DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: The_Professor on October 18, 2006, 03:37:58 PM
-
What can we achieve, and what steps must we take if defeat is inevitable in Iraq? (stirring the pot some)
It is becoming clear thatl defeat is inevitable, in the sense that: Iraq has not become a democracy, might become an islamic republic, might fall apart, might get into an increasingly bloody civil war.
But maybe scenes like the fall of Saigon can be avoided, if we tell the Iraqi leaders that: 1) We will leave 1. december 2007 - no matter what. 2) "All your airspace are belong to us", 3) We will pay xxxx $ for any foreign islamic fighter delivered to our forces (if they know they will be free, they have no need of Al-Qaeda), 4) You will not export oil, if Al-Qaeda operates in Iraq. 5) If you want to divide the country - fine - but if you can't agree on the borders, then we will draw them, and bomb those who try to invade. 6) If you want to export oil, you will have to share it fairly between Sunni, Shia and Kurd.
Comments are hereby requested.
-
<<1. december 2007 - no matter what. >>
Exactly what the British did in Palestine: "May 1, 1948" The Jews were prepared, the Arabs were Arabs, and the result was the State of Israel. Whoever is best prepared will probably grab the whole country after a series of bloody wars. Could take a long time.
<<2) "All your airspace are belong to us", >>
Purely technical issue. Depends on how good their AA will be. It belongs to you as long as you can fly over it without getting shot down and it belongs to them as long as they can blow you out of the skies.
<<3) We will pay xxxx $ for any foreign islamic fighter delivered to our forces (if they know they will be free, they have no need of Al-Qaeda), >>
Guaranteed garbage-disposal for them - - they'll sell you their own fucking brother-in-law if they think his business is making a good profit and maybe once in a couple of years you might even get a bona fide al Qaeda. Most of the good al Qaedas will have gone off to fight the Great Satan elsewhere, in Afghanistan, Palestine or wherever he raises his ugly head.
<<4) You will not export oil, if Al-Qaeda operates in Iraq.>>
Why would al Qaeda want to operate in Iraq if the Great Satan has left the building and why would they want you to know about it if otherwise?
<< 5) If you want to divide the country - fine - but if you can't agree on the borders, then we will draw them, and bomb those who try to invade.>>
It's a waste of bombs - - they'll still fight over the borders and since it's a civil war there won't be an invasion.
<< 6) If you want to export oil, you will have to share it fairly between Sunni, Shia and Kurd. >>
When you're not there, you lose the right to tell them where the proceeds go - - or even if they stay in Iraq.
When you bug out of Iraq, you'll have about as much right to dictate their affairs to them as you do in Viet Nam. My feeling is, once out, the Americans won't give a shit what happens to Iraq, but they'll hope it's bad; real bad. Americans are traditionally sore losers. Like any other bully.
-
"Why would al Qaeda want to operate in Iraq if the Great Satan has left the building and why would they want you to know about it if otherwise?"
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
We have been here before , Zibegnew Bresniki's Afganistan policy worked as intended and broke the heart of the USSR worse than Viet Nam did ours.
But then we left , what we left behind was a mess so bad that a third of the population was refugees at one time or another, disease and murder raged unchecked and when the Taliban took over the diffrence was actually positive , not because they were so good but because the anarchy they replaced was so bad.
If we leave Iraq we shouldn't be as neglectfull of it as we were of Afganistan in those days , Al Queda took it over by financeing/supporting the Taliban and this would very likely be the model for the new Iraq . Perhaps they could rename it Al Quedastan.
If Al Queda could do in New York with a few thousand dollars and a base in the back of behind like Afganistan , what could they do with the oil income and vast resorces and strategic placement of Iraq?
Think about this scenario , We leave, Iraq becomes so unfreindly and threatening in our absence that we return, fighting is worse this time especially on the innocent .
Would our goal be to rebuild anything after all that?
-
It is becoming clear thatl defeat is inevitable, in the sense that: Iraq has not become a democracy, might become an islamic republic, might fall apart, might get into an increasingly bloody civil war.
The question I want to ask is, why have we set ourselves up in the position that these things are a defeat for us? Setting aside the Iraq/Saddam/WMD as threat to America reason for attacking Iraq, because we did defeat Iraq's military and topple their government, why are we now facing defeat if Iraq does not become a democracy and/or end up in civil war? Why did we have to enforce an American guided nation building program in Iraq?
But maybe scenes like the fall of Saigon can be avoided, if we tell the Iraqi leaders that: 1) We will leave 1. december 2007 - no matter what.
