In an interview posted today by the Washington Post, Representative and House Majority Whip, James Clyburn, Democrat, South Carolina responded to an Iraq question in a STUNNINGLY candid fashion.

David Balz, Washington Post :

What do Democrat’s do if General Petraeus comes in, in September and says, “This is working very very well at this point. We would be foolish to back away from it.”

Rep. James Clyburn, Dem. S.C:

“Well, that would be a real big problem for us.”

For US ? ! ? Which US is he speaking of? Why the Surrendercrats of course.

Afterward he tries to recover by claiming how of course he wants a good outcome. Maybe he personally does but he SPOKE THE TRUTH about his party.

We ALL knew that the Surrendercrats have always put their power and fortunes BEFORE the country, but most importantly, they have bet their future on the defeat of the U.S.….To the point that many or at least some are cheering for our enemies. You all have denied these assertions in the past. NOW LISTEN FOR YOURSELF. The transcript does not do the drama justice. Listen to the recording…..

Roll video....


-- Modified on 7/31/2007 7:13:32 PM

Admit it: they would. Before any of them reconsider.  

You can't accurately consider Petraeus' upcoming testimony without this question: if the war is an unmitigated calamity, how truthfully can he admit defeat?  Especially when he's the guy in charge?  Can his career advance on that basis?  Not too many defeated generals have good historical standing.  

That's a real problem with military evaluations, especially when the person in charge has to make those evaluations.  

Either way, I hear it's going to be impossible to maintain troop levels in Iraq without a draft beyond March 2008.

Here are some facts: this was the deadliest July for US troops since the war began.  "March through June were also high." If it seems like casualties have dropped since June, it's because it's 120 degrees in Iraq in July.  That's not progress.    

For mortality, Iraqis aren't doing better either.  "2,024 civilians, government officials and security forces killed in July, about 23 percent more than the 1,640 who died violently in June, according to Associated Press figures compiled from police reports nationwide."

: Legislators took their break in August with the Kurds threatening to pull out of Iraq due to no decision having been made on oil in Kirkuk, and the Kurdish president says no decision or referendum on that could lead to civil war.

: Meanwhile, Malaki's government looks no stronger, and is possibly much weaker, as Sunni leaders are totally alienated from it.  

I am interested in what Petraeus says about these problems.  If he thinks there is progress in Iraq on his watch, he's going to have to explain what's good and how it weighs against these problems.  Just saying it's going really well can't be good enough.  

Meanwhile, the Republican propaganda machine sputters and wheezes on about all this "progress" leading up to the testimony. What you see when you look is anything but.

It's August and not a lot is going to happen in the Iraqi heat, in theory.  I notice the testimony is going to be set after what promises to be the slowest month for bad news, after what should be three slow months in the boiling Iraqi summer.

So far, though, it has proved to be exceptional.  Maybe it's Global Warming?


PS-- BTW, your "source" for medical information, the one about the terrors of socialized medicine overseas, is now spamming my mailbox with offers.      

-- Modified on 8/1/2007 5:43:30 AM

National soccer team choose to have the victory celebration for winning the Asia Cup tournament in Dubai after rejecting Baghdad as too dangerous?

dubai has great hookers.

Either address the topic or start your own fucking thread.

That's it. Try to change the subject. Maybe we won't notice.

NONE of you had the guts to address the topic of my post. (except Fixer, who tried to blow off Clyburn's comment as "misinterpreted". LOL

This is a an old Rush Limbaugh tactic. Someone on the left says something dumb or extreme and the Right tries to say it represents how everyone on the Left feels. Maybe that's how this guy really feels, but your claim that he "SPOKE THE TRUTH about his party" is complete B.S. I don't doubt that there are some on the extreme left who do feel this way, but it's not mainsteam liberal or Democratic party thought.

you refer to him as just "someone". SOMEONE? He is the number THREE ranking Democrat in the House. He's the Majority Whip for gosh sakes. Listen to how he says it. It was no "off the cuff" remark.

