Bush is an IDIOT

[chm2023]

Was watching the AM news in between getting ready for work--someone pointed out something that caught my attention, to whit: the major chasm within the Islamic (political?) world is Shiite vs Sunni. The moderate regimes, Egypt, Jordan etc, which are secular-ish, are supporters of the Sunni. Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas are on the side of the Shiite.


Now for the fun part: our troops in Iraq are effectively supporting the Shiite. You probably heard the Iraqi prime minister's comments on the Israel/Hezbollah business. Also last week saw an interview with Army chief of staff--Pace?--where he was asked if we were winning in Iraq. Very pregnant pause, then the reply: "well, I wouldn't say we're loosing."

Rarely is the term cluster f*** so apt.

[Ory]

I understand politics gets a lot of people fired up, but can we please keep the profanity out of this?

Thanks!

[rinselberg]

... The major chasm within the Islamic (political?) world is Shia v. Sunni. The moderate regimes like Egypt, Jordan, etc., which are [secular], are supporters of the Sunni. Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas are on the side of the Shia.

Now for the fun part: Our troops in Iraq are effectively supporting the Shia.

You probably heard the Iraqi prime minister's comments on the Israel v. Hezbollah [conflict].

Also last week saw an interview with Army chief of staff--Pace?--where he was asked if we were winning in Iraq. Very pregnant pause, then the reply: "Well, I wouldn't say we're losing."

It's ironic, but when you post "our [US] troops in Iraq are effectively supporting the Shia ...", there has just been a new series of raids by joint US and Iraqi forces, attempting to curtail the Shiite (al-Sadr) militias ...

... it was clear that the US-led coalition is stepping up pressure against the Shiite militia in a bid to reduce sectarian violence, which US officials now consider a greater threat than the Sunni-led insurgency. Last week, British troops arrested the commander of Mahdi Army forces in Basra, Iraq's second-largest city. On Saturday, U.S. and Iraqi troops killed 15 fighters in a three-hour gunbattle around al-Sadr's office in Musayyib ... Local officials also said U.S. and Iraqi troops Saturday raided al-Sadr's office in Mahmoudiya ...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...8J2BE2O6.shtml


... and the recently deceased Zarqawi, who was at the top of "al-Qaeda in Iraq", and lately Osama bin Laden, have played to the Sunni side in trying to foment Sunni violence against Shiites. So, about that "major chasm in the Islamic world" that you referred to - it cannot be reduced to moderate, pro-US Sunni v. radical, anti-US Shia. In fact, you really can't tell your Islamic players without a scorecard, as they say ...

As for the Iraqi prime minister's comments on the Israel v. Hezbollah conflict, they can be found here: http://www.nytimes... ... just a bit "cheeky", but not very important.

Finally, it's General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. (At your service!)

[drk]

I find it hard to believe that it's hard to believe that Saddam's Iraq wasn't a version of today's Syria.

Doesn't this latest mideast trouble illustrate how things work over there? Militias operating within countries, countries funding and supplying militias, etc.

Bush understood this, apparently, as early as the "axis of evil" State of the Union (?) address.

Looks like we'll never know what Saddam's Iraq was, exactly, but it's hard to believe that Iraq was operating on our best interests.

The Bush Doctrine: Any terrorist group or nation that supports/harbors terrorists are enemies of the U.S.A., and are subject to the royal military treatment.

Israel should have cleaned up Lebanon for awhile, but we would really like them to re-organize Syria's facial features for the good of the civilized world. Alas, I doubt it will go that far.

Iran needs some serious sanctioning, serious sanctioning. But what does that last for, about two years? They're careful not to step in it too deeply, meanwhile.

[chm2023]

it was clear that the US-led coalition is stepping up pressure against the Shiite militia in a bid to reduce sectarian violence, which U.S. officials now consider a greater threat than the Sunni-led insurgency.


In fact, you really can't tell your Islamic players without a scorecard, as they say ...

Exactly. So what the hell are we doing in the middle of this??????

