 |
Hello Ash:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ash123
Sarcasm from me?? Hell no. I think you're kicking the Woverines's butt. I love it. I used to do it all the time, but he wears you out. He's pretty good. He gave me an inch about 4 years ago.
Of course you're not looking for a joust. But that's what it winds up being. It's friendly, though, for the most part.
excon
Can a Jewish guy like myself be anti-Semantic? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ash123
Quote:
See also the white House's classic new chestnut to repackage the war:
I'm trying to figure out what this has to do with the price of tea in China.Quote:
"A New Way Forward"
I put forward a fact: there are more than 20 countries involved in the War in Iraq today. There have been as many as 40. Ergo, we are not and never have been alone in Iraq. You have not in any way, shape or form been able to argue that point. You have tried to diminish the contributions of other countries. So what? They are still there, still involved, and still support the war. For all those who claim that we should have gotten international support for the War in Iraq, I say we did... from 40 countries. We are NOT there alone, nor did we act "unilaterally" as many like to claim. Downplay the involvement of others all you want, but you can't escape this basic fact.
Yep. End of his tenure as PM. And when Bush steps down in 2009, it will be the end of his tenure too. That isn't a euphemism. It's a statement of fact.Quote:
As for some of your euphemisms:
1) Tony Blair coming to the "end of his tenure" (sounds like how one might describe the family rabbit dying to young Timmy) Anyway, Blair was actually stepping down.
Actually, yes it is. He has stated publicly that his reasons for decreasing UK troop levels in Iraq is because the areas where his troops currently are no longer suffer from the levels of violence seen in the past. He can draw down because the Iraqis are standing up.Quote:
His successor (Gordon Brown) has quickly made it clear that a draw down is a priority.
WHY?
Well, it's not because the country has faith in the war!
And if he had so little faith in the war, why would he leave ANY of the 5,000 troops he has there over there at all? It's not like he couldn't draw them out in a single movement if he wanted to. It's only 5,000, not 50,000. They could all leave at once if he was so worried about progress in Iraq.
I can't understand your point here. I stated that if you are going to argue that if the USA is the only one doing the heavy lifting, it isn't a legitimate operation, then the UN must not be a legitimate operation. You respond by talking about how Bush didn't get the UN involved in the war. It doesn't answer my point.Quote:
2) Any mention of the UN in regard to this administration now - is convenient at best.
That's my point.Quote:
3) "Heavy Lifting" - uhh, yeah. Without us, there would be no lifting at all.
Which false pretenses are those?Quote:
This is OUR war... like it or not. And it was fought on false pretenses
Which quagmire is that?Quote:
and that is why it is such a quagmire
You do remember the part where the Iraqi people voted for a government and a Constitution, right? The part where they have a military force of over 200,000. The part where the terrorists keep dying in large numbers? The part where al Qaeda leaders keep getting caught and killed? The part where militias that were formerly hostile to us are now working with us against al Qaeda? The part where violence in Iraq has been halved in the past 6 months? You mean that quagmire?
I'll say it again. 40 countries have been or are involved in the war in Iraq. You cannot escape this basic fact.Quote:
- and why our traditional allies cannot all stand with us.
Again, downplay the contributions of other nations all you like. They are still there, they still support the war politically, economically and militarily.Quote:
It's not even CLOSE enough to say we even have a country standing beside us now. Would you really say it is the UK or... Australia? I can punch up those numbers again for you.
Perhaps. But WE won't.Quote:
4) Troop Reductions... Yes, we had a lot more. And other countries did too. But it is not a draw down after a victory or an establishment of stability. It is a slow retreat. With no plan for how to end a thousands yer old religios war. Naïve many may have been. SUICIDAL they are not... and so they will continue to leave.
I don't know... 200,000 troops and 50,000 cops trained and equipped in a period of 3 years? Seems pretty effective to me. Not at all like the "advisors" in Vietnam. But why let facts get in the way of a good tirade?Quote:
5) "NATO Training Mission to Iraq" - oh man. This is the same euphemism as "advisors" in Vietnam. Their job is to "train, advise and mentor..."
And that is why he's not in charge anymore and Patreus is. Patreus can and is getting the job done. Sanchez was a failure, and he needs to justify the fact that he couldn't handle the war by blaming POLICY instead of his own competence.Quote:
In fact our own US military commander had this to say:
As for other milirary men: Retired Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez, coalition commander in 2003 and 2004, called the Iraq war "a nightmare with no end in sight," for which he said the Bush administration, the State Department and Congress all share blame.
