Iran Supporting Taliban War Effort

I suppose someone should start archiving these stories. If we ever do need to confront Iran with force, the liberal Dems will be insisting they didn't support terrorists.

NATO officials say they have caught Iran red-handed, shipping heavy arms, C4 explosives and advanced roadside bombs to the Taliban for use against NATO forces, in what the officials say is a dramatic escalation of Iran's proxy war against the United States and Great Britain.

Oh wait, I forgot ... the Taliban kill American troops. That doesn't make them enemies, let alone terrorists to liberals, that makes them freedom fighters. My bad.

Comments

[Phoenix]

Time for a shot across Iran's bow. I'm sure we know where their weapons factories are. Let's blow 'em up.

Since their weapons are being used against NATO forces it ought to be okay. I mean, I know we couldn't just blow up a munitions factory that was only used to kill Americans.

[Purple Avenger]

They make kites out of C4 these days?

[Scrapiron]

If the democrat party supports the terrorists 100% why worry about Iran supporting them. The democrats have already killed more American soldiers than Iran ever will.

[mkultra]

"Oh wait, I forgot ... the Taliban kill American troops. That doesn't make them enemies, let alone terrorists to liberals, that makes them freedom fighters. My bad."

Oh wait - if we weren't sacrificing American lives in Iraq for an Iraqi government in bed with Iran we might actually have enough forces in Afghanistan to eliminate the Taliban.

But wingnuts and their boy Bush heart Iran and want Americans to die in Iraq for the Iranian puppet Maliki.

Surge on!

[moldy]

Why did the US invade Iraq?

[seekeronos]

Short answer: It's about access to the oil and keeping our footprint on the Middle East.

Somewhat Longer answer: to secure Western (and particularly American) access to Iraq's oil, and to provide a forward point to stabilize regional allies (such as they are "allies") and provide ourselves a beachhead/forward base of operations for projecting massive amounts of force to the region... although I suspect Lame Chicken Bush probably won't use this to check the growing threat from Iran (much closer to being an enemy in the form and power of WW2 Germany and Japan that Iraq ever was).

Destabilizng and impairing our foes, particular AQ's ability to freely operate in the region, is also a necessary objective in our invasion. The bluster on WMDs (which may yet turn up, based on info sourced by an AFOSI agent's findings which Dan recently posted about) and the other more spurious links between Saddam, 9-11, and AQ were not particularly useful in playing upon the public's emotions in the run-up to the Iraqi invasion; however, the public might not otherwise have been motivated to support military action solely on the practical basis of (a) securing oil access, and (b) more importantly, denying that control of that access to our competitors (namely, Russia and China), much less (c) attempting to hew out a base of operations in the Middle East, to basically contain Iran, and project power against Syria, and (d) cooperate with mutual US/Isaeli objectives.

Given the Bush dynasty's globalist tendencies, along with the prevailing globalist view of the elites that put him into power, opening up this front has little to do with containing Islam, which may prove to be a useful beast against the rising powers of Russia and China, as well as a check against combined European (that is, EU) ambitions.

The trouble is... if you try to ride a vicious beast even for a short season, there is a great danger that it might render you into shreds at the earliest opportunity it has.

[Charles B]

Remind me, now: was it Reagan or Bush who funded the living God outta the Taliban?

[nowingker]

Why would we need to invade Iraq to get access to their oil? The only reason Iraq didn't sell their oil to us is because we refused to buy it and supported sanctions, same reason we don't have access to Iranian oil, because we choose not to buy it in protest of the regimes.

We already have full access to Saudi oil, Kuwait oil and UAE oil.

This is another in a long line of obviously false excuses and reasoning for why we invaded Iraq.

As far as a 'beachhead' in the ME for deployment of large scale infantry, I doubt it. The Iraqi parliament already voted for a US withdrawl.

As far as 'containing' Iran, I would think putting the Shia militias in charge of Iraq has emboldened Iran and made them more powerful than they were before.

I see the surge is working so well that Petreus has now said it hasn't even begun, that 2/3 of Baghdad isn't secured and the Turkish army feels free to cross the border to kill some Kurds...I am surprised the wingers aren't demanding we bomb Turkey, since you are always saying that these small scale incursions are 'acts of war' that demand full retaliation.

The final accounting of the Iraq war is going to make Vietnam look like a huge victory.

[Robert]

Nice job on that Iraq War.
How's that working out for you?

[templar knight]

mkultra, you lying POS, you are the Taliban.

[Phoenix]

Seek,

Agreed on all points except for the oil. I believe our first cause was to secure a base in the ME because we're going to have to be there when Israel preempts Iran's attempt at wiping them off the map. What good is having the closest U.S. base in Germany when things go haywire in the Middle East? The neo-cons had it right. How short-sighted some people are. Those who cannot think in terms of preventive strategy are fools.

[Blackshire]

Please tell me why Iranian/Persian Shia government would be supporting the Sunni based Taliban? Has it occurred to you that maybe there are Sunnis in Iran who are supporting the Taliban and Iragi insurgency without the support of the Iranian government? You war mongers always give me a laugh.

[rene manglemerd]

Using "my bad" to show faux contriteness is so thinking inside the box. Disqualified. May I suggest Mr. Wayne's Wig World

[seekeronos]

Nowinger, check my reply to you in that other thread. :)

Although you are right in stating that we did not buy Iranian oil and earlier, Iraqi oil for political reasons, please re-read where I said that _denying_ the control of access to Iraqi oil to Red China and Russia was a criteria as well as simply controlling it ourselves. Therefore, Iraq remains open for further use by the US.

What the puppet Iraqi parliament says is of little concern, or it at least, it shouldn't be. That parliament should exist only at the pleasure of the US occupation authority, and serve as a tool for our power in the region. It should be really only a paper body, scarcely more than a farce as a legislative body; as it is, being packed with more Badr and Sadr Shi'ites than a mosque in Qom on a Friday, it should be dissolved, or at the very least, the more troublesome members silenced.

