DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on August 22, 2007, 03:27:54 PM
-
"We hear the same arguments now as we heard years ago, when some said democracy would not work in Japan".
Today Japan is one of the world?s free societies and has transformed from enemy to America?s ally in the ideological struggle of the 20th century.
The same applies to the South Korea. Sometimes the experts get things wrong, said the US president and went on to attack critics of the Vietnam War. Vietnamese people paid the price for US troop withdrawal.
Both Osama bin Laden and Zawahiri invoke Vietnam. Bin Laden said: It is for us or you to win.
If you lose, it will be your disgrace forever.
To withdraw from Iraq without getting the job done would be devastating, Bush said raising his voice. "Our troops will get everyting they need." Abandoning the Iraqi people would embolden the terrorists and they would raise more recruits. This enemy would follow us home. For America?s security we must defeat them overseas so that we don?t face them in the United States. Like Japan, a free Iraqi will be a friend to the US and an ally."
President George Bush - August 22, 2007
-
Typical ranting and raving from a guy who's either a lunatic, an ignoramus or both.
Who are all these people who predicted that democracy would never take root in Japan? I don't recall reading of any influential American who had such an opinion, and he or she would have had to be one dumbass fuck to have said so, since Japan had already functioned, as had Germany and Italy, as a democracy for decades prior to the rise of fascism and/or militarism.
South Korea in fact DID NOT function as a democracy until comparatively recently. It was a rigid dictatorship that used torture and repression to keep its people in line.
It's as though almost nothing that comes out of Bush's mouth can be anything but a lie, and only those who are totally ignorant of history can be taken in by his bullshit, but America is full of dummies, and if only half of the voters bother to vote, the dummies can tip the balance every time.
<<Both Osama bin Laden and Zawahiri invoke Vietnam. Bin Laden said: It is for us or you to win.
If you lose, it will be your disgrace forever. >>
Suddenly, bin Laden and his ilk are authorities on what's good or bad for America. "A disgrace forever." What the hell does he think Viet Nam was, with its 57,000 American and 2 million Vietnamese deaths, and a total defeat at the hands of Third World peasants in black pyjamas who didn't even have air-power? Americans managed to live down that "disgrace." In fact, they forgot all about it, in every movie they make about it, THEY are the winners.
<<To withdraw from Iraq without getting the job done would be devastating, Bush said raising his voice. >>
Better get used to it, schmuck.
<<"Our troops will get everyting they need." >>
They didn't for the past four years, who is this clown fooling now?
<<Abandoning the Iraqi people would embolden the terrorists . . . >>
Yeah, they seem very timid and combat-averse right now. They sure could use a little stiffening of the old backbone.
<< and they would raise more recruits. >>
According to all the success stories we've been hearing from the U.S. military, the so-called "terrorists" were getting killed off like flies. I guess the moron figures they were replenishing their ranks by resurrecting the dead, but after an American defeat, they'd be able to fill up the gaps n their ranks by more conventional recruiting.
<<l This enemy would follow us home.>>
Right. They don't want to blow up America as long as Americans are "guests" in Iraq, but once they LEAVE Iraq, THAT'S the time to blow them up on their home turf.
<< For America?s security we must defeat them overseas so that we don?t face them in the United States. >>
I think so. If you continue to occupy their homeland and install a puppet government to give you a big chunk of their oil sales, why would they possibly be motivated to strike at the homeland?
<<Like Japan, a free Iraqi will be a friend to the US and an ally.">>
Uhh, weren't the Japs ordered by their Emperor to stop fighting and surrender unconditionally?
This "President" is living inside somebody's pipe dream, where all he has to do is say it and it becomes true. He's an idiot preaching to morons, but the sad thing is that there are enough morons out there to make it worth his while.
-
"Who are all these people who predicted that democracy would never take root in Japan?"
"democracy in Japan would never work." - May 28, 1945
Joseph Grew former United States ambassador to Japan who served as Harry Truman's Under Secretary of State
-
Both Osama bin Laden and Zawahiri invoke Vietnam. Bin Laden said: It is for us or you to win.
If you lose, it will be your disgrace forever.
Who actually said that? Did President Bush say that? Since there is no link to a source, I can't check it out to be sure.
-
"Both Osama bin Laden and Zawahiri invoke Vietnam, Bin Laden said: "It is for us or you to win.
If you lose, it will be your disgrace forever"
Who actually said that? Did President Bush say that? Since there is no link to a source, I can't check it out to be sure"
not sure exactly what you are asking so maybe this will help:
Bin Laden: " would like to tell you that the war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever as the wind blows in this direction with God's help".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4628932.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4628932.stm)
The 6,000-word letter from Osama bin Laden's chief lieutenant, Ayman Zawahiri...Invoking the specter of the United States abruptly abandoning Iraq as it did to Vietnam, Zawahiri counseled immediate political action: "We must take the initiative and impose a fait accompli upon our enemies, instead of the enemy imposing one on us."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/11/AR2005101101353_pf.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/11/AR2005101101353_pf.html)
Bin Laden: "I ask the American people to force their government to give up anti-Muslim policies. The American people had risen against their government?s war in Vietnam"
http://www.dawn.com/2001/11/10/top1.htm (http://www.dawn.com/2001/11/10/top1.htm)
-
No, I'm asking if President Bush said exactly this:
Both Osama bin Laden and Zawahiri invoke Vietnam. Bin Laden said: It is for us or you to win.
If you lose, it will be your disgrace forever.
Who actually said that exact sequence of words? Did President Bush make that statement? Did someone writing an article or a column or a blog entry make that statement? Who said it? A simple link to the source for your initial post would help much.
-
" They don't want to blow up America as long as Americans are "guests" in Iraq, but once they LEAVE Iraq, THAT'S the time to blow them up on their home turf.
That does seem like the reality of the situation doesn't it?
They haven't been kiling Americans in America since 9-11 , they have instead been haveing to shoot at Americans who were prepared to shoot back. This worls better for me.
-
<<Joseph Grew former United States ambassador to Japan who served as Harry Truman's Under Secretary of State>>
Thank you for the clarification. Without it, I am sure that not one member of this group, myself included, would have had the faintest idea who Joseph Grew was.
As far as I know, the vast majority of the American people, including its journalists, academics and military and political leaders, had no such doubts. To tell you the truth, I am very surprised you could even dig up this one idiot.
-
<<They haven't been kiling Americans in America since 9-11 , they have instead been haveing to shoot at Americans who were prepared to shoot back. This worls better for me.>>
Better learn to read the bottom line. They're killing and wounding Americans in Iraq instead of America. And since the attacks in America were suicide attacks, the fact that a shaheed is killed in Iraq instead of America doesn't have any effect on the bottom line of their casualties. All that happened is that the American targets were all shipped closer to their executioners, who were spared the trouble of plotting the logistics of killing in a distant and well-defended First World country. Now they can do it on their home turf.
The other bonus for the Islamic Resistance is that for every day the occupation of Iraq continues, for every Iraqi killed, wounded or tortured, more are recruited to the cause every day. And the weaker grows the position of the collaborationists in all the American puppet states.
-
"As far as I know, the vast majority of the American people, including its journalists, academics and military and political leaders, had no such doubts"
we can agree to disagree, but I think you greatly overstate the "no doubt democracy will easily work in Japan" that most Americans held after WW2. there was concern about post WW2 Japan and how they would accept MacArthur promoting the development of democracy in Japan
MacArthur:
Early in the occupation MacArthur saw the need to drastically change the Meiji Constitution. In his autobiography, MacArthur argued:
"We could not simply encourage the growth of democracy. We had to make sure that it grew. Under the old constitution, government flowed downward from the emperor, who held the supreme authority, to those to whom he had delegated power. It was a dictatorship to begin with, a hereditary one, and the people existed to serve it."
http://www.crf-usa.org/election_central/japan_democracy.htm (http://www.crf-usa.org/election_central/japan_democracy.htm)
-
<<MacArthur:
<<Early in the occupation MacArthur saw the need to drastically change the Meiji Constitution. In his autobiography, MacArthur argued:
<<"We could not simply encourage the growth of democracy. We had to make sure that it grew. Under the old constitution, government flowed downward from the emperor, who held the supreme authority, to those to whom he had delegated power. It was a dictatorship to begin with, a hereditary one, and the people existed to serve it."
<<http://www.crf-usa.org/election_central/japan_democracy.htm>>
I think it must have been pretty clear to the American people that the democracy that was going to take root in Japan was going to be an American-imposed and American-style democracy. I don't think the conception of a top-down "democracy" under a hereditary all-powerful dictatorship was somehow what they had in mind or would have had in mind had anyone asked them about the chances of "democracy" in Japan.
-
In May of 1945, the Japanese were not ready for democracy. But the Japanese are among the world's most pragmatic people. They are capable of change like few civilizations in history.