Are we also supposed to begin ignoring the words emitting from the mouth of Nancy Pelosi? Or just the stupid stuff? How are we to decide?

At least you admit that there are "some" on the left that hold this belief or wish for defeat. That's a real step forward. I do not know of anyone else (except for Rep. Cyburn) that has admitted as much.

One would also hope that it would be a problem for the Democrats as it clearly would be a problem for the entire country, the entire Mid East and the world, but NO. . . this Democrat suggests that the Democrats will somehow be BETTER OFF if we all experience DEFEAT.

The biggest problem facing non-Surrendercrats will be finding a third strategy forward to continue the battle against Islamic extremists and to continue to find ways to keep events in the Mid-East from creating problems for our national security.

If you really think that all General Officers in the U.S. military will put their own welfare and future in front of the country’s needs and the oath they took for same, then I pity you. You might as well hang it up today.

BTW, I already addressed your concerns and questions about “my source”. I wasn’t affected/infected by it. I hope that they are sending you some good healthcare tips.

out of Iraq.

It won't be long before they start telling everyone "I told you so"

Limited defeat.  We scale down in or leave Iraq after using the four surrounding powers to mediate.  Iran, Turkey, Syria and Saudi Arabia and bring the Sunnis, Kurds and Shi'ites to some understanding.  We rebuild our armed forces, get rid of the white supremacists and gang-bangers that we're bringing in now.  Scale down the contractors.  Institute a draft if necessary, supply and train especially for work in the Middle East.  Within five years we will probably be ready to intervene again if needed.

Total defeat: our ground forces continue to deteriorate.  The fitter ones join the contractors, while we fill the ranks with garbage,  neo-Nazis and gang bangers, which finally throws our military into disarray.  Meanwhile, we continue to turn more able bodied people into the disabled people.  Finally, we're forced to turn the entire conduct of the war over to contractors.  It then openly becomes colonial, and our reputation will be riding on the conduct of mercenaries and criminals.  And for every raid, every unjust imprisonment or "accidental" civilian death, we create one or two more radicals from their family and friends.  We lose everything.  Access to the oil.  Respect of the American-style democracy is completely discredited; our ground forces are 3rd rate, decimated and corrupt.  Our economy is probably wrecked as well as the civil war becomes a regional war.  None of it had to happen: Iraq had no connection to terrorism.  

Take limited defeat now, avoid total defeat later.  Having a Dunkirk is worth avoiding a Stalingrad.  

As for my thinking that all General Officers in the US military put their own welfare and "future" in front of the countries, my observation is far more respectful than that.  The worse thing for almost any can-do kind of warrior is to admit defeat. The personal ego and career calculation of it might come secondary, but it's there.      

From what I hear about Petraeus, he's not the kind of guy who would admit defeat back-to-back with Custer at Little Big Horn.  If the war is his, and he's standing, he's not defeated.  This might imply that if the war is "his" and he's still standing, he'd say we're defeated either.  This is most likely the very reason why he was given the job.    

However, virtues can have hidden vices.  As has been shown by all the *retired* generals who have spoken against the war, once they were taken out of the situation where they had win, all of a sudden they all come out and tell you how badly muddled the war has been.  

I don't believe it's not that they are just resentful, which is what conservatives say, or they are hypocrites, which is what liberals say.  IMHO, it was a change that takes place when somebody no longer competing to win and instead becomes an analyst.  

Part of the problem with the Vietnam war was that the Executive and Legislative branch expected generals who couldn't admit defeat to give us an analysis they couldn't make.  

But there are a lot of complaints, like from David Hackworth, that a lot of the Generals and officers can be characterized by putting their own welfare and future in front of the countries needs.  IMO, I don't think Petraeus is one of them, but as I said, it's always in their thoughts somewhere.  You could bet it occurred to Custer when he knew he was screwed at Little Big Horn.  