While you are right in stating that Iran is emboldened by the hare-brained decision to set up the Shi'ites as the rulers (which may have seemed sensible if only because at the time, the majority population of Iraq are Shi'ite Arabs, and the Sunnis had been largely Baathists under Saddam) - this only serves to show that they are unfit for democratic rule until the source of the sectarian and tribal agitation is removed: flatten all of the mosques, outlaw Islam, and start a massive campaign to bring preachers and missionaries to Iraq to win them to Christ. Bottom line though, is that de-islamification should have been the top priority prior to ramrodding those "elections" through.

So sorry for Mr. Bush, but some people are clearly unable to handle "democracy"... which goes a long way toward proving that a representative republic is best kept in the hands of capable leaders until the wider population can be properly inculcated in the values of free government. Even the Russkies are having a time of getting it right, as they slowly slip back into totalitarianism under Putin.

As for Turkey, no bombing is needed. Simply remind them that their imprudent activities may jeopardize thier entry into the EU, as many EU nations are already growing in opposition to Turkish entry on account of thier tenuous grasp on "democracy", shepherded by a military clique.

As for 2/3 of Baghdad still under anarchy... well... if we weren't restrained by legions of lawyers and other PC garbage that ties the hands of our troops, we could have already executed a wide sweeping program to kill or capture insurgents and enemy non-uniformed combatants (who, btw... are not protected by Geneva or any other treaties regarding the handling of POWs/EPWs).

[Jeff]

Please don't kid yourselves on the oil issue. We did go there for the oil. Remember Cheney's energy policy meetings that he faught tooth and nail to keep private? From the public documents already forced to be released, we know that he met with the major oil company executives and discussed Iraq as a primary source of new reserves for those companies. They have only 10 years of reserves currently and need more, all other known reserves are in other hands, except Iraq. Just because you wish that your gov't wouldn't send troops to die for the profits of private corporations, doesn't make it true. Just open your eyes and look at the facts.

[seekeronos]

For Blackshire:

"Please tell me why Iranian/Persian Shia government would be supporting the Sunni based Taliban?"

Because Iran would rather see the USA fail in Afghanistan, even if it results in the restoration of the Taliban. Keeping the Taliban in check (or at least, dissuaded from crossing the border en masse in war) is a lot less problematic then having a massive war with the USA.

I'm quite certain that we would recognize that Iran is a far more deadly adversary than Iraq was, and would like revert to total war tactics vis-a-vis WW2 to bring that regime down, if escalate to NBC warfare. It is also why (to our own embarrassment) the Iranians are working overtime to destabilize occupied Iraq.

"Has it occurred to you that maybe there are Sunnis in Iran who are supporting the Taliban and Iragi insurgency without the support of the Iranian government?"

Yup.

[seekeronos]

"Just because you wish that your gov't wouldn't send troops to die for the profits of private corporations, doesn't make it true. Just open your eyes and look at the facts."

I readily acknowledge this. The world moves based upon greed and pursuit of profit. However, there is also the strategic point of _denying_ access to the oil to our competitors (Red China and Russia, to name two).

This may have disastrous consequences down the road, especially if China grows desparate enough to send its 200,000,000 man army accross the Euphrates to get thier piece of the pie, which would be an interesting fulfilment of Bible prophecy.

[nowingker]

Sorry, if we want to contain Chinese influence it would be a LOT better to start by not ceding our entire manufacturing capacity to them, and starting now on an insane desire to cede our agricultural capacity to them as well. Then theres that whole issue of China holding so much US debt. We have fucking sold our country to the Chinese already and they already have many agreements with Iran, as do the Russians. Your theory just doesn't hold up. It is another vain attempt to put some sense in the idea of our Iraq invasion, there just isn't any. It was a bad idea, poorly executed, never had any chance of succeeding.

As a devout Christian, Seek, you should be preaching turn the other cheek and love your enemy, not enabling our troops to kill more innocent civilians, no? Just sayin.

We cannot secure Baghdad because it is for the most part controlled by Sadr's army and he is pulling the strings of Maliki whether you like it or not. We do not want to put down the Shia militias or arrest the gov. ministers who back them through siphoning off our money to give to them. Doing that would expose the Iraqi government for the complete venal sham it is. That would mean zero progress, we wouldn't even be able to point to the 'elections' and the 'government. It isn't civilian rules of warfare that holds us back but politics.

If we were going to replace Saddam with another Saddam then, again, we should have just burried the hatchet with him, he was our friend once, remember? Rather than spend BILLIONS of taxpayer money and killing thousands of people to put Iraq back exactly the way it was before.

[nowingker]

PS,

Turkey just declared a 'security zone' around the Iraq border. What a fuckinkg embarassment, not only can we not contain the insurgency or the militias, our sickening failures in Iraq have emboldened the Turks to mass troops on the border.

I defy anyone to tell me that the Iraq war hasn't make the US military look completely incompetant, like a bunch of rich kids dropped in the desert with their game boys but no actual survival skills.

Oh yeah, North Korea set off some bombs as well.

Truly, only a complete moron could believe that George Bush has made this country safer. We are being assaulted from all fronts becuase he has made this country a laughingstock.

[Robert]

You got it nowingker.

Going into Iraq made us show the world how strong we are.
Did I write "strong"?
I meant "stupid".

[nowingker]

FYI,

We did not invade Iraq for oil, billions in profits for Halliburtant was a bonus.

We invaded Iraq because the neocons rightly surmised that an American friendly, secular democracy in the ME would be a good counterpoint to Iran and our use of force would send the message to the rest of the ME and world that we would back up our rhetoric with force. There was no other ME state we could try our experiment on since the rest of them are our 'allies' and we couldn't take over Lebanon since there really is a strong terrorist group alredy there, that left Iraq--weak, broke, humiliated, with a hated despot at the helm.

