| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/12/2007 05:17:42 PM · #101 |
|
|
|
01/12/2007 05:18:21 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by RonB:
But I don't know who gets to decide if we've "won". What do you think? Should it be the Iraqi Government? The U.S. President? The U.S. Congress? The European Union? A world-wide Popular vote? Osama bin Laden? |
The US & Iraqi electorate ?
|
|
|
|
01/12/2007 05:26:01 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by Louis:
the insinuation that America can somehow "also" prevail against insurgency seems at best myopic, at worst, bloodthirsty. |
...which simply proves what I said before. All wars are winnable, it is the cost of winning that Americans have become increasingly less willing to accept.
That is the myopic point of view, my friend. It is better to take a proactive stance in life because leaving your fate to chance and hoping that when bad things happen they aren't catastrophic in nature is asking for it.
Obviously I'm for a preemptive foreign policy. No doubt not a commonly shared point of view here, but I see little reason to sit and wait for things to happen in a world that no longer provides protection through geography and that is filled with weapons that do not and are not meant to discriminate between civilians and soldiers.
I like my way of life. If someone else doesn't, that's fine. If they don't like it to the point that they want to cause it to cease, they need to be taken out asap. The idea that Sadaam (or the theocracy in Iran, or N Korea, or you pick the bad guy) is some benign entity content to be the bad guy in his little corner of the world is foolishness.
Anyways, this is pissing up a flag pole. The only time the vocal portion of America supports anything is when there has been a direct attack against their lifestyle. If 9/11 happened in Guam or somewhere, no one would have given a shit. Even having happened in NYC, the desire to clean the world up and keep our enemies from causing us harm quickly waned.
Message edited by author 2007-01-12 17:27:02. |
|
|
|
01/12/2007 05:35:18 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Anyways, this is pissing up a flag pole. The only time the vocal portion of America supports anything is when there has been a direct attack against their lifestyle. If 9/11 happened in Guam or somewhere, no one would have given a shit. Even having happened in NYC, the desire to clean the world up and keep our enemies from causing us harm quickly waned. |
Maybe because the reality settled in for some ?
I think the way to follow your current plan of preemptive attacks against those who threaten you would require a US invasion of Pakistan (who are currently on your side)
The Wolfowitz doctrine of preemptive foreign policy is out of favour just now because of its apparent abject failure, not a lack of will. That's what was being followed for the last few years, even if it gets called the 'Bush doctrine' But you are right, if you could just stretch the resources even thinner, draft more people into the army and invade more countries, everything would be hunky dory.
Message edited by author 2007-01-12 17:37:46.
|
|
|
|
01/12/2007 05:42:20 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by Louis:
Re-adding relevant part of quote: Considering that the German policy was to intimidate the population by slaughtering up to 50,000 men, women, children, health care workers, and the sick and dying, the insinuation that America can somehow "also" prevail against insurgency seems at best myopic, at worst, bloodthirsty. |
...which simply proves what I said before. All wars are winnable, it is the cost of winning that Americans have become increasingly less willing to accept. |
Uh-huh. I suppose it's a small mercy, then, that Americans are unwilling to accept that the only way to "win" is to commit atrocities in greater numbers, and with less restrained barbarity, than the supposed enemy. |
|
|
|
01/12/2007 05:44:01 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
How will anyone know when we "won" this war, who decides? |
In my opinion, we can say we've "won" when the size of the remaining coalition force is the same relative size as that in South Korea ( 31 thousand troops / 48 million people ). That would be around 20,000 soldiers on the ground.
But I don't know who gets to decide if we've "won". What do you think? Should it be the Iraqi Government? The U.S. President? The U.S. Congress? The European Union? A world-wide Popular vote? Osama bin Laden? |
Do you consider Korea a "win"?
I'd have to say it was more of a tie than a win.
|
|
|
|
01/12/2007 05:48:41 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Uh-huh. I suppose it's a small mercy, then, that Americans are unwilling to accept that the only way to "win" is to commit atrocities in greater numbers, and with less restrained barbarity, than the supposed enemy. |
Not that I support routerguy666's views but isn't that what happened in WWII by BOTH sides? |
|
|
|
01/12/2007 05:50:29 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Uh-huh. I suppose it's a small mercy, then, that Americans are unwilling to accept that the only way to "win" is to commit atrocities in greater numbers, and with less restrained barbarity, than the supposed enemy. |
Frankly, it's a small mercy for you because no one is coming to put you in a camp or rape someone you love for fun. Things change in an instant. history is full of peaceful times going straight to the bowels of hell. It's nice to have such a moralistic outlook. Hopefully reality will never come along and shatter it.
