|
|
| pdog |
Jizz, your plan has no vision, and no regard for the inveitable consequences. The region would not be stabalizied and would create more problems. Ideally none of this would have never happened, Saddam would've been a nice guy... You really think three puppets left to their own devices would be nice... You actually think I've offered no definition of success, you just definied failure! |
|
|
| pdog |
quote:
lotsajizz wrote:
And pdog misses it again---I said puppets, who said anything about 'three democracies'?!? You are living in pollyanna land if you think you're gonna find James Madison or Ben Franklin strollin' around downtown Baghdad....
[Edited by lotsajizz]
There's alot of great people in Iraq, and people like Zarqawi kill them. You just minimalized a nation you seem to be so quick to judge the fate of, by leaving them in the hands of three dictators. You definitely lack vision, no wonder you're a democrat. |
|
|
| stonedinaustralia |
quote:
Maxlugar wrote:
It's a large percentage of the US population that is forgetting just how serious this is.
yes take your point re the shooting in Britain but i was referring more to the mind set of the population generally as opposed to any official,immediate and isolated response -of course i have only gleaned these impressions through what the media (which of course has its own agenda) has seen fit to inform me of and I acknowledge that my views maybe distorted as result
your closing remark which i've quoted is interesting - it is my opinion that while these terrorists are percieved as the boogey men I don't see their threat(s) and actions (which are, i agree, shocking and inhumane and in my opinion all undertaken in the name of a cause that it is doomed to fail) are as serious as the potential for some nut job like Kim Jong Il or the state of Pakistan being capable of delivering a nuclear strike |
|
|
| pdog |
The leaser of Pakistan took over through a military coup. He pretends to be our friend, only b/c he walks the line of keeping his power and being overthrown by Islamic fundamentalists. I do not like him or trust him. He has not helped us capture/kill Al Quida who dance along his boarder with Afghanistan. He is a dictator, and not the good kind like I'd be. |
|
|
| Riffhard |
quote:
Chuck wrote:
"Anybody who isn't happy with this, is not able to see good from evil."
'Evil' and 'good' are creaky religious concepts that prevent liberals from understanding fascism, or doing anything about it.
Idealist criticism, which judges according to an inert set of abstract ideas, regularly makes disastrous blunders.
{{{{{BLANK FRIGGIN' STARE}}}}}
Uh,Chuck a muderous fuckhead that saws the head off a person in the name of his religion is EVIL!! Hitler was EVIL too!!! You really want to argue this point? Because that's an argument that you have already lost by posting the above tripe!
This is the problem with you liberals. You want to paint everything in shades of grey. Zarqawi was an evil bastard that blew up innocent children as they stood around recieving candy from US troops. He killed over thirty kids in one bomb blast Chuck! He was fucking evil. This stuff is pretty goddamned black and white if you can just park your partisanship at the door. Apparently you can't do that. Get a grip!
Riffy |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
I can...I kinda liked the air mail/special delivery video myself....but I stake no illusions upon it like some here....
btw, how many people think democracy will take root in Iraq in the next decade or so? show of hands?
|
|
|
| Chuck |
Riffhard,
Liberals are as much to blame as conservatives for this clusterfuck.
Go push your religious dogma on someone who will listen, knave.
[Edited by Chuck] |
|
|
| pdog |
quote:
lotsajizz wrote:
I can...I kinda liked the air mail/special delivery video myself....but I stake no illusions upon it like some here....
btw, how many people think democracy will take root in Iraq in the next decade or so? show of hands?
I don't know what will happen... I do fear the alternative. In other words, I have faith, that the good in the world will win out over the evil. Even if you tell me it's impossible, I will have faith in the good, I'm tired of these Jihadist fucks ruining a good time. These assholes do not like the Stones or any good music... I bet they even hate Axl's new G&R cover band. |
|
|
| pdog |
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
Apparently you can't do that. Get a grip!
Riffy
There's too many that want to politicize this, left and right. This is just a good day for the world, unless you're in Al-Quida, then it's bad. |
|
|
| Chuck |
Did someone say cut & run? heh heh heh
=============
Cut and Run? You Bet.
By Lt. Gen. William E. Odom
Why America must get out of Iraq now.
(Courtesy US DOD)
Withdraw immediately or stay the present course? That is the key question about the war in Iraq today. American public opinion is now decidedly against the war. From liberal New England, where citizens pass town-hall resolutions calling for withdrawal, to the conservative South and West, where more than half of “red state” citizens oppose the war, Americans want out. That sentiment is understandable.
The prewar dream of a liberal Iraqi democracy friendly to the United States is no longer credible. No Iraqi leader with enough power and legitimacy to control the country will be pro-American. Still, U.S. President George W. Bush says the United States must stay the course. Why? Let’s consider his administration’s most popular arguments for not leaving Iraq.
1.If we leave, there will be a civil war.
In reality, a civil war in Iraq began just weeks after U.S. forces toppled Saddam. Any close observer could see that then; today, only the blind deny it. Even President Bush, who is normally impervious to uncomfortable facts, recently admitted that Iraq has peered into the abyss of civil war. He ought to look a little closer. Iraqis are fighting Iraqis. Insurgents have killed far more Iraqis than Americans. That’s civil war.
2.Withdrawal will encourage the terrorists.
True, but that is the price we are doomed to pay. Our continued occupation of Iraq also encourages the killers—precisely because our invasion made Iraq safe for them. Our occupation also left the surviving Baathists with one choice: Surrender, or ally with al Qaeda. They chose the latter. Staying the course will not change this fact. Pulling out will most likely result in Sunni groups’ turning against al Qaeda and its sympathizers, driving them out of Iraq entirely.
3. Before U.S. forces stand down, Iraqi security forces must stand up.
The problem in Iraq is not military competency; it is political consolidation. Iraq has a large officer corps with plenty of combat experience from the Iran-Iraq war. Moktada al-Sadr’s Shiite militia fights well today without U.S. advisors, as do Kurdish pesh merga units. The problem is loyalty. To whom can officers and troops afford to give their loyalty? The political camps in Iraq are still shifting. So every Iraqi soldier and officer today risks choosing the wrong side. As a result, most choose to retain as much latitude as possible to switch allegiances. All the U.S. military trainers in the world cannot remove that reality. But political consolidation will. It should by now be clear that political power can only be established via Iraqi guns and civil war, not through elections or U.S. colonialism by ventriloquism.
4. Setting a withdrawal deadline will damage the morale of U.S. troops.
Hiding behind the argument of troop morale shows no willingness to accept the responsibilities of command. The truth is, most wars would stop early if soldiers had the choice of whether or not to continue. This is certainly true in Iraq, where a withdrawal is likely to raise morale among U.S. forces. A recent Zogby poll suggests that most U.S. troops would welcome an early withdrawal deadline. But the strategic question of how to extract the United States from the Iraq disaster is not a matter to be decided by soldiers. Carl von Clausewitz spoke of two kinds of courage: first, bravery in the face of mortal danger; second, the willingness to accept personal responsibility for command decisions. The former is expected of the troops. The latter must be demanded of high-level commanders, including the president.
5. Withdrawal would undermine U.S. credibility in the world.
Were the United States a middling power, this case might hold some water. But for the world’s only superpower, it’s patently phony. A rapid reversal of our present course in Iraq would improve U.S. credibility around the world. The same argument was made against withdrawal from Vietnam. It was proved wrong then and it would be proved wrong today. Since Sept. 11, 2001, the world’s opinion of the United States has plummeted, with the largest short-term drop in American history. The United States now garners as much international esteem as Russia. Withdrawing and admitting our mistake would reverse this trend. Very few countries have that kind of corrective capacity. I served as a military attaché in the U.S. Embassy in Moscow during Richard Nixon’s Watergate crisis. When Nixon resigned, several Soviet officials who had previously expressed disdain for the United States told me they were astonished. One diplomat said, “Only your country is powerful enough to do this. It would destroy my country.”
