 |
| |
|
|
Kramerman
|
 |
UT, Austin - The live music capital of the world
Jun 2002
time: 23:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
I am against the war for the very same reasons I am for an active rebuilding, led by Europe :
- I care about civilian deaths (yes, pro-peace people aren't necessarily Saddam-apologists looking for fruitous oil deals  ), and Iraq will be even more in shambles after the war than it is now, which means even more misery, famine and disease.
- I care about thwarting terrorism and support for fundamentalism. While misery isn't the only reason for people to support fundamentalism, it is an important reason, and we should adress it since we can.
If you're anti-Amercian enough to let millions Iraqi die, I wonder how you can picture yourself as a "comrade"  |
another excellent post, spiff
Im prowar, but you are one of the few on the other side of the fence who give good, rational arguements.
Comrade tribune
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The Vagabond
|
 |
of realpolitik and counterpropaganda
Jan 1970
time: 05:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
IŽd rather the Empire to end, asap. |
Its end may have desastrous consequences for your living standards.
Last edited by The Vagabond on 26-02-2003 at 10:55
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Vagabond
Good presentation of a pro-war argument, Che, especially taking into account that you seem to belong to the anti-war camp.  |
It's not the "pro-war argument." The pro-war argument is that Hussein is a bad and dangerous man. We have to get him before he gives WoMD to terrorists or uses them against us.  Often times, there are references made to defying the UN, but these are the same people who hate the UN 99% of the time, so that argument carries no weight, especially when they ignore the UNSC resolutions that Israel continues to disobey.
The government's pro-war argument is all about the UN, because that sells to the middle-Americans, i.e., those who really don't like war and don't have some sick need to see the sun never set on the American flag, but aren't opposed to war when it's really necessary. It's a sham, a trick. The UN is irrelevent. The US doesn't give a damn about the UN and certainly doesn't want to prop up some theoretical authority the UN might have. Lord almighty, these are arch-conservatives we're talking about here. Why is it that they are arguing about the need to enforce for the UN, when they've spent the last 50 years degrading it.
And of course I understand it. I have a very good understanding of Marxism, which allows me to cut through the BS of all other politics, including many so-called Marxists. A very powerful analytic tool, Marxism, when it's properly understood, and not some characiture.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Nothing will explode here in Europe, as long *as we make clear we do not identify with the US*. Which is the most important thing to do right now.
|
Yes, if you're a bunch of weak, sniveling cowards, the Islamic fundamentalists will ignore you for the time being, as you're not a threat to them, just amoral infidels. 
quote:
Europe first, and let America go down the drain. Best thing that could happen, ever. |
And when the **** hits your fan, who'll be around to bail you out this time, baby? Better learn which way Mecca is from your house and start reading up on your Qu'ran.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Vagabond
|
|
of realpolitik and counterpropaganda
Jan 1970
time: 05:26
|
|
Che, of course it's not the official pro-war argument of the US government. What you formulated just seems a good pro-war argument to me. And it might well be that it's the real pro-war argument of the US strategists (they just can't name it officially).
I agree with you about Marxism. It's a powerful method of reasoning. Even anticommies can benefit from it.
Last edited by The Vagabond on 26-02-2003 at 11:51
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DinoDoc
che: One of the problems with the theory you are espousing right now (as I see it) is that Iraq is contained which makes his defiance largely irrelevent. |
Realistically, it IS irrelevant - Iraq is not now anything close to the relative giant it once was in regional power.
Emotionally, however, there's two problems - IMO, it's an issue that Saddam was once thought to be our proxy, and we (Reagan & George I) invested a lot in that relationship, and containment only works when defiance is isolated.
If half the world seriously goes nuts, there's nothing the US or even the entire western world can do about it - think fundie revolutions in the mideast, civil war in Nigeria, even more deterioration in Venezuela, India and Pakistan going balls out once again, Hekmatyar being a perennial pain in the ass around Khowst, and the North Koreans continuing to demonstrate the benefits of the Dear Leader's wisdom, all at the same time, and all escalating.
Containment or deterrence only works if you have limited targets on which to focus.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DinoDoc
che: One of the problems with the theory you are espousing right now (as I see it) is that Iraq is contained which makes his defiance largely irrelevent. |
Iraq is contained, which means it's not a real threat. It is, however, an embarressment. A symbol that US can be defied, especially as other countries are trying to do business with it. Perhaps if the blocakde could be maintained, if Iraq could be punished until it breaks . . . . But with France, Russia, and so many others lining up to end the blockade, the danger is that Iraq might get away with standing up to the US. Sure, they aren't a material danger to anyone, but our prestige will be damaged. Others will see that they can disobey the US and get away with it. Empires don't last very long when the tributaries start to act independent
As for nothing exploding in Europe, Comrade Tribune, you must be daft. Europe has been the target of far more Islamic terrorism than the US has. We just got the worst single attack, and probably the most victims. But France has been suffering attacks many years. The Pan Am bombing over Scotland, whether you believe it was the Libyans or the Syrians. There were Moslem attacks in Italy. You aren't getting away with anything. We've been free of such things for so long just cuz no one's had the balls to attack us directly.