We failed in Iraq because wanting and doing are two different things and the architects of the war were so caught up in the post war democratic flowering they anticipated they forgot to do their homework on whether Iraq could be turned into a western style democracy within less than several decades.

The classic cart before the horse, the beautiful end game they envisioned was NEVER achievable. That is why we have failed, are failing and will continue to fail.

[nowingker]

One more thing...

If you wingers remember, the great success with which we dispatched Iraq and set up a democracy was going to be followed on by military action against Syria and Iran if they didn't agree to all of our demands. If, as you witless wonders think, the entire premise was to station several hundred thousand troops in Iraq for the near term, we would never have been able to contemplate invading Syria or Iran, and there are a gazillion old neocon articles and op eds that show explicitely this is exactly what the plan was. After Iraq, Syria and Iran, anything but full capitulation to US demands would be met with another invasion and regime change.

But, rather than browbeating the world with shows of our stunning military supremacy, we showed instead our limits. The sole remaining super power who can't subdue a bunch of illiterate goat herders making home made bombs after four years isn't that scary to anyone willing to wage a guerilla campaign. We now look like a paper tiger, that is why everyone and their sister is emboldened, the Russians, Iranians, North Koreans and now freaking Turkey getting into the act.

As many said from the get go, Bush has achieved the exact opposite of everything he set out to do.

[jay k.]

this post is just blatant strawman bs. in addition to being based on fiction, it ignores two facts...if we hadn't left the job 1/4 done in afghanistan there would be no resurging taliban there for iran to support...and if we weren't so up to our asses in the mess in iraq we would have the power to respond to iran in some meaningful way. the policys that websites like this support are f'ed...they have left us with no good options and absolutely no flexibility. i think it's great for y'all to thump your chests and rant about shots across irans bow...but it ignores reality...and ignoring reality is what got us to the f'ed up place we are today. so maybe all of you who have been wrong all the f'ing while ought to stop and think about how much more you want this whole thing to get f'ed up.

[nowingker]

They will never admit it. They confuse stubborness with courage.

They are just like Hitler in his bunker, he didn't care that the Russians were closing in on Berlin and that every day he refused to surrender he condemned more german civilians to death, more german soldiers to death, more germans to live under the Russians, Hitler did not give a s**t.

He wasn't going to surrender and that was that.

It is exactly the same mentality that we see in wingerland about Iraq. They don't care how many soldiers die, how many Iraqis die, they do not care what the cost is, since its all an abstraction to them anyway, all they care about is never admitting defeat.

[ME]

"NATO officials say they have caught Iran red-handed"

Evidence please....

excuse me for not instantly believing this, but there's no evidence here to distinguish this announcement from a psy-ops operation. I'm not saying I don't think it's true (I have no evidence that it isn't), just that I won't accept it as truth without more information.

It's called healthy skepticism, and you on the right would be well served to apply it to more than just Democrats.

[Phoenix]

Nowinger,

If we didn't care how many Iraqis die, we wouldn't still be there fighting with our hands tied because we can't tell an insurgent from a regular Iraqi. There was no better country to attempt to turn to a democracy that we could use for a base than Iraq. It's in a perfect location. Lebanon and its merry band of twits? We could have wiped them out in a day if we'd wanted that country.

Anyway, I still do not agree Iraq is all about oil. China has secured the sixth largest oil reserves in the world in Nigeria. Russia gets Iran's oil. The deal was to use Iraq's oil to provide revenue for the 'new democracy'. If we got some at decent price - good. They owe us. The attempt in Iraq is still about geopolitics and this 'greed' stuff - what the hell is that all about. I think in the past three years I have read a hundred articles on Iraq - from liberal think tanks to conservative and libertarian think tanks. Not *once* have I heard even the most negative, anti-Bush rhetoric mention the words 'greed' or oil for our gain. Oil is the foundation upon which Iraq will stabilize - if it stabilizes its stupid 'government' first. The country has fabulous resources but the tribal mentality usurps all attempts to secure a fair government. What a stupid waste - for them. A waste for us, too, should we fail. I still maintain the intent was brilliant. A thriving democracy in the ME? Nothing the surrounding countries would fear worse.

[seekeronos]

For Nowinger:

The oils is a reason - not the only reason, but an important one. And yes, Halliburton and other members of the MIC (military-industrial complex) cashed in big on it, purely by being in the right place at the right time.

I will agree with you that we have erred most grievously in loosing our manufacturing base to China, as well as our agricultural edge. I think that as oil sources begin to dry up, we may see a reversal of this ugly trend towards globalization to spite the noses on our faces, as we are forced to source and produce things locally, and reduce the horrendous amount of fuel used in shipping things back and forth to Pacific Esat Asia.

The NeoCon supposition is patently wrong both in theory and in practice; we are seeing the fruits of this perverse logic that we could impose a fully ripe, American-style representative democracy on a barbaric, backward, and tribalistic "nation". The NeoCons seem to like comparing the implantation of "democracy" onto Iraq with the Occupation of Japan.

So, let us follow that train of thought, and contrast post-war Japan under MacArthur's SCAP: Japan was a nation that took a generation and a half to recover from the nationalistic/militaristic excesses of the 1930s and 40s. This time was considerably reduced, as the majority of the most ultra-aggressive nationalists had been killed, softened, or humbled by Japan's utter surrender and subsequent concession of sovereignty - she was quite defeated, physically as well as on the national level of her spirit.

Here was a nation that had already had a form of representative democracy, quite similar to the UK, with some vaguely american features. It needed some severe tweaking, as it had only taken a generation between the Taisho and first two decades of the Showa eras for a cult of militarists and fanatical Shintoists to supplant the genro of the very late Meiji era (late 1890s - early 1910s) which had had a vision for an advanced, industrialized Japan modeled on the West. Part of this was an outgrowth of the alliance of the Satsuma-Choshu feudal houses which sought to cement thier place in the new Meiji government, by transforming Shinto from a rural shamanist religion into a state religion with a heirarchy of priests and prelates headed up by a divine emperor. Remarkably, this was a very strong echo of the Roman Papacy, re-written for the native folk religion of the Japanese.

