 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:37
|
|
The Constitution did not empower a democracy, therein lies the problem. But no, I'm not a cheerleader for democracy. To paraphrase Mel Gibson's character in "The Patriot", why should I trade one tyrant 3,000 miles away for 3,000 tyrants 1 mile away? 
quote:
But here's the thing, do you seriously think it would get better if the support for the nascent Iraqi state (the US and UK) suddenly exited stage left? How much cred do you think Western Liberalsim would then enjoy throughout the Arab world? |
Are we more concerned with our image than Iraq? The question is how can we stabilise Iraq. But that is not what our leadership wants. You've probably heard US politicians, including Bush, say we want to bring the war to them and not fight it here. Where is "them"? They are sitting along the Afghan-Pakistani border. But that causes a problem, our ally in Pakistan might be overthrown if we launch an invasion of that region. Besides, Afghanistan is too far out of the way. We needed a battlefield in the heart of these people - Iraq is that battlefield. We need it to draw out the people who already want to kill us and those who are strongly considering it. The problem is the longer we use Iraq for our battlefield, the population of people wanting to kill us seems to increase. So at what point does the insurgency feed off our presence more than the other causes? Tough call, but its getting easier the longer this drags on.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
 |
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
They would be a good start, added to the start of Iraqi forces trained and able to police themselves.
The occupation of Japan lasted, what, ten years?
The pull out ain't gonna happen overnight, even in the best case. |
There's no comparison: Japan didn't have an insurgency, and it did have a willingness to rubber-stamp our constitution.
We must not pull out -- we agree. But everything about what we're doing there -- the inadequate number of troops we've committed, the ridiculous moving of the goalposts every 2-3 months, and above all the shabby, deceptive rhetoric from the administration -- is simply wrong. Our not-so-excellent adventure in Iraq obviously needs to be re-thought from the ground up -- but the people we're relying on to do that are incapable of ever admitting that they were wrong about anything. If Americans have lost patience with Iraq, it's not because they can't stomach war but because they can't stomach war on these terms. And who could blame them?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
There's no comparison: Japan didn't have an insurgency, and it did have a willingness to rubber-stamp our constitution. |
That might tell you something. Ten years given those conditions...
quote:
We must not pull out -- we agree. But everything about what we're doing there -- the inadequate number of troops we've committed, the ridiculous moving of the goalposts every 2-3 months, and above all the shabby, deceptive rhetoric from the administration -- is simply wrong. Our not-so-excellent adventure in Iraq obviously needs to be re-thought from the ground up -- but the people we're relying on to do that are incapable of ever admitting that they were wrong about anything. If Americans have lost patience with Iraq, it's not because they can't stomach war but because they can't stomach war on these terms. And who could blame them? |
Themselves and the rest of the world if you prove incapable of living with your own decisions on wars, congresspeople, and presidents?
You know, I'll bet it's no fun to be a peace loving citizen of Baghdad right about now, either. The difference is that you guys theoretically have a choice. Oh, and the car bombs aren't going off anywhere near your block.
Last edited by notyoueither on 31-08-2005 at 12:15
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
|
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Az
I really don't see what you people are arguing about, since it's pretty obvious you both agree on the basics:
US must stay in Iraq, to clean it's own mess.
The rest is just details. |
Sort of. The real problem is that the Administration has offered absolutely no plan for cleaning up its mess (and no, just staying there isn't such a plan). The problem, then, is that right now Americans are being offered only two choices:
1) Get out
2) Stay the course
If these are the only choices, then they both suck, and of the two getting out is preferable. Neither choice will stabilize Iraq; neither choice will stop its slide into chaos. But getting out will at least get our soldiers our of harm's way.
There is, obviously, a third choice: re-think the war and fight it properly. This is the best choice -- indeed, the only humane choice -- but it's not on the table. Why? Mostly because it would require the chickenhawk administration to admit that they've screwed up (and lied), and they will never, ever do that.
So there's really two questions.
1) What should the US do? (on this we all agree); and
2) What should the US do if the administration is too stupid and pigheaded to do the right thing? (On this we disagree).
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ted Striker
|
 |
United States of America
Jan 1970
time: 21:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Sort of. The real problem is that the Administration has offered absolutely no plan for cleaning up its mess (and no, just staying there isn't such a plan). The problem, then, is that right now Americans are being offered only two choices:
1) Get out
2) Stay the course
If these are the only choices, then they both suck, and of the two getting out is preferable. Neither choice will stabilize Iraq; neither choice will stop its slide into chaos. But getting out will at least get our soldiers our of harm's way.
There is, obviously, a third choice: re-think the war and fight it properly. This is the best choice -- indeed, the only humane choice -- but it's not on the table. Why? Mostly because it would require the chickenhawk administration to admit that they've screwed up (and lied), and they will never, ever do that.
So there's really two questions.
1) What should the US do? (on this we all agree); and
2) What should the US do if the administration is too stupid and pigheaded to do the right thing? (On this we disagree). |
Yep.
Ramo listed a list of things that we can do TODAY, that are not being done, I can't remember which thread it's in. Anyone looking at the list wouldn't think the ideas are extraordinary, but they are common sense things that need to be implemented.
The whole handing out contracts to favorites for one needs to be abolished.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
What happened after Vietnam? The Warsaw Pact funded guerilla groups in Europe, Africa, Asia, and South America. People around the world began to see the threat posed by red terrorists and their sympathy turned against the Su and its allies. Then the SU got bogged down in Afghanistan. Under the strain the Warsaw Pact fell apart. If we pull out of Iraq, which will probably result in civil war, the people of the Middle East will see more clearly that Islamic extremists are a greater threat to them than the US and Israel are. Only once the peoples of the Middle East are willing to reject the message of Osama and his ilk will the tide in the war on terror be turned.
I suspect that many muslims in the Middel East will be shocked by the stampede at the bridge in Baghdad today.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
31-08-2005 10:42
|