Last thing: I actually think in practice that Democrats are going to find it as hard to get out of Iraq than it was to get out of Vietnam-- at least.  The "plan" I gave is what I would try to do.      

-- Modified on 8/1/2007 9:52:15 PM

-- Modified on 8/1/2007 9:58:15 PM

You may not be praying for the final blow as some are doing, but you appear to have no concept that there could be a new way possible that avoids anything like the two versions of defeat that you've come to expect.

It's a recognizable trait from someone that believes they have no dog in the fight.

In other words, if I really cared like somebody trapped in the fight, I would delude myself too?  lol.  Never thought of it that way.  Thanks for the inspiration.  

So, what do you have in mind, in your opinion what would victory look like here?  My first option, if you didn't see it, makes eventual victory in Iraq possible.  

I wasn't like this about Afghanistan "the graveyard of empires."  I think that's do-able.  Or I did till we sank our military into Iraq.  

Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush et. al. came into office with the idea of invading Iraq.  Terrorism was only a fortuitous selling point they grabbed after 9/11.  As such, the politicians chose an incredible blunder for strategy and told our military to win.    

If I'm pessimistic about it-- it's only because this is no small blunder.  It's this kind of blunder that started World War I.

-- Modified on 8/1/2007 11:31:47 PM

I had no platitudes in mind and I still can't see any after re-examination.

Sure, you outlined two paths. Both seem defeatist to me (your words also, if I need to remind you). The one that you call "possible victory" is too passive for my liking. All I was suggesting is that there could be a 5th way. Not your two ways, nor the two that Bush has tried so far.

Our differences can be summed up by contrasting your last sentence. You see, I (like many others) already think this is a World War.

And oh, BTW. You never (nor anyone else sans one guy) addressed my singular thought in the original post.

-- Modified on 8/2/2007 4:25:58 PM

I used to think it was myself.  I've reconsidered after reading history.  No, it's not a world war anymore that the Japanese taking Manchuria was WW2.  You talk about pessimism!  We're not going to lose two billion people on account of this conflict.  

That's not to say that people can't mismanage it into a world war. We always do that and justify the tragedies that occur in retrospect. I'm afraid we're tempted into doing that.      

Platitude: I have no dog in the fight.  Trite shallow moralism there.  You care more than me, then?  Have a dog in the fight?

About Rep Clyburn saying, "Then we'd have a problem."  On your first point about democrats putting their power in front of the good of the country, I did think I answered that by suggesting you think of it in reverse and see if your conclusion works.  That didn't get the message to you.  So I'll start again.

I think along this lines: if the Rep. Clyburn and his colleagues opposing the war was convinced that continuing in Iraq is definitely a mistake for the country, was convinced that Petraeus wasn't going to say we were failing no matter what, wanted Congress to vote us out of there, but knew that if Petraeus said we were succeeding that the Blue Dogs would stop Congress, then he would call that "a problem."

The problem is getting Congress to actually vote in the way that he thinks is right.  

Remember, the Blue Dogs are democrats, too and really shouldn't stop the party's drive from it's grasp for power.  Remember, as he said, the war isn't the issue in his district, the issue is "healthcare, healthcare, healthcare."

So, no, I don't think ". . . then we have a problem" is the revelation of intent that you think it is.    

Related thoughts:

I have to mention this about WW3 and the terrorist threat: Islamic Terrorists might kill civilians and might cause many tragedies.  They might manage to take out a city, (I myself believe the best they will do is a subdivision).

There is no way they are going to destroy or take over the US.  Forget it.  There is no way they are going to do it. Even their own plans depend on there being one God who answers to the name of Allah. Without that, they are just anarchists.      

What's threatening the survival of the US most is  overreach.  As Napoleon, who should know, observed "All empires die of indigestion."  

This is why we better consider our benighted venture into pre-emptive war before we cause WW3, or cause our own collapse.

