CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
Re: Re: New UK memo: U.S. has no clue
He predicted that his idiot son would rush in where GHW feared to tread?RandFan said:
Rob Lister
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2004
- Messages
- 8,504
Re: Re: Re: New UK memo: U.S. has no clue
Yes, they did. At another expense of sounding cruel and inhuman, 1600 lives lost in Iraq so far over the past years is only a little more than half of the lives lost on 9/11.
Perhaps they have some foresight you lack? I'll admit that some of their stated assertions as to Iraq proper turned out to be incorrect but the main goal, the unstated-thus-far goal, is to once and for all democratize the whole of the Middle East. It's not to hard to see this if you look at a map of the entire region and paint the different countries red and blue.
Mephisto said:
Yes, they did. At another expense of sounding cruel and inhuman, 1600 lives lost in Iraq so far over the past years is only a little more than half of the lives lost on 9/11.
Perhaps they have some foresight you lack? I'll admit that some of their stated assertions as to Iraq proper turned out to be incorrect but the main goal, the unstated-thus-far goal, is to once and for all democratize the whole of the Middle East. It's not to hard to see this if you look at a map of the entire region and paint the different countries red and blue.
If this was the goal of the administration, great.
Present it that way. Last I checked, this country was something of a democracy. Put it to congress for a vote: should we use military force to overthrow the Iraqi government and occupy the country for several years at a probable cost of billions of dollars and thousands of American lives, in the hopes that such an action will "seed" democracy over in the Mid-East and make our country safer in the long run?
Let congressional committees flesh out "how much money", "how long", "probablitly of success", "how much safer", and most importantly, "do the American people want this?".
Personally, I'd vote "no" for such a decision (or at least express that sentiment to my congressional representatives).
Also, I note the distinct lack of the word "oil" in your purported "real" goal of the administration. Do you honestly feel that the Iraqi oilfields played no role in the decision to invade the country?
Present it that way. Last I checked, this country was something of a democracy. Put it to congress for a vote: should we use military force to overthrow the Iraqi government and occupy the country for several years at a probable cost of billions of dollars and thousands of American lives, in the hopes that such an action will "seed" democracy over in the Mid-East and make our country safer in the long run?
Let congressional committees flesh out "how much money", "how long", "probablitly of success", "how much safer", and most importantly, "do the American people want this?".
Personally, I'd vote "no" for such a decision (or at least express that sentiment to my congressional representatives).
Also, I note the distinct lack of the word "oil" in your purported "real" goal of the administration. Do you honestly feel that the Iraqi oilfields played no role in the decision to invade the country?
Rob Lister
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2004
- Messages
- 8,504
kk2796 said:
Perhaps it was fleshed out to congress in exactly that way. Seems to me the 'wink-wink-nudge-nudge' action going on then, and now, is more than apparent. The tricking part is fleshing it out to the rest of the world. Believe it or not, a non-democratic middle east is not in every countries best interests, long term or short.
Still, forget my opinion, because it stinks just like everyone elses does. Look at a map. Download it to your printer. Get out a full set of highlighters and create a map key of your very own. color the nations as they apply to the various military and political stratigic aspects necessary to democratize the region. Maybe you might do two maps, one military, one strictly diplomatic.
Then form your own opinion.
Do you think I'm right?
ETA: I forgot to add my opinion that oil is an important short term concern but only as it relates to its availability and underlying influence on ALL economies. I'll answer more to that if you're interested. You probably shouldn't be too interested because my opinion probably sucks as much as any others. It's like getting your info from your pet hamster.
Also, should you take the plunge and download/color those maps, be sure to highlight all of the ocean/sea areas very dark red (with the exception of the Caspian Sea perhaps. Color that one a very odd purple).
Daylight
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2004
- Messages
- 499
Re: Re: Re: Re: New UK memo: U.S. has no clue
I think it would be far to roll in all the casualties because of Iraq too. Which flips your assertion.
BTW, are not the families of 9/11 set to receive large sums of money, while the solders families have to cough up the cash to bury those killed? And wasn’t the VA funding for those wounded cut too?
Rob Lister said:
I think it would be far to roll in all the casualties because of Iraq too. Which flips your assertion.
BTW, are not the families of 9/11 set to receive large sums of money, while the solders families have to cough up the cash to bury those killed? And wasn’t the VA funding for those wounded cut too?
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
The tricky part would be the almost certain rejection by US public opinion of a war to spread democracy. So the real reason (as you see it) was concealed from the voters of a democracy, in order to further democracy. Subversion of democracy for the sake of democracy. That way madness lies.Rob Lister said:
It's an even smaller proportion of the toll from the recent tsunami, which was just as unconnected to Iraq as 9/11. Why not use that comparison? Of course, the 1600 are still dead, as are the dead of 9/11 and the tsunami, so there's very little comfort to be taken from it.
