Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » The President's Speech on Iraq (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: The President's Speech on Iraq
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Adam

We have little to discuss then. But I will stand by my track record.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
KE said: "He said: 'The majority of Shiites and Sunnis want to leave beside each other in peace.'
Is that true?"

From my experience in Bosnia, yes, yes, and yes. It's kind of the worst-case scenario of the 5% rule in this kind of situation. Meaning, 5% of the people are extreme assholes and muck it up for the other 95% of us.

In Bosnia, there were the 5% kooks, but then there were the farmers on the borders who just wanted to go back to farming. The school teachers who just wanted to teach any kid, and the Serb villagers who liked and trusted their old Muslim neighbors more than the uprooted and recent move in Serbs from Sarajevo.

People just want to be left the hell alone and live their lives.

I've been to enough places and met enough people to know the human condition is 99% the same no matter where you go. It's the 5% assholes who focus on that 1% difference that make life miserable for the rest of us.

The problem we’re having is in a place like Iraq being a fence-sitter seems just as deadly as working for “the other guy”, so you get much more than the 5% factor supporting the craziness, not because they are true believers, but for nothing more than self-preservation.

For short term, I fear Moodi is completely accurate.

This is all good in theory – Red’s reasoning for continuing, me thinking of ways to shut down the 5% and support the 95%, and Moodi’s plan to just clamp down and be ruthless when necessary…

But, I truly don’t believe the powers that be want to fix this problem. Perhaps I have become too much of a cynic, but I think the US government, as well as most of the other big, developed countries, are now controlled by the 5% assholes. Therefore, the question on how to put back together what we’ve broken begins at home with our own politicians.

[ January 12, 2007, 10:22 AM: Message edited by: jm0397 ]

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Omega M.
Member
Member # 1392

 - posted      Profile for Omega M.     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Still, what can we really do to stop the civil war in Iraq? If we go after Sadr, we'll just get the Shiites angry; and if we go after some of the non--al Qaeda in Iraq Sunni groups, we'll just get the Sunnis angry. Maybe all we can do is keep top government officials, important buildings, and oil fields from being bombed; do we really need 150,000 troops to do that?

On another note, I wonder if this situation was all but guaranteed to happen when Saddam Hussein died even if we hadn't gone in. Wouldn't the same groups be vying for power and killing each other in that case---only then it would have been a lot harder for foreigners to jump in and reduce the violence?

Posts: 1966 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Omega, just my opinion, of course, but I don't think so. He would have died with a functional government and civil infrastructure in place, and I suspect would have provided for some sort of dynastic succession. I'm not saying that it would have been "good government", but it's hard to imagine that things could have continued as badly as he controlled and managed things for very long without him. Chaos similar to what is happening now may have been inevitable, but it wouldn't have been a sudden collapse. It also wouldn't destabilize the entire region for a dictator to suddenly leave the stage without a political crisis causing his departure.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Now, if you want to argue that it's the _wrong_ strategy, then fine. But shallow and short-sighted? Hardly.
Shallow because after a long think and presumably consideration of other, untried options, it simply continues a policy that even Bush admits has failed, only moreso. Short-sighted because it offers no insight into what comes 'after' we supposedly pacify Iraq. For instance, there are hundreds of tons of munitions hidden by the militants, ethnic cleansing can be done without RPGs, the Iraqi borders are extremely porous to weapons and fighters, and every side in the struggle has grown stronger and more sophisticated over the past three years.
quote:
OTOH, something that IS shallow and short-sighted would be arguing that we should quit now, 'cause we can't see the finish line, even though the it could be just around the next bend.
Ed, you are a master of simplistic imagery. Anytime you can't see the finish line, it could be just around the corner, or the next, or the one after that. Tell me what it would take for you to finally conclude that there was no finish line. If you're inclined to respond that it's too soon to even consider such a possibility, then I would say that your thinking is shallow and short-sighted.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
O.K. then how about this. We as a nation, regardless of why we invaded, occupied, and installed a democratically elected Iraqi government, have not only a moral but also legal responsibility to the people of Iraq to leave their country at a bare minimum in at least as stable and functioning a condition as when we invaded the country.

Or is there a specific time frame to responsibility that absolves the United States of the responsibility? Or are we being short-sighted in not considering responsibility or its terms of limitation?

And before you answer, consider we still have forces in South Korea, Japan, and Germany.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
...installed a democratically elected Iraqi government, have not only a moral but also legal responsibility to the people of Iraq to leave their country at a bare minimum in at least as stable and functioning a condition as when we invaded the country.
This is totally overloaded with assumptions that render it meaningless. A few,

. The "democratically elected Iraqi government" became instantly corrupt. Are you praising its behavior or for bringing stability and order to the country? I know you have agreed with me in the past that it is complicit in the ruination of the country, so I am not sure why you raise it as something worth defending now.

. It was stable, because a brutal and inhumane dictator forced his brand of "stability" on the citizens, resulting in what many people have called institutional genocide. We should restore something akin to that? If so, we should prop up another ruthless dictator to replace the one we removed.

. If by "functioning a condition" you mean the civil infrastructure and main industry of the economy, oil production, we've spent about $28B on that task so far and things have regressed in all areas from what they were before the invasion. How much more do you propose to spend to accomplish that?

You cast it as a moral and legal responsibility. I don't know if we do or don't have a legal responsibility, but let's consider the moral one. RS, you have been absolutely clear that the US should act internationally only in defense and protection of our own interests. I'm surprised you are challenging me to defend the moral (altruistic?) principle of rebuilding their broken country when they seem intent on further destroying it.

But, it is a fair question. We can't stop the bloodshed within Iraq in the foreseeable future. I think we should reposition our troops and disengage our military presence from that country. We have a larger moral obligation to wage an even-handed and constructive diplomatic and political effort in the ME. We should use the same intensity to remove the threat of conflict between Iran and Israel, Israel and Lebanon, Israel and the Palestinians. We should undercut the Afghanistan opium production with judicious aid to the farmers, etc... None of this is easy, but it doesn't require killing the people we hope to help, either.

We should take some fraction of the $2B/wk we spend now on the war and use it to help improve the lives of people throughout the region with economic, medical and other forms of social aid. We also have a "moral" obligation to reduce our own dependency on oil, so we should spend some of the money on conservation and renewable energy. Yes, I know that is all hopelessly naive, even shallow and maybe short-sighted, but you did ask.

Last, we are the strongest military power in the history of the world. We have a moral obligation to use that power wisely, so we should apply ourselves to learning how to do that better than we demonstrated in Iraq.

Our forces in Japan and Germany may have prevented regional conflicts or global war from breaking out since WWII. Korea is a little different, because the war there was never resolved. However, because of our military presence in those countries, none of them have been at war in over 50 years, and our troops that are stationed over there have largely been peacekeepers rather than warmakers. We should learn a lesson from that, too.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DaveS:
He would have died with a functional government and civil infrastructure in place, and I suspect would have provided for some sort of dynastic succession.

Why would he have, since he hadn't done so already?

Kim Il Sung's succession was set out ages ahead of time. Frankly, Saddam's brand of narcisism seems to preclude providing for his death.

Don't know if it's really true that Alexander said on his deathbed that his empire should go "to the strongest," but that's the sort of mentality we're looking at with a guy that has emblems of scimitar-holding arms carved to match his own fingerprints. Is there any evidence at all that he provided for his succession?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wasn't praising the installation or even the performance of the Iraqi government. I was merely pointing out that its creation was done by our agency, as it flowed from invasion, to occupation, to installation of government.

By stability and functioning conditions, I mean exactly that. They have an expectation to the same levels of economic, health, and education capacities that are at least equa to those they had.

By international law, we are leagly responsible. We took on that responsibility when we formally occupied the former territory that was ruled by Saddam. And I think I have never quite said we should only act internationally in defense of our selves or interests. Rather I have stated that we need to hold other governments accountable to their agreements and as such, be willing to enforce those agreements.

That said do we have the continued responsibility. The fact that we even allowed a new government to come into existence calls into question whether it even is our responsibility anymore. Especially considering that the Iraqis have a moral responsibility to their own people to maintain a functioning government capable of protecting all citizens under its rule.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Why would he have, since he hadn't done so already?
I don't know that he did, but since he was "only" 66 when he was deposed and had two grown sons (up until the invasion), perhaps he felt there was plenty of time (if he hadn't already done it). Or, perhaps you're right that he was too narcissistic to give it any thought. But since you don't know that, either, each to our suspicions.
quote:
By international law, we are leagly responsible.
If you're right, why hasn't Bush, any other member of the Coalition or the UN brought it up? If this is the case, we can't leave until we've done that, right?
quote:
The fact that we even allowed a new government to come into existence calls into question whether it even is our responsibility anymore. Especially considering that the Iraqis have a moral responsibility to their own people to maintain a functioning government capable of protecting all citizens under its rule.
Doesn't this contradict your challenge to me? It seems like you're saying here that we explicitly don't have a moral and legal responsibility, since they have a new government.

[ January 13, 2007, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: DaveS ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
question =/= denial.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
JM, I hope you are right. It is what I would like to believe.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WeAreAllJust LooseChange
Member
Member # 3411

 - posted      Profile for WeAreAllJust LooseChange         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here is a solution to the war in Iraq, which our President should've embraced if we are ever to get out of there (with some dignity still intact):

from www.GregPalast.com
-----
Waist Deep in the big Muddy
------
Published by Greg Palast January 11th, 2007 in Articles
by Greg Palast


George W. Bush has an urge to surge. Like every junkie, he asks for just one more fix: let him inject just 21,000 more troops and that will win the war.

Been there. Done that. In 1965, Tom Paxton sang,

Lyndon Johnson told the nation
Have no fear of escalation.
I am trying everyone to please.
Though it isn’t really war,
We’re sending 50,000 more
To help save Vietnam from the Vietnamese.

Four decades later, Bush is asking us to save Iraq from the Iraqis.

There’s always a problem with giving a junkie another fix. It can only make things worse. Our maximum leader says that unless he gets to mainline another 21,000 troops, “Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons,” and terrorists “would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people.”

Excuse me, but didn’t we hear that same promise in 2003? Nearly four years ago, on the eve of invasion, this same George Bush promised, “The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed.”

Instead of diminishing the threat from terrorists, Bush now admits, “Al Qaeda has a home base in Anbar province” — something inconceivable under Saddam’s rule.

Four years ago, Bush promised us, “When the dictator has departed, [Iraq] can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation.” Just send in the 82d Airborne and, lickety-split, we’d have, “A new Iraq that is prosperous and free.”

Well, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Here’s my question: Who asked the waiter to deliver this dish? Who asked for the 21,000 soldiers?

We know the US military didn’t ask for the 21,000 troops. (Outgoing commander General George Casey called for a troop reduction.)

We know the Iraqi government didn’t ask for the 21,000 troops. (Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is reportedly unhappy about a visible increase in foreign occupiers).

So who wants the occupation to continue? The answer is in Riyadh. When the King of Saudi Arabia hauled Dick Cheney before his throne on Thanksgiving weekend, the keeper of America’s oil laid down the law to Veep: the US will not withdraw from Iraq.

According to Nawaf Obaid, a Saudi who signals to the US government the commands and diktats of the House of Saud, the Saudis are concerned that a US pull-out will leave their Sunni brothers in Iraq to be slaughtered by Shia militias. More important, the Saudis will not tolerate a Shia-majority government in Iraq controlled by the Shia mullahs of Iran. A Shia combine would threaten Saudi Arabia’s hegemony in the OPEC oil cartel.

In other words, it’s about the oil.

So what’s the solution? What’s my plan? How do we get out of Iraq? Answer: the same way we got out of ‘Nam. In ships.

