RUMSFELD admitting DEFEAT in IRAQ?

“click here for Rumsfelds Memo


WASHINGTON - A memo from Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to his senior staff raises doubts about how much progress has been made in the war on terrorism and asks whether the Pentagon is the right agency to lead the fight against Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations around the world.

The memo's sober tone contrasts sharply with the upbeat public face Rumsfeld and other senior administration officials have put on U.S. efforts to defeat terrorists. Its disclosure struck a chord in a capital in which lawmakers from both major political parties have been increasingly questioning the Bush administration's goals in Iraq and its direction in fighting terrorism.
Portions of Rumsfeld's memo seemed aimed at the CIA, giving middling marks to the effort to capture terrorist leaders and raising questions about whether the agency has the authority it needs to do the job.

"Are we winning or losing the Global War on Terror?…Is our current situation such that 'the harder we work, the behinder we get'?" Rumsfeld asks in the Oct. 16 memo, sent to Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz; Gen. Peter Pace, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and Douglas J. Feith, the undersecretary of defense for policy.

The memo was first reported in today's USA Today. It was later released by the Pentagon, where officials tried to deflate any suggestion that the memo reflected pessimism by Rumsfeld about the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan and efforts to tamp down on terrorism.

"It was not a memo about Iraq and it was not a memo about Afghanistan," Pentagon spokesman Lawrence DiRita told reporters at a Pentagon news conference today. "It was a memo about the global war on terror, trying to ask the kinds of questions that need to be asked, that any leader should be asking."”

“I find Rumsfelds memo shocking if not sickening.It seems that he and the admin had no idea of what they were getting into nor properly planned for this war.Here's the sec. of defence expressing doubt about the USA's ability to win this war!!!!!!!!!It's friggin shocking.What does this do for the moral of troops?If i were a soldier headed to Iraq or already there i would not be highly motivated besides being pissed off.Its absolutely stunning.”

“Im not surprised....”

“There is NO doubt we're elbow deep in the horses ass....”

“"It was not a memo about Iraq and it was not a memo about Afghanistan,"”

“

(.)(.)
) . (
( Y )
”

“"It was not a memo about Iraq and it was not a memo about Afghanistan,"
- mtn gal



Below is the full text of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's memo on the war on terror:

October 16, 2003

TO: Gen. Dick Myers
Paul Wolfowitz
Gen. Pete Pace
Doug Feith

FROM: Donald Rumsfeld

SUBJECT: Global War on Terrorism

The questions I posed to combatant commanders this week were: Are we winning or losing the Global War on Terror? Is DoD changing fast enough to deal with the new 21st century security environment? Can a big institution change fast enough? Is the USG changing fast enough?

DoD has been organized, trained and equipped to fight big armies, navies and air forces. It is not possible to change DoD fast enough to successfully fight the global war on terror; an alternative might be to try to fashion a new institution, either within DoD or elsewhere — one that seamlessly focuses the capabilities of several departments and agencies on this key problem.

With respect to global terrorism, the record since Septermber 11th seems to be:

We are having mixed results with Al Qaida, although we have put considerable pressure on them — nonetheless, a great many remain at large.

USG has made reasonable progress in capturing or killing the top 55 Iraqis.

USG has made somewhat slower progress tracking down the Taliban — Omar, Hekmatyar, etc.

With respect to the Ansar Al-Islam, we are just getting started.

Have we fashioned the right mix of rewards, amnesty, protection and confidence in the US?

Does DoD need to think through new ways to organize, train, equip and focus to deal with the global war on terror?

Are the changes we have and are making too modest and incremental? My impression is that we have not yet made truly bold moves, although we have have made many sensible, logical moves in the right direction, but are they enough?

Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?

Does the US need to fashion a broad, integrated plan to stop the next generation of terrorists? The US is putting relatively little effort into a long-range plan, but we are putting a great deal of effort into trying to stop terrorists. The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists' costs of millions.

Do we need a new organization?

How do we stop those who are financing the radical madrassa schools?

Is our current situation such that "the harder we work, the behinder we get"?

It is pretty clear that the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another, but it will be a long, hard slog.

Does CIA need a new finding?

Should we create a private foundation to entice radical madradssas to a more moderate course?

What else should we be considering?

Please be prepared to discuss this at our meeting on Saturday or Monday.