Why wait till December of next year?
2) "All your airspace are belong to us"
What would that do for us?
3) We will pay xxxx $ for any foreign islamic fighter delivered to our forces (if they know they will be free, they have no need of Al-Qaeda),
You might as well offer money for any political opponent, because that is what we would get. I see no point in setting up a system of corruption for them.
4) You will not export oil, if Al-Qaeda operates in Iraq.
How would you enforce this?
5) If you want to divide the country - fine - but if you can't agree on the borders, then we will draw them, and bomb those who try to invade.
Why would we want to do that?
6) If you want to export oil, you will have to share it fairly between Sunni, Shia and Kurd.
Again, why would we want to do that? Leave it to the private sector to deal with the oil.
Why do we have to tell them how to run their country? We don't let other countries tell us how to run our country. Can't we let them do the same?
-
<<If Al Queda could do in New York with a few thousand dollars and a base in the back of behind like Afganistan , what could they do with the oil income and vast resorces and strategic placement of Iraq?>>
Is all of America so panicky and wimpy? You sound like the sky is about to fall in on you. Jesus Christ, get a grip, man. Al Qaeda did not "do in" New York. I was there in May and New York is alive and well. They're doing fine. Al Qaeda, in a sneak attack that they could never pull off again thanks to relatively simple security measures taken by airport managers, managed to knock down a couple of buildings (because, it appears, they were in flagrant violation of existing New York building codes which weren't binding on the Port Authority) and kill a small fraction of the number of Americans that die every year on the roads and highways of your country. And that, to you, is "doing in" New York. Bull crap. They couldn't even "do in" Athens, Georgia.
Al Qaeda's chance of seizing control of Iraq is like the Libertarian Party's chance of winning the next Presidential election. They are a small faction and except in the panicky realms of your overheated imagination have no major role to play in Iraq's future, in which the major players seem to be Shi'ites linked to Iran and ex-Ba'athists. Iraq was formerly one of the most secularized Arab countries of the Middle East before your totallly moronic President upset the applecart and immensely increased the power of religious Shi'ites and gave an opening to Wahabi jihadists at the expense of the secular side of the political spectrum.
Nevertheless - - al Qaeda is not short of cash or weapons. They have the resources of Saudi Arabia to draw on and in case you haven't noticed, their most successful attacks to date did not require large amounts of cash. Neither did the Viet Cong require large amounts of cash. Their strength is in their people - - young men who, unlike Americans, are not afraid to die in battle, who don't need a million bucks worth of hi-tech and back-up behind each "soldier" because God forbid he might actually get hurt in the struggle.
You are almost comical in your fear, which is basically the fear of the elephant for the mouse. Your fear is bankrupting you and tying you down. A nation of 300 million with a huge land mass as well, terrified of some ignorant fanatics and blowing your brains out in the pursuit of gnats. You are really pathetic. Once you had a President who said "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." Pathetic.
-
(http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/061019/allie.jpg)
-
The cartoon would be a little more reflective of the real-life situation (always a no-no in conservative circles) if there were about 2700 dead cop bodies littering the inside of the store, about 20,000 maimed and crippled cops staggering around outside the store, crawling around without their arms, legs, eyes and faces, and all the people in the surrounding stores and businesses were throwing rocks at the beleagured cops who still remained on their feet. But otherwise, nice try.
-
"Is all of America so panicky and wimpy?"
[][][][][][][][][][][][][]
You think that all the world will be impressed with our strength if we abandon the fight to an enemy you correctly caricterise as a "mouse " in comparison to our "Elephant"?
We are able to overwhelm the enemy much more than we do , but we are trying too hard to be gentle.
We will soon have another Democrat in the Whitehouse , perhaps even another Clinton .
Then no one will care about "colateral damage " or cratering arcelogical sites , or blowing over holy buildings , or even Chineese embassys.
Saturation bombing is cheap in comparison to the use of man power and you don't get accused of treating prisoners badly if you are not takeing any.
If you really do not think we are trying to be gentle to the Iriquis , then you have no idea of what happened in Kosovo.
-
<<You think that all the world will be impressed with our strength if we abandon the fight to an enemy you correctly caricterise as a "mouse " in comparison to our "Elephant"?>>
(that was plane, in response to my question, "Is all of America so panicky and wimpy?")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, plane, plane, plane, you did not answer my question. My question had nothing to do with the manner in which America is conducting itself in Iraq, loathesome as that may be. My question was directed towards the JUSTIFICATION which you advanced for America being in Iraq.