But can we just watch from the ship rail as Shia slaughter Sunnis in Baghdad, Sunnis murder Shia in Anbar, Kurds “cleanse” Kirkuk of Turkmen and so on in a sickening daisy-chain of ethnic atrocities?

No. There’s a real alternative. And it isn’t more troops, George.

Let’s imagine that somehow we could rip away the strings that allow Cheney and Rove and Abdullah to control our puppet president and he somehow, like the scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz, suddenly grew a brain. His speech last night would have sounded like this:

“My fellow Americans. Iraq is going to hell in a handbag. So the whole shebang doesn’t collapse into mayhem and madness, we need to send in 21,000 more troops. So I’ve just wired King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and told him to send them.”

“My missive to the monarch reads: Dear Abdullah. It’s time your 16,000 princelings got out of their Rolls Royces and formed the core of an Islamic Peacekeeping Force to prevent mass murder in Iraq. The American people are tired of you using the 82d Airborne as your private mercenary army. It seems like the Saudi military’s marching song is, ‘Onward Christian Soldiers.’”

“Well, King Ab, we’re out of here. We’re folding tents and loading the wagons. For four years now, Saudis have been secretly funding the berserkers in the Iraqi ‘insurgency’ while the Iranians are backing the crazies in the militias. Well, we’re telling you and the Persians: you’re going to have to stop using your checkbooks to fund a proxy war and instead start keeping the peace. It’s time you put your own tushies in the line of fire for a change.”

“If the African Union nations, poor as they are, can maintain a peacekeeping force to stop killings in Sudan and Senegal, you Saudis, with all the military toys we’ve sold you, can certainly join with your Muslim brothers in Jordan, Iran and Turkey to take responsibility for your region’s peace.”

“And when you get to Fallujah, don’t forget to drop us a postcard.”

Well, that’s my fantasy. But instead, War Junkie George will get his fix of another 21,000 American soldiers.

It reminds me far too chillingly of a Pete Seeger tune written when LBJ was saving Vietnam from Vietnamese. It was based on the true story of a US platoon in training, wading into the rising Mississippi, whose commander ordered them to keep going, deeper and deeper - until they drowned.

We’re waste deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on.

************
Greg Palast is the author of the New York Times bestseller, “Armed Madhouse.” His reports on Iraq and oil for BBC-TV and Harper’s Magazine can be viewed at www.GregPalast.com
---------------

Posts: 174 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@ Rallan:
quote:
There's a serious breakdown of logic there dude. Before you ask that, you have to ask "How does America's ongoing involvement in Iraq reduce the threat of terrorism?"

Your question is based on the (arguably rather silly premise) that America's ongoing involvement in Iraq somehow makes the middle east less of a breeding ground for terrorism. Which basically means that you need to make a good argument for the "flypaper theory" that neocons were throwing around in '03 and '04.

[Shrugs] Just 'cause you can't see it, don't mean it ain't so.

@ DaveS:
quote:
Shallow because after a long think and presumably consideration of other, untried options, it simply continues a policy that even Bush admits has failed, only moreso. Short-sighted because it offers no insight into what comes 'after' we supposedly pacify Iraq. For instance, there are hundreds of tons of munitions hidden by the militants, ethnic cleansing can be done without RPGs, the Iraqi borders are extremely porous to weapons and fighters, and every side in the struggle has grown stronger and more sophisticated over the past three years.
You know, if water has been tried on a fire burning out of control and not worked so far, then I don't think it's fair to conclude that MORE water won't actually put the fire out. That's not only wrongful thinking, it's just illogical.

While not always so, sometimes MORE is better and you have, as yet, to provide any argument that says otherwise.

quote:
Ed, you are a master of simplistic imagery.
You're damn straight I am. [Smile]

quote:
Anytime you can't see the finish line, it could be just around the corner, or the next, or the one after that. Tell me what it would take for you to finally conclude that there was no finish line. If you're inclined to respond that it's too soon to even consider such a possibility, then I would say that your thinking is shallow and short-sighted.
I'm also a master of "untying the Gordian knot."

And, if you think, after anteing in for 5 dollars, drawing a pair of twos and then quitting without even seeing what the other guy has then... well, yer just not a practical person. You wanna throw those five dollars away just because you think the other guy might possibly but you ain't quite sure got a better hand than you then, by all means, that's your choice. But you'll forgive me if I get upset at the thought of throwing away 3,000 American lives when Saddam is gone, Al Qeada IS fighting us in Iraq instead of here AND a Constitutional Government is in place just because someone wants to pretend civil strife is "total chaos." From my point of view, that's like throwing away a pair of deuces when the other guy only has an "ace high." Not only is it stupid, it's just wasteful.

[Thwack goes the Gordian knott.]

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You know, if water has been tried on a fire burning out of control and not worked so far, then I don't think it's fair to conclude that MORE water won't actually put the fire out. That's not only wrongful thinking, it's just illogical.
This is a variation on the "duct tape" solution, because the stuff is so useful: Duct tape is not the solution for every problem; there are times when even more duct tape is necessary.
quote:
And, if you think, after anteing in for 5 dollars, drawing a pair of twos and then quitting without even seeing what the other guy has then... well, yer just not a practical person.
If you ever have a high stakes poker game at your house, please, please PLEASE invite me.

quote:
Thwack goes the Gordian knott.
Hmmm, I think it was your bootstrapp [Smile]
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
martel
Member
Member # 3448

 - posted      Profile for martel   Email martel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"This is a variation on the "duct tape" solution, because the stuff is so useful: Duct tape is not the solution for every problem; there are times when even more duct tape is necessary."