We didn't lose Vietnam... the politicians did. If the politicians had left the fighting to the soldiers and stayed out of it, we would indeed have won. We would not have been taking land and giving it back and taking it again. We would not have made areas that we weren't allowed to attack. We would not have retreated against an inferior force. Those decisions were all made by political hacks. THEY are the reason we lost in Vietnam.Quote:
Some wars you don't win: Vietnam, Korea...
Some invasions don't work: Cuba is one that many still wince about.
And you want to repeat the same mistake in Iraq?
Again, there's a reason that Zinni is a FORMER commander. Also, notice that he doesn't say that Bush shouldn't have invaded. He says we should have invaded with more people... a bigger invasion.Quote:
Retired Marine General Anthony C. Zinni, former U.S. commander in the Middle East, said that "everybody in the military knew" that the Bush administration's plan for Iraq consisted of only half the troops that were needed, and says that country is now "a powder keg" that could break apart into warring regions.
So what exactly is the position that you are supporting? Are you saying we should have never invaded (as you seem to be saying based on your statement about "false pretenses"), or are you arguing that we should have used a larger invasion force and sent MORE people to Iraq? You can't do both, you know. Those two positions are mutually contradictory.
Uh, no he's not. He has issues with how the early post-invasion situation was handled, but there is no question that he agreed with and supported the invasion of Iraq.Quote:
And most ironically perhaps... Norman Schwarzkopf (Mr. Gulf War) is among the naysayers for this ill-conceived war.
Then let me do it for him.Quote:
General Petraeus' speech was supposed to bolster the white house, but even he could not point to any good that the war was doing and even if it was "making us more safe" in his September testimony on Iraq.
1) The war eliminated a major supporter of terrorism.
2) It eliminated a regime that was attempting to attain nuclear weapons, and had already attained chemical and biological weapons and used them.
3) It has made Iraq, not New York City, the main battlfield of the war on terror, with terrorists flocking there instead of here. Every terrorist there is one that is not here.
4) It has freed 25 million people from a tyranical, oppressive regime.
5) It has paved the way for the posibility of a democratic government in Iraq.
Every one of these five facts makes us safer here at home.
Actually, what we are fighting for is time... enough time for the Iraqi government to get its $h!t together and start taking control of their own destiny. In order for them to do that, we need to provide security and stability for the political/diplomatic system to get rolling. As I mentioned above, that sort of counter-terrorism operation (and that is what I am describing, a counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism operation) takes years, even decades, to achieve success. But it can be achieved.Quote:
I am not sure what you are fighting for. I am not sure they know either. Democracy would be super... but it was so naively planned with such little regard for facts and enemies and yes, even our own allies...
Why? I don't believe it to be true.Quote:
I think the brave thing to do is admit:
This was a naïve disaster of a war
Yeah... and because of that, we had 12 years of Saddam torturing his people, supporting terrorism, stealing money meant for aid to his people (the oil-for-food scam), gassing his enemies with WMDs, shooting at coalition forces' aircraft, developing more WMDs and long-range delivery systems, and generally defying the UN with impunity. Bush Sr. was wrong. He should have gone straight to Baghdad when he had the chance. It would have saved his son a lot of grief.Quote:
(Bush Sr. even said NO to a pre-emptive strike on Iraq)
(continued)
Exactly what does that mean? HOW do you support them? You clearly don't believe that they are competent to complete their mission. You want to pull them out when THEY overwhelmingly say they want to stay and complete their mission. You want funding for the war to be cut off... which would leave the troops without needed resources. You want to destroy the morale of the American military. You clearly don't mind all that much if terrorists come here instead of fighting in Iraq, which would mean that our soldiers would be fighting them here instead of across the world. Exactly in what way do you support the troops? You don't support them, you just say you do. Supporting them means also supporting their mission and their work and their efforts. What support are you showing them? Actng like they are a bunch of uneducated little kids who don't really know what's good for them? How does that support them?Quote:
I support the troops, but I don't support using them.
