WSJ(Op-ed): Was Osama Right?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

The post means exactly what it says. And your post confirms the worst of what some of you have become. In war there is no freedom. There is no democracy. There is no rule of law. There's destruction and horror. That you think you can accomplish both is the poison of this culture. The belief war can be clean is why we will always lose when it is dirty, and war is always dirty. We have never lost a war on the battlefield. We have lost in your house.

There are three kinds of war. One, we are remarkably good at fighting. One, we aren't so good at fighting. And one that we are terrible at fighting.

The fun thing is, Iraq has at times been all three.

One, is war against another nation state. We are really really really good at this. This is what the Iraq War originally was, and it ended in three weeks. We are no longer in anything remotely similar to that war.

The second is a civil war. We are not terribly good at this, partially for the reasons you listed. It's the ugliest of wars, you end up choosing sides almost arbitrarily, and the public begins to wonder what the point of it all is.

Iraq is partly a civil war right now and we have ostensibly taken the side of the majority (the Shi'ites) even though they are the side most likely to a) install a theocracy, align themselves with Iran and c) are already openly hating us. We could win this kind of war if we used the scorched earth tactics you advocated, but we would not be winning for ourselves and would essentially be in the role of kingmaker.

Finally, we - and most countries - are terrible at fighting insurgencies that rise up in the face of occupation. This is Iraq at its hear right now. And - again - the fun part is that there are actually two (and maybe three and possibly four) insurgencies taking place right now. Local Iraqis, foreign fighters in the pay of Iran and Syria, and Al Qaeda.

Iraq is not so much a war right now as it is a riot.

[alexey]

We have lost (the war) in the White House.

Fixed that for ya.

[headexplode]

When America fights a war, it does so, in every case, with the moral advantage of freedom, equality and just goals.

If you believe every war America fights is just and guided by such lofty principles you are more far gone than anyone on this board (except for Sarge and AFC and MSF). If that's the company you want to keep . . . .

[Skins24]

But what you don't understand is that by winning in the way that you and others suggest we in the process sell our soul and become what we were supposedly fighting against.

You're basing this on what? Certainly not history. All the times the U.S. was allowed to fight to win (which is what they're suggesting), we've come out stronger. After WW2, no one turned into Nazis or anything :laugh:

[sacase]

You know you claim we are not good at fighting the insugency, but many of my friends who are either over there or have been there would beg to differ. We are pretty damn good at it. The biggest problem is America has lost its will to do anything that takes loger than 90 days. Our soldiers are up to the task and they see the results of their work, reenlistment levels are still very high. Its the people back home who are not even fighting the war who are causing such a negative image (damn hippies).

Also we are not choosing a side. We are not on the Shia side at all, we are firmly planted in the middle because we know if Iraq is to have any hope of survival as a country then we need to have both shia and sunni work together.

To be perfectly honest things would have been much more calm if Iran hadn't stuck their nose in things. We really need to bloody it for them so we can get a handle on the situation. But of course we can't since the American people are so weak.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

To be perfectly honest things would have been much more calm if Iran hadn't stuck their nose in things. We really need to bloody it for them so we can get a handle on the situation. But of course we can't since the American people are so weak.

Not that I am defending Iran (which is run by despicable people), but I would think that they are probably somewhat concerned at having an American Army on its Eastern and Western border. Nobody seems to grasp the fact that in the last five years, we have literally surrounded Iran with troops.

And I don't think it is weak to want to avoid war. Going to war is actually won of the easiest things a country can do.

What is weak is retreating from alternative solutions.

[headexplode]

You know you claim we are not good at fighting the insugency, but many of my friends who are either over there or have been there would beg to differ. We are pretty damn good at it. The biggest problem is America has lost its will to do anything that takes loger than 90 days. Our soldiers are up to the task and they see the results of their work, reenlistment levels are still very high. Its the people back home who are not even fighting the war who are causing such a negative image (damn hippies).

Also we are not choosing a side. We are not on the Shia side at all, we are firmly planted in the middle because we know if Iraq is to have any hope of survival as a country then we need to have both shia and sunni work together.

