The war on terrorism

[OperaTenor]

Going back to the original point, Rove was an "anonymous source". I still wonder what *ig proposes be done about them.

Without anonymous sources, Nixon would've completed his second term.

[Haggis@wk]

OT,

” One question(so far): So why did we go into Iraq half-cocked, per Rummie's grandiose scheme? If this was so important, why not make it the overwhelming victory through overwhelming numbers and resources as everyone outside the GWB administration(and lackeys) preached right up to the invasion? I can't help but wonder if we would have turned Iraq back over to an Iraqi democracy over a year ago if we had done it that way. And I don;t think it's a case of 20/20 hindsight, either, because the war scholars had done the research and had the proper recommendations at the time. GWB, Rummie, et al, simply chose to go their own stubborn, la-la way.”

I actually can read three questions in that one question so I’ll try to answer all three.

The first question, were we burdened with “white man’s guilt” and that led to us fighting the most polite war in human history? Pulling punches? Placing our troops in the line of fire to spare Iraqi non-combatants?

The quote from “Londonistan” was supposed to answer to answer that particular question. I think there is a history of western societal guilt, most prominently displayed by the Europeans in response to their colonial aspirations in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries. The U.S. suffers from a similar type of guilt and by invading a former colonial holding might have been too eager not to represent a new colonial conqueror but rather as a liberator. So I suppose we were too nice.

The second question, did we use enough force?

If we used every single active combat brigade of the Army and Marines — denuding our forces everywhere in the world to do it — and then filled up every possible National Guard and reserve brigade, we might scrape up about 500,000 troops.

No one seriously suggests that we should strip every last soldier from Europe, North Korea, and our other overseas deployments. Realistically, then, the maximum number of troops available for use in Iraq is probably pretty close to the number we have now: 300,000 rotated annually, for a presence of about 150,000 at any given time.

In other words, when Rumsfeld commented that you go to war "with the army you have," he was exactly right. How many could he have called on?

The only way to increase this is to raise the Army's end strength by several divisions - but doing this would take a couple of years — and probably would have made the war politically impossible. The invasion of Iraq almost certainly would never have happened if Rumsfeld had told Congress in 2002 that he wanted them to approve three or four (or more) new divisions in preparation for a war in 2004 or 2005.

The third question, should we have been more forceful in using what we have?

I think this one is yes; we should have been as brutal and as bloody as we could to smash down any hint of resistance. Of course in doing so we would have invited criticism base on the first question.

I hope I sufficiently answered your question.

[OperaTenor]

The only way to increase this is to raise the Army's end strength by several divisions - but doing this would take a couple of years — and probably would have made the war politically impossible. The invasion of Iraq almost certainly would never have happened if Rumsfeld had told Congress in 2002 that he wanted them to approve three or four (or more) new divisions in preparation for a war in 2004 or 2005.

(bold mine)

I hope I sufficiently answered your question.

Yes, thank you.

With reference to the paragraph I quoted: And this would have been a bad thing?

:p

[bignaf]

Going back to the original point, Rove was an "anonymous source". I still wonder what *ig proposes be done about them.

I answered your question, look back.

[bignaf]

and re: Nixon: the source could have been non-anonymous.

[OperaTenor]

Journalists need to learn discretion. So do those who brief them.

the Journalists won't, so those who brief them should. it's all these anonymous sources.

So, what do you propose be done about them?

are there any anonymous sources in Iran? no.
why not?

Indeed. Why not?

Now we hold Iran up as a sociopolitical model?!

That's the last post I see on it. I don't see any viable answers there.

As for Nixon, Deep Throat couldn't have kept his job if he revealed himself. There was no such thing as "whistleblower protection" at the time.

[Shapley]

RE: Deep Throat.

One man's leaker is another mans whistleblower. He broke the law, as it existed at the time. Perhaps by coming forward he could have championed the cause of 'whistleblowing' early on, for the good of the nation, but he hid in the basement and fed information to the Press. His job was to protect the nation, but he chose to help tear it apart. The press is willing to forgive him for it, but the reality is that a pension was more important to him than principle. He brought down a good man, and did considerabe damage to the nation in the process, but the press made him a hero. I don't see him as such.

V/R
Shapley

[Haggis@wk]

OT,

"Haggis@wk wrote:


The only way to increase this is to raise the Army's end strength by several divisions - but doing this would take a couple of years — and probably would have made the war politically impossible. The invasion of Iraq almost certainly would never have happened if Rumsfeld had told Congress in 2002 that he wanted them to approve three or four (or more) new divisions in preparation for a war in 2004 or 2005.

(bold mine)

I hope I sufficiently answered your question.


Yes, thank you.

With reference to the paragraph I quoted: And this would have been a bad thing? "

Yeah, I knew you'd like that part!!

Re: "Deep Throat" He was simply pissed that he wasn't promoted to the Directorship of the FBI.

By the time Altoid get to high school Nixon will be remembered for opening relations with China and getting America out of a Democratic president's war. Oh, and a partisan attack on him to remove him from office was successful.

