Lieberman offers clear assessment on Iraq

[Detroitdad]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Detroit: Which culture is inferior: The drug culture or LDS culture?

The drug culture until you are about 22. Thereafter the LDS culture.

[BlueHair]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

If we wanted to win at any cost we would firebomb any neighborhood where we were attacked.

This is dead on. I can't remember exactly where I read the following but it goes something like this: You have to do whatever it takes in war to take away your opponents will to fight. A "proportionate response" never works. A disproportionate response does. If you want to blow up one of our military vehicles, we'll blow up a square mile around it. You shoot from a Mosque, we'll level it. Fire shots out of a house, we'll firebomb the neighborhood. Civilians are not innocent. They are the very people that allow the terrorist to operate in their neighborhoods. They allowed their government to put them in this awful situation. Why was there law and order when Saddam was in power? Because the citizens were scared to death he would kill them all. They don't have that fear of us.

[MikeWaters]

Here's the problem. Our goal is a political one. A viable friendly democracy in Iraq. Our troops can't create that. Firebombing certainly won't create that.

We are trying to police the nation, hoping that the Iraqis will come to some sort of viable political sentiment. This is the fundamental problem in all this: it depends on the Iraqis.

I'm deeply skeptical that the Iraqis can pull together. I think history says, only very deep pain allows this to happen. Usually in the form of a war that goes so long that people get sick of it, or one group wins. Long, I mean like 20 years or 100 years.

It can be argued that the GOP is setting up for "losing" this war by trumpeting that if we pull out "Al Quaeda" wins. Why insist on this definition?

We are going to pull out before there is a functional friendly democracy.

[BlueHair]

I guess I'm not sure what our real goals are. Are we trying to set up a democracy or are we "fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here"? If the true goal is setting up a democracy, then I agree 100% with you. If we are there to fight terrorism I say we need to use extreme force. Enough force to scare the shit out of the rest of the region. We haven't had much trouble with Japan since we obliterated two cities and ended countless human lives.

[MikeWaters]

I think the idea that we send our boys to some distant country with a bulls eye on them and that this will save lives in the homeland is ridiculous.

It's beyond intellectually dishonest.

I'd like to see someone tell this to BYU graduate Capt. Jacobsen's widow and children.

Anyone else besides me wondering why a Korean kid with probable mental illness can cause more damage in the US than Al Qaeda?

By demonizing the enemy we are inflating the boogeyman. Unfortunately, in this respect, Bush's and Bin Laden's interests are aligned.

I believe that Islamo-fascism is a threat. I just don't agree with our methods. We need to stand at a distance and carry a big rifle. This hand to hand combat does not play to our strengths.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I think the idea that we send our boys to some distant country with a bulls eye on them and that this will save lives in the homeland is ridiculous.

It's beyond intellectually dishonest.

I'd like to see someone tell this to BYU graduate Capt. Jacobsen's widow and children.

Anyone else besides me wondering why a Korean kid with probable mental illness can cause more damage in the US than Al Qaeda?

By demonizing the enemy we are inflating the boogeyman. Unfortunately, in this respect, Bush's and Bin Laden's interests are aligned.

I believe that Islamo-fascism is a threat. I just don't agree with our methods. We need to stand at a distance and carry a big rifle. This hand to hand combat does not play to our strengths.

Excellent.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I think the idea that we send our boys to some distant country with a bulls eye on them and that this will save lives in the homeland is ridiculous.

It's beyond intellectually dishonest.

I'd like to see someone tell this to BYU graduate Capt. Jacobsen's widow and children.

Anyone else besides me wondering why a Korean kid with probable mental illness can cause more damage in the US than Al Qaeda?

By demonizing the enemy we are inflating the boogeyman. Unfortunately, in this respect, Bush's and Bin Laden's interests are aligned.

I believe that Islamo-fascism is a threat. I just don't agree with our methods. We need to stand at a distance and carry a big rifle. This hand to hand combat does not play to our strengths.

Al-Qaeda kille 100x more innocent people than the kid at VT did.

The hand to hand method we are fighting is being fought with our hands tied. I agree with Blue Hair that we need to give the terrorists a reason to fear us and that is to really flex the military muscle. Death is the only thing they understand.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Al-Qaeda kille 100x more innocent people than the kid at VT did.

The hand to hand method we are fighting is being fought with our hands tied. I agree with Blue Hair that we need to give the terrorists a reason to fear us and that is to really flex the military muscle. Death is the only thing they understand.

You are asking the military to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq.

Didn't Bush say we were going there to liberate them from Saddam?

This is like me asking you if you prefer to 1) live in SLC under Rocky, or 2) have me kill your family.

I think you would take option #1.

An America that promises liberty but brings genocide is not a America I want to be a part of. And I think if you stop and think about what you are suggesting, you will agree with me.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

You are asking the military to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq.

Didn't Bush say we were going there to liberate them from Saddam?

This is like me asking you if you prefer to 1) live in SLC under Rocky, or 2) have me kill your family.

I think you would take option #1.

An America that promises liberty but brings genocide is not a America I want to be a part of. And I think if you stop and think about what you are suggesting, you will agree with me.

Excellent. Still, I think your last sentence is too charitable.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

You are asking the military to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq.

Didn't Bush say we were going there to liberate them from Saddam?

This is like me asking you if you prefer to 1) live in SLC under Rocky, or 2) have me kill your family.

I think you would take option #1.

An America that promises liberty but brings genocide is not a America I want to be a part of. And I think if you stop and think about what you are suggesting, you will agree with me.

No kidding. This "kill any and all Iraqis" mentality is scary. We are better than that. Any possible military gain from such a strategy would be more than offset by the moral and strategic consequences.