To be perfectly honest things would have been much more calm if Iran hadn't stuck their nose in things. We really need to bloody it for them so we can get a handle on the situation. But of course we can't since the American people are so weak.

It's not the lack of will on the side of the American people--it's the lack of any credible leadership in this country. At one time, Bush enjoyed historic support from his countrymen. He has since squandered most of that. Both parties in Congress enjoy probably even less support from their constituents. How can you support a war run with such incompetence? How can you support an elective war that is so obviously mismanaged? Where nothing is done without a keen eye to political perception?

[sacase]

Not that I am defending Iran (which is run by despicable people)' date=' but I would think that they are probably somewhat concerned at having an American Army on its Eastern and Western border. Nobody seems to grasp the fact that in the last five years, we have literally surrounded Iran with troops.

And I don't think it is weak to want to avoid war. Going to war is actually won of the easiest things a country can do.

What is weak is retreating from alternative solutions.[/quote']

I am not saying that we need to invade Iran, we just need to bloody their nose a bit to let them know the dog still has a bite and they need to tread carefully. They are enabling A LOT of US troops getting killed.

[ACW]

This thread was okay at first, but now it's like one side is :blahblah: and then the other is :blahblah: until it's just one cacophony of :blahblah:

:laugh:

[sacase]

It's not the lack of will on the side of the American people--it's the lack of any credible leadership in this country. At one time, Bush enjoyed historic support from his countrymen. He has since squandered most of that. Both parties in Congress enjoy probably even less support from their constituents. How can you support a war run with such incompetence? How can you support an elective war that is so obviously mismanaged? Where nothing is done without a keen eye to political perception?

Just becasue the war is mismanaged on a stategic/political level doesn't mean it is being mismanaged on the tactical level.

In all fairness, I have despised Rumsfield from the beginning and I place most of blame on him. He tried to run the military and the war like a corporation. Least amount of troops to get the job done. He went against Gen Shenseki's advice that you need 300,000+ troops on the group because you have to take and holdl ground if you plan on pacifying a country. Rumsfield wanted to do it on the cheap and use an air war to try and win. An Air war will never win a war because once again you have to take and hold ground. I don't understand how you so blantently disreguard the advice of your top Army General who not only is a ranger but has been studying military tactics his who adult life.

Think about this, why did Rumsfield have to go get a General who was retired to be the Army Chief of Staff? No other Army General wanted the position for some reason.

[headexplode]

Just becasue the war is mismanaged on a stategic/political level doesn't mean it is being mismanaged on the tactical level.

In all fairness, I have despised Rumsfield from the beginning and I place most of blame on him. He tried to run the military and the war like a corporation. Least amount of troops to get the job done. He went against Gen Shenseki's advice that you need 300,000+ troops on the group because you have to take and holdl ground if you plan on pacifying a country. Rumsfield wanted to do it on the cheap and use an air war to try and win. An Air war will never win a war because once again you have to take and hold ground. I don't understand how you so blantently disreguard the advice of your top Army General who not only is a ranger but has been studying military tactics his who adult life.

Think about this, why did Rumsfield have to go get a General who was retired to be the Army Chief of Staff? No other Army General wanted the position for some reason.

Well, I can totally agree with you here on all points. Well said.

[sacase]

This is the guy that should have been listened to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Shinseki

Shinseki is famous for his remarks to the U.S. Senate Armed Services committee before the war in Iraq in which he said "something in the order of several hundred thousand soldiers" would probably be required for post-war Iraq. Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz publicly disagreed with his estimate.

------------------

When the insurgency took hold in post-war Iraq, Shinseki's comments and their public rejection by the civilian leadership were often cited by those who felt the Bush administration deployed too few troops to Iraq. On November 15, 2006, in testimony before Congress, CENTCOM Commander Gen. John Abizaid said that General Shinseki's estimate had proved correct.

