I have been very outspoken about my disgust for former Vice President Cheney’s disgraceful conduct since he was rolled out of the White House in a wheelchair as one of the most unpopular politician’s in our history. Lacking any evidence whatsoever, he has continually leveled the charge against President Barack Obama that he has made the United States “less safe.” In fact, virtually all of the evidence points to the contrary. There has been no 9/11 on President Obama’s watch. Increased cooperation with other countries has led to major successes, drone strikes have been dramatically increased in Pakistan, and numerous plots have been disrupted in the past year here in the U.S. Cheney’s one discredited point seems to be that illegal torture methods are no longer employed and therefore we are less safe. Again, the experts agree with virtual unanamity that higher quality intelligence is gathered through proven, professional interrogation methods and not toruture. A flood of recent cases including the “underwear” bomber and Najibullah Zazi (who had plotted to blow up the New York City subway system) show that reams of intelligence were gained without torture and by using the professionals in our criminal justice system.
It was nice to finally see two of the most popular Republicans condemn Cheney’s nonsense. Petraeus has actually publicly disagreed with Cheney before stating that “It is hugely significant to us to live the values that we hold so dear and that we have fought so hard to protect over the years.” Being that both David Petraeus and Colin Powell are or were Generals, I think they might have just a little bit more credibility on this issue than the former Vice President. The obvious attempt by Cheney and his daughter to undercut the current President of the United States with unsupported, universally discredited, self-serving talking points may make good theater for the far right-wing fringe, but it is beyond shameful. I applaud both Powell and Petraeus for strongly backing President Obama’s highly-effective, pro-American anti-terrorism strategies. I would like to see many more Republicans speak out on this issue which should be above the partisan fray, but I am not holding my breath.
The 2012 Presidential Election is fast approaching
The GOP race is now a field of 4 with only Romney, Gingrich, Paul, & Santorum still standing. Who will be the next candidate to exit the race & who will emerge as the eminent GOP nominee?
Follow us on Twitter & join our 2012 election FaceBook page for updates & new blog articles.
Contact us if you are passionate about politics & want to blog with us.
{ 34 comments… read them below or add one }
Feel free to read this:
http://www.jbs.org/index.php?option=com_ccboard&view=postlist&forum=1&topic=403
and/or this:
http://www.jbs.org/index.php?option=com_ccboard&view=postlist&forum=1&topic=536
or the FBIs involvement , via Julia Brown, with MLK Jr:
http://www.jbs.org/component/content/article/974-userblogs/5324
http://www.jbs.org/index.php?option=com_ccboard&view=postlist&forum=1&topic=228
As one can see, there is a lot of information to cover for just one subject, but there IS verifiable info, even from the files of JFesta’s beloved FBI.
I don’t view anyone of another race as less than me either. Your reckless accusations don’t create facts. You have an opportunity to actually conduct responsible research on the Civil Rights issue but, instead, have chosen your purposeful slanderous route. You can tell as many people whatever you wish just like I know your name is John Festa and you live in Chicago and you have put a threat against all conservatives in print. Fortunately, though there is a diversity of opinions on this site, most of the contributors are smart enough to not take the National Enquirer path and follow the lead of a fogged-thinking lunatic with an obvious axe to grind.
By the way, who said that those are/were the official views of the John Birch Society? I am really looking forward to learning who the “objective” source is.
For those readers who even care, please feel free to read the 2nd paragraph of my previous comment. Each item that John Festa from Chicago (the one who made a blanket threat against all conservatives) mentioned would take a long time to get into. I would have no problem doing that with anyone interested, except him. He already has his mind made up. Responsible research would allow the bottom to be found of any of the subjects. And I guarantee that that bottom is not as sinister as the JBS naysayers have made it appear.
Ok,
If this is the position you want to take I can’t stop you. I gave you two chances to back away from these positions, two, and you chose to ignore both. You’re now on the record fully endorsing the view that local police in the deep south were justified in the brutal treatment of Civil Rights protesters. Just as you are on the record endorsing the JBS society notion that the Civil Rights movement was a fraud and communist plot, and endorsing the view that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a communist stooge.
These were the stated public positions of the JBS in the 1960’s positions they have never backed away from or apologized for and you support them. You may think I’m ugly, and to those I oppose I may be, but I have never held nor espoused the view that anyone of a different race is less than me or deserving of lesser rights because of their race. You have by your endorsement of these campaigns. Criticize my research all you like, facts are facts, JBS supports these ideas and you support JBS. I will be sure to let as many readers as this site has that you back these views.
Politics is a bare knuckles game. I won’t apologies for playing it that way. There are plenty of conservatives just as willing to do the things I am.