The US military occupation of Japan prepared the Japanese for a constitutional monarchy along the lines of Great Britain within about five years.
The most important feature that made this possible was that a huge percentage of men between the ages of 15 and 60 were killed or seriously wounded in WWII. A society in which a majority of the population are widowed women, especially traditionally subservient Japanese women, is certainly more easily adaptable than one in which there are 50% men.
Japan served as an example to both Korea and Taiwan. Taiwanese society shared many attitudes with Japan after a 50 year Japanese occupation. It would have become democratic faster if not for the Mainland Kuomintang Army that took over in 1950.
The Japanese are clearly more adaptable than most other civilizations.One observes that Japan took perhaps 20 years to recover from a totally devastating war. It took the Confederacy at least 60 years to accomplish anything similar.
-
"Who actually said that exact sequence of words? Did President Bush make that statement? Did someone writing an article or a column or a blog entry make that statement? Who said it? A simple link to the source for your initial post would help much"
it is still a bit hard to understand your question.
President Bush said the words, but some of what President Bush said was when he was quoting Bin Laden
so you could say they both said some of the exact sequence of words
not sure what your point is
here is the link to President Bush's speech he made yesterday if you have doubts:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070822-3.html (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070822-3.html)
-
It took the Confederacy at least 60 years to accomplish anything similar
and really air conditioning did more to make the south boom than almost anything else
-
"We hear the same arguments now as we heard years ago, when some said democracy would not work in Japan".
Today Japan is one of the world?s free societies and has transformed from enemy to America?s ally in the ideological struggle of the 20th century.
The same applies to the South Korea. Sometimes the experts get things wrong, said the US president and went on to attack critics of the Vietnam War. Vietnamese people paid the price for US troop withdrawal.
Both Osama bin Laden and Zawahiri invoke Vietnam. Bin Laden said: It is for us or you to win.
If you lose, it will be your disgrace forever.
To withdraw from Iraq without getting the job done would be devastating, Bush said raising his voice. "Our troops will get everyting they need." Abandoning the Iraqi people would embolden the terrorists and they would raise more recruits. This enemy would follow us home. For America?s security we must defeat them overseas so that we don?t face them in the United States. Like Japan, a free Iraqi will be a friend to the US and an ally."
President George Bush - August 22, 2007
Spoken by someone who has absolutely no grasp of history.
What a set of idiot comments.
-
Good posts.
The other factor to keep in mind was the total disillusionment of the Japs at the end of the war. They'd been taught that the Emperor was a God-King and yet he was completely unable to protect them from American bombing and nuclear weapons. The Army which had demanded their unconditional devotion was a similar let-down. So with absolutely no faith in the institutions of the past, they were ready for anything their conquerors proposed. All the more so when it turned out to be relatively benevolent.
-
So the destruction of institutional faith is a precursor to major changes in any given society?
Is this going on here in America?
-
it is still a bit hard to understand your question.
What part of "Who said it?" are you finding difficult to understand?
President Bush said the words
Okay, so where is the source for your initial post? Because this sequence of words "Both Osama bin Laden and Zawahiri invoke Vietnam. Bin Laden said: It is for us or you to win. If you lose, it will be your disgrace forever." is not in the speech for which you provided a link. Obviously what you quoted in your initial post did not come from the speech. I suppose this isn't really a big deal, but I'm curious as to why you're not giving a link for the source of your initial post.
Here is what I did find at the link you provided to President Bush's speech. Bush said, "We must remember the words of the enemy. We must listen to what they say. Bin Laden has declared that 'the war [in Iraq] is for you or us to win. If we win it, it means your disgrace and defeat forever.'" Apparently Osama bin Laden sets the parameters of the "war on terror". This is not exactly what I would call encouraging.
-
<<So the destruction of institutional faith is a precursor to major changes in any given society?>>
Well, yeah if the New Deal is any example. Wasn't it Lenin who said, "Things have to get worse before they can get better?"
<<Is this going on here in America?>>
Very slowly. America's a very powerful and very resilient force. People began with a lot of faith in their institutions and justifiably so. It'll take a huge amount of erosion before any really radical disillusionment takes over any significant part of the population. Although I really think the low turnout at federal elections is way ahead of its time.
I always think of America as what sailors call a very forgiving boat.
-
What part of "Who said it?" are you finding difficult to understand?
when you ask "who said it" i was not sure if you were questioning who said it originally or if you were unsure if President Bush said it
they both said it or at least both said the same basic same content, so thats what made your question unclear
Okay, so where is the source for your initial post?
i did not think a source was needed. see below
Because this sequence of words
"Both Osama bin Laden and Zawahiri invoke Vietnam. Bin Laden said: It is for us or you to win. If you lose, it will be your disgrace forever." is not in the speech for which you provided a link.
You are in fact correct. I just went back and read the entire speech, that was edcuational, so thanks for pressuring me into reading the entire speech which by the way provides more factual data to rebut some of Michael Tee's earlier statements. that source did in fact not get the correct sequence or exact wording correct. It is in fact true that President Bush did speak about Zawahiri and Bin Laden invoking Viet Nam. President Bush in the speech did say "Bin Laden has declared that "the war [in Iraq] is for you or us to win. If we win it, it means your disgrace and defeat forever."
Obviously what you quoted in your initial post did not come from the speech.
It did come from the speech, but was not quoted correctly or in correct sequence.
content was basically correct but that was a good catch on your part because that was a
pathethic job of reporting from wherever I copied and pasted from
I suppose this isn't really a big deal, but I'm curious as to why you're not giving a link for the source of your initial post.
To be honest many times I will provide sourcing, but this speech was all over the networks, all over the internet, all over the radio so I just thought it was not necessary to provide a source for something so widely distrubuted. It would be like sourcing the Ten Commandments. Maybe thats a stretch, but you catch my drift. I look at literally hundreds of sources of politcal and geo-political sites on a daily/weekly basis so I can not remember which one this came from. Obviously they got the sequence and exact wording wrong, although for the most part the content is factual and pretty much what the President said.
-
In any case, I think President Bush is wrong. The U.S. had troops in Vietnam for about a decade (I'm sure those with a better knowledge of history will correct me if I'm wrong), and something like 50,000 U.S. military personnel died during that conflict. For all that effort, time and blood, the "insurgents" (if you will) of Vietnam were not defeated. And the argument can be made that the massive killings in Vietnam that followed the U.S. withdrawal of troops was not because the troops left too soon, but because they left too late. Rather than move in, kick ass and haul out, U.S. troops remained longer than necessary and the situation continued far longer than it ever should have, and that is assuming (the highly debatable position) that U.S. troops had some business being there in the first place. And much of what happened in Cambodia following the Vietnam War grew out of conditions caused by the Vietnam War, at least that has been my understanding. So the suggestion that the aftereffects of the Vietnam War are some sort of lesson that we need to say in Iraq indefinitely seems entirely wrong to me. Seems to me the lesson is that we should be finding a way out sooner rather than later or, regardless of whatever good intentions might be behind remaining, the consequences of U.S. actions in the region could, more likely than not, end up being very bad indeed.
-
The massacres in Cambodia were a direct result of U.S. interference in that country's government, overthrowing a popular neutralist government in favour of a pro-U.S. military government and secretly bombing the country, both of which led to a tremendous groundswell of pro-Communist feeling and popular support for the Khmer Rouge rebels, which ultimately swept them into power with disastrous results for anyone they deemed tainted by "foreign" (i.e. U.S. or French) influence.
Your "President" being either a moron or a liar or both has decided to take Cambodia to the people as an example of what happens when the U.S. withdraws "prematurely" from a country. (This is hilarious - - how can you withdraw "prematurely" from a country or a neighbour you have absolutely no right to be in in the first place?) He forgets that the U.S. did not even occupy Cambodia. He forgets (well he doesn't really "forget," he is obviously lying about the whole thing) that it was U.S. interference in a country and a region of which it understood virtually nothing that led to the massacre. Just as any massacre that follows U.S. withdrawal will be the direct result of their interference in another region they understood nothing of.
That your "President" is a liar and/or moron is very old news by now. Somebody who has lied the entire country into a disaster. What is very surprising is that there are still credulous souls (fortunately in increasingly diminishing numbers) who take him seriously and even worse seem to absorb even the most obvious and blatant lies and misrepresentations as if they were truth and wisdom personified.
-
It should also be noted that Bush "forgets" that the United States funded the Khmer Rhouge from 1978 to 1993 after they declared war on Vietnam. Some of the atrocities and mass murders came with U.S. tax dollars attached (as well as Thai training).
I also think we need to look at the bigger picture here, beyond the rhetoric of someone who really doesn't give a damn about what happened in Vietnam 30+ years ago.