Two facts, however painful, must be recognized, or we will remain perilously confused in Iraq. First, invading Iraq was not in the interests of the United States. It was in the interests of Iran and al Qaeda. For Iran, it avenged a grudge against Saddam for his invasion of the country in 1980. For al Qaeda, it made it easier to kill Americans. Second, the war has paralyzed the United States in the world diplomatically and strategically. Although relations with Europe show signs of marginal improvement, the trans-Atlantic alliance still may not survive the war. Only with a rapid withdrawal from Iraq will Washington regain diplomatic and military mobility. Tied down like Gulliver in the sands of Mesopotamia, we simply cannot attract the diplomatic and military cooperation necessary to win the real battle against terror. Getting out of Iraq is the precondition for any improvement.
In fact, getting out now may be our only chance to set things right in Iraq. For starters, if we withdraw, European politicians would be more likely to cooperate with us in a strategy for stabilizing the greater Middle East. Following a withdrawal, all the countries bordering Iraq would likely respond favorably to an offer to help stabilize the situation. The most important of these would be Iran. It dislikes al Qaeda as much as we do. It wants regional stability as much as we do. It wants to produce more oil and gas and sell it. If its leaders really want nuclear weapons, we cannot stop them. But we can engage them.
None of these prospects is possible unless we stop moving deeper into the “big sandy” of Iraq. America must withdraw now.
Lt. Gen. William E. Odom (Ret.) is senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and professor at Yale University. He was director of the National Security Agency from 1985 to 1988.
|
|
|
| lotsajizz |
I say death to those who will ban Stones music...a crusade if need be....shit, either go away or go all the way
and look at what you've done....
Hey Frederick
and hey, Chuck--stop making sense--it challenges their precious held slogans and myths
[Edited by lotsajizz] |
|
|
| Riffhard |
In 1945-46 the New York Times ran editorials ad nauseum about how democracy was a pipe dream in Germany,and especially Japan. They reasoned that in Japan specifically that a country that held up an emporer as a living god could never adapt to democracy. Likewise they liberally reasoned that a country that had just sworn a death oath to der fueher could never accept democracy. They were wrong. So are you.
Chew on that.
Riffy |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
I need not point out that Germany and Japan are real nations
Iraq is not
never has been
nice try riffy
|
|
|
| Chuck |
Will the knave comment on Lt. General Odom's article?
Methinks not. |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
they can't comment on what they can't understand
expect dodging, dancing, evasion, and the erection of strawmen
and gratuitous comments about one's irrelevant background...
followed by some more non sequitirs
|
|
|
| Riffhard |
quote:
Chuck wrote:
Riffhard,
Liberals are as much to blame as conservatives for this clusterfuck.
Go push your religious dogma on someone who will listen, knave.
[Edited by Chuck]
Religious dogma?! You have a problem with the fact that the word has religious conotations? You're beyond lost. The asshat killed innocent children,blew up a sacred mosque for the direct intention of starting a civil war,and intentionally blew up a wedding in Jordan killing more children and other innocents and you can't bring yourself to use the word evil?
ROTFLMAO!!!!!
Hey Chuck God loves you. So does Jesus. Maybe even Allah,and Buddah. I think you're an idiot though.
Oh,and a knave as well.
Riffy |
|
|
| Riffhard |
quote:
Chuck wrote:
Will the knave comment on Lt. General Odom's article?
Methinks not.
Hey knaveboy I could cut and paste countless articles from the likes of Tommy Franks,and other top generals,that would dispute every point that your little cut paste job tried to make. Are they not as qualified as Odom? Or do they not count because they don't spew your particular beliefs on the subject? Zarqawi? Formally evil. Still dead.
Riffy |
|
|
| glencar |
Splitting Iraq in 3 would be THE worst possible thing we could do. Zarquawi's kaput. Let's give it some time & see where we go from here. |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
Dead. Yes. Yay.
In the meantime a war between the forcefully cobbled together peoples of a fake state continues and we're in the middle. Time to follow the advice of Senator Aiken (R-Vt).
|
|
|
| glencar |
Iraq's been a real country for 70+ years now. Tearing it apart doesn't gain them anything. I agree the Brits screwed up but time marches on. Howe do you think the Turks will allow a free Kurdistan? |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
For those who do not know....or remember...
