Good News-Bad News

Tired_Old_Man · September 23, 2006

Good News-France probes report of Osama Bin Laden's death

Bad News-U.S. fatalities in war exceed those from 911

So, more US servicemen and servicewomen have died in the post 911 war on terror than died on 911 in the 4 planes, the Pentagon and at the WTC, but if Osama Bin Laden is dead, all our servicemen and servicewomen can come home now. Right?

Well, NO!! Because we now have more enemies than when we started this war on terror: Another American war in the tradition of the war on poverty and the war on drugs. Never Ending-Never Succeeding.

green · September 23, 2006

Someone, I believe it was Sir Peter Ustinov, said that terrorism is the war of the poor and war is terrorism of the rich. Another way of expressing this difference would be to say that some blow things up from below and others blow things up from above. Either way you cut it, the consequences are dirty and tragic.

Tired_Old_Man · September 24, 2006

Wasn't "Shock & Awe" a form of terrorism?

If one entity kills 10 women and children on purpose and another entity retaliates killing 100 women and children through collateral damage, is either entity right?

If one man decapitates a person with a knife and the another man decapitates 10 people from 30,000 feet by dropping 2000 pound bombs from a plane, are either man's hands clean?

In Matthew 26:52, When Jesus said to Peter, "Put your sword back into its sheath, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword," was he not also speaking of bombs, missiles, guns, planes (military and civilian if used as weapons) and both biological and poison gas?

Questions to ponder.

green · September 24, 2006

Yah, Shock & Awe must have scared the cr*p out of those who were on the ground....

jojo41 · September 24, 2006

TOM....I agree!

The Iraq War is becoming a farce.......too many lives have been lost, terrorism is on the increase, Muslim/Christian relations are at an all time low and lets not forget the infamous "Weapons of Mass Destruction".....where are they?

I think it is time to bring ALL the troops home (British, Australian, US, Italian, Danish, Polish, Slovakian, South Korean etc) ALL 23 countries involved.

libra · September 24, 2006

This week our town had a funeral for a serviceman lost in Iraq. It was our first and hopefully our last.

The military has no reason to be there. Even the Iraqi citizens have said they felt safer before our "invasion". Bring our troops home before more lives are lost.

jojo41 · September 25, 2006

Muslims across the world do not see the West as liberators of Iraq but as invaders......they feel we are "occupying Muslim land".....a no win situation.

Pete53 · September 25, 2006

We went to Iraq for the wrong reasons and we will stay there for the wrong ones also. If we leave Iraq tomorrow it will be better for US and also the Iraqi's. Supporting puppets has never worked and probably never will.

We left Viet Nam in 1975 and they did not send people to harm us. If we leave Iraq now it will probably be the same.

Drafted 14 Nov 1968

green · September 25, 2006

Muslims across the world do not see the West as liberators of Iraq but as invaders......they feel we are "occupying Muslim land".....a no win situation.

You are right, and pete53 is right in his mention of their resentment when we prop up puppet regimes. Just as Americans feel a powerful attachment to their land and to their sense of autonomy, so too do these Islamic nations. It is an issue of dignity. If there was a time when Saddam could have been naturally disposed of it would have been during the first Gulf War, one that was justified in the eyes of the world because Iraq had invaded another country.

Now the country is in chaos and will not settle down until another local strongman takes over. By getting rid of Saddam, we may be preparing the route for a more religious dictatorship in the style of Iran. Those boys are much more difficult for the west to deal with. And in the meantime those who live inside the country grow accustomed to living with chaos and violence. I suspect that it may be difficult to turn off that tap once it is opened.

It might also be said that there is no reason for these people to like or trust George W. or his representatives. Indeed he is not popular in most parts of the globe and many Americans do not like or trust the man either.

Tired_Old_Man · September 25, 2006

You are right, and pete53 is right in his mention of their resentment when we prop up puppet regimes. Just as Americans feel a powerful attachment to their land and to their sense of autonomy, so too do these Islamic nations. It is an issue of dignity. If there was a time when Saddam could have been naturally disposed of it would have been during the first Gulf War, one that was justified in the eyes of the world because Iraq had invaded another country.
Now the country is in chaos and will not settle down until another local strongman takes over. By getting rid of Saddam, we may be preparing the route for a more religious dictatorship in the style of Iran. Those boys are much more difficult for the west to deal with. And in the meantime those who live inside the country grow accustomed to living with chaos and violence. I suspect that it may be difficult to turn off that tap once it is opened.

It might also be said that there is no reason for these people to like or trust George W. or his representatives. Indeed he is not popular in most parts of the globe and many Americans do not like or trust the man either.

In 1998, George H. W. Bush in his book A World Transformed co-written with General Brent Scowcroft, wrote:

"Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under the circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different — and perhaps barren — outcome."

Too bad his son either can not read or would not read this book.

The senior Bush always dealt diplomatically with both the USA's friends and possible adversaries. The present president, feeling that he has a mandate from Jesus, doesn't bother asking advice of our allies and has basically destroyed the USA's friendship with most of the world and lost the good-will his father worked so hard to earn.