Thanks.”

“

"metrics"... wow. Shades of Robert S. McNamara.”

“I'd LOVE to be a fly on the wall at that meeting....”

“Bumsfelt feels bums”

“"Is our current situation such that "the harder we work, the behinder we get"?"

WTF is a "behinder"?”

“Innuendo”

“For such "brilliant" people they sure do #&%!$ things up.”

“"It was not a memo about Iraq and it was not a memo about Afghanistan," Pentagon spokesman Lawrence DiRita told reporters at a Pentagon news conference today.

and

"SUBJECT: Global War on Terrorism"

If we were defeated in Iraq, who won? Saddam is still in control? Yes there are problems. It’s a war for crying out loud. Wars are by definition dangerous and unpredictable. I wish it was going better or not needed at all. I would bet that Saddam was killing people at a faster rate than the rate being killed over there now. WMD or not he was an evil man. Even the UN could agree on that.

I read no admission of defeat just that its not over yet. That I knew.”

“I agree...its not over yet, not by a long shot...and yes...I believe we need a new agency set up and devised to combat terror and terrorists...It needs to be secret, and it needs a liscense to kill and be answerable only to a few individuals...not congr#&%!$s. It needs serious funding and allowed to do its job.”

“Stik, there currently things going on you don't hear about.

SF operatives have complained that their operations are being hampered by career officers that are overly concerned with whether guys are in line with AR 670-1 (dress code). In addition some of the policing actions are hampering Iraqi's ways of life, you can't win hearts and minds when you take away someones livelyhood”

“PS. it's pretty well known (in certain circles) that Rumsfeld doesn't care for the Army. He wants a lighter faster responding fighting force, and I do believe we need to improve on that. But as you may or may not know, creating new programs in the Government takes time and money. Often times the programs are exploited. If you want to read an interesting story look up Stryker on google.”

“Come on, you negative Bush-haters! Who cares if you hate Bush? Don't vote for the dude in 2004, it's that simple. Why the venom? Why the anger? Hey, be happy! Life is good®! Bush has the ballz do finally put teeth into the rhetoric our past whimpy President spouted, and what the Divided Nations, oops, United Nations keeps spouting. Guys like Saddam LOVE rhetoric, but they hate action. Bush's got action. Like it or not, he does. If you don't like his action, don't vote for him, if you do, vote for him. If you want inaction, keep voting liberal. HA HA HA!

This trash talk about us not making progress in the war on terrorism and "things not going well in Iraq" is crap. We've relegated Osama Mama to handing out a sorry copy of an old cassette tape to a passerby riding a donkey in Afghanistan every few months. Whoa. Ya, Osama's got us beat. What a joke. And Iraq, despite the terrorist acts we see there, which don't reflect the populace, we are making fantastic progress. Libs just focus on the negative. That's how liberal ideology thrives... being bummed, feeling guilty, being negative, being pessimists... if something is going good, they'll always say, "yabbut" and point to something awful happening somewhere else. Be happy. Enjoy life. Hike. Fish. Climb. Paddle. Do what you can for others, with a smile.

Of course I say this rhetorically. I know I'm just dreamin'! But hey, I love to dream! DREAM ON, PEOPLE!!! YAAAAA! Buh-bye, you take care now. Adios.”

“I thought Rush was in rehab”

“This trash talk about us not making progress in the war on terrorism and "things not going well in Iraq" is crap.

From Voice of America News:

"The commander of U.S. ground forces in Iraq is reporting an increase in attacks on American troops.

Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez also says groups linked to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terrorist network may be responsible for some recent bombings in Iraq, although no known members of the terrorist network have been caught in Iraq.

General Sanchez told reporters in Baghdad Wednesday that U.S. troops have come under attack as many as 35 times a day in the past three weeks, with an average of 20 to 25 attacks each day. He also said he expects the strikes to become more aggressive, radical and organized as U.S.-led coalition forces continue to search for deposed leader Saddam Hussein and his loyalists."”

“Which campaign and which candidate was it where the mantra was repeated ad nauseam "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?"

Dude, you're gettin' a new president!”

“I'll miss condyleeza though.”