Fortunately for the rest of us, whatever we're trying to fix with duct tape does not spend all its waking hours thinking about and implementing plans to blow the duct tape to hell (although I have my doubts about my computer). Then you would start to need bomb-proof duct tape

Posts: 308 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@ DaveS:
quote:
This is a variation on the "duct tape" solution, because the stuff is so useful: Duct tape is not the solution for every problem; there are times when even more duct tape is necessary.
My analogy was more apt. [Smile]

quote:
If you ever have a high stakes poker game at your house, please, please PLEASE invite me.
Certainly! If you insist on folding before a hand is even called, I can only stand to win, regardless of the cards I hold. All I'd have to do is collect the pot at the end of each round. [Wink]

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Certainly! If you insist on folding before a hand is even called
In a slightly less mocking tone, you really do think that the game is somehow still in its early stages, even after four years with all the death and destruction that has occurred. That's a hand that you don't know when to fold, and the chips are now costing about 100 lives a day.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
<Reality Check>
code:
             American ======== Involvement =========  Deaths 
Conflict Deaths Started Ended Length per Day
* WWI 116,000 07/14/1914 09/11/1918 1,520 76
* WWII 440,000 12/07/1941 09/02/1945 1,365 322
* Korean 55,000 06/25/1950 07/27/1953 1,128 49
* Viet Nam 109,000 03/02/1965 08/12/1972 2,720 40
* Gulf War I 378 08/02/1990 02/28/1991 210 2
* Gulf War II 3,026 03/20/2003 [Present] 1,400 2

</Reality Check>

Assuming for the sake of argument that your numbers are correct and that Iraqi's are dying at 100 per day, and I admit that is possible. What do you think those numbers will be if we pull out? Care to guess? Given how the Shia and the Sunni want to kill each other, do you think it will still be less than 100 per day?

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What do you think those numbers will be if we pull out? Care to guess? Given how the Shia and the Sunni want to kill each other, do you think it will still be less than 100 per day?
There are basically two ways this can go, but both are based on the same assumptions. First assumption, Iraq is in the midst of a civil war. Second, the outcome is the same either way, where a unified Iraqi government with centralized pan-ethnic/religious authority is not going to happen. If you don't accept those assumptions, then you'll have to supply your own and explain what you think will happen if we stay/go.

First option, we leave. Either the internecine conflict will be accelerated, resulting in higher death counts and a relatively rapid reconfiguration of the country, or the fighting factions will recognize an opportunity to settle this without our interference, resulting in lower death counts. I think the former is much more likely, so there will be increased deaths and violence, but that the civil war will end relatively soon. That means that deaths will peak and drop relatively soon (one year? dunno), leading to a new equilibrium and relative stability in the region (at least as far as Iraq is concerned).

Second option, we stay. In this case, deaths will stay the same or possibly even increase for the duration of our occupation. Besides fighting among themselves, they will also target us. We'll remain stuck in the political morass of not being able to trust or be trusted by any side in the conflict. Once we leave, the first option goes into effect. Eventually, we'll have to go, either because our own domestic political currents mandate it, or because we have spent so much money ($TT) on the war that it is unsustainable. Worse, since we sink so much money, materiel and manpower into Iraq, we are less able to defend our "frontier" elsewhere, with unforeseeable consequences to our global position.

Further, if we stay, besides having their civil war, our presence will continue to inflame antagonism toward us throughout the ME, with Iran and Al Qaeda among the beneficiaries. Since we won't have the bandwidth to deal with them or credibly address other ME problems in the political realm, the entire ME will stay in heightened turmoil. So, the longer we stay, the more deaths on all sides, the more money wasted, the more regional conflict we generate, the greater our loss of prestige and influence.

Even further, the more we keep scratching this wound, the more likely that something truly horrible will eventually happen elsewhere. Either we'll be drawn into (or jump into) war with Iran, terrorism will become a recognized historical method of state diplomacy against our "Imperialism", our "allies" will give up on us (e.g., Pakistan, which already is showing signs of that). Any of these possible eventualities will lead to unintended consequences, all of which would be bad.

It is fair to counter the option of leaving by saying that we will give the bastards a victory that they can use against us later. Maybe so, but I think that will definitely happen if we stay for a long time, and if we leave sooner we can use the conserved resources (money, material, manpower) to anticipate and deal with it proactively. I've offered my opinions elsewhere on how to do that, but we can go into that again if you like.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kent
Member
Member # 832

 - posted      Profile for Kent   Email Kent   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dave, I must congratulate you on your logic and tone. Well written post. I disagree with your prophecy of the future, but then isn't that really what we are all contending about, what "might" happen?
Posts: 1434 | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
martel
Member
Member # 3448

 - posted      Profile for martel   Email martel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
REALITY CHECK

Relative Importance of American Wars

Revolutionary War-------95
War of 1812-------------30
Mexican-American War----40
Civil War---------------95
Spanish-American War----25
World War One-----------45
World War Two-----------100
Korean War--------------65
Vietnam War-------------40
Gulf War I--------------50
Gulf War II-------------0 (actually, to be fair more like 25).

Deaths are deaths. More deaths are bad. But still, having men die for nothing, because, as Dave so eloquently points out, that's what they're accomplishing, is never good. One of my friend's brothers died in Iraq. What did he die for?

Posts: 308 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Where do these lists of numbers come from ?? They use numbers to rank and compare, but I wonder what the basis is. Ed's chart says that there were 109,000 US deaths in Vietnam between when our "involvement" in the war began on 03/02/1965 and ended on 08/12/1972. Really?

Martel, the Revolution doesn't get a maximum score? Gulf-I was more "important" than Vietnam, WWI or Wo1812? How so?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Busy today, so I only have time for a quick reply.

@ DaveS:

If I got my numbers wrong on Viet Nam, please feel free to correct me. However, even if the deaths were half what I posted, the death rates are still 10 times that of the current conflict. If my dates are half the length of what they should be, that's still 5 times the current conflict. Anything else only increases that number.

I'll get to your other points later.


@ martel

Sorry, martel, but your numbers are meaningless. 95 what? 95%? What's the model for scoring? Until you explain the method used to derive those numbers, they have no meaning.

Furthermore, as I and others feel, we stand on the edge of a war that threatens to be as large as, and possibley even more destructive than, WWII. This is the nuclear age, after all. The Iraq war is an attempt to create stability in an unstable region. Do you really think that, given our belief is true, 0 or even 25% is an appropriate importance for a potential war that stands to kill people in the tens of millions?

