Stay the Course, Cut and Run, or...?
POSTED BY: dreamtrove
UPDATED: Thursday, September 7, 2006 18:57
VIEWED: 3109
PAGE 2 of 3
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Eric gets to be secretary of defense.
Sweet! I know I have some big shoes to fill, but-
...oh, wait. No I don't.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Frem,
I really disagree. I think that genocide is not a certainty, and the number will not increase because we're their. We're not evil. Top decisions may be evil. We need to change those top level decisions.
Eric,
Them shoes are pretty small
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
NOBC
These aren't solutions.
1. If we cut and run, the Iraqis get slaughtered, as did the south vietnamese and combodians at the hands fo the commies.
2. If we escalate the conflict then we have world war three, and millions more will die.
3. Stay the course is clearly better than both of those, but it still objectively sucks. Violence is increasing, and things are spinning out of control.
I'm certain that you're world war would be a disaster, as would Chris' pat on the head.
Not sure that if we escalate the war, we'd get WW III- my suggestion was an extreme war, limited to Iraq. If other guys wanted to jump in on the other side, MIGHT turn into WW 3. or not...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm going to have to go with Eric's.
I'd like to add my own internal borders though, help prevent secatrian violence. The hard part is the negotiating with insurgents and terrorists. If anyone has any ideas on this, then I'm all ears.
Curiously, the posters on this thread were the moderates. Not a lot of opinion coming from the fringes. kind of the reserve of what I expected. I guess it worked out better than I thought it would.
Which leaves us with one other problem. How do we encourage a change in policy? Other than the obvious: electing people to positions of power. People seem to spend all of their effort on that one, and on the write your congressman. I honestly don't think any executive decisions are being made on either of those channels, but if someone has a suggestion, again I'm listening.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
The hard part is the negotiating with insurgents and terrorists. If anyone has any ideas on this, then I'm all ears.
Well, this will probably go over like a fart in church, but I think we have to acknowledge that the people "we" should be fighting in Iraq are the insurgents, not the terrorists. The killing of Iraqi civilians is an Iraqi problem, not ours. In Iraq, the killing of allied soldiers is our problem.
With that distinction in mind, to the insurgent, the military is a legitimate target. Just as the Allied military was a legitimate target of the Axis military. It's an act of war, not a crime. Hyperbole aside, we again have a clear historical blueprint we can follow and that blueprint requires negotiation with the enemy.
Quote:
Curiously, the posters on this thread were the moderates. Not a lot of opinion coming from the fringes. kind of the reserve of what I expected. I guess it worked out better than I thought it would.
I think it's how you framed the question. Helped eliminate the dogmatic partisan responses we're all trained to recite. Sir, yes sir!
Quote:
Which leaves us with one other problem. How do we encourage a change in policy? Other than the obvious: electing people to positions of power. People seem to spend all of their effort on that one, and on the write your congressman. I honestly don't think any executive decisions are being made on either of those channels, but if someone has a suggestion, again I'm listening.
Bloody coup? That's all I got...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Eric, your whole post was so well thought out and interesting. Made me feel kinda...dum.
Originally posted by Eric:
First, define the mission.
Keep it up!
ChrisisallNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Well, this will probably go over like a fart in church, but I think we have to acknowledge that the people "we" should be fighting in Iraq are the insurgents, not the terrorists. The killing of Iraqi civilians is an Iraqi problem, not ours. In Iraq, the killing of allied soldiers is our problem.
I think this is spot off. which is to say, dead wrong, IOW, you're right about how that would go over. Iraqi internal terrorism is our problems for a number of reasons: 1. It didn't exist before we came, 2. It destablizes Iraq which makes our job harder, and 3. Stopping the deaths of random iraqis is our job, that's what it means to occupy a territory. When we didn't occupy Iraq, it wasn't our job, but it's our job now in just the same way that it's our job to stop random killings in puerto rico or texas.
Quote:
With that distinction in mind, to the insurgent, the military is a legitimate target. Just as the Allied military was a legitimate target of the Axis military. It's an act of war, not a crime. Hyperbole aside, we again have a clear historical blueprint we can follow and that blueprint requires negotiation with the enemy.
Sure. I think we can actually negotiate with terrorists too, and should probably do so, but none of this is going to be easy, and it probably means having something to negotiate with, and it will mean some concessions and compromise.
Quote:
I think it's how you framed the question. Helped eliminate the dogmatic partisan responses we're all trained to recite. Sir, yes sir!
Huh. It's never worked before. Whattaya know?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The U.S isn't leaving Iraq, we are building ,massive bases their for the long haul,
lets not kid oursleves here!! folks
Quote:
.We're not evil. Top decisions may be evil. We need to change those top level decisions.
Why kid yourself...evil is evil...doesn't matter who is making the decesions...top level or bottom level or inbetween..its still our government thats doing it and we are allowing it so therefore we are evil!!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Huh? If you're referring to Pol Pot, he wasn't a commie. In fact, as I recall it was the N Vietnamese who tried to control him. But we were so afraid of "Communism" that we would rather Pol Pot take over Cambodia. Or perhaps I remember it all wrong.
I'm still convinced that the cut and run idea is a bad one. Our cut in run from Vietnam left the people of southeast asia in the lurch, at the hands of a particularly vicious invading communist army which went on to kill 3 million of them. I see the same possibility in Iraq.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:Quote:
Well, this will probably go over like a fart in church, but I think we have to acknowledge that the people "we" should be fighting in Iraq are the insurgents, not the terrorists. The killing of Iraqi civilians is an Iraqi problem, not ours. In Iraq, the killing of allied soldiers is our problem.
I think this is spot off. which is to say, dead wrong, IOW, you're right about how that would go over. Iraqi internal terrorism is our problems for a number of reasons: 1. It didn't exist before we came, 2. It destablizes Iraq which makes our job harder, and 3. Stopping the deaths of random iraqis is our job, that's what it means to occupy a territory. When we didn't occupy Iraq, it wasn't our job, but it's our job now in just the same way that it's our job to stop random killings in puerto rico or texas.
I get all of that. It didn't exist before we got there. The violence is destabalizing and stopping Iraqi deaths is our job, now. No disagreement here.
I think your first point is moral one and I was leaving morality out of the equation. Personally, I think the whole damn affair is immoral.
As for your second and third points, I think what I meant to say was we can't stop internal Iraqi terrorism, so we should stop trying. Nearly every week we are given news of the number 2 or 3 Iraqi terrorist being killed, but it has done nothing to slow the sectarian strife, in fact it gets worse. I am suggesting that the level of violence grows not in spite of our efforts, but because of them.
From what I understand (and that isn't a lot, admittedly), most of the violence is one sect attacking another. I think partitioning the country ethnically would eliminate most of these types of attacks. In that scenario, the killing of Iraqi civilians would not be our problem. It would be a matter for law enforcement (or regional militias, if you prefer) to address and I suspect these militias could do a much more effective job, as they do not have to follow the same rules or war as do US troops (they can get Medieval on their asses).
Most certainly, under the current paradigm, it is our resposibility. But, I submit the current paradigm has failed and is doomed to future failure.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME