newest Iraq strategy
POSTED BY: NewOldBrownCoat
UPDATED: Saturday, November 18, 2006 17:19
VIEWED: 2524
PAGE 2 of 2
Antimason.,
I completely disagree. Dealing with teh future is never about justifying the mistakes of the past, if it were, the world would be caught in a perpetual cycle of amends-making while making new mistakes.
Chris
The "prop up the statue" idea is a terrible one. There *is* a govt. in Iraq right now, and though it is flawed, it's nowhere near as flawed as the Baathist govt.
What we *need* is something which will bring stability to Iraq, and prevent any or all of the following from happening:
1. an increase in sectarian violence
2. an accelleration of casualties on any or all sides
3. create a new cashflow resource for funding international terrorism.
outside of that, I'm willing to consider any options, but any replacement govt. for iraq would have to be better than the one they have. I think the one they have is fine, but there might have to be some concessions to the insurgents in order to get them the iraqi govt's side.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
DT- i think recognizing the true motives for the invasion of Iraq by the Bush administration can only help in building a solid foundation for the Iraqi government, based on truth and respect for national sovereignty. im not proposing we just up and leave.. but i honostly do not believe that the financeers of the war actually want to see stability, since the military industrial complex thrives off of perpetual warfare and arms trading. i dont see how we can aide in establishing a legitimate democracy in Iraq when we dont even have one here in AMerica anymore
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It is nice when peace happen and it is what everyone usually wants. However sometimes too much peacefulness can end in war.
In a book called Guns Germs and Steel, there is an interesting chapter on the history of the Aztecs and the Spanish. The Spanish had developed there civilization on peace and getting along with their neighbours. They had a huge civilization and thousands of military people. The Aztecs were separated geographically from all other civilizations and had developed a culture of peace. Then, the first Spanish ship sailed by the Aztec coast for the first time and a Spanish conquistador landed on Aztec land. The Spanish conquistador saw some Aztecs. The spanish conquistdor asked the Aztecs if he and his 20 sailors could speak to the Aztec leader about trading. The Aztecs went and asked the Aztec leader what he would like to do. The Aztec leader said something like, "We should be peaceful with all the neighbour. Invite the Spanish sailors to my fortification and we will forge a new friendship with the Spanish country".
When the Spanish conquistador and his sailors arrived at the fortification, they immediately grabbed the Aztec leader and said to the Aztecs that they should give the Spanish gold or the spanish sailors would kill the Aztec leader. The Aztecs brought the spanish conquistador gold. The spanish then asked for more gold.
The capture of the leader of the aztecs went on for a few months. The spanish conquistador continued to hold the leader captive in the fortification and ask for new treasures until one day when a secret fleet of spanish ships arrived to the Aztec lands. The spanish ships had made the three month journey to the Aztec lands after the spaish conquistodor had secretly dispatched for for them shortly after arriving in the country.
As soon as the Spanish ships arrived, the Spanish conquistador killed the Aztec leader. The Aztecs were 8:1 spanish but every last Aztec were killed. The whole Aztec civilization disappeared.
The story goes something like that anyway. Maybe a good civilization is not a civilization of Aztecs (too peaceful like France) and not be Spanish conquistodors
(like Japan during their invasion of pearl habour) but somewhere in between.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mazaen:
(too peaceful like France)
France too peaceful? Where the hell do you get that? (Yes, that was a rhetorical question) Even right-wing rag Financial Times admits:
Quote:
Contrary to their image as "cheese-eating surrender monkeys", the French have the statistical distinction of being the most belligerent nation on earth. Between 1816 and 1980 they fought more wars than any other nation: 22 (compared with 19 for Britain and eight for the US) initiating conflict seven times. Long before Mr Bush devised a strategy of pre-emption, the French had been practising it in Africa - often without the explicit authorisation of the United Nations.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/9cb2a240-7517-11db-bc76-0000779e2340.html
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes the French. They never back down from a fight against heavilly armed natives wielding sharpened peices of mango.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Yes the French. They never back down from a fight against heavilly armed natives wielding sharpened peices of mango.
Hey, don't forget those Hovitos from Raiders of the Lost Ark. They had poison-tipped mangoes!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yeah but that's because the French were working with them.
Originally posted by Eric:
Hey, don't forget those Hovitos from Raiders of the Lost Ark. They had poison-tipped mangoes!
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
France too peaceful?
Contrary to their image as "cheese-eating surrender monkeys", the French have the statistical distinction of being the most belligerent nation on earth. Between 1816 and 1980 they fought more wars than any other nation: 22 (compared with 19 for Britain and eight for the US) initiating conflict seven times.
question isn't realy how many wars they were in or started, but how many did they win? And how many, even if they came out on the winning side, did they get pounded in the middle , and how many times did they have to be bailed out?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
question isn't realy how many wars they were in or started, but how many did they win?
Granted, but then one could say the same about Germany (okay, Franco-Prussian war aside
). But it is uncanny, the resemblance between Bush foreign policy and historical French foreign policy. "L'etat c'est moi!" indeed.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME