 |
| |
|
|
Ted Striker
|
 |
United States of America
Jan 1970
time: 21:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
Attacking the basis of support has been a method of warfare since the mid 19th century. In fact, it was a Yank named Sherman who pioneered it, I think.
A civil war is nastier in degree than any other type of war. The winner will be the one willing to do what is necessary in the most effective degree. |
It's not so simple the way you make it out to be.
In our civil war, the South fired the first shot, and they were considered the aggressors. Secondly with the release of the Emancipation Proclomation, the Union's credibility went up about 5000%. The war had two clear justifications.
This war had a justification based on a lie.
The paradox that you don't get is, by attacking "the basis of support," we create more enemies, as our intel there sucks, and figuring who is who has been problematic, at best.
If we were really ready to "do what is necessary," there would be another 700,000 guys on the ground there.
So what we have is a situation with:
1) No moral justification
2) A half assed amount of resources
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ted Striker
It's not so simple the way you make it out to be.
In our civil war, the South fired the first shot, and they were considered the aggressors. Secondly with the release of the Emancipation Proclomation, the Union's credibility went up about 5000%. The war had two clear justifications.
This war had a justification based on a lie.
The paradox that you don't get is, by attacking "the basis of support," we create more enemies, as our intel there sucks, and figuring who is who has been problematic, at best.
If we were really ready to "do what is necessary," there would be another 700,000 guys on the ground there.
So what we have is a situation with:
1) No moral justification
2) A half assed amount of resources |
Oh christ, are you listening to yourself?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
I'm asking you how you justify the invasion. |
Two big reasons for me:
(1) The Gulf War was still going on. Saddam was still in power, which demonstrated that the US was weak and that the we could be trifled with successfully. I didn't support Gulf War I, but I think us not finishing the job of taking down Saddam once we were there and had his armies defeated in hindsight shows lack of moral courage. We didn't wish to occupy Iraq, and we let that wish dictate our actions.
(2) I think a majority-ruled Iraq would be in our interest. It makes the government potentially much more stable over the long run compared to the alternatives. Also, it takes one country from the Arab Sunni column and adds it to the Arab Shiite (infidel) column. It demonstrates that the US can make this happen, and OBL can't do a damn thing about it. NB: Partitioning Iraq would serve this end almost as well, because the oil does not reside on Arab Sunni land.
I had every reason to believe that there was going to be WMD, but in a way, because of my #1 and #2, I still think that this operation is going swimingly from a strategic perspective. We're going to have a successful election, where the Shiite leaders who are going to rule are chosen. The Arab Sunnis are less of a concern to me. They can burn in the stew of their own creation.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
quote:
Two big reasons for me:
(1) The Gulf War was still going on. Saddam was still in power, which demonstrated that the US was weak and that the we could be trifled with successfully. I didn't support Gulf War I, but I think us not finishing the job of taking down Saddam once we were there and had his armies defeated in hindsight shows lack of moral courage. We didn't wish to occupy Iraq, and we let that wish dictate our actions.
(2) I think a majority-ruled Iraq would be in our interest. It makes the government potentially much more stable over the long compared to the alternatives. Also, it takes one country from the Arab Sunni column and adds it to the Arab Shiite (infidel) column. It demonstrates that the US can make this happen, and OBL can't do a damn thing about it. NB: Partitioning Iraq would serve this end almost as well, because the oil does not reside on Arab Sunni land.
I had every reason to believe that there was going to be WMD, but in a way, because of my #1 and #2, I still think that this operation is going swimingly from a strategic perspective.
|
Well, as long as you're not feeding me the freedom/democracy tripe...
(1) (minus the moral courage part) incidentally was part what I was talking about, Dino.
As for (2), you do realize that OBL already thought of Ba'athist Iraq as ruled by infidels, don't you? And you do realize that we're taking it from secular to Islamist (if it is majority ruled) don't you? It could've been otherwise if we had a competent government, but at this stage of the game, a popularly elected gov't of Iraq will be Islamist. As for partition, see my earlier post as to why it would be a strategic disaster for the US.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-01-2005 11:22
Seriously, I have to wonder what exactly is the problem y'all have with the likes of Saddam.
|