With the world's largest millitary unable to protect the nation it serves because the civilians who 'support the troops' are more interested in seeing a do-nothing policy pushed than policies which should save troops lives over the long term, I very much doubt it's going to be evenings of sitcoms and cable tv for the rest of our lifetimes.
Last guy preaching 'love your enemy' got nailed to a tree. Figure it out.
Message edited by author 2007-01-12 17:51:28. |
|
|
|
01/12/2007 05:53:36 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by kdsprog:
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by kdsprog:
I was generalizing about no girls going to school.
I'm done. |
You were generalizing about a lot, and alot of it can't be substantiated. yes, the unicef article was old. BUT, you were the one that presented it as an argument for "your side" so I was simply pointing out that it also contradicted your earlier sentiments.
I'm sorry if it seems that I'm nitpicking, but if what you say is true, then, yes, I want to know it. However, if you are generalizing for the sake of an argument, no thanks, I can tune into mainstream media and get that. I simply want some documentation that life before was better under Hussein than it is now.
Everything I have read indicates that it is not real good now, but it wasn't really good before, either. In some areas is better, some areas (not geographically speaking, though that may be true as well) it is not.
I'm done as well. :)
Actually, I'm probably not, but I should be. |
You want proof, read that woman's blog that I posted above. Start at the beginning when she seemed to have some hope, and when you get to the part where she is crushed and broken let me know if you don't cry. She used to be a normal person, in her latest posts, she seems filled with hate and anguish. She isn't a news story, she's not a statistic. That is her life. She used to be a computer programmer. |
That's not *proof* That's an anecdote. While it may be sad, and my heart truly goes out to her, she is *one* person, with *one* story. If that is the case, and if that is now "PROOF," then Bush is a better president than Clinton was because I am better off now than I was when Clinton was president. My husband makes more, we have more, etc. etc. etc. While we truly struggled to make it during the former's term, we have it fairly easy now and I have more hope about my future. One person is not proof. It is a story. It may represent many, but it may not.
The fact that she can post on the Internet tells me that she is still better off than a lot of the world.
And for that matter, it is a story on the Internet. I can start a blog about anything, saying anything but it doesn't make it true. (Again, I'm not arguing that her story is true or not, just that it isn't "documentation")
Kelli, I know I'm not going to change your mind. I'm not even intending to, BUT, if you want to argue your case/opinion/side, it makes it so much stronger if you can find documentation of it. Emotional arguments make for nice reading, but they don't accomplish much. |
No, you're right that you can't change my mind, just like I can't change yours. That's why I stated from the very beginning that it was only my opinion. I've formed it from reading a lot of things. Like I said before, each side can find something on the internet to support "their" side, but what's the point. All of it is opinion. Every article written on the internet is someone's "side". One person's view. Other than numbers of dead, the rest is how you read it. My intent was never to go find "proof" for anyone or argue a case, just to state my opinion. No one is changing their minds.
On the other hand, I can tell you that my family took a downturn with W as president. My job went overseas to India where they are willing to do my job for a fraction of the price. Before the job left I took steady pay cuts for four years. I haven't been able to find another in my field. And this is directly related to policies instituted by Bush. My family has been without health insurance for over a year. My husband's job does not provide it. To buy it is way out of our price range. We make enough to not qualify for any help, but don't make enough to help ourselves. I always made more than my husband, yet now the best I've been able to find are low paying jobs. I'm not uneducated. I have a college degree. Tomorrow I have an interview, the first I've had for a "real" job in a year. Hopefully it works out. It's not in my field, but the basics are in place for me to be qualified for it. So, am I biased against Bush. You can bet your ass I am.