JFesta,
Though you eloquently (actually, clumsily) avoided any of the points and/or questions I brought up, including that of the Patriot Act, and the fact that I have challenged you to do some full scope research as opposed to selective research on the JBS, yet you refuse, I don’t have the need to indulge your baiting. Your resorting to calling me a KKK member minus the hood without first finding the meaning of what you are talking about is plain stupid. Robert Welch was also criticized for his statements regarding our lack of a Democracy. But if one had the wherewithal to look into his statements more deeply, he meant that our nation is a Republic. It is so easy to find a surface story and tear it to pieces without asking oneself “Hmm, I wonder what this means? This sounds too outrageous to be true. Perhaps if I dig into it, more things will come to light.” But no, because you have already made it clear that your goal is to destroy the reputation of every conservative you can get ahold of, your “expert research” record is apparently only good for passing your college course and receiving your award – probably from a like-minded liberal professor who is only too enthusiastic to embrace your lopsided lunacy.
I am sure that we could dig into each item you mentioned one by one and get some solid, satisfactory answers. But neither of us has the time – well at least I don’t – not that it would matter to you. You are basing your opinions on biased reports (including that of the California Attorney General) and are considering those sources rock-solid. That is foolish research. Your only goal here is to roast me without basis. I have a hunch that anyone who has the time or the will to look into your accusations with an unbiased attitude will only come out on the other side quite surprised at what they have found. Those who are intellectually honest, that is.
As much as liberals can drive me nuts from time to time, I don’t think of them as lesser human beings (check that, except for you maybe) and would never dream of wishing harm or bad reputations simply because they have an ideology that is diametrically opposed to mine. That makes any fringe group look quite level-headed in comparison.
Take your brass knuckles someplace else.
Wow Erik,
Standing behind the group that endorsed the abusive police tactic used against Civil Rights protesters. I didn’t hear you disavow the Support Your Local Police Campaign by JBS so I guess you support those actions by the police. I also sisnt hear you disavow the Expose the Civil Rights Fraud Campaign, so I guess that means you support the idea that the Civil Rights Movement was just a communist plot, and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a communist stooge. That’s low, not just as a conservative, but just on the level of being a basic human being that’s low. Any decent human being would have their stomach turned to be associated with a group that would espouse such beliefs. Please tell me you aren’t defending these positions? I’m giving you a chance to tell everyone you aren’t claiming views that are basically akin to those of a Klansman minus the hood.
Can you honestly say that you support the view that the police in the deep south were justified in their tactics; that civil rights was nothing more than a communist plot to, in the words of the society, stir up negroes that were otherwise happy? Do you want to be the defender and wholly in line with JBS who has as a member of its speakers Bureau Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson who has asserted that black people should be grateful for slavery? Are you saying you endorse and hold as your own these views?
http://www.publiceye.org/tooclose/jbs.html
JFesta,
First things first:
You and I have never disagreed on the pretense of the Patriot Act. I realize that it was a Republican Congress who enacted it and I say “so”? There is a Democratic majority now. If they honestly and truly wanted it reversed, they could. But the fact is that they don’t. The point is that it doesn’t matter who is in power, the passage and continuation of this Act are inevitable. I don’t consider myself a member of either party, by the way, due to the fact that each is full of folly. I have always made this clear but you insist on basing everything on a Left/Right paradigm which means that you are merely one of the dupes.
Regarding the JBS, instead of customarily sitting on your self-constructed throne and throwing pot shots, why don’t you look into anything that you have tried to snub? Instead of following the brainwashed staus quo, why don’t you put on your crown (being the self-proclaimed King of Research, after all) and put any of those “theories” to the test. I supplied you (and everyone else) a link that gives viable, verifiable information and potent rebuttals from the JBS to their detractors. I get a kick out of how you cherry pick every single item that causes you an inconvenience. The funny thing is that the only person who doesn’t seem to see it is you.
J,
And you complain that liberal progressives are unrealistically optimistic in their view of what the world could be…That humans are greedy and imperfect. Well, put them in a faceless group together, remove them from individual personal liability or accountability, add moey and a profit motiv e ans shake well. There’s your average large American corporation. Forget about multinationals…
When you have some spare toime, read some of the compliance warning letters that the FDA sends out. You would be astounded at what goes on. We’re not talking about a few tainted hamburgers here…If left on our own, we would not know about any issues with products, food or drugs until AFTER enough people got sick and died- and those are the ones that didn’t get paid off by the corps not to talk.
I guess that thing I truly do not understand is how, in your mind, government can be full of such dishonest, unethical, money grubbing, power hungry, etc,etc people, but your average corporation is a good guy who only does the right thing and could NEVER sell anyone out or ransom anyone’s safety or future. That corporations see people, animals and the earth as nothing but a number, statistic or dollar figure that they can place into a cost benefit analysis. You don’t even have to go ONE DAY in this country without a major regional or national news story about how a corporation chose a few extra bucks over the health and safety of a large number of people.