Rob Lister
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2004
- Messages
- 8,504
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New UK memo: U.S. has no clue
I suppose it depends. How much is enough to bury those killed? The military covers all burial expenses but I suppose if the family wanted something very-extra-special, above and beyond both the initial and current monies recieved, they would certainly have to 'cough' it up on their own. As to VA funding, I can't answer because it does not relate in a metered way to my post.
Actually, your whole post doesn't really relate but I'm trying to be polite. I'm just stating things the way I see them. If you disagree with something I posted, say so, and I'll discuss it with you. But don't drag me into some other discussion. Go to your buddies for that.
Daylight said:
I suppose it depends. How much is enough to bury those killed? The military covers all burial expenses but I suppose if the family wanted something very-extra-special, above and beyond both the initial and current monies recieved, they would certainly have to 'cough' it up on their own. As to VA funding, I can't answer because it does not relate in a metered way to my post.
Actually, your whole post doesn't really relate but I'm trying to be polite. I'm just stating things the way I see them. If you disagree with something I posted, say so, and I'll discuss it with you. But don't drag me into some other discussion. Go to your buddies for that.
Rob Lister
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2004
- Messages
- 8,504
CapelDodger said:
You either think I'm right or you think I'm wrong. If you think I'm wrong then you wasted your time posting what you did. If you think I'm right, you're just whining to wind 'cause 'that's the way it is.'
I've said that it wasn't much concealed from me. I'm a voter. I knew what I was doing when I punched the card for Bush. While hesitant, I did it knowingly. I happen to think his course of action is the correct one. Regardless of whether or not I'm correct as to the real goal, the direction is appropiate in my opinion. Just my opinion, my vote.
BTW, I don't think the toll from the recent tsunami is relevent because we don't have the means to address these types of situations. I think it was good that several learned its lesson in terms of early warning systems, etc.
So, did you color a map? What are your views as to my . . . opinion.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
If you're right, democracy was subverted in order to promote democracy, which is on the face of it contradictory. Like fornicating for virginity. That would seem to indicate you're wrong - which is my opinion. I assumed my argument made that clear - contradiction is a killer.Rob Lister said:
Knowing that the reasons for the war had been misrepresented in order to mislead "the rest of the world"? While somehow getting the true message through to the US electorate without alerting that outside world? I'm put in mind of Clinton trying to persuade Milosevich that he was really, really serious while trying to persuade the US public that he really, really wasn't serious. It might have worked when news took weeks to cross the Atlantic, but it won't work now. You think you saw the truth, despite the fact that it hadn't been openly presented to you. I think you're wrong. But I would mostly question a democracy in which mendacious leaders are regarded as acceptable. Democracy means nothing without the information on which to make decisions.
The "rest of the world" didn't come along, the Second Resolution was not obtained, and the war went ahead anyway - as it was always going to. The Bushies weren't trying to mislead the outside world, they were trying to mislead their own electorate. Mislead from what is anybody's guess, but mine ain't the same as yours. (Knowing
)I don't need to colour a map, it's all in my head, thousands of years of it, even back before it was mostly sand. I couldn't work out what you meant so I skipped it.
Rob Lister
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2004
- Messages
- 8,504
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New UK memo: U.S. has no clue
Well, if that's what you were trying to show me, you failed. But perhaps you were trying to show me that because you misunderstood my point, being: more 9/11's are very likely unless we do something, and maybe even if. Doing nothing does not work. Bombing an asprin factory does not. Bombing a deserted terrorist camp does not work. So far, all previous 'somethings' have not worked. Perfect 'somethings' are not possible, either politically or actually.
Will our present course of action work? I donno but I'm hoping so. I'll even go so far as to suggest that it will. If it does, Bush will be remember just as was Polk: almost not at all even though he accomplished quite alot.
Daylight said:
Well, if that's what you were trying to show me, you failed. But perhaps you were trying to show me that because you misunderstood my point, being: more 9/11's are very likely unless we do something, and maybe even if. Doing nothing does not work. Bombing an asprin factory does not. Bombing a deserted terrorist camp does not work. So far, all previous 'somethings' have not worked. Perfect 'somethings' are not possible, either politically or actually.
Will our present course of action work? I donno but I'm hoping so. I'll even go so far as to suggest that it will. If it does, Bush will be remember just as was Polk: almost not at all even though he accomplished quite alot.
Rob Lister
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2004
- Messages
- 8,504
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New UK memo: U.S. has no clue
Possibly, but, assuming we are successful, how many 9/11's will it prevent?
Random said:Wait a few years. I’m sure we’ll catch up.
Possibly, but, assuming we are successful, how many 9/11's will it prevent?