-------------------

Personality clashes apart, Shinseki and Rumsfeld had significantly different approaches to military doctrine. For example, following September 11, 2001, Rumsfeld was in a meeting whose subject was the review of the Department of Defense's (Contingency) Plan in the event of a war with Iraq (U.S. Central Command OPLAN 1003-98). [11] The plan (as it was then conceived) contemplated troop levels of up to 500,000, which Rumsfeld opined was far too many. Gordon and Trainor wrote:

As [General] Newbold outlined the plan … it was clear that Rumsfeld was growing increasingly irritated. For Rumsfeld, the plan required too many troops and supplies and took far too long to execute. It was, Rumsfeld declared, the "product of old thinking and the embodiment of everything that was wrong with the military."

* * *

[T]he Plan . . . reflected long-standing military principles about the force levels that were needed to defeat Iraq, control a population of more than 24 million, and secure a nation the size of California with porous borders. Rumsfeld's numbers, in contrast, seemed to be pulled out of thin air. He had dismissed one of the military's long-standing plans, and suggested his own force level without any of the generals raising a cautionary flag.

-------------------

SEN. LEVIN: General Shinseki, could you give us some idea as to the magnitude of the Army's force requirement for an occupation of Iraq following a successful completion of the war?

GEN. SHINSEKI: In specific numbers, I would have to rely on combatant commanders' exact requirements. But I think --

SEN. LEVIN: How about a range?

GEN. SHINSEKI: I would say that what's been mobilized to this point -- something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required. We're talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that's fairly significant, with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems. And so it takes a significant ground- force presence to maintain a safe and secure environment, to ensure that people are fed, that water is distributed, all the normal responsibilities that go along with administering a situation like this.

Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, called Shinseki's estimate "far off the mark" and "wildly off the mark". Wolfowitz said it would be "hard to believe" more troops would be required for post-war Iraq than to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Specifically, Wolfowitz said to the House Budget Committee on February 27, 2003:

DEP. SEC. WOLFOWITZ: There has been a good deal of comment - some of it quite outlandish - about what our postwar requirements might be in Iraq. Some of the higher end predictions we have been hearing recently, such as the notion that it will take several hundred thousand U.S. troops to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq, are wildly off the mark. It is hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army - hard to imagine.

-------------------

On November 15, 2006, Gen. John P. Abizaid, chief of the U.S. Central Command, in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committtee, acknowledged that in his view, and with hindsight, that Shinseki had been correct in his view that a larger post-war force was needed. Abizaid noted that this force could have included Iraqi or international forces in addition to American force:

-------------------

SEN. Lindsay GRAHAM (Republican, S. C.): Was General Shinseki correct when you look backward that we needed more troops to secure the country, General Abizaid?

GEN. ABIZAID: General Shinseki was right that a greater international force contribution, U.S. force contribution, and Iraqi force contribution should have been available immediately after major combat operations.

[headexplode]

This is the guy that should have been listened to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Shinseki

I think another man who should shoulder his fair share of the blame is our old friend and Czar of Coalition Provisional Authority: Paul Bremer.

[Henry]

Just becasue the war is mismanaged on a stategic/political level doesn't mean it is being mismanaged on the tactical level.

In all fairness, I have despised Rumsfield from the beginning and I place most of blame on him. He tried to run the military and the war like a corporation. Least amount of troops to get the job done. He went against Gen Shenseki's advice that you need 300,000+ troops on the group because you have to take and holdl ground if you plan on pacifying a country. Rumsfield wanted to do it on the cheap and use an air war to try and win. An Air war will never win a war because once again you have to take and hold ground. I don't understand how you so blantently disreguard the advice of your top Army General who not only is a ranger but has been studying military tactics his who adult life.

Think about this, why did Rumsfield have to go get a General who was retired to be the Army Chief of Staff? No other Army General wanted the position for some reason.

Now I think we are starting to find some common ground.

Thinking a current war has been mis-managed is not the same thing as having no stomach for war in general.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I think another man who should shoulder his fair share of the blame is our old friend and Czar of Coalition Provisional Authority: Paul Bremer.

You should read "Life in the Emerald City." It's just a stunning indictment of the post-war management.

[sacase]

Honestly if I was Bush I would go to Shinseki with my tail between my legs and as k him how we can fix the situation.