This is about Iraq and the Middle East. My concern is this: do we really want Iraq to have a democracy? I have been a supporter of keeping our troops in Iraq as a moral obligation to keep the Iraqi people safe. In other words, to attempt to establish an amount of peace that must exist if any real democratic society is to spring from the ashes of our dubious initial invasion.
I'm having a lot of problems with that now.
Why? Because I'm not sure what our underlying goals really are at this very moment in time.
We seem to be on some anti-Shi'a crusade to prevent Iran from having influence in Iraq. At the very same time, the violence (remember that peace that must be had to establish a democratic society?) is primarily being caused by Sunni insurgents. If we stopped the Sunni insurgency, then we'd stop the sectarian violence.
But that doesn't even seem to be on the list of the top 1000 priorities. Indeed, we've just made huge contracts with the Sunni nations of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. Lots of rhetoric aimed only at Iran. Frankly, I don't think we understand Shi'a Islam well enough and I certainly doubt that we want Iraq to be governed by the people of Iraq.
-
For all that effort, time and blood, the "insurgents" (if you will) of Vietnam were not defeated
so if insurgency is present the us should always "cut & run"?
after "Custer's Last Stand" we should have "cut & run"?
"finding a way out sooner rather than later or, regardless of whatever good intentions might be behind remaining"
if we cut and run from Iraq and Iraq becomes another Iran and like Iran begins funding new Hezbollas all over the middle east and destabilising moderate Arab governments and the the destabilised gvt are replaced with Islamic Theocracies sitting on an endless supply of oil revenues and like Iran they all begin to have nuclear misssles pointed at Europe and the US, and then the same path is followed in Europe, what? just deal with that huge dilemma then rather than stop it in it's tracks right now with alot less money, less pain, less suffering, and less death. out of sight out of mind? put of the filling until it becomes a root canal?
-
<<if we cut and run from Iraq and Iraq becomes another Iran and like Iran begins funding new Hezbollas all over the middle east and destabilising moderate Arab governments and the the destabilised gvt are replaced with Islamic Theocracies sitting on an endless supply of oil revenues and like Iran they all begin to have nuclear misssles pointed at Europe and the US, and then the same path is followed in Europe, what? just deal with that huge dilemma then rather than stop it in it's tracks right now with alot less money, less pain, less suffering, and less death. out of sight out of mind? put of the filling until it becomes a root canal?>>
I was struck by the number of "IFs" in that whole scenario. It's comparable to "IF I allow my neighbour to invite tough-looking guys into his home for dinner and IF these tough-looking guys decide to get hold of some high-powered weapons and IF these guys with their weapons take over the house on the other side of me and the one behind me and IF they then manage to win the local cops over to their side by bribery, then I'll be surrounded on all sides by enemies who will throw me out and rob me blind if they don't kill me. SO . . . easier to just blow up the guy's house tonight.
Logically, from one "IF" to the next, it's not such a big leap. But when "IF" is piled upon "IF" to the extent that you have done, you have an end-point (nukes aimed from lots of countries at the U.S. and Europe) that is only tenuously connected to the beginning. You've basically constructed an entire house of cards, based on your ability to predict the future from one contingency to another in a chain of maybe six basic links.
I would agree that if you were able to predict the future accurately and the events would unfold as predicted you would have some justification for staying and fighting.
However, it's very hard to predict even a single link. The classic example of course if Viet Nam. At the time the prediction was very simple: the domino theory, that if Indo-China falls, so will Thailand, then (start picking random South-East Asian countries) and at the end of the day, maybe Japan is the last man standing. Well, the prediction never even got to the first link. What was French Indo-China fell and then? total silence. All the other dominos remained standing. Surprise, surprise: 57,000 U.S. troops sacrificed for what? for a bum theory. Too bad, mum. Tough luck, dad. A small glitch in our crystal ball. Thanks for your understanding.
The other problem with the speculative house of cards is that just as the events that you predict do not necessarily happen, so too can events that you didn't predict surface and bite you in the ass. Case in point: the Plan calls for "free elections" which given the demographics will be "won" by the Shi'a, and the Shi'a government will be led by the CIA's hand-picked Iraqi exile, a secular Shi'ite (Chalabi) who can act independently of the religious nuts in Teheran. Lo and behold, Chalabi is SO reviled even among fellow Shi'a, that he's incapable of forming a government and the religious parties, with much closer ties to Iran, get to form the government.
Try this unforeseen development on for size: the invasion of Iraq outrages millions of Muslims and floods anti-American guerrilla organizations wth new recruits, while at the same time stoking outrage and rebellion in all the American satellite countries, hastening the day when mobs of radical sympathizers overthrow the pro-American puppets and drag their mutilated corpses thorugh the streets.
If anyone in private life tried to run his life on the principles you advocate, most people would have him declared criminally insane. But you seem to think it's perfectly OK for the U.S.
-
"You've basically constructed an entire house of cards, based on your ability to predict the future from one contingency to another in a chain of maybe six basic links"
micheal it isn't really such a reach to to surmise the Islamic Theocrcay's intentions and how they are going about it
see hezbollah, see Sadr, see huge miltary involvement in Syria, ect.
but i agree with you that my scenario could be altered by world events
i still hold out hope that the younger generation will overthrow the 17th century Mullahs
however the scenario i paint is pretty much their goal and so i think we can't gamble that the "if's" just wont happen
we must prepare as if those chain of events could very well happen because if we wait hoping they wont and they do
we could be faced with armageddon
just recently I am depressingly coming to the conclusion that armageddon is where we are headed because we are too afraid to have the cavity worked on and we are going to let it fester until it's too late and it will become a root canal abcess
it's human nature to avoid pain
-
For all that effort, time and blood, the "insurgents" (if you will) of Vietnam were not defeated
so if insurgency is present the us should always "cut & run"?
after "Custer's Last Stand" we should have "cut & run"?
No. That isn't what I said. Quite frankly, we should stop getting ourselves into situations where we end up fighting an insurgency for an indefinite number of years. It is bad policy and bad military tactics. In any case, Vietnam is not an example of U.S. troops needing to have remained fighting indefinitely. It is an example of what happens when the U.S. tries to impose its will on another country and gets stuck in a pattern of fighting to stay rather than fighting to defeat. And we need to be mindful of the consequences of such actions. We have historical examples, and worse than ignoring them, we're distorting them to defend ignoring them. People keep saying we have to learn from history of the Nazis and stop the terrorists now. Well, we need to learn from the history of our military excursions into Korea and Vietnam, and stop acting like an indefinite stay in Iraq is the best course of action.
As for Custer's last stand, I think we could have handled not killing American Indians by the thousands if we'd tried. That we did not try is something of which, as an American, I am not proud.
if we cut and run from Iraq and Iraq becomes another Iran and like Iran begins funding new Hezbollas all over the middle east and destabilising moderate Arab governments and the the destabilised gvt are replaced with Islamic Theocracies sitting on an endless supply of oil revenues and like Iran they all begin to have nuclear misssles pointed at Europe and the US, and then the same path is followed in Europe, what? just deal with that huge dilemma then rather than stop it in it's tracks right now with alot less money, less pain, less suffering, and less death. out of sight out of mind? put of the filling until it becomes a root canal?
If we remain in Iraq for another 6 years and pull out late, leaving a destabilized Middle East and a decade of urban warfare as a terrorist recruiting tool and having spent a decade providing terrorists with a real life urban warfare training ground, do you really think that situation is going to be the one with a lot less pain, suffering and death? Part of the problem with your ifs is that you're assuming 'leave Iraq' equals 'never do anything about terrorism'. You're also assuming that the conflict in Iraq is somehow doing something to stop the destabilizing of the Middle East, the rise of pro-theocracy Muslims, and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Well, it isn't. It is, in point of fact, contributing to all three. You're also making the same mistake that liberals make about domestic policy. You're insisting that the government has to Do Something right now to solve the problem. And like folks who try to claim that the current course of the "war on poverty" is necessary and working, you're insisting that the current course of the "war on terror" is necessary and working without considering what the actual current and long-term consequences are. And you're willing to go so far as to accept a complete distortion of historical facts as "Enough said." Yet, you expect me to believe that your position is the correct one. I cannot do that.
-
It is an example of what happens when the U.S. tries to impose its will on another country and gets stuck in a pattern of fighting to stay rather than fighting to defeat
no it is an example of only going into a fight half cocked and and trying to fight a "pretty war"
but you are right, war can not be won if it is basically goverened by "60 Minutes Approval"
war is not pretty and the only way to win a military war is to destoy your enemy
see germany
see japan
see kosevo
but i agree with you we should be more careful, as long as we have snifling liberal reporters with a pacifism agenda running after headlines of every little story like a dog barking in our enemy's face instead of focusing on the goal to as quickly as possible total destruction of the party we are at war with it.
