And You Thought The Bruthas Had It Bad

Who knew that so many Americans in 2006 yearn to use 1940s Germany as a model? (Thanks Ann Tye)

Comments

[DavidD]

I think that the only people that should get a band like that are the people who called in to that show agreeing with that. This kind of ignorance is the reason behind all the wars people fight, the reason a groom gets shot at 50 times and killed on his wedding day, and a man get dragged out of his car and beaten to death with no convictions handed down to the assailants. The only people that suck in this world are the hateful, ignorant, and intolerant people that twist their beliefs into an excuse to kill others becuse they're different or they don't like them. We don't all have to like each other, just not hate each other. Big difference!

[Ann Tye]

This latest incident prompted me to think more deeply about what actions I would have taken were I present when passengers demanded that the Moslems ministers be taken off the plane. I'd like to think I would have spoken in their behavior and gotten off the plane with them. Given the tenor of the times, such a test may come. This possibility is quite thought-provoking. What would you do?

[Maine]

The worst part about it? We can sit here and say, "Wow, that's fucked up. People are fucked up," but in another 30 years, when its some other group under suspicion the exact same thing is going to happen.

Why? Because its happened 100 times before and it keeps happening. We always teach and preach tolerance and almost NEVER do anything about it. Japanese internment. The Jew threat to the German well being. The gay threat to marriage. Black dudes fucking all the white chicks. Whatever. It doesn't matter. And once we come to our senses about Muslims, they'll be a new threat next year.

A person can be smart. People, as a whole, are always going to be retarded. This is the least shocking news story ever.

[lattalayne]

QUOTE:
A person can be smart. People, as a whole, are always going to be retarded. This is the least shocking news story ever.

Posted by: Maine | December 04, 2006 at 02:00 PM
****************************************
That's what I thought. Big news would be if people had called and spoken out against this.
It's always been this way and I'm afraid it will never change. A hand full of individuals will act independently do the right things but the majority will always be sheep. That's how we wound up with the massacreing of Native Americans, American slavery, Nazi Germany, McCarthyism, and the invading of Iraq.

[Babu]

then again, the Jews didn't have extremists in 1940's Germany flying planes into buildings...

[DavidD]

"then again, the Jews didn't have extremists in 1940's Germany flying planes into buildings..."

So Babu, you want to label billions of people because of a few dozen extremists..... did you call into that show agreeing with the host? Beacuse it's comments like that that proves you're a sheep Lattalayne was talknig about. Hate the person's actions not the person, unless they're Hilter, then fuck him

[DavidD]

For the record- Yes I can't spell!

[DFS]

yes, but Americans still trust Muslims more than atheists

[Kristal K]

"A person can be smart. People, as a whole, are always going to be retarded."

Amen.

[Babu]

I don't agree with labeling muslims, I don't think that they all want to kill us, and I am not a racist or anti-religionist...

I do think that Islam is a fucked up religion and I don't support it.

I do think that some/many (not all) muslims (probably mostly not in the US) do believe that what terrorists do it a good thing.

My post was to point out that the situation is very different that what happened in 1940's germany, and it was a bit of a joke.

bahhhhhh

[The big O]

"I do think that Islam is a fucked up religion and I don't support it."

Really?? Have you read the Quran?? Do you know what you're talking about or are you just going off things you've heard?

I haven't read the Quran nor have I studied the religion of Islam, which is why you won't see me calling it a "fucked up" religion, and I highly doubt if any Muslims are broken up over your lack of support of their religion.

People fear things that they don't know about, just like sheep. Maybe if there was more education in this country with regards to what others believe and not so much "if you ain't christian, I ain't listnen'" attitude things like this could be avoided. All I know is that Islam and Christianity are not as different as western practitioning Christians would like for you to believe, for one thing Jesus is the most quoted prophet in the Quran. Never forget that both of these religions can trace their roots back to Africa. That is one fact that always puzzled me comin up - How can so many white people (alot of them being southern whites, descendants of slave owners, and or clan members, and alot of them being just normal american people who don't believe in that type of thing) be so devoted to a religion about and for the brown man (and how the fuck did we allow them to use it as one of the most dominant forms of oppression)? I still to this day don't really have an acceptable answer to this question other than bastardization by the Romans.

When looking for schools to enroll my son into, we went by a school in the Seattle area known as the Kings school (sadly they were not talking about Martin Jr.). We sat in on a class and checked it out, reason #1 I'll be damned if my son goes to this school; a picture on the wall of a blonde haired, blue-eyed Jesus frolickin w/ lambs and blonde children (sorry can't remember anything in the bible about Jesus' little vacation to Scandanavia). Reason #2 the teacher asked the students where the rain comes from and liitle johnny raised his hand and answered "god makes it" the teacher told him he was correct and that was enough for me, I was like "son, let's go".

These are two religions formed pretty much together, and all the people referenced in them (except the Romans) were of african or middle eastern descent. Christianity is not right. Islam is not right. They are both different. That's ok, nobody has to be wrong or right for you to live your life as a resposible and conscientious world citizen. Stop trying to be right all the time and just be kind. The Indians beliefs were percieved as wrong by white settlers and look what happened to them. Hell if you ask me their beliefs of respecting the land and all the animals and all of the beauty that nature has provided for us sounds closer to "right" than anything I've ever heard.

Cut open a Muslim and then cut open a Christian, you tell me if you notice anything different. Fuck off and live your life and don't worry about what the fuck the other man is doing and whether you agree with it or not, get over yourself. There's an expression that my grandad used to say to me all the time and I love it, it goes; Mind your own, you'll live long. Word gramps, word.

[The Sybian]

First off, wanted to give props to a great post by The big O. Well done, sir.

As to Babu, calling Islam a fucked up religion is just plain ignorant. I must assume that you are referring to the fundamentalists interpretation of the religion, which is no more f-ed up than the fundamentalist interpretation of any other religion. Islam is based on Judeo-Christian beliefs. Same god, same basic set of values. Religion, any religion, taken to an extreme is usually going to warp the founding principles. I'm sure Jesus wasn't thrilled about Crusaders killing, raping and pillaging in his name, much like Mohammed and Allah aren't too thrilled with beheadings and bombings in their name.

[Babu]

"Really?? Have you read the Quran?? Do you know what you're talking about or are you just going off things you've heard?"

Well most of my knowledge of Islam comes from this book,

http://www.amazon.com/End-Faith-Religion-Terror-Future/dp/0393035158

which I was turned on to by the "what we're readin'" section on the right...

the rest of my knowledge of Islam comes from the two women I work with who walk around in full head-dress, cannot cross the border of their country (Quatar) without a note of permission from a male relative over 18, cannot vote, and have no say over what they do with their lives.

that and the Koran says that all non-believers who cannot be converted should be stoned to death...and yes, I know that similar passages are also in the Bible and in the Torah...which is why I don't subscribe to any of those fiction stories.

So yes, I have solid reasoning to believe that Islam is a fucked up religion...but thanks for the lecture O. Then again, I think all religions are fucked up and are really the root of a lot of the problems we are having right now, that along with human nature.

I am not a sheep, I have formed my beliefs based upon education and experience

Maybe your gran-dad WAS right, but in the age of international travel, long-range weapons, and crazy dictators with nukes, the world is a slightly different place these days which makes it necessary to form opinions and make decisions.

[The big O]

"I think all religions are fucked up and are really the root of a lot of the problems we are having right now, that along with human nature."

We share this belief. Well, with religion being the root of most of mans problems anyways.

I also disagree w/ some of the policies that Islam has towards women and womens rights. But on the same note it's not neccessarily wrong, again just different.

"that and the Koran says that all non-believers who cannot be converted should be stoned to death"

Yeah, one can only wish that Spanish Conquistadores like Francisco Pizzaro were that nice, hell compared to the havoc he wrought in the name of god, gettin hit with some rocks ain't so bad.

Please do not think I was tryin to put you on blast, it's just statements like "Islam is a fucked up religion" gets me in 'what the fuck did you just say about the brown man' mode.

"I am not a sheep, I have formed my beliefs based upon education and experience"

As it should be, but that's kinda like sayin "I take care of my kids" or "I ain't never been to jail".

"which makes it necessary to form opinions and make decisions."

True, but you need to be real fuckin careful w/ that shit, that leads down roads we all know about like Slavery, Colonization, Economic exploitation, Apartheid, etc.

[The big O]

I meant to say that CAN lead to..........

[steveh2]

then again, the Jews didn't have extremists in 1940's Germany flying planes into buildings...
********************************************
No, but didn't Nazi propaganda allege that the Jews caused the German Empire to lose World War I, heaping great shame on the prideful German nation? If we're playing the "it's okay to tattoo and segregate by religion because of the threat they pose" game, I think what the Jews allegedly did to Germany was far worse than flying planes into buildings.