[DjTj]

Honestly if I was Bush I would go to Shinseki with my tail between my legs and as k him how we can fix the situation.

We already know his answer to that - or at least part of his answer: More troops. A LOT more troops.

Unfortunately, that would require a lot more money ... or a draft; and Bush won't be able to get either of things without significant political support. That support was something Bush might have had in 2002, but he certainly doesn't have it now. Unfortunately, he managed the politics exactly the same way he managed the war: He mustered just enough support to approve just enough of an operation to get us to Iraq, but not enough to finish the job ...

[JMS]

No they wouldn't the terrain would limit their effectivenes.

As I said, nukes are currently many tens of thousands times more powerful than the ones we dropped on Japan in the 1940's. We currently have enough nukes to destroy the world a few times over. I think we could do a good job on Afghanistan. Although I agree with you holding back is in our interest.

More guys in Afghanistan would be meaningless unless we can go into the tribal regions of Pakistan. That is where all the really bad guys are hanging out.

Are you advocating we draw down in Iraq to fight the real war in Afghanistan?

Actually Afghanistan is more populous than Iraq. More guys in Afghanistan make perfect sense if one's intention was to actually win the war on terror. Currently US and international forces in Afghanistan hold only the capital. US forces go on raiding parties into the countryside before returning to the capital. we aren't even trying to control the country side. We have seeded it over to the taliban and Al Quada. Some war on terror? Lip service on terror is more like it.

How many Generals do you know well enough to hear their personal feelings on the matter?

I read the newspaper. Powell and the joint cheifs of staff were quite vocal on their beliefs Torture is a flawed policy to approve.

Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Jack Vessey thoughts on torture..

http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/2006/09/post_48.html

Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Collin Powel's thoughts on torture..

http://websrvr80il.audiovideoweb.com/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/2006/0843_001.pdf

Other Retired Generals who have come out against torture..

• Brigadier General David M. Brahms (Ret. USMC)
  
• Brigadier General James Cullen (Ret. USA)
  
• Brigadier General Evelyn P. Foote (Ret. USA)
  
• Lieutenant General Robert Gard (Ret. USA)
  
• Vice Admiral Lee F. Gunn (Ret. USN)
  
• Rear Admiral Don Guter (Ret. USN)
  
• General Joseph Hoar (Ret. USMC)
  
• Rear Admiral John D. Hutson (Ret. USN)
  
• Lieutenant General Claudia Kennedy (Ret. USA)
  
• General Merrill McPeak (Ret. USAF)
  
• Major General Melvyn Montano (Ret. USAF Nat. Guard)
  
• General John Shalikashvili (Ret. USA)
  

http://www.essentialliberties.com/archives/000901.php

I don't know of any retired General officer who agrees with you that Torture is an effective or useful tool against this countries enemies. The administration won't even come out and state that. They approve it without naming it.

[sacase]

As I said, nukes are currently many tens of thousands times more powerful than the ones we dropped on Japan in the 1940's. We currently have enough nukes to destroy the world a few times over. I think we could do a good job on Afghanistan. Although I agree with you holding back is in our interest.

It doesn't matter how powerful they are the mountain terrain will contain the blast. Get a clue.

Actually Afghanistan is more populous than Iraq. More guys in Afghanistan make perfect sense if one's intention was to actually win the war on terror. Currently US and international forces in Afghanistan hold only the capital. US forces go on raiding parties into the countryside before returning to the capital. we aren't even trying to control the country side. We have seeded it over to the taliban and Al Quada. Some war on terror? Lip service on terror is more like it.

Another Clueless remark. We have many small bases in Afghanistan our soldiers just don't go out and do raids and return. Belive me the Taliban does not control the coutnry side and Neither does al Qaeda. Just ask Mullah Dadulla Lang, he found that out the hard way. But if you knew anything abotu the geography of the region as well as where the terrorists are actually hiding then you would know they are in the TRIBAL REGIONS of Pakistan that are along the Afghan border.

I read the newspaper.

So you don't know any is what you are saying.

[JMS]

The fact is we still produce products, if it came down to it we will have an industrial base we can fall back on. The trade deficit means nothing. How many Americans work in plants across the country.