[chm2023]

The Bush Doctrine: Any terrorist group or nation that supports/harbors terrorists are enemies of the U.S.A., and are subject to the royal military treatment.

You mean like Saudi Arabia??? And as has been beat to death, Saddam's Iraq was many things, but not a harborer of terrorists. Well maybe now.

The Bush Doctrine: Any nation we think we can invade with little cost to us will be invaded and subject to an open ended occupation which will result in much more death and destruction post invasion to both the citizens of that country (40,000 and counting) and our troops (2500 and counting). The benefit of this to us TBD.

Notice Condi is now speaking of Lebanon as the "beacon of democracy" in the "new" mideast. Well, if at first you don't succeed.....I have the most disconcerting feeling of deja vu--looks like we are again being thrown the bait by an Islamic terror group who is invested in the US being regarded as the bitter enemy of all Islam and is hoping we will over-reach, again. Hey we put Osama on the map, guess these guys are looking for their day in the sun.

Maureen Dowd's column is pretty grim--she refers to Bush's "air guitar" diplomacy".

[ikon44]

do you all think that the israeli response in the lebanon is proportionate,and justified ?
I did at first think they were just taking out the hezbollah encampments,but it looks as if mainly innocent women and children are being killed.

[lilchiken]

Apparently, rinselberg, the assertions you cite from the right-wing blogosphere have been sufficiently debunked that even the Bush administration is unwilling to support them:




Rather than putting the burden on your readers to debunk the unsupported and discredited assertions you cite, why not come up with some authoritative, current sources that support the statement you made:

From 1992 until the eve of the Multi-National invasion of Iraq, the Saddam regime actively cooperated with international terrorists operating under al Qaeda and other banners of Islamic extremism and "jihad" by violence.

A point that you persist in refusing to recognize is this: even if Saddam were sleeping with bin-Laden, the justification for the invasion of Iraq cannot be diced up into individual components, each element analyzed individually, and then summed back up to some meaningful measure. The reasoning you refer to was this: Saddam has WMD, Saddam is cooperating with terrorists, Saddam may give WMD to terrorists. The problem with that possibility is that stateless enemies of the U.S are not likely to be deterred from using such weapons by the threat of annihilation in response, and we’re not sure that Saddam isn’t so insane as to not be so deterred. Therefore, Saddam must be removed.

If you take out the bit about WMD, you’re left with “Saddam is cooperating with terrorists”. Leaving aside the fact that the Bush administration no longer even makes that argument (putting you in the position of arguing, “no, Bush is wrong, Bush was right”), it is an insufficient argument for invasion and occupation, even in the (questionable) context of a “global war on terror”. That is, the American people would (I hope) have had better sense, even if you would have not, and you would be railing against the Kerry Administration, instead of becoming Bush’s last cheerleader.

I agree-this is all I want to say, but cannot put it so eloquently as Shanbaum can.

and also- The pictures of women and children dying in Lebanon is propoganda. I hate war, ESPECIALLY when it kills the innocent! but people die in war. Its a terrible thing. But those Hezballah need to go.
By the way-that's the same thing the media did when we went to Iraq.

[Optical Enigma]

Was watching the AM news in between getting ready for work--someone pointed out something that caught my attention, to whit: the major chasm within the Islamic (political?) world is Shiite vs Sunni. The moderate regimes, Egypt, Jordan etc, which are secular-ish, are supporters of the Sunni. Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas are on the side of the Shiite.


Now for the fun part: our troops in Iraq are effectively supporting the Shiite. You probably heard the Iraqi prime minister's comments on the Israel/Hezbollah business. Also last week saw an interview with Army chief of staff--Pace?--where he was asked if we were winning in Iraq. Very pregnant pause, then the reply: "well, I wouldn't say we're loosing."

Rarely is the term cluster f*** so apt.

Although this picture of Shiite/Sunni roles in Islam is fundamentally waaaayyy oversimplified, I find it more revealing that you have continued to have such strong opinions about Iraq and Bush, but have only just begun to delve into mid east political players?