The difference between Japanese State Shinto and Islam is a matter of about 1300 years. (Technically, Shinto, and the traditions surrounding the "divine" ancestry of the imperial Household span some 2700 years, but up until the Meiji era, it was very disconnected, with the neighborhood or village shrines being the major point of focus, and far removed from everyday life outside of the observance of seasonal fertility and harvest festivals).

State Shinto on the other hand, was created by the efforts of the Meiji reformers to help unite the many and disparate feudal domains under the Imperial banner, over a span of about 40 years. In the process, not only did it nearly snuff out Christianity, but also sought to remove Buddhism from its role as the primary faith of the Japanese, and reduce Confucianism as a "vehicle of Chinese thought", except where its principles of ancestral piety could bent to serve the State. And the Emperor? At best, he simply moved from the Gilded Cage of the Shogunate ... to another one held by the Meiji Isshin (the Satsuma-Choshu folks who were running things after 1868).

So then: 40 years of State Shinto, or 1300 years of Islam, whiuch do you think would be easier to roll back and replace with ideas conducive to the cherishing of individual freedoms, and the careful and conscientous balancing of the rights of the and the responsibilities of the state?

Even more challenging: The Japanese are a very homogenous people, with a strong monoculture. Iraqis are a blend of Sunnis and Shi'ites and Kurds, Arabs, and ethnic Persians, Assyrians and other various sects and tribes. All with consdierably differing values and traditions, hates and frictions.

Therefore, I contend that Iraq, and along with it, the rest of the M.E. will take several generations of slowly applied political and direct intervention, as well as the destruction of State-driven Islam before it can truly take to anything close to a mature representative republic.

--------------------------------------------------------

Touching on red China (PRC) :

The debt thing with the PRC holding a lot of our treasury bills and currency is another time-bomb, although if things really collapsed, (say, the PRC dumping all of its dollars and T-bills) it would reverberate around the world. In the end, the PRC would not be too likely to invest the time and effort required in forcibly collecting on its debt (siezure of American lands, etc).

However, by denying control of access to a major oil stock (even if these wells are not producing, this is of strategic importance: _we_ control that oil source, not the PRC), we have a form of leverage over China, to help them refrain from anything foolish (like dumping our debt).

--------------------------------------------------------

Touching on Nowinger's assessment of our military capability:

"I defy anyone to tell me that the Iraq war hasn't make the US military look completely incompetant, like a bunch of rich kids dropped in the desert with their game boys but no actual survival skills."

Not hardly. In fact, a very large portion of our military is represented by minorities and lower income to lower-middle income, and in quite a way out of proportion to race and socio-economic demographics.

As for thier combat skill, I'd say that in terms of matching another conventional army, we will do extremely well. We rolled back the regular Iraqi army in a very short time. What we _are_ ill-suited for, however, is a long term occupation of hostile territory. we lack that experience as an occupying colonial power as well as the will to be utterly ruthless in exterminating local resistance - which I'll admit, is probably a very good quality, if not impractical for subjugating a hostile foreign land... yet still very much needed.

--------------------------------------------------------

"But, rather than browbeating the world with shows of our stunning military supremacy, we showed instead our limits. The sole remaining super power who can't subdue a bunch of illiterate goat herders making home made bombs after four years isn't that scary to anyone willing to wage a guerilla campaign. We now look like a paper tiger, that is why everyone and their sister is emboldened"

I do not think this is (yet) the case. As I said, we are wonderfully adept at fighting a conventional foe. At fighting a geurilla war, we leave a lot to be desire, when hampered by the standard Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC). We are trying to place nice (Geneva Convention, other treaties and declarations asserting recognition of certain human rights and protected statuses for capture enemy combatants) with an enemy that scoffs at any notion of "human rights" or the like. We are talking about a highly assymetrical and irregular armed force that has no problem sustaining or inflicting massive civillian casualties, as well as suicidally sneding its lower ranks to die or suicide against American forces.

In order for us to defeat this kind of enemy, we must go in with an equally determined mindset to root them out and destroy them, and yes, even accept that civilians and innocents will be caught in the crossfire.

Could there have been a better way to have done this (leaving Saddam in place)...? I am not sure that diplomacy would have worked. Eventually, Saddam would have to be replaced.

I _do_ think that Bush bit off more than he could chew. Saddam could have waited until a future (GOP) administration, and we should have focused on consolidating Afghanistan and reigned in Pakistan by extension.

There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam was working on WMDs and sequestering fissile materials, but given the non-existence of an air force or access to delivery vehicles, they would not have represented a threat. At the most, we could have bargained with him in no uncertain terms that we will occupy - but offer to leave him nominally in power - if he co-operated with us.

The main bonus to having Saddam in power would have been that he was uncontested vs. rival factions: AQ would have little foothold due to its connection to Saudi interests and funding, the Shia would have remained oppressed. I think that if anything, a limited invasion from the north into Iraqi Kurdistan, liberating it, and perhaps some of the key oil fields (who would have been more than helpful) and parking about 120,000 troops there would have put a knife to Saddam's throat, while leaving him in power, and as a check against the Shi'ites and AQ.

--------------------------------------------------------

Answering the Christian ethic approach to this war:

There is nothing wrong with fighting a war to defend your nation from aggression. I've wrestled with this somewhat, and I find comfort in the example of Nehemiah and Ezra who fought to preserve Israel from foreign aggression.

Now before you gasp in incredulous disbelief, I'll further qualify this by saying that by our waging a preventative war in the M.E., we are preventing the Islamists from strike a far worse blow here inside the USA than if we simply remained idle.

