"Global War On Terrorism" Off Target! - Page 42

paragon · #**411** (**permalink**) 09-30-2008, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catawba

"Global War on Terror, used repeatedly in the internal text of the October 16, 2003, memo written by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, entitled Global War on Terrorism, seems to be a new rhetorical device justifying expansion of the "war" and perhaps new agencies. Citing the memo:

"Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?"

In this view, which is relatively new even for the Bush administration, the goal is not to end the threat posed by terrorist groups of global reach, the previously stated objective, but the eradication of all militant Islamic groups that cross the line from militancy into attacks on the USA and its allies, wherever they are, whether they have a right to be there or not. It is the eradication of a mind-set that is the objective, not specific groups.

The dangers of this view will be obvious to those who recall the Vietnam War. In that war, there was a similar focus on metrics and eradicating the mind-set of Communist insurgents in former South Vietnam. This of course was impossible, because in at least some ways, there was a strong case to be made that Communists were quite right about the inequities in the client state which the USA set up in South Vietnam, and actively "managed" (by various means including, some say, the outright assassination of its President at one point). In this kind of environment, it is not possible to wipe out insurgency, because it continues to be motivated by the overt injustice of the US-backed regime of the client state(s)."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php..._war_on_terror

This is in line with the recent Rand Report to the DOD referenced in the OP.

Believe it or not your defeatism isn't the solution. The Rand Report did not advocate an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. In fact it stated that the Iraq War was going better.
And claiming that there are no specific groups being targeted is pure ignorance. But I already named those groups and gave the source so why would you listen now?
Also, the majority of the Iraqi people are behind the Iraqi government, not the insurgents. So if you are once again trying to compare Vietnam to Iraq with that quote you are once again wrong.

catawba · #**412** (**permalink**) 09-30-2008, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paragon

the majority of the Iraqi people are behind the Iraqi government, not the insurgents. So if you are once again trying to compare Vietnam to Iraq with that quote you are once again wrong.

How can you say that with a straight face, when the new regime still requires our full occupation force to keep the peace? Your argument will carry no weight until all the troops are home and the new regime can maintain the peace on their own.

Let's see $10 billion a month for 100 years is . . . . . .

I don't know about you, but most of us in this country don't have that kind of money or time.

I think you need to reread this analysis from above and let it sink in.

"In this kind of environment, it is not possible to wipe out insurgency, because it continues to be motivated by the overt injustice of the US-backed regime of the client state(s)."

This is the lesson we all should have learned from Vietnam.

presluc · #**413** (**permalink**) 10-01-2008, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paragon

Policies done by Clinton led to the problem. There's no way around that fact. That is what I blame him for. Something he actually did.

Also, historically Bush is far from the worse president ever. Bad sure but not even close to the worst. We've had some absolutely terrible presidents in the past. Harding, Buchanan, Pierce, Andrew Johnson, William Harrison, Grant, Fillmore, Tyler, Taylor, Garfield, Nixon, Form, Coolidge, Benjamin Harrison, Ford, Carter, Hoover, Arthur, H.W. Bush, Hayes, and Van Buren were worse than Bush according to the historical rankings anyways.
And Clinton is right above Bush.

Exactly right.

So if Obama is elected are we to blame Bush policies for any mistake he males????
No other president had a 9 maybe 11 trillion dollar deficeit, no other president invaded a country based on "bad intelligene", no other president owed China 65 billion dollars, need I go on, this president Bush is setting records, and not the good kind.

presluc · #**414** (**permalink**) 10-01-2008, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paragon

We seem to be arguing about two different things. The cause of the problem was Clinton and people should know and understand that. Obviously the problem should be solved by the Bush Administration (or the State governments but when do they actually care to do anything big... or take the blame for anything *cough*unemployment*cough*). If when the Bush Administration leaves office and nothing has been done to sufficiently correct the problem then Bush should of course be blamed for not doing enough to solve the problem. But blaming Bush for causing the problem (which many people are doing) is factually incorrect and stupid.

Cough all you want, and sling away.
Bottom line, the American people are hurting, the stock market is waiting, the National Guardmen that serve their time and get rassigned to go back to Iraq are waiting, the wage of the Average American is waiting, alternitive fuel, the American people are waiting, and fair trade aggreements we're waiting??
Maybe Bush needs to go back tpo his ranch and clear more brush???

So back to the basics Republican congress,Republican administration for 6 years so what did they do??
I remind you of a book released in 2004 "IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID", A PHRASE THAT HAS BEEN USED SINCE 2002.
TRUMAN HAD IT RIGHT, ON HIS TAKE ON BEING PRESIDENT,

"THE BUCK STOPS HERE"

Oh and FYI, I'm pretty sure we're arguing about the same thing, LEADERSHIP.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The Continued Cheapening of the Word "Terrorism"	SchneierBlog	Political Blogs	0	07-08-2008 05:00 AM
The Founder of the Weather Channel Calls "BS" on Global Warming	DiscerningBlog	Political Blogs	8	04-27-2008 08:33 AM
Review of Gore Global Warming movie "An Inconvenient Truth"	Americanexpat	Current Events	69	06-29-2006 08:30 PM
John Kerry to fight a more "Sensitive" war on terrorism	Mr-Conservative	Elections & Campaigns	2	08-12-2004 08:03 AM
Sharon "Arafat could be target"	remrem	Current Events	20	04-30-2004 07:26 AM