As the title of this thread indicates "Bush is an IDIOT." However, he clearly has a better understanding of geo-political forces in the mid east than someone who thinks that our troops are supporting the Shiites!!!

If I were to end this post with the way you ended yours I suppose I might elicit more attention? It would be a fitting adjective for such a description of the Shiite/US conspiracy!!!

[rinselberg]

Sinking in quicksand: But it's not US policy in the Middle East that's sinking here - only the logic of some recent OptiBoard posts ...

... it was clear that the US-led coalition [in Iraq] is stepping up pressure against the Shiite militia in a bid to reduce sectarian violence, which US officials now consider a greater threat than the Sunni-led insurgency ...

So what the hell are we doing in the middle of this??????

The 9/11 attacks demonstrated that the US is certain to end up "in the middle" of Middle East turmoil, whenever there is serious trouble anywhere in the Middle East. Regardless of US policy. To wit:

... to consider ourselves “at war” with [Islamic extremists] is another linguistic mistake: That is exactly what Osama bin Laden wanted to achieve with the 9/11 attacks - after which, we elevated him (OBL) from a marginal nut case – a two-bit criminal – to the leader of a global contest between Islam and the West - something that used to exist mostly in [his own] and his followers’ imaginations ... This is exactly what he (OBL) wanted, and we gave it to him. We accepted his bait, and declared war ...

Why did OBL and his followers decide on a series of attacks against the US - the US embassies in Africa - the USS Cole - and then the 9/11 attacks?

Was it "because" the US had significant military forces stationed on the "holy ground" of Saudi Arabia? "Because" the US has been too heavily on the side of Israel, v. the Palestinians?

At the time of the 9/11 attacks, US military forces were stationed in Saudi Arabia, with (needless to say), the cooperation of the Saudi government, to deter any further aggression against Iraq's neighbors by Saddam Hussein - that Saddam Hussein - the same one that invaded Kuwait in 1990.

President Clinton did an exemplary job of trying to broker peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians - even persuading the last Labor Party led government of Israel to offer the most equitable two-state agreement that the Palestinians will ever see. Who rejected that agreement? Not the Israelis.

... We (the US) put Osama on the map ...

From the moment that OBL was publicly identified as the one man most responsible for the 9/11 attacks, he (OBL) occupied the world's center stage.

How could it be otherwise?

The Bush administration certainly didn't "put OBL on the map" - unless that "map" reference is to events and policies that predate the 9/11 attacks - and that, unfortunately, is pretty much ancient history by now.

Trying to unravel history back to the first mistake or erroneous policy decision only takes you all the way back to Adam and Eve: A futile exercise.

Graphics: Courtesy of http://www.avsim.com


OptiBoard member rinselberg has posted extensively on the Bush administration, and particularly, its rationale for invading Iraq; see Guess what?, "Kay" Sera, Sera and Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

[chm2023]

do you all think that the israeli response in the lebanon is proportionate,and justified ?
I did at first think they were just taking out the hezbollah encampments,but it looks as if mainly innocent women and children are being killed.

I think it is both proportionate and justified. And also a bad idea. At the end of the day, the Israelis are in the unfortunate position of being unable to kill more terrorists than they create. Sad but true IMO. Idiot W has taken the position (unique among all US presidents since 1948) that we side with Israel and that's about it in terms of our engagement. Previously, our position had always been that we support Israel, but that we retain some sense of neutrality and use our leverage as a super power to broker agreements. We no longer have that capability as we have squandered our credibility and apparently view negotiation and diplomacy as somehow unnecessary.

I'm off to the beach house next week. I think I will take a vacation from the news.

[chm2023]

Although this picture of Shiite/Sunni roles in Islam is fundamentally waaaayyy oversimplified, I find it more revealing that you have continued to have such strong opinions about Iraq and Bush, but have only just begun to delve into mid east political players?

As the title of this thread indicates "Bush is an IDIOT." However, he clearly has a better understanding of geo-political forces in the mid east than someone who thinks that our troops are supporting the Shiites!!!

