Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Ian Meyer <ianmeyer AT gmail.com>]

On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 01:15:40 -0400, Don Rua <rua AT mindspring.com> wrote:
> Rowland said... 
>  
>   
> >>>>I can agree that strategy doesn't always travel in a straight line, but
> we appear to be executing a strategy that travels all the way around the
> world and then straight up our own ass. 
>   
> That's funny. It made me guffaw, I'm not being facetious. 
> I believe our long term strategy could pay dividends in human life and
> liberty, IF we can complete mission, but our tactics have been quite
> inadequate. It's great to think maybe Kerry would have better tactics, but
> if he doesn't even agree with the mission, it can spell disaster. Part of
> being hopeful of a happy ending, is knowing how deep our commitment is.  The
> extent to which you are confident in your ability to accomplish a personal
> goal, is a product of how deep your commitment level and resources are. 

The opinion that it was started improperly and realizing the depth of
involvement and working for a productive resolution are two different
things. The Pres and VP were so fond of saying that "you can't expect
other nations to support you when you say 'wrong war...'" blah blah
blah, but the point is, the way to get that support is to say "Hey, we
messed this up, it wasn't right, but we're going to make it right
while we're there. And we want/need your help to make this happen"
Saying that it was a mistake doesn't lessen out current level of
commitment or the resources we have already poured into Iraq.

> If America is weak willed, the mission will be a failure. If America is
> determined, come hell or high water, to provide enough stability for Iraq to
> get on it's feet as a nation, I'm confident that success will come. I peg
> that amount of time as 10-20 years. 

Unfortunately, I doubt that that would happen under *any* president.
Its way to politically charged to say anything remotely resembling or
that might lead to "Yeah, well, we're going to be there for, oh, 10-20
years until things stabilize" As much as that may be the 'right' way
to do it, people on both sides are going to go "WTF?" and freak out
over that.

> One of Washington's chief wishes was
> that America avoid conflict for 20 years, to give us time to grow. Order was
> maintained in Germany for decades, and now they have a vibrant economy and
> people controlling their own destiny. Is Germany our puppet because we
> occupied them? 

Down the line, Iraq may or may not be a banana republic, but right
now, it is. There is no doubt about it, especially when you have the
prime minister giving a speech to congress that very well could have
been written for him by the current administration.

> Hardly. If the War of 1812 had started in 1786, we probably
> would have lost quickly. With neighbors like Syria and Iran, the Iraqi
> people need our strength, or hundreds of thousands could be slaughtered in
> Middle East war. 
>   
> >>>We aren't teaching the Iraqi people to fish.  We're teaching them how to
> kill. 
>   
> Sorry, but I respectfully couldn't disagree more. Saddam ruled with an iron
> fist. He set the example by shooting off guns on camera, the model dictator
> in his General garb. The Iraqi people knew full well how to kill, and how to
> die. I realize I'm in the minority, but I'm not judging what the long term
> learning will be based on a year of truck bombings. I don't believe the
> beheadings and terrorism is what the people of Iraq want. 

They just do that for fun, ya know, I hear a good beheading can really
take some stress off.

> There were afraid
> of Saddam, and I believe they are afraid of the terrorists for the same
> reason. Once they feel they can live and speak without retaliation, without
> their daughters being raped, their shops burned, and their sons murdered, I
> believe they are interested in 'getting on with life', not attacking the US.

And thats why there are whole cities we can't even go into without
massive military support? I'm sorry, but people who are afraid of the
terrorists don't organize a resistance on this level, there's no
reason to. Imagine you're over there, have been for years, you know
what its like to live in a dictatorship, and you want freedom, would
you rather pose at fighting the infidels or give your life fighting
with them to secure the future for your children? Hell, I don't even
have kids and know what I'd do.

> Read the blog excerpt below from an Iraqi dentist. ...
<snip>

Hey, look, check out this blog too:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/faruq_al_jazeer/

Oh, um, wait, I just created that. Not to say that there aren't blogs
that are really coming out of Iraq, just like anything on teh
intarweb, I take them all with a grain of salt
   
> "Despite what you see in the Arab world from people bashing the American
> 'occupation' of Iraq, the truth is that they all desire the same in their
> hearts and minds, because deep inside they all know that they have all been
> occupied for years by their own regimes. And they are yearning for their
> freedom. Most of what you see is really Arab regimes speaking, not the
> people." letter to www.buzzmachine.com

Arab regimes speaking? Saddam is really still running the show? Or
some other nation is running the show enough to be capturing people
and such? What does that say about our strength in Iraq if these other
regimes are pulling this off to make us look bad or make it appear
that the people don't want us?

~ian