But they are to be blindly trusted, since neither you nor I have the ability to test and monitor products to do the due diligence necessary to constitute informed consent, but the government is suspect? At least I can elect my government representative…You and I can’t elect the board of directors at any large corporation. Maybe I don’t want to risk the lives of others that way. My fellow man is not a number, statistic or dollar sign to me, and neither is the earth and its creatures.
Laura,
I have a opinion. It will sound nutty, and I understand that. But dwell on the point for a few. You will not be converted, but you may see how some looney-tunes on the right (like me) see’s things.
In a truly free market economy, most of the issues where government bureaucracy has been created, become bloated and inefficient would correct themselves without massive waste and complications.
I give you Jack in the Box fast food. E-Coli was found to have infected several individuals. The company nearly went out of business and was sued for hundreds of millions of dollars. Gov intervention was not needed, the market took care of itself. Jack now has the tightest standards (arguably) of any fast food company.
Civil lawsuits and public opinion regulate better than any gov agency could hope to.
Regarding entitlements, we Americans are the most generous people ever to form a country. The government eats 75% of every dollar taxed to feed the machine that distributes it, although I don’t have the proof reference for that, and don’t have the time to look it up right now, but you see the point. More money would reach the needy without gov help than with it, in my opinion, through private charity. I also believe it would certainly be distributed more compassionately.
Big Biz would be regulated by the states and public opinion in a constitutionally perfect world. Multi-nationals would do business in states that were able to strike a balance of environmental and common sense law. Public opinion and the workforce would nicely take the place of gov special interest.
Regarding the FBI and similar agencies, the constitution provides for the protection of boarders, and leaves interior law enforcement to the states to enforce laws set within each. The bill of rights are not a list of our freedoms, rather a list of restrictions on government. The FBI would serve better as a citizens check on intrusive government rather than enforcement of national laws.
Nutty? Maybe. Lot’s of exceptions, maybe. Something to ponder, I hope so.
Ok Erik,
Since you complained about selective research in that e-mail where you said you’d never address anything I wrote on this site again, way to stick to your guns by the way, I thought we should take a look at some of the things JBS was doing while you claim it was being vindicated from all those unfounded communist attacks.
In the mid 60’s the JBS launched two campaigns. One was Support your Local Police. The aim of this campaign was to oppose the use of federal law enforcement officers to enforce civil rights laws. In other words, leave it to the local police. The guys who were among other things, enforcing literacy tests for black voters, placing armed officers at the entrance to or inside polling places as a means of intimidation and my personal favorite, using fire hoses and attack dogs on peaceful protesters who only wanted to exercise the rights granted them under the constitution. JBS was perfectly ok with this, it was a local police matter, the FBI needed to stay out of it. Their other campaign of the mid 60’s explains this view. That campaign was the Expose the Civil Rights Fraud campaign. That’s right, JBS believed that the Civil Rights Movement was just a communist conspiracy to stir up otherwise happy negroes. They also contended that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a communist agent put in place to sow civil unrest in the United States. That’s from Alan Stang’s book It’s Very Simple, the True Story of Civil Rights. , published by JBS. Then there are the words of JBS founder Robert Welch in a letter to Retired General James A. Van Fleet inviting him to serve on the groups national council. “Five years ago, few people who were thoroughly familiar with the main divisions of Communist strategy saw any chance of keeping the Negro Revolutionary Movement from reaching decisive proportions. It was to supply the flaming front to the whole ‘proletarian revolution,’ as planned by Walter Reuther and his stooge, Bobby Kennedy”
So let’s review. According to JBS, Police abuse of protesters, Good; FBI intervention, Bad; Civil Rights, Bad; Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Communist stooge. Great group you chose to back. If you believe like they do why don’t you just put on the pointy hat and get all pretense over with. Oh, and if you think that’s all in the past, I’m happy to provide you with audio of a black preacher who is a member of the JBS national board claiming Black people should be grateful for slavery.
As far as the video is concerned, let’s remember it was a Republican conservative congress that passed the Patriot Act. That it was signed into law by a conservative Republican President and only one liberal in the Senate and 66 members of the house had the guts to vote against it. When it was extended in 2006 10 Senators liberals all 9 Democrats and 1 independent had the guts to vote against it. 138 members of the House voted no in 2006. Opposition for this massive turd of a bill is growing and well it should. As far as the FBI’s actions, Conservatives took the leash of the biggest baddest attack dog in the yard and now want to play ignorant when it goes after people. Nice try, but then knew what would happen when they did this.
JFesta,
“…to establish the FBI, still one of the finest crime fighting organizations in the world…”
Oh really? Check out what this “fine” crime fighting organization has been up to lately:
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=7n2m-X7OIuY
Um, Consti, the liberal progressives were the one that came up with fair labor laws. They are the ones who pushed for the environmental protections we currently have, they are the ones who initiated the consumer protection laws we currently have. If they didn’t do it all, then they sure did most of it. Imagine what our nation would be like without any of these laws. Why, when a company poisons a whole group of people to save a few pennies, do people look to the government to protect them? Do you know what most of the chemicals in the products you use are? Would you know if they were not required to be on the label? Would they be on the label correctly if there was noone checking? If abuses happen when there IS someone on the job, what would happen if there was not? Does any ONE individual have the means or ability to test products or to stand up to an industry?