"pretty wars" don't work
abe lincoln could not have won the war if pacifist agenda reporters had been sensationalizing every possible mistake or abuse
it's war not people magazine
Well, we need to learn from the history of our military excursions into Korea and Vietnam, and stop acting like an indefinite stay in Iraq is the best course of action.
Korea? hasn't the indefinite stay in Korea, Japan, and Germany worked rather well?
are you saying South Korea would be better off like the nightmare of starvation going on in north korea?
-
it's war not people magazine
Exactly why we ought to be trying to avoid it, not see long we can make it last.
hasn't the indefinite stay in Korea, Japan, and Germany worked rather well?
You mean in the places where we are not fighting insurgents? Golly gee yes, that has worked out so well, it must be the best plan for Iraq... oh, wait, no, it is not. Was there fighting insurgents in Korea, Japan and Germany for years after the war itself had ended? No, there was not. We won the war against Iraq. We defeated the Iraq military and toppled the Iraq government. War won. Right now U.S. troops are being used to fight to remain, fighting not to lose, not fighting to defeat. So the comparison to Germany and Japan is not applicable. And frankly, we don't need to have troops in Japan or Germany, and I advocate those be brought home. You could maybe make a case for troops is South Korea, but then part of the result of the Korean War was an authoritarian government in power until the 1980s.
are you saying South Korea would be better off like the nightmare of starvation going on in north korea?
Nope. Are you saying we should support an authoritarian government in Iraq that demands obedience from the populace? If you are, my reply would be in that case we could have avoided the Iraq War and just made a deal with Saddam Hussein.
-
You mean in the places where we are not fighting insurgents? Golly gee yes,
why be a smartass? whats the point of that?
but i guess i can play too
"yeah golly gee" as you said why were there no insurgents in germany and japan?
because we destroyed an enemy and did not tolerate neighbors sending in tons of fighters/money/arms to support an insurgency
about 80% of suicide bombers (aka "headline grabbers")in Iraq are foreigners
we should not be tolerating Iran and Syria supporting the insurgents
but we did and are and now we are suffering the consequences
if there were insurgents in Japan and Germany they and their towns would have been laid to ashes
allow insurgents to dictate the rules and sure you'll lose
btw kosevo had insurgency elements
-
Insurgents are hard to fight.
Pershing fought Insurgents in Mexico and in the Philippines , they don't win just because they are insurgents , insurgents win if they can consistently get away from the stronger force.
Pershing spanked the insurgents in the Phillipe's , but was stymied by the insurgents he couldn't run to the ground in Mexico.
-
why be a smartass? whats the point of that?
I'm sarcastic sometimes. Deal with it.
"yeah golly gee" as you said why were there no insurgents in germany and japan?
because we destroyed an enemy and did not tolerate neighbors sending in tons of fighters/money/arms to support an insurgency
Immediately following the end of World War II, were there foreign countries sending even just a few pounds of fighters/money/arms to support insurgencies in Germany and/or Japan? I must have missed the day my history class covered the bombings that took place to quell the Nazi insurgents after V-E day. Or maybe there weren't any.
about 80% of suicide bombers (aka "headline grabbers")in Iraq are foreigners
we should not be tolerating Iran and Syria supporting the insurgents
but we did and are and now we are suffering the consequences
And your solution to that would be what? More war with Iran and Syria?
btw kosevo had insurgency elements
I think you mean Kosovo. (I only point this out because Kosevo is also a place, which I know because I looked it up just now, and I want to be clear.) But what is your point? U.S. involvement in that conflict did not drag out for years. And the arguments for U.S. military involvement there have been called into question, not entirely unlike the arguments for war against Iraq.
-
I'm sarcastic sometimes. Deal with it.
why do you feel the need?
Immediately following the end of World War II, were there foreign countries sending even just a few pounds of fighters/money/arms to support insurgencies in Germany and/or Japan? I must have missed the day my history class covered the bombings that took place to quell the Nazi insurgents after V-E day. Or maybe there weren't any.
exactly proving my point, there were not any because we would not have tolerated any
today we tolerate such nonsense and we are reaping the results
And your solution to that would be what? More war with Iran and Syria?
not a ground war, but yes like Presidnt Clinton in Kosovo, i would use air power to alter behavior causing US soldier deaths and sabotaging democracy in Iraq
that is what we are doing anyway
fighting proxy wars with Iran and Syria
that is really no secret
i would warn first
i would warn again, and then again
if support of insurgents/suicide teams(80% foreigners)/arms/money killing american soldiers was not halted
then i would set timetables, give one last warning
then first aerial bombings of iranian and/or syrian military facilities would begin
bombing would halt and see if interest was now to halt the support of killing american soldiers
if no behavior change, the bombings would continue until behavior stopped or the Syrian and Iranian militaries were destroyed from the air
I think you mean Kosovo.
yes kind of like in this thread when you posted "aftereffects" and probably meant "after effects" or in this thread when you posted "not see long we can make it last" and meant to say "not see HOW long we can make it last". It's called a typo. I make them and obviously you do too.
(I only point this out because Kosevo is also a place, which I know because I looked it up just now, and I want to be clear.)
yeah sure, i am sure you had any doubt as to what I was referring to
But what is your point? U.S. involvement in that conflict did not drag out for years.
exactly because President Clinton handled that war like we should handle Iran and Syria.
it's the "Clinton Blueprint" if you will
if Hillary promises to carry out the same plan in Iran and Syria that her husband did in Kosovo I'll vote for her.
And the arguments for U.S. military involvement there have been called into question, not entirely unlike the arguments for war against Iraq
what wars has the US been involved in that no one called into question whether it should be fought?
and btw i am only praising President Clinton's military strategy in Kosovo, not the reason we were there
-
I'm sarcastic sometimes. Deal with it.
why do you feel the need?
I don't.
Immediately following the end of World War II, were there foreign countries sending even just a few pounds of fighters/money/arms to support insurgencies in Germany and/or Japan? I must have missed the day my history class covered the bombings that took place to quell the Nazi insurgents after V-E day. Or maybe there weren't any.
exactly proving my point, there were not any because we would not have tolerated any
And your support for this argument is what, exactly?
not a ground war, but yes like Presidnt Clinton in Kosovo, i would use air power to alter behavior causing US soldier deaths and sabotaging democracy in Iraq
that is what we are doing anyway
fighting proxy wars with Iran and Syria
that is really no secret
i would warn first
i would warn again, and then again
if support of insurgents/suicide teams(80% foreigners)/arms/money killing american soldiers was not halted
then i would set timetables, give one last warning
then first aerial bombings of iranian and/or syrian military facilities would begin
bombing would halt and see if interest was now to halt the support of killing american soldiers
if no behavior change, the bombings would continue until behavior stopped or the Syrian and Iranian militaries were destroyed from the air
So you'd escalate the situation. And what do you think would be the results of that?
I think you mean Kosovo.
yes kind of like in this thread where you posted "aftereffects" and probably meant "after effects" or in this thread when you posted "not see long we can make it last" and meant to say "not see HOW long we can make it last". It's called a typo. I make them and obviously you do too.
Yes, I make mistakes too. I guess we have something in common. Weird, i'n'it. And incidentally, 'aftereffects' is a actually a word.
(I only point this out because Kosevo is also a place, which I know because I looked it up just now, and I want to be clear.)
yeah sure, i am sure you had any doubt as to what I was referring to
I'm not sure why you feel the need to be so sarcastic. I'm also not sure why you think I would lie. If I was going to pick on technical issues in your writing, I'd have done so before now. But I don't generally do that sort of thing because I know that I too make mistakes. I guess we have something in common. Whoa, deja vu.
But what is your point? U.S. involvement in that conflict did not drag out for years.
exactly because President Clinton handled that war like we should handle Iran and Syria.
I see. You want to bomb the countries into poverty. Hm. I wonder what the long-term consequences of that will be.
what wars has the US been involved in that no one called into question whether it should be fought?
Probably none, but the Kosovo War seems a particularly poor example to use.
-
I see. You want to bomb the countries into poverty. Hm. I wonder what the long-term consequences of that will be.
first, why would bombing military facilities in Iran and/or Syria automatically equate to poverty?
secondly, my intention would not be to cause any country poverty, but if Iran and Syria after repeated warnings continued to be involved in arming/training/funding activities that kill american soldiers/Iraqi civilians/Iraqi policeman/Iraqi elected officials and activities that continue to try to prevent democracy from taking place in Iraq then yes if poverty was the consequence of their actions I could easily accept that just like abe lincoln or any other american president has accepted the consequences of war.