You think that by using the word "clearly" it makes your argument stronger? There is nothing "clear" about your statement. In what way was the mission ill conceived? Was it the part about getting rid of Saddam? Done that. Was it the part about establishing a new government and new Constitution? Done that. Was it the part about killing terrorists and cutting off terrorist funding from Iraq? Done that. How about the part about enforciong UN policy? Yep, done that. The part where we got rid of a regime with WMD technology? Ditto. Exactly which part of our mission was "ill conceived"?Quote:
And clearly a mission this ill-conceived was not fair to many young men and women.
Yep. We should have nuked Iraq. Then the war would have been over already, with much less loss of civilian life. However, the diplomatic fallout of doing that would have been much worse than the nuclear fallout. Do you think we should have just nuked Saddam and let it be over? Probably not. You would have preferred to hide your head in the sand and hope and wish that the problem of Saddam Hussein would just go away.Quote:
And I have to add - we have killed more civilians in Iraq than at Hiroshima. Really.
And the war is still not over.
Why? This is the first president who has ever actually faced the threat of terrorism head on and done something about it. And so far, it's been pretty effective. After 4 decades of terrorst attacks against the USA coming at roughly a rate of 1-2 per year, we have not suffered a single attack in 2,239 days. Exactly what isn't working about this administration?Quote:
We need bright guys like you "E" to help us find some new leadership.
This administration is not working...
Elliot
And here are the Youtube moments and remixes. I'm partial to the Ozzy remix.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ash123
Hey, I just got back... Looks like you have more time on your hands than me :-)
I have a few seconds so I'll take a look at your well-researched and no doubt enlightening posts :-)
Ok, you started off with something that was kinda....wrong....You thought Tony Blair's term was up?
Do you think the world is flat too?? :-)
C'mon ET - you are smarter than that. I liked you man...But that is silly!
BLAIR ANNOUNCED THE END TO HIS TERM. THE JIG WAS UP MAN.
Additionally: There is no term of office for a prime minister. The prime minister holds office "at Her Majesty's pleasure". As however to gain supply (control of exchequer funds) that requires that the government be answerable to, and acceptable to, the House of Commons, in reality the convention "at her Majesty's pleasure" means "at the pleasure of the House of Commons".
All right, let's leave that one be. You may have been confused. Who cares... It's the UK anyway :-) Bet you hate the french though! I can feel it!
As for A New Way Forward -What does it have to do with the price of tea in China?
NOTHING. That's the point... Semantics and foolish new names for the war cannot make it right. And that was my point... you were in a semantic eddy, just like the white house.
As for "Heavy Lifting.." Again - semantics. Hear me now, believe me later: Whatever you want to call it, this is the US's war... and that is one of the problems... we are diplomatic jokes. We are doing the heavy lifting.
The UN was never gonna tell us ANYTHING-We did not listen to their concerns. We bullied them. And now we want their support.
It is like the Geneva Conventions that we abandoned for Enemy Combatants... Heaven help our troops if they get captured and are tortured....and the Geneva Conventions are ignored. That's the paradigm we have established.THE U.S. CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS...IT'S BAD DIPLOMACY AND FRANKLY DANGEROUS IN PRACTICE AND IN PRECEDENT.
Moving on: UK and the war? Man, have you never worked in international affairs
(I have). A man must do things with political savviness ET. And drawing down the troops is what Gordon is doing for that very reason - while saving face.
If any doubts: Only 30% of UK citizens in a London Times Poll backed the UK remaining in the Iraq war.
As for your support of the war in lieu of a general that could not (if that doesn't speak volumes I do not know what does?) But let's take a look. You took the time to write and that was nice of you - so I will read:
You said you will "do it for him".
Look, I got to go. But you are buying into exactly how this war got sold.
Saddam is bad. So, war is good.
The problem is that this is a much mor ecomplicated isssue. And the bad has outweighed the good so far... because it was built on false circumstanes and no plan. Let's take this piece by piece as you have stated:
1) The war eliminated a major supporter of terrorism.
(MYTH: SADDAM was not linked to 911 - Cheney get caught here: YouTube - Cheney admits no Iraq/9-11 Connection) He is trying to make a connection weakly to Al Qaeda.
2) It eliminated a regime that was attempting to attain nuclear weapons, and had already attained chemical and biological weapons and used them.
(Please don't forget (like many folks) that The Gulf War occured: and weapons inspectors worked long and hard after the war as well...
Weapons inspector (Scott Ritter - Remember Him?