Senator George D. Aiken
United States Senate
Vietnam Analysis - Present and Future
October 19, 1966
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. President, now that the President is well on his way to Manila for a meeting with our Allies in arms, it seems appropriate to review briefly events leading up to our present position in Viet Nam, the status of that present position and what p ossible courses are available for the future.
The President has stated repeatedly that the Manila conference is being held in the quest for peace.
I have never doubted the desire of President Johnson for peace in Southeast Asia - a peace which would permit the withdrawal of United States troops from that area and greater concentration of our aid in the political, economic and social fields.
I know I speak for the great majority of Americans in wishing him progress toward this objective at Manila.
Passing over the early years of our Viet Nam involvement, the record of which is already abundantly clear, I would like to present the situation as it existed in February 1965 when the total of American combat troops in South Viet Nam was less th an 20,000.
In spite of confident reports by our highest military authorities at that time, there actually existed a clear and present danger of military defeat for the American forces.
In the face of this imminent danger, a detachment of Marines was dispatched to Da Nang and a program of building up military forces in Viet Nam was launched.
The Administration chose not to identify the danger of military defeat as the reason for escalation, but rather the aggression of the North Vietnamese military forces against South Viet Nam.
Aggression is a word with two meanings - one is a quasi-legal meaning which has in the past (in the case of North Korean aggression across the 38th parallel and Hitler's many aggressions in Europe) served as a formal rallying point for collectiv e action. It also has a looser meaning - simply the determination of one country of a hostile act by another.
The United States has been unable to sustain "aggression" as a basis for collective action.
Even the countries most affected by our commitment in Viet Nam did not increase their own commitment until the escalation of U.S. military power had proceeded beyond any point where outright military defeat was a credible alternative.
In short, our allies like Korea felt it was in their interest to follow our lead if only in respect for U.S. power.
Therefore, whatever the merits of the U.S. charge of aggression the word cannot be employed in its quasi-technical sense.
However, there is no reason to doubt that wide support exists in the world to the proposition that the military Power of the United States should not be questioned or compromised.
This is the honor our gallant Allies in Korea, Thailand, the Philippines, Australia and New Zealand pay us by placing their soldiers alongside ours in Viet Nam and in Thailand.
Insofar as our commitment in Viet Nam represented an effort to sustain the credibility and integrity of the U.S. Armed Forces, the act of escalation cannot brook any serious dissent.
In February of 1965 and for some months thereafter, such a situation persisted.
However, at the present time it is not possible to sustain a clear and present danger of military defeat facing U.S. Armed Forces.
The enemy has apparently dismissed any idea of engaging in major formal combat with superior United States forces and has resorted to a war of harassment and surprise guerrilla tactics.
Faced with the harassment of the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese military forces, casualties to American forces in Viet Nam are inevitable.
The more American troops in active combat, the more casualties from such harassment there will be.
But these casualties in no way sustain the prospect of a military defeat.
Today, the American commitment in Viet Nam no longer involves the fundamental objective of preserving the credibility and integrity of U.S. Armed Forces - provided that the war is not extended in time or in geography to the point where a wholly n ew threat to U.S. military power exists.
The new threat might take either the form of Chinese intervention, or, more pertinent, the form of a prolonged erosion of the _credibility_ of U.S. power through harassment in a political context, namely through the disintegration of the South Vi etnamese society.
The United States government has asserted frequently and emphatically that there is no military "solution" or objective in this war.
We do not seek to destroy North Viet Nam nor its government.
This assertion is shared by virtually every type of observer, allied, official and hostile.
The greater the U.S. military commitment in South Viet Nam, however, the less possibility that any South Vietnamese government will be capable of asserting its own authority on its home ground or abroad.
The size of the U.S. commitment already clearly is suffocating any serious possibility of self-determination in South Viet Nam for the simple reason that the whole defense of that country is now totally dependent on the U.S. armed presence.
