Stay the Course, Cut and Run, or...?

POSTED BY: dreamtrove
UPDATED: Thursday, September 7, 2006 18:57
VIEWED: 3109
PAGE 3 of 3

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3

HERO

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 1:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
The question is, if the main options were not an option, what would you do?

My plan would involve staying in Iraq for another year or so until we've geared up the indig security forces to handle day to day affairs. Then we withdraw.

We keep a fire brigade in Kuwait and another in northern Iraq (Kurdistan) as well as fighter bombers to support the Iraqi government, discourage Iranian aggression, and perform occaisonal unilateral and joint operations against terrorist strongholds.

Such a plan would be effective, but not until the Iraqi army is fully operational.

H

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 1:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
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).

Not trying to be too glib here but that sounds an awful lot like Saddam's Iraq.

Posting to stir stuff up.

FELLOWTRAVELER

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 4:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:

Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
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).

Not trying to be too glib here but that sounds an awful lot like Saddam's Iraq.

Posting to stir stuff up.

I don't deny that one bit. One has to admit, Saddam did keep everybody in line...

DREAMTROVE

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 9:19 PM

Jenny,

No, we're not, because we have no say whatsoever in this rigged-democracy-dictatorship. Our soldiers aren't evil either, for the most part. They signed up because either they wanted to protect america from al qaeda or other foes, or they needed a break from the school of hard knocks.

I'm increasingly coming to the position that I just think the federal govt. is evil as an institution, and needs to be disolved, and replaced with a more loosely bound federation. Our Federal system is actually a misnomer, it should be called the imperial system, since that's where it's based. The original federalists stole the word by distorting it from the original confederates, our *real* founding fathers, and then dubbing the confederates as the "anti-federalists." Democracy was already too moron-based, and so people supported the federalists because it was a good sounding word and supported the ideas that the revolution had spouted, and were against the anti-federalists because it was anti- and negative and bad-sounding. This is the way this country went off course, and i was being driven by people very much like G.W.Bush.

Signym,

You have it all backwards. It was very muddied in our media, particularly the part of the left-wing underground press which hates America (and I do mean that literally) which is constantly spinning stories like "we supported Pol Pot."

The facts as they really are (anyone can check)

Pol Pot, aka Saloth Sar was a communist, and the leader of the Kampuchea communist party, the Khmer Rouge, backed by China, the USSR and the VC. Nixon crossed the border to oppose Pot, over the protest of countless democrats. US forces were able to hold of the slaughter for a while, but when US peacenik pressure overwhelmed Washington, we cut and ran, leading to wholesale slaughters, not just in cambodia, but in vietnam and some spill over into laos.

I think Vietnam is a classic case of a war we were clearly on the right side of, but that lacked decent direction and leadership. A lot of partisan blame will probably continue on both sides for some time, but objectively, in the end, America failed the people of South East Asia, and millions paid for it with their lives, and tens of millions more with their freedom.

I see this situation as beginning to happen all over again with the people of the middle east. Sure, there's a difference, we didn't have to go in in the first place, we created this war. The vietname war was basically created by China, who, if they hadn't funded the communist rebellions, nothing notable would have happened.

Our concern about communism is not misplaced. Communism is not just an economic policy we disagree with, or which hurts our profits, not just an enemy to the civil liberties we seek to preserve, and to our way of life, but it's an enemy to the human race. Communism has easily killed more people than any other single ideology on Earth. What makes it so dangerous is that it cannot safely coexist with other systems, so it becomes like a religion, hell bent on spreading into buffer states upon buffer states until ultimately it becomes a world conquest agenda.

Take a look at the recent wars in africa for example. The hand of the so called "african union" is a collection of powermad socialist and communist leaders who want to conquer the continent, and causing trouble everywhere they go.

Look into the backers of George W. Bush, the so called "neocons" and you will find a large number of 'former' communists. But all these plans for mideast take over they're engaging in now aren't new ideas spurred on by capitalist (taking over Iraq for oil would never pay for itself. The total cost will be around $2,000,000,000,000 for 2,000,000,000 barrels of oil, that's $1,000 a barrel.) This idea was cooked up back in the 60s when these same clowns when they were trotsky communists, and the same package of lies they sold Carter in the 70s when they (the neocons) were masqueading as democrats.

[/rant]

Well, that's how the whole situation looks from over on this side of things.

DREAMTROVE

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 9:27 PM

FT

Quote:
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.

Sure. But you still have a moral responsibility. The soviet union was totally wrong in its conquest of eastern europe at the end of WWII, but nonetheless they felt some moral responsibility to keep people from killing each other, as they did after the collapse of the USSR. You inherit a mess, it's still your responsibility. Baby left on the doorstep, you don't say "damn, not my problem."

Quote:
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).

Essentially, yes, but you're missing a ton of grey here. It's not a miracle cure, there would still be work to do, and there would even be work to do creating the separation.

Quote:
Most certainly, under the current paradigm, it is our resposibility. But, I submit the current paradigm has failed and is doomed to future failure.

Under any paradigm it's our responsibility. It's the baby on our doorstep. Our father killed it's father, and that may make it more of a responsibility. Which is not to say Iraqis are babies and need big white daddy, but that Democratic Iraq is a baby, and needs America daddy to protect it, or it will get hacked into pieces. Some people say, "well, that's not certain" and sure, nothing's ever certain, but it's certainly a possibility, and do you want that on your conscience?