From the GULF WAR already went through this PRIOR to IRAQ, and told anyone that would listen that saddam was neutered of weapons... For anyone that wanted to listen: SADDAM HAD JACK--yellow cake?! no. (see also valerie plame-gate) nukes?? no...
Biological weapons? no...
The kurds we murdered unjustly with his weapons, but by the time of 911, he was a petty disarmed dictator.
And not any threat to US or anyone else..
And Do I support his regime? Of course not. But the time to attack was with all our allies from the Gulf when we had a cause and a plan.
Not on a lark loosely tied to 911 - and when we had a clear enemy in Al Qaeda and the taliban and Bin Laden.
And besides: The only true weapon of mass destruction is a nuclear weapon. Chemical weapons are actually very poor weapons, it might be a weapon of mass destraction or a weapon of mass terror but a threat to us - NO.
3) It has made Iraq, not New York City, the main battlfield of the war on terror, with terrorists flocking there instead of here. Every terrorist there is one that is not here.
This is one of my favorite myths. The idea that by attacking Iraq we are fighting the terrorists... nevermind that no 911 bombers were Iraqi - (but rather Saudi, who we are kind of... buddies with. And Syria is even more of a state terrorist sponsor than iraq. And Bin laden was in Afghanistan and now likely Pakistan. If you want to fight terrorism cut off their pocket books but playing with suicide bombers in Iraq is nothing more than providing a playground for the disenfranchised to come hop a car/train/bus and take a pot shot... I'd say the country has more terrorists than before 911. (SEE FOLLOWING POST)**
(Let's not forget that... the 911 gang were sloppy and we already had intel on them that was botched by the FBI and CIA and all names were out immediately after 911.. That's the point. They were not so sneaky, we just failed to do anything. Now a lesson has been learned and HOPEFULLY corrected.
The idea that we need to be scared because they could live among us and/or come over the border is nice but facile. We did not take the war to them - we brought chaos to us. Over there...
We lose iraqi and US lives everyday and no one is "winning" - just because there has not been another attack does not mean we have done anything new...
4) It has freed 25 million people from a tyranical, oppressive regime.
(We freed them by killing 300-500,000 CIVILIANS?? Umm, forgive me but NO.)
How you free them is get A LOT more troops and go in and kick A-- with a multi-lateral objective.
The Iraq war is the most half-assed effort ever. WHY? We couldn't justify it... DID YOU NOT SEE THE PERSIAN GULF WAR?
We came. We saw. We conquered. The world was with us... as they would be again if we knew how to conduct a foreign policy based on facts.
Oh, and if you want to say that we quit the Gulf War too early that is fine... but objectives were met. If you have new objectives you regather allies with a just cause...
We killed an EVILL DICTATOR... yes... and... if the world were a simple place that would have been the end of it, and the world would be happy again, but that is not the case. Why? EVIL DICTATORS cover the earth... we backed pinochet in south america. We backed saddam once... we backed bin laden once... and on and so on... should we go after Mugabe in Zimbabwe?? If so, what's the plan? He has no oil, be mindful of that. Should we go after Moi in Kenya? What is the plan? Kosovo worked with alliess and an objective...
In Iraq we cut off our nose to spite the face. Saddam's demise was not going to help us or anyone without a multulteral plan. Otherwise it was throwing gas on a fire to see how big the flames would be? How could we be treated as liberators if there was not a clear objective on what we were to liberate? Kurds? Sunnis? Shiites? It's very complicated.
5) It has paved the way for the posibility of a democratic government in Iraq.
(I like that one. If I had more time I'd write about 5 pages on why history will make that impossible until some things happen that are not even close to happening now... see alsoo thpousands of years of fighting before we showed up with "the army you go to war with.." (Ohh Donny R... where are you to9day?)
6) "Every one of these five facts makes us safer here at home."
- They are not exactly indisputable facts though if you feel safer I am glad....I want you happy.
- Still, if i was gonna fight a war I would have stayed focused on the guy who attacked us:
His NAME is Bin Laden and he was once our ally....
Go figure. We sure know right and wrong don't we?
I'll get back to your other stuff later... I have a dinner to go to - but have enjoyed your rantings... ONE THING THAT I WOULD ADD:
When I mentioned that we had killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilans (more than Hiroshima) your statement was:
"Yep. We should have nuked Iraq."
One of my family's friends would have been killed and so would have his family if you were in charge and dealt with the world that way.
That's GENOCIDE.