[SLaird22]

Big O...spot on.

[Jack Klompus]

I can appreciate what most of you are saying, but spare me all the self-righteous crap. A lot of people are still scarred by what happened on 9/11. Does that give them the right to be ignorant assholes? No, of course not. But if you're as kind and understanding as you all seem to suggest, then you should understand that it's human nature for people to judge on a single impression. That is, most people in the US probably didn't have much or any exposure to Islam before 9/11. Even though Islam was not responsible for the incident, you can only imagine the ease in which people have made a connection when they saw images of bin Laden issuing his fatwah, or crowds of Muslim men, women, and children dancing in the streets celebrating the 3,000 dead "infidels" in the smoldering ruins of the WTC (are those folks not judging the West based on limited impressions?). But of course this is not representative of the majority of Muslims. Just like those radio callers aren't representative of most Americans. Just like crooked cops aren't representative of all cops. Just like white supremacists aren't representative of all white people. But with human nature, people often make generalization based on their own experiences. If your first encounter with a cop is one of a harassing nature, you're not likely to trust the next cop you come across. Whereas, if your first experience with a cop was of a helpful nature, then you would probably be more trusting of the next one that comes along, even though the two circumstances are completely unrelated.

There seems to be a tendency on this blog to blame Americans for all that is wrong in the world. We just "don't understand the other side" because we're ignorant "sheep." I think that's a two-way street. Sure, we could do a lot beter educating ourselves in the fundamentals of world humanity -- but I hardly think our society is alone there. As well, I'd say as a country we're heavier on the humane scale than most. I do agree that it's important for us to mind how we oursleves behave before we tell others; however, people take time to heal after a catastrophic event, no matter what nationality or faith.

[M. Butler]

If 10% of a country x wants to do us harm, and we can't tell who that 10% is (and that 10% can do us harm), I have no problem with 1) demanding the country to take care of the 10% and if they can't 2)taking care of 100% of country x to solve the 10% problem.

They either resolve their hostility internally or we do it.

[Jerloma]

Hey Big O...next time you call someone an ignorant sheep, and they proceed to respond to you with perfectly valid reasons of why they are not everything you accuse them of, instead of another long-winded babble, perhaps you should just say, "Sorry, I was wrong for jumping to those conclusions."

Try it. You'll feel better about yourself.

[Nominal Me]

I tried reading the Quran once, but the first chapter is titled "The Cow" and I just couldn't take that seriously.

[Jack Klompus]

"They either resolve their hostility internally or we do it."

That's ridiculous. You can't hold all Muslims responsible. That said, it would be beneficial for those Muslims living in this country to communicate where they stand. To use the same examples as in previous posts, police officers should condemn improper actions of fellow officers, white people should condemn the actions of white supremacists, Christians should condemn the actions of radical Christians, Muslims should condemn the actions of radical jihadists, and Jerloma should condemn the play of Lil Ben Roethlisberger. If they remain silent, they shouldn't be surprised when people prejudge them as otherwise.

[M. Butler]

That's crap. You can (and should) hold a country responsible for the actions of its constituents. The fact that these nations can't separate religion from state is the issue (and we can't separate their state from their religion). They are condoning jihad on the U.S. and we should do something about it.

We don't need to look at this from a third party "fair" perspective. If we have to kill innocent foreigners to protect ourselves because they can't handle their own business, so be it. I'm not pro "killing innocent people because they are muslim," I'm pro killing muslim people because we can't tell the difference between good ones and bad ones (and they don't seem to be able to either) And we shouldn't have to sacrifice our soldiers to figure it out.

[Jack Klompus]

"You can (and should) hold a country responsible for the actions of its constituents."

Which country(ies)? Muslims are all over the world. It's not just Middle Eastern countries. Just look at the last few plots that were uncovered. Most were British nationals. Are you saying we should bomb England if they don't get rid of all radical jihadists? Now if you can prove a country's government is an active sponsor of the terrorist organizations that are seeking to do us damage, then I agree with you. We know Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Syria, and Iran all fit that description. Why we aren't dealing with them more aggressively is disheartening.

"And we shouldn't have to sacrifice our soldiers to figure it out."

I agree. We shouldn't have to. But who else is going to do it? The UN?

[The big O]

M. Butler,

Don't forget the Phillipines gotta bomb them too there's lots of Muslims there.