So it's not that they don't produce anything that you find offensive. It's that they export more than they import and have economies which actually create a net surplus of capital which you find un American and worthy of contempt... Brilliant.

you mean like your half truths and failure to answer questions directly?

Half truths? Failure to answer questions? I note you didn't give any specific examples of these crimes I've committed. Guess non sprang to mind when you wrote your accusation.

The word may be Arabic, but the creator was Persian and Persians are NOT Arab. Again you spout a half truth. Actually Zero came from Sanskrit not Arabic and was invented by the Babylonians. So once again, what modern invention have Muslim countries produced? What have they contributed to the modern world?

Funny how you separate the two cultures when advocating nukes, knowing that Iran/Persia is much more likely to be given attention on that scale than any Arab country presently.

Anyway you are still wrong. Mohommed ibn-Musa Al-Khowarizmi lived in Baghdad, worked in the Arab University there. He spoke and wrote Arabic.

His text Hisab al-jabr w'al muqabala, was an Arab text. He may have been born into Khwarezm which is modern day Persia, but back then it was part of the Muslim empire controlled and run by the Arabs.

That reminds me. We use the Arabic numbering system for mathematics in this country and across Europe. Guess we should give them credit for that too.

Once again they don't produce ANYTHING good or bad.

Gee I wonder why some of them have so much money then. I don't think their is a country among them which produce nothing. And as I've said. Most of them produce more than they import, which suggests they are net positives to the world economy rather than a country which imports more than they produce such as the US. I think your statement is overly simplified and falls apart when subject to cursory inspection.

[JMS]

It doesn't matter how powerful they are the mountain terrain will contain the blast. Get a clue.

Brilliant.... The US has more than 40,000 nuclear warheads. I think we could bomb every side of every mountain in Afghanistan and blanket the country with radiation. Your technical note that Afghanistan has mountains is pedantic. Your assertion that the mountains make Nuclear weapons ineffective is ridiculous.

Another Clueless remark. We have many small bases in Afghanistan our soldiers just don't go out and do raids and return. Believe me the Taliban does not control the country side and Neither does al Qaeda. Just ask Mullah Dadulla Lang, he found that out the hard way. But if you knew anything about the geography of the region as well as where the terrorists are actually hiding then you would know they are in the TRIBAL REGIONS of Pakistan that are along the Afghan border.

First we dropped a bomb from an Airplane to kill Mullah Dadulla Lang, a cripple with a false leg. Not exactly conclusive evidence we control the country side.

http://www.nato.int/isaf/Update/Press_Releases/newsrelease/2007/pr070513-370.htm

Second off we have 160,000 troops in Iraq, but can't provide security for the 27 million folks there. Are you really suggesting that the 16 thousand troops we have in Afghanistan are controlling the larger country of Afghanistan with their 32 million population?

No unfortunately you are wrong here too. The Taliban are back, and Al Qaeda is with them. Currently it's a question of which war we are going to loose first. Iraq or Afghanistan. It's a lesson what the greatest most technologically advanced military can accomplish with incompetent leadership and a majority faith based electorate.

http://www.senliscouncil.net/modules/publications/014_publication

Executive Summary

Collapsing security and return of Taliban

Five years after their removal from power, the Taliban is back and has strong psychological and de facto military control over half of Afghanistan. Having assumed responsibility for the country in 2001, the United States-led international community has failed to achieve stability and security in Afghanistan. Attacks are perpetrated on a daily basis; several provinces, particularly those of the South, considered safe just weeks ago, are now experiencing regular suicide bombings, murders, and ambushes.

The international military coalitions in Afghanistan – the US-led Operation Enduring Freedom and the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) – are fuelling resentment and fear among the Afghan population. The distinctions between the two are extremely blurred, with the NATO-led ISAF now constantly engaged in war operations. Afghans see the international military coalitions as taking sides in a civil war situation, and as NATO-ISAF troops retreat to their fortified military compounds in southern Afghanistan, locals perceive that the Taliban-led insurgents are once again defeating global military powers.

