A different view from the front

[Bill Glasheen]

Paul

Let me tell you that you are a gentleman for being so dignified with the verbal sparring.

Though I don’t agree with you that the least we can do is buy a solider a beer and listen to what they have to say. I think the least we can do is try to bring them home safe, and if that means by making noise and protesting then so be it. When the war is over and they are home I’ll have that beer with them, and they can bitch at me for not supporting the war.

I truly can see where reasonable people can differ on their opinions of the war in Iraq. While I often come to the defense of Bush, I have supported the war with great trepidation. I don't like to see the U.S. cavalierly removing sovereign governments.

WMDs alone (suspecting they were there, which as it turns out they were not) wasn't good enough for me. I'm a patterns kind of guy. It's actually my profession - to predict the future by seeing patterns either with human or artificial intelligence. While I never used rigorous methods here, a patterns guy doesn't turn out the heavy computer algorithms until he already can see something. The latter confirms and quantifies (or refutes) what the eye can see. In this case, I had a very, very bad feeling about Saddam, Iraq, and the cast of characters floating through the region.

Someone in my profession also knows that you can NEVER be certain. The best predictive models are quantified with the likes of C-Statistics to say just how good the judgement is. No models are perfect. And no human judgement is perfect. And unless we can replay the situation back a dozen times, we'll never really know we did the better thing.

So reasonable people can disagree, and be perfectly fine with it.

The only issues I have are the following. First, I don't like to see petty people with agendas trashing reputations and careers.

I thought Whitewater was a witch hunt and a waste of tax dollars. How a real estate deal converted to charges about blow jobs is beyond me, and I could give a tinker's damn where Little Willie is spreading his wild oats. Kenneth Starr and company IMO had an agenda to trash a very popular president with serious personal flaws. Somehow Clinton survived.

I feel no differently about Michael Moore. In his case, he's an out-and-out fraud. He fabricates a storyline where the parts don't fit in his quest to villify his enemy. IMO he tarnished the concept of a "documentary" in the process. The best thing he ever did was remove himself for contention of an award as a documentary for F-911. He should have done the same IMO with Bowling for Columbine. IMO Hollywood tarnished its reputation by putting politics before integrity.

Furthermore, I happen to believe (from studying and living history) that you either fight a war 100% or don't do it in the first place. Half the war is purely psychological. Having Edwards rant on the debates about how horrible Iraq is because there are beheadings only encourages the likes of al Zarqawi. This is the publicity he wants, and he wants the U.S. out so he and his Islamofacists can turn Iraq into what Afghanistan is no longer.

IMO, the fastest way to get the troops home - and avoid having them go back some place else in the future - is to commit yourself 100% to Iraq. Do it right, or don't do it at all. Come hell or high water, elections can, should, and will happen in January. No delays, no excuses, and no whining. The Iraqi people deserve no less. If people die achieving that end, then so be it. In the long run, that's the best outcome. In the long run, our enemies will see we don't falter, and so won't "test" us. Unfortunately because we went running from several conflicts in the past, they don't know that - yet. This is why I like Bush. What others see as pigheadedness, I see as virtue. No mixed messages must go to our enemies.

This is best for Iraq. It is best for our troops. And it is best for our future.

While it may not be evident, I have great empathy for folks who feel horrible about us being in Iraq. But we are there, and I am not looking back.

- Bill

[cxt]

Paul C

I agree with the latter part of your above post in that I also wish to bring the troops home safe.

But undermining the effort is no way to do that.

The history of the Vietnam war indicates quite strongly that the anti-war protests accomplished the exact opposite of what they were trying to do.

The anti war protesters actually cost more soldiers their lives, and prolonged the war.

As weird as it may seem the best way to save the most lives is a quick deciseive victory.

Not by presenting a devisive face on it--it emboldens our oppts and makes is harder to accomplish our goals.

It gets people killed.

