could possibly agree to Feroz’s suggestions as that will bring forth all the disasters that so far have been shoved under the rug by the this admin.
#42 Posted by HisExcellency on June 15, 2006 7:54:02 pm
re: F.R.Khan
A very well written piece. With weapons America can only fight terrorists, not terrorism. The price tag of the US war has already exceeded $320 billion. Another $68 billion have been requested for 2007... Still there are 600 ``terrorist`` attacks in Iraq every day. And then there is Afghanistan...
It`s time for the US to admit that so far the war against terror has been a strategic failure.
It`s a strategic failure because it requires US money and US soldiers to fight this war.
The ``liberated masses`` in Iraq and Afghanistan may not support Al-Qaeda and Taliban but they don`t like America either. Democracy may even strengthen anti-Americanism in the Muslim world.
The challenge for America is therefore this: ``Establish pro-America governments in the Muslim world through democratic means``.
A very well written piece. With weapons America can only fight terrorists, not terrorism. The price tag of the US war has already exceeded $320 billion. Another $68 billion have been requested for 2007... Still there are 600 ``terrorist`` attacks in Iraq every day. And then there is Afghanistan...
It`s time for the US to admit that so far the war against terror has been a strategic failure.
It`s a strategic failure because it requires US money and US soldiers to fight this war.
The ``liberated masses`` in Iraq and Afghanistan may not support Al-Qaeda and Taliban but they don`t like America either. Democracy may even strengthen anti-Americanism in the Muslim world.
The challenge for America is therefore this: ``Establish pro-America governments in the Muslim world through democratic means``.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- anil: Tahmed sahib: I like your... Why Zardari Should Be
- tahmed32: anil sahib #62: This... Why Zardari Should Be
- anil: Tahmed sahib: May be Hamidm... Why Zardari Should Be
- tahmed32: in #59, para 5... Why Zardari Should Be
- tahmed32: anil sahib: i hope... Why Zardari Should Be
- tahmed32: hamidm #53 actually i... Why Zardari Should Be
- anil: Hamidm sahib: I do not... Why Zardari Should Be
- anil: Tahmed sahib: After Zardari’s election,... Why Zardari Should Be
