# Attn MSM: A GI killed in Iraq is not "killed in the War on Terror" **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 1, 2007, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attn-msm-a-gi-killed-in-iraq-is-not-killed-in-the-war-on-terror/402248 "2007-05-01T02:16:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![OneCentStamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/13edae/32.png) [@OneCentStamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OneCentStamp)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2007, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attn-msm-a-gi-killed-in-iraq-is-not-killed-in-the-war-on-terror/402248/81 "2007-05-03T16:03:50Z")
[QUOTE=tdn] Hmmm. What’s your position on the issue of same-sex bowling? [/QUOTE] Geez, would you get your mind out of the gutter? ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2007, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attn-msm-a-gi-killed-in-iraq-is-not-killed-in-the-war-on-terror/402248/82 "2007-05-03T16:40:21Z")
Guys, guys…gals, why bother responding to **Stone** , the Canadian uberman, when we all know that he’s simply parroting (as always) the latest talking points of the rightards. I mean, looke here and see if what he’s saying sounds familiar: [**It’s All About Al-Qaeda Again**](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/02/AR2007050202305_pf.html) > [@](#): > > President Bush is at odds with the American public and a restive congressional majority over the Iraq war, and even some Republicans talk about imposing new requirements that could trigger a troop withdrawal. > > It’s time to play the Qaeda card. > > In a speech about Iraq yesterday morning at the Willard Hotel, the president mentioned Osama bin Laden’s group – 27 times. “For America, the decision we face in Iraq is not whether we ought to take sides in a civil war, it’s whether we stay in the fight against the same international terrorist network that attacked us on 9/11,” Bush told a group of construction contractors. > > Never mind all that talk about sectarian strife and civil war in Iraq. “The primary reason for the high level of violence is this: Al-Qaeda has ratcheted up its campaign of high-profile attacks,” Bush disclosed. > > The man who four years ago admitted “no evidence” of an Iraqi role in the Sept. 11 attacks now finds solid evidence of a role in Iraq by the Sept. 11 hijackers. > > “I don’t need to remind you who al-Qaeda is,” Bush reminded. “Al-Qaeda is the group that plot and planned and trained killers to come and kill people on our soil. The same bunch that is causing havoc in Iraq were the ones who came and murdered our citizens.” > > **This new line of argument would seem to present some difficulty for the White House, and not only because, as the Pentagon inspector general reported last month, al-Qaeda had no ties to Iraq before the U.S. invasion in 2003. More to the point: If the problem in Iraq isn’t sectarian strife, then why is the U.S. military building walls to separate Sunni enclaves from Shiite neighborhoods?** > > \ > > The White House’s plan to deemphasize sectarian fighting evidently didn’t make it to Egypt, where Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met with the Iraqi prime minister. **A Rice deputy, briefing reporters yesterday on the condition of anonymity, said the United States wants Arab countries to pressure Sunnis to stop fighting the Shiite-led Iraqi government.** > > These awkward truths left White House press secretary Tony Snow with hard work at the podium in his first televised briefing since returning from cancer surgery. > > Fox News Channel’s Bret Baier noted: **“This morning the president said that al-Qaeda seems to be a bigger problem than sectarian violence. That seems to fly in the face of what we’ve heard in recent weeks and months on the ground in Iraq.”** > > “Well,” the game press secretary replied, “you’ve got a shifting series of circumstances.” > > NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell wasn’t convinced. **“Wasn’t the whole point of the surge to quell the capital and really to diminish the sectarian violence? And now he seems to be saying the enemy is more al-Qaeda.”** > > \ > > On the Hill, Republicans took a Qaeda cue from the White House. “I can’t understand how my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, knowing that al-Qaeda is in charge over there, knowing that they want to destroy us, knowing that Osama bin Laden wants to destroy America, that you want to pull out,” Rep. Dan Burton (Ind.) railed on the House floor. > > If Democrats are intimidated by the Qaeda card, they didn’t show it. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), an hour before visiting the White House to meet with Bush, gave an Iraq speech on the House floor. “ **This administration," she said, "should get a clue.** ” – highlights mine. Nothing to see here, folks…move along please. * * * Nice to see some reporters (and one from Faux News no less!) call Sa…erm, Snow’s bullshit for what it is. Not to mention Pelosi’s shot right through the Bushit. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2007, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attn-msm-a-gi-killed-in-iraq-is-not-killed-in-the-war-on-terror/402248/83 "2007-05-04T00:28:56Z")
