When are Republicans&warmongers going to take responsibility for the Iraq disaster?
- Thread starter Kicking
- Start date
An ET consensus?
ROTFLMAO...
You really are a klown, a republiklown...
ROTFLMAO...
You really are a klown, a republiklown...
______________________________________________
I wholeheartedly agree with you but in the back of my mind there is a small still voice saying that according to biblical prophecy no matter what we would have done it would still turn out to be a major confrontation between Isreal and all her neighbors to the north except Jordan.
_____________________________________________
Surely you can think up some new names you are getting repetitive. If you don't have any use for an ET consensus you sure spend an awful lot of time here. What is it now 14 or 15.000 name calling posts. Some record and that only under one handle. Who knows the real number is when they are all added together.
Why don't you try the spell check argument...
You really are a loohoohoohoo....
You really are a loohoohoohoo....
the better question captainobvious. If the russians invaded the united states in the 1950's to free the blacks from the american in the south. How would americans react. Im sure you would be acting the same way. Look how you guys acted during the american revolution and civil war. You acted like animals. In fact you guys treated the loyalists in the revolutionary war worse then the iraqis are treating themselves. .
QUOTE]Quote from CaptainObvious:
The better question is, when are Iraqis going to take responsibility for what's happening? [/QUOTE]
QUOTE]Quote from CaptainObvious:
The better question is, when are Iraqis going to take responsibility for what's happening? [/QUOTE]
I agree with most of what you're saying, Nik. Maybe I just misinterpreted your comment about validating suspicions about the wars' motivations.Quote from traderNik:
Hi hap
I understand. I would say that although it's never been tried by the US in the Middle East, it's been tried many times, historically, by many different cultures. And I do see this as nothing less than an attempt to change their culture. Let's set aside for the moment the fact that our culture (the one that values freedom) is better. In India it sort of worked, but the British weren't necessarily trying to effect change and then leave. They were there for what, 200 years? There are probably other examples of this process working, but in the modern age?
In my opinion, hap, the problem was just what you said - that the US population didn't have the stomach for what it would take. That's why it was a mistake, not because it wasn't theoretically a good idea. I believe that an objective analysis before the invasion would have led to the same conclusion.
There is no doubt in my mind that the majority (maybe not a huge majority, but a majority) of Iraqis would like the chance to move their lives into the modern era and have the opportunity to have what we in the West have (freedom of opportunity), without fear that they will be beheaded for their religious beliefs. That in itself isn't enough, though. There are cultural forces at work that will prevent those people from speaking out. Eventually those forces will be vanquished, but not by cultural conquerors. They'll die off just like slavery died off here. It's inevitable.
I personally don't subscribe to the war-for-oil theory. There would be way cheaper and more effective ways to exert an influence over Mid-East oil.
In any case, if we are to indeed make this experiment possible, it will mean improving the security situation. This would mean reigning in the militias, which in turn means reigning in Al Sadr and, by extension, Iran. Syria would also have to be persuaded to fucking stop with their meddling.
In other words, this would mean taking the gloves off and doing WHATEVER it takes - be it teaching Iran and Syria a lesson by some selective air attacks, or whatever.
Unfortunately, this all probably should have been done much, much earlier. Perhaps that window of opportunity has passed....I hope not.
Yeah, what you're describing is right - I guess the problem I see is what Doubter was mentioning earlier - that things over there are so intertwined. So you engage Iran and Syria militarily, and execute Al Sadr. You also really reign in the militias, which involves a lot of fierce fighting and lots of hardware. What happens next? In my view, you have a very big fight on your hands. That could be all out war.
Is it worth it for the U.S.? I guess that's where the PC problem Cap O was mentioning comes in. It would be a hard sell for the American public, all out war against multiple Middle Eastern countries.
All out war not a realistic possibility if the US executes Al Sadr, does what it really takes to reign in the Iraqi militias and uses selective air strikes on Iran and Syria? I'm not so sure it's impossible...
-------------------------------------------------
as an aside....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6203212.stm
"However, in recent months he had begun to acknowledge publicly that US tactics were not working and needed to be more flexible...The document, first published by the New York Times and subsequently confirmed by the Pentagon, contains no reference to Mr Rumsfeld's imminent resignation.
Mr Rumsfeld also urges President Bush to copy the tactics of Iraq's deposed leader: "Provide money to key political leaders (as Saddam Hussein did), to get them to help us get through this difficult period."