As a Christian, I see no error in killing someone who is threatening my family with physical and life-threatening violence. For me personally, go on and punch my ticket.... I'll be going home to be with Jesus. But I've also got a godly duty as a father and a husband to protect my family, and I've also got a duty to serve in defense of my nation, if so called again, and which I have already done in the first round of this war some 15 years ago.

Does that truly justify foreign deployments abroad? I struggle with it nonetheless, and I'll be the first to disagree with torture and say that the way Abu Gharaib played out was humiliating and degrading above and beyond what was needed to manage those prisoners. Gitmo? I cannot ascertain that torture took place. Waterboarding? Inconvenience and discomfort and stress? I'd much rather had sent Baptist missionaries to preach to them from an Arabic translation of the Bible, and shown them a truly Godly example of what Christ can do in the lives of men.

Certainly, we have done our share of bad things. But our conduct thus far is exemplary; we haven't skinned anyone alive, nor serially raped them, nor chainsawed thier heads from thier bodies and put the videos on Youtube, nor burned themn alive in a stack of tires, nor have we hung them from an overpass or a construction crane, nor have we buried them up to thier necks in hard-packed dirts and released stinging insects upon them, much less stoned them - and we certainly haven't bayoneted any babies in this war.

Yet, war is war, and if God has used ungodly men (and He has) to fight wars on behalf of the elect, then thus be the will of the Lord be done.

Of course, I also believe (as I have mentioned above) that there are better ways and strategies that we could have used to achieve our goals... unfortunately, 20/20 hindsight is hardly ever as effective as a prudent foresight is.

[nowingker]

No, you are wrong.

Killing civilians inflames the populace against us, making it harder to fight the actual insurgents. For the millionth time, unless you are willing to kill EVERYONE, then your ideas of loosening the rules of engagement will hurt the effort in the long run.

When people see their brothers, sons and fathers being killed and they know they are NOT insurgents, then America is going to be viewed even more negatively.

This is why you don't get involved in a-symetrical warfare unless you have to. It is impossible to win without the population on your side and the more innocent people who get hurt at your hands the less the population supports you, its the law of diminishing returns.

You WANT to believe if we loosened the rules of engagement we would 'win' but you are wrong again.

Dude, if we can't subdue the goatherders in Iraq who had no outside help or money you are INSANE to think we could have more easily subdued Hezbollah, which actually is an army not wearing uniforms and does have real actual training and access to military grade weapons. Wipe them out in a day? Tell it to the Israelis, they got fought to a standstill. Again, this is wishful thinking. Nobody is going to mop the floor with Hezbollah unless they kill all the civilians in Southern Lebanon as well.

Again, you confuse what 'could' be with what is achievable. Sure, a thriving democracy would have been BRILLIANT. It would be brilliant if I won the lottery, and the odds of me winning are about the same as the odds of the neocons plan for Iraq succeeding.

I don't know why this equation is so hard for wingers to understand. When an insurgency has the support of the population it is virtually impossible to defeat militarily unless you also kill the entire civilian population. Genocide is out of fashion these days so NOBODY, not Israel, not the US is going to wipe out several million people in order to declare a military victory over a few thousands actual insurgents. The desire you all have for this to occur is pretty sickening in and of itself.

[nowingker]

Seek,

Your rationalization about war is total crap and you know it, Jesus Christ was a pacificist, you have to reach all the way back to the Old Testament to get any kind of support for waging war. Jesus Christ, your personal savior, counseled nothing but non violent resistance, even telling the slaves to stay put rather than revolt.

Hungering for the ability to kill more civilians in order to 'win' a military victory is decidely unchristian any way you look at honestly. Turn the other cheek, return hate with love, the golden rule, the meek shall inherit the earth.

You ignore it because you, like most "christians" don't know jack about Jesus Christ's actual message, you ignore the central themes because they don't fit your conservative, capitalistic, moralistic, judgemental and violent view of the world.

[charles]

holy crap nowinger, i can't believe the bs you swallow

just for example:"insane desire to cede our agricultural capacity to them (china)as well"

you prove yourself so woefully uninformed you should be embarrassed, what a load of crap you swallow and regurgitate

and before you even ask why i don't bother with any other of your huge load of drivel today;

a) it's a waste of time
b) just pointing out that one statement is enough

[nowingker]

PS, Seek,

I didn't answer you on the other thread since you are obviously totally blinded by your faith and arrogance.

How in the hell do you know whether it was gods will working at the Council of Nicea or not? How do you know the discovery of the gnostic gospels wasn't god's will, finally bringing forth the true message at a time when it would be impossible for the church to destroy it? How do you know 'god' wasn't working through Dan Brown when he wrote the Da Vinci code? How can you possibly be so totally sure that the gospels included in the bible and related cannon are the only 'true' representations of Jesus Christ and his message? Was it god's will when the church condoned torture of heretics for the good of their souls? God's will when Catholics and Protestant's killed each other all over Europe?

Blind faith and arrogance lacking all reason. NO ONE knows god's will or even if god as we understand it exists at all, to trumpet any belief with absolute certaintly is nothing more than human pride and arrogance at its worst.

[nowingker]

You are full of shit Charles and always will be.

Yes or no, does the Bush Administration want to import packaged chicken from China?

Yes or no, did tainted poisons products that were imported from China enter the food supply?

[charles]

you are such a moron wanker

is chicken agriculture dolt?

[nowingker]

Yes, dumbfuck. Who regulates chicken and cattle in the US, is that the US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, OR NOT?

What is wheat gluten, is that an agricultural product or not?

And you call me a moron, okay.

[charles]

How do you know 'god' wasn't working through Dan Brown when he wrote the Da Vinci code?

hoo hoo heee hawhawhaw bwaha moron

[charles]

you are so damn stupid it's almost entertaining

thanks for the laugh

[nowingker]

All you ever do Charles is call other people morons and then say you are too smart to refute what they post. Newsflash: that strategy stopped working for you wingers quite some time ago.

[rwilymz]

"Killing civilians inflames the populace against us"

Unless it doesn't.

