Originally Posted by mididoctors perhaps its time to realize it was a REALLY REALLY REALLY BAD BAD BAD BAD idea, AWFULLY planned and doesn't have a easy option of just "going" thats how appallingly reckless the whole endeavor is/was... once you invade other countries and lose on all levels including ...
| |||||||
 |
| Register to Post a Reply |
| | LinkBack (1) | Thread Tools |
10-08-2006, 05:30 PM
| #21 | ||||
| One American Family at a Time.  Idealist The OC, California 
| Originally Posted by mididoctors I was watching this special on CNN on Donald Rumsfield. About how he was in Government, and apparently good at what he did, and then he went and over took a corporation, and then after that, he was asked by Dubya to come back to work for him. He came back into government with this attitude about the Military that he was going to run it like a corporation. That he was going to reduce the spending, to make it more technical...and so on. I think in his thinking, the problem is that he looked at Iraq with the eyes of a CEO and not the eyes of a Defense Secretary, and Defense, really is the operative word of his title. He's supposed to run the Defending of the nation, not instigate wars with other nations. 
Thanks to him, America WAS a superpower. Now, we are wearing Egg because of what we got ourselves into. In a situation like that, sometimes all you can do it close the curtain, and wipe the egg and hope no one throws a tomato. | ||||
     |
|
10-08-2006, 05:38 PM
| #22 | ||||
| I DIDNT KNOW THAT  Corpus Christi, Texas
| Originally Posted by mididoctors
I completely agree, it is what it is. I thought I saw a different spin, but you have explained it well. What it is, is what we must deal with not why. | ||||
| |
|
10-08-2006, 05:41 PM
| #23 | ||||
| I DIDNT KNOW THAT Corpus Christi, Texas
| Originally Posted by Thorgrim And can you blame them? We invaded their country.....
| ||||
| |
|
10-08-2006, 05:44 PM
| #24 | ||||
| One American Family at a Time. Idealist The OC, California
| Originally Posted by KatKanPlay Wouldn't that be funny if China invaded our country to "free" us? At this point, would we have room to be all mad?
| ||||
| |
|
10-08-2006, 05:44 PM
| #25 | ||||
| I DIDNT KNOW THAT Corpus Christi, Texas
| Originally Posted by IminWonderland
 Doesnt this kind of make us the bad guys?. | ||||
| |
|
10-08-2006, 05:55 PM
| #26 | ||||
| I DIDNT KNOW THAT Corpus Christi, Texas
| Originally Posted by mididoctors We broke We own. Then why havent we flooded the damn country with our presence with full support and backup. The fact that we made the mess, means we need to clean it up. So if all you say is true, we need to do a complete takeover and get it on its feet?
 | ||||
| |
|
10-08-2006, 05:59 PM
| #27 | ||||
| Never, never, never give up  Conservative Party High Point, NC
| Originally Posted by IminWonderland They are free. They had the freedom to vote for the first time in decades. They have the freedom to travel outside the country without government permission. But, people who used to be controlled by the "if you cross us we'll kill you AND your family" government that was there have now decided they are free enough now to kill as they please. Horrible situation.
| ||||
| |
|
10-08-2006, 06:00 PM
| #28 | ||||
| Never, never, never give up Conservative Party High Point, NC
| Originally Posted by IminWonderland Yeah, that compares
 | ||||
| |
|
10-08-2006, 06:07 PM
| #29 | ||||
| Member Green Party
| Originally Posted by IminWonderland So its another risk?
