Do you support the war in Iraq?

[Handy]

The stats you just posted indicate that the majority of SUICIDE BOMBERS are foreign. But we're talking about Iraq, not Israel. Suicide bombers only make up a small amount of the action taken against the coalition.

Again, who do you think is supporting these foreigners? Who's planting roadside bombs and getting into firefights? Who's transporting and storing the food and munitions that makes it possible?


I can't believe anyone would be fooled into believing that Iraq's problems are mainly foreigners.

 

[butch50]

Handy, that analysis was by an Israeli of 154 suicide bombers in Iraq not Israel. If it represents a typical cross section of the VIEs then the majority of them are not Iraqi's.

Who supports them you ask? What support do they actually need? All they have to do is to not be obvious. They can shop locally and buy whatever they need. Where does VIE money come from? All over the globe apparently.

All they have to do is to set up a VIE cell, and that only takes two things, personnel and cash. If we were to arm the entire Iraqi population with semi-auto rifles and ammunition, and then get out of the way, pretty quickly the situation would stabilize. If we are going to stay there, then we should arm every man, woman, and teenager above the age of 16. I think a whole lot of VIEs would cease to exist shortly thereafter.

In fact it would be the very first thing I would do, whether staying or leaving - arm the public and let them sort it out.

Is Iraq becoming 'Terrorism U'?
MSNBC analyst Kohlmann joins 'Countdown' to discuss the insurgency

• Insurgency-U
Jun. 22: Iraq insurgency is getting more sophisticated and could be the result of more intense training, a new report says. MSNBC Terrorism Analyst Evan Kohlmann joins Countdown.
MSNBC

MSNBC
Updated: 9:20 a.m. ET June 23, 2005

Evan Kohlmann, an MSNBC analyst and founder of Globalterroralert.com, joined Alison Stewart on Wednesday's 'Countdown' to discuss the issue. To read an excerpt of their conversation, continue to the text below. To watch the video clip, click on the link above.

ALISON STEWART: Evan, let's talk a little about this report, the CIA's assessment that Iraq could turn into an even bigger training ground for terrorists than Afghanistan ever was. Now, explain why that would be.

EVAN KOHLMANN: Well, it's actually interesting. Previously, al-Qaida has always sought a base of operations close to the heart of the Middle East. However, they've been exiled to far-reaching parts of the Muslim world, like Afghanistan, like Chechnya, like Bosnia, where they've been forced to fight frontline wars against really mid-level opponents, people that don't use the technology of
U.S. military.

Inside of Iraq, we see a much different war. Instead of a frontline battlefield, we see an urban-style gorilla war that really pits these guys in exactly the kind of conflict they want to be in, a conflict that's based out of suicide car bombings, sniper attacks, assassinations, roadside bombs, the kind of conflict that breeds terrorists, that teach the exact skills that terrorists need to have. And these are the skills that are becoming commonplace now for those that are in Iraq, both Iraqi and foreign fighters.

STEWART: So you talk about these folks showing their skills in Iraq. Are they likely to export the skills, and where?

KOHLMANN: Yes. Unfortunately, yes. And I think the answers are not going to surprise you. They're the same answers we've been seeing for years now. Out of 300 foreign fighters I polled inside of Iraq, I found that over 55 percent were Saudi Arabian nationals, who to a tee said that they were going to Iraq in the same spirit as the 9/11 hijackers, who they called heroes. These guys inevitably will return to their countries of origin.

Now, the problem is, we're not just talking about Saudis, we're not just talking about Syrians and Jordanians, we're also talking about increasing numbers of Europeans. At least five Frenchmen and five Italians have been killed so far in the fighting in Iraq, and there are many more that are supposedly going there right now. Now, when these individuals come back to their countries of origin, places like Spain, Italy, France and the United Kingdom, inevitably, they will go on to carry out terrorist acts or participate in terrorist conspiracies.

Iraqi PM: 'Terrorists pouring in'
Monday, September 20, 2004 Posted: 10:33 AM EDT (1433 GMT)

LONDON, England (CNN) -- Iraq's interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi has warned that "terrorists" are flooding into his country from across the Muslim world.