So you'd escalate the situation. And what do you think would be the results of that?
no, they are the one's escalating the situation by being involved in funding/arming/training/ect of people involved in killing US soldiers and involved in attempts to sabotage the Iraqi people's attempt at democracy.
they would finally be held fully accountable for their actions, if thats "escalation", so be it
And your support for this argument is what, exactly?
the reality of what actually took place on the ground in two theaters of war
the Kosovo War seems a particularly poor example to use.
see US death count in the Kosovo war
as far as military strategy, overall it was conducted brilliantly
kudos to President Clinton as commander in chief
now we need his wife to follow in his footsteps
If I was going to pick on technical issues in your writing, I'd have done so before now
"if"?
you just did.
there is no "if".
it seems a rather boring and meaningless pursuit
but whatever floats your dingy
-
What I don't get is if Iran or Syria deserve to be bombed into poverty for attacking and killing Americans, why doesn't America deserve to be bombed into poverty for attacking and killing Iraqis?
-
And your support for this argument is what, exactly?
the reality of what actually took place on the ground in two theaters of war
So your evidence that something which did not happen would not have have been tolerated is that it did not happen? Or did you have something more specific in mind?
If I was going to pick on technical issues in your writing, I'd have done so before now
"if"?
you just did.
there is no "if".
Actually, I made a simple clarification, not a personal attack on your spelling. As I pointed out before, I have no reason to lie about this.
it seems a rather boring and meaningless pursuit
Then let it go already.
I see. You want to bomb the countries into poverty. Hm. I wonder what the long-term consequences of that will be.
first, why would bombing military facilities in Iran and/or Syria automatically equate to poverty?
You did say you believe Iran and Syria should be handled the way President Clinton handled Kosovo, did you not?
secondly, my intention would not be to cause any country poverty, but if Iran and Syria after repeated warnings continued to be involved in arming/training/funding activities that kill american soldiers/Iraqi civilians/Iraqi policeman/Iraqi elected officials and activities that continue to try to prevent democracy from taking place in Iraq then yes if poverty was the consequence of their actions I could easily accept that just like abe lincoln or any other american president has accepted the consequences of war.
You could easily accept it. My, aren't you brave.
So you'd escalate the situation. And what do you think would be the results of that?
no, they are the one's escalating the situation by being involved in funding/arming/training/ect of people involved in killing US soldiers and involved in attempts to sabotage the Iraqi people's attempt at democracy.
they would finally be held fully accountable for their actions, if thats "escalation", so be it
Okay. Anyway, you did not answer the question. After you've warned and warned and warned and warned and then bombed Iran and Syria, what do you think would be the results of that?
-
What I don't get is if Iran or Syria deserve to be bombed into poverty for attacking and killing Americans, why doesn't America deserve to be bombed into poverty for attacking and killing Iraqis?
Could it be perhaps that we're not actually "attacking & killing Iraqis", that in fact we're actually attacking & killing muslim extremists & terrorists, who are either trying to kill Americans or trying to derail freedom for Iraqis??
Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. So much easier to keep the blinders on, and claim how low hanging our murderous fruit are, and that it's all really for the oil. So many less neurons required to facilitate that template. Save so many more for blanket cliched namecalling ;)
-
"You did say you believe Iran and Syria should be handled the way President Clinton handled Kosovo, did you not?"
absolutely, in so far as it being almost entirely an aerial campaign
of course no two wars are going to be exactly 100% the same
we have the air power to basically cripple/destroy the iranian military
if they continue indirectly killing US troops, then after ignored warnings I think we should destroy their military from the air
i would not want to occupy Iran, but by destroying Iran's miltary offensive & defensive capabilty the Mullahs would soon find enough problems at home that meddling elsewhere would be out the question, their own survival would be the new buring issue
"Then let it go already"
i didn't start it, but i will put that in the "vault" and see if you stick to your own words
"So your evidence that something which did not happen would not have have been tolerated is that it did not happen?
Or did you have something more specific in mind?"
No I think if you see a jewelry store in a horrible part of town, and this jewelry store has no bars on the windows, no alarm system, and all the jewelry left in the display cases over night with the lights on, but this jewelry store has 50 armed guards with machine guns and it does not ever get robbed then one could logically conclude with some certainty that the jewelry store had never robbed because potential robbers realize they would be destroyed/killed.
Take a look at Berlin in 1945. They knew there were no Ted Kennedy's that would "protect" them.
(http://antohins.vtheatre.net/photo/berlin.jpg)
"Okay. Anyway, you did not answer the question. After you've warned and warned and warned and warned and then bombed Iran and Syria, what do you think would be the results of that?"
Yes I did answer the question. I stated they "would finally be held accountable for their actions".
But to go further at first they would not change behavior because they rely on the pacifst left to scream and that causes hesitation
I assume we would have to prove to the Iranian Mullahs we mean business and no one was going to "save them"
So the first warning to the Mullahs would fall on deaf ears and they would contiue helping people kill Americans
After a couple of devastaing air strikes against the Iranian military and the Mullahs realizing Ted Kennedy's cries afoul are on deaf ears and no one was going to "run cover" for them. they might listen or they might not
either way it's a win/win for us
it's up to the the Mullahs to decide their fate
the result: either the Islamic Theocrats change behavior or we destroy the military of an enemy
-
"You did say you believe Iran and Syria should be handled the way President Clinton handled Kosovo, did you not?"
absolutely, in so far as it being almost entirely an aerial campaign
Okay, so then you want to bomb the countries into poverty. Hm. I wonder what the long-term consequences of that will be.
"So your evidence that something which did not happen would not have have been tolerated is that it did not happen?
Or did you have something more specific in mind?"
No I think if you see a jewelry store in a horrible part of town, and this jewelry store has no bars on the windows, no alarm system, and all the jewelry left in the display cases over night with the lights on, but this jewelry store has 50 armed guards with machine guns and it does not ever get robbed then one could logically conclude with some certainty that the jewelry store had never robbed because potential robbers realize they would be destroyed/killed.
Take a look at Berlin in 1945. They knew there were no Ted Kennedy's that would "protect" them.
So your evidence that something which did not happen would not have have been tolerated is, in fact, that it did not happen. Okay, I'm glad we cleared that up.
"Okay. Anyway, you did not answer the question. After you've warned and warned and warned and warned and then bombed Iran and Syria, what do you think would be the results of that?"
Yes I did answer the question. I stated they "would finally be held accountable for their actions".
But to go further at first they would not change behavior because they rely on the pacifst left to scream and that causes hesitation
I assume we would have to prove to the Iranian Mullahs we mean business and no one was going to "save them"
So the first warning to the Mullahs would fall on deaf ears and they would contiue helping people kill Americans
After a couple of devastaing air strikes against the Iranian military and the Mullahs realizing Ted Kennedy's cries afoul are on deaf ears and no one was going to "run cover" for them. they might listen or they might not
either way it's a win/win for us
it's up to the the Mullahs to decide their fate
the result: either the Islamic Theocrats change behavior or we destroy the military of an enemy
I think you're not grasping the meaning of the question, and that may be my fault. Okay, after all the warnings come the bombings. After the bombings, Iran and Syria stop supporting insurgents in Iraq. After Iran and Syria stop supporting insurgents in Iraq, what happens then? What do you think will be the consequences in the Middle East? Will the terrorists go into hiding? Will they increase in number? Will the economic downturn in Iran and Syria have any ramifications? Will America have to engage in nation building in Iran and Syria? What events do you think will follow this Clintonian series of air raids?
-
"You did say you believe Iran and Syria should be handled the way President Clinton handled Kosovo, did you not?"
absolutely, in so far as it being almost entirely an aerial campaign
Okay, so then you want to bomb the countries into poverty. Hm. I wonder what the long-term consequences of that will be.
[/color]
That is preictable , poverty that was bad enough would paralize any ambition of attack.
This is not the favoriate option of the US under any administration recently but it is one of Historys most favoriate methods of war , consider Lincon and Grant fighting the South so hard and binding trade so well that the mostly agricultural regionsuffers widespread famine , it worked .
If Abe Lincon had been in possession of B-52 s he coud have caused equal damage in a week or less as it took in four years of war , would he have?
-
"so then you want to bomb the countries into poverty"
uh no that is not at all what I said, but continue reading what you what to see
"Hm. I wonder what the long-term consequences of that will be"
Hm. I wonder what the long-term consequences of "cut and run" will be.
"So your evidence that something which did not happen would not have have been tolerated is, in fact, that it did not happen.
Okay, I'm glad we cleared that up"
Yeah maybe it was just an accident that people did not take up arms for an insurgency against the german/japan occupation
i suppose after an atomic bomb the people supporting japan and wanting to help them fight an insurgency against the US occupation were lined up to help. again, total destruction of an enemy is usually the best weapon against insurgency. you can't fight war with one hand tied behind your back to please the New York Times and Micheal Moore. why are there no insurgents in the United States? Because they know what would happen. Why is there very little insurgency in Iran? because they will be destroyed. Insurgency feeds on weakness, feeds on hesitation, feeds on the faint hearted. abe lincoln knew how to deal with insurgents. It would not have worked to "cut and run" from the South. it would not have worked to cut a pact with the South. the only way was destruction. you in fact are a product of a country (the USA) that totally destoyed an enemy(American Indians) in order to eventually found a 50 State nation. Then again your country used the destruction of an enemy to preserve the Union that cost 500K lives. The US is not alone. Many, many countries were founded after a war and after a destruction of an enemy that wanted the same land and/or power. It may not be pretty, but it's reality.