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
There are basically two ways this can go, but both are based on the same assumptions. First assumption, Iraq is in the midst of a civil war. Second, the outcome is the same either way, where a unified Iraqi government with centralized pan-ethnic/religious authority is not going to happen. If you don't accept those assumptions, then you'll have to supply your own and explain what you think will happen if we stay/go.
Both are based on the _worst_ assumption. Both require you to ignore the fact that an Iraqi Constitution is in place and that a government is in place and willing to support it. This is exactly why I keep referring to the poker analogy. We have a good hand. The Iraqi's have a Constitution and our hand fails if, and only if, the Iraqi Constitution fails. Leaving now, however, would be equivalent to folding before called. A very poor poker strategy when you have a good hand.

It hasn't failed yet and won't fail until a REAL civil war occurs, not this sectarian violence that some want to pretend is civil war. Real civil war is when you have two declared governments fighting for the right to control a country.

quote:
First option, we leave. Either the internecine conflict will be accelerated, resulting in higher death counts and a relatively rapid reconfiguration of the country, or the fighting factions will recognize an opportunity to settle this without our interference, resulting in lower death counts.
Or the violence accelerates so badly that the Iraqi government and its Constitution crash and burn leaving no chance for stability whatsoever.

quote:
I think the former is much more likely, so there will be increased deaths and violence, but that the civil war will end relatively soon. That means that deaths will peak and drop relatively soon (one year? dunno), leading to a new equilibrium and relative stability in the region (at least as far as Iraq is concerned).
It most certainly will accelerate. Where you are wrong is that what is presently sectarian violence WILL become civil war _for certain_ as the Iraqi Government fails and its Constitution burns with it.

Where you are also wrong is in the assumption that their will be "relative stability" in the ashes. History has shown, time and time again, that whenever there is a power vacuum, there is chaos. The Government will lose control as the Shia begin to wipe out the Sunni. The Constitution, without a Government to enforce it, will then become meaningless and our good hand will, once again, be tossed into the ****pile.

quote:
Second option, we stay. In this case, deaths will stay the same or possibly even increase for the duration of our occupation. Besides fighting among themselves, they will also target us. We'll remain stuck in the political morass of not being able to trust or be trusted by any side in the conflict.
And here you ignore the corollary. That we stay and keep the Iraqi Government in place and able to enforce their Constitution. This allows the Government Institutions to strengthen and eventually get the country under control. In other words, we stay in the game, strengthen our hand and actually get to play that hand when it is finally time to call. And if the hand is good, not only is the "money" we anteed at the beginning of the game put to good use, so is the "money" we paid to stay in the game.

In other words, if we stay and see this through successfully, the +3,000 American dead so far will not have died in vain. But if we leave now, it is guaranteed that they will have died for nothing.

quote:
Once we leave, the first option goes into effect. Eventually, we'll have to go, either because our own domestic political currents mandate it, or because we have spent so much money ($TT) on the war that it is unsustainable. Worse, since we sink so much money, materiel and manpower into Iraq, we are less able to defend our "frontier" elsewhere, with unforeseeable consequences to our global position.
A point of strategy here: We don't position armies where we think we might possibley need them but don't really know at this point in time where that need may be. We position armies where there is a good chance of being trouble. And right now, the Middle East is where the most obvious trouble is. It's been this way since the Seventies, and it's going to continue to be this way until we make a lot of terrorists, and their memes, dead.

quote:
Further, if we stay, besides having their civil war, our presence will continue to inflame antagonism toward us throughout the ME, with Iran and Al Qaeda among the beneficiaries. Since we won't have the bandwidth to deal with them or credibly address other ME problems in the political realm, the entire ME will stay in heightened turmoil. So, the longer we stay, the more deaths on all sides, the more money wasted, the more regional conflict we generate, the greater our loss of prestige and influence.
One more time: it ain't civil war until there are two declared sides fighting for control of the country. If we pull out now, we leave a power vacuum that will cause the Sunni and Shia to fight for control _guaranteed._ In other words, if you think it's civil war now, if you think the killing is high now... just pull out and watch what happens. It's going to get TRULY ugly if we do.

quote:
Even further, the more we keep scratching this wound, the more likely that something truly horrible will eventually happen elsewhere. Either we'll be drawn into (or jump into) war with Iran, terrorism will become a recognized historical method of state diplomacy against our "Imperialism", our "allies" will give up on us (e.g., Pakistan, which already is showing signs of that). Any of these possible eventualities will lead to unintended consequences, all of which would be bad.
You assume we opened this wound. You're just wrong. This "wound" opened hundreds of years ago, and it is they who will not let it heal. Furthermore, war with Iran is inevitable and will be as long as the Iranians continue to pursue nuclear armament and seek the destruction of Israel.

This is exactly why some of us foresee a war on the scale of WWII with the possibility of even greater destruction. Not JUST because of Iran, but because the ENTIRE region seeks the destruction of Israel and as long as the region seeks change using terrorist methods this war is coming. You think something bad is going to happen because of "a wound we opened?" Get serious. Something bad is going to happen REGARDLESS of what occurred in Iraq. Something bad has already happened by cause we had the audacity and imperiously and recklessly rescued Kuwait. That is EXACTLY why Osona bich Laden attacked us, because we dared rescue one of their brethren from another of their brethren.

The fact remains. They want to kill us regardless of what we do.

quote:
It is fair to counter the option of leaving by saying that we will give the bastards a victory that they can use against us later. Maybe so, but I think that will definitely happen if we stay for a long time, and if we leave sooner we can use the conserved resources (money, material, manpower) to anticipate and deal with it proactively. I've offered my opinions elsewhere on how to do that, but we can go into that again if you like.
But if we do stay for a long time, we give the Iraqi government and its constitution a chance to succeed. And if that works, and the Government enforces that constitution and punishes Shia and Sunni equally under the law, then the Iraqis begin to understand that their are alternatives to killing each other. Once that happens, they begin to resort to the rule of law instead of militias and violence. Peace breaks out. Terrorism becomes recognized as a threat to that peace and begins to diminish as a strategy.