You claimed to be afraid of al Qaeda (which according to you had already "done in" New York with only the pitiful resources of Afghanistan at its disposal) coming to power in Iraq and using the Iraqi oil wealth to wreak all kinds of unspecified havoc on America.
And my question, "Is all of America so panicky and wimpy?" OBVIOUSLY referred to the great fear that you expressed, that al Qaeda, with Iraqi oil, could destroy America or nearly destroy America, and that was the reason why America had to fight in Iraq. So perhaps you misunderstood my question, which was kind of rhetorical anyway - - I was expressing my contempt for the panicky fear and professed terror that people of the strongest nation on earth have of a bunch of underachieving ignorant fanatics of the al Qaeda stripe. It is truly pathetic and contemptible.
Since that wasn't really a question, you don't really have to answer it. But if you do, please don't attempt to avoid responding to the question by pretending to misunderstand it.
As for the rest of your sick fantasy of the death and destruction you would love to rain down on the innocent people of Iraq (whose main crime seems to be having the God-damn gall to resist a foreign invasion and occupation of their ancient lands) it isn't worth responding to. It's not the language of a truly powerful nation, it's the language of a sick and weak psychopathic nation and speaking quite frankly, you should be ashamed of it.
-
Al Queda took it over by financeing/supporting the Taliban
The Saudi government financed the Taleban to quite an extent. I'm guessing the Saudis pockets run a bit deeper than any two-bit terrorist group, don't you?
You think that all the world will be impressed with our strength if we abandon the fight to an enemy you correctly caricterise as a "mouse " in comparison to our "Elephant"?
We are able to overwhelm the enemy much more than we do , but we are trying too hard to be gentle.
We are? Is that what's stopping us? I've not heard military commanders saying that. You like Giap, but you don't listen to what he said. Yes, we have technological superiority. Yes, we have "the greatest army in the world." But we're not fighting another army. We kicked the Iraqi military's ass. It is entirely different now. What do you want to do against an enemy that could be anyone in an entire marketplace full of people?
We go door to door and search homes. We fight the little home grown militias. We win all the battles Plane. Yet, we don't stop the violence. Read about Northern Ireland and you'll see that the Brits did the exact same thing. This isn't something new. You want harsher tactics, they did that too. Internment. Assasinations. Open Warfare. Torture.
Does it stop sectarian violence? I think that you'll find the answer is "no."
-
In addition to the improvements that I have already kindly suggested to sirs' cartoon, to bring it more into line with the real world, I left out one really important element: way off to the side, behind a bullet-proof plexiglass shield, should be a crowd of overweight, over-fed, middle-age Americans in lawn chairs, sucking down beer and pizza, cheering on the action, waving large American flags and various signs: We support our Boys in Blue! Stay the Course! We're No. 1! etc., with the blood of the victims splattered all across the outside of the plexiglas shield. Now THERE you would have a cartoon that at least bears some resemblance to real-world situations.
Always glad to help, and no charge to the right-wing moron who drew the stupid cartoon in the first place.
-
But we are being gentle , I wish it was working to be gentle .
Next President will be a Democrat , and there will be no political need to be gentle .
-
<<Next President will be a Democrat , and there will be no political need to be gentle .>>
You mean that the American people and the loyal opposition will feel no compulsion to pull out all stops in opposition to his cruelty and savagery?
-
I watched an interview Charley Rose, had with Barak Obama today. I was very impressed. Personnel I believe the Bush Administration is past the point of now return. The president and the GOP are so damaged, they cannot recover. Barak Obama is ten times the leader George W. Bush is, his foreign policy and domestic policies are spelled out in his new book. I think all conservatives would do themself a favor to buy and read the book. I also thing Democrats should do the same. I was wrong about Obama. He's not a 1960 style liberal. He is a very capable leader and man with true American values.
-
The Bush Admin is into it's six year. The point of no return was the 4th year barring any impachment shenanigans.
Obama is not ready for prime time and he should not even consider a vp slot offering.
His time will come, if the long knives don't get him first.
-
Barak Obama is another product of the DLC from the same cookie cutter that gave you Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. He won't rock the boat. Don't trust anyone who gets a TIME magazine cover article unless they're doing a real hatchet job on him (which they're not.) He doesn't have the balls or the stature to stand up to AIPAC or the oil industry. If the American business and finance community have collectively decided to pull the plug on Iraq, the plug will be pulled whether it's Obama or a Republican in the White House.