Just for **Sam “The Man” Stone** and his dogmatic brother in arms, **Debaser** – well, really, as members of the 101rst Keyboard Brigade.: [The War on Terror’s Grand Snafu](http://www.progressive.org/mag_rcb050107) > [@](#): > > And here’s another one: [The State Department](http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2006/) released a report this week **that shows how the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is increasing the number of terrorist attacks globally. In other words, the War on Terror’s main effect has been to generate more terror.** > > According to the Bush Administration’s own State Department analysts, “International intervention in Iraq has brought measurable benefits. It has removed an abusive totalitarian regime with a history of sponsoring and supporting regional terrorism and has allowed a new democratic political process to emerge. It also, however, has been used by terrorists as a rallying cry for radicalization and extremist activity that has contributed to instability in neighboring countries.” > > Leaving aside the happy talk about a functioning government, let alone anything that could be called a “democratic political process” in Iraq, the report finds that terrorist attacks against noncombatants have nearly doubled there since 2005. > > “Afghanistan remains threatened by Taliban insurgents and religious extremists,” the report notes–not to mention “the surge in narcotics cultivation.” > > \*\*The most notable finding, pointed out by The New York Times today, is that the two countries with the largest U.S. troop presence have seen the biggest jump in terrorism. “The numbers underscore the ineffectiveness of battling terrorism with conventional military means,” the Times quotes a Naval Postgraduate School terrorism expert, John Arquilla, as saying. > > They also underscore the tragic waste of lives by this Administration, which invokes fear of terrorism to justify policies that damage our conscience and make us less safe.\*\* – highlights mine Reality is a bitch, ain’t she, **SamDeba**? As is talking out your stereo assholes… ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2007, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attn-msm-a-gi-killed-in-iraq-is-not-killed-in-the-war-on-terror/402248/84 "2007-05-04T00:40:00Z")
[QUOTE=Sam Stone] Those of you demanding an instant withdrawal need to at least consider whether this is going to be seen as a defeat for America in the Middle East. If so, are you willing to accept that? Do you understand what that will mean? It’s going to mean increased pressure on the U.S. from all quarters. A withdrawal from Iraq is going to be seen around the world as a sign of major weakness, and every extremist on the planet is going to do a little happy dance. al-Qaida is going to flood back into Afghanistan. Syria and Iran will have a free hand to meddle in Iraq. The Kurds may wind up at war with someone. [/QUOTE] Those of you demanding an instant withdrawal need to at least consider whether this is going to be seen as a defeat for America in Southeast Asia. If so, are you willing to accept that? Do you understand what that will mean? It’s going to mean increased pressure on the U.S. from all quarters. A withdrawal from Vietnam is going to be seen around the world as a sign of major weakness, and every communist on the planet is going to do a little happy dance. The Viet Cong is going to flood back into South Vietnam. Russia and China will have a free hand to meddle in Vietnam. The Cambodians may wind up at war with someone. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2007, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attn-msm-a-gi-killed-in-iraq-is-not-killed-in-the-war-on-terror/402248/85 "2007-05-04T00:52:27Z")
[QUOTE=Frank] Those of you demanding an instant withdrawal need to at least consider whether this is going to be seen as a defeat for America in Southeast Asia. If so, are you willing to accept that? Do you understand what that will mean? It’s going to mean increased pressure on the U.S. from all quarters. A withdrawal from Vietnam is going to be seen around the world as a sign of major weakness, and every communist on the planet is going to do a little happy dance. The Viet Cong is going to flood back into South Vietnam. Russia and China will have a free hand to meddle in Vietnam. The Cambodians may wind up at war with someone. [/QUOTE] Yeah, that’s actually pretty much the point. Losing the Vietnam war led to shitty outcomes for pretty much everyone except self-righteous Boomers. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2007, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attn-msm-a-gi-killed-in-iraq-is-not-killed-in-the-war-on-terror/402248/86 "2007-05-04T00:56:17Z")
[QUOTE=furt] Yeah, that’s actually pretty much the point. Losing the Vietnam war led to shitty outcomes for pretty much everyone except self-righteous Boomers. [/QUOTE] Name some. In my view, it has in the long run made no difference at all. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2007, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attn-msm-a-gi-killed-in-iraq-is-not-killed-in-the-war-on-terror/402248/87 "2007-05-06T20:25:49Z")