|
|
|
|
01/12/2007 05:54:07 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Louis:
Uh-huh. I suppose it's a small mercy, then, that Americans are unwilling to accept that the only way to "win" is to commit atrocities in greater numbers, and with less restrained barbarity, than the supposed enemy. |
Not that I support routerguy666's views but isn't that what happened in WWII by BOTH sides? |
Indeed. Needless, barbaric civilian death occurred universally in WWII. I know you don't mean to suggest that this is needed in the Americans' current dilemma, however. |
|
|
|
01/12/2007 06:12:44 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
With the world's largest millitary unable to protect the nation it serves because ... |
... they're all deployed overseas protecting US oil interests. |
|
|
|
01/12/2007 06:21:16 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Louis:
Uh-huh. I suppose it's a small mercy, then, that Americans are unwilling to accept that the only way to "win" is to commit atrocities in greater numbers, and with less restrained barbarity, than the supposed enemy. |
Not that I support routerguy666's views but isn't that what happened in WWII by BOTH sides? |
Indeed. Needless, barbaric civilian death occurred universally in WWII. I know you don't mean to suggest that this is needed in the Americans' current dilemma, however. |
Well that's the 60,000 dollar question IF the goal is to win the war. I can't answer that which is why people support pulling out because people DON'T want to answer that question as well as never having supported the war to begin with. Until you can run a war with zero civilian and zero allied solider causalities you will always have to accept a certain level of atrocities once you wage war. That should be an accepted fact and is why war is referred to as hell. Iraq when compared to other wars has been quite tame in this regard. The only reason the atrocities committed there are focused on is because people are not supporting the purpose of even being there. Frankly, it's quite astonishing what you CAN get away with when you have the support of the people.
Edited for clarity.
Message edited by author 2007-01-12 18:24:04. |
|
|
|
01/12/2007 06:35:02 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by routerguy666:
With the world's largest millitary unable to protect the nation it serves because ... |
... they're all deployed overseas protecting US oil interests. |
That's protecting the nation, unless you want to forgo plastics, driving, flying, and pretty much everything else we take for granted.
My point was you deal with smaller conflicts now at a small cost or you defer and things get worse until you are forced into making a choice between shitty and shittier and the toll in blood is a magnitude higher. |
|
|
|
01/12/2007 07:05:17 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
im kind of surprised that with all the people on this site, not one bush supporter has anything to say about last nights speech. |
There are Bush supporters here?
|
|
|
|
01/12/2007 07:06:23 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I honestly wonder (in an unbiased as possible fashion) if W isn't going to go down as one of the worst modern day presidents of all time.
|
Are any war-time presidents ever popular? FWIW, I think Bush got a bad deal ... had 9/11 not happened, we'd likely not be having this discussion at all. I'm sure he had other agendas on his mind when he ran for president the first time.
Either way, he's doing a better job than I would... :-) |
Damn, you must be pretty incompetent. Oh, wait......
that's another thread.
|
|
|
|
01/12/2007 07:15:07 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Anyway, they ALL have their ups and down of presidency. And has been pointed out, it is likely that Roosevelt would not fair so well in the Internet age.
|
The people loved him, but you're right. Back then when he was voted into office most people didn't know he needed a wheel chair to get around most of the time.
|
|
|
|
01/12/2007 07:22:13 PM · #117 |
 routerguy666 The argument you presented that success in Japan and Germany following WWII is an indication that we can also be successful in a "post-war" Iraq is not a new one, and I don't find it to have much analytical merit. The situations are simply too different.
First, Japan and Germany were (and still are) largely homogenous populations, without vast segments of the population holding opposing viewpoints and/or religous beliefs. The obvious exception is the Jewish population in Germany during WWII, which was a small segment of the population - and sadly one which much of society was willing to rally against. In Iraq, there are at least three major opposing factions of the population (Sunni, Shia and Kurd), and many other tribal sub-factions. From most accounts, the primary loyalty of Iraqis lies with these factions, not with their nation as a whole.
Second, both Japan and Germany had a very strong infrastructure previous to WWII and could have been considered "first world countries" by most accounts. Yes, Germany was still struggling with post WWI reparations via the Treaty of Versailles, and Japan was hardly the technological powerhouse that it is today, but both countries had strong educational, scientific and technological backgrounds. Perhaps more importantly, though, both countries had experience with the concept of democracy prior to WWII. It was neither a foreign nor unwelcome concept.
Third, we had coherent plans in both post-war Germany and Japan. By the time the Marshall Plan (aimed at rebuilding postwar Europe) had come to fruition, the economy of every participant state, with the exception of Germany, had grown well past pre-war levels. Over the next two decades, many regions of Western Europe - by this time including Germany - enjoyed unprecedented growth and prosperity. In Japan, Eisenhower / Truman wisely allowed Emperoro Hirohito to remain as a figurehead (though General Tojo was executed), which history credits with enabling the Japanese to retain much of their dignity and national identity.
Finally, both countries had lost a significant portion of their young, able-bodied male population to the battlefield. In Iraq, there is a ready supply of young men (and women) willing and able to pick up weapons against the enemy perceived, be it the US or one of the opposing factions. Add the ingredients of limited employment opportunities and propoganda, and the recipe for disaster is all too apparant.