This was also true in Korea in 1954, but then the United States was operating under the umbrella of collective U.N. action, and along a well-defined battlefront which permitted organization of the rear areas.
None of this is true in South Viet Nam.
Considering the fact that as every day goes by, the integrity and invincibility of the U.S. Armed Forces is further placed in question because there is no military objective, the United States faces only two choices: Either we can attempt to esca pe our predicament by escalating the war into a new dimension, where a new so-called "aggressor" is brought into play or we can de-escalate the war on the ground that the clear and present danger of a military defeat no longer exists and therefore de-escalation is necessary in order to avoid any danger of placing U.S. Armed Forces in a position of compromise.
Faced with these alternatives, the United States could well declare unilaterally that this stage of the Viet Nam war is over - that we have "won" in the sense that our Armed Forces are in control of most of the field and no potential enemy is i n a position to establish its authority over South Viet Nam.
Such a declaration should be accompanied, not by announcement of a phased withdrawal, but by the gradual re-deployment of U.S. military forces around strategic centers and the substitution of intensive reconnaissance for bombing.
This unilateral declaration of military victory would herald the resumption of political warfare as the dominant theme in Viet Nam.
Until such a declaration is made, there is no real prospect for political negotiations.
The credibility of such a unilateral declaration of military victory can only be successfully challenged by the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese themselves (assuming that the Chinese remain aloof).
There is nobody in the United States or in Europe or in Russia that is at all likely to challenge a statement by the President of the United States that our military forces have discharged their duty in their usual competent manner and occupy the field as victors.
Any charge against such an assertion directly challenges the ability of U.S. military power and makes the prospect of a wider war clear and present.
Right now in the eyes of most of the world, only the United States suggests that possibility.
Once the burden of suggesting a wider war is shifted from us to others - others who question the integrity of U.S. military power - the United States is again in the position of leading from collective strength politically.
This suggested strategy is not designed to solve the political problem of Viet Nam.
It is simply designed to remove the credibility of U.S. military power - or more loosely the question of "face" - as the factor which precludes a political solution.
Again, it is important to stress that no politician in the United States, in Europe or even in Russia is likely to challenge a unilateral declaration of military victory on our part.
Even if such a challenge were made, the United States would be in a stronger position than it is today, for it would have established aggression again as a means of collective, rather than essentially unilateral action.
I have not discussed this possible course of action with President Johnson, but I firmly believe that it presents a feasible course of action which ought not to be lightly dismissed.
Its adoption would not mean the quick withdrawal of our forces in Southeast Asia.
It all probability, our military strength would have to be deployed in that area for many years to come.
We are a Pacific power and no nation in Southern Asia - possibly not even North Viet Nam itself - would feel at ease were we to announce a withdrawal from that responsibility.
|
|
|
| lotsajizz |
quote:
glencar wrote:
Iraq's been a real country for 70+ years now. Tearing it apart doesn't gain them anything. I agree the Brits screwed up but time marches on. Howe do you think the Turks will allow a free Kurdistan?
'
Iraq has never been a real NATION...note the distinction, it is more than merely semantic...ever met anyone from Baghdad...they identify themselves as Iraqi about third
fuck Turkey...I have too many Armenian and Greek friends...we've kissed their ass long enough and the Kurds have been good and loyal friends...they should be repaid
|
|
|
| pdog |
quote:
lotsajizz wrote:
Dead. Yes. Yay.
In the meantime a war between the forcefully cobbled together peoples of a fake state continues and we're in the middle. Time to follow the advice of Senator Aiken (R-Vt).
You don't think it could ever be stabalized, Your solution is set up three dictatorships... What would the cost be, long term for us in the west... How many years would it be until the entire region was destabilized... I'll put my money on the longshot, it pay better! |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
quote:
pdog wrote:
Your solution is set up three dictatorships...
like many of your ilk, you are fond of arguing what you wish was said, rather than what was said....'dictatorships' are your words, not mine
mine was 'puppets'...they could be kings or fairies for all the fuck it matters, as long as they kiss our ass
can you not argue without the strawman? (although I did predict you would have to stoop to that!)