The typical Democrat where winning isn't a issue ..They don't keep score in sports so they are used to never winning..

If your into number the World Wars, I put this one at number 4. Number 3 was fought against the Soviet Union lasting 4 plus decades.

"Talk about pessimism"

I don't consider it pessimistic to recognize a reality and then work for strategic victory. You of course recognize a different reality and move towards defeat.

“Platitude: I have no dog in the fight. Trite shallow moralism there. You care more than me, then? Have a dog in the fight?”

Moralism? Indeed yes. Believing that you seem to have no “dog in the fight”, stems correctly from your own admission that you do not feel personally threatened by the situation. In your thinking that “at best a  subdivision might be lost”, you are admitting as much.

“…suggesting you think of it in reverse and see if your conclusion works. That didn't get the message to you.”

Nice try. I directly addressed your speculative question of “problem for the Republicans”. Total failure in Iraq is a total failure for the country INCLUDING Republicans, because the problem is not going to disappear

The premise of the question was that what if things start going better, not what if the General says they are going better but there is no proof  or statistics to back up his assertions. But declaring that success (or a trend toward success) in Iraq is in any WAY, SHAPE, or FORM a BIG PROBLEM for Democrats, simply based on the premise that the Commanding General MUST BE LYING, would be denying reality.  Denying reality by an amount surpassing an order of magnitude greater than what you presently accuse Republicans of doing. What you are saying is in effect, the Democrats are correct and no matter what the facts at a future date, they will ALWAYS be correct. Talk about stubborn.

Look around the World and see how many places our troops are still in place... Does Korea ring a bell?? Do you want me to post the list for you??

What does that have to do with this stupid shit we are involved in now in Iraq?

And how would it prevent terrorism?  Give this 5th way and what it's supposed to do to win a strategic victory over people who IED's.  How will it take the explosives away from them?  How will it stop them from flying planes into buildings or getting nuclear materials from a place like Kazakhstan?  

Until you tell me this 5th way, there's really no to believe that there is one.  Worse, I don't know what strategic problem your proposing to solve with it, other than get us back to where we were before we invaded Iraq.  Are you talking about anything else?  

I want to know what this "reality" you're recognizing is.  As far as I could tell, it's all based on what you need to believe to get out of bed in the morning. It is easier to get out of bed in the morning and face victory than defeat, but realism isn't even a question there.

Pessimism: you're not recognizing "reality" in saying that something is or is not a world war.  If you do, All your doing is clouding your thinking with docudrama.  I'll tell you this: the greatest powers in the world right now are not on a collision course.

Okay, so to be realistic by your estimates, I should imagine that terrorists are going to bring the US to the end and act (or overreact) accordingly-- even though there is no strategic way that they can do it.  I should act like they are a threat the size of the Soviet Union, even though the Soviet Union actually had nukes and ways of delivering them, had covert cells in every country, and had infinitely more conventional bombs than these terrorists will ever make.  Not to mention having many more assets.

I should also have a "dog in the fight" by exaggerating the threat to an unbelievable point.

On your last paragraph:

"But declaring that success (or a trend toward success) in Iraq is in any WAY, SHAPE, or FORM a BIG PROBLEM for Democrats, simply based on the premise that the Commanding General MUST BE LYING, would be denying reality."

That's a couple broken links of logic you've inserted there.  I'd fix them, but watching you in action, I know by now you'll follow up by inserting a few more.  I'm frustrated with this.

This is how you look to me right now:

As I noted, your insistence that there must be a victory in a huge strategic blunder is more about what makes you feel good than anything real.  You need a little more than faith in the unknown 5th way to make it more than self-medicating.  

What will make this war really tragic is I don't think we're getting out no matter what the Democrats say or what General Patraeus says. Why?  Because when it comes down to actual withdrawal of troops, democratic politicians really think the way you do about it. They'll keep the troops in there waiting for that 5th way.  