His comments on Monday echoed those of UK Prime Minister Tony Blair who said the day before that Iraq was now the "crucible" in which the future of global terrorism would be determined.

Allawi, who is visiting London, told GMTV at the end of one of the bloodiest weeks since the end of major conflict in Iraq: "It's not a second conflict per se, it's really an international conflict.

"Terrorists are coming and pouring in from various countries into Iraq to try and undermine the situation in Iraq. They're coming from Afghanistan, Pakistan, from Europe, from Morocco, from Syria and so on.

"Iraq is on the front line of fighting these terrorists.

 

[Handy]

Butch,

I'll give you one last try, but you don't seem to be getting this.

Maybe you don't realize this, but Iraqis can tell the difference between themselves and people from Saudi, Syria, Kuwait, etc. They have accents, look different and don't immediately blend in. Therefore, they can't just "shop locally" unless the locals are turning a blind eye. They can't get over the border, get past security check points or anything else without major assistance from Iraqis.


You also seem to be missing my point about Israel. I wasn't saying that the stats were from Israel, but that you were using them as if that was the country we're discussing. We aren't. Iraq has alot of action going on, and only a certain amount of it is suicide bombing. The rest is direct action and boobytraps.

Yet, you are making a point about who is fighting using ONLY suicide bomber stats. THEY AREN'T ALL SUICIDE BOMBERS. So don't try to say that the only people fighting us in Iraq are foreign suicide bombers. You have no basis for saying this.

 

[johnbt]

"So, the citizens of the US are not worth listening to"

How's about we take a vote every morning on what the government should do that day. You know, half the population is below average and some of the brighter ones can't be trusted so...why don't we just hold an election every four years and put somebody in charge until the next election.

Sounds like a lot of folks are sorry they didn't vote for Kerry.

No President has ever gotten 100% of the popular vote.

John

 

[butch50]

I'll give you one last try, but you don't seem to be getting this.

Handy, it is kind of you to keep trying and to give me that one last chance.

Obviously not every single VIE is a foreigner, and of course not every single Iraqi citizen is a supporter of the new regime. Some things seem to obvious to have to state.

I have taken the time to find and to show you independent and documented sources that do indicate that there is a high percentage of foreign VIEs in Iraq. I admit that the stats aren't perfect, (the US census bureau isn't taking surveys there) but they are very good indicators - what have you shown me?

The areas where the VIEs operate more or less freely are limited to cities and neighborhood where the VIEs are more or less tolerated and in some cases welcomed. They do not operate freely over the entire country. They probably spread two things, cash and fear of reprisals, to the people around them.

But, the majority of the Iraqis are not in favor of these VIEs - perhaps it is naive to think that we can win everyones hearts and minds? Take a look at the USA, we can't even agree on which of two very similar political parties is best.

 

[Handy]

I have taken the time to find and to show you independent and documented sources that do indicate that there is a high percentage of foreign VIEs in Iraq.

No, you haven't. You've provided sources that indicate that there are 141 foreign suicide bombers in Iraq, and that as many as half of all fighters are foreign.


Half, which is not the "mostly" you claimed earlier. And that claim is only based on a poll of 300 VIEs.


If half the VIEs are foreign, who would you guess the other half is made up of?

 

[butch50]

Handy, what do you have to back up your assertions?

 

[telewinz]

Bush lied and Americans die

Served in the 70's blindly supporting my country, never protested. I learned from my mistake and now I am against this war in Iraq. Iraq is worth our airstrikes and cruise missle attacks, if that won't do the job pullout! Let them fight and die for the freedom Bush says they want so badly. Maybe there is some truth to that saying that we fight a major war every 25 years. It takes that long for people to forget the lessons learned (or redefine the "problem/solution") from their previous mistake(s). Even Bush has been lowering his expectations concerning the future of Iraq but cheer-up, maybe after another 500 Americans deaths we will pull-out. After all it took over 50,000 Americans deaths before we learned in Vietnam. What we have invested in Iraq is small potatoes in comparison. It's just a "little" mistake, not worth getting upset over... unless Bush has "converted" you into a childless parent.

