Re: Conservatives and Terrorism

From: Rand Simberg (simberg.interglobal_at_org.trash)
Date: 11/01/04 

Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 22:18:58 GMT

On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 22:11:37 +0100, in a place far, far away, "Emmanuel
Gustin" <Emmanuel.Gustin@skynet.be> made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

>"Rand Simberg" <simberg.interglobal@org.trash> wrote in message
>news:418b4e2a.125132771@news.west.earthlink.net...
>
>> >He is succeeding in the first but failing in the second. He
>> >wished to set the muslim world afire against the USA, and
>> >in no small part thanks to US policy he has is achieving just
>> >that:
>>
>> Not to anywhere near the degree that he hoped.
>
>Perhaps not, but from his point of view, it is probably good
>enough. His main goal was driving foreign forces from the
>Middle East, especially the holy ground of Saudi Arabia,
>and establishing islamist rule. The latter may still be out of
>reach, but the position of US forces in the region is now a
>beleaguered one

Really? We occupy the center of Arabia. Syria, the House of Saud,
and Iran have tens of thousands of American troops on their border.
The reason that those nations are fighting so hard now to drum up an
insurgency is because it is *they* who are beleaguered.

>and the dreaded Q-word is becoming more
>justified every day.

Only to those who have always sought justifications for it.

>> >The irony of the situation is that both Bin Laden and Bush
>> >have the same problem. In terms of actual achievement, both
>> >men can only point to the destruction they have unleashed;
>> >they have no claim to have built something.
>>
>> This is nonsense. Afghanistan just had its first free elections in
>> history, in which *women*, freed of their burkhas and unenslaved,
>> *voted*.
>
>A substantial achievement -- for the Afghans, for the UN,
>and for the NATO troops in ISAF. Not really for George
>W. Bush, who abandoned Afghanistan as fast as he could
>to start another war in Iraq.

I don't know where this myth came from that the US "abandoned"
Afghanistan. Had we done so, there certainly would not have been
elections. I also don't know where this bizarre myth comes from that
we can't fight a war on multiple fronts. By your logic, we
"abandoned" the war in the Pacific to invade north Africa.

The comparison between the
>two countries makes one regret the missed opportunity in
>Iraq: If we could have had a Bonn agreement for Iraq, the
>situation there might be very much better than it is now.
>
>> Iraq is on its way toward democracy, once the foreign fighters and
>> ex-Ba'athists have been put down, a process that is now underway.
>
>If you still believe that the Iraqi resistance consists of
>"foreign fighters and ex-Ba'athists" --- then what exactly
>are you smoking?
Nada

>Do you really believe that, for example,
>Shiite radicals fighting with US troops are "ex-Ba'athists" ?

No, but they're supported by Iran, and have a large number of Iranians
among them. Also, they're on the run, having had to abandon Najaf and
give up their weapons there.

>A growing number of Iraqis simply resent the presence
>of US troops and their heavy-handed, violent methods,
>and are willing to take up arms against them.

There is a number like that, but no evidence that they're growing. if
anything, it's the opposite They're fed up with the resistance.
That's why Al Sadr had to leave Najaf (where the US troops were
welcomed by the people happy to see his back), and that's why we're
getting much better intel now, as we're on the verge of taking
Fallujah.

>He is also villified because his cures have been worse than
>the disease. According to US State Department figures,
>terrorist action killed 625 persons in 2003 and 725 in 2002.
>US military action in the "War on Terror" killed somewhere
>between 15,000 and 100,000 people in Iraq alone

The latter figure is nonsense, and has been shown to be statistically
bogus.

Why do ignore the hundreds of thousands that Saddam and the Taliban
were killing? Many more Iraqi and Afghan civilians are alive today
than dead because we liberated them.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: Obama recommits to surrender in Iraq
    ... Can you name these "important pieces of legislation" that the Iraqi ... Afghanistan - the war against the group that actually attacked us in 2001. ... troops in Afghanistan (McCain says he wants 15,000 additional troops ... without gradually wtihdrawing from Iraq. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: What are we doing in Afghanistan?
    ... >>> Why are US soldiers still in Afghanistan? ... I support the troops, not the ... the Bush Administration has never publicly released much of the ... Iraq, yeah, that was a load from the start. ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)
  • {OT:} Are We Poisoning Our Troops?
    ... Are We Poisoning Our Troops? ... Director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America ... Congress Takes Critical Step in Addressing Burn Pits in Iraq, ... Veterans have heard time and again about their fellow troops falling ...
    (alt.autos.toyota)
  • Operation Mobilize the Homeless one step closer
    ... More troops for Iraq and Afghanistan, ... An Army general warns of strain on deployed troops. ...
    (rec.sport.pro-wrestling)
  • Re: Ambush Raises Unsettling Questions in Afghanistan
    ... success important or is it not important. ... but we threw it away by ignoring afghanistan and taking on iraq. ... Ambush Raises Unsettling Questions in Afghanistan ... WILL abandon either Iraq or Aftgnaistan? ...
    (soc.retirement)
Quantcast