Failure to address Afghanistan’s extreme poverty

fuelling support for Taliban

After five years of international donor pledges to provide resources and assistance to Afghanistan, Afghans are starving to death, and there is evidence that poverty is driving support for the Taliban. Prioritising military-based security, the United States’ and United Kingdom’s focus on counter-terrorism initiatives and militaristic responses to Afghanistan’s opium crisis has undermined the local and international development community’s abilities to respond to Afghanistan’s many poverty-related challenges.

US and UK counter-narcotics strategies have accelerated

and compounded all of Afghanistan’s problems

By focusing aid funds away from development and poverty relief, failed counter-narcotics policies have hijacked the international community’s nation-building efforts in the country and undermined Afghanistan’s democratically elected government. Poppy cultivation is a food survival strategy for millions of Afghans, and the United States’ and United Kingdom-led poppy eradication policies are fuelling violence and insecurity.

Afghan central government legitimacy and effectiveness

undermined by US-led international community’s approaches in Afghanistan

Five years of internationally lauded democracy-building achievements in Afghanistan mask the growing scepticism with which Afghans view their central government. Increasingly, Afghans perceive that their government is accountable to international donors, and not to the Afghans themselves. In establishing democratic institutions, the international community raised expectations high, yet stood back as the United States and United Kingdom undercut the Afghan government’s ability to deliver on these expectations by forcing the adoption and implementation of militaristic counter-narcotics policies. Failed counter-narcotics policies have undermined the legitimacy of the Afghan government.

Nation-building sequencing in wrong order

Massive international expenditure on security illustrates that right from 2001, the international community’s priorities for Afghanistan were not in line with those of the Afghan population. Rather, for the past five years, the US-led international community has prioritised military-focused security over the relief of Afghans’ extreme poverty and economic instability. Military expenditure outpaces development and reconstruction spending by 900%. An intensive and extended focus on relieving the poverty of Afghans could have created a solid foundation on which to re-build Afghanistan. Instead, because the fight against poverty has not been prioritised, the international community’s democracy-building efforts are collapsing as Afghans starve.

http://www.senliscouncil.net/modules/publications/014_publication/exe_sum

So you don't know any is what you are saying.(Generals against torture)

?, If I was sitting in the room with three Generals now would it advance the discussion in your eyes? Would it add anything to the discussion? Do you doubt the personal letters from three former CJC's? Do you think the 11 additional General's names which I have posted were given under duress when they openly opposed advancing torture as an intelligence gathering technique, in opposition to your stated position?

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3818695&postcount=268

Basing your counter argument on my personal acquaintances is sophomoric and not a persuasive way to counter my evidence.

[sacase]

So it's not that they don't produce anything that you find offensive. It's that they export more than they import and have economies which actually create a net surplus of capital which you find un American and worthy of contempt... Brilliant.

Gee I wonder why some of them have so much money then. I don't think their is a country among them which produce nothing. And as I've said. Most of them produce more than they import, which suggests they are net positives to the world economy rather than a country which imports more than they produce such as the US. I think your statement is overly simplified and falls apart when subject to cursory inspection.

Ok as far as the economies go they are not even close to our.

Saudi Arabia GDP – 374 billion

Iraq – 40.66 billion

Iran – 194.8 billion

Qatar – 30.76 billion

UAE – 164 billion

Bahrain – 12.12 billion

Kuwait – 52.17 Billion

US – 13.22 TRILLION

ok now let's take things a step further with the idea they they do not produce anything and why that is bad. No production means you have a lot of idle hands sitting around with no hope of ever achieving something. So people are destined to be poor for life unless you are already born into a rich family. Now since you have these un empoyed younger workers who are angry you now have a enviroment in which a islamic militant organization can step in and create problems and have plenty of people to recruit from. Now do you see the issue.

Arabs in general tend to feel that they are too good for many jobs which they deam meanial. Most of those countries import foreign workers to run resteraunts, pick up trash, run water plants, etc. So that makes even more unemployeed arabic workers. If you can't see the connection then you are intentionally avoiding it.

Funny how you separate the two cultures when advocating nukes, knowing that Iran/Persia is much more likely to be given attention on that scale than any Arab country presently.