Last edited by chegitz guevara on 26-02-2003 at 11:57
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DinoDoc
MtG: How does my not shoving Iraq to the front burner effect your containment calculations? |
That's my biggest concern with the whole Iraq thing - we're certainly not going to come up with a good solution for a post-Saddam Iraq, and it's not even clear there is a good solution.
For containment to be backed with teeth, though, you need to have sustainable power projection abilities, and the US military has cut back significantly, despite higher budgets - most of the budget increases have been on the toys and procurement end, plus operational accounts for current deployments (man for man, SOCOM units have bigger support tails by far than regular units).
Realistically, we need a significant expansion (say double) of all SOCOM forces, about five or six more army divisions*, more USMC amphibious and support units, and expanded air and logistics capabilities as well.
Linguists, intel people, civil affairs people are all in short supply, and that's a real problem - you can't keep the people you have deployed forever, and you have to have some effective transitions. CentCom was a nice idea when the mideast was a relative backwater with no major action, but it's now too big, since all the serious global action is there on the Islamic / terrorist side.
We need to really rethink long-term approaches to problems like Iraq - this never should have gone on as long as it has, and the longer sanctions have been allowed to go on, the more Saddam will gain credit for defying both the US and the western world. South Africa proved the basic principle about sanctions - they're only effective if the government in question cares about it's standing in the international (i.e. western lackey) community. Otherwise, they're just a target for defiance.
I don't see a good outcome out of a war with Iraq, because there's too many of our resources that will be tied up for too long, likely for too little long-term gain (if any at all). OTOH, I also don't see it will help us much if we cave and let Saddam continue to give us the finger. Either way, IMO, we've lost the long-term strategic advantage, and it's just a choice of which gamble to take to get out of the hole.
Unfortunately, this administration (my beloved chickenhawks) are too excited by watching reruns of The Green Berets and by all the gee-whiz hardware marketing pitches of the defense industry and their pentagon whores. The level of interest in the necessary-but-unsexy nuts and bolts side of the military is non-existent, and having the CJCS be an airedale, plus a political boy of Billy Clinton's (Shinseki) as Army Chief of Staff really doesn't help.
Back in the early endgame of the cold war, Gen. John Wickham, as Army Chief of Staff, wrote an interesting article about how illogical the entire procurement process was, and how we devoted the greatest resources to the least probable threat scenarios, while the every day, real actions (low intensity combat) got the least attention from the procurement side). Wickham showed that there was a nearly linear inverse correlation between threat probability and procurement expenditure. Unfortunately, in 17 years and four presidents, that hasn't changed.
* re new Army divisions: for this type of modern warfare, I'd like to see a composite division which is one brigade heavy (mixed armor and IFV, with heavy artillery) and two brigades light infantry, with double the air transport, and augmented scout and attack helo capabilities), with reinforced battalions of engineers and recon.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
No, it isn't. Israel is more than capable of taking care of itself. If we unleashed her, Israel could conquer the ME in a matter of weeks. Holding it would be another story altogether, but they could easily beat every country in the ME. Only Egypt would give them some trouble.
The war is about asserting American power. The first Gulf War was about showing the world who was boss in the wake of the Cold War. But a curious thing happened. The lesson didn't take. Hussein didn't play along. For twelve years he'd been thumbing his nose, not at the UN, but at the US. As long as Iraq can get away with refusing to kowtow to the American Empire, it lets other countries know they can get away with it also. Hussein has to be be made to tow the line or he has to be destroyed.
That's what this war is about. |
I agree to some extent. There are a lot of reasons for this war, which IMO is merely an extension of the previous conflict. The U.S. cannot afford to let Iraq flaunt its refusal to abide by the armistace. Otherwise our military budget gains us nothing in terms of power, as we will have no credibility.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
|
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
MtG :
Comrade fundamentally didn't understand we're in the same **** as you. I don't think it is possible to reason with him, he assumes too much reason from the religious zealots.
Edit : As soon as some European countries disagree, they're called names by the US and by many Americans / mainstream media. I highly doubt the US want to see Europe any different than an obeying vassal. |
I don't agree that the U.S. wants to only have Europe be a loyal vassal, though I'm certain there are people who want this in pursuit of short term interest. In the long term though we want Europe to treat with us as equals who often have similar goals in the world, and are capable of carrying their portion of the load, including and especially the ability to act militarily in their own interest independentlywhen necessary. We see much of Europe as having spent decades under our protection and having developed an unrealistic view of the world, as if any other portion of the globe has the sort of security provided by the Atlantic alliance, much less the shared values and economic strength that make the rest of the growth of the European Community possible.