****Just wanted to throw a little more analysis into that Germany/Japan argument.
|
|
|
|
01/12/2007 08:22:41 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by noraneko:
Perhaps more importantly, though, both countries had experience with the concept of democracy prior to WWII. It was neither a foreign nor unwelcome concept. |
Nice lucid summary, but I would have to say that the Weimar Republic of post-WWI Germany was not a welcome democracy. It was a complete and utter failure precisely because, for a significant portion of the population, democracy was most unwelcome. Overall, Germany prior to the Third Reich always perferred the idea of a dictatorship led by a strong, almost messianic leader: Frederick the Great, Bismarck, Hitler. |
|
|
|
01/12/2007 08:57:59 PM · #119 |
Nor Japan, unless you consider Imperial rule mixed with millitary dictatorship and a touch of feudalism added for spice to be familiarity with democracy.
edit: I'd add, the rest of your analysis is further reinforcement that the proper execution of a shooting war is a prerequisite for the successful application of diplomacy and nation building afterwards.
Message edited by author 2007-01-12 20:59:14. |
|
|
|
01/13/2007 12:27:22 AM · #120 |
All of my views are being well-represented by others, as are some of my inner conflicts about what to do in Iraq.
I mostly just wanted to congratulate everyone in this thread. You've all kept a tricky discussion very civil, which made it a treat to read. What a contrast to something like youtube.com, where the slightest disagreement immediately devolves into name-calling.
|
|
|
|
01/13/2007 09:20:15 AM · #121 |
It should be noted that in post-war Japan and Germany, the populace was NOT permitted to possess weapons - only the occupation forces were authorized to be armed. Failure to comply with disarmament resulted in swift reprisal. This is NOT true in Iraq, and is a large part of the reason that the resistance is so difficult to contain. But then, the coalition did NOT want to be seen as an "occupying" force in Iraq.
I believe that the intent of the troop surge is to achieve the same effect as "occupation" in the insurgency strongholds - that is, secure an area, then maintain that security. In the past, an area, once secured, was abandoned - only to become re-occupied by insurgents once again. The intent here is not to have the coalition be an "occupying" force, but rather to assist the Iraqis in securing the area, and then leave it to them to maintain the security in that area. |
|
|
|
01/13/2007 11:09:40 AM · #122 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Nor Japan, unless you consider Imperial rule mixed with millitary dictatorship and a touch of feudalism added for spice to be familiarity with democracy.
|
Routerguy666, the feudal era in Japan ended relatively late by European standards (1886 given as the official date when the Meiji era was ushered in), but the Japanese made an enormous effort to catch up very quickly with western countries. In fact, the Taisho Era (1912-1926) prompted a shift of political power from the emperor (who was old and largely ineffective) to the Diet (the name given to Japan's parlimentary form of government). That era is often remembered as the time of the "Taisho Democracy," due to the liberal movement that distinguished itself from the preceding chaotic Meiji period and the following militarism-driven first half of the Showa Era.
In other words, the Japanese did have experience with democracy prior to WWII. It also had become a formidable naval power even prior to the Taisho era (i.e. the Sino-Japanese war), and became a complex, industrialized nation.
The point is again to reinforce that the situation in Iraq is very different from the situation in Japan or Germany. Post WWII we were not attempting to impose completely unfamiliar concepts on the Germans or Japanese.
Thank you to  RonB for the note regarding the no-weapons policy in post-war Japan and Germany. It is indeed worth noting.
Message edited by author 2007-01-13 11:10:27. |
|
|
|
01/13/2007 12:32:22 PM · #123 |
Sorry, I just can't buy that Iraq is completely unfamiliar with democracy. They can see expressions of it in their neighbor states, they are exposed to it through media and the net (assuming they do more online than blog), and the fact that shortly after Saddam's fall they were organizing marches and protests shows an innate sense of political liberty.
I'd also point out that the Kurdish region in Northern Iraq is experiencing strong economic growth and have proved themselves capable of handling their own security needs - the same plan we have for the entire country is working there. They've welcomed our 'occupation' and leveraged the opportunity to better their situation. It is not an unrealistic expectation for the rest of the country, unless you see Kurds as more civilized and capable than their Arab countrymen.
I would not confuse power-grabs being made by religious and sectarian leaders and the meddling of other states in the region pursuing their own agendas, with the notion that Iraqi society is inherently incompatible with a democratic form of government.
Message edited by author 2007-01-13 12:33:45. |
|