If I were to end this post with the way you ended yours I suppose I might elicit more attention? It would be a fitting adjective for such a description of the Shiite/US conspiracy!!!

I'm not sure I understand all of this post, my point is that propping up the current "govt" in Iraq renders us enablers of the Iranian goal of setting up an Islamic/Shiite govt in Iraq. This may not be our goal, but when did this whole exercise look at measuring goals? Hell, what is the goal??? Ridding the world of the threat of terrorism?

Homework assignment: pick up Maggie Thatcher autobio. Read about the decision not to bomb Dublin as a response to the IRA--isn't that a jarring thought--ask yourself why---but rather go down the route of negotiation, diplomacy. Very interesting.

[Alteaon]

Is it even possible to rid the world of terrorists? It's not like there aren't more rising up daily. It's a never ending effort. There are enough problems in our own country that are not being given anything but lip service, yet we have our fingers in everyone's pie.

Sounds shocking, but what if other countries do not want our form of Democracy?

I actually really like black jelly beans and black licorice.

[Optical Enigma]

Homework assignment: pick up Maggie Thatcher autobio. Read about the decision not to bomb Dublin as a response to the IRA--isn't that a jarring thought--ask yourself why---but rather go down the route of negotiation, diplomacy. Very interesting.

Yes, and as a result of the "route of negotiation" the IRA continued to bomb for years on end.

Fast Forward about 15 years.
Was it diplomacy in Ireland or a massive increase in the standard of living that ended the bombing? Ireland quickly becomes the Silicon valley of Europe. A huge lower class with an education equals cheap labor for high tech.

During MT's tenure it was a third world country. In fact it was quite possibly the most educated poor class of people on earth. Years after Margaret, diplomacy was window dressing. Bombs are not condusive to capitolism at its finest.

Were you implying similar circumstances between Ireland and Iraq? If so what are they?

[chm2023]

Yes, and as a result of the "route of negotiation" the IRA continued to bomb for years on end.

Fast Forward about 15 years.
Was it diplomacy in Ireland or a massive increase in the standard of living that ended the bombing? Ireland quickly becomes the Silicon valley of Europe. A huge lower class with an education equals cheap labor for high tech.

During MT's tenure it was a third world country. In fact it was quite possibly the most educated poor class of people on earth. Years after Margaret, diplomacy was window dressing. Bombs are not condusive to capitolism at its finest.

Were you implying similar circumstances between Ireland and Iraq? If so what are they?

I have spent a great deal of time in Europe and Asia over the years, involved in the hospitality biz over there, so I know a bit about this. It was diplomacy that led to a decrease in the terrorist activity that led to a lot of foreign investment, supporting my point re Thatcher: had she decided to bomb Dublin, do you see J&J and Microsoft and GE investing in Ireland???

I am implying that the underlying tribal fissures are similiar--the Shiite and the Sunni have been at this for over a thousand years; the Brits and the Irish for nearly as long. The notion that we can insert ourselves into this and presto-chango, democracy in bloom, is beyond stupid.

Diplomacy and negotiation are long, hard work. And the end result may be nothing greater than containment of the bad guys. But look at what is happening today in the mid-east. W decides diplomacy is not for him. Fine, let's try it his way.

[chm2023]

Is it even possible to rid the world of terrorists? It's not like there aren't more rising up daily. It's a never ending effort. There are enough problems in our own country that are not being given anything but lip service, yet we have our fingers in everyone's pie.

Sounds shocking, but what if other countries do not want our form of Democracy?

I actually really like black jelly beans and black licorice.

Ditto on the black stuff.

Is it possible to rid the world of terrorists? Probably not. Think the first thing to do is stop talking about a "war on terror"; terror is a tactic. We are at war with radical jihadists. (So why you may well ask, did we invade Iraq....oh hell, let it go...)

[Optical Enigma]

I have spent a great deal of time in Europe and Asia over the years, involved in the hospitality biz over there, so I know a bit about this. It was diplomacy that led to a decrease in the terrorist activity that led to a lot of foreign investment, supporting my point re Thatcher: had she decided to bomb Dublin, do you see J&J and Microsoft and GE investing in Ireland???