“""The commander of U.S. ground forces in Iraq is reporting an increase in attacks on American troops."
UnDeAd fLeSh EaTiNg ViOLiN
02:23:34 PM
10/23/03

DUH! THAT'S why we're fighting these extremists! I thought you knew that? We're THERE so the Iraqi people can set up and vote for their OWN leader, not have their lives DICTATED to them and have them tortured if they dissent. The radical extremists who like to CONTROL the people with FEAR don't like the concept of a free Iraq, so they are fighting those who are trying to bring peace and FREEDOM to their people. THAT'S what we're fighting. Of course we're getting attacked by the extremist. What does that have to do with not making progress with the country of Iraq as a whole?

You just don't like Bush. Clinton talked the talk, Bush walks the walk. You like talk. In 2004, we'll count the ELECTORAL COLLEGE voting results and see who's still in there. If Bush has more, he stays, if not, he's gone. It's not rocket science, as the Dems try to make it out to be.

As for Rush? I never listen to Rush? Why do you keep bringing him up so much? You must listen to him a lot more than me. Which is cool, we all gotta float our own boats.”

“As for your question, yes, I'm better off now than I was four years ago. But I don't give Bush the credit for it. I think we all create our own destinies. If I wasn't as good off as I was four years ago, I surely wouldn't go around blaming someone else and pointing fingers. This country has lots of opportunies and options, we choose our own paths and either benefit or suffer from our own choices. I don't play the blame game. Luckily for me, I'm better off now than I was four years ago. I've seen more sunsets, I've climbed more mountains, I've hiked more beaches, and I've made more friends. It don't get much better than that, no matter who's fist is pounding in the big white house.”

“Buck here is my complaint with the War on Terror

Saudi Arabia financed and supported 19 people who hijacked airliners and crashed them into the WTC and Pentagon. Saudi Arabia continues to recruit and support terrorism.

Bush sent troops into Afghanistan to go after Osama bin Laden. Great, needed to be done.

So far the Bush administration has continually protected the House of Saud while trying to point a finger to Saddam Hussein.

Now, I'm glad Saddam is finally out, sanctions were just killing Iraqi kids (and saddam was doing that too).

Rumsfeld keeps saying that Saddam was somehow involved with 9/11. No proof exists. Yet he's fine with IGNORING Saudi Arabia's involvement.

No, I'm not saying we should invade Saudi Arabia. But to allow them to continue to finance and support our enemies, and to protect them from congressional inquiries is treasonous.

This is NOT a Bush v. Clinton thing. This is a national security issue that the current administration is ignoring.

As for the Rush thing, you sound like a neo-con. Most neo-cons are puppets to talk radio hosts that don't know the difference between Wahabis and Sunnis”

“Rumsfeld has always been a person who spoke his mind, unlike most politician-like folks who prefer to say what they feel the majority want to hear.

Is this the time when he should've kept his mouth shut in regards to how he feels? I don't think so. If we keep going the way we are (in Iraq), who knows how long this conflict will last. Maybe his statement(s) will drive an effort to find "more attainable" solutions to this conflict and expedite getting out troops back home.”

“On your last post, Buck, we agree.

As for your first:

DUH! THAT'S why we're fighting these extremists! I thought you knew that? We're THERE so the Iraqi people can set up and vote for their OWN leader, not have their lives DICTATED to them and have them tortured if they dissent.

I thought we were there because Iraq was a threat because of WMD? If we're just on a huanitarian mission, why didn't we raise some support from the UN before going in? Why didn't we allow weapons inspections to continue for a short time until we could convince other countries to go in with us so we would not have to bear the cost of reconstruction?

The radical extremists who like to CONTROL the people with FEAR don't like the concept of a free Iraq, so they are fighting those who are trying to bring peace and FREEDOM to their people. THAT'S what we're fighting. Of course we're getting attacked by the extremist. What does that have to do with not making progress with the country of Iraq as a whole?

It has to do with the planning and statements made by the administration before we invaded. It was supposed to be so much easier than this, remember? Much of this lends itself to the belief that our fearless leaders are getting us involved in another quagmire like Vietnam.

There were plenty of people who supported that war as well, and felt that those protesting were somehow betraying our country. History paints a slightly different picture, doesn't it?”

“HEY, somebody with a REASONABLE voice! :^D Thanks for the respectful, intelligent response, DonOfTheDeadMan. Wow, that's a looOoong name. Good, but long.

