The only way that they can win is by destroying our will to win.

Apparently, the latest NIE has escaped your notice.

In any case, it’s depressing to have the same debate year after year. For instance, say that Bush wanted to surrender- exactly who would he deliver these surrender papers to? The point is that the situation in Iraq includes a dozen parties and your strawman about surrender is a simplification that really insults the intelligence of everyone who reads this site.

3…2…1… KMA: witty one-liner!

Shut up you Euro-Wennie, left wing wierdo!

(Sorry, I came across all KMA then! Please excuse me!)

That’s some amazingly impressive firepower and technology. To those who think we can’t win this war against an enemy that is basically throwing rocks at us from dark nooks — do you really believe that our enemy can beat us militarily? The only way that they can win is by destroying our will to win. They’ve already accomplished this in the Senate, Congress, and our media. Thankfully they haven’t convinced those who matter most — our Soldiers and Marines who have boots on the ground.

Oh dear Robbie, you seem to think this war is one of Geographic importance?
Do you not understand that ‘the evil terrorists’ don’t just live within a ceratin region called ‘Iraq’?

The more your weapons of erectile importance (WEIs I call them) allow you to feel butterflies in your stomach, the more you distance yourself from the reality of what is really hapening out there (and closer to home as well).

Lets just nuke the f*ckers eh?

Jonny

two spinless sissies still stomping their feet, like children who didn’t get some candy at the grocery store.
how are the negotiations with the terrorists working out fellas? maybe take em’ to cold stone; who wouldn’t stop making ieds when given the choice to talk it out over some moose tracks? is bush about to be impeached yet or did you accidently leave your petitions under the bed last week?
your “progressive” perspectives are always fun(ny) to read!

Sorry Adam, I don’t think I mentioned anything about negotiating with scum bag terrorists did I?
My point was that simply throwing more and more expensive weaponary at certain geographical pinpointed areas is simply breeding the hatred that ‘their’ brethren feel through the globe.

Jonny

so you poke holes in current strategies; what’s yours?

Like I have said before Adam, an understanding of any situation leads to the ability to have empowerment and the upper hand.

We are not dealing with a black and white situation here. There aren’t simply ‘terrorists’ and the ‘good guys’ and continued bombing of these ‘terrorists’ is only breeding more – i’m amazed people aren’t understaning this?

It’s more of a grey scale scenario that we have here.
There are those whom believe in Alah and teachings of Islam, but they don’t wish to strap bombs on themselves and kill innocent people. When these followers of Islam see fellow innocent hundreds of muslims killed for the sake of trying to get at the extreme terrorists, you cannot expect their opinion of the perpetrators to remain civil.
It would be like a Muslim strikeforce bombing a church full of innocent christians just to make sure the one KKK member sitting of row F was killed. How would fellow christians feel about that?

Unless you guys want this war to carry on for the next millennium, then you need to rethink your statergy.
There isn’t a limted capacity ‘enemy’ that are hiding in caves in Afghanistan or the back streets of Iraq. The ‘enemy’ is what you make it through your wanntant destruction of anything that walks to a different tune than the one you do.

You did it in Vietnam, and your doing it again here.

Jonny

telling others that they are mistakenly approaching a conflict doesn’t constitute a strategy. the closest you came to having usable input was: “We are not dealing with a black and white situation here. ”
thanks but i’m sure all involved understand that. how about you tell us what the problem is and how to address it. it’s real easy to sit back and talk about what isn’t the problem (“There are those whom believe in Alah and teachings of Islam, but they don’t wish to strap bombs on themselves and kill innocent people.”). at what point to those peaceloving muslims hold responsible the violent assholes that misrepresent their religion?
“It would be like a Muslim strikeforce bombing a church full of innocent christians just to make sure the one KKK member sitting of row F was killed.” nice try at a simile but i submit that the christians in america tend to be able to handle their own problem with the radical kkk.
the difference is, these wonderful peaceful muslims whom we force to “become uncivil” should be taking care of the problem but instead they don’t! then they and you wanna fuckin cry when america works on the issue.

I see your point Adam, and I do agree that Muslims should do a lot more to help stop the posion from within – on that we can agree.

But to say that jsut because you don’t like the speed of the progress, you hold your hands up and allow massive bombing campaigns that kill many innocents is a little harsh, and knee jerky if you ask me.