Since the end of IRA bombings were not triggered by negotiations with the Thatcher, I just don't see your point here. Foreign investment started long before any ceasefire, and thatcher didn't accomplish nearly what her successors did.

"I am implying that the underlying tribal fissures are similiar"

Although tribes appear similar, I would not agree they are the same. In Ireland, peace was desireable with respect to the opposing religious views.

In Islam "Kill you neighbor" is a virtue, if he is an infadel.

Diplomacy and negotiation are long, hard work. And the end result may be nothing greater than containment of the bad guys.

And what of the deaths of those contained with the bad guys who disagree?

It's a good thing Chairman Mao and his successors were allowed to kill an estimated 90 million Chinese! Far less would have starved to death if MacArthur had his way. But I suppose diplomacy is worth dying for.

But look at what is happening today in the mid-east. W decides diplomacy is not for him. Fine, let's try it his way.

Did 12 years of UN intervention constitute a lack of diplomacy? How much is enouph? Is allowing a bad guy to live and kill while contained acceptable in a modern world?

Perhaps in about 500 years, if W's war is still on, as many Iraqis will die from war, as will have died under Saddam, while the diplomats enjoyed brisk discussion over tea and scones.

[chm2023]

Since the end of IRA bombings were not triggered by negotiations with the Thatcher, I just don't see your point here. Foreign investment started long before any ceasefire, and thatcher didn't accomplish nearly what her successors did.

Not on any major scale it didn't. My point is that Thatcher initiated the policy of negotiation, which is what won the day in the end. Please don't parse so.



Although tribes appear similar, I would not agree they are the same. In Ireland, peace was desireable with respect to the opposing religious views.

In Islam "Kill you neighbor" is a virtue, if he is an infadel.

Again, not true. This is the hijacked version of Islam. And it's infidel.



And what of the deaths of those contained with the bad guys who disagree?

It's a good thing Chairman Mao and his successors were allowed to kill an estimated 90 million Chinese! Far less would have starved to death if MacArthur had his way. But I suppose diplomacy is worth dying for.

I always get a kick out of this MacArthur comparison, as if it's just a given we could have defeated the Chinese.



Did 12 years of UN intervention constitute a lack of diplomacy? How much is enouph? Is allowing a bad guy to live and kill while contained acceptable in a modern world?

Perhaps in about 500 years, if W's war is still on, as many Iraqis will die from war, as will have died under Saddam, while the diplomats enjoyed brisk discussion over tea and scones.

Like I said, you want to try it Bush's way, have at it. (You may have noticed our little buddies the Israelis aint' doing so well with this. If they don't set up the 20 mile zone in Lebanon and retreat to a lesser position, Hezbollah will have sustained a huge victory. Remember what Kissinger said, terrorists don't have to win, they just have to not lose.)

[rinselberg]

Like I said, you want to try it Bush's way, have at it. You may have noticed [that] our little buddies [sic], the Israelis, aint' doing so well with this. If they don't set up the [requisite] 20 mile [buffer] zone in Lebanon and [then] retreat to a lesser position, Hezbollah will have sustained a huge victory.

Remember what Kissinger said: "Terrorists don't have to win, they just have to not lose."

You're on top of the situation here, chm. Colonel Jack Jacobs (Medal of Honor, Vietnam), MSNBC's military analyst, said that he is surprised to see how the Israelis are going about this. He thinks that the Israelis should be using four army divisions instead of four army brigades, and that the IAF should be converting all of southern Lebanon, north to the Litani River, into one big free-fire zone - remarking, of course, that most of the general population has been given enough time to flee, and that the only "peeps" still around (for the most part) are Hezbollah. He's worried that the Israelis may have started down the "Rumsfeld route ..."

Remember, NATO's air campaign to drive the Serbs out of Kosovo also got off to a slow, grinding start, before they got on top of that situation.

There was a little tagline that circulated on the media about that:

"Give war a chance ..."