Ungrateful…but you take all this for granted and cannot imagine a world out there without this stuff. You would have a government that would never have done ANY of this. What things i are happening now and will happen in the future that make the threats addressed in these laws look like chump change? You cry to the government and use them as a scapegoat/excuse as is…
All of these represent threats or scales that could scarcely be imagined by our forefathers, so looking to them for guidance on how to handle toxic waste is a joke. It is up to us to do it through the use of our best judgement.
Fair Labor Act- 1939
FBI given national jurisdiction that allowed them to be effective- 1932
Air
1955 – Air Pollution Control Act PL 84-159 (Dem controlled Congress)
1963 – Clean Air Act PL 88-206 (Kennedy/Johnson)
1965 – Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act PL 89-272 (Johnson)
1966 – Clean Air Act Amendments PL 89-675 (Johnson)
1967 – Air Quality Act PL 90-148 (Johnson)
1969 – National Environmental Policy Act PL 91-190 (Dem controlled Congress)
1976 – Toxic Substances Control Act PL 94-469 (Dem controlled Congress)
Water
1948 – Water Pollution Control Act PL 80-845
1965 – Water Quality Act PL 89-234 (Johnson)
1966 – Clean Waters Restoration Act PL 89-753 (Johnson)
1969 – National Environmental Policy Act PL 91-190 (Dem controlled Congress)
1970 – Water Quality Improvement Act PL 91-224 (Dem controlled Congress)
1974 – Safe Drinking Water Act PL 93-523
1976 – Toxic Substances Control Act PL 94-469 (Dem controlled Congress)
1977 – Clean Water Act PL 95-217 (Carter)
1987 – Water Quality Act PL 100-4 (Dem controlled Congress)
1996 – Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 PL 104-182 (Clinton
)
Land
1947 – Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (Truman)
1964 – Wilderness Act PL 88-577 (Johnson)
1968 – Scenic Rivers Preservation Act PL 90-542 (Johnson)
1969 – National Environmental Policy Act PL 91-190 (Dem controlled Congress)
1970 – Wilderness Act PL 91-504 (Dem controlled Congress)
1977 – Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act PL 95-87 (Carter)
1978 – Wilderness Act PL 98-625 (Carter)
1980 – Alaska Land Protection Act PL 96-487 (Carter)
1994 – California Desert Protection Act PL 103-433 (Clinton)
1996 – Food Quality Protection Act (Clinton)
Environment
1965 – Solid Waste Disposal Act PL 89-272 (Johnson)
1969 – National Environmental Policy Act PL 91-190 (Dem controlled Congress)
1970 – Resource Recovery Act PL 91-512 (Dem controlled Congress)
1976 – Resource Conservation and Recovery Act PL 94-580 (Dem controlled Congress)
1980 – Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“Superfund”) PL 96-510 (Carter)
Consumer
Consumer Product Safety Act – gives the Consumer Product Safety Commission the power to develop safety standards and pursue recalls for products (1972- Democratic held Congress)
Federal Trade Commission Act – created the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to prevent unfair competition, deceptive acts, regulate trade, etc. (1914- Woodrow Wilson
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 (FDR and Dems)
Public Health Service Act- 1944 (FDR and Dems)
Kefauver-Harris Amendment to the FD&C- 1962 (Kennedy)
JFesta,
This is something that should not be able to escape correct interpretation from even you:
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur56.htm
HAHAHA!!
Gladly.
Thank you for you comments. They have been duly noted and filed in the round bin. I encourage you to continue to comment and express your opinion. Like all opinions it serves a purpose.
You may now get back on the short bus. Don’t forget your safety helmet.
Straight answer; I’ll blame the old hippies and devout cowards that make up the current Democratic Congress, then devote myself to getting some never back down two fisted fighters in office ad get something done. And I’ll blame you. No particular reason, just convenience.
HAHAHA!!! The Democrats made the FBI? The Democrats WERE THE ONLY ONES TO PASS SAFETY REGULATIONS? Your a complete idiot if you think the Democratic party has done it all on their own. That’s the problem with zealots they think they are gods gift to society. It’s BOTH parties working together that made those things happen. Unlike Harry Ried “we won the election we write the bill” attitude. You don’t care about the country, since half of them don’t agree with you. You only care about your self serving interests. You’re no better than that which you fight against.
Since you never answer a straigh question I will continue to ask… who will you blame now that Bush is gone for your defeat this November?
I suggest you look in the mirror this time.