To maybe voice a better simile, would I be justified in asking you as an American Christian to stop those who walk around in white blankets and burn crosses? Do we really have such a partition in our cultures that we feel we can’t step in and help solve a problem that isn’t in our immediate circle of society or religion?

Jonny

“progress”?
if there has been progress, can you tell me where? it’s not the pace of progress by muslims to police their own idiots that bothers me; it’s the lack of progress, or the degree of regretion.
might i also add that “massive bombing campaigns” not only “kill many innocents” but kill a bunch of death-deserving assholes too. harsh and knee jerky maybe, but what response do you recommend instead?
as for your new simile: i’m not christian but we do have laws in america that protect the public and the world from our radicals. yes, your request would be just but i submit that we are trying to “step in and help solve a problem that isn’t in our immediate circle of society or religion”.

I have seen a lot of progress closer to home where communication between different religous groups has helped solve some immediate problems, on both sides.
The reason you are not seeing progress, is because America is bombing the hell out of a country that is breeding terrorists all over the world faster than you can possibly kill them, and every new generation is getting more pissed off than those before.

I would never suggest we enter into a communication with terrorists – far from it. We do however, need to understand that there is a difference between a peaceful Muslim and a Terrorist.
Hell, most of the middle east where on OUR side when we pushed Sadam back through Saudi Arabia and Kuwait back in 1991!

At least in ‘91, there was a reason for the war that most of the UN counsel agreed needed some urgent action, and lead by Stormin’ Normin’ it turned out to be a great success.
This time, fighting a war when you don’t even know who the enemy is anymore, and thousands of innocent Muslims are dying because of it.

Now to me, that’s not the answer.

Jonny

thanks again for telling us all what the problem isn’t!
“We do however, need to understand that there is a difference between a peaceful Muslim and a Terrorist.”
agreed but most americans already understand this. and to go a step further, i submit that a “peaceful muslim” doesn’t stand by complacently while his violent islamic counterpart murders the innocent.
so while you point your fingers at those murdering civilians, you may want to recognize the violent wahabists maming muslim women and children before you point out that the american bombs intended to rid the world of some very deserving fuck wads can result in collateral damage. you do realize that most of the deaths in iraq are iraqis killing one another, correct?

Of course I understand that fact Adam.
There is now more inner turmoil within Iraq than ever, all because some extremists won’t allow a democratic society to exist.
That really has nothing to do with my point though.

You call in collateral damage, I call in a waste of human life.
You haven’t addressed the point that the majority of muslim terrorists are now living and exercisingt their want outside of Iraq.
By your arguement, it would be justified for th US to bomb Manchester (UK) as there have been found to be many terrorist cells operating there?

Jonny

“There is now more inner turmoil within Iraq than ever, all because some extremists won’t allow a democratic society to exist.
That really has nothing to do with my point though.”
what is your point because your dismissing the entire justification for the occupation?

“You call in collateral damage, I call in a WASTE of human life.”
fine, we agree to disagree, because i believe that establishing some representative democracy in a country that was destabalized socially, economically, politically, industrially, technologically and militarily by american action is such a worthwhile endeavor that not attempting it would be criminal and unethical. people dying to finish what they began is simply follow through, which in my book, shows character and credibility; i would hardly say that this constitutes WASTE.

“You haven’t addressed the point that the majority of muslim terrorists are now living and exercisingt their want outside of Iraq.”
ok, i’ll address it. the world has a serious problem that your pointing out. my country has a strategy to combat that problem; it now has american soldiers/ civilians implementing that strategy all around the globe, and yes they all have passports! are most in iraq? yes. is england acting out some conflicting strategy that has been adversely affected or are you just a whiny terd?

“By your arguement, it would be justified for th US to bomb Manchester (UK) as there have been found to be many terrorist cells operating there?”
if you knew the address where they were plotting to kill others and you nor your countrymen remedied the situation, i would dam sure advocate the precision-guided bombing of strategic locations in manchester! why, are you considering defecting to the good guy squad and filling us in?if so, don’t tell me, there are plenty of credible brits with genuine character that would help rid you of your vermon.

Its turd, not terd.