Jerloma,

Thank you for the perscription, I'll try that. Do me a favor though, show me where I specifically called Babu a sheep. Also did you see this; "Please do not think I was tryin to put you on blast" ?

"And we shouldn't have to sacrifice our soldiers to figure it out."

We are sacrificing our soldiers to get that oil, don't kid yourself. If you compare the death tolls of American soldiers in Afganistan (actually fighting terrorism) to those in Iraq (tryin to get that oil) you will see what the sacrifices are being made for. Iraq didn't have any WMD's and the connection with Al-Quida was very slim in reality. Sadam was just like Noriega another buddy who got too big for his britches and we (Bush/cheney) had to take him down. Those clowns are sacrificing our troops, not to combat terrorism, but so cats can drive SUV's. We did not get into Iraq to fight terrorists if you think we did, I'm sorry. I've said it before I'll fight for my country if my country has been attacked, I am not against erraticating Al-Quaida, but I'll be goddamned if I'm givin my life on some fools crusade for oil.

[Jack Klompus]

"We are sacrificing our soldiers to get that oil, don't kid yourself."

That's completely illogical. We didn't need to go to war for that, or even oust Saddam. In fact, keeping Saddam in power and lifting UN sanctions would have made Bush's cronies much richer, since they are small Oil, not Big Oil. Iraqi oil is owned by Iraqis, and oil prices are controlled by OPEC, not Halliburton.

Now the previous Gulf War in 1991, that was about oil. Nobody disputes that.

[SLaird22]

I've heard people say that the war isn't to control oil, but moreso to make sure control of oil didn't go to the wrong people, ie people we don't like.

[Jerloma]

Big O...you didn't coem right out and call him an ignorant sheep. I was wrong for accusing you of that and I apologize.

"We are sacrificing our soldiers to get that oil, don't kid yourself."

It's infinitely cheaper to buy oil than to cease it.

[The big O]

I didn't even call babu a sheep in a round about way. While discussing an issue w/ babu I stated that people are sheep, if you read that sentence and associated it with Babu specifically then maybe YOU are the one who should be apologizing to Babu. Actually going back and reading the comments if anyone called Babu a sheep it was DavidD. All I stated was "People fear things that they don't know about, just like sheep." Get off my nuts.

[lattalayne]

I used to think it was about oil, but not anymore. I read Woodard's last book on Bush & Co, "State of Denial" and I drew a lot from it. Essentially, Bush is a clueless idiot and Rumsfeld did everything he could to keep him that way. Bush really, really wanted to "get" Saddam and leapt at the chance to do it after 9/11. The CIA got hold of some mis-information that they accepted as fact even though the source was highly questionable and Bush was more than happy to accept it.
Saddam, on the other hand, was the victim of his own bluff. Saddam wanted all his Middle East neighbors to believe that he had WMDs so they would be afraid to go against him in any way. He didn't actually need to have WMDs, he just needed to convince everybody else that he did. Their belief was the key to his power. Unfortunately, he was too convincing. We believed him, too. Our President WANTED to believe him. So, we rushed off with no strategy, no game plan, to "Do the Right Thing". Too bad we didn't have a clue what the right thing was.
We have succeeded in creating an incredible mess. We completely dismantled the infrastructure of the Iraqi government (including utilities, schools, hospitals, military). We created the environment which has allowed the start of civil war in Iraq, with nearly 4,000 people killed there last month and surely more to come. Our soldiers are looked on (and rightly so) by many Iraqis as an enemy invader, an occupying force. They are the targets of both physical attacks and hatred. And being 18 and 19 year old boys in a hostile land, sometimes they react stupidly.
We need to get out, but if we do all those Iraqis who helped us in any way will be killed. The void that we leave will be filled with the very extremist that we supposedly were there to irradicate. We had to play Cowboy and charge in blind. This is the result.

[Jack Klompus]

"we rushed off with no strategy, no game plan, to "Do the Right Thing". Too bad we didn't have a clue what the right thing was."

I disagree. To suggest our military commanders had no strategy is just plain silly. Now, with the luxury of hindsight we are able to see our tactical errors. Name a war that had no tactical errors.

"We completely dismantled the infrastructure of the Iraqi government (including utilities, schools, hospitals, military)."