I would try the scilent treatment, but then no one would be challenging the lies, half truths, paranoia, bad fiction, and utter crap conservatives shovel out on this site on a daily basis.
I’d rather have some people hate me than let you have your say with no challange. If conservatives like you have their way we’ll this country will become so regressive we’ll be living in freaking 1820. I am sick and tired of conservatives screaming THE CONSTITUTION, THE CONSTITUTION!!! while not having one damn clue what their reading. Who cry bloody murder when Democrats use the power granted them to make things better for the American people, to pass safety regulations, for food, for water, for cars and tructs and trains; to establish the FBI, still one of the finest crime fighting organizations in the world, and countless other thousands of acts that have made this country safer and the quality of life better, but stand up a cheer when conservatives masqurading as patriots do everything they can to limit the rights of the people, and make it easier for corporations to make profits at the expence of the peoples safety.
Now maybe you don’t like the fact that I got in your face and tell you you’re wrong, stupid, and in some cases bordering on crazy, that’s understandable, all I’ll tell you is DEAL WITH IT.
“Get help”??
I am not the one who has meltdowns and threatens every conservative and their children, dude. Pretty surprising that such a self-proclaimed genius would be foolish enough to put such statements in print.
This same California group later took back their statements. After an all-out onslaught of the John Birch Society in the late 50s and early 60s which eventually amounted to empty findings and an exponential increase in membership in the JBS, the naysayers decided that the best attack was the “silent treatment”. In context, dude.
Enough of the half truths. You use big words and lengthy sentences yet essentially say nothing of substance. Perhaps you should experiment with the “silent treatment” as well.
Erik,
You really need to lay off the John Birch Society “the communists are under my bed” conspiracy theories. There was even a report by an attorney general in California in the 50′s that dismissed the group as a bunch of loons. Next you’re going to be telling us 9-11 was an inside job, the moon landing was faked Elvis is alive, and every Democratic President and member of congress is a communist agent.
Jesus Christ man, get help, soon.
We did not win in Viet Nam because we weren’t allowed to – by us. Cut and dried. It should’ve been a mere matter of “checking” the USSR, but our internal communists were in kahoots with the Kremlin and were instrumental in making sure that communism was anchored in that region by betraying the South Vietnamese and our own troops, on many occasions. We could (should) have wiped out the North Vietnamese guerillas within in a month but weren’t allowed to chase them across borders or to destroy cannons that hadn’t been assembled, etc. These facts are on record by high military authorities, though the statements were largely suffocated by Washington. Let’s think logically here – not based on what we’ve been forced-fed our whole lives. The governments of the Western powers DEPEND on war for economic and public control reasons and, if too much time passes in between, they’ll do whatever they need to start one. They will use the guise of “democracy” and “peace” when, in actuality, the coined term is “perpetual war for perpetual peace”.
Regarding torture – the main point of this post – there was a time when I agreed with waterboarding and such. However, I now happen to agree with Laura in that we reduce ourselves by exacting such tactics.
JF, (checked for gram/spell)
Not just to argue, my point was that the Russians needed the country for it’s use. It could not operate within it while rebels attacked the boots on the ground. Our purpose is to eliminate any substantial threat towards our interest. The same would be true of Iran and North Korea. Let them hide in the caves, ride their camels and throw rocks, without structures or facilities that we could easily be aware of, the threat to our country is minimized.
I will not complicate the disagreement by addressing the finer points of history you evoke, I am a history hobbyist and could maybe score a point or two on what you have said. However, as to Afghanistan, the Domino Theory is not well played, although I see your point regarding the spread of terrorist activity. The theory of which you refer is relevant to land and resource acquisition rather than ideological increase which is spread in spite of borders or geographical considerations.
Should Pakistan be in jeopardy from without, we would not need boots anywhere except within Pakistan. Our forces and technology could utterly destroy any threat of any significance.
My bottom line is that war time destruction without prejudice is respected by Islam. Just go to Drudge Report today, and you will find headlines showing “Anti-American” candidates are winning the lions share of the new “democracy” we have shed so much blood for, and spent so much to influence the population to love us. May not be a check mate to my point, but the move certainly indicates a portion of the war theory I believe is necessary, if we are at war.
J,
A few points. Russia’s goals in Afghanistan had little to do with economic resources. Their aims were more geographical. Taking Afghanistan would have brought them closer to a southern warm water sea port and access to the Indian Ocean. They already had good relations with India, as well as Iran and several nations in Africa. Taking Afghanistan would have allowed them either to negotiate the use of Iranian ports, or placed them in a position to take Pakistan giving them access to the Pakistani coast, as well as a shared border with an ally, India. Either would have allowed them to expand their empire and brought the whole of the Indian Ocean into their Sphere of Influence.