Recent polls; 56% of Americans say the war is going badly, 61% say Bush is doing a bad job in Iraq. Stupid Americans!

 

[Handy]

Handy, what do you have to back up your assertions?

Your stats.

 

[butch50]

S. Vietnam was experiencing an insurgency from its own people, supplied by and supported by several nations. If that isn't a good description of what's going on in Iraq, I don't know what is.

Handy, the point you were making, and that we were discussing is in the quote above. The difference here is that Vietnam was a war that we fought against a nationalistically motivated native enemy - that we agree on.

What we are involved with in Iraq now is not a war, we did fight and win a war agains Iraq ~ but now we are being attacked by VIEs, that are not motivated by nationalism, nor are they largely native. The information we have is that the VIEs are religiously motivated and that the majority of them are not natives. "My" stats, such as they are, show that.

So:
1. This is not a war.
2. We are not fighting aginst a large well organized centrally controlled army.
3. We are not fighting against people who are motivated by nationalism.
4. We are not fighting against a native enemy.

Iraq and Vietnam are not comparable in anything except some minor areas.

 

[gc70]

Regarding Iraq's future political structure, it seems that the entire world is deathly afraid that Iraq might be split into multiple countries with relatively homogeneous populations rather than remaining a boiling "melting pot" of contentious groups.

If I remember correctly, Iraq's population is about 60% Shiite (mostly in the east-central and southern areas), 20% Kurdish (mostly in the north) and 20% Sunni (mostly in the west). Exactly what would be wrong with giving each group its own homeland to run as they wish?

Since the Sunnis and foreigners seem to be the overwhelming source of problems in Iraq, just let Kurdistan and Shiastan handle "outsiders" in the way they see fit.

 

[telewinz]

Blind by choice? You really can't (won't) see a comparison?

"United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting. According to reports from Saigon, 83 percent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong. A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam."
- Peter Grose, in a page 2 New York Times article titled, 'U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote,' September 4, 1967.

"Lyndon Johnson was excited about voter turnout in Vietnam in September 1967. Eight years, three Presidents and millions of dead people later, that excitement proved to have been wretchedly illusory. There is no reason, no reason whatsoever, to believe that the Iraq election will bring anything other than death and violence to the people of that nation and our soldiers who move among them. History repeats itself only when we are stupid enough to miss the lessons learned in past failures. The wheel is coming around again."

Brush aside the patriotic language, and you have the ideological architects of this disastrous Iraq invasion stating flatly that the American military is being bled dry, and that the ranks must be replenished before that military can be used to push into Iran, Syria and the other targeted nations. All the lip service paid to Bush does not contrast well with their cry for more warm bodies to feed into the meat grinder.

 

[butch50]

gc70

I believe it may end up that way. It does seem to be a natural and rational method. The Sunni's will most likely resist that though for one simple economic reason. The area that the Sunni's would control doesn't have any oil, and they certainly don't have any other economic base.

That separation from oil would make sunniland an extremely poor and hateful place, kind of like another Afghanistan, and will be a perpetual breeding ground for more and more VIEs.

I think that is the basic problem that most of the people who object to partitioning see.

 

[Handy]

4. We are not fighting against a native enemy.

No natives at all? Well, then I just can't read what you posted.


So this war isn't a war, but the Vietnam police action definitely was.

What kind of point are you making? Playing word games with the two conflicts doesn't change the important similarities between them.

 

[butch50]

Handy, I said mostly foreigners, which has to mean that there are natives involved. I did not think that was confusing at all.

What kind of point are you making? Playing word games with the two conflicts doesn't change the important similarities between them.

What is it that you don't understand about why I am saying the Vietnam war and what we are involved in now in Iraq aren't comparable, except in some minor matters? I think I made it as clear as I could with the 4 points I made earlier.

Word games? I think you just are not following what I am saying, there were no word games. Check those 4 points I made before and tell me where the word games are?