Sure, we dismantled Saddam's little Baathist empire. So I'm sure things got worse for the Sunnis. But there is no debating that things have improved for Shiites and Kurds -- you know, the other 80% of the country. There's a perception that things were stable before we overthrew Saddam. In a way, that's true. However, the reason there was relative stability was due to the fact that the country was under the rule of an oppressive regime. Any opposition to the regime was met with torturous and genocidal consequences -- thus people tended to keep quiet. So yeah, things may be more chaotic right now, but at least more than 20% of the population has a say in how their country is governed.

"Our soldiers are looked on (and rightly so) by many Iraqis as an enemy invader, an occupying force"

In some parts, yes. Not everywhere. The soldiers I've talked to said outside of the Sunni triangle they are treated very well.

"We had to play Cowboy and charge in blind. This is the result."

Absurd. You make it sound like couple of guys starting a lanscaping business in the desert. We knew how tough it would be. That's why we tried to get full international support. We didn't get France, Russia, and China because they had financial considerations. But sometimes you have to make tough decisions at critical times. This was one of them.

[Jerloma]

Great post Klompus. That's one of those things I would have written if I was smarter than I am.

[The Sybian]

Bush and Co. had a plan for invading Iraq, and it worked great. We "Shocke and Awed" are way in with no glitches at all. Once we were there, that is where the plans were lacking. Bush and Co., in their arrogance, failed to heed all of the advice that sectarian violance would occur, and an insurgency would take up arms. They had no contingency plans for what to do if things did not go exactly according to plan. As Rummy once complained, the military was too efficient, took over Iraq too quickly, and we didn't have time to plan on how to deal with insurgents. Well duh! Your plan was to storm in and win the war quickly, so why are you surprised to win the war quickly?

[lattalayne]

We had a war strategy. We had no peace strategy. Virtually no thought went into what to do after Saddam was defeated. Whenever this was brought to Rumsfeld's attention, it was brushed aside.

The problem with our approach to de-Baathification was the totality of it. At the end of WWII, the top ranking officers of the Nazi Army were removed, but the middle and lower level members remained. Why? Well, as one writer put it, "If you want to keep the power on, you need to keep the man who knows where the switch is on the payroll".
In Iraq, we fired the man who knows where the switch is. In the original plan, the Iraqi army was to stand and would remain as the (eventual) permanent Iraqi army. Teachers, doctors, sanitation workers, all public employees would stay. Somewhere along the line, the powers-that-be decided to instead implement a "total de-Baathification". We cut them all loose. The members of the military who had been told they were going to keep getting a paycheck suddenly weren't. They were sent packing, along with their weapons. It was a requirement under Saddam's regime that all teachers join the Baathists, so all the teachers there were Baathists. Through out de-Baathification, all teachers were fired. Nobody thought about that when the decision was made.

A very good friend of mine who I see every day did 2 tours in Iraq with the Marines and has several friends still there. I get my information on how they are viewed in Iraq from him. And as I said "Many Iraqis" view them as invaders, not all.

I stand by my "Cowboy" statement. Sure, we had an attack strategy. We just had no plans after that. They were warned by their own people about what would happen and they ignored it. I put the blame on Rummy, tho, as he insisted that anything related to the war had to go through him and not directly to Bush.

[Jack Klompus]

"Nobody thought about that when the decision was made."

Bullshit. Your are grossly underestimating the amount of intelligence involved at play. They were talking about this with concern at the time they actually were executing it. They knew it was a Catch-22. They couldn't take the chance of leaving Saddam loyalists in the infrastructure for fear of sabotage. But they also couldn't imprison them because the message was supposed to be that we were "liberators", not "occupiers." So what's left? You had to turn them free in order to figure out who wanted to fight and who wanted to participate in the political process. To suggest that this was not a calculated risk is idiotic. However, I would agree that Rumsfeld did not properly anticipate the resilience of the insurgency.

"Sure, we had an attack strategy. We just had no plans after that."

I disagree again. Our military is not some disorganized department comprised of IBM consultants (offense intended). They don't just make shit up as they go along and bumble around until the funding runs out. Do they make mistakes? Of course. But they always have contingency plans. The fact that the public doesn't know about them beforehand is by design.

[The Sybian]

Jack, the problem with Bush and Rummy was not so much the miscalculations, but the fact that they refused to listen to any info that didn't fit into their plan. And from all accounts, there weren't contingency plans in place. At least not adequate plans. This is why the military is furious, as Rummy didn't listen to military advisors.