The civilian death, not to mention civilian death *rate*, is a tenny, tiny, microscopic fraction of what it was in, say, WWII.

What matters is the manner in which it occurs.

"For the millionth time..."

You can go to a hundred million, and if you say something that is incorrect the only thing it will mean is that you've got a massive string of being wrong on your record.

"...then America is going to be viewed even more negatively"

And that will mean what? International boo-babies might be so ticked they would attack our civilians and thrown them off cruise ships maybe? Behead them for being there? BTDT.

"This is why you don't get involved in a-symetrical warfare unless you have to"

Oh, you're right that we shouldn't get involved in "asymetrical warfare" unless we have to, but wrong about the reason.

We shouldn't because the international rules for handling "asymetrical" warriors have been discarded in favor of an "enlightened" law enforcement approach that was never, ever, ever, ever envisioned by the creators of those rules.

"Asymetrical" warriors of the type we are commonly encountering are either -- by direct wording of those rules -- "mercinaries" or [i'm blanking on the second term], and are allowed to be summarily executed, even if attempting to surrended.

Try that with the ACLU wetting their panties every time a faux "POW" doesn't get access to a lawyer.

"if we can't subdue the goatherders in Iraq who had no outside help or money..."

Whose you're supplier, man? The Sunni Ba'athists in Iraq have been supplied by the Ba'athist Assad in Syria since the day after Hussein fell, and the Shi'ite populists in the south have been supplied by the Shi'ite Iran since about two seconds later.

"you are INSANE to think we could have more easily subdued Hezbollah"

Which Hazbollah is this? The more popular one in Lebanon? Who is, for all practical purpose, a mercinary force sold to Syria?

"it to the Israelis, they got fought to a standstill"

The Israelis yanked a page from the US military playbook, circa Clinton, which avered that you can acheive your foreign policy-through-military objectives with air power alone.

"Nobody is going to mop the floor with Hezbollah unless they kill all the civilians in Southern Lebanon"

That's hardly necessary. Only a neophyte would suggest it is.

Modern pan-islamist "terrorism" [I hate that word, by the way, and will substitute "paramilitarism" for it from here on out -- unless I forget] is the same beast as it ever was -- with one exception. Paramilitarism of even a hundred years ago in most cases only required the huge wads of rabble who comprised it to grab their muskets out of the closet and melt down their pewter plates for musket balls in order to be adequately armed to take on a "real" army. Today, not so.

Today you need grenade launchers and high caliber armor piercing bullets and shoulder-launched surface to air missiles. Can't find those in many broom closets. What you need is a national sponsor -- or someone who is insanely rich with a chip on his shoulder -- who can get them for you.

The best part of this modern paramilitarism is that the sponsors of such are relatively few and far between. The worst part about it though is that since we are being attacked mostly by the hired mosquitos and most individual people have neither the knowledge nor experience to understand what millions of mosquitos actually means, they will not put up with talk about draining the swamps.

Wanna get rid of the mosquitos? Doesn't take killing all insects everywhere; just drain the swamps. The major swamps are: Syria and Iran.

Never fear though: you'll still have millions of poor and disaffected rabble righteously pissed at the US, which will salve your need for self-loathing. They will simply be largely impotent to do much about it.

[charles]

see a & b above, i've got better things to do than go back and forth with your stupidity, you have no credibility and the statements you make are pathetic

"All you ever do Charles is call other people morons " if the shoe fits, go walk a mile in it

[nowingker]

Rwilymz,

My understanding, which comes from military statements and reports, is that the Iraqi insurgents are mostly financially self sufficient, they do not NEED money from Syria or Iran, they are financing themselves through kidnapping and black market oil and whatever other nefarious activities they are engaged in to get money and arms.

No one in Iraq is using shoulder launched surface to air missles, or grenade launchers on any kind of large scale, they are using homeaid explosive devices and suicide bombs, this is low tech not high tech stuff.

If we took over Iran and Syria then terrorist financing would crop up somewhere else, some other rich crazy would take Ossama's place or some other nascent dicator would see the opportunity. That is why, in today's world of the internet, cell phone cameras and so forth you can't quash the guerilla and the idea at the same time. There is no more control of information like there was in WWII. This is why combatting terrorist from a military standpoint will never succeed.

[seekeronos]

Heh. Jesus is a "pacifist"?

Ah, my dear Nowinger, you do err, knowing not the Scriptures, nor the power thereof.

Did you not understand anything I said in my previous posts? Have you not read them, or checked out the scriptures I referenced?

Did you not read what I wrote regarding the extremely poor timing and execution of the Iraqi war, and how we should have left it alone for another administration? Did you skip over the part where I said that we should have focused on getting Afghanistan in order, post-Taliban, and left Saddam until later, short of possibly occupying and then strengthening Iraqi Kurdistan as a counterweight and as a knife to Saddam's throat?

Apparently not. However, we are hips-deep in a second foreign war, four and a half years invested. We must do no better than to see that the security goals of (1) maintaining control of access to Iraqi oil, (2) suppressing irreconcilible enemies (AQ, ex-Baathists, Sadrists, Badrists, and the whole big rat's nests of other Islamists) as eifficinetly as possible, and (3) stripping away the cords of islam and replacing it with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that they may have a reasonable chance of building themselves up after successful models of governemnt (as opposed to slapping one up around them, and expecting that they will know what to do with it).

I also said that wars (for the Christian) should be conducted in a manner that does not inflict excessive harm on anyone other than the combatants. Bear in mind also, that as a secular, non-Christian nation, that our politicians - and in our military - most folks who belong to either class have a concentration of members - particularly in the policy-making echelons, who do not know Jesus Christ as thier Lord.

It is on account of the relatively fewer Christians who are in decision-making roles that we are considerably more restrained in the application of cruelty in interrogations and the prosecution of warfare.

Can you not recognize that if an enemy is opening fire upon you (as a soldier), then you are obligated to defend your position, and return fire in order to preserve the life of your buddy and your own, if you are in service to government?