I am going to let you sleep on that one. Think before you speak perhaps please.
I am not as big a fan of yours anymore. Sorry. But knee-jerk anger and killing is exactly how we got into this ill-advised war to start...
*Do you really believe in blanket/indiscriminate killing of a race of people?
Just for the record when Australia federal election is held early next month Howard will more than likely be beaten in a landslide. His predecessor Kevin Rudd will with drawl all troops from Iraq early next year. Howard is going to lose this election on the back of his support for this war and his unwavering support for a very unpopular President of the USA.
Thanks fro dropping in Ash I have enjoyed your arguments. Very informed and well worded. Elliot is a smart man and as Excon says he wears you down but us smarter people can see what your saying even if he cant! :)
Obtaining weapons of mass destruction was Saddam's most cherished objective. The reason is simple: intense fear of a neighboring enemy. Just as the US and the Soviet Union were prepared to do anything to develop weapons of mass destruction, so was Iraq and Iran. It was an Arms race, among the oldest of human activities and they continue. To be a member of the "club" of those who have the ultimate weapon is the prize of security.
Saddam was pretty sure that Israel had nuclear weapons and that Iran was on the way to acquiring them.
He believed, I am sure, that he would never be secure until he had them too. In pursuit of them, he was obviously willing to undergo sanctions and devastating periodic attacks. But it would be naive to believe he would stop pursuing nuclear weapons.
Saddam was terrified of Iran. He believed that Iran intended sooner or later to attack and try to destroy him. He had reason for this fear. The Bush administration agreed that Iran was a real danger not only to him but also to our determination to keep the Gulf open for the oil industry. Today we have a new reason to worry about Iran since it seems intent on acquiring nuclear capacity; but it is thankfully no longer to fear Saddam or Iraq.
Why do people believe the propaganda about Saddam and Nukes?!
I have no idea... but alas, time and no yellow cake will tell.
The man didn't have a pot to piss in when we "defended" ourselves.
How did South Korea get into this?
Because I referred to the korean war? Okay... anyway -
As for cuba - well, the invasion I speak of was simply the 1961 Bay of Pigs Invasion - an unsuccessful invasion by armed Cuban exiles in southwest Cuba, planned and FUNDED by the United States, in an attempt to overthrow the government of Fidel Castro.
One little dude whipped our butt... why? Again, we did not respect the opponent and assess the situation properly. He's still there. It's crazy.
We are caught up in ONE half of the stories...
Let us not forget IRAQ/INDIA/PAKISTAN/ ISRAEL... they are all post-war creations... See also British Empire Creations... and the creations are all still at odds... south korea is one half of a disaster... north korea is the worst nation on earth. When/why we choose to fight and what we leave behind can get lost in history. Iraq is already going this way: it was for our own "defense" and then it was for "liberation" and then "democracy in the middle east"... as things decay further I am curious where it will go in the white house's lexicon? The legacy as it stands for this administration is currently: none of the above.
- if you want to feel like that might makes right and the US is infallible - why not? It's a nice notion. But sadly, it's just not the case.
The US has made plenty of mistakes and if you do not believe that I would be glad to talk about that too...
As for what direction Iraq will take? History tells us that nations with economic resources and educational resources will prosper. Iraq has oil. That's it right now. You can't put a school in a religious war zone. Anyone care to guess when we'll draw a line like the British Empire?
I object! The micronation of Sealand will always be number one!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ash123
Damn Interesting » The History of Sealand
I don't want to overwhelm folks but a few more facts on who we are fighting over there. I think it is good to know that it is many groups and they have grown in number and enthusiasm thanks to the smoking crater that is Iraq.
Note: a free and bucolic Iraq would be super cool and lots of mesopotamian fun! The problem is that to get that is not through pre-emptive war and a dice roll... We are not safer by fighting over there. The groups we are fighting were never coming here anyway:
For example, numerous attacks on both U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians have been the handiwork of Shiite militants, often connected to, or even part of, the Iraqi government. Opportunistic criminal gangs engage in some of the same heinous tactics.
The Sunni resistance is also comprised of multiple groups. The first consists of so-called "former regime elements." These include thousands of ex-officers from Saddam's old intelligence agency, the Mukabarat, and from the elite paramilitary unit Saddam Fedayeen. Their primary goal is to drive out the U.S. occupation and install a Sunni-led government hostile to Iranian influence.