I strongly believe in my sources, as one is a high ranking officer who served in Iraq as part of the Office for Reconstruction, and the other served two tours as a Commanding Officer in the field. Both were fearcely pro-Bush, staunch Conservatives and Republicans prior to the invasion. Now they are both bigger Bush critics than I could ever hope to be. The Officer working on reconstruction served post-Bremmer exiting, and still nothing was in place.

W brought in daddy's advisors who strongly adivsed against taking out Sadam, stating that everything we are now dealing with would happen. Bush and Rummy refused to listen. None of the event that occured in Iraq should have been a surprise, but Bush lives in his black and white, good and evil dream world.

[Jack Klompus]

"the problem with Bush and Rummy was not so much the miscalculations, but the fact that they refused to listen to any info that didn't fit into their plan."

Listening and deviating are two different things. Leaders always listen. But that doesn't mean they have to take every piece of advice. Otherwise, why be in charge? So of course they run the risk of criticism from within the military. Not new ground here. But again, you have the luxury of hinsight. If they deviated from their plan everytime they got a differing opinion, they'd never get anywhere. And they'd never know if or how the original plan was flawed.

"I strongly believe in my sources, as one is a high ranking officer who served in Iraq as part of the Office for Reconstruction, and the other served two tours as a Commanding Officer in the field."

Most of my sources are still on the ground, either in Iraq, Kuwait, or Qatar -- so they're not going to criticize (for obvious reasons). The few that are back home offer a different type of criticism than your sources. They're more angry at our government for not letting them "win." We have to follow rules against an enemy that does not. That puts us at a trmendous disadvantage. The other criticism I heard about Bush was that he didn't communicate the message strongly enough to the American people.

"W brought in daddy's advisors who strongly adivsed against taking out Sadam, stating that everything we are now dealing with would happen"

First of all, Congress appointed them, not Bush. Second of all, leaving Saddam in power in the first place was the mistake of some of these very advisers you speak of -- so it's no surprise they're going to have the same Cold War approach they always had And keep an eye on what their recommendations are. What's been leaked so far is not very different than what's already been on the table. They throw out dates, but all are carefully caveated with things like "unless conditions warrant otherwise."

[daveNYC]

Ah, the good old 'we weren't allowed to win' line. You've gotta love the US military's attitude that they've never, ever, lost a war. Oh no, it's the press/politicians/hippies/mooninites fault.

[Jack Klompus]

"Ah, the good old 'we weren't allowed to win' line."

Out of context, daveNYC. Their point is, they're being asked to accomplish something a certain way knowing it could be done a lot more effectively another way -- but still they do it the first way to in attempt to appease spoiled, self-righteous douchebags such as yourself.

[SLaird22]

Klompus, if one of your defenses is that the people there were under an oppresive regime, we sure as hell shouldn't get too comfortable after this because we've got alot of other places to go attack.

[The Sybian]

Hindsight has nothing to do with it. I was angry about the mistakes as they were occuring. While I had to believe there might be WMDs, I did not think there was a threat to the US even if Sadam had them. Sadam hadn't been a problem since 1990, and there was no reason to believe he would become a problem. He was a stabilizing force in the region, as he kept Iran in check, and kept his own people in check (albeit through horifying means). While I didn't know things would be as fucked up as they currenlty are, I always thought the situation would be worse than before we attacked. Look at the history of nation building, especially when performed by the US. The only outcome from the outset is that a despotic military strongman will take over, and at best he will be the equal of Sadam, but with the potential to be more of a threat. I would rather have a known evil leader who poses no threat than an unkown future strongman. Take the known over that which we know we don't know (to take a phrase from Rummy).

As for Daddy's advisors I referred to (and names escape me at the moment), they were not cabinet members. Bush called in the 1990 team, but chose to ignore their pleas. I had no problem with experts lending advice, its the refusal to encorporate this advice into a strategy that is my beef. Daddy even advised W not to take out Sadam, but Bush chose to listen to "his other father" on this one. It was during W's phase where he claimed to be taking advice from his homeboy Jesus.

Also, while I don't think the US needs permission from the rest of the world before invading, here we should have waited. Post 9/11, the US had more support from the rest of the world than it has since 1944. Bush immediately turned the tables by flipping the bird to the rest of the world and invading Iraq. France and Germany were right. Lets see some proof before going in. Now the rest of the world hates the US and doesn't trust us. To fight a "global war on terrorism", we need to cooperate with the International Community.