In Vietnam, you are correct, it was a political war. The overall goal was never victory, but to check the expansion of Russian influence. The story lines here are both deep and murky going all the way back to Ho Chi Minh attending the Versailles Peace conference at the end of World War One. Sufficed it to say Vietnam was like many of the other nasty little wars by proxy fought during the Cold War, a way of checking the enemy, bleeding him slightly, but not engaging in direct combat. Our intervention in Afghanistan was a direct offshoot of that idea.
As to your overall point. When fighting a conventional enemy the destruction of Infrastructure as you say is a perfectly plausible path to victory. Germany and Japan are prime examples. Destroy the ability to make war and provide for the population and force terms upon the enemy. This is a strategy that goes all the way back to Grant and Sherman in the American Civil War. In Afghanistan we are not fighting a conventional enemy. Since he relies on the same rugged country and traditional living that has served him for centuries, fighting another villages going all the way back to Alexander the Great and Conventional forces in the Soviets taking out infrastructure wouldn’t be effective. The Soviets found that after the U.S. introduced effective anti-aircraft weapons the only forces that were effective in the field were their special forces.
Hypothetically, in Iran we could face much the same situation. Devastating the infrastructure could be accomplished. However, the Iranians, like the Afghans, are determined fighter with terrain on their side. The Revolutionary Guard, are an excellent fighting force with fanatical devotion to the regime in power. In the mountainous terrain, much like Afghanistan, we would face a long, protracted campaign, against a determined, well trained enemy, in terrain where few of our forces are trained (10th Mountain Division (Army) Mountain Marines (USMC) and the Special Forces, Rangers, Green Berets, SEALS, Etc.)
The basic point. Victory, in conventional terms and by conventional means can rarely be found in the modern world. The inevitable trend is towards unconventional forces and unconventional wars. This trend looks only to expand in the 21st century.
Please excuse all of the uncharacteristic spelling and grammatical errors.
I was in a hurry, I’m sooo embarrassed!
Hopefully my points were not lost in the mess.
JFesta,
“Idiot” here. I will not try to outwit such a smart guy like you. I will not try to one up you on insults. The steel trap mind behind your remarks are too scary for an “idiot” to approach, so I will just humbly explain my position and answer your gentle tug towards truth as you see it.
I’m not remembering Dien Bien Phu, and because it’s you who brought it up, I’ll concede that right off without the trouble of looking it up.
As to the balance of your correspondence I’ll try to explain why I took this position.
Name calling aside, I respect the position you have. It is not only predominate, but reasonable to logical progressive thinking. So much so that I wish Laura or someone less barbarous than you had called me out.
My thinking is not original, rather theory based on several white papers written by General MacArthur, and general military theory by several other less modern military thinkers I’m sure you’d be familiar with.
Regarding Vietnam, you may be aware, it was a highly political war. Several years ago declassified documents revealed the threat from China and Russia (less so), if we defeated North Vietnam. We deliberately lost that war to avoid WWIII. Any Nam era vet will tell you we were trying to save political face, not win. Pol Pots of Cambodia was well aware of our fear of a conflict with China and fearlessly slaughtered 20% of the population of Cambodia without fear of US intervention. Khmer Rouge new we were just lobbing symbolic bombs, we were not there to win.
Russia was trying to win Afghanistan for the purpose of assuming their economic resources, utter destruction of the infrastructure would have defeated the true purpose of conflict. Many historians would disagree by the way. But finally to my point.
Abbreviated; Repeated and complete (non-nuclear) destruction using FAE’s (fuel/air explosives) would render an advisory unable to respond in any meaningful way. This would require the stomach to destroy population base and means of production. Much like Japan, surrender would need to absolute.
When a hostile nation with insane leadership like North Korea and Iran are allowed to progress to nuclear ballistic stature, we have allowed a cancer to grow that could consume the world in conflict unstoppable.
Fear of wider conflict stopped MacArthur, and I fear the result of that fear may lead to exactly what we were trying to avoid.
History is on my side, compassion and civility on yours.
J. Byron,
Of course, how could I miss something so obvious !! Overwhelming force always works. I mean its absolutely inconceivable that a small group of determined poorly armed irregular fighters could ever stand up to a modern well armed military. I mean it’s just insanity to think that. That’s why the French won such an overwhelming victory at Dien Bien Phu. That’s why the Soviet Union had such an easy bloodless win in Afghanistan., and let’s not forget, overwhelming force is why we won such a resounding absolute victory in Vietnam. Overwhelming force always ALWAYS carries the day!!
Idiot.
Victory isn’t determined by who brings the heaviest weight of firepower to bare. If that were the case Vietnam would have been a remarkable victory for the U.S. We expended more weight of ordinance in Vietnam that we did in Germany and Japan combined in World War Two. Victory is breaking the enemies will to fight. In Iraq we’re facing an enemy that lived under oppression and rule by intimidation for most if not all of his life. He is a battle hardened warrior having fought Iran, and the US in 1992. In Afghanistan we face an enemy that is equally battle hardened. He has bested a modern army before. He is accustomed to living on the run in rugged country in poor weather, with little food or water. He has had his family killed, his home destroyed before and remained resolute in the fight only asking for more ammunition so he could continue to kill. Weight of arms will not break these men.