OptiBoard member rinselberg has posted extensively on the Bush administration, and particularly, its rationale for invading Iraq. For his latest OpEd on this topic, see Quicksand!

[rep]

Ditto on the black stuff.

Is it possible to rid the world of terrorists? Probably not. Think the first thing to do is stop talking about a "war on terror"; terror is a tactic. We are at war with radical jihadists. (So why you may well ask, did we invade Iraq....oh hell, let it go...)

Is there such a thing as a non radical jihadists? or plain Jihadists? Just wondering

You are beginning to sound like CNN who only just recentlhy quit calling the conflict a "Crisis"

I think the war is on terrorist and now that OBL has declared war on the entire western world, the sides are pretty much set. The only thing not determined is the timing of the realization by other countries that they are in the cross hairs. ( The French should start looking for somewhere to hide because I am sure they will end up being conquered again with the number of islamic immigrants who are living there now)

People said of Hitler that his speaches and writings were just for propaganda and that he didn't really mean them, right up until he invaded Poland. The President of Iran has spared no detail as to his plans for non believers.

Rep

[lilchiken]

Is there such a thing as a non radical jihadists? or plain Jihadists? Just wondering

You are beginning to sound like CNN who only just recentlhy quit calling the conflict a "Crisis"

I think the war is on terrorist and now that OBL has declared war on the entire western world, the sides are pretty much set. The only thing not determined is the timing of the realization by other countries that they are in the cross hairs. ( The French should start looking for somewhere to hide because I am sure they will end up being conquered again with the number of islamic immigrants who are living there now)

People said of Hitler that his speaches and writings were just for propaganda and that he didn't really mean them, right up until he invaded Poland. The President of Iran has spared no detail as to his plans for non believers.

Rep

What are those plans the president has for non-believers? I haven't heard them.

[markssunwear]

Yes, bush were's glasses....

Is it me or is our president a nut job ...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13901534/

I cna't believe he has the balls to say some of the stuff he says and now it is confirmed that he is a boob. What do you guys and gals think.

[rinselberg]

Here's one familiar thing that the Bush administration's policies have apparently fostered in Iraq (or at least, the northern third of that country): A distinctly Madison Avenue approach to public relations.

Take a look at this artfully worded website: Now, this is what I call spin!
http://www.theotheriraq.com/


OptiBoard member rinselberg has posted extensively on the Bush administration, and particularly, its rationale for invading Iraq. For his latest OpEd on this topic, see Quicksand!

[rep]

What are those plans the president has for non-believers? I haven't heard them.

http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD122906

Sorry it took so long

Rep

[chm2023]

Is there such a thing as a non radical jihadists? or plain Jihadists? Just wondering

Well of course.

I think the war is on terrorist and now that OBL has declared war on the entire western world, the sides are pretty much set. The only thing not determined is the timing of the realization by other countries that they are in the cross hairs. ( The French should start looking for somewhere to hide because I am sure they will end up being conquered again with the number of islamic immigrants who are living there now)

OBL is only one part of the picture. Assuming that all the factions are in lock step is a mistake.

People said of Hitler that his speaches and writings were just for propaganda and that he didn't really mean them, right up until he invaded Poland. The President of Iran has spared no detail as to his plans for non believers.

Rep

I repeat: Iran is a legitimate sovereign state. They may foster terrorism, but it's a mistake to lump all the players together. It's a particularly bad mistake to lump Syria in with Iran, but of course our simple minded president is doing just that. This is the kind of keen thinking that got us into Iraq: we were attacked by bad Arabs, Saddam is a bad Arab: close enough!!!

The Rummy Congressional hearing was tough--the generals obviously being measured in their responses but still giving the worst feedback yet. And the report now from the WH that they are looking at plans for dealing with "full blown" (as opposed I can only guess, to "half blown") civil war, those plans being withdrawal. Which I am sure Rove will be able to differentiate from "cut and run". What a mess.

George Will had a bon mot worth repeating the other day: the only reason this Iraq mess is not being call a "civil war" by all, is that it lacks the requisite cohesiveness. It's an ill wind.....