As for being a neo-con, I'm not even sure what thaht is. As for listening to talk-radio, I'm working during those hours, and when I'm not working, I'm out getting wild and crazy exploring the wilderness. So no, I don't listen to talk radio, including Rush. I do catch Hannity & Colmes now and then, but not that much. I read a lot of news though, but mostly mainstream stuff like the Sacramento Bee.

I agree with you about Saudi Arabia, but they have always been like this. It's obviously a touchy foreign policy situation because in many ways, Saudi Arabia is a big U.S. ally (especially pubicly), and in many other ways (mostly subversive), they are one of our worst enemies. It's a religious thing. All this stuff is religious. The "West", of which the United States is the "head" off, is the Great Satan to them. To them, they see no morals with us, they see Hollywood and pornography and gay rights and women in revealing clothing, and, the BIGGEST of all, we support their arch enemy Israel. That's what most of this is all about.

I'm not sure the solution. Of course I think we can keep those terrorists scurrying like cockroaches AND still do what we did in Iraq. I'm sure there are lots of "behind the scenes" stuff going on with Saudi Arabia and the Bush Adm. trying to resolve this that we don't hear about. I don't know. I tried to apply to become a CIA agent on their website and I just missed the age cut-off by one lousy YEAR. Shoot! :^D

No Administration is perfect, Bush certainly isn't, and the nice thing, IMHO, about Bush is that he's not afraid to admit mistakes, openly, when he feels he honestly made one. I feel Bush is doing what he thinks is best to fight global terrorism. No one will agree on everything, that's for sure. Each action he takes, no matter what it is, will have its critics. That's true of every President. But some folks here (and elsewhere), whoa, they just HATE Bush and spend every waking hour of thier life saying how much they hate Bush. I guess we all do what makes us happy, but, man, I'm sure glad I don't let one man affect MY life that way!”

“Hi Phaedrus! Regarding WMD's, even Bill Clinton said, after leavning office, "It is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted-for stocks of biological and chemical weapons" in Iraq.

Saddam not only had weapons of mass destruction for many years, he even USED them. And there was no record showing he had discarded them. With the ridiculous amount of time he had due to U.N. indecisions, sure he got rid of them or gave them away or hid them, he surely had the time! As soon as Bush was elected, he knew he wasn't all "talk". Where they are now remains to be seen, but they were certainly there. History shows that. And history also shows what happens when you take a "mad man" at his word.

"It has to do with the planning and statements made by the administration before we invaded. It was supposed to be so much easier than this, remember?"

Much easier? I'm not sure it was supposed to be easier. I think they were expecting much higher casualties in the actual battle for Iraq, because we swept in there with unexpected ease, but fighting these extremists may have been more than they bargained for. I don't know. I don't fear another Vietnam here simply because the Iraqi people will have their own country within a matter of months, with the U.N. playing more of a role.

"If we're just on a huanitarian mission, why didn't we raise some support from the UN before going in?"

Bush tried! Clinton went into Bosnia without even going to the U.N. first, but few protests? Clinton launched both air attacks and cruise missile attacks on Iraq on a few occasions WITHOUT seeking U.N. approval. Bush did the honorable thing by at least TRYING first at the U.N., and in fact got more countries supporting the effort than the first Gulf War. And we Americans live FIRST under the U.S. Constitution, not U.N. Resolutions. You'll never get unaminous support on anything in the U.N. There's too many adversarial interests there. China, France, and Germany were just trying to protect their "big business" interests in Iraq. Of course they're gonna kick and scream.

"Why didn't we allow weapons inspections to continue for a short time until we could convince other countries to go in with us so we would not have to bear the cost of reconstruction?"

Phaedrus, are you SERIOUS with this statement? How many times have weapons inspectors gone in and gotten booted out? How many years has Saddam played this game with weapons inspectors? Over a decade! This was nothing new. This was the same 'ole same 'ole. Time was on Saddam's side. Bush called his bluff. Buh-bye Saddam.”

“Buck, weapons inspectors were never booted out by Iraq.”

“<>Hi Phaedrus! Regarding WMD's, even Bill Clinton said, after leavning office, "It is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted-for stocks of biological and chemical weapons" in Iraq.

The rest of your post has been dealt with repeatedly on other threads, so I'm not going to rehash it.