"After the bombings, Iran and Syria stop supporting insurgents in Iraq"
correct in Iraq and also stop supporting many, many, many other Islamic groups elsewhere in the world
"After Iran and Syria stop supporting insurgents in Iraq, what happens then?"
the democrats might be in trouble
the insurgents would be hard pressed to find similar funding, training, arms, munitions, and intel
the suicide bombings (80% foreigners) would greatly diminish and the NY Times would have less headlines.
the Iraqi military would be much better able to handle the situation
if the insurgents support/funding dried up they would be more likely to cut deals and lay down their arms
the world community and capital would be more likely to flow into Iraq
imagine that. capital flowing into Iraq instead of Iranian IED's
what would help the Iraqi people more? Capital or Iranian bombs?
"What do you think will be the consequences in the Middle East?"
alot more positive consequences than if the US "cut and runs" leaving a killing fields in Iraq and a possible Iranian style theocracy that will begin exporting arms/funding/support/training similar to the Islamic Theocracy that runs Iran at the present moment.
"Will the terrorists go into hiding?"
will they go into hiding if we "cut and run"?
they will have less arms, less munitions, less funding, less training, to threaten democracy and americans
there will always be terrorists
but you can greatly marginalize them by cuttiing off their funding/training/support/intel from the only Islamic Theocracy
if you "cut and run" you could very well have two Islamic Theocracies side by side sitting on a cash cow of oil reserves that will fund
many more Hezbollahs.
if Iran has a next door neighbor Islamic Theocracy in Iraq, and they are both loaded with cash, and both emboldened by a US retreat are you saying that would mean less terror in the world? A new Islamic Republic would mean less funding of new Hezbollahs to deal with? Less suicide bombing around the world? Less threats of shutting down the Persian Gulf and our gas at $10 a gallon? How much poverty would $10 dollar gas cause?
Can you answer what the consequences will be if we have an "Iran Jr" in Iraq after we "cut and run" and not just one Islamic Republic meddling and funding Islamic revolution, but two? With the US in retreat how long before that would become 3 Islamic Theocracies? Would you defend Saudi Arabia if Iraq rolls in there with Iranian Revolutionary Guards side by side? Egypt? Jordan? UAE? How much poverty, death, money would those new fronts of war cost? You think Iran after tagging Iraq is going to go into hiding and not want more?
"Will they increase in number?"
Will the terrorist decrease in number if we "cut and run"?
don't you think they will be emboldened ?
will they suddenly all become choir boys if we "cut and run"?
i think they don't increase in number because funding, training, arms, munitions will have greatly dried up
others will be leery to fill the support shoes, knowing they could suffer the same fate
"Will the economic downturn in Iran and Syria have any ramifications?"
short term sure, and so will "cut and run" have ramifications too.
But with Iran not exporting terror and not exporting destabilizing proxie groups there could be a influx of investment capital from all over the world. Iran has alot to offer if it behaves, and the world would respond.
plus if Iran is spending all that money at home instead of funding proxy wars it could actually help the economy and Iranian people
"Will America have to engage in nation building in Iran and Syria?"
Why would there need to be nation building when you are just destroying the military?
Plus if Iran's military is destroyed Syria will come quick to the bargaining table
Most likely Syria would not have to be touched
"What events do you think will follow this Clintonian series of air raids?"
In my opinion if Iran and Syria's militaries are destroyed, (Syria's may not have to be) they are both no longer a threat to Israel. Hezbollah trained, organized, and funded by Iranian Revolutionary Guards basically collapses as a threat in Lebanon and to Israel. Syria no longer meddles in Lebanon. Syria would be under great pressure to make peace with Israel. Basically 4 countries (Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Israel) are no longer a huge threat to world peace.
-
"so then you want to bomb the countries into poverty"
uh no that is not at all what I said, but continue reading what you what to see
You said you wanted to handle Iran and Syria the way Kosovo was handled. As a result of the bombings, as best I understand it, Kosovo was left impoverished and in economic chaos. So, why is there such a problem with saying you want Iran and Syria bombed into poverty? Either you want the same treatment for Iran and Syria or you don't. If you do, then I can only conclude you expect a similar outcome.
Hm. I wonder what the long-term consequences of "cut and run" will be.
Probably not nearly as bad as you think. Try repeatedly and randomly hitting someone you don't like with a stick, and try leaving someone else you don't like alone. See which one gets pissed off at you first. Better yet, try taking someone who is your friend, decide they're bad for doing the same things that made them a friend in the first place, and then proceed to beat that person with a stick. See how far you can get before they stop considering you someone they like to be around.
Yeah maybe it was just an accident that people did not take up arms for an insurgency against the german/japan occupation
You're joking right? There were resistance movements, i.e. insurgents, in Europe and Asia during World War II. But you knew that, right? Do you think the Nazis were soft on insurgents? The Japanese perhaps?
i suppose after an atomic bomb the people supporting japan and wanting to help them fight an insurgency against the US occupation were lined up to help.
I am more than a little curious about just who you think would have otherwise been stepping up to fund a Japanese insurgency.
abe lincoln knew how to deal with insurgents.
So did King George III.
It would not have worked to "cut and run" from the South.
The problem with that is that there was no need to cut and run from the South. The South was doing the cutting and running, i.e. seceding. All Lincoln had to do was leave it alone.
it would not have worked to cut a pact with the South. the only way was destruction.
It would not have worked? What would not have worked? If you mean turning the U.S. from a voluntary union into an enforced union, then yes, that probably required a war. But then the obvious question is, why did that need to be done? I have to confess, I am getting an impression that you're justifying killing people to save them from themselves, even though I'm fairly certain you don't think of it that way.
you in fact are a product of a country (the USA) that totally destoyed an enemy(American Indians)
Something of which I am not proud and believe to have been unnecessary.
you in fact are a product of a country (the USA) that totally destoyed an enemy(American Indians) in order to eventually found a 50 State nation.
Yes, Manifest Destiny, also not exactly something to crow about.
Then again your country used the destruction of an enemy to preserve the Union that cost 500K lives.
I'm not sure preserve is the correct word. Anyway, I'm wondering why the Civil War is some sort of justification for more war.
The US is not alone. Many, many countries were founded after a war and after a destruction of an enemy that wanted the same land and/or power. It may not be pretty, but it's reality.
Yes, as I recall the U.S. was founded by a bunch of rebels fighting against what they considered an oppressive government. I don't recall making any pacifist arguments. So the lesson on war seems a little... unnecessary.
"After Iran and Syria stop supporting insurgents in Iraq, what happens then?"
the democrats might be in trouble
the insurgents would be hard pressed to find similar funding, training, arms, munitions, and intel
the suicide bombings (80% foreigners) would greatly diminish and the NY Times would have less headlines.
the Iraqi military would be much better able to handle the situation
if the insurgents support/funding dried up they would be more likely to cut deals and lay down their arms
the world community and capital would be more likely to flow into Iraq
imagine that. capital flowing into Iraq instead of Iranian IED's
what would help the Iraqi people more? Capital or Iranian bombs?
I'm quite in favor of trade, thank you very much. Yet, I can't help but think you're painting an awfully rosy picture.
"What do you think will be the consequences in the Middle East?"
alot more positive consequences than if the US "cut and runs" leaving a killing fields in Iraq and a possible Iranian style theocracy that will begin exporting arms/funding/support/training similar to the Islamic Theocracy that runs Iran at the present moment.
Assuming of course, that leaving Iraq results in "killing fields" and all that. Though by this point, it just might. But then we have no guarantee that waiting will lessen the chances of that. Then again, not going in would have left a secular and relatively stable government in Iraq. One that was once our ally. No, no, no, I'm not saying the world would be better off with Saddam Hussein in power. I'm saying we've become committed to a situation that we basically created ourselves. We failed to see what the consequences of our actions would be, painted far too rosy a picture for the outcome of our foreign policy and ultimately the war, and now I'm being told that if we just kill more people then really this time everything will work out just fine. I remain skeptical.
"Will the terrorists go into hiding?"
will they go into hiding if we "cut and run"?
That depends, does 'cut and run' mean do nothing ever again about terrorists? I don't think so. I happen to think there are alternatives to perpetual war in the Middle East and doing nothing.
they will have less arms, less munitions, less funding, less training, to threaten democracy and americans
But will they have more reasons to fight? It's a little ironic, I think, that we're supposed to take Osama bin Laden's word on comparing Iraq to Vietnam but we're not supposed to take his word about being pissed off at America's foreign policy. As for training, what better training could there possibly be than the real live war in their own backyard?
if you "cut and run" you could very well have two Islamic Theocracies side by side sitting on a cash cow of oil reserves that will fund
many more Hezbollahs.