Tell that to the people of South Vietnam. Tell that to the Vietnamese boat people after the war - two million South Vietnamese citizens fleeing the Communists, of which up to 1 million died. Tell that to the tens of thousands of South Vietnamese soldiers who were executed when the North gained control over the south. And of course, Pol Pot in Cambodia was greatly aided by the North Vietnam government and military which fought against the Cambodian government in the early 1970’s, paving the way for the fall of Phnom Penh to the Khmer Rouge in 1975, and the subsequent horrific genocide of the middle class. Would the killing fields still have happened had South Vietnam won the war earlier? After the U.S. withdrew, the Pathet Lao also overthrew the government of Laos, with the help of the North Vietnamese army, establishing yet another Communist country in the region. To this day, Vietnam and Laos have remained economic basket cases, two of the poorest nations in Asia. And China did, in fact, meddle in Vietnam. In fact, China and Vietnam went to war with each other in the late 1970’s, leading to hundreds of thousands of more deaths. Other effects of the loss in Vietnam are harder to blame precisely on the war, but one wonders if the Russians didn’t see the American failure and loss of will to continue the fight as a signal that they would be unopposed if they invaded Afghanistan. The period immediately following the withdrawal of the U.S. from Vietnam saw increased adventurism from Communist countries throughout the world. Cuba stepped up its interventions in South America and elsewhere. The Soviets invaded Afghanistan and meddled aggressively elsewhere. And the loss in Vietnam may have contributed to the ‘malaise’ at home in the U.S and the subsequent stagflation that came of it. I’d call all of that a pretty negative result of losing the war. Of course, since we can’t see the alternate history you can posit all kinds of alternate scenarios had the war continued or never been fought in the first place, but we have no way of knowing that. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2007, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attn-msm-a-gi-killed-in-iraq-is-not-killed-in-the-war-on-terror/402248/88 "2007-05-06T20:44:42Z")
[QUOTE=Sam Stone] Other effects of the loss in Vietnam are harder to blame precisely on the war, but one wonders if the Russians didn’t see the American failure and loss of will to continue the fight as a signal that they would be unopposed if they invaded Afghanistan. [/QUOTE] :rolleyes: A failed occupation of a foreign country for ideological reasons is going to encourage another attempt to occupy a country for ideological reasons ? There’s a reason Afghanistan is sometimes called the Soviet’s Vietnam. If anything it was a warning. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2007, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attn-msm-a-gi-killed-in-iraq-is-not-killed-in-the-war-on-terror/402248/89 "2007-05-06T22:05:59Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs] :rolleyes: A failed occupation of a foreign country for ideological reasons is going to encourage another attempt to occupy a country for ideological reasons ? There’s a reason Afghanistan is sometimes called the Soviet’s Vietnam. If anything it was a warning. [/QUOTE] :rolleyes: yourself. Vietnam was not a ‘failed occupation’. It was an attempt by the U.S. to prevent a communist takeover of South Vietnam by North Vietnam. The U.S. never intended to occupy a damned thing, and were never an occupying power in that country. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, on the other hand, was an attempt by the Soviets to occupy and annex that country. The only reason it’s called the ‘Soviet’s Vietnam’ was that it shared one single characteristic with the Vietnam war - in both cases, the superpowers ‘lost’. That’s about all they have in common. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2007, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attn-msm-a-gi-killed-in-iraq-is-not-killed-in-the-war-on-terror/402248/90 "2007-05-06T23:15:33Z")
Afghanistan was the war on terror because terrorists trained and were based there. We lost interest in it because there was nothing we wanted once we drove out the “terrorists”. The Taliban has been permitted to grow and impact the country again. If you lived in Iraq it would be a war against the occupiers. When a country invades your turf ,you fight very hard. They wont quit because they have no place to go. It is their home. If you lived in Iran would you see it as a war on terror next door.? How about Saudi Arabia.? That is where the 911 terrorists came from and were funded. Do they see it as a war on terror.? Defining it as a war on terror requires a very narrow self serving definition to justify your deeds. It is not even a war. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attn-msm-a-gi-killed-in-iraq-is-not-killed-in-the-war-on-terror/402248.md?page=4)