Why?  Because everybody has to get out of bed in the morning.  It's the main reason why this war was such a blunder.  Because if it definitely didn't work,  we'd let it destroy us before we'd stop it.  

     

We clearly have different definitions for World War. Maybe if we spelled mine as uncapitalized it would be more acceptable to you. While not engulfing all or a majority of world powers, the present struggle against Islamic terrorists does indeed involve a world wide effort. Organized, militant Islamic extremists operate in a semi coordinated effort in nearly every industrialized (western and large) country and certainly on every populated continent. I do not understand how the final result must be the possibility of the U.S coming to an end in order for the situation to meet your threshold of a world war.

Your statement “Until you tell me this 5th way, there's really no (way) to believe that there is one” goes to the heart of explaining (or at least recognizing) your defeatist attitude.

Your implication that unless our strategy in Iraq solves ALL the worlds’ threats from terrorism then the strategy is not worth pursuing is undignified. Unlike you, I don’t believe I have all the answers.  The 5th way is a metaphor for not giving up. If one believes that the cost of giving up far exceeds what is presently be done then one must continue to fight. The secondary decision is by what method to fight and the tertiary one is how long to wait for results.

While AlQaeda is only responsible for a minority of the quantity of violent actions, their attacks have certainly been among the most violent and most strategically placed to foment secular unrest. Get rid of or reduce AlQaeda and the secular problem will become much easier to manage. Also, as long as AlQaeda continues to recruit, expand, and plot anywhere in the world, then taking them out whenever and wherever possible is a positive thing.  And please don’t retort with the old “they wouldn’t be there if it weren’t for us.” While this statement is true, it avoids the reality that they will be wherever we are.

Your statement “I don't know what strategic problem your proposing to solve with it, other than get us back to where we were before we invaded Iraq.” demonstrates that you see no strategic problems that need to be solved and that returning to a dictatorship is either inevitable or “someone’s” goal. I do agree that the term “victory” was bandied about too much (even by me) and that acceptable outcomes should have been and still need to be openly discussed more. There are at least two goals worth pursuing: 1) Reduce or eliminate AlQaeda wherever possible. 2) Allow for some free form of Iraq government to take hold. Its own internal stability might take decades to be realized. It took the U.S how long? I personally think we should switch our efforts to concentrate at the grass roots and local communities first (and I’ve seen some evidence of this)

Do you have “Dog in the fight” or not? You can’t have it both ways. When I give examples of how it seems you don’t, you then say I am accusing you of not caring, thus you want me to believe that you do indeed do have (an appropriate) one.  Yet, you also say that you are not prepared to exaggerate the threat to an unbelievable point (in order to justify one).

You also, once again, resort to psychoanalyzing your detractor in order to, as best I can guess, gain some internalized advantage. Your psychobabble would be better left for self analysis. Your dismissive attitudes and expressions of boredom, frustrations or weariness are one thing but when you combine inside lengthy dissertations I consider them more a ploy or tactic than truthful expressions. Either converse or don’t, but do no bemoan your efforts while doing so.

We can sum up all this quite easily. I think there is a problem and you think there is not (well, none except for Bush).

Lincoln engaged in debates!  His view was unpopular, and so are mine!  

Just joking.  We all have our long-shots we bet on.

"I do not understand how the final result must be the possibility of the U.S coming to an end in order for the situation to meet your threshold of a world war."

It doesn't, other than an indication of a major, coordinated effort that sweeps the globe on a grand scale and causes major upheaval.  

You propose doing something that doesn't work till it works. On anything else, you would recognize it as stupid or insane.  Play chess using fool's mate eighty times in a row.  On the eighty-first, your opponent misses it and you win; so you call the strategy hopeful.  

About your first objective of getting rid of Al Qaida (I presume) through war in Iraq: the British couldn't get rid of the IRA who functioned fifty miles away on an island smaller than Ohio and with a third of the population.  That was with MI5 and Scotland Yard.  That was in an area under civil control, not a war zone.    