Adam, I don’t disagree with your ethics here, its a shame you are so hostile in your post.

What I find funny is the fact that you consider your way of life righteous and all others wrong.
OK, you are fighting the democratic cause right? So why isn’t your military in 60% of this world of ours fighting their particular governments for this ‘democratic righteousness’?

You are using the fact that Iraq ‘was’ a dictatorship to back up your arguements of an illegal war.
Why aren’t you attacking Fiji, Thailand, Pakistan, Burma or Egypt?
Why don’t you ask Bush to attack the likes of Tunisia, Libya, Algeria, Gabon, Cameroon, Togo, Uganda , Equatorial Guinea, Djibouti, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Eritrea, Sudan, Angola, Ethiopia, or Chad?

I’ll tell you why! There is no f*ckin oil in any of those countries worth getting your dirty hands on!

Don’t tell me you ‘righteous’ america is saving the world from terrorism when all your government is doing is selecting the countries they can get a greater wealth from!
You are a sucker if you have been brain washed with this Adam.
Terrorism?
Why do you think America defended Saudi and Kuwait in 1991? Because Iraq had lead a lenghty and expensive war on Iran and they need more cash – so they invaded Kuwait to get the oil, and then thought ‘f*ck it, no one seems to care so lets go further south and get at the Saudi oil!’.
‘Oh no!’ Said the Americans! Invade Kuwait all you will but don’t dream of invading our oil source in Saudi Arabia!

Come of it Adam – you need to wake up! Your government is giving you nothing less that propoganda bullsh*t to get you to fly the flag and be proud of being an American.

You are nothing more that oil wantant arseholes and I am amazed you can’t see it!

Jonny

“Its turd, not terd. ” “thanks we are what we eat!”
well, whatever your eating it must be pretty down right nasty, to get chucked like the shit you’re spittin!

“What I find funny is the fact that you consider your way of life righteous and all others wrong.”
our way , in this context, has helped us to avoid a similar attack since 9/11. your peoples’ has not. to what do you say this?

“OK, you are fighting the democratic cause right?
FOR the democratic cause, yes.
So why isn’t your military in 60% of this world of ours fighting their particular governments for this ‘democratic righteousness’?”
because we did not topple the occupying oppresing regimes in those lands; we did in iraq and afganistan. let me remind you, the ladder curently has the most representative form of government that that region of the world has ever seen. a few more small politica victories in the former and the same will be true. your soldiers also helped in these victories, regardless of how significant the accomplishments to you. i wonder what could have happened to you that would make you so self -loathing that you would so matter-of factly defecate on the accomplishments of your own bros and sis’s as you spew this babble.

You are using the fact that Iraq ‘was’ a dictatorship to back up your arguements of an illegal war.
i’m not; the standard would more technically be like if you pose a significant and/or perceived threat to the citizens of the usa then our military appears to be willing and able to respond where said threat lives.
being a “dictatorship” especially one that harbors known terrorists or has made attempts to acquire wmds with the intention of using said weapons irrationally on innocents, doesn’t do much to discourage the pentagon from feeling that there may be a viable threat.

“I’ll tell you why!”
ok why?
“There is no f*ckin oil in any of those countries worth getting your dirty hands on!”
you sound angry about prices at the pump. i just filled my gas tank from blinking light to F with $23. not bad compared with more distant petroleum inflation rates. fantastic! i drive an 87′ 4 cylinder that’s still shy of 115,000 miles. let me guess, you ride a bike. may i interupt your tunnel vision long enough to remind you that the deeper , greater encompassing view is that we targeted iraq because we need stability in the world and therefore at least partial stability in the historically war-torn middle east. again i will remind you that the majority of u s oil doesn’t come from the middle east; it comes from south america.
“all your government is doing is selecting the countries they can get a greater wealth from!”
in testing your theory of “oil greed”, why wouldn’t america attack chavez? it’s because it’s very difficult to view his regime as a direct threat to the safety of americans.

“You are a sucker if you have been brain washed with this Adam.”
who’s brainwashed, someone who perceives a threat and counters or someone who claims that self defense of said threat is “illegal”. if that counter is excessive, then what is your better solution.