But it can only work IF a constitutional government is in place, and does its job. Pull out now, and I guarantee you, it will never happen.

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ed, I don't reject your analysis, but we can't to-and-fro, because our assumptions differ by so much. They differ enough that I don't even understand some of your points, like:
quote:
Something bad has already happened by cause we had the audacity and imperiously and recklessly rescued Kuwait. That is EXACTLY why Osona bich Laden attacked us, because we dared rescue one of their brethren from another of their brethren.
And there is your use of absolute terms, like:
quote:
...Not JUST because of Iran, but because the ENTIRE region seeks the destruction of Israel...REGARDLESS ...EXACTLY...and I guarantee you,...
What secret source of knowledge do you have that is hidden from everyone else? Given how little margin for error you allow in your argument, there's no point in disagreeing.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
the ENTIRE region seeks the destruction of Israel
Huh?

Egypt has been at peace with Israel for 27 years, Jordan for 13, Turkey has signed a virtual mutual defence pact with them, and Syria is making realistic and workable peace offers.

The UAE and Kuwait have toned down the Rhetoric massively, rulers in Yemen, Oman, and Saudi Arabia use Israel as a distraction to keep their populace from focusing on their own abuses of power.

What "entire region" are you talking about?

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@ DaveS

Dave? If you can't understand those points, then I doubt sincerely you should be arguing policy.

We were attacked on 9/11 because we had a military presence in Saudi Arabia. We had a presence because the Saudi's asked us to be there. They asked us to be there, because a Sunni (one of their own) invaded a fellow Muslim country and they were afraid that Saddam would turn his attention to them. Having freed Kuwait, and foolishly leaving Saddam in power, we were asked to stay, just in case Saddam tried to push his luck again. And for our "arrogance" 3,000 civilians had to die. And the short way of saying that is "because we dared rescue one of their brethren from another of their brethren."

quote:
What secret source of knowledge do you have that is hidden from everyone else? Given how little margin for error you allow in your argument, there's no point in disagreeing.
And this is the other reason I'm beginning to sincerely doubt that you should be arguing policy. This isn't "secret" knowledge. This is a _known_ fact.


If you read anything, PLEASE read that last link.

Jesse's bickering aside, that entire region DOES seek the destruction of Israel and as long as they do, war with them, like it or not, IS inevitable.

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And this is the other reason I'm beginning to sincerely doubt that you should be arguing policy. This isn't "secret" knowledge. This is a _known_ fact.
Ed, it will astonish you to know that I am familiar with everything you cite and yet somehow I come to different conclusions about how dire the situation is and what should be done about it. That should really rattle your confidence in my sanity.

OTOH, you might consider that you swept aside Jesse's factual rebuttal of your unsourced assertion "that [the] entire region DOES seek the destruction of Israel", which might lead thoughtful readers to wonder how much your opinions are influenced by evidence and facts.

Here's a quote from the host of the CNN show you cite that makes clear how objective he is:
quote:
No. 1, and you`ve heard me say this over and over again: I am not a journalist. More importantly, I don`t pretend to be one. I have also been extremely honest with you every step of the way if you watch this program every night.

I am a conservative, so when you hear me talk about anything from politics to religion to, yes, Islamic extremists, you have to understand that I express my opinions fully, no matter what anybody else thinks, like it or not, right through that prism.

Not surprisingly, every single one of the people he had on that show agrees with him entirely. His "expert" guest commentator, Brigitte Gabriel, is considered an extreme anti-Islamist, so you have to listen to what she says with that in mind, and Ralph Peters has been one of the loudest voices touting our great success in Iraq. Not surprising you refer to these people, because they agree with you.

Finally, because of your frequent use of CAPS to emphasize how sincere you are about what you say, I'd like to ask you to succinctly characterize what you should be done about the specific threats to Israel that you cite. As a bonus, I'd also like to hear how important you think it is to capture bin Laden or crack down on our wayward allies, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc. So, what should the US do about:

. Ahmadinejad/Iran
. Hezbollah/Lebanon
. Hamas/Palestinian areas
. bin Laden
. Afghanistan/Pakistan/Saudi Arabia

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ed? Are you at all interested in refuting what I actually said?

The Iranian Government, Saddam (dead and deposed), AQ, Hamas, and Hezbollah sure aren't the whole region by any stretch of the imagination.

Calling disagreement "bickering" sure doesn't do much to support your case.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here's a link that suggests how fighting one war (or two) makes it hard to sustain other military priorities (LA Times):
quote:
...In the early 1990s, at the height of the drug war, U.S. military planes and boats filled the southern skies and waters in search of cocaine-laden vessels coming from Colombia and elsewhere in South America.

But since 2002, the military has withdrawn many of those resources, according to more than a dozen current and former counter-narcotics officials, as well as a review of congressional, military and Homeland Security documents.

Internal records show that in the last four years the Pentagon has reduced by more than 62% its surveillance flight-hours over Caribbean and Pacific Ocean routes that are used to smuggle cocaine, marijuana and, increasingly, Colombian-produced heroin. At the same time, the Navy is deploying one-third fewer patrol boats in search of smugglers.

The Defense Department also plans to withdraw as many as 10 Black Hawk helicopters that have been used by a multi-agency task force to move quickly to make drug seizures and arrests in the Caribbean, a major hub for drugs heading to the United States.

And the military has deactivated many of the high-tech surveillance "aerostats," or radar balloons, that once guarded the entire southern border, saying it lacks the funds to restore and maintain them.

The Department of Defense defended its policy shift in a budget document sent to Congress in October: "The DOD position is that detecting drug trafficking is a lower priority than supporting our service members on ongoing combat missions."


IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jesse. You do realize, don't you that the word "region" has multiple meanings? That some of the nations you list are not considered part of the Middle East by some? That a person can speak of a region that does not include (directly) a nation? That a region may include geographic areas or peoples, rather than countries?