There is a very good reason why many of the new members of NATO agree with the U.S. aside from any leftover goodwill that their entry into NATO etc. has brought. Simply, it is because these states share our view of the world to a much greater extent than those states whose citizens have spent their entire lives protected by this powerful alliance. They have seen with their own eyes the occupation and subjugation of their lands by Soviet power, and are under no illusions about how useful good intentions alone are in a conflict with someone willing to use raw power. Much of their desire is thus for the security that the alliance brings, and it is the United States that brings that combination of power and (in their minds at least) a rational understanding of raw power and its continuing usefullness in the real world, even as only a deterrent. The fact that NATO membership also rids them of any likely conflict with those states who would otherwise have to be viewed as regional rivals only adds to its allure. Membership in the EU is icing on the cake, but at this juncture anyway, I think these states would generally accept NATO membership and the freedom to concentrate on their own domestic needs (which are great) over membership in the EU and the need to depend solely on themselves for their defense. This will probably be an interim step in the development of their attitudes though, at least if things work out more or less the same way for them as they have for Western Europe. As the older generations who experienced the Cold War and occupation die out, the younger generation won't see what all the fuss is about, just as in Western Europe.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sten Sture
Does anyone have a decent source for where Persian Gulf Oil exports go? Last time I saw such a thing not much of it went to the States United... |
Would have to dig it up. Europe has diversified its oil supplies a lot (north sea, russia, north africa), while the US' total imports have risen a lot.
"Does the UN 'cut the check' out of New York and does that make it look like it all goes to the States?"
The UN does not pay for Iraq's oil exports. Or what do you mean?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
|
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
That's my biggest concern with the whole Iraq thing - we're certainly not going to come up with a good solution for a post-Saddam Iraq, and it's not even clear there is a good solution.
For containment to be backed with teeth, though, you need to have sustainable power projection abilities, and the US military has cut back significantly, despite higher budgets - most of the budget increases have been on the toys and procurement end, plus operational accounts for current deployments (man for man, SOCOM units have bigger support tails by far than regular units). |
This is a major point of departure between the U.S. and Britain and say France and Germany. It is our forces who have been on duty doing the containing, and it is our forces who are cooling their heals (and losing readiness while burning money and diplomatic capital) as the U.N. dithers its way to yet another meaningless ir-resolution. It's very easy for Germany and France to demand that we spend our effort to "give peace a chance" for the 17th time, when it seems obvious that Hussein has no intention of complying with the terms of the armistace he signed 12 years ago. Perhaps if they were willing to back up their demands with some willingness to share a significant portion of the burden they would have more credibility on this side of the pond.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Realistically, we need a significant expansion (say double) of all SOCOM forces, about five or six more army divisions*, more USMC amphibious and support units, and expanded air and logistics capabilities as well.
Linguists, intel people, civil affairs people are all in short supply, and that's a real problem - you can't keep the people you have deployed forever, and you have to have some effective transitions. CentCom was a nice idea when the mideast was a relative backwater with no major action, but it's now too big, since all the serious global action is there on the Islamic / terrorist side.
We need to really rethink long-term approaches to problems like Iraq - this never should have gone on as long as it has, and the longer sanctions have been allowed to go on, the more Saddam will gain credit for defying both the US and the western world. South Africa proved the basic principle about sanctions - they're only effective if the government in question cares about it's standing in the international (i.e. western lackey) community. Otherwise, they're just a target for defiance. |
Agreed.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
I don't see a good outcome out of a war with Iraq, because there's too many of our resources that will be tied up for too long, likely for too little long-term gain (if any at all). OTOH, I also don't see it will help us much if we cave and let Saddam continue to give us the finger. Either way, IMO, we've lost the long-term strategic advantage, and it's just a choice of which gamble to take to get out of the hole. |
I would have liked to have seen this problem dealt with in the first place by GB the 1st, or during the 8 years of the Clinton administration. GB 1 thought erroneously that he could kill Saddam, and settled for a much too modest political goal to justify the risk. I felt that then, and my opinion has only been strengthened by events since. Clinton had no strategic vision whatever, merely some values that work fine in Belgium, but aren't terribly realistic for a country in the U.S.'s position, namely overextended with myriad regional involvements around the world. He left all that in place, and satisfied himself with exerting small efforts here and there in the name of his value system. Had either president had a broader vision, we could have practically picked how we wanted the "New World Order" to be and moved there while the world was still busy readjusting to the huge changes made possible (and necessary) by the end of the Cold War.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
* re new Army divisions: for this type of modern warfare, I'd like to see a composite division which is one brigade heavy (mixed armor and IFV, with heavy artillery) and two brigades light infantry, with double the air transport, and augmented scout and attack helo capabilities), with reinforced battalions of engineers and recon. |
Would you deploy these as divisions, or use them as subdividable components of an ad hoc system of force creation? I would tend to think that two types of division would be preferable, Heavy and Light.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-02-2003 10:31
So are you pro-war or anti-war, DD?
Iam not sure you get me. What I am meaning to say is, US treat Europe, *as if* it were a colony, or an outpost of their Empire, something I definitely do not want to be. IŽd rather the Empire to end, asap. 
|