It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Iraqi Rebels Support Bush's Re-Election (moved from ATSNN)
page: 10
share:
A number of french press associates have reported to the Associated Press that their iraqi captures firmly supported president bush being re-elected,
stating that it would help their cause in taking down and challenging the US and its allies.
www.commondreams.org
French journalists held hostage for four months in Iraq said their militant captors told them they wanted President Bush to win re-election.
One of the captors from the group calling itself the Islamic Army in Iraq said Bush's re-election would boost their cause, Malbrunot wrote in Friday's edition of Le Figaro, the French daily he works for.
"We want Bush because with him the American troops will stay in Iraq and that way we will be able to develop," Malbrunot cited the captor as saying.
Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
The question this brings me to is this: What would occur under John Kerry's America that would have caused Iraqi rebels to not favor him for presidency? Is it percieved that he would be harder on Iraqi policy, or that he would call out to the international community? It seems odd that Bush would be favored by these anti-americans...unless he was doing something wrong.
[edit on 25-12-2004 by maegman]
[edit on 25-12-2004 by maegman]
[edit on 25-12-2004 by Banshee]
www.commondreams.org
French journalists held hostage for four months in Iraq said their militant captors told them they wanted President Bush to win re-election.
One of the captors from the group calling itself the Islamic Army in Iraq said Bush's re-election would boost their cause, Malbrunot wrote in Friday's edition of Le Figaro, the French daily he works for.
"We want Bush because with him the American troops will stay in Iraq and that way we will be able to develop," Malbrunot cited the captor as saying.
Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
The question this brings me to is this: What would occur under John Kerry's America that would have caused Iraqi rebels to not favor him for presidency? Is it percieved that he would be harder on Iraqi policy, or that he would call out to the international community? It seems odd that Bush would be favored by these anti-americans...unless he was doing something wrong.
[edit on 25-12-2004 by maegman]
[edit on 25-12-2004 by maegman]
[edit on 25-12-2004 by Banshee]
Honestly, I think Kerry would have pulled the soldiers out as quickly as possible. Now, I'd prefer my comments not be construed into a Bush Bashing
thing, because then emotions take over and everybody runs for their foxholes.
Where ever the United States resides in the world, simply for being a nation state, it will find resistance among the local populace. Uganda has enemies. France has enemies. Simply being a nation will garner you enemies. The United States is no different. We're basically like the good natured big brother who sometimes gets the better of himself at the Christmas dinner. Talks too loud, tells a dirty jokes, drinks too much, whatever. That doesn't matter, because what does matter is the next Christmas. BIg Brother comes to the dinner with a reputation, and he can't put a forkful of waffles in his mouth without getting yelled at.
Best intentions with limited results. Not because of a lack of understanding or resolve, but because of remarkably bad timing.
Which leads us to the inherent problem with politics in America right now. Both sides claim to be right, and the truth is, they both are. Both sides, pro and against, are actually right. That means both sides are absolutely passionate with resolve, and neither wants to budge an inch. The Republicans say that it was the moral thing to do, and I can actually agree with them. Democrats say that it was a strategic mistake to invade, and I can agree with them too.
Both sides are basically right.
So, to answer your question, the insurgents would most definitly support Bush over Kerry, because Kerry would certainly withdraw. Bush will continue to engage them, and by doing so, make them grow larger, stronger, and more dangerous.
Do I believe that Bush a genuinly decent guy with the best of intentions. I surely do. But, his advisors also failed to learn the lessons of the British in North Africa, the Israelis in the West Bank, the Russians in Afghanistan, even the crusaders against the Ottoman Turks. For every one we kill, three more take his place. Anywhere in Iraq, Rpg's can be purchased for $10 a piece, Ak-47's for not much more.
We're talking about the one place in the world that has completely resisted change of any kind since the birth of Christ. Uneducated people who are prone to believe the most outrageous propaganda, which has been bred into them with a culture of latent insecurity about their roles in society. Because of these factors, the insurgents are grateful to Bush. To them, he's the gift that keeps on giving, because he confirms their outrageous paranoia. This fuels the engine of insurgency through both recruiting and fundraising.
Again, this isn't a Bush bashing post. I'm not even going to reply to anyone who drags this thread into the mudpit. But, at this point, the war simply cannot be won, short of isolated nuclear exchanges. Abu Graib sealed the deal in the minds of moderate muslims in the Middle East. It cannot be won, because we would have to do something that no army in the history of the world has ever been able to do, at least without genocide.
We cannot fight an effective war against an insurgent army willing to kill themselves. That's a war of attrition, and if you find yourself in one, you've already lost, because they'll just wear you down through the loss of manpower, armor, and the disruption of supply lines.
Where ever the United States resides in the world, simply for being a nation state, it will find resistance among the local populace. Uganda has enemies. France has enemies. Simply being a nation will garner you enemies. The United States is no different. We're basically like the good natured big brother who sometimes gets the better of himself at the Christmas dinner. Talks too loud, tells a dirty jokes, drinks too much, whatever. That doesn't matter, because what does matter is the next Christmas. BIg Brother comes to the dinner with a reputation, and he can't put a forkful of waffles in his mouth without getting yelled at.
Best intentions with limited results. Not because of a lack of understanding or resolve, but because of remarkably bad timing.
Which leads us to the inherent problem with politics in America right now. Both sides claim to be right, and the truth is, they both are. Both sides, pro and against, are actually right. That means both sides are absolutely passionate with resolve, and neither wants to budge an inch. The Republicans say that it was the moral thing to do, and I can actually agree with them. Democrats say that it was a strategic mistake to invade, and I can agree with them too.
Both sides are basically right.
So, to answer your question, the insurgents would most definitly support Bush over Kerry, because Kerry would certainly withdraw. Bush will continue to engage them, and by doing so, make them grow larger, stronger, and more dangerous.
Do I believe that Bush a genuinly decent guy with the best of intentions. I surely do. But, his advisors also failed to learn the lessons of the British in North Africa, the Israelis in the West Bank, the Russians in Afghanistan, even the crusaders against the Ottoman Turks. For every one we kill, three more take his place. Anywhere in Iraq, Rpg's can be purchased for $10 a piece, Ak-47's for not much more.
We're talking about the one place in the world that has completely resisted change of any kind since the birth of Christ. Uneducated people who are prone to believe the most outrageous propaganda, which has been bred into them with a culture of latent insecurity about their roles in society. Because of these factors, the insurgents are grateful to Bush. To them, he's the gift that keeps on giving, because he confirms their outrageous paranoia. This fuels the engine of insurgency through both recruiting and fundraising.
Again, this isn't a Bush bashing post. I'm not even going to reply to anyone who drags this thread into the mudpit. But, at this point, the war simply cannot be won, short of isolated nuclear exchanges. Abu Graib sealed the deal in the minds of moderate muslims in the Middle East. It cannot be won, because we would have to do something that no army in the history of the world has ever been able to do, at least without genocide.
We cannot fight an effective war against an insurgent army willing to kill themselves. That's a war of attrition, and if you find yourself in one, you've already lost, because they'll just wear you down through the loss of manpower, armor, and the disruption of supply lines.
new topics
-
Resident Plane enthusiasts needed weird noise
General Chit Chat: 2 hours ago -
Fired FEMA Employee Says It Was Not ‘Isolated’ Incident: ‘Colossal Event Of Avoidance’
US Political Madness: 5 hours ago -
Australia has been holding out on us
Music: 5 hours ago
0