 

[butch50]

telewinz

Blind by choice? You really can't (won't) see a comparison?

The comparison you are making seems to be between President's who didn't learn anything from history, and I will grant you that in a heartbeat. Except that Bush definitely learned from history on how to fight a war. Bush went into Afghanistan and into Iraq in a method that should have been used in Vietnam. We won those wars, we lost Vietnam, so Bush definitely paid attention to that history.

What he hasn't learned is that going into Iraq was a mistake in the first place, and staying there now is componding that mistake - those lessons he did not learn from Vietnam.

 

[Handy]

Because none of those points address the issues for this conflict. They are all descriptive details about the enemy, but don't objectively change our reasons for being there, or are methods.

1. If we pull out now, Iraq will fall.
2. Broader use of military power is likely to ruin the popular support of the legitimate government, and us, their backers.
3. The supply lines aren't going to be affected by bombing.
4. There is a legitimate reason for us to have a stake in the future of Iraq.


Those four speak directly to the question of this thread, and, incidentally, are directly parallel to Vietnam. Your list has nothing to do with why we should fight, or how, and ultimately has no relevance to any decision this country makes.

 

[butch50]

Your list has nothing to do with why we should fight, or how, and ultimately has no relevance to any decision this country makes.

Handy, I agree with you, my list has nothing to do with why we should fight, or how - it wasn't intended to be a list on that topic. It was a list that shows why Vietnam and Iraq are not comparable, which was a side issue that we got into. And I assert that they are not comparable, but since we do not agree on that topic, lets move back to the original topic.

The original issue is that I was against us going into Iraq (in point of fact I was against us going into Kuwait with bush sr.) , and I am against us staying in Iraq now. Let me re-state what I stated earlier - if we leave now, or if we leave in 5 years, or in 10 years, I believe that the outcome will be the same; Iraq will fall - however we lose more soldiers by staying.

I do not believe that the Iraqi's comprehend the consequences and resposibilities of freedom and democracy, and I do not believe that they can stay free. They, as a culutre, aren't there yet. They may never be there - where is it written that democracy is the right government for all people anyway?

We have given them freedom, let's go now and let them stand or fall on their own.

 

[Eghad]

Some amazing similarities to Vietnam tho........

Americans stationed in Compounds who run out pacify the area then go back to the house.

Rummy and McNamara.........hrmmmmmmmm

Stretched out supply lines.

Iraqi Army and the ARVN...hrmmmmmm

the shame is that we the American folks bought what the current administration was selling. The downside is that our men in Uniform pay for it.


The planning was piss poor.......excuse me.... what little planning was done was piss poor. What is the plan at this moment... all I seem to hear are vauge rumors and mumbling and secret sources.

The administration is conducting this war like a Three Card Monte Game.

They stuck us in a deep hole and keep digging. God Bless the Troops that seem to fill in the holes that Bush and Co keep digging.

 

[Benonymous]

"The comparison you are making seems to be between President's who didn't learn anything from history, and I will grant you that in a heartbeat. Except that Bush definitely learned from history on how to fight a war. Bush went into Afghanistan and into Iraq in a method that should have been used in Vietnam. We won those wars, we lost Vietnam, so Bush definitely paid attention to that history."
Butch50, are you serious? America has won the war in Iraq and Afghanistan??!! By your measure, Vietnam should also be a victory so add it to your list. By my measure, no war involving occupation has ever been "won". The invadees never forget and never forgive, as soon as they sense weakness, they'll be out in force to kick any invading army in the cajones. The only way to truly subvert a native population is to bring in civilians to take over the infrastructure and outbreed the inhabitants. Check the success of the Chinese invasion of Tibet and the Israleis occupation of the territories. I don't think we'll be seeing a lot of American families lining up to colonise Afghanistan and the military presence there is probably less than one soldier per thousand kilometers square. Nothing has been "won" and won't ever be. Iraq is a beachhead to launch further "wars" on oil rich countries. Make no mistake, commerce is what this war is about and maintaining the economic status quo of the world.