(Off topic but interesting: after functioning for decades, the IRA did not bring down the British government.  Also, arguably, the Irish Americans did for the IRA what what the Taliban did for al-Qaida.  Moreover, after years of not negotiating with terrorists, the British did, and everybody won.)  

Your right, Iraq isn't going to solve all our terrorist problems.  I'm not saying it isn't going to solve all of them: I'm saying it isn't going to solve ANY of them.  The problem was not that it didn't have all the answers: it didn't have ANY of them.

The biggest favor we could do for radical Islam is what the British did in Ulster-- only worse. For every person we kill, maim or torture in Iraq there's likely a few brothers, cousins or friends who becomes radical as a result.  We're giving the hydra more heads.  

You want victory?  The best way to stop terrorists is to arrest them and otherwise put a wedge between them and their supporters.  That is the strategy.  

Military action has a place in it, but not a major place.  Hearts and minds aren't won with a war.  They are won after a war.  Since we have committed ourselves to fighting in Iraq indefinitely, we are not going to win hearts and minds-- ever.

Allowing some free form of Iraqi government to take hold was another one of your named conditions for victory.  How strange.  This one of my conditions for victory in one scenario. So why do you consider mine defeatist?  I want to do the same things you say we should do.  

The one problem with getting a free form of government in Iraq for both our scenarios is this: it depends on what somebody else does, namely the Iraqis.

Meaning: it can't really be our strategic goal. (It's one thing if you have allies as in WW2, it's another thing when you're trying to create your ally from scratch).

Absent that, our real strategy is to "enable" them  to have a free form of government.  So, we could  reach our actual strategic goal incessantly, and still not succeed, which is what's happening.  

As much as we've fucked up, we're really not giving them any reason to like us or emulate our form of government.  That is a real barrier to the "enabling" process.
 
.............

I psychoanalyze my "detractor" because I don't believe he's talking sanely.  You might call your 5th way a "metaphor."  That's one word.  Another one that might fit is "delusion."  Your strategy is to look like a winner and wait for a miracle.  I might be sardonic to say your insane, but I'm not defeatist to say that your 5th way is hypothetical.  

There is a definite way to win in Iraq, and that is to go on a genocidal spree, and when it's all done, find some "agreeable" people to colonize it and take charge of it.  That's the form victory took in the good ol' days when generals were allowed to do their jobs.  

Now, that's the clearest victory, but it's one I would like to avoid.  

This isn't all or nothing or to the death, though.  We shouldn't be fighting as though it's to the death here.  No, this isn't a world war, here.  Call it what you want, but you can't support it.  

(I guess I don't have a dog in the fight, but I do have a boxer in the ring, and a bet to make.  You don't want to bring a dog to a boxing match or vice versa.)  

The Islamic Radicals are a small percentage of Moslems, spread through many different countries.  You can't call the radicals particularly organized either, unless you want to count all the factions, fractions and splinters as signs of healthy disagreement among colleagues.  

What went on in Afghanistan and what is happening in Iraq how divided the militants are.  If anything their lack of organization there should give us hope.  I would like to fight them, defeat them, vanquish them.  But guaranteed: this country is not going to collapse due to Radical Islam using terrorist strategy.  

....................

Okay, since you insist I'll take this apart:

"The premise of the question was that what if things start going better, not what if the General says they are going better but there is no proof  or statistics to back up his assertions."

The original interview questions did not address that distinction.  You drew that conclusion, how?  Straw man.

You follow with: "But declaring that success (or a trend toward success) in Iraq is in any WAY, SHAPE, or FORM a BIG PROBLEM for Democrats, simply based on the premise that the Commanding General MUST BE LYING, would be denying reality."

The question that Clyburn answered was not whether success in Iraq is a big problem for the Democrats. (In fact, he said just the opposite a few sentences later. He said democrats would welcome that.)  It was what would happen if Patraeus gave a sparkling assessment about progress in Iraq.