essentially you are relying on luck to get you out? would you agree there must be things you could do to maximize your chances of getting out with out picking up serious blow-back? the old exit strategy thing... I presently see no opportunity to get out.. moreover the exit strategy doctrine is based on the premise you have your exit planned as you go in.. like Gulf 91 the problem here is we can see that there was no exit strategy at all as the war resulted in US commitment to bases in Saudi (as opposed to going to baghdad in 91 as wolfowitz wanted) and we all can see this lead on the road to where we are today (including 911) every US intervention in the region overt or soft has lead to a deepening commitment to the gulf over time.. this stretches back to the end of WW2 in a very real sense US intervention at this level was almost inevitable following the logic of US policy in the region the control of shipping movements in the gulf and the following on control of oil distribution has parallels to Rockerfellers aquisition of oil distribution of US oil in the 19th century... to guarantee the flow of oil did not necessitate the overt ownership of the ground it was in... but things change and the oil and Gas is set to move overland to the eurasia supercontinent rather than by seas to the americas and the east money.. economic efficiency will dictate that the energy is more efficiently consumed nearer the source than transported to a limited market rather than invested in agrowth market in India and china... globalisation and capitalisation will favour a move of economic power away from the US by virtue of geography... it makes no sense to ship the energy to the US from a profit POV the USA's great strength of being safe on its continental fortress isolated from the ravages of instability the rest of the world is prone too has become a liability as the "prize" is the eurasian landmass and the USA is always one or more oceans away its this basic geo political reality that is at stake in Iraq... and is the basis of US problems in gaining support in the region as US power is dependent on stalling economic development on the eurasian landmass by keeping the energy on the shipping lanes rather than moving overland into the interior of the continents of europe and asia this is the long game a US withdrawal signals what exactly in such a situation? if US does "go" it must cede power to others.. intentionally or not its not the case you must hope someone may throw a tomato... its more the case everyone will start throwing tomatoes through a lack of choice to do anything else... there simply will be NO game in town and players will vie to create the new status quo.. could be a good thing... perhaps not.. certainly something to consider Boris london Last edited by mididoctors; 10-08-2006 at 06:31 PM. | ||||
| |
|
10-08-2006, 06:28 PM
| #30 | ||||
| Member Green Party
| Originally Posted by KatKanPlay well in a way yes..
but i do not see the political or the competence... this goes back to Rumsfelds lack of troop debacle..and frankly even if they had the 400-500,000 troops suggested by many i still doubt iraq would have worked the main problem was that there can be NO plan B because intentional consensus was smashed at the UN by PNAC/bush inner circle et al in 2002 so We are on your own as it were... and in denial about the Mess Rumsfeld and Cheney have got us into.. The US population does not wish to commit to the draft.. especially in light of the fact arguments about US action in Iraq are stupidly simplified and offer the US VOTER no understanding of the stakes involved.. WMD and all that crap was a good simple option the average joe could go with but when you need to educate the population these more wider issues are hard to communicate with out portraying the US as a oil grabbing bully and the cause of of a lot of the worlds problems... you get bogged down in quality vs quanity arguments.. democracy in the US needs defending ..the rise of china is a threat to global freedom...etc your into very complex and difficult to frame arguments "we need to draft 1/2 a million young men to fight in Iraq so as stop Chinese hegemony on the eurasian land mass and defend freedom" sort of a bit of a shift in thinking and message compared to war on terror very messy.... and frankly incendary.. how would you campaign with such a argument and not precipitate a rapid stand off with china directly... "the reason we are killing in Iraq is to attack chinese/russian/iranian/indian interests" can it be justified? one might say the US is the best nation to control the earths resources rather than china and its oppressive regime? I am not sure i know the answer to that. Boris London | ||||
| |
|
10-08-2006, 11:24 PM
| #31 | ||||
| One American Family at a Time. Idealist The OC, California
| Originally Posted by Stylerod
Yeah, they are free aren't they? And they are using their "free" voice to show us that they DO NOT WANT US THERE. I swear we are like the dinner guest who doesn't know when to leave. Oh, so they were in a really crap situation before because they weren't free, and now they are free, but they aren't free in the way we want them to be because they aren't throwing roses at us? So what, we stay there until they love us? This is lame. People don't work this way, we don't work this way, why do we think they would? | ||||
| |
|
10-09-2006, 04:19 AM
| #32 | ||||
| Member Green Party
| Originally Posted by IminWonderland I think your right..
