Lounge of Tomorrow - The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

Lounge of Tomorrow (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/index.php)

- Daily Grind (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/forumdisplay.php?f=18)

- - The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux) (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/showthread.php?t=3249)

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

I'm not the Venezuela expert, but I've heard nothing about Chavez's regime being anywhere near that oppressive and facist.

I was paraphrasing, and admittedly not very well. However, I will say that considering how he idolizes Castro it may not be that long until he is to such a point.

I love Bolton. No shock that you don't. When he said "I am the US Ambassador to the UN, not the UN ambassador to the US", I wanted to hug the man.

yeah, just wanted to hug him. That's it.

Does Bolton give out small appliances too?

I love how big fuzzy mustaches tickle.

From today's Washington Post:

Quote:

The war in Iraq has become a primary recruitment vehicle for violent Islamic extremists, motivating a new generation of potential terrorists around the world whose numbers may be increasing faster than the United States and its allies can reduce the threat, U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded.

A 30-page National Intelligence Estimate completed in April cites the "centrality" of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and the insurgency that has followed, as the leading inspiration for new Islamic extremist networks and cells that are united by little more than an anti-Western agenda. It concludes that, rather than contributing to eventual victory in the global counterterrorism struggle, the situation in Iraq has worsened the U.S. position, according to officials familiar with the classified document.

"It's a very candid assessment," one intelligence official said yesterday of the estimate, the first formal examination of global terrorist trends written by the National Intelligence Council since the March 2003 invasion. "It's stating the obvious."

The NIE, whose contents were first reported by the New York Times, coincides with public statements by senior intelligence officials describing a different kind of conflict than the one outlined by President Bush in a series of recent speeches marking the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

"Together with our coalition partners," Bush said in an address earlier this month to the Military Officers Association of America, "we've removed terrorist sanctuaries, disrupted their finances, killed and captured key operatives, broken up terrorist cells in America and other nations, and stopped new attacks before they're carried out. We're on the offense against the terrorists on every battlefront, and we'll accept nothing less than complete victory."

But the battlefronts intelligence analysts depict are far more impenetrable and difficult, if not impossible, to combat with the standard tools of warfare.

Thanks for making the world safer, George.

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Um, unless Bolton was simply talking out of his ass again, as usual. I'm not the Venezuela expert, but I've heard nothing about Chavez's regime being anywhere near that oppressive and facist.

Please educate me if I'm simply woefully uninformed.

Perhaps if you took off those
Rosenburg coloured glasses :cool:

Well, MBC, as usual, the leaks left out what I consider to be pretty pertinent information.

For example, here is one part that was leaked -
"The Iraq conflict has become the 'cause celebre' for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement."

Sounds bad, and I'll admit it isn't a good thing. However....Here is the next sentence, which was not originally leaked -
"Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight."

This means only one thing, which is that every person who calls for a date for troop pull out or leaving immediately should never, ever hold office where they could influence such a decision.

This is in spite of whether we should have gone in the first place, which is a different discussion all together, and I would not dare to discount those who thought we should not have gone in nor say they should not hold office. Different thing to me. But if that intelligence analysis is to be believed (and why take part of it and not all of it, unless one only wants to accept what they already thought to be true), then that part is probably the most important part of the report.

We can debate strategy and intent and success and methodolgy and whatever, but the point is that winning is a must and withdrawal is not an option. I, for one, think at some point in time a war between radical Islamic terrorists (and their organizations) and the west would have happened. It looks like that time is now, and the battlefront IS Iraq.

And "winning" against a guerilla insurgency is accomplished just how exactly? Can you point to any example in the last, oh, 500 years?

How do you destroy an enemy you can't find?

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

And "winning" against a guerilla insurgency is accomplished just how exactly? Can you point to any example in the last, oh, 500 years?

How do you destroy an enemy you can't find?

You either:

A) Kill everyone indiscrimately

or

B) Get the locals to actively oppose the insurgency.

You don't disrepect the locals, tie the hands of your troops and generaly wallow around like a pig stuck in the mud.

Ah, yes, getting the locals to assist will work out just swell in Muslim territory. Uh-huh.

Let's face it, it comes down to killing EVERYONE indiscriminently. And not just tons of people, as just happened in Lebanon - with Hezbollah pretty much unaffected. No, you have to kill EVERYONE.

Who's game?