Anyway you are still wrong. Mohommed ibn-Musa Al-Khowarizmi lived in Baghdad, worked in the Arab University there. He spoke and wrote Arabic.

His text Hisab al-jabr w'al muqabala, was an Arab text. He may have been born into Khwarezm which is modern day Persia, but back then it was part of the Muslim empire controlled and run by the Arabs.

Yes I seperate them. Any Arab will be offended if you call them Persian and any Persian will be offended if you call them Arabic. They are very different. Clearly you have no experince with Arabs or Persians.

He was Persian born in Uzbekistan. Just because he spoke Arabic does not make him Arab. If you say he was a Muslim then you would be right. But Muslim is a religion not an ethnicity. Once again he is Persian, thus we have another of your half truths.

Now, if you want to be technical Khowarizmi studied greek texts and translated them in Baghdad, now here is where it gets interesting. Diophantus lived in 200 AD, Khowarizmi liked in 800 AD. Diophantus was a greek Mathamatician. See a connection here?

That reminds me. We use the Arabic numbering system for mathematics in this country and across Europe. Guess we should give them credit for that too.

Actually our numbers come from the romans, who got them from the Etruscan’s who got them from the Greeks. The Arabic numbers were developed in India in 400 BC and the Greek ones were developed in 800 BC, who came first. Here is a prime example of your half truths.

Most Muslim inventions came from the 9th Century, since then, what have the contributed to the world?

[sacase]

Brilliant.... The US has more than 40,000 nuclear warheads. I think we could bomb every side of every mountain in Afghanistan and blanket the country with radiation. Your technical note that Afghanistan has mountains is pedantic. Your assertion that the mountains make Nuclear weapons ineffective is ridiculous.

You really have no concept of nuclear weapons and their use. Yes we could drop one on every side of a mountain and every valley, etc. But there is a principle of warfare called Economy of Force. That is not economy of force, plus the envriomental effects would be severe. If a nuke was dropped in a valley its not going to affect much more than that valley. even the fall out would be limited.

First we dropped a bomb from an Airplane to kill Mullah Dadulla Lang, a cripple with a false leg. Not exactly conclusive evidence we control the country side.

http://www.nato.int/isaf/Update/Press_Releases/newsrelease/2007/pr070513-370.htm

Second off we have 160,000 troops in Iraq, but can't provide security for the 27 million folks there. Are you really suggesting that the 16 thousand troops we have in Afghanistan are controlling the larger country of Afghanistan with their 32 million population?

No unfortunately you are wrong here too. The Taliban are back, and Al Qaeda is with them. Currently it's a question of which war we are going to loose first. Iraq or Afghanistan. It's a lesson what the greatest most technologically advanced military can accomplish with incompetent leadership and a majority faith based electorate.

http://www.senliscouncil.net/modules/publications/014_publication

once again you are wrong, do you make a career out of being just wrong.

"Although the Taliban initially denied he was killed, his body was put on display for reporters. He had three gunshot wounds." http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/profiles/mullah_dadullah.htm

If I was sitting in the room with three Generals now would it advance the discussion in your eyes? Would it add anything to the discussion? Do you doubt the personal letters from three former CJC's? Do you think the 11 additional General's names which I have posted were given under duress when they openly opposed advancing torture as an intelligence gathering technique, in opposition to your stated position?

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3818695&postcount=268

Basing your counter argument on my personal acquaintances is sophomoric and not a persuasive way to counter my evidence.

But your not. For every article you find that says it doesn't work I can find one that says it does work.

[JMS]

But your not. For every article you find that says it doesn't work I can find one that says it does work.

Telling then, you haven't posted any such articles. Telling you have no military personell expressing confidence in torture as an inteligence gathering technique. Much less 3 former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs and eleven additional flag and general officers.

[sacase]

Telling then, you haven't posted any such articles. Telling you have no military personell expressing confidence in torture as an inteligence gathering technique. Much less 3 former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs and eleven additional flag and general officers.

What's the point? To get into an article battle of who can post the most articles?

You have already been proven wrong on other things, you have no credibility.