how do you propose the US leaves? would it leave in one go or in stages would it attempt to hand over security duties to the; UN.. Iraqi gov... arab league... militias? how does it tell the various other nations with token forces in Iraq? are there political ramifications for those countries to consider? does it signal its intention to go before a plan is in place and argue about how a exit should be done or does it formulate a exit plan and then sell it? the reckless stupidity of SIMPLY going in...is there a parallel with the idea of SIMPLY going out? no body seems to really address any of the real problems be stay or go... instead everything centers round a "universe" of options limited to the US political landscape is there anybody who can give us a sketch plan/idea of how the US would leave? Boris London | ||||
| |
|
10-09-2006, 04:36 AM
| #33 | ||||
| Member Green Party
| Originally Posted by Thorgrim I think this emphasizes my point
the original poster seems to extrapolate the issue to what happens in the 2008 election.. I can not believe the issue should be seen in these narrow terms the outcome of US policy in Iraq is not limited to a red on blue debate surely? Boris london | ||||
| |
|
10-09-2006, 04:57 AM
| #34 | ||||
| One American Family at a Time. Idealist The OC, California
| Originally Posted by mididoctors I honestly don't know. I think we are screwed either way. I think if we stay, we'll piss them off more. I think if we'll go, we've still made MANY MANY enemies doing what we did and we've opened ourselves up to critisism from the world, and we've done SO much damage to that country already, that if we stay, we'll ruin their country further with more war, if we go, they'll still probably tear it up. Either way, we've lost a TON of Money and LIVES, and either way, the country and region are going to be unstable.
If we stay there, it will have to be for GENERATIONS. It will take GENERATIONS for them to not see us as occupiers, and for them to accpet that we want them to have the same opportunity to freedom on the same level of America. My whole problem, is that I don't want my kids to pay for this mistake, moreso than their money. Because being there that long, is a commitment that Americans don't want to make on the whole. Can any one here say that they would be Ok with their kids, or grandkids, having to go to Iraq STILL, in this futile effort to win hearts and minds? And at the same time, we have really put our country is a bad spot, because we look useless now, and we look useless if we leave. Maybe we could throw money at them, but, dang it, we spent it all killing them. What a shitty juxtaposition. | ||||
| |
|
10-09-2006, 05:04 AM
| #35 | ||||
| Member Green Party
| Originally Posted by IminWonderland I don't find that to be a credible option or answer...
essentially you are saying "i don't know" well if we do not know? meanwhile in the east  a signal the US strategic hubris is collapsing does not bode well for stability elsewhere in the world IMO Boris London | ||||
| |
|
10-09-2006, 05:25 AM
| #36 | ||||
| One American Family at a Time. Idealist The OC, California
| Originally Posted by mididoctors
I am not in a position to give a credible answer for how we get out of this. But it's something most of us have finally come to grips with (even though some people, myself included, protested this for this reason.) this was never something we could win, especially when the reason we go keeps changing. But, let me say this, people saying this, isn't what is making elsewhere in the world unstable. It's not the people saying it, it is the actual DOING IT that is doing that. Some will say dissent with Iraq, and the cut and run issue, all the talk makes other countries bolder. And that's not true. They see what we did. They see how we did it. And now they have enough money to say something about it, instead of hiding in the shadows because we were a bully country. Now, just like kids on a school yard, we lost to a whimpier country than we, and everyone in school has witnessed it. If there was an answer, I'm sure this Administration would have found it, because this makes them look so incredibley incompetent (which they are, and many have warned about this) it is not good for re-election, which is what these politicians need to keep getting their back door deals, and their kick backs from the companies that profit from war. They tried to sell it to the American public, and now most of us want a return on a product we never wanted sold to us. Even if we were ALL gung ho about this war, and wanting to stay, it doesn't change the image problem this just gave us. | ||||
| |
|
10-09-2006, 06:14 AM
| #37 | ||||
| Member Green Party
| Originally Posted by IminWonderland yes the ability to stay on message is lacking primarily because the original reason was a pack of lies
is that a bad thing?
the main value of a red on blue argument in this context is that a replacement of the US admin (red or blue) would perhaps create space for the US to re engage with a broader group of nations and create some collective security "umbrella" however a defeated US creates all sorts of difficulties... what your saying is the US is already defeated in the sense I mean? if that is the case what can we do about it....? Boris London | ||||
| |