DREAMTROVE

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 9:31 PM

Quote:

My plan would involve staying in Iraq for another year or so until we've geared up the indig security forces to handle day to day affairs. Then we withdraw.

We keep a fire brigade in Kuwait and another in northern Iraq (Kurdistan) as well as fighter bombers to support the Iraqi government, discourage Iranian aggression, and perform occaisonal unilateral and joint operations against terrorist strongholds.

Such a plan would be effective, but not until the Iraqi army is fully operational.

Well said. I think that was a well thought out response.

The only small snag is that we can't seem to build up Iraq defenses in a conflict like this. We would need to somehow protect them from attack.

The Iraqi forces have become the primary subject of attacks by inurgent groups. This is the main reason we've made little progress getting the operation up and running.

ie.

As they stand up, the insurgents shoot them down.

HERO

Thursday, September 7, 2006 12:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
As they stand up, the insurgents shoot them down.

Everybody get your heads down.

Quote:

Iraq Takes Control of Military From U.S.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Iraq formally took over command of its armed forces from the U.S.-led coalition Thursday, a milestone American officials have hailed as crucial to the country's difficult road to independence and eventual withdrawal of foreign troops.

H

PENGUIN

Thursday, September 7, 2006 1:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Give the elected government of Iraq body armour, arms, Hummers, instruction manuals, a promise to keep them stocked on what they need, a pat on the head and a sorry for the trouble.
Then leave.
Except to kill Bin Laden, we shouldn't be in that part of the world.

That's all I have Chrisisall

I couldn't agree more.

The "war" in Iraq is an illegal, immoral, and unethical debacle.

King of the Mythical Land that is Iowa

FELLOWTRAVELER

Thursday, September 7, 2006 1:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Sure. But you still have a moral responsibility. The soviet union was totally wrong in its conquest of eastern europe at the end of WWII, but nonetheless they felt some moral responsibility to keep people from killing each other, as they did after the collapse of the USSR. You inherit a mess, it's still your responsibility. Baby left on the doorstep, you don't say "damn, not my problem."

Well, If we're gonna' use General Powell's "Pottery Barn" rule and be all moral about it, I guess we have to stay and fix what we broke. Damn value system...

Quote:
Essentially, yes, but you're missing a ton of grey here. It's not a miracle cure, there would still be work to do, and there would even be work to do creating the separation.

I get that. Any change will take some time to implement. Even "cutting and running" would take some time to organize.

Quote:
Under any paradigm it's our responsibility. It's the baby on our doorstep. Our father killed it's father, and that may make it more of a responsibility. Which is not to say Iraqis are babies and need big white daddy, but that Democratic Iraq is a baby, and needs America daddy to protect it, or it will get hacked into pieces. Some people say, "well, that's not certain" and sure, nothing's ever certain, but it's certainly a possibility, and do you want that on your conscience?

Hey brother, I didn't vote for a single person who is responsible for this war. I have never voted for a winner and have no voice in my government. A situation that most liberals in the South or conservatives in New England are all to familiar with.

That being said, these people (that's right, I said these people) have been at each others throats for a thousand years. Shiites and Sunnis were killing each other long before the US arrived and they will be killing each other long after the US leaves. They don't need a bunch of Christians refereeing the fight. We distract them from their goal: killing each other. Come on, admit it, it's crass, but not altogether untrue.

If we are really shooting (bad word choice) for a democratic Iraq, then I agree, we must stay in it for the long haul. I, however, don't think that is our [government's] goal. I think the goal is relative stability and protection of our energy interests. If that is the case, democracy is incidental. A strongman could help us protect those interests as well as, perhaps better, than a democratically elected parliament.

Edit- Or three strongmen

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, September 7, 2006 6:57 PM

FT

mostly, well put

Quote:
these people have been at each others throats for a thousand years.

This misses the point. There are always ethinc groups which hate one another. Stability is not destroying that hate, that is impossible, stability is preventing it from turning into genocide. Most societies do it pretty well. America is full of groups that hate each other intensely (yeah, true, all the far lefties will say nonsense, but just ask them to ask their friends what they think about fundies) Hating each other, sure, disagreeing, certainly, but killing, no, that's not a given. Three distince ethnic groups, shiia, sunnis and christians, have been not killing each other in lebanon for some time.

Quote:
If we are really shooting (bad word choice) for a democratic Iraq, then I agree, we must stay in it for the long haul. I, however, don't think that is our [government's] goal. I think the goal is relative stability and protection of our energy interests. If that is the case, democracy is incidental. A strongman could help us protect those interests as well as, perhaps better, than a democratically elected parliament.

But in the end, who care's what the goal of the commander-in-chimp is? In a couple of years he'll be a carbon scrapheap with a tv in crawford, and the problem will still be there. The responsibility we have now is not directly connected to the idiot who created the problem. If that logic followed, then when Charles Manson came into your town and killed 14 people, and chaos ensued, you'd say "It's Manson's problem, let him deal with it." You see where that doesn't work.

The democracy is better than a strong man, because it gives a voice to people who disagree. If there is no place for discussion, than the dissenters have only guns to speak with.

Strong men are notoriously bad. It looks like there's no conflict because they always win decisively, but all of bush's chalabi propoganda b^!!$#!+ aside, Saddam did kill over a million people. Stalin killed as many 20 million, many more if you credit him for his involvement in the russian civil war and wwii. Mao has about 10m under his belt, and of course the list goes on.

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3