To engage on this point would amount, in my view, to bickering over what a "region" is.


@ DaveS

Did you read the article? In its entirety? You dismiss the hole of the article with an ad homonym and still fail to address the salient point it contains. That being that if you listen to the media of the region, it broadcasts blatant hatred against Israel. Worse still, they propagandize it to their children. And it's from that I can conclude that war is inevitable.

Furthermore, before you accuse me "sweeping stuff aside" you'd better stop and consider the things you are sweeping aside:
  • The above point, which clearly shows the level of propaganda being spouted by that area.
  • Repeatedly, I have pointed out to you that Iraq has a Constitution, you have as yet to point out how it is irrelevant or that defending it will, in the long term, do us no good.
  • You have failed to show us how "throwing more water on a fire won't put the fire out." Instead, you simply switched to a less appropriate analogy without supporting why the analogy was more appropriate.
  • You still have not demonstrated how is isn't inevitable or why my conclusions are wrong. Instead, you attack the characters of the people in the transcript while ignoring the facts they raise. Instead, I invite you to either show my facts as wrong or show them as irrelevant.



quote:
Not surprisingly, every single one of the people he had on that show agrees with him entirely. His "expert" guest commentator, Brigitte Gabriel, is considered an extreme anti-Islamist, so you have to listen to what she says with that in mind, and Ralph Peters has been one of the loudest voices touting our great success in Iraq. Not surprising you refer to these people, because they agree with you.
Nope. I didn't even know who those people were until I saw the show. I referred to _the transcipt_ to point out the fact, and fact it is, that the media in the region continues to spout propaganda that will eventually bring our two civilizations to blows and, therefore, leads me to the conclusion that war is inevitable.

quote:
Finally, because of your frequent use of CAPS to emphasize how sincere you are about what you say, I'd like to ask you to succinctly characterize what you should be done about the specific threats to Israel that you cite. As a bonus, I'd also like to hear how important you think it is to capture bin Laden or crack down on our wayward allies, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc. So, what should the US do about:
  • Ahmadinejad/Iran

    Well now, lessee... if war is inevitable, and Iran is the likely source of that war and if we need to invade Iran like we did Germany, then where's the best place to stage an invasion? Would it be from, I dunno... Spain? Greece? Cucamonga? Or would it be advantageous to have a staging area next door? In some nearby land like, maybe... Iraq? Do you realize how much easier the invasion of Normandy would have gone if we'd staged it from France? Yep. Yer right, we wouldn't have needed to invade Normandy, therefore, it would have been INCREDIBLY easy. [Smile]
  • Hezballah/Lebanon

    Lebanon is a fledgling democracy. The biggest threat to Lebanon's democracy is that "nation within a nation" Hezballah. Just as the Roman Republic couldn't survive constant civil warring between factions, neither can Lebanon. Hezballah is supported with funding from Iran. Down goes Iran, down goes Hezballah and Lebanon's democracy might just have a chance.
  • Hamas/Palestinian areas

    Successful democracies as in Lebanon and, hopefully, Iraq that support a Constitution -- there's that pesky thing again -- and enforce the rights of all through the rule of law will undermine the need for violence. If other Middle Eastern countries see this as an example they may actually try it themselves.

    Is it guaranteed? No. But that's why I refer to all of this as a gamble. Nothing was ever accomplished by sitting on our hands and doing nothing.
  • bin Laden

    He is already rendered irrelevant. Why? Because we removed his base in Afghanistan and now all of his productive time is spent surviving rather than plotting. This is not to say he couldn't become a danger again, but if he could have attacked us by now, he would have attacked us by now.
  • Afghanistan/Pakistan/Saudi Arabia

    You need to be more specific. Afghanistan is not a threat, at present. Pakistan is relatively stable, for the moment. And Saudi Arabia? True, they could become an issue, but, again, they pose no clear and present danger.

Ed.

Fixed list.

[ January 22, 2007, 12:44 PM: Message edited by: EDanaII ]

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Did you read the article? In its entirety? You dismiss the hole of the article with an ad homonym and still fail to address the salient point it contains. That being that if you listen to the media of the region, it broadcasts blatant hatred against Israel. Worse still, they propagandize it to their children. And it's from that I can conclude that war is inevitable.
Yes, I did. It's hateful, but it's far from a declaration of war. You conclude that this tape alone is proof that war is inevitable. No further response is possible.
quote:
You have failed to show us how "throwing more water on a fire won't put the fire out." Instead, you simply switched to a less appropriate analogy without supporting why the analogy was more appropriate.
You mean my metaphor is worse than yours??? [Smile] . Ed, I said it won't work and gave detailed reasons why. It's not worth repeating them if you didn't think they were adequate the last time around.
quote:
if war is inevitable, and Iran is the likely source of that war and if we need to invade Iran like we did Germany, then where's the best place to stage an invasion? Would it be from, I dunno... Spain? Greece? Cucamonga? Or would it be advantageous to have a staging area next door? In some nearby land like, maybe... Iraq?
Nice to see you've given up shouting in favor of dripping sarcasm. It definitely makes you seem more credible [Wink] . So, you see war against Iran as inevitable, which means we should use Iraq as the base of operations. Do you realize that Iraq is busily building diplomatic bridges to Iran? They're a sovereign nation with a constitution, as you repeatedly point out. How do you get them to let us use their country to attack their next-door neighbor and presumed greatest ally in the region?

You keep talking about the Constitution, so I'll be as plain as I can be to tell you why I give a big whoop about it. The election institutionalized sectarian representation, meaning that it is a government of partisan factions. The factions all operate quasi-independently and have no real interest in "national unity" or whatever you want to call a normal federated method of self-government. It's a sham, a scam, guaranteed to enforce division, wealth-mongering, religious and ethnic intolerance and corruption. That list ignores the supreme incompetence of virtually the entire national infrastructure mechanisms, which would collapse in a heartbeat (not yours or mine) the minute we withdraw from the country. It's even worse than Lebanon, worse than the Palestinian government. Do you really think they were voting for democracy???