You set up a false dilemma: either a) Patraeus will accurately  report the situation in Iraq, or b) he will lie.   One can be inaccurate and not lie.  One can be accurate on facts, draw the wrong conclusions, being truthful, and incorrect.  

You then use this false dilemma to set up a straw man fallacy again.  

". . . simply based on the premise that the Commanding General MUST BE LYING  . . ."

Are you saying that I'm saying this, or that Clyburn is saying this, or that Clyburn must be saying this because I am saying this, or that my one hypothesis must be wrong because it is based on this . . . WTF DO YOU MEAN?  

". . . would be denying reality."  

What is denying reality?  "Is declaring success" denying reality?  Is "having a big problem for democrats" denying reality?  Is the premise that  the general is lying denying reality?  Are you saying Clyburn is denying reality?  That I'm denying reality?

Am I supposed to answer all these possible meanings?  

I tried to avoid sounding like your school-teacher, here.  I'm sorry you found the alternative offensive, but I'd rather just declare frustration, weariness and boredom than try to correct your mangled syntax.    

I thought it was enough to simply show you that sentence again.  It didn't work.      

You chastise me at quite some length for my strategy, but in your title you correctly recognize that indeed I DIDN’T PUT ONE FORWARD. My point was that we have tried Bush and Rumsfeld’s First way. Now we are into a modification of that under Bush, Gates and Patraeus’s Second way. You then put forward your two alternatives, the Third and Fourth ways via various levels of what I term defeat. I merely stated that we cannot afford defeat as you defined it and, should it come to it, we need a Fifth way. I am not a military nor a political strategist, so I haven’t actually developed one, GEE. You recognized that fact, but still tried to rip me on it *sigh*. Whatever the fifth way is, if it fails then I think we need a 6th, 7th, then an 8th way.  As long as your asking, the long-term strategy I personally like is Gingrich with a little Biden thrown in.

I inferred my “full” meaning of the “big problem” question and answer, from body language and particularly tone of voice, and I think many reasonable people would agree, but I can understand how you might not.

Another minor point. I never meant to imply that we could possibly eliminate ALL of AlQaeda by fighting them in Iraq. Yours is a common false argument put forward relating to “We wouldn’t be fighting AlQaeda in Iraq if we weren’t there in the first place.  The situation is analogous to the possibility that, what if a battalion of Germans wound up in the South Pacific in 1943? We are in Iraq, they show up, what are you gonna do?

Your IRA - AlQaeda analogy is interesting, but there are enough significant differences that it’s usefulness is questionable. I’d be very interested in seeing any study you know of that revealed the Iraqi citizen makeup in the population of AlQeada in Iraq, compared to non-Iraqi’s.

Our struggle against terrorism is one that as you say…”We shouldn't be fighting as though it's to the death here”.

It’s that kind of thinking that I cannot fathom.

Although I am heartened to hear words such as…”I would like to fight them, defeat them, vanquish them.”

You say…“This country is not going to collapse due to Radical Islam using terrorist strategy.”

September 11th sent the economy and stock market into a tailspin costing TRILLIONS and almost bankrupted the travel and air transportation industry.  The next attack with one or two orders of magnitude greater impact will have what kind of  “affordable” impact?

You understood the gist of my ideas, but you chose to tear apart sentence structure rather than focus on simple things. I suppose I should expect it more than others do, as I have always been a stickler that words have meaning and many times have pointed out the misuse of an important or key word. You writings sometimes aren’t perfectly readable either, with dropped or misplaced words. And you do have a tendency to “talk down to people”.

We have a deep fundamental disagreement, we should leave it at that. No one listens to us anyway.


-- Modified on 8/5/2007 11:13:21 AM

Mainly, we weren't ready for an attack, and citizens hardly knew they had an enemy.  