Some within this broad group support reconciliation with the current government or negotiations with the United States, under the condition that American forces set a timetable for a troop withdrawal.
The second category consists of homegrown Iraqi Sunni religious groups, such as the Mujahadeen Army of Iraq. These are native Iraqis who aim to install a religious-based government in Baghdad, similar to the regime in Tehran. These groups use religious rhetoric and terrorist tactics but are essentially nationalistic in their aims.
Al-Qaeda in Iraq comprises the third group. The terrorist network was founded in 2003 by the now-dead Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. (The extent of the group's organizational ties to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda is hotly debated, but the organizations share a worldview and set of objectives.) AQI is believed to have the most non-Iraqis in its ranks, particularly among its leadership.
However, most recent assessments say the rank and file are mostly radicalized Iraqis. AQI, which calls itself the "Islamic State of Iraq," espouses the most radical form of Islam and calls for the imposition of strict sharia, or Islamic law. The group has no plans for a future Iraqi government and instead hopes to create a new Islamic caliphate with borders reaching far beyond Mesopotamia.
Anyhoo, it's a mess.
Cheers.
I think if you had posted this last year your information would've been a little more accurate . But it seems dated now . There have been much progress and change since President Bush found his General Grant (Petraeus).
I think it is safe to say that for the most part the Sunni resistance has been flipped. They are the ones fighting the AQ in the Sunni provinces. American forces in places like Fallujah are playing support roles in counter insurgency operations to Iraqi forces , provide training for Iraqi police,and other rebuilding operations. Even the MSM when they tire of Britany Spears escapades have begun to notice.
Hendersonville Post » Blog Archive » ABC Airs Upbeat Iraq Story on Fallujah's 'Remarkable Turnaround'
The Associated Press: Ramadi War Zone Now Rare Bright Spot
An Iraqi Parade Against al-Qaeda - TIME
And it is not just in the Sunni areas where progress is being realized.Quote:
Marines and soldiers who work in the region every day said they've witnessed a sea change and welcomed the celebration. "I've seen the full transformation of Iraq," said Marine Warrant Officer Bobby Garza, who works on a team of 40 U.S. advisers helping train a 9,000-man Iraqi Army battalion near Ramadi. Garza said he's working on the second half of his fourth tour in Iraq. "It's a beautiful thing," he said from his spot on a wall outside Government Center, which was the focus of al-Qaeda attacks for most of the last four years. "We wouldn't have been sitting here doing this in January. No way," he said. "But just in a blink of an eye you could see this place change. The people just switched and wouldn't let [al-Qaeda] back into their communities. It's wild."
BBC NEWS | Middle East | US hands over Karbala to Iraqis
Karbala is the eighth province to be transferred to Iraqi security responsibility as the Government of Iraq and its security forces grow in confidence and ability .
And reconstruction efforts ,although still hampered by some insurgency disruption is beginning to show signs of progress.
Report cites reconstruction progress, problems in Iraq - USATODAY.com
I would say the majority of the resistance now comes from Shia agents of Tehran like al Sadr's Mahdi Army .Iraqi troops free tribal leaders kidnapped by Mahdi Army commander - The Long War Journal
Even they are being actively opposed by the Shia dominated Iraqi Government and it's growing in ability Iraqi army .
On a negative note ;the British occupation ;which continued to employ Bremeresque policies was less than successful in my view. It appears that the instead of listening to tribal chiefs in the region they allowed militant Sadrists to grow in strength . Now there is a fierce intra-Shia battle being engaged there . The Islamist Shia parties are squabbling over the loot of the south and working on imposing their own version of Sharia on the populace. Shi'ite tribal leaders in Iraq say Islamism on rise - Yahoo! News
The situation was made worse in my view by the Brits establishing a time-table for withdrawal .Even if they had a plan and stuck to it ,they should not have pre-announced it.
That situation will test the Iraqi government . The coalition and the Iraqi government should make more of an effort the support the tribal leaders opposed to the supporters of the Mahdi-hatter .It is in no one's interests to have Iran dominate Southern Iraq.
The other area that the Iraqi government will need to address is the PKK in Kurdistan . My own hope is that the Kurds grab the bull by the horn and take them on themselves. The one thing the situation in Kurdistan demonstrates is the folly of the Biden plan for Iraq. The future of Kurdistan is linked to Iraqi unity . If ever they were to disengage they would be swiftly defeated . The Turks and the Iranians would not permit it. They should for the time being be content with a semi-autonomous region to call their own and make the best political deal possible with Baghdad.