In only one place during both of these operations did the insurgency have difficulty taking hold. In the Area of Operations controlled by the 101st Airborne Division in Northern Iraq they started rebuilding infrastructure, establishing order, rebuilding a police force, reconnecting water and power almost before combat operations had ended. And yes, they conducted Humanitarian operations. The established the United states as a liberator bringing the freedom and justice the people wanted. As a result, it was exceedingly difficult for insurgents to take hold there, much more difficult than it was in the rest of the country.
Of course the flaming liberal who came up with that kooky idea of changing the perception of the U.S. couldn’t possibly compete with ideas like the surge in Iraq. Oh wait, same guy, that was David Petreaus , who happens to be one of the foremost experts at counterinsurgency in the world.
A Third of All U.S. Casualties in Eight-Year Afghan War Have Occurred Since Obama Ordered Escalation…
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/61811
Nuff said.
Sadly. the time is not far away when we’ll be cursing our naive trust of these and all politicians. They are fantasy and the world is real. Reality is all that counts.
Laura and JF,
You’re views are close enough to address both together. I’m not daft, I understand what you are saying. As I made sure to do quickly was note your points are persuasive and valid from the way you see it.
I do however have a different take. I don’t mean to sound cold and many times I like to through in an entertainment sarcasm. Keeping that in mind:
Please re-read the Geneva Agreement, it applies to all signatories. Article 45 chapter 3 directly states that any prisoner shall be tried through the capturing countries “Military”, not their civilian courts.
This “make buddies” and achieve understanding is a bunch of crap. When a country attacks us, we have the technology to blow them back to a place of surrender. After that, the we can sign cume-ba-ya and drill some water for them. It really doesn’t take a lot of understanding to know that Afghanistan wants us dead or converted to Islam. They are not upset we hurt a relative or interfered in some Taliban election, they hate our freedom.
The Geneva accords have nothing to do with how to execute a war, just how to handle the prisoners. Fine, I say we don’t take any. Those crazy bastards are to busy burning art and executing women for being raped and men and women who are gay.
Bomb their asses into surrender. Then play humanitarian, if not boots on the ground handing out Heresy bars is a joke and allows them to fight back and eventually make it over here, and if you mention Geneva accords, you will have found one of the very few ways to make them laugh.
The Bush fiasco in Iraq is a great example. After all the blood of innocent Americans and billions of dollars and handing out Heresy bars and building roads, when we leave some wing nut cleric will assume power and we have a powerful enemy once more. The invasion was stupid. He honestly felt he could create a democracy and Iran would be jealous and follow. Islamic bullies don’t dance to that tune.
Sometimes the high road is called Nagasaki. I’m not suggesting going nuke, we don’t need to. But if we keep playing “High Road” political war, someday some they will.
Iran is counting on you Lib’s until he starts WWIII, don’t let him down.
Maybe we should send him a case of Heresy Bars?
Obama did not start prosecuting terrorists in civilian courts. It was consistently done throughout the Bush administration.
As far as torture- we have treated prisoners of war humanely under the Geneva convention, even when they were Nazis who ran and staffed the concentration camps. We play the moral high card around the world with the “all men are created equal and have inalienable rights.” When we torture, we prove that we are no better than anyone else and take away any moral authority we have. Yet we still expect other nations to let us tell them what kind of governemtn they should have and how they should treat their people? That is hypocrisy of the worst kind. You can’t have it both ways.
If you want to be noble, then fight a noble war. If you want to be free to do whatever it takes to pusue your own interests, then expect everyone else to look out for their own interests too. When our country used physical torture (which did not prove more effective than other, more humane methods) we tarnished what this country is supposed to represent. We acted no differently or better than Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisitors when they hunted for “heretics.”
And for Cheney to BRAG about it- shame on him and shame on us. We have no business EVER playing the moral high card again. We have been exposed for the self-serving frauds we are.
Matt, J,
You seem to miss the larger point. This is a war and there are rules to war. The United states is a signatory to the Geneva Accords regarding the treatment of prisoners of war. Even though our enemy isn’t a part to those treaties we are bound to obey them, including the prohibitions on the use of torture as a means of gaining intelligence from the enemy. Every officer in the United States Military is under an oath of honor to obey all the rules set for him by the civilian authority and to dutifully execute any lawful order he is given. That oath extends to the rules set forth in the Geneva Accords. If any officer is unwilling, or unable to abide by that oath and those rules then he can either resign his commission or face a Court Marshall. Likewise, if he is unable to maintain good order in the ranks and ensure that his men conduct themselves according to the rules of war as set by the civilian command authority, the Geneva Accords, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) then he should resign or face a General Court Marshall.