[Edited by lotsajizz] |
|
|
| glencar |
Turkey is our ally. Should we start fucking over allies? |
|
|
| Brainbell Jangler |
quote:
glencar wrote:
Howe do you think the Turks will allow a free Kurdistan?
There may be a way. Turkey wants into the EU. Ending their occupation of "Turkish" Kurdistan could be made a condition of EU membership. Iran could be persuaded to trade "their" portion of Kurdistan for Shiite areas of "Iraq." That leaves "Syrian" Kurdistan, which I haven't worked out yet, though the solution could involve Lebanon or the Golan Heights. |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
quote:
lotsajizz wrote:
I need not point out that Germany and Japan are real nations
Iraq is not
never has been
nice try riffy
True, and nor did we EVER talk about things such as "exit strategies" with respect to Germany or Japan - we never have exited and never will. The comparisons of the unplanned adventure in Iraq to the globe threatening events of World War II are pathetic (and in a way disrespectful) - nothing but backdoor attempts by Bush geeks to elevate their personal savior to the Great Leaders of yesteryear. Yeah, good luck with that.
Anyone who believes that there will ever be a democracy in Iraq, much less that we could ever nation-build one, is a naive fool. See, e.g., Iraqi election No. 1. See, e.g., Iraqi Election No. 2. See, e.g., Iraqi Constitution. See, e.g., The Leviathan. See, e.g. schmatta, schmatta. See, e.g., The Koran.
Peeps just yearns to be free, Ronnie! They just wants to! Its been fun watching Bush Geeks turn into a bunch of pie-in-the-sky, touchy feely, emotional, I'm okay-You're okay liberals in the space of six years. One love, one heart, lets moof together and bee allright.
And if they come back down to reality from the liberal cloud 9s the live on, Lotsajizz, they will see that your guess as to what will happen in Iraq is a good one.
My correct prediction is a bit different: (1) the Iraqi civil war ends when the critical mass of Sunni men in Iraq are dead, probably circa 2010 - in the meantime, we lose another 3000 troops playing policeman with bandits in the Iraqi desert and, more importantly for most Americans, we spend about 750 billion more dollars re-re-rebuilding the mess, (2) Sunnis live as regulated second class citizens in a fundamentalist Shiite state that's as much like a democracy as Iran is, (3) we keep several air bases, and about 40K troops there permanently, and (4) the Iraq government is pro-America in a pre-Ayatollah Iran type way. Cost-benefit analysis? Ehhh.....probably a net loss, but who will remember by the time the final bill comes due.
My wife is hot as hell. I win! |
|
|
| Riffhard |
You guys are truely stuck on stupid! For a country that cannot handle democracy they sure as fuck did a good job of putting a multiethnic goverment together today! They managed to vote successfully vote four seperate times now,and risk life and limb in the process thanks to a recently dead evil fucktard named Abu Musab al Zarqawi. But keep telling yourself that we are losing,and Bush is an idiot. Bush geek? Who are you talking to Moonie? You would rather have John D-student Kerry as president I guess,but alas that moron lost. The other moron won! Get over it! And remember every time you say that we are losing,Bush is an idiot,the military is full of murderers you are being the ultimate patriot!
The comparrison of Iraq to Japan and Germany is 100% germain and is spot fucking on. The war may not be the same,but that was not the point. Iraqis don't want democracy because Moonie,Jizzy,and others here say so!
Holy shit are those Iraqis lining up for democracy?!?!? Can't be! Moonie said they can't handle it!
Is that really an Iraqi woman holding her beautiful daughter up to insert her ballot?! No way! Democracy is hated in Iraq! Jizzy can you help me out here?
And the money shot!
Sucks to be you guys on day that is good for America,Iraq,and the world I guess.
Twenty plus hours later and Zarqawi is still dead!
Riffy |
|
|
| pdog |
I'm not a Bush geek... Bush is an idiot.
Wesley Clark in 2008, let a warrior win the war!
|
|
|
| glencar |
You want a warrior? Go wit' McCain. I wish he had beaten W in 2000. |
|