Assuming they all get along, which is not a safe assumption.
if Iran has a next door neighbor Islamic Theocracy in Iraq, and they are both loaded with cash, and both emboldened by a US retreat are you saying that would mean less terror in the world?
Are you saying bullying countries in the Middle East by killing people with bombs is going to result in less terror in the world?
A new Islamic Republic would mean less funding of new Hezbollahs to deal with? Less suicide bombing around the world?
Bombing people would mean less anger and hatred directed toward the U.S.? Less desire to find ways to defend/fight against a perceived bully?
Less threats of shutting down the Persian Gulf and our gas at $10 a gallon? How much poverty would $10 dollar gas cause?
Do you really think killing people is going to result in the Middle East deciding to get along with the U.S.?
Can you answer what the consequences will be if we have an "Iran Jr" in Iraq after we "cut and run" and not just one Islamic Republic meddling and funding Islamic revolution, but two? With the US in retreat how long before that would become 3 Islamic Theocracies? Would you defend Saudi Arabia if Iraq rolls in there with Iranian Revolutionary Guards side by side? Egypt? Jordan? UAE? How much poverty, death, money would those new fronts of war cost? You think Iran after tagging Iraq is going to go into hiding and not want more?
Do you think bombing Iran is going to stop making people hate us enough to want to kill us? Do you think bombing Iran is going to make Islamic extremists more or less likely to want to do us harm? Do you think bombing Iran is going to make Islamic fundamentalists more or less likely to want nuclear weapons? Whatever short-term gains you think bombing Iran might achieve, you seem to be ignoring the long-term consequences of that sort of aggressive foreign policy, the kind of results which we are experiencing right now.
"Will they increase in number?"
Will the terrorist decrease in number if we "cut and run"?
don't you think they will be emboldened ?
will they suddenly all become choir boys if we "cut and run"?
i think they don't increase in number because funding, training, arms, munitions will have greatly dried up
others will be leery to fill the support shoes, knowing they could suffer the same fate
But according to reports of our own intelligence agencies, their numbers have increased. And quite frankly, I think they are emboldened already. They have a prime example of U.S. foreign policy at work in Iraq. I think our presence there only confirms the fears of those who see the U.S. as an evil and see fighting for Islam as the honorable answer to so many things. I think assuming that the terrorists are afraid of our might is naive. And assuming the most militaristic solution is the best solution is, I think, foolish in the extreme.
plus if Iran is spending all that money at home instead of funding proxy wars it could actually help the economy and Iranian people
Similar comments could be made about the U.S.
Why would there need to be nation building when you are just destroying the military?
Is that a joke?
"What events do you think will follow this Clintonian series of air raids?"
In my opinion if Iran and Syria's militaries are destroyed, (Syria's may not have to be) they are both no longer a threat to Israel. Hezbollah trained, organized, and funded by Iranian Revolutionary Guards basically collapses as a threat in Lebanon and to Israel. Syria no longer meddles in Lebanon. Syria would be under great pressure to make peace with Israel. Basically 4 countries (Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Israel) are no longer a huge threat to world peace.
Obviously, you are an optimist.
-
Could it be perhaps that we're not actually "attacking & killing Iraqis", that in fact we're actually attacking & killing muslim extremists & terrorists, who are either trying to kill Americans or trying to derail freedom for Iraqis??
Not according to the leader of Iraq, Sirs.
When they want to detain one person, they should not kill 10 others.
-
Prince, am I right that you don't believe the Civil War was justified?
-
Prince, am I right that you don't believe the Civil War was justified?
Lanya, I've got mixed responses to that. Most folks think the Civil War was about ending slavery. If you're asking if I don't believe ending slavery is justified, the answer is that I do believe ending slavery was justified and necessary. I do not, however, believe the Civil War preserved the Union. I believe it changed the nature of the Union in a fundamental way, and I don't mean just by resulting in the end of legal slavery.
At one time, the United States was merely these United States. The United States was a voluntary union of states and not a kingdom or an empire made by force (in theory anyway). States had the authority to remove themselves from the Union and this, in part, helped the states serve as a kind of check on the power of the federal government. You know, kinda like how a certain thirteen colonies once removed themselves from the Kingdom of Great Britain, only the states were not supposed to have to fight a war to do it. The Civil War basically changed all that. The union of the United States is no longer a voluntary union, and the power of the states to be a check on the power of the federal government is, at the very least, greatly reduced.
Some folks think that is as it should be. I'm not so sure.
-
At one time, the United States was merely these United States.
More to the point, they were "these united states of America." No capitalization on the first part, as the strength of each individual state was considered much more important than the fact that they were united.
-
At one time, the United States was merely these United States.
More to the point, they were "these united states of America." No capitalization on the first part, as the strength of each individual state was considered much more important than the fact that they were united.
But, you'd agree that there was a lesson learned from the Articles of Confederation?
-
Excellent point, Henny, as usual.
-
At one time, the United States was merely these United States.
More to the point, they were "these united states of America." No capitalization on the first part, as the strength of each individual state was considered much more important than the fact that they were united.
Of course. I was mainly adding to Prince's point about the attitudes in the early U.S. ... and also a bit of trivia that many people are unaware of.
But, you'd agree that there was a lesson learned from the Articles of Confederation?
-
Could it be perhaps that we're not actually "attacking & killing Iraqis", that in fact we're actually attacking & killing muslim extremists & terrorists, who are either trying to kill Americans or trying to derail freedom for Iraqis??
Not according to the leader of Iraq, Sirs.
When they want to detain one person, they should not kill 10 others.
Targeted & "attacked" or tragic loss of life in a war zone? Are the 10 others simple civilians or are they shooting back? Context is everything, Js
-
Targeted & "attacked" or tragic loss of life in a war zone? Are the 10 others simple civilians or are they shooting back? Context is everything, Js
From Maliki's statement it certainly did not sound as if it were accidental.
"Concerning American raids on Shula (a northern Shiite neighborhood) and Sadr City (the Shiite slum enclave in east Baghdad). There were big mistakes committed in these operations. The terrorist himself should be targeted not his family.
"When they want to detain one person, they should not kill 10 others. These are mistakes which we have to deal with. We will not allow the detaining of innocent people. Only the criminals should be detained," the angry al-Maliki declared.
Link (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/26/news/Iraq.php)
-
.... These are mistakes which we have to deal with. We will not allow the detaining of innocent people. Only the criminals should be detained," ....
And he's absolutely right. "Mistakes" that should not be occuring at this stage of the game. And hardly the widespread inferrence of American forces wantingly attacking & killing Iraqis, which is what prompted this point of the thread
-
But not "accidental" as you claimed.
Maliki is saying that they are mistakes in terms of tactics. He does not appreciate the fallout that his government has to handle because of these mistakes.
It is not accidental, as you claimed. I never said it was widespread, or not. I don't have proof either way, but clearly there has been killing that was not necessary.
-
But not "accidental" as you claimed. Maliki is saying that they are mistakes in terms of tactics. He does not appreciate the fallout that his government has to handle because of these mistakes.
Mistakes sure seem to imply non-intentional. You don't think so?? And yes, mistakes in bad tactics, NOT in some wanton effort to attack and kill Iraqis, as Tee has claimed (I never claimed you implied widespread. That was in regards to Tee's proclaimations, that you jumped into). Is that your position as well?.....American forces are targeting, attacking and killing Iraqis puposely??
-
If there are ten people in a house with one terrorist , are they helping hide him?
Al Maliki needs to get his own forces in gear and do all the detaining with Iriqui police and army forces under his own command , the less he depends on the strength of the US the better for him and us too.
-
"You said you wanted to handle Iran and Syria the way Kosovo was handled"
Yes in that Kosovo was an aerial campaign with almost zero ground troops.
It was "make peace or we'll bomb you".
"As a result of the bombings, as best I understand it, Kosovo was left impoverished and in economic chaos"
Kosovo was in "economic chaos" long before President Clinton launched a single bomb.
Before President Clinton's brilliant military strategy, Kosovo's poverty and unemployment reached catastrophic levels,
with about 80% of Kosovo's population becoming unemployed.
"So, why is there such a problem with saying you want Iran and Syria bombed into poverty?"
Because I usually have a problem with characterizations of my stances that are false.
It is a fact that I do not want Iran and Syria "bombed into poverty".
I do not want to bomb anyone
but I do not believe the Mullahs in Iran will stop their support of terror and attacks using proxies targeting US and Israel unless the cost becomes unbearable for them.
We have the ability to make that cost unbearable without using ground troops.
(i wish i had more time)
-
I do not want to bomb anyone
Okay. You'll just have to forgive me for misunderstanding your advocating bombing Iran and Syria as wanting to bomb Iran and Syria.