If the enemy either surrenders or is captured on the field of battle he is subject to the Military Justice System. However, Military Lawyers are bound by the United States Constitution. Prosecutors must operate within those rules, and Defense attorneys must rigorously represent their clients to ensure the rights and protections afforded a defendant under the Constitution are given. If, however, that same enemy is captured on U.S. soil they are subject to the criminal justice system the same as any offender who is the citizen of another country and commits a crime in this one. An act of terrorism on U.S. soil is a crime just like any other committed in this country , the perpetrators of which are subject to the Criminal Justice system. The same Justice system that has to date convicted some 200 persons on terrorism charges including the “Shoe Bomber” and Zacarias Moussaoui, both of whom accepted Guilty Pleas are are serving Life without parole at the Federal Super max facility in Florence Colorado. It’s a nice talking point, but the Federal Courts have done an extraordinary job trying and convicting terrorists.
J, to your final point. We are in the position we are with this war, because we fail the first task of any battle plan; to know our enemy. To this point we have been using a conventional military to fight a non-conventional enemy. Our enemy is well trained, well armed for his style of fighting, battle hardened, determined and fiercely loyal to his cause. First we must understand him, why he fights, what he loves, and how he fights. We must know him better than he knows himself and then start to counter his moves, not react to them. Once we know him, we uses the forces we have that can take the fight to him on his level, the Green Berets, Delta Force, the SEALS, etc. close with and destroy the enemy.
DF,
I can’t counter such a cogent and well reasoned point of view, I give, Lets water board em!
Cheney is a war criminal, profiteer, liar, who should be in jail, period!
FB,
For a nice change of pace, you have written a compelling argument.
Laura,
As usual, impressive and persuasive input.
Matt,
Your last sentence of course destroys their points. You have captured the essence that seems to escape our liberal friends, THIS IS WAR!
I don’t see VP Cheney a lesser man for voicing his opinion, or his daughter as disingenuous for supporting her father views.
The larger point that only Matt seems to have gotten hold of, is that Obama is treating this war as a policing action. Sure when there’s no cameras he’ll blow the sh*t out of a home with 33 civilians if his Intel is strong enough to justify it. He will order 50K troops to mow down the enemy in the field without prejudice, that is war, that is the hell they have brought onto themselves.
But should we manage to arrest one these same warriors where there are camera’s with liberals watching, we treat them like they are citizens who just robbed a bank. They must be Marandized, as quickly as they want, lawyer up and now we’re off into the multi-million dollar per warrior, public, loop-hole seeking, US court system.
There are a world of difference between acts of war and criminal offenses.
Our civility has and will prolong this conflict. It has and will be a catalyst for the last administration and more so this one, take more and more of our privacy rights from us. In WWII we destroyed the countries utterly and quickly, and saved lives in the process. Then we helped re-build, not vice versa.
Because we have treated this as a civilian friendly police action, we have given the enemy the time and opportunity to get nukes and bio, which will be used against us eventually. Mark my words, the mistakes we make now will come back to devastate us and water boarding will be a stupid trifling issue in deed.
If it is improper to applaud Obama because it’s too soon to tell, then it is also too soon to trash him and call him a liar and a failure, among other nasty and critical things, as many on the right have done.
More important leaders got captured in Afghanistan in the past week then had been captured in years during the Bush administration.
We all got to see exactly what the results of the Bush and Cheney administration were and the American public resoundingly gave it a thumbs down. Cheney just admitted on ABC News last Sunday that he was fully okay with the breaking of international law in regard to torture.
“Cheney strongly defended waterboarding, the enhanced interrogation technique assailed by Obama and what many consider to be torture.
“I was a big supporter of waterboarding. I was a big supporter of the enhanced interrogation techniques,” he said.
Cheney added that he opposed the current administration’s move to do away with it.
“I have the great freedom and luxury of speaking out, saying what I want to say, what I believe,” Cheney said.”
Or to paraphrase- “Ha ha, punks. Yeah, I did it, I’m proud of it and I’d do it again. What are ya going to do about it?”
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/dick-cheney-vice-president-joe-biden-square-off/story?id=9839602
What do I find torturous? Dick’s sellout daughter, Mary.
“I applaud both Powell and Petraeus for strongly backing President Obama’s highly-effective, pro-American anti-terrorism strategies.”
How about we wait until the end of his term to evaluate the effectiveness of his strategies? Just a thought.
Does listening to Nancy Pelosi count as torture? I think it should. Too much? Heck AP Bio in High School was torture, I couldn’t stay awake no matter what. This torture issue is another arguement over definition. Where do you draw the line… It depends on who you ask. But when you spend your weekdays getting shot at and seeing your buddies getting their legs blown off like many of our Soldiers overseas, the definition might be a little different.