Among other options described as "Above the Line" are:
* Significantly increase the number of US trainers and transfer more equipment to Iraqi security forces
* Reduce quickly the number of US bases, currently 55, to five by July 2007
* Position substantial US forces near the Iranian and Syrian borders to reduce infiltration and Iran's influence
* Withdraw US forces from vulnerable positions, such as patrols, and use them as a quick reaction force to help Iraqi security forces when needed
Just days before the Iraq Study Group releases its top-secret report, President George Bush today ordered the Pentagon to preemptively redeploy U.S. troops from Iraq to âneutral neighboring countries including Iran and Syria.â
âIâve said that I wonât order our troops to make a graceful exit from Iraq,â said Mr. Bush, âBut I never ruled out making a graceful entrance into Iran and Syria where I expect our partners in peace to welcome us with open and raised arms.â
The order surprised many, coming as it does on the heels of news that the Pentagon has discovered âsmoking gunâ evidence that terrorists in Iraq use weapons shipped from Iranian factories to kill U.S. troops and others.
But Mr. Bush said the Iraq Study Group, Kofi Annan and other Democrats have convinced him that engagement with Iran and Syria is crucial to finding a âholistic solutionâ to the Iraq situation.
Scrappleface
via Instapundit who says "Finally a war plan I agree with."
Couldn.t agree more.
âIâve said that I wonât order our troops to make a graceful exit from Iraq,â said Mr. Bush, âBut I never ruled out making a graceful entrance into Iran and Syria where I expect our partners in peace to welcome us with open and raised arms.â
The order surprised many, coming as it does on the heels of news that the Pentagon has discovered âsmoking gunâ evidence that terrorists in Iraq use weapons shipped from Iranian factories to kill U.S. troops and others.
But Mr. Bush said the Iraq Study Group, Kofi Annan and other Democrats have convinced him that engagement with Iran and Syria is crucial to finding a âholistic solutionâ to the Iraq situation.
Scrappleface
via Instapundit who says "Finally a war plan I agree with."
Couldn.t agree more.
Japan was virtually feudal till the aftermath of WWll.
Most "enlightened" Euro democracies are younger than the U.S.
I find it difficult to fathom that "progressives" think the situation in the Middle East will remain constant over time. There will always be the struggle between secular, West leaning moderates and fundamentalists who are revving for the destruction of the non-Islamic world.
Clearly the west has a self interest in the outcome of that debate.
Equally clear, one should expect the west to continue such long held policies as military engagement against rebellious governments and shifting sentiment (quasi-propoganda) within fledging democracies. We all lobby in some way when we have an axe to grind.
As an isolationist I tend to disfavor meddling. UP UNTIL THIS POINT, America has never fought a war it's history that was OUR fight. (except perhaps Japan after Pearl Harbor but that was certainly avoidable). Maybe Islam is a different foe altogether. Maybe they're not. I sure as hell don't fear a Wahhabi attack everytime I ride a subway, sit in a stadium or go to the mall. A little paranoia can go a long ways.
Religion of peace? Hardly. But a VIABLE threat? Not so sure. A need to clip their global ambitions. Absolutely.
Most "enlightened" Euro democracies are younger than the U.S.
I find it difficult to fathom that "progressives" think the situation in the Middle East will remain constant over time. There will always be the struggle between secular, West leaning moderates and fundamentalists who are revving for the destruction of the non-Islamic world.
Clearly the west has a self interest in the outcome of that debate.
Equally clear, one should expect the west to continue such long held policies as military engagement against rebellious governments and shifting sentiment (quasi-propoganda) within fledging democracies. We all lobby in some way when we have an axe to grind.
As an isolationist I tend to disfavor meddling. UP UNTIL THIS POINT, America has never fought a war it's history that was OUR fight. (except perhaps Japan after Pearl Harbor but that was certainly avoidable). Maybe Islam is a different foe altogether. Maybe they're not. I sure as hell don't fear a Wahhabi attack everytime I ride a subway, sit in a stadium or go to the mall. A little paranoia can go a long ways.
Religion of peace? Hardly. But a VIABLE threat? Not so sure. A need to clip their global ambitions. Absolutely.
Quote from traderNik:
Hi hap
I understand. I would say that although it's never been tried by the US in the Middle East, it's been tried many times, historically, by many different cultures. And I do see this as nothing less than an attempt to change their culture. Let's set aside for the moment the fact that our culture (the one that values freedom) is better
In my opinion, hap, the problem was just what you said - that the US population didn't have the stomach for what it would take. That's why it was a mistake, not because it wasn't theoretically a good idea. I believe that an objective analysis before the invasion would have led to the same conclusion.
There is no doubt in my mind that the majority (maybe not a huge majority, but a majority) of Iraqis would like the chance to move their lives into the modern era and have the opportunity to have what we in the West have (freedom of opportunity), without fear that they will be beheaded for their religious beliefs. That in itself isn't enough, though. There are cultural forces at work that will prevent those people from speaking out. Eventually those forces will be vanquished, but not by cultural conquerors. They'll die off just like slavery died off here. It's inevitable.
I personally don't subscribe to the war-for-oil theory. There would be way cheaper and more effective ways to exert an influence over Mid-East oil.