If you'd care to go back and read those threads, be my guest.


And you believed him? He also said "I never had sexual relations with that woman". What I wanted all along was the evidence of WMD, not the lack of evidence of no WMD.


Saddam not only had weapons of mass destruction for many years, he even USED them.

This has been gone over for a long long time here. Go read the "saddam gassed his own people" thread. To sum up: WMD have a shelf life. The question is whether Saddam was dangerous to the US, not whether he did the proper UN WMD disposal paperwork, or even whether or not he was attempting to regain WMD. If inspections kept him from being a danger to the world, then Bush's rhetoric about WMD was fiction.

And there was no record showing he had discarded them. With the ridiculous amount of time he had due to U.N. indecisions, sure he got rid of them or gave them away or hid them, he surely had the time! As soon as Bush was elected, he knew he wasn't all "talk". Where they are now remains to be seen, but they were certainly there. History shows that.
And history also shows what happens when you take a "mad man" at his word.

History has also shown that we can remove dangerous regimes from power through containment and engagement. The USSR might be a good example.”

“DonOfTheDeadMan, did I read wrong where Iraq, over the course of a decade, did not let the weapons inspectors search anywhere they please, and follow the U.N. Resolution mandates on allowing unfettered access to all their sites, and even expelled inspectors as "spies"? I could be wrong, but that's what I remember reading the last ten years or so... over and over and over and over.”

“I messed up that post, obviously.


Too much work to do today to go back and redo it.”

“Hi Phaedrus! I'm new here, so I haven't seen the other threads.

Here's a quick history of the UN Resolutions regarding inspections:

April 11 1991, UN passes resolution 687 which calls for a ceasefire and for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction to be destroyed.
June 9, 1991, UN inspectors begin bio/chem inspections.

Aug 15, 1991, UN passes resolution 707 demanding compliance with weapons inspectors.

Oct 15, 1994, UN passes resolution 949 demanding Iraq refrain from threatening its neighbours and again orders compliance with weapons inspectors.

July 1, 1995, Iraq admits it has bio/chem weapons.

June 12, 1996, UN passes resolution 1060 denouncing Iraq's refusal to allow access to sites.

June 21, 1997, Un passes resolution 1115 condemning the repeated refusal of Iraq to allow weapons inspectors to inspection sites.

Oct 23, 1997, UN passes resolution 1134 which reaffirms Iraq's obligations to cooperate with weapons inspectors after Iraqi officials announce that "presidential sites" are off-limits to inspectors.

Nov 12, 1997, UN passes resolution 1137 which rejects Iraqi government's announced intention to prohibit weapons inspections.

Nov 13, 1997, Iraq kicks weapons inspectors out of Iraq.

Nov 20, 1997, Iraq lets weapons inspectors back into Iraq.

Sep 9, 1998, UN passes resolution 1194 condemning Iraq's decision to cease cooperation with UN weapons inspectors.

Nov 5, 1998, UN passes resolution 1205 again condemning Iraq's decision to cease cooperation with UN weapons inspectors.

Dec 16, 1998, UN weapons inspectors leave Iraq again due to Iraq's refusal to cooperate with the UN.

Nov 8, 20002, the UN unanimously approves resolution 1441 demanding that Iraq provide immediate, unconditional accounting of weapons of mass destruction and to allow inspectors to verify.

As for dealing with dangerous regimes, there's a difference between having ideological differences (like the USSR) and dealing with a MAD MAN who is not afraid to use WMD's. Huge difference. I'm sure glad we didn't let Saddam get into the same position that N. Korea. is now.

Of course this is all has-been stuff now, who cares. HIKE ON! YAAA!”

“I had a thought before the war started,and I held my breath.
When our elite divisions were massed on the ground ready to deploy that they were gonna get
nuked.
Thank god for small favors.”

“Yep. Some Newb shows up freshly loaded with his Fox News Talking Points and we have to go through all this crap again, LOL


I know... Rush snorted all the microbes.”

“Buck,

Please don't take my above post as saying that Saddam complied with every U.N. resolution. But everytime that the U.N. inspectors left it was because the U.S. or U.N. asked them too. They were never kicked out of the country by Iraq, sorry about splitting hairs but I'm a programmer so details pay my rent”

“Wrong column!! RPG syntax error!!”