And on a strategic level, he who plans a war and is afraid to fight and slaughter his enemies - is unfit to be a general. And sadly, innocents do get caught in the crossfire; yet I believe that if attempts are made to give the enemy a chance to evacuate his civilians from the fortified position or city he is in - and he fails to do so, then the blood of those civilians are on the enemy's head (who failed to properly evacuate them).

I will have to disagree with you. While Jesus does call for Christians to pursue peace with all men... however, not all men will hear it, nor will they be peaceful. Some will come gunning for us with great violence in mind. You fail to understand the context of Jesus's command to "turn the other cheek". He spoke of this in reference to persecution for preaching the Gospel, and for living a godly life.

When it comes down to my personal dealings with other individuals, and they smite me on account of my testimony of Christ, then shall I not defend myself. However, as I have previously stated, if somebody comes after my friends, my family, my loved ones, they'll have to come through me first. And in such a case, I do not plan to make that an easily accomplished task.

And Jesus is no "pacifist" as you would envision him; nor is He the weak, limpwristed veggie-wrap-eating hippie still hanging onto a cross, that you seemed to have misinterpreted Him as:

He is a warrior against evil, and those who would spurn His Holy Name:

"I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear." (Isaiah 45:23)

--------------------------------------------------------

And in Revelation 19 we find:

11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.

13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. (cf. John 1:1-3)

14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;

18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.

19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. (Rev. 19:11-21)

20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh."

--------------------------------------------------------

In Jude, we see:

"And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him." (Jude 1:14-15)

--------------------------------------------------------

And again, I tell you that the Jesus of the New Testament is one and the same with God as He was in the Old Testament:

"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." (Hebrews 13:8)

Therefore, He is also one and the same with God, of whom Moses said:

"The LORD is a warrior: the LORD is his name." (NIV, Exodus 15:3)

And David, who said in Psalm 2:

1 "Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?

2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,

3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.

5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.

6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.

7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.

9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.

10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.

11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.

12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him." (Psalm 2:7-12)

--------------------------------------------------------

As you can see, God also is the Most High Sovereign God... He alone wills that one man be exalted to kingdom, and He alone wills that another kingdom be deposed. He does utilise the agency of men - saved and unsaved - to accomplish all His will in the earth.

Do I (or any other Bible-believing Christian) "hunger" for war?

By no means, and may it never be! But if in the greater interests of defending our nation, and seeking the freedom of an oppressed people, that it is just for a state to pursue the same, then destroying evil is as much a moral imperative for war as purely homeland defense.

Diplomacy with Islamists - evildoers to thier cores - is at best, a stalling game. Or didn't we learn from our mistakes with Neville Chamberlain and Charles Lindbergh in the 1930s?

I still hold that the intent of the iraqi invasion in 2003 was good, but the implementation, execution and timing of it was horrible especially the post-invasion occupation.

The intent we should have had should have been to secure a foothold in Iraq, and to free those people first from the Baathists, and then to seek thier betterment through the preaching of the Gospel.

[rwilymz]

"My understanding, which comes from military statements and reports..."

...from *filtered* military...

You are hearing what people want you to hear. Politicians, as if it needs be said.

Politics is the fine art of bullshitting the masses. Congratulations. You're a pawn.

The Sunni Baathists are fighting the Shiite Militias. Plural. More than one. Al Qaida in Mesopotamia [they do not "recognize" *Iraq*, since it was a western creation imposed upon them by the corrupt nationalists of The West -- and yes, "nationalism" is a curse word to them] is largely self-sustaining, because [finally] Saudi is cracking down on Wahhabist fundraisers. So they kidnap and ransom; they hijack; they plunder; they hold bake sales.

And aQ-in-M is fighting a withering battle against American Crusading.

But the Sunni Baathists and the Shiite militias are fighting for control of Iraq. Because one of the things that no one ever told you is that more nations that the US have "corrupt" and duplicitous statesmen.

When the US invaded Iraq, both Syria and Iran went through their obligatory shirt rending and hair pulling, wept the necessary tears, and issued the mandatory scathing indicments of the US. But secretly, behind closed doors, they rubbed their hands together in glee, because they realize something that not even petulant American Know-It-Alls understand:

The US is not a "traditional" imperialistic nation. We do not Conquer-n-Keep. Too much overhead. We Conquer-n-Liberate. It is only a matter of time before we will declare victory and leave. And when that happens, both Syria and Iran want to be first on the ground with Iraq in their back pocket as an extension to either a neo-Persian Empire, or a recidivist Assyrian Empire.

The Sunnis have all the infrastructure, the Shiites have the mob. ...either way the Kurds lose, since no one likes them.

"No one in Iraq is using shoulder launched surface to air missles, or grenade launchers on any kind of large scale"

When they have them, they do. Where/how do you think those "improvised" bombs get manufactured? From old Iraqi supplies or, increasingly, from hijacked Syrian or Iranian shipments to their partisans.

Home-cooked explosives, popular in the Palestinian territories, are basically useless in Iraq -- when used against our soldiers. US Soldiers in Iraq are "hardened targets". Civilian markets are not. Police recruits standing in lines are not. Same conditions in Israel. What is the home-cooked explosive used for? bar mitzvahs in Tel Aviv. When they want to go after IDF, they use Katyushas.

To the extent anyone is taking us on, they're doctoring off-the-shelf stock.

"If we took over Iran and Syria then terrorist financing would crop up somewhere else"

To some extent. But it's self-limiting by nature -- there's only so many countries and insanely rich people in the world. On top of which, it's trivially self-limiting, since among the self-limited number of countries and insanely rich folks in the world, few of them are willing under even the best of circumstances to fund private armies.

Now, add to that the constraint that private army funding buys the funder a vastly shortened life expectancy...? you're now left with the absolute megalomaniacs. That list is veryveryvery short.