Plus, as I said before, there are plenty of of soldiers that don't share the views described.

Have you read their posting and feelings about the war?

[Paul_C]

Bill,

Don't think you can just buy me off with compliments. I'm still pissed off. Actually I'm just kidding. I will never take anyone’s opinion about politics or religion as a personal attack. Since most of what we discuss here are ultimately opinions. You get "facts" from the Bush side and you get "facts" from the Kerry side, and then you have the media repeating what Bush and Kerry just said. So eventually after picking through those "facts" have to come to your own opinion. And I will never get mad just because you or anyone has a different opinion. My replies may sound a little direct in some cases but, but that’s all they are, direct, not angry.

IMO, the fastest way to get the troops home - and avoid having them go back some place else in the future - is to commit yourself 100% to Iraq. Do it right, or don't do it at all. Come hell or high water, elections can, should, and will happen in January. No delays, no excuses, and no whining. The Iraqi people deserve no less. If people die achieving that end, then so be it. In the long run, that's the best outcome. In the long run, our enemies will see we don't falter, and so won't "test" us. Unfortunately because we went running from several conflicts in the past, they don't know that - yet. This is why I like Bush. What others see as pigheadedness, I see as virtue. No mixed messages must go to our enemies.

CXT you kind of said the something as the above quote so this also addresses you

This is where we differ in our opinion. I believe the war was absolutely misguided and wrong, and we should not be there. I feel the Bush administration, and I say administration because this goes far deeper then just one man should be fired. In fact I would like to see Bush Impeached but since I think his whole administration should be held accountable getting rid of just Bush wouldn’t help. So supporting the war effort and keeping quite only places a false sense of justification to Bushes decisions, and I can’t and won’t do that. The government is filled with checks and balances but the ultimate check is the voice of the people, which is why I think if you don’t agree with something than speak out. Not everyone can run for office and not everyone can afford to give money to a cause, but everyone has a voice.

The Big question now is how do we fix Iraq? Committing ourselves 100% means ignoring Afghanistan, it means not being able to negotiate with Iran or Korea. We are already stretched thin and Iran and Korea know this, why should they listen to us? They know we are going to be stuck in Iraq for years, no matter what President is in office. Unless we pull out immediately and say “Screw you Iraq don’t F with us again!” But where is the reality in that? All I know is I don’t what Bush or Cheney to have anything to do with the rebuilding effort, there record of bad decisions is far to long for only four years.

If someone drives you into a wall you don’t put him back into the drivers seat.

[cxt]

Paul C

I understand what your saying.

I just disagree in several points.

Mainly I don't think that going full bore in Iraq is going to reduce our abilty to handle things elsewhere.

We were fighting an all out war, on multiple fronts, in multiple countries during WW2.

So we know for a fact that it can be done--the question is are we going to do it?

I also think that the problems we are having go far beyond the current admin.

They go back to a series of ineffectual actions to reduce terror.

Such as the lobbing of missles, the fleeing from nations when attacked--you know what Clinton did.

Or the failure to remove Saddam the FIRST time--which by the way was a "deal breaker" for our "allies" the French, Germans and Russins, the first go round.

Little known fact--the coalition that involved itself in the first Gulf War forced the US and Brits the agree NOT to remove Saddam.

That was a mistake.

Its not Bush, its Bush, and Clinton and Bush Senior, and a whole range of bad decisions.

And I just do not belive that Kerry is the guy to fix it.

[Paul_C]

Mainly I don't think that going full bore in Iraq is going to reduce our abilty to handle things elsewhere.

We were fighting an all out war, on multiple fronts, in multiple countries during WW2.

So we know for a fact that it can be done--the question is are we going to do it?

Remember there was a draft then. If a draft is imposed today I think it would be political death for any sitting president. So where are they going to get the manpower?

Its not Bush, its Bush, and Clinton and Bush Senior, and a whole range of bad decisions

Also this administration is practically the same one during Bush Sr. so it's the same people making the same mistakes.