And when Bush said we won't leave until we "win the war," what does that mean? We are fighting insurgents who want us to leave. Do we continue to kill them until they want us to stay?

[daveNYC]

The context of one side has rules, the other doesn't? What are you proposing, that we adopt the tactics of the insurgents and death squads in order to pacify the country?

The problem isn't the tactics or strategy, it's the basic mission itself. Looking at the ethnic makeup of Iraq and its political history, it was a no brainer that bringing the democracy pony to Iraq was going to lead straight to this smoking hole in the ground.

[SLaird22]

They didn't let the muslims rap their way back onto the plane?

[jackie]

"They didn't let the muslims rap their way back onto the plane?"

Nope. But I hear they turned down the offer to blow some shit up.

[Jack Klompus]

"What are you proposing, that we adopt the tactics of the insurgents and death squads in order to pacify the country?"

No, I don't think we need to necessarily adopt their tactics. However, we do need to meet their barbarism and their determination with an equal measure of might. Whatever it takes.

[Jack Klompus]

"The only outcome from the outset is that a despotic military strongman will take over, and at best he will be the equal of Sadam, but with the potential to be more of a threat."

If we leave too early, you're right. In fact, pulling out now will only speed up that process. However, if we stay there, we at least have a chance to prevent it.

"I would rather have a known evil leader who poses no threat than an unkown future strongman."

No threat? Are you retarded? His UN sanctions were getting ready to expire and he had all the intentions of doing us harm (directly or indirectly). All the inspections in the world wouldn't be able to prevent him from contintuing his Oil-For-Weapons scandal. And it wouldn't have stopped him from selling the WMD intellectual capital he had. Furthermore, our elected officials BEFORE the Bush Administration (Democrats included) all were singing the same song about Saddam Hussein. That he was a threat and he needed to be dealt with. Then when the tough talk was put on the table, suddenly Saddam was a "stabilizing force?" Bullshit.

"France and Germany were right. Lets see some proof before going in."

France was NEVER going in. No way, no how. And Germany wasn't going in with Schroeder in charge.

"Now the rest of the world hates the US and doesn't trust us. To fight a "global war on terrorism", we need to cooperate with the International Community."

The rest of the world doesn't hate us -- they fear us. They always have -- ever since our country was formed. And sometimes that fear translates to resentment. That so-called support we saw after 9/11? That was out of fear. Because they knew we would be responding. Oh, and the International Community? They need to cooperate with us as well. It's a two-way street.

[The Sybian]

Well Jack, I actually agree with one point you made. We can't just leave immediately. Staying until we "win the war," whatever that means, is not an option either. As long as we are there, insurgents will continue to fight our troops. Bush summed it up rather well a couple of years ago when he said something to the effect that he understands the insurgency, as he would be mad as hell if there was an occupying army in his country. The majority of insurgents are not "terrorists," they just want what they perceive as an invading army out of their country. Yes, there are some Al-Qaeda types fighting in Iraq, but for the most part, the people we are fighting there would not be threats to us here.

As for the barbarism and guerrilla tactics, this is nothing no surprise. The insurgents clearly can't take on the US Army in a conventional war, so they are doing what resistance groups have always done throughout history. Sabatage, sniping, trying to defeat the will of the invading forces, etc... If the US took these approaches, the support we have from Iraqis would very quickly disappear. You can't call yourself a liberating army and torture and murder the people you are supposedly liberating.

I do appreciate the irony of being called retarded by someone who is supporting the greatest military clusterfuck in US history, and fails to see the absolute idiocy in W's decisions.

[Jack Klompus]

"The majority of insurgents are not "terrorists," they just want what they perceive as an invading army out of their country."

Then why are the majority of attacks happening now involving Iraqi civilians?

"I do appreciate the irony of being called retarded by someone who is supporting the greatest military clusterfuck in US history, and fails to see the absolute idiocy in W's decisions."

A greater military clusterfuck than the US Civil War? WWI? WW2? Korea? Vietnam? Are you retarded?

[The Sybian]

WWII a clusterfuck??? Now I get that the joke is on me, and you were kidding about all of your arguments.

[Jack Klompus]

"WWII a clusterfuck???

No, I didn't say that. But in the context of US Military history, I'd say 418,000 dead Americans and 62.5 million worldwide, not to mention the aftermath -- qualifies as MUCH more of a clusterfuck than what we are seeing now in Iraq.