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ed, please explain how Anti-Western Propaganda means that War is inevitable?

Was War with the USSR inevitable? Is war with Cuba and Venezuela inevitable?

In the interst avoiding further problems would you like to clarify your defination of the words "propaganda", "war", "inevitable", or maybe "is"?

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wow, this is a win-win for GW. He gets his war and cocaine prices plummet!

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
After reading ED's link I am more convinced than ever that religion is going to be the end of us all.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EDanaII
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for EDanaII   Email EDanaII   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@ DaveS:
quote:
Yes, I did. It's hateful, but it's far from a declaration of war. You conclude that this tape alone is proof that war is inevitable. No further response is possible.
No, I conclude that we've been in a state of war with these people since the 70's and this hatred is evidence of that. And that, eventually, this hatred will escalate into a full scale war as evidenced by their indoctrination of their children in war propaganda worse than what the Nazi even dared to indoctrinate in their children.

quote:
You mean my metaphor is worse than yours??? [Smile] . Ed, I said it won't work and gave detailed reasons why. It's not worth repeating them if you didn't think they were adequate the last time around.
Yes, a very detailed _opinion_ which, when analyzed, amounts to "'cause I said so." You see, here's the problem with your argument. You argue with certainty, but back up with little facts. I, OTOH, admit this is a gamble, but support my position with points of fact.

quote:
Nice to see you've given up shouting in favor of dripping sarcasm. It definitely makes you seem more credible [Wink] .
Yer so quick to the ad homonym, and still slow with them facts...

quote:
So, you see war against Iran as inevitable, which means we should use Iraq as the base of operations. Do you realize that Iraq is busily building diplomatic bridges to Iran? They're a sovereign nation with a constitution, as you repeatedly point out. How do you get them to let us use their country to attack their next-door neighbor and presumed greatest ally in the region?
When have I ever _not qualified_ the whole strategy as a _gambit?_ This is the key difference between your opinion and mine. I know that what we are doing is risky, while your CERTAIN that what we're doing is doomed to failure. I believe we should do what we can do minimize the trouble that is to come, while you believe we should simply "ignore the problem and hope it goes away."

The trouble is, the problem refuses to ignore us, and has been attacking us for a generation and does not appear to be going away any time soon.

Here's some more facts lacking in your opinion: You point out that Iraq is engaging in diplomacy with Iraq. Very true. You, however, assume that this diplomacy includes a non aggression pact? Facts please?

They ARE a sovereign nation. And no one expects them to bow to our demands. But just as I help my neighbor, I can expect help from him. Please don't confuse this with demanding help. Expecting help and demanding help are two different things.

quote:
You keep talking about the Constitution, so I'll be as plain as I can be to tell you why I give a big whoop about it. The election institutionalized sectarian representation, meaning that it is a government of partisan factions.
You mean, just like how our government is one of partisan factions and sectarian representation? I like how you use the obvious to make a negative declaration. That's exactly how representative government is supposed to work: reduce violence by allowing ALL groups access to the rule of law. And, somehow, you conclude this is wrong.

quote:
The factions all operate quasi-independently and have no real interest in "national unity" or whatever you want to call a normal federated method of self-government.
A very big assumption your part which you use, once again, to declare certain defeat. Facts please?

quote:
It's a sham, a scam, guaranteed to enforce division,
Facts please?

quote:
... wealth-mongering, religious and ethnic intolerance and corruption.
Yep. Just exactly like our system. And, somehow, we manage to make it all work. Which is the whole point. But for the Iraqi's? You conclude it's not possible. Where's them facts?

quote:
That list ignores the supreme incompetence of virtually the entire national infrastructure mechanisms, which would collapse in a heartbeat (not yours or mine) the minute we withdraw from the country.
Just exactly like our government too!

Funnier still, you conclude that it would collapse in an instance should we withdraw from the country, yet still argue that we should withdraw from the country. Do you not care, one iota for the lives that would be lost if we do? I'm not speaking of American lives here. I'm speaking of Iraqi lives. Nor am I speaking of JUST Iraqi lives, I'm speaking of the lives of the many innocent peoples in the region, because that is EXACTLY what will happen if we withdraw. Where is your concern for them? Do their lives not matter to you?

quote:
It's even worse than Lebanon, worse than the Palestinian government. Do you really think they were voting for democracy???
Put your money where your mouth is and prove that they weren't.

[Me checks me's watch, fully expecting you to use the current sectarian violence to prove that they were not interested in democracy while fully ignoring the meddling by Al Qeada, Iran and Syria.]


@ Jesse:
quote:
Ed, please explain how Anti-Western Propaganda means that War is inevitable?
We are already at war, Jesse and have been for at least 30 years. It is only a matter of time before a full scale one breaks out. At least, as long as the radicals of that region continue down their current course.

quote:
Was War with the USSR inevitable?
You mean the war we already had? I thank the gods that it didn't break out into a "hot war," but war it was.

quote:
Is war with Cuba and Venezuela inevitable?
These two do not have the power to make war. Not a big one, anyway. Not like the kind that Iran could, especially if they acquire nukes.

Ed.

Posts: 3504 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ed, I can't continue with this discussion. We're both entitled to our differing opinions, but you and I live in different worlds with completely different sets of facts. You even attack my oil and duct tape analogies because they are less appropriate than the water and finish line analogies you threw in to explain how things really are! Gimme a break!

I wrote a long response to your last post, but then remembered the golden rule never to post in anger and deleted most of it. There is no common ground for us to quibble over.

I'm done talking to you about this.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
KE - [Big Grin] now that was funny!

Clinton will probably thank him too, and his friends in Mena, AK.

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Aye, I think I am to.

When it's easier to invent definations for the word "region" than to admit having casually overstated ones case, there isn't much talking left to do.

The truth is, both our situation and that of Israel could be made much more secure in a matter of weeks through a little sensible diplomacy, but I guess a Good War hallows any cause.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1