-
I do not want to bomb anyone
Okay. You'll just have to forgive me for misunderstanding your advocating bombing Iran and Syria as wanting to bomb Iran and Syria.
A bombing campaign is war , a credable threat to start a bombing campaign is diplomacy.
-
Mistakes sure seem to imply non-intentional. You don't think so?? And yes, mistakes in bad tactics, NOT in some wanton effort to attack and kill Iraqis, as Tee has claimed (I never claimed you implied widespread. That was in regards to Tee's proclaimations, that you jumped into). Is that your position as well?.....American forces are targeting, attacking and killing Iraqis puposely??
That is what al-Maliki is implying in his statement.
You can call the Japanese internment camps of World War II a mistake. That doesn't mean they were not intentional (as they most certainly were). It would still be proper to call them a mistake in policy.
That is what Maliki means by mistakes for which he has to clean up the mess.
-
If there are ten people in a house with one terrorist , are they helping hide him?
Al Maliki needs to get his own forces in gear and do all the detaining with Iriqui police and army forces under his own command , the less he depends on the strength of the US the better for him and us too.
He barely has a cohesive government and one the US military seems to ignore anytime it sees fit. Added to that, we ignore the main threat to his government (Sunni insurgents) and focus on Iran and Shi'a insurgents.
Laying this at the foot of Iraq is low.
-
Mistakes sure seem to imply non-intentional. You don't think so?? And yes, mistakes in bad tactics, NOT in some wanton effort to attack and kill Iraqis, as Tee has claimed (I never claimed you implied widespread. That was in regards to Tee's proclaimations, that you jumped into). Is that your position as well?.....American forces are targeting, attacking and killing Iraqis puposely??
That is what al-Maliki is implying in his statement.
Maliki is implying wanton intentional targeting, attacking & killing of Iraqis? Then we're reading 2 different versions of his comments. I'm seeing it precisely as I've outlined above. You appear to believe he's saying it as if he were Tee. What say "you" personally? You actually believe American forces are targeting, attacking and killing Iraqis puposely??
That is what Maliki means by mistakes for which he has to clean up the mess.
Better intel, better focus of force useage, and less collateral damage.
-
"Concerning American raids on Shula (a northern Shiite neighborhood) and Sadr City (the Shiite slum enclave in east Baghdad). There were big mistakes committed in these operations. The terrorist himself should be targeted not his family.
"When they want to detain one person, they should not kill 10 others. These are mistakes which we have to deal with. We will not allow the detaining of innocent people. Only the criminals should be detained," the angry al-Maliki declared.
"Maliki is implying wanton intentional targeting, attacking & killing of Iraqis"
I'm not so sure he is implying it as much as flat out saying it.
I know that you want to make this into some argument over semantics Sirs, but Maliki's statement is clear and the media made it equally clear that he made these statements in tones of anger and outrage.
Do you have some reason to believe that the leader of Iraq is lying?
-
Well, considering my definition of mistakes appears to be different than yours, since I don't attribute intentional to that of a mistake, (kinda like an oxymoron), I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. And no, I don't see Maliki as lying, as I've clearly outlined I see him as referencing tragic mistakes in wartime that ought to be prevented better.
I also noticed you didn't answer my question, but then again, perhaps I understand why
-
Well, considering my definition of mistakes appears to be different than yours, since I don't attribute intentional to that of a mistake, (kinda like an oxymoron), I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. And no, I don't see Maliki as lying, as I've clearly outlined I see him as referencing tragic mistakes in wartime that ought to be prevented better.
I also noticed you didn't answer my question, but then again, perhaps I understand why
Sirs, I think that the problem comes from your lack of understanding the English language.
Was it a mistake to dismiss every Ba'athist in every position of Government in Iraq? Yes. Was it done intentionally? Yes. See, the two are not mutually exclusive as you seem to claim.
What say "you" personally? You actually believe American forces are targeting, attacking and killing Iraqis puposely??
Yes. There is certainly proof of that. The question is to what degree and how widespread. That, I cannot answer.
-
Well, considering my definition of mistakes appears to be different than yours, since I don't attribute intentional to that of a mistake, (kinda like an oxymoron), I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. And no, I don't see Maliki as lying, as I've clearly outlined I see him as referencing tragic mistakes in wartime that ought to be prevented better.
Sirs, I think that the problem comes from your lack of understanding the English language.
I've got the language down pretty pat. Mistakes do not imply intent, unless of course the idea is not to get caught doing whatever it was you were purposely trying to do. So, I have to determine, based on both Maliki's comments and context, along with our military parameters what Maliki was referencing. Wonton widespread targeting and killing of Iraqis on purpose, or wartime collateral damage that's not acceptable by their leader. I can easily deduce the latter, based on the specific quotes you've provided, the context that they were given, and the military parameters the U.S. is working under, in a war zone
Now you, and Tee, can go right ahead and believe that our military is just a bunch of low hanging barbarian fruit looking to kill anything that moves. I don't beleive that, and I'm confident Maliki doesn't believe that. But he does believe our military can do better, and it should
You actually believe American forces are targeting, attacking and killing Iraqis puposely??
Yes. There is certainly proof of that. The question is to what degree and how widespread. That, I cannot answer.
Well, there you go :-\
-
I've got the language down pretty pat. Mistakes do not imply intent, unless of course the idea is not to get caught doing whatever it was you were purposely trying to do. So, I have to determine, based on both Maliki's comments and context, along with our military parameters what Maliki was referencing.
Honestly, I think you have a very elementary grasp on the language at best. I've given you two perfectly acceptable examples of mistakes where there was intent. The two are not mutually exclusive, though for some odd reason you are still hung up on this bizarre semantic tangent.
Now you, and Tee, can go right ahead and believe that our military is just a bunch of low hanging barbarian fruit looking to kill anything that moves. I don't beleive that, and I'm confident Maliki doesn't believe that. But he does believe our military can do better, and it should
Obviously I've never said that our military are barbarians, shooting anything that moves. Quite the contrary, it was the tactics that was in error here and I'm certain the soldier on the ground was following orders. Let's stick to the argument and not play your favourite game of constructing a strawman.
Well, there you go :-\
It is not deniable that we have killed civilians, even on purpose in some instances. As I said, how widespread that is remains to be seen. Don't huff and puff and get all self-righteous Sirs, I've stated nothing that is not fact. Where there aren't facts, I simply wait and see. I prefer that to jumping on one bandwagon or another.
-
I feel a minor compulsion to jump in here, perhaps to offer a clarification. Maybe what the two of you are ultimately talking about, beyond strategy and tactics, aberrations and policy, reflexive acts born of fright and edginess rather than purposeful acts born of design and intent, is the very philosophy of war: what comes with it and what doesn't, a sort of slow-mo retrospective through the fog of war. Are ordinary notions of morality altered in the crucible of war and, if so, according to what principles. (I must add that, Dresden aside, the cause of a war: it's wisdom and wise management greatly affect the perceptions that flow from it.)
-
to take a phrase from you: "you are kidding, right?"
when i said "I don't want to bomb anyone"
it is like when a father says he does not want to spank his son
but sometimes he does what he does not want to do to correct poor behavior
-
I've got the language down pretty pat. Mistakes do not imply intent, unless of course the idea is not to get caught doing whatever it was you were purposely trying to do. So, I have to determine, based on both Maliki's comments and context, along with our military parameters what Maliki was referencing.
Honestly, I think you have a very elementary grasp on the language at best.
Well, that's your opinion perhaps
The two are not mutually exclusive, though for some odd reason you are still hung up on this bizarre semantic tangent.
Yet, your position is that Maliki HAD to have meant wanton disregard of civlilan life at the hands of the U.S.military, that he had meant widespread targerting of Iraqi civlilians, since that's what Tee introduced, to which you applied Maliki's comments as supposed validation of such. I've read the same quotes, IN CONTEXT, and they clearly demonstrate frustration on his part at the loss of tragic life, and that the U.S. needs to do better. That doesn't equate in the least some proclaimation that our military is a bunch of murderous barbarian mercinaries, as Tee would claim
Obviously I've never said that our military are barbarians, shooting anything that moves.
Yet, that's largely Tee's position, to which you then jumped in with Maliki's comments as validation.
Quite the contrary, it was the tactics that was in error here and I'm certain the soldier on the ground was following orders. Let's stick to the argument and not play your favourite game of constructing a strawman.
Love to, if you'd stop perpetuating the strawman. And the strawman is Tee's game, not mine however. I've already conceded the mistakes in tactics. They do need to do better. Hard to run a perfect war, as thereso few to look to as examples of such
It is not deniable that we have killed civilians, even on purpose in some instances.
"Purposely" targeting and killing innocent civilians?? Wow, What's it like living on Tee's side of the island?