Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 03/29/06 2:22 pm:
First of all, Sgj. Mjr. Hanley is wrong to think that the USA started WWIII. WWIII was started long ago... and he was there for it. It started with the Iran Hostage Crisis, which he ought to be more familiar with. It started with the Entebee Hijacking. It started with the Munich Olympics Massacre. It started with the 6-Day War and the Yom Kippur War. It started with the Hijacking of the Achille Lauro and the murder of Leon Klinghoffer. It was started with the 2000 Millenium Terrorist Plot. It was started with the bombings of Marine barracks in Beirut, the US embassies in Africa, and the USS Cole in Yemmen. It was started with the first bombing of the WTC in 1993 and the destruction of the WTC on 9-11.

The idea that WE started WWIII is complete baloney. We've been in WWIII for the past 25 years, and probably longer than that. It's just that until 9-11, nobody here noticed that little fact.

Furthermore, I think that Hanley would have a lot more credibility on the subject of our progress or lack thereof in Iraq if he actually went there to see for himself, before spouting the Hollywood party line. My very close friend, Capt. Moses Sheinfeld, also a special forces guy, has a very different opinion of the state of operations and progress in Iraq. And unlike Hanley, he's actually been there within the past few months.

Finally, on the subject of "irreparable" harm to the USA's "credibility": there's an old saying, "Money talks, bull$h!t walks." The next time some piss-ant third world dictatorship is looking for a handout from us to line their pockets, we'll suddenly be back in their "good graces" again.

Besides, right now we have something more important than "trust" from the rest of the world, especially the Arab world. We have their FEAR. And in the Middle East, FEAR is what stops attacks from happening. The Middle Eastern countries only respect what they fear. And right now, they fear what America will do to them if they attack us directly on our own soil. I can accept fear as a good alternative to "trust" or "credibility" or "respect".

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by Erewhon on 03/29/06 5:37 pm:
Frizzela,

(I am posting this anonymously so no one will know who write it. It is the safest way!)

If Haney was there, then what he says ought to be listened to.

If he speaks truthfully, whether we agree with his assessement or not, he cannot be lightly dismissed, and why should he?

Whether we are comfortable with hearing things we do not wish to hear or believe is of little importance if we are honest enough to want to know what is and what is not happening.

For a stress-free life on the politics board, you must not upset the board of directors by posting anything other than the Bushite line that everything in the garden is lovely, the Iraqis love their American liberators, Iraq is a fledgl;ing dmeocracy, poeple can support whatever party they wish, the mission is acconmplished, reports of bombings, abductions, murders, and executions, etc, are overstated by the pinko hollywood international conpsiracy of weirdo leftist liberal commies who hate democracy, hate the constuitution, are against the dunning down of freedoms and safeguards for American citizens, and against the gathering of megapowers to el presidente's own hands.

You must assiduously vaoid saying wanything that seems not to conform strictly to the GOP party line, and the only spin permitted is Republican spin - that means the besotted Republicans, not the Republicans who are finally awakening to the excesses of this man and his administration, and who are coming to realise that he has lied and continues to do so.

Having been savaged by the White House Gang, I shall be ever more careful in the future not to upset the war lords by suggesting that Bush has failed in any respect, whether in failed intelligence, failed domestic policies, failed foreign policies, and an overwhelming failure to sense that the Anmerican people will take so much and then the jig is up!

Not only will I not point out those things in the future, but I do not say them now. Anyone who thinks I have said them, or, if I have said them, think that I really mean them is crazy.

Like Lt Bush, I will go to any lengths to secure peace, whether at home or abroad.

Any President of any country that has as a matter of policy a dependence on "FEAR" as its primary diplomatic tool has crossed the line between civilisation and savagery.

My gun is bigger than your gun, and so I must be right, but even if I am not right, I am going to behave as if I am, and you will be annihalated if you disagree.

DISCLAIMER: I didn't say that, I never would even suggest such a thing.

I would be too AFEARED to do so!

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 03/29/06 5:56 pm:
or you could continue to stick around and give another perspective. since when do you shy away from a debate ?

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 03/29/06 7:32 pm:
Ronnie,

>>>perhaps it started at Bull Run?<<<

Oh Gawd... you're not one of those nut cases who think that because we did nasty things to the Indians we are guilty of every crime against humanity that has ever existed, are you?

>>>Nothing happens in isolation, everything has cause and effect,<<<

That may be true in science, especially physics. But it is not necessarily true in politics, military affairs or history. Some $h!t just happens for no reason. You can measure the effect of the event, but the "cause" is not necessarily there. There was no reason for what happened to the WTC in 1993. OBL did it because he was making a political statement. There was no "cause" other than a terrorist leader's desire to hurt someone he perceived as an enemy. Same with most terrorist attacks. There's no reason for them. The victims didn't cause the terrorists to do what they do. The terrorists do it all on their lonesome.