1) Passengers were passive against the hijackers-- even though the hijackers were lightly armed and could have been taken easily.  Passengers had long been advised to be passive, as we weren't ready for suicide attacks.  The one time passengers did fight, they stopped the attack.  Unfortunate, for them, they fought the hijackers too late.  

2) Our government fucked up, because it didn't take the possibility of a domestic attack seriously either.  

The advantage of total surprise: this is the only way the terrorist succeeded as much as they did.  

The depression afterward was from one thing only: shock.  Shock that we had allowed it, and shock at the scale of the success.  Then we had a loss of confidence.  It wasn't going to bring down the government.

On your last paragraph: you complain first that when I express frustration at you indiscernible writing and thinking. So, then I take the key paragraph apart, showing syntax and logic errors, you now complain that I've chosen to analyze your sentence structure.  Exactly what I thought you would do.  

Look, I'm not responsible for making your arguments for you, nor in trying to find the best    you could be saying in a bad sentence upon which the meaning of your entire post depends.  If the meaning is missed, clarify.  

I make errors in editing, and reading due to tiredness and fatigue.  I either post first thing in the morning (afternoon, when I really get up) or last thing at night, usually interrupted several times.  I don't find this tiny box to write in at far below eye level to be conducive to good writing either.  Who would put a book in this position with columns this small to read it?  I need to practice a better way to compose.  

Talking down to people: a more serious problem.  I've been trying to change that tone.  It's from  being prepared for verbal duel more than expressing clear ideas.    

-- Modified on 8/5/2007 1:19:37 PM

have to do with where our discussion is at? The next one certainly will be something else and probably even unexpected albeit not surprising. Even if the death toll is the same, the economic impact will be high, maybe as high as last time. But if the body count is 2, 3  or even 4 orders of magnitude higher, the economic impact could be huge, 3,000,000 times huge.

You put the toppling of our government at the apex of negative outcomes from war. I'm not even sure I know what you mean by that. Do you mean surrender of the U.S.? Destruction or interruption of vital infrastructure, utilities and financial will be more devestating than the interruption of government services.

-- Modified on 8/5/2007 8:38:05 PM

. . . no doubt, but I felt I had to debunk some of the myth and rhetoric we've been fed.  Considering that these terrorists have been presented as the worst threat to our existence, our way of life, that this is ww3 or ww4.  No, it's not worse than a nuclear armed, covertly enabled Soviet Union. It's not worse than WW2, or the Great Depression.  I had to debunk that rhetoric first.  

For a body count 2-4 times as high, I'll point out we're working hard on that with the Iraqi war.  If you think the economic impact will be 3mil higher, you've hit upon another reason we should rethink Iraq.  We're really saving the terrorists a lot of work.

You brought up the consequences of 9/11, and so I had to say the main cause was negligence. We were asleep with our balls hanging out. The government and the public.  If radicals didn't strike us bad they would have felt like dumb shits to do anything less.  It's the main reason why I wish Bush were out of office.  Criminal negligence is a high crime.  

It was so dumb, what it really cost us was to our confidence-- that was the economic depression.  If it were in any way possible to bring our country to its knees through terrorism, Russia should be ashes right now due to Chechnya.  Don't even mention Israel...

Really, the only thing Islamic Terrorists have going for them that our previous enemies haven't is a death wish.  We hadn't encountered spectacular suicide bombing, with the exception of the kamikazes, which were an isolated example.  

As with the Japanese, that could be used against them.    

-- Modified on 8/6/2007 12:26:38 AM

I said 2 to 3 to 4 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE.

That means 10 to 100 to 1000 times 3,000.

It's entirely feasible that a small nuke could generate in excess of a few million deaths.
I still say the economic impact would be huge.

I don't by any means want to sound callous or uncaring, but 4500 U.S. military deaths is quite small (tactically or strategically), especially over 5 years. The number wounded though has indeed affected our readiness, given the present relatively small size of the Army and Marines.

-- Modified on 8/6/2007 10:29:38 AM