-
Obama said he has no interest in running for Pre or VP. He wants to continue his work in the senate. That is fine with me. Like they say all politics a local and the leadership that come from the states is what is supposed to create the national political agenda. Barak Obama is well aware of the fact that he has not had enough time to prove himself. The time will come when Obama will be one of the most respected leaders in this country. I know a winner when I see one.
-
Barak Obama is another product of the DLC from the same cookie cutter that gave you Hillary Clinton and John Kerry.
He is a member of the same party, but I saw something today I haven't seen in a long time. Barak Obama spoke without a script or q-cards. In a debate, Obama would destroy, Bush Hillary or Kerry. Obama is a real contender for the public ear.
-
"Al Qaeda, in a sneak attack that they could never pull off again thanks to relatively simple security measures taken by airport managers, managed to knock down a couple of buildings (because, it appears, they were in flagrant violation of existing New York building codes which weren't binding on the Port Authority) and ..."
Could you expand on these points , I am reading it a third time already.
-
<<Next President will be a Democrat , and there will be no political need to be gentle .>>
You mean that the American people and the loyal opposition will feel no compulsion to pull out all stops in opposition to his cruelty and savagery?
What?
Did you sleep through the Clinton Presidency?
-
<<What?
<<Did you sleep through the Clinton Presidency?>>
Not all of it, just the part where the Republicans tried to impeach him for war crimes.
-
war crimes? huh? I thought it was not because no one would ever look again at a cigar the way they used to, or that he boffed an innocent intern (oops, sorry, I DID NOT HAVE SEX WITH THAT WOMAN), but becauae he LIED. ???
-
Obama is not ready for prime time and he should not even consider a vp slot offering.
Okay. why not?
Was ANYONE elected president ever LESS COMPETENT gthan Juniorbush?
Was any VP ever less liked than Dickless Cheney?
-
<<war crimes? huh? I thought it was not because no one would ever look again at a cigar the way they used to, or that he boffed an innocent intern (oops, sorry, I DID NOT HAVE SEX WITH THAT WOMAN), but becauae he LIED. >>
That was my poor attempt at sarcasm, Professor. plane claimed that a Democratic President would act with less restraint and more savagely in Iraq than a Republican, so I asked him if the Republican opposition would then protest against the atrocities of a Democratic President. Plane then asked me if I had slept through the entire Clinton Presidency, and my reply, which was meant to be sarcastic, was that I had only slept through the part where they impeached him for war crimes and atrocities. MEANING that they didn't give a shit and would never give a shit about any war crimes or atrocities committed by ANY President, of either party, as clearly demonstrated by the fact that they did little if anything to protest Clinton's alleged war crimes or atrocities but were energized to impeach the guy, as we all know, over something as trivial and ultimately unimportant as an Oval Office blow-job and ALSO MEANING that plane was fulla shit, because if the Republicans HAD been opposed to any war crimes or atrocities of the Clinton administration, as plane implied they had been, they WOULD have dealt with it at least as energetically as they dealt with his blow-job, i.e. by impeaching him for it. Admitting I slept through an obviously non-existent impeachment is a way of saying, not that I slept through it, but that it never happened, i.e. that plane was full of it.
-
<<war crimes? huh? I thought it was not because no one would ever look again at a cigar the way they used to, or that he boffed an innocent intern (oops, sorry, I DID NOT HAVE SEX WITH THAT WOMAN), but becauae he LIED. >>
That was my poor attempt at sarcasm, Professor. plane claimed that a Democratic President would act with less restraint and more savagely in Iraq than a Republican, so I asked him if the Republican opposition would then protest against the atrocities of a Democratic President. Plane then asked me if I had slept through the entire Clinton Presidency, and my reply, which was meant to be sarcastic, was that I had only slept through the part where they impeached him for war crimes and atrocities. MEANING that they didn't give a shit and would never give a shit about any war crimes or atrocities committed by ANY President, of either party, as clearly demonstrated by the fact that they did little if anything to protest Clinton's alleged war crimes or atrocities but were energized to impeach the guy, as we all know, over something as trivial and ultimately unimportant as an Oval Office blow-job and ALSO MEANING that plane was fulla shit, because if the Republicans HAD been opposed to any war crimes or atrocities of the Clinton administration, as plane implied they had been, they WOULD have dealt with it at least as energetically as they dealt with his blow-job, i.e. by impeaching him for it. Admitting I slept through an obviously non-existent impeachment is a way of saying, not that I slept through it, but that it never happened, i.e. that plane was full of it.