“Why do you think America defended Saudi and Kuwait in 1991?”
perceived threat to middle east stability and in turn global stability.
“Invade Kuwait all you will but don’t dream of invading our oil source in Saudi Arabia!”
saudi arabia is your oil source dumbass. but british and european socioeconomic stability is essential for stability for americans.

“Come of it Adam – you need to wake up!”
it’s just your rhetoric bores me.

“Your government is giving you nothing less that propoganda bullsh*t to get you to fly the flag and be proud of being an American.”
i am a proud american and will on few selective days of the year fly the flag in remembrence of my countrymen who gave their lives to improve mine. only fact is required, not “bullshit propoganda”.

“You are nothing more that oil wantant arseholes and I am amazed you can’t see it!”
even more so than the english? what do most cars in your neighborhood run on? it sure ain’t credibility or character.

So a few points to answer there I feel?

1) Our way , in this context, has helped us to avoid a similar attack since 9/11. your peoples’ has not. to what do you say this?
No it hasn’t – your homeguard has helped to stop any repeat of 9/11 very much like our homeguard is trying – yours and our armies abroad are perpetuating the increasing number of ‘could be’ terrorist attacks in both our countries and its only down to an increased vigilance from both public and goverments that are mostly stopping them.

2) i wonder what could have happened to you that would make you so self -loathing that you would so matter-of factly defecate on the accomplishments of your own bros and sis’s as you spew this babble.

I’m certainly not self loathing. The facts of the matter of why you where attacked in the first place is because of your presence in Saudi long after the first Gulf War had ended. You decided not to follow Sadam back into Iraq after pushing him back through Saudi and Kuwait because at that time you had a lot of support from the middle eastern countries who actually formed a coalition with the US and UK and an offensive attack rather than a defensive action would have resulted in them thinking twice about there coalition.
So you sat there in Saudi, just incase it Sadam decided to try again and Bin Laden got pissed off about what he saw as an enemy occupying a homeland state.
Now this is probably where we will agree. Bin Laden has this massive chip on his shoulder and saw your occupying forces as a threat, so he attacked you at your heart. He was an ass for doing this, and he should face the consequences, like all terrorists should.
BUT, what you guys decided to do, with our backing, was attack Iraq.
I was a bit puzzled at first as Bin Laden was in Afghanistan at the time.
So a war that you could have finished in ‘91 started again in this century.
First we are told Sadam has WMD’s and loads of them. They are a threat to the US and UK so we MUST attack.
No WMD’s where found.

Then we where told that Sadam had broken many UN sanctions and he MUST be stopped.
He broke these sanctions way back in the 80’s and continued to do so until his last day in office. Why wait 20 years to do anything about it, and why not attck all the other countries I mentioned before whos dictators continue to break UN rules?

As soon as your where seen to be the attacking force, you opened the flood gates to the majority of muslim nations, who supported you back in ‘91 and who by this time had extremists who where unhappy with the US presence in the middle east, to attack you and us as they continue to do.

Your attitude that a military attack on a now worthless country (Iraq) is in anyway helping you ‘win the war’ is ridiculous!

3) you sound angry about prices at the pump. i just filled my gas tank from blinking light to F with $23. not bad compared with more distant petroleum inflation rates. fantastic! i drive an 87′ 4 cylinder that’s still shy of 115,000 miles. let me guess, you ride a bike

No, I drive a 2001 Mini Cooper, and to fill it costs me (in fact my business) £45 which is about $90.
I don’t really mind that, and what I pay at the pump has nothing to do with the fact that you guys are trying to get your hands on the oil in the middle east.
You answered you own question when you suggest that America is happy with oil from Brazil.
Are you mad? Have you had your head in the sand for the past twenty years? The depletion of natural oil stocks on this planet is the single most important issue facing YOUR country.
We don’t care, we’re small enough to live off a Nuclear plant and a couple of wind turbines!
You are blind if you don’t see the attack on Iraq, the backhanders in goverment in exchange for construction and other industry contracts, mostly given to US I might add, as anything less than an attempt to grab the oil.

Sadam knew this in ‘91 when he set alight to the oil fields on his retreat through Saudi and Kuwait.
‘If I can’t have them, then I’m making sure you guys don’t either!’.

4)“You are a sucker if you have been brain washed with this Adam.”
who’s brainwashed, someone who perceives a threat and counters or someone who claims that self defense of said threat is “illegal”. if that counter is excessive, then what is your better solution.