Rob Lister
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2004
- Messages
- 8,504
CapelDodger said:
I'll snip you there because it assumes congress, our democratic representatives did not/do not understand the underlying motivations. I think they do. If they do, democracy was not subverted anymore so than it is when they keep other 'secrets' (and I use the term loosely) from us, and they keep a great deal of those.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New UK memo: U.S. has no clue
You’re also assuming that we will be successful, which I doubt. Yes the US can take out any government in the world, but we are not dealing with a government. We are dealing with a couple of guys who meet in the back room of a random coffeehouse once a month. Traditional military tactics are useless, and the sort of techniques that are historically used to break an insurgency like this are incompatible with our stated goal of bringing democracy to the middle east.
Even if we make it so that the terrorists cannot operate in Iraq anymore, they can still just go to another country. It's like a giant game of whack-a-mole.
Ah, the “it keeps the elephants away†argument. If there are no terrorist attacks in the US over the next five years, it will be because of Bush’s war in Iraq. The fact that almost a decade went by between WTC attacks notwithstanding.Rob Lister said:
You’re also assuming that we will be successful, which I doubt. Yes the US can take out any government in the world, but we are not dealing with a government. We are dealing with a couple of guys who meet in the back room of a random coffeehouse once a month. Traditional military tactics are useless, and the sort of techniques that are historically used to break an insurgency like this are incompatible with our stated goal of bringing democracy to the middle east.
Even if we make it so that the terrorists cannot operate in Iraq anymore, they can still just go to another country. It's like a giant game of whack-a-mole.
Rob Lister
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2004
- Messages
- 8,504
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New UK memo: U.S. has no clue
Last to first:
3. You're right, but growing them might become more difficult.
2. I am assuming we will be successful, but I'm not make the presumption. IOW, I think we will but I know full well that we may not.
1. "keeping the elephants away" is not necessarily a fallacious argument. Hey! Assuming there are no more terrorist attacks then I would be very surprised. Assuming there would be less than if we did nothing would surprise me still more. We can't know how effective these actions might or might not be. We can only guess. Such is politics.
Random said:Ah, the “it keeps the elephants away†argument. If there are no terrorist attacks in the US over the next five years, it will be because of Bush’s war in Iraq. The fact that almost a decade went by between WTC attacks notwithstanding.
You’re also assuming that we will be successful, which I doubt. Yes the US can take out any government in the world, but we are not dealing with a government. We are dealing with a couple of guys who meet in the back room of a random coffeehouse once a month. Traditional military tactics are useless, and the sort of techniques that are historically used to break an insurgency like this are incompatible with our stated goal of bringing democracy to the middle east.
Even if we make it so that the terrorists cannot operate in Iraq anymore, they can still just go to another country. It's like a giant game of whack-a-mole.
Last to first:
3. You're right, but growing them might become more difficult.
2. I am assuming we will be successful, but I'm not make the presumption. IOW, I think we will but I know full well that we may not.
1. "keeping the elephants away" is not necessarily a fallacious argument. Hey! Assuming there are no more terrorist attacks then I would be very surprised. Assuming there would be less than if we did nothing would surprise me still more. We can't know how effective these actions might or might not be. We can only guess. Such is politics.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,711
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New UK memo: U.S. has no clue
And in that intervening period, we also had the Africa embassy bombings and the attack on the USS Cole. It was only a few years between major terrorist attacks on US targets, not ten years. So yeah, I'd say we're doing pretty well: we've brought the fight to them, and they have been unable to strike at anything of ours outside Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001. That's no guarantee of the future, of course, but I doubt many people would have predicted on 9/12/2001 that we'd go so long without getting hit again at home.
In other words, why bother trying, is that the idea? Sorry, but that's simply not good enough. I believe terrorists can be defeated, but you can't defeat them if you don't fight them. I have seen no other strategy for fighting them that has any prospect of actually defeating them. So to me, it's a choice between possible success (Iraq) and certain failure. I'll pick possible success, thank you very much.
Random said:
And in that intervening period, we also had the Africa embassy bombings and the attack on the USS Cole. It was only a few years between major terrorist attacks on US targets, not ten years. So yeah, I'd say we're doing pretty well: we've brought the fight to them, and they have been unable to strike at anything of ours outside Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001. That's no guarantee of the future, of course, but I doubt many people would have predicted on 9/12/2001 that we'd go so long without getting hit again at home.
Even if we make it so that the terrorists cannot operate in Iraq anymore, they can still just go to another country. It's like a giant game of whack-a-mole.
In other words, why bother trying, is that the idea? Sorry, but that's simply not good enough. I believe terrorists can be defeated, but you can't defeat them if you don't fight them. I have seen no other strategy for fighting them that has any prospect of actually defeating them. So to me, it's a choice between possible success (Iraq) and certain failure. I'll pick possible success, thank you very much.