No you have it right.
Clinton used Arieal bombing against which the Bosnians and Serbs were helpless.
Colateral Damage was maximised and damage to our own personell and equipment was minimised.
No one started talking about Clintons war crimes, this is perfectly true.
Outside of Serbia.
-
Thank you.
-
Thank you.
So you understand why a Democrat can get away with worse than a Republican?
-
<<So you understand why a Democrat can get away with worse than a Republican?>>
Sure. Democrats care about people, so they are horrified by war crimes and atrocities.
Republicans don't give a shit about people so they don't give a shit about war crimes and atrocities. (except Islamic ones or the imaginary war crimes and atrocities they make up about communists)
So Democrats will sometimes refrain from criticizing a Democratic war criminal (like LBJ for example) because they felt at least he was doing some good Great Society work. Republicans won't criticize anybody for war crimes and atrocities because they don't give a shit. So only Democrats get upset about war criminals and they'll all blast a Republican war criminal but not all will blast a Democratic war criminal, because the Democrat is also bringing in some social welfare benefits benefitting some poor people, which is enough to silence some of the Dems. That's why Republican war criminals catch more flak than Democratic war criminals - - because almost all the flak is coming from the Democrats.
-
Thank you.
So you understand why a Democrat can get away with worse than a Republican?
Wow! IOKIYAR at its finest. War crimes, that's oK if you're a Republican. No more writ of habeas corpus, OK if you're a Republican.
Spying on American citizens w/o a warrant, OK if GOP.
Torture, OK if GOP.
Either your moral code is nonexistent or I fell asleep and woke up in a time far into the future when such things were no longer abhorent, vile and criminal.
Nope, it's still the year 2006.
-
<<So you understand why a Democrat can get away with worse than a Republican?>>
Sure. Democrats care about people, so they are horrified by war crimes and atrocities.
Republicans don't give a shit about people so they don't give a shit about war crimes and atrocities. (except Islamic ones or the imaginary war crimes and atrocities they make up about communists)
So Democrats will sometimes refrain from criticizing a Democratic war criminal (like LBJ for example) because they felt at least he was doing some good Great Society work. Republicans won't criticize anybody for war crimes and atrocities because they don't give a shit. So only Democrats get upset about war criminals and they'll all blast a Republican war criminal but not all will blast a Democratic war criminal, because the Democrat is also bringing in some social welfare benefits benefitting some poor people, which is enough to silence some of the Dems. That's why Republican war criminals catch more flak than Democratic war criminals - - because almost all the flak is coming from the Democrats.
By George, I think he has got it!
We will elect a Democrat next time, and really slay them.
Ironicly I expect to see poorly breifed Islamists danceing on the street when they hear about an election upset , but President Hillary will wind up reminding them of Queen Victoria or Elisabeth the first rather than any pushover.
-
Wow! IOKIYAR at its finest.
So Democrats will sometimes refrain from criticizing a Democratic war criminal (like LBJ for example) because they felt at least he was doing some good Great Society work. Republicans won't criticize anybody for war crimes and atrocities because they don't give a shit. So only Democrats get upset about war criminals and they'll all blast a Republican war criminal but not all will blast a Democratic war criminal, because the Democrat is also bringing in some social welfare benefits benefitting some poor people, which is enough to silence some of the Dems. That's why Republican war criminals catch more flak than Democratic war criminals - - because almost all the flak is coming from the Democrats. SAYS MIKEY
Any comments on his statement, Lanya?
Personally i think he stumbled upon a universal truth.
-
What a silly statement. How can anyone say LBJ was given a pass? Did you sleep through the 60s?
-
How can anyone say LBJ was given a pass?
He wasn't given a pass.
I still remember "Hey Hey LBJ, How many kids did you kill today" but you have to admit most of the brunt of the antiwar movement was borne by Nixon.
-
How can anyone say LBJ was given a pass?
He wasn't given a pass.
I still remember "Hey Hey LBJ, How many kids did you kill today" but you have to admit most of the brunt of the antiwar movement was borne by Nixon.
I remember the Nixon Whitehouse pointing out that although more bombs were dropped during the Nixon Administration , the number was higher each successive year of the Johnson administration and lower each year of the Nixon Administration.
This makes me wonder if Johnson was seriously trying to win or not , but Nixon apparently was not seriously seeking a win , so much as the best way to get loose.