I think the biggest mistake, and this is every administration not just the current one, is not forcing the sanctions, placed on these rouge nations. Corporations, American and others, are still doing business with these countries that sponsor terrorism. By owing subsidiaries working out of countries not apart of the sanctions, billions of dollars are being pumped into these rouge nations. Unless we stop the money sanctions will never work. Personally I think it would be far easier to truly enforce the sanctions then to go to war, it’s just not as profitable.

[cxt]

Paul C

But see now your exteneding the arguement.

You first say that we can't give 100 percent to both locations.

I think that we can--without a draft--which is a whole other arguement.

But we have not established that a draft is needed.

[Bill Glasheen]

A draft not only is not needed, but would be the absolute worst thing to do.

One lesson we learned from Vietnam is NOT to have a draft. A professional, volunteer army has been proven to be the best motivated and most capable. Why have military service be anything different than what we have in the rest of our economy? How effective would I be if drafted into being a trial lawyer?

All talk of a draft has been a political ploy of hidden folks on the Democratic party. See SCARING UP DEM VOTES I understand Republicans in Congress just put an end to it all, by initiating and passing a resolution NOT to have a draft for Iraq. Not surprisingly, the vote was nearly unanimous. Gee, I wonder why...

I agree that Iraq is not stopping the U.S. from doing what it needs to do in Afghanistan, North Korea, and Iran. As a matter of fact, Afghanistan is just about ready to have elections (Saturday, October 9), and millions of people (half women) are registered to vote already. These are exciting times for them.

Again, Kim Jong Il doesn't really wants nuclear weapons. He just wants a handout from his neighbors. The economy is failing, and they need a bailout. Rattle the sabre a bit, and they have learned that their neighbors (China, Japan, SK) and the U.S. will pony up some food and some power plants.

Iran is another story. They have been a problem since the Shah left there in the Carter administration. The only good news there is that students are pushing to be heard and represented in much the same way that they did when the Shah had to leave. We're better off standing to the side, trying to keep the nuclear activities in check, and hoping that the population can kick the clerics out of power. We shall see... But that's a nasty problem. An extra 100,000 troops isn't the answer.

And so far, Iran has been skirting the whole issue of legality. The big beef now is between them and the IAEA. Truth be told, it's only a matter of time before they and some of their neighbors go nuclear. We can only delay the inevitable, and do what we can to facilitate the creation of stable, representative governments. Sometimes that means just staying out of their business and letting them solve the problem themselves. Get Iraq down right and competitive in the world economy, and they'll figure it out themselves. Even China is starting to come around.

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

I think the biggest mistake, and this is every administration not just the current one, is not forcing the sanctions, placed on these rouge nations.

Sanctions don't work. There's plenty of history on the use of them to back that statement up.

They never were going to work in Iraq because Saddam was giving money to France and company. As a matter of fact, France had guaranteed Iraq they would veto U.N. enforcement of any of the resolutions that they had violated.

For an interesting view of this, see France: Saddam's Ally. Also see HOW TO BUY A FRENCH VETO. If you want to understand Iraq, the U.S., France, the U.N., and other parties in this situation, follow the money (and oil) trail.

Again, we should not be surprised they hate us so much. All that bribe money is gone. All those lucrative oil contracts gone. Not only that, but Saddam built up this massive credit with France and several other countries while building his palaces and reconstituting his military. And now that the guy with the bad credit is in jail, we are working with those nations to have them forgive part or all of the debt to a nation that never asked for it.

I am SOOO glad we are in Iraq, and I am SOOO glad that all these nations who were stabbing us in the back for so long are going to get screwed at the end of the day.

Some people think the fact that Bush is hated in Europe is a bad thing. I say it's a classic example of "What goes around, comes around." Be careful with your labels of "good guys" and "bad guys" in this world stage. Things aren't always what they seem to be on the surface.

- Bill