"That is why, in today's world of the internet, cell phone cameras and so forth you can't quash the guerilla and the idea at the same time."

Have I mentioned that you're a pawn yet?

Good.

Yes, the proliferation of information is making us all very smart.

It's also making us all very stupid. Each piece of information is deemed to be just as valuable as any other, and just as relevant, and just as pertinent, and just as equal in every other way.

No it's not.

"All things being equal" is one of the dumbest phrases ever conceived, because all things are not equal, and never will be.

Yes, there's tons more informatin now than in WWII. Do you have a filter? Do you have the subject knowledge and expertise to know how to adjust that filter to select out those things which are political fluff and highlight and underline those subtle things which are reallyReallyREALLY important?

Judging from your entries here: not a clue. Case in point: "This is why combatting terrorist from a military standpoint will never succeed."

Paramilitaries have been taken on -- and historically, nearly always defeated -- by traditional military tactics/strategy/doctrine. Indeed, it is when the paramilitaries succeed that historians sit up and say "huh... dijjou ssee that?"

Long-term paramilitary successes are relatively rare, and you are arguing for making another one in your lifetime, by saying "it can't be done".

[nowingker]

Your post is a perfect example of the many reasons why we should NOT have invaded Iraq.

Who says no one ever told me that nations other than America are corrupt? You got that wrong. I count on and expect corruption everywhere, that is another reason why democracy building military crusades are nonsensical. We are a corrupt society and we have probably the most transparent government and the most checks and balances against corruption [Pre Bush the Lesser anyway] than any government or country in history. What kind of nutcakes expected Iraq to be anything but corrupt to its core? That would be George Bush and the neocons.

I am sure you will correct me, but haven't those paramilitary groups in the past mostly been defeated by wholesale civilian slaughter, forced internment, etc. back in the day when that was a recognized tool of warfare? Castro took over Cuba, no? The North Vietnamese took over Vietnam, no? The Sandinistas took over Nicaragua, then got thrown out, then got elected, how funny is that...

[Angryflower]

"the Taliban kill American troops. That doesn't make them enemies, let alone terrorists to liberals, that makes them freedom fighters. My bad."

That's kinda cute. I'm reminded of a monkey flinging shit.

I'm surprised at the level of debate in this thread given the childish, pedestrian flame bait post that started it.

[seekeronos]

Unfortunately for you, Wingie, I've got to go home so I can enjoy the fruits of my labour and spend time with the family, maybe take a dip in the pool and later, have some time in fellowship with some fellow Christians.

But to give you a short answer, the Councils (plural) that lead to the adoption of the current canon of 66 (40 O.T. and 26 N.T.) books of the Bible were in the will of God. Scripture backs up scripture.

Stuff like the gnostic gospels that deny or counter against what the overwhelming preponderance of Scripture says regarding King Jesus and His plan of salvation; consequenty, the Holy Sppirit-led church fathers of that earliest epoch of church history left out that extra rubbish.

Dan Brown? You jest. Dan Brown writes books to make money. In doing so, he played on a number of conspiracy theories and some stuff he concocted, along with fermenting a few of Satan's existing lies to come of with that noxious crock called "the DaVinci Code".

Catholics and Protestants slaughtering each other centuries ago? Well, don't do that as much anymore, but that's what happens when you set aside the Gospel for the vanity of the traditions of men and man-made religions of works to try to get to God, rather than knowing your place as a sinner, and humbly, and gratefully receiving Christ's completed work of atonement, and asking Him to be your Lord, and receiving His Holy Spirit, that you may be renewed by the transforming of your mind (Romans 12:2) to accomplish allof god's perfect will.

Guess how you do that? By reading and receiving His words, hiding them in your heart (Psalm 119:9-11) and acting upon them.

[charles]

zomg people, the chimperor the lesser is going to personally destroy the agricultural economy of the us by importing poison chicken parts from china!!

what are the farmers going to do now?

i think they should plant cattle, china just doesn't have the room to grow and harvest cattle!

grow cattle ftw!!11!1

where do i invest?

[nowingker]

Awe, Charles, no one will be mean to you for forgetting that the US Department of Agriculture oversees chicken, cattle and hog production and that same is categorized as agriculture.

What did you think raising chickens was? Financial services? Manufacturing? Medicial science? Entertainment? Information technology?

Typical winger/liar can't admit when he's wrong so he keeps on posting and attacking.

Oh yeah, and Chinese agricultural imports have more than doubled under Bush the Lesser.

But, really, keep making fun of me for your own ignorance.

[Fred Beloit]

rwily, I feel compelled to warn you about nowin---r(he/she changes screen names frequently), as others here have warned me. It doesn't matter what arguments she is presented with, she will always go back to the Big Lies and Lib talking points. Your efforts to change her mind or show how she is wrong will be in vein. Some of us have come to the conclusion that she is paid to continually repeat the Islamist/Liberal lies, presumable by the word. Ignoring her is probably the best tactic. Certainly it is the least frustrating.

[Gars Luber]

If you're such the patriot, why not join up? Or would that be too scawy for a little chicken hawk like yourself?

You can put up, or... you know the rest.

Right wing sites are run by poseurs... 100%
At best you are just another consumer.

bok bok!

[charles]

"no one will be mean to you for forgetting that the US Department of Agriculture oversees chicken"

i forgot? or was your comment incoherent sloppy and ridiculous? and i should worry that someone here will be mean to me?

yeah, i get so torn up when anonymous commenters on a blog are mean, bwaha

"What did you think raising chickens was?"

animal (poultry) husbandry?

like a typical juvenile you blame me for your inability to post coherent comments

"liar can't admit when he's wrong so he keeps on posting"

ah yes, once again we have the typical moonbat projection going on here

i wrote very few words today, it should be easy for someone with your limited mental capacity to go back upthread to copy and paste and actually quote me

show us all where i lied, prove it or stfu--- again--

or, let me save you some time here

YOU CAN'T