>>>If you think attacks have stopped attacks from happening in the ME you must be asleep.<<<

I don't think that they have stopped in the Middle East. But I do know that they have stopped HERE. And that is ultimately our real goal. As long as they are fighting in Iraq, the terrorists are not attacking us HERE.

>>>FEAR is what causes attacks to happen.<<<

Really? Which part of the Middle East did you live in, that you know the Middle Eastern mind so well? Not. In the Middle Eastern mind, fear is weakness, and weakness must be attacked. So if the insurgents are afraid of us, they won't attack us. They'll expect us to attack them. And as long as we can keep that fear alive in the terrorists in the Middle East, we cut their ability to attack us here.

>>>FEAR - think of it and try to see where it fits into the Iraq WQar. Whose fear, and whose fear of what?<<<

That's the difference between the Western and the Arab mindsets. We attack when we feel threatened, especially when the observable data confirms that threat. Ours is a self-defense mindset. The Arabs attack weakness, no matter where perceived, and avoid confrontation with anyone or anything perceived as stronger than them. Theirs is a desert-survival mindset. That is why creating fear in them is such a powerful psychological tool of war. That is why Israel was able to defeat 22 Arab countries with a couple of Uzis and a few useless Davidka bombs. They created FEAR in the enemy, and the enemy was driven off. Fear and strength are the mental tools of power in the Middle East.

>>>It deserves a much more profound approach, and Truth proper is not a matter of opinion.<<<

It's a matter of opinion when nobody can agree on what the Truth proper is. You don't even agree with the statistical data that I have provided, much less the strategic, tactical and psychological facts. If we can't agree on simple numbers and what they mean, how will we ever get to the "truth proper"?

>>>If 'respect' is not important, why has Bush got rid of Andy Card and put in his stead a man whoe primary role is now to re-engage respect for America in the eyes of the international community? Your Leader obviously disagrees with you on this point.<<<

Really? I knew that Card had resigned. But I didn't know that Bush had already chosen his replacement. And I've been watching for it. As far as I know, Bush hasn't put ANYONE in Card's slot yet. So without knowing who Bush will pick, how do you know what that person's priorities are going to be?

>>>Who is right, George or Elliot?<<<

Elliot is Right. George is to the Left of Elliot. By now you should already know that.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 03/29/06 8:14 pm:
actually Card's replacement was announced .It's Josh Bolten (previously OMB boss).

What cracks me up is that pundits for weeks have been saying that Bush needs to shake up the staff and now that it is beginning they are using the event to further pan the administration .

This is nothing compared to what Fred Barnes proposed last week . Rumor has it that John Snow at Treasury is next to go .

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 03/30/06 10:39 am:
What about his STATEMENT??

I thought I made it very clear I disagree with his statements . He places the cause of the events that are happening due to actions of the US . I think the US actions are a reaction to attacks on the US . I also stated that from his experience with the jihadi he should understand that so I therefore question his understanding of the geo-political reality .

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 03/30/06 2:07 pm:
>>>I don't think we can deny that we started WWIII in 2003 by the War on Iraq. <<<

I most certainly do deny it. Iraq may be the most open battle of WWIII to date, but it is harlt the first battlefield of that war. The war started decades ago. As I said in my original response, It started with the Iran Hostage Crisis. It started with the Entebee Hijacking. It started with the Munich Olympics Massacre. It started with the 6-Day War and the Yom Kippur War. It started with the Hijacking of the Achille Lauro and the murder of Leon Klinghoffer. It was started with the 2000 Millenium Terrorist Plot. It was started with the bombings of Marine barracks in Beirut, the US embassies in Africa, and the USS Cole in Yemmen. It was started with the first bombing of the WTC in 1993 and the destruction of the WTC on 9-11. WWIII is decades old, only nobody noticed it until now. And we most certainly did not fire the first shot.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 03/30/06 2:39 pm:
Herr,

First, by all means indicate which portion(s) of my answer would amount to an "Ad hominum attack." The part where I said I'm grateful for his service?

Next, what exactly WAS the question? The only thing I can identify as yours from the orginal post is the title and a commentary, so how exactly is it possible to address a question that was not asked?

I put up with a lot of crap on these boards, but I won't put up with asinine accusations such as yours. If you choose to offer commentary as a 'question' then I'll choose to offer whatever 'answer' to your 'question' that suits me, and if you want to accuse me of an 'attack' of any kind you'd best be prepared to justify it.

Steve