Hello again, tom:
Cool. We're kicking butt. I knew we could.
But, what for?? So the Iraqi parliament can go on vacation?? Tell me again, why we're there?? I truly don't understand. You don't either.
excon
Well as you know most wars rational evolves . US entry into WWI started as protection of US shipping and evolved into a war to "make the world safe for democracy" . You know the original rational so I do not need to rehash it and you will not buy what I say for the continued US presence there .
Suffice it to say I think a stable free Iraq is better for our security than either an Iraq run by a jackbooted terrorist supporting thug ,or a fractured region/state ,or dominated by Iran. We could've left Europe after WWII and let them sort it out ;we didn't . We could've left Japan without a stable government but we didn't ,
We could've left South Korea to be over run by the North ,but we didn't . We could've deposed Milosevic and left without attempting to stabilize the Balkans but we didn't . We could've ousted the Taliban and left but we didn't .
In all the above cases we still have significant presence and the ruling governments have not asked us to leave because it is mutually beneficial for the security arrangement to continue. Whether Iraq remains like the above is a matter of national debate . I suspect that with all their bluster ,the Democrats (who also over overwhelmingly supported the war pre-invasion)will be reluctant to close shop. At least most of them have indicated that they will not guarantee a swift withdrawal .
Actually the difference in the way people see the war in Iraq depends a good deal on their basic assumptions about Third World nations where people are often being brutally tortured or are being destroyed by genocide. The one side assumes that it is the work of the United Nations, which is made up largely of nations with corrupt dictators, to do the dirty job of cleaning them up because they don't actually want to put down their cappuccino long enough to actually do something about it. The other assumption made is that genocide represents a state of emergency and a crime against humanity and have both the courage and the conviction to actually do something about it -- even if that means military action.
I'd say Darfur represents Genocide.
-We can discuss this administration in regards to that too if you want. No one is immune... Rwanda happened on Clinton's watch. He took on Kosovo with allies but let Rwanda languish. Why? That's a long one too. Actually, I'll let you all play with that one if you desire - I am too busy.
Some other things to ponder:
-No one would dispute that SADDAM was evil and was a bad man. So, why did we pick him out of so many bad men to wage this grand experiment on?
To spread peace and democracy like a spring flower bloom across the warring middle east?
That one sounds nice.
-How likely is that to happen in the way we approached this war? And why did we choose post 911? And the method and plans we languish with now?
Because all of the terrorists were there? (Hint: They were not)
Anyway, have fun. Sure there will be lots of fresh thoughts and slings and arrows and hopefully some insights soon.
For all of us.
Cheers
A
Hello DC:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_crow
One side realizes that we cannot solve the world’s problems with military force - because: 1) our army isn't that big, 2) we are NOT the world's policeman, and 3) we aren't an empire.
The other side is living in a neo-con fantasy if they think anything other than the above. Which one are you?
excon
It is a mistake to believe that Iraq was attacked because of 9/11. Period.
In 1998, a USA think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC), advised president Bill Clinton to remove Saddam from Iraq. Part of the letter states: "We urge you to seize [the] opportunity and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the USA and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power."
"In the Persian Gulf region, the presence of American forces, along with British and French units, has become a semi-permanent fact of life. Though the immediate mission of those forces is to enforce the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq, they represent the long-term commitment of the United States and its major allies to a region of vital importance. Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
On Page 29 we read:
"After eight years of no-fly-zone operations, there is little reason to anticipate that the U.S. air presence in the region should diminish significantly as long as Saddam Hussein remains in power. Although Saudi domestic sensibilities demand that the forces based in the Kingdom nominally remain rotational forces, it has become apparent that this is now a semi-permanent mission. From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene. Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S.interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region."
The Real Reasons?
Oil and Economic Control
Now the question is, who do you prefer control the economy in the world? The mid-eastern countries or the western countries?
When did we cease being an empire? When manifest destiny reached the Pacific ? You want an example of the prefect Presidency with empire ambitions ? Check out Thomas Jefferson's .
Suggested reading ' Empire of Liberty: The Statecraft of Thomas Jefferson': ' Robert W. Tucker,David C. Hendrickson
__________________
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:33 AM. |