[BigJon@Work]

Going back to the original point, Rove was an "anonymous source". I still wonder what *ig proposes be done about them.

Without anonymous sources, Nixon would've completed his second term.

I have no quarrel with the bravery of anonymous sources. They put their livelihoods and sometimes their lives on the line. My quarrel is with the cowardice of the press today. Accepting at face value whatever emotional or political message is being delivered to them without burning off the shoe leather to go check the sources and attempt to corroborate the story. And the inability to sort fact from fancy by being unable to deduce who the experts that should be called in when the reporters have reached the limits of their knowledge. Katrina may have been the nadir of recent U.S. reporting, once the facts of the situation came in.

[shostakovich]

From Shap, about Deep Throat:

"His job was to protect the nation, but he chose to help tear it apart. The press is willing to forgive him for it, but the reality is that a pension was more important to him than principle. He brought down a good man, and did considerabe damage to the nation in the process, but the press made him a hero. I don't see him as such."

The Watergate break-in was small potatoes. I recall a cartoon with Brezhnev and another official scratching their heads reading the paper about Nixon, the break-in, and the cover-up. The caption was "But what did he do wrong?" I think Nixon was not at all bad as a president, but he had a flawed character. [Yes, I know who else comes to mind.]
"Deep Throat", for whatever his reasons, was (agonizingly slowly) bringing out the truth through 2 reporters. I like truth, no matter who it grorifies or denigrates. Was the nation torn apart by it, or healed a bit? To his credit, Nixon resigned rather than risk a protracted and disastrous impeachment. I initially found it hard to believe the cover-up went to the White House till I heard the unequivocal "Your president is not a crook". It reminded me of the Boston Braves owner declaring unequivocally "The Braves will never leave Boston". "Bullshit!"
Shos

[Shapley]

Shos,

I believe Felt played the press, turning a minor thing into a major issue by stretching it out as he did. He could have laid it all out at once, as you suggest, but in doing so it would have blown over in a week and Nixon would have finished his term, much to OT's chagrin. Who knows, we may have even been spared a Carter presidency, and all that that entailed.

I believe the cover-up was just President Nixon standing by his men. Washington could use more of that in this age. There have been far greater sins than that overlooked by the press, and the voters, in the past, and will be in the future, no doubt.

I believe the Watergate and its aftermath were very destructive to our nation. It weakened the Presidency and emboldened those who are willing to use fair means or foul to bring down Presidents they disagree with. I think both the Clinton presidency and the current one would be stronger if not for Watergate and all that it entails. Felt did serious damage to this nation, IMHO. By staying hidden till late in his life, he was able to spare himself the cross-examination a 'whistleblower' of his position should have received. Now, thanks to thirty years of deification, he will be spared scrutiny, and may join Pope John Paul II in being given the fast-track to sainthood.

V/R
Shapley

[Shapley]

Shos,

RE:

It reminded me of the Boston Braves owner declaring unequivocally "The Braves will never leave Boston"

Or someone else saying "I did not have sex with that woman!"

I agree Nixon did the honourable thing in stepping down. Were that others were so honourable. It was the second time he displayed such character, the first being when he quietly conceded defeat to President Kennedy, despite widespread indication of vote fraud on the part of the Democrats. He said that he would not be party to a Consititutional crisis just so he could be President. Al Gore could have learned a lesson there, and perhaps remained a viable candidate in the aftermath, instead of being relegated to doing voice-overs on the environmental equivalent of a B-movie.

V/R
Shapley

[bignaf]

Journalists need to learn discretion. So do those who brief them.

the Journalists won't, so those who brief them should. it's all these anonymous sources.

So, what do you propose be done about them?

are there any anonymous sources in Iran? no.
why not?

Indeed. Why not?

Now we hold Iran up as a sociopolitical model?!

That's the last post I see on it. I don't see any viable answers there.

As for Nixon, Deep Throat couldn't have kept his job if he revealed himself. There was no such thing as "whistleblower protection" at the time.

I didn't see this post. no viable answers, but I answered, so there.

I could argue about the Nixon case, but it's boring, I'll let Shap do that.
I can simlify matters by saying that now that we have whistleblower protection, those who leak info that has nothing to with possible wrongdoing, shouldbe fired. I mean, there's leaks about everything from everywhere. there's leaksabout army tactics, there are leaks about homeland security info, who needs spies with all these leaks?

[Shapley]

Bignaf,

RE:

I could argue about the Nixon case, but it's boring, I'll let Shap do that.

Yeah, you know me, leave no stone unthrown.

[GreatCarouser]

"Democracy is shirik (unbelief) and haram. Here we do not compromise. Those who claim to be Muslims and do not support Shariah one hundred per cent are all munafik and kafirs, they are out of Islam. No need to discuss with these people, they are not part of the ummat anymore. There is no need to listen to public opinion: kafirs, apostates, liberals, atheists - they are all non-believers."

Aljazeera interview withCleric Abu Bakar Bashir


If this is what we are negotiating with in Iran, then why are we even trying?

[GreatCarouser]

Here's something on Britain's attempts to gain more security at the expense of civil liberties:

Frederick Forsyth

[Haggis@wk]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/27/world ... ref=slogin

Reporters force to convert to Islam before their release

Note, for some reason it won't let me post a link so you'll have to copy it and paste it on a separate browser screen

” Two journalists kidnapped in Gaza were released unharmed today after being forced at gunpoint to say on a videotape that they had converted to Islam.”

And there in a sentence you have a succinct summary why Liberals don’t see the threat. “You want me to say I’m Islamic? Sure, no problem!”

How many millions of people have died rather than give up their faith?

No wonder liberal journalists –and Democrats in general- are utterly baffled by fully half of our country- they don't think having to give up your religion is harmful.

If Muslim prisoners at Gitmo were forced to convert to Protestantism as a condition of their release, the New York Times would not be putting the phrase "released unharmed" into their article.

[jamiebk]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/27/world/middleeast/27cnd-mideast.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1156737600&en=e4c362e6b72c65be&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin

Reporters force to convert to Islam before their release

Note, for some reason it won't let me post a link so you'll have to copy it and paste it on a separate browser screen

” Two journalists kidnapped in Gaza were released unharmed today after being forced at gunpoint to say on a videotape that they had converted to Islam.”

And there in a sentence you have a succinct summary why Liberals don’t see the threat. “You want me to say I’m Islamic? Sure, no problem!”

How many millions of people have died rather than give up their faith?

No wonder liberal journalists –and Democrats in general- are utterly baffled by fully half of our country- they don't think having to give up your religion is harmful.

If Muslim prisoners at Gitmo were forced to convert to Protestantism as a condition of their release, the New York Times would not be putting the phrase "released unharmed" into their article.

How utterly absurd. "forced to convert to Islam"....?? NO ONE controls your mind! One knows within his/her heart what one believes in. So what if you mutter a few insincere words to gain release? Lie about it...what does it matter? Renounce the hell out of it when you get home. People will understand the circumstances and will forgive. It sounds so honorable to die for one's "religion", but I do not see the point to martyring oneself in this case.

[Shapley]

Jamie,

RE:

It sounds so honorable to die for one's "religion", but I do not see the point to martyring oneself in this case.

Religiously speaking, that is the true test of faith. It's easy to claim to be a Christian (Jew, Moslem, Buddhist, whatever) when times are good and all that is asked of you is to sign a cheque every week and give up meat on Friday. When the gun is pointed at your head, and you are asked, that is when it matters.

To a person of faith, they could no more deny their faith to save their lives than they could say "shoot my daughter if you must, but let me go." To die for one's faith, one's family, or one's country is the noblest thing of all. To deny those things for the sake of one's skin is cowardice.

Having said that, I don't know how I would react under the same circumstances. Sitting here nice and cozy in my chair, it seems simple enough to say that I would be true to my God and take the bullet but, like the apostle Peter, I do not know how I would truly react when faced with the reality of the situation. I do not fault these men for saving their lives. The Earth will not swallow them up, nor will the sun refuse to shine on them. If the Earth and the Sun will not pass judgement on them, neither can I. Saint Peter became the first Pope of the Catholic church, despite three times denying being a follower of Jesus.

V/R
Shapley

[jamiebk]

Jamie,

RE:

It sounds so honorable to die for one's "religion", but I do not see the point to martyring oneself in this case.

Religiously speaking, that is the true test of faith. It's easy to claim to be a Christian (Jew, Moslem, Buddhist, whatever) when times are good and all that is asked of you is to sign a cheque every week and give up meat on Friday. When the gun is pointed at your head, and you are asked, that is when it matters.

To a person of faith, they could no more deny their faith to save their lives than they could say "shoot my daughter if you must, but let me go." To die for one's faith, one's family, or one's country is the noblest thing of all. To deny those things for the sake of one's skin is cowardess.

Having said that, I don't know how I would react under the same circumstances. Sitting here nice and cozy in my chair, it seems simple enough to say that I would be true to my God and take the bullet but, like the apostle Peter, I do not know how I would truly react when faced with the reality of the situation. I do not fault these men for saving their lives. The Earth will not swallow them up, nor will the sun refuse to shine on them. If the Earth and the Sun will not pass judgement on them, neither can I. Saint Peter became the first Pope of the Catholic church, despite three times denying being a follower of Jesus.

V/R
Shapley

Shap...Good thoughts..all of them. it's interesting,... I think that most people feel that way and I do not necessarily disagree with you. Circumstances mean a lot for sure. I used the word martyr here on purpose as a contrast with those radical islamics who are willing to die for their cause (suicide bombs etc.). As you say: To die for one's faith, one's family, or one's country is the noblest thing of all. To deny those things for the sake of one's skin is cowardess." We can't understand the radical's thinking, yet to them, I am sure it is similar to what you express.

I agree that some things are worth dying for...sometimes discretion is the better part of valor