“"Yep. Some Newb shows up freshly loaded with his Fox News Talking Points and we have to go through all this crap again, LOL"

Love it! I love the way the libs don't think someone could possibly think this stuff up themselves, unless they listen to Rush or Fox News! HA HA! Good times! Libs are superior and smart and enlightened, and if you possibly think differently, then obviously otherwise-intelligent brains are being subversively brainwashed by Rush! And here I thought liberal philosophy was supposed to be "understanding" and "accepting" of contrary views. HA HA! No, instead libs try to falsely puff themselves up by belittling others who disagree with them. Don't worry, I'm okay with you and your beliefs, and I won't intentionally pop your balloon! :^D”

“"But everytime that the U.N. inspectors left it was because the U.S. or U.N. asked them too. They were never kicked out of the country by Iraq, sorry about splitting hairs but I'm a programmer so details pay my rent"
DonOfTheDeadMan
05:08:28 PM
10/23/03

Hi Don! Not to rehash this stuff, or major in the minors, but are you saying that Iraq never kicked out the American inspectors on the U.N. inspection team back in 1997?”

“I love the title of this thread.”

“well there is one small really minor item that I should add - several members of the us portion of the weapons inspection team had no experience as weapons inspectors. But they were very experianced as CIA field operatives. When the Leader of the UN inspection team complains that it was the US that sabotaged the inspections by inserting CIA into the team I do tend to take notice,and exception....

The inspections were meant to find WMD's , not provide the US with military intelligence.”

“No Administration is perfect, Bush certainly isn't, and the nice thing, IMHO, about Bush is that he's not afraid to admit mistakes, openly, when he feels he honestly made one. I feel Bush is doing what he thinks is best to fight global terrorism. No one will agree on everything, that's for sure. Each action he takes, no matter what it is, will have its critics. That's true of every President. But some folks here (and elsewhere), whoa, they just HATE Bush and spend every waking hour of thier life saying how much they hate Bush. I guess we all do what makes us happy, but, man, I'm sure glad I don't let one man affect MY life that way!"
Buck


buck, you da man!”

“(CBS/AP) A senior general at the Pentagon tells the Washington Post he believes the United States is on the path to defeat – and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his advisers are to blame.

“The current OSD [Office of the Secretary of Defense] refused to listen or adhere to military advice," the general said on the condition his name not be used, in part out of fear of punishment. "It is doubtful we can go on much longer like this," he added. "The American people may not stand for it - and they should not."


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/24/iraq/main541815.shtml

It is interesting that Rumsfeld is now getting all the blame for Iraq. Evidently as a way to shield the real devil, Bush. These signals only mean that Rummy will be stepping down soon.”

“Frontline had an interesting show last night about the the US downsizing the military and believing that they can still be effective in winning wars. They did show and convincingly that we have the abliltiy to win battles and be very aggressive, but long term we need bodies on the ground. Techology can not win wars.

There was a massive war game in 2002. We pulled out some old general from retirement and put him in charge of the enemy army. This general beat our military in three days in the war games. The active Generals did not like this, so they started over and this time scripted the enemy side so they could test all of the new technology that the US military has now.

Rumsfield is one of the big supporters of these smaller armies.”

“I wonder if anyone's looking at the idea of having several divisions who are specifically trained and outfitted to secure an area, after the new smaller, lighter army has defeated the main body of the enemy. I doubt Iraq is the last country in which we're gonna end up taking out the government and trying to install a democracy, wars over the next several decades could end up following the Iraq model.”

“"....we're gonna end up taking out the government and trying to install a democracy, wars over the next several decades could end up following the Iraq model."

I'm not trying to flame anyone's arse here, but we've been hearing about "installing democracy" in regard to Iraq and a few other places too.

To install democracy is itself un-democratic and therefore destined to fail.

Any "installed" government will be a puppet of the "installer".

South Vietnam's government was a creation of the U.S. with its leaders changing frequently to suit the U.S.”

“whatever the US or anyone wants to do in the middle east will fail...those people and countries have been around ALOT longer than we ahve and they have fought and argued for centuries...nothing will change the way the live and the mindsets that are engrained in them...NUKE 'EM??? WHY?? what good would it do...then all those journalists would be out of a job...”