You really do need to spell out the link between the attacks of 9/11 and a direct assault on Iraq.

5)“You are nothing more that oil wantant arseholes and I am amazed you can’t see it!”
even more so than the english? what do most cars in your neighborhood run on? it sure ain’t credibility or character.

Unfortunately, my previous government tended to back you guys up.
Now Brown is in power, I’m hoping to see two things.
A distance between the US and UK where attacking countries for no other reason that oil is concerned AND a democrat president in the white house so we can hopefully go forward together as we once did before.

Jonny

full of passionate, good-intentioned, opinion; too bad it’s so ill-informed. this is quite possibly one of the worst liberal spin jobs i’ve ever seen.

pretenda point#1: i wasn’t aware that “homeguard” and military offensives were mutually exclusive in terms of “strategy”. be careful, blinders are still on; your ignoring what is obvious.

sort of a point #2: first, your premise is a partial truth. the 9/11 attacks were prompted by a wealthy radical idiot. to suggest that an american presence in saudi arabia caused 9/11 is similar to reasoning that jews in germany caused the holocaust. the rest of your recent gulf war history lesson was shotty at best. if you choose to see the u s as foreign imperials who are hell bent on war so it can rape the world for natural resources, then please do. i don’t believe the facts could be so misconstrued by any reasonable thinking person as to support your view. you seem to be heavily invested in defending the motivations and actions of radicals as opposed to trying to understand the perspective of those calling shots in your own country. just because your perspective ignores facts doesn’t mean they don’t exist. ignore is the root word in ignorance!
“Your attitude that a military attack on a now worthless country (Iraq) is in anyway helping you ‘win the war’ is ridiculous!”
i support the message sent by this occupation and we’ve already said that we disagree what that message is. we also disagree about the value of iraq. as far as “winning the war” is concerned, it’s just not so black and white. i concede the war on terror, much like the war on drugs, is unwinnable. there will always be drugs as well as those who encourage platforms through violence/terror. these issues are not immune from all strategies. to not attempt to minimize them would be a detrimant to the quality of life for all mankind. correct me if i’m wrong but i think this is where we agree. where we disagree is the strategy to minimizing terrorism.

actually, what you pay at the pump and your vague accusations of greed and exploitation both go directly to the heart of the issue of supply and demand. you still continue to ignore the fact that iraqi oil is more likely to be used by europeans than americans.
“You answered you own question when you suggest that America is happy with oil from Brazil.”
what question did i ask? i didn’t say,suggest, nor imply this assertion. you’ve simply misconstrued what i’ve said. instead of your typical insulting unfounded accusations maybe you could accuse someone instead of attacking the whole country. and even if we were “happy with oil from Brazil”, then doesn’t that nix your unfounded theory behind the war in iraq?

“The depletion of natural oil stocks on this planet is the single most important issue facing YOUR country.”
agreed and while i would rarely admit it to you, bush policy frustrates me on this issue. i’ve heard a lot of talk from this man about developing alternative energy sources but not seen near enough follow through. issues like this make my decision in 11/08 a tough call.

i do not believe that it is unethical for american corporations to profit from the recovery/procession of iraqis natural resources. if the infrastructure is unsuitable for meeting these needs then someone has to do it; why not american companies? it isn’t like they won’t hire local employees. it isn’t like they will steal the oil and sell it on the open market. iraqis will still profit from their oil. in fact one bench mark for the assesing the progress of the new government is “can they establish legislation to determine revenue sharing from the sale of oil?” why would america encourage this if we intend to “grab” the oil? again you’ve ignored facts. speaking of facts that you’ve ignored, iraq’s oil production post saddam is less than before he was ousted.

point#4 (redundant):
“You really do need to spell out the link between the attacks of 9/11 and a direct assault on Iraq.”
i already laid that out for you in a rather lengthy post months ago to which you replied appreciatively. i didn’t think you agreed with all of the strategies but you didn’t debate them.

point #5 (sort of)
“Unfortunately, my previous government tended to back you guys up.”
that’s because they understand global politics and realities far better than you and i.
“I’m hoping to see two things.”
don’t hold your breath. your desires would require an awful lot of realities to be ignored by policy makers.

Again, very fair points Adam, and argued very well.

However (you knew that was coming didn’t you?), there are a few problems with debating this over the internet, and its obvious the main problem is the terminology we use.
By homeguard, I wasn’t talking of an army at home – I was using the term to describe what has come into place over here post the 9/11 attacks. The ‘homeguard’ is what we as citizens and what the politicians of our country to stop attacks happening. A kind of primitive Minority Report if you will. Yes, we have had a few recent problems that have hit the headlines around the world, but he have had some major terrorist cell intention thwarted because of what we now have in place.
The reason we have it in place is because as long as we continue to be at war with whom we dictate to be the enemy, they wll continue to attack us through the means they know best.
You must agree that face to face over a battle field they would last a few minutes at best.
The underhanded, in the shadows technique they have become custom to is very similar to that of the IRA in the 80’s and 90’s.
And again, they where fighting against what they saw as an illegal invasion and continued presence in THEIR country.

We will disagree about what started the war and the attacks on 9/11.
I think what I suggested certainly added to tension and the main spark that allowed this radical terrorist to launch an attack.
Other contributing factors may have helped his judgement, I don’t doubt that.

I would actually agree with more of your points if you had a control that supported your opinions.
The problem is, your aguements suffer when asked ‘why Iraq?’
I take your point that you feel Iraq was a direct threat to the US homeland – well, I don’t take it to be honest as history has proved that NOT to be the case. The long distance WMD premise that got support for the war in the first place has been swept under the carpet. But lets just say the US WAS under threat – Why aren’t you invading North Korea? Why aren’t you invading Iran?

The oil in Iraq is not the only goal here, its the oil in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. We first have an attack on Iraq to form a democratic government and a freindly ally right in the middle of Muslim territory. We then have a larger presence in Saudi Arabia. What we have infact is a Kuwait sandwhich with two slices of America either side. It won’t be long until Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq all have large American Oil companies mining away.
You miss my point that the oil depletion of this planet means those most needy of it will seek other areas for consumption.

Wait and see. Time will prove me correct.

Jonny

you underestimate the genuine nature of america. just wait and see, time will feed you crow!
you might try looking into the primitive governments that rule these countries before asserting that having democracies in them is a bad thing. are the ruling powers in iran not so fucking ridiculous that resonable people could justifiably feel having a presence in neighboring territories is legitimate from a self defense point of view?
you miss my point, without oil life will go on. it may be drastically different, especially for americans, but many of us view this as an opportunity not an obstacle. i agree that dependancy on oil has gone too far but in case you hadn’t noticed this is a global issue. if this war was simply about oil, then why not oust governments in saudi arabia? or venezuala? i do concede that oil plays a huge role in this occupation. do you sugest that we leave iraq to it’s own devices? within months the iranian terror-sponsoring regime would be exercising it’s foolish will on world oil markets. i hope you can build those windmills and nuclear reactors quickly!

We are indeed building wind farms VERY quickly, as well as having the knowledge as individual citizens to do all we can to save energy, as we have woken up to the fact that we can’t depend on oil anymore.
As a country, we are taking this issue very seriously. America on the other hand is simply invading countries to take their oil.
In all fairness, we have a lot smaller than you guys so in theory, it’s going to be easier for us to source alternative energy sources.
A change in America would mean a total overhaul and it would take a genius to govern a country of your size from oil munching to other energy sources – last time I looked, you didn’t have a genius sitting in your white house.

Lets not miss the point here. I agree totally that demorcracy is the way forward. I am privilaged to be able to live in a country where we have that rule. The world would be a far better place if every country had a democratic leadership.
But I’m not a megalomaniac. I don’t see it as my duty to tell everyone what to do, for some reason America does.
I will step in when I see injustice in this world of ours, but when it comes to telling everyone our way of living is better than theirs, then I’ll leave that to you guys.

furthermore, I don’t think the way to show democracy is by invading countries and establishing a democratic government by force.
That’s simply not democracy.

America is far from perfect, and I think having you guys acting as a teacher to the rest of the world of how great democracy can be is a farce.

Jonny

interesting perspectie. it just seems to me that america and americans, including the not-so genius president are genuinely trying to come up with answers. then there are people like you, who superficially criticize strategies and offer none to take their place.