budney
member
Marshall,
"They... they... they..." Meaning all of the world's one billion muslims. But you're not bigoted. Not at all.
"They... they... they..." Meaning all of the world's one billion muslims. But you're not bigoted. Not at all.
Paul Vs. Thompson
- Thread starter eric_t12
- Start date
- Status
Titan6
member
Sigh*
On the one hand we have the fed haters and the other the neocons with the american people caught in the middle.
Debate is good. Good debate is great. Poor debate is fraught with the peril of untruths and illogic. Is it really debate when your mind is already made up or is it preaching? When does profiling become selling hatred?
Is it fair to say that most people thought the war was a good idea at the time? About 85% of the country did.
Is it fair to say that we are not winning the war as the president said last year before coming up with the troop surge plan? I know he said this because I saw him say it. I thought it was a very brave and honest thing to do. Only a fool would disagree with him.
Were mistakes made? Are not mistakes made in every war? Was intelligence bad? Isn't it always? Did we miss opportunities? War is all about missed opportunity for peace by definition.
So where does that leave us? If we pack up and leave today how will that help us and make us more secure? What will happen in Iraq, Iran, Afganistan? Are these desired outcomes?
Where do we need to be in order to be successful? How much longer are the American people going to continue providing their sons and daughters and treasure to fight a war that we are not winning? What is winning? Do people still believe peace and relative stability is achievable? I do.
Will we win? I sure hope so. Not for my fallen comrades, although it will be for them also. Not for the Iraqi people although it will be for them also. I want to win this war because winning means that we will be safer and the world will be a better place. If only war were as easy as flip answers and paranoid delusions on the internet. The war would already be over.
On the one hand we have the fed haters and the other the neocons with the american people caught in the middle.
Debate is good. Good debate is great. Poor debate is fraught with the peril of untruths and illogic. Is it really debate when your mind is already made up or is it preaching? When does profiling become selling hatred?
Is it fair to say that most people thought the war was a good idea at the time? About 85% of the country did.
Is it fair to say that we are not winning the war as the president said last year before coming up with the troop surge plan? I know he said this because I saw him say it. I thought it was a very brave and honest thing to do. Only a fool would disagree with him.
Were mistakes made? Are not mistakes made in every war? Was intelligence bad? Isn't it always? Did we miss opportunities? War is all about missed opportunity for peace by definition.
So where does that leave us? If we pack up and leave today how will that help us and make us more secure? What will happen in Iraq, Iran, Afganistan? Are these desired outcomes?
Where do we need to be in order to be successful? How much longer are the American people going to continue providing their sons and daughters and treasure to fight a war that we are not winning? What is winning? Do people still believe peace and relative stability is achievable? I do.
Will we win? I sure hope so. Not for my fallen comrades, although it will be for them also. Not for the Iraqi people although it will be for them also. I want to win this war because winning means that we will be safer and the world will be a better place. If only war were as easy as flip answers and paranoid delusions on the internet. The war would already be over.
R127
Member
Trouble is, how do you choose who to smoke before they do anything wrong? Some loudmouth goatherder says he hates America? Then how do you do it? Invade an entire country for the sake of a goup of badguys, or do you just go after the badguys? Do you send in an army in uniform after terrorists, or the CIA, or somebody else? Why does anybody want to kill you in the first place?
It is another one of those slippery slopes that can turn America from land of the free to a global menace if left unchecked. Some snooty socialists in France say they fart in America's general direction and so we go and invade. So-called "crime prevention" has proven to be extremely detrimental to all involved here at home, why should anyone believe it will work any better abroad?
R127
Member
That's a real good question. Where does it leave us and how does staying there make us more secure? It's the same problem we had in Vietnam, every time we accidentally killed the wrong people we made more enemies. Just by being there we couldn't help but kill the wrong people, directly or indirectly.
budney
member
A prerequisite of victory is knowing what victory IS. So far, there's no evidence the administration has any idea what victory is. Originally, it was killing Saddam and watching the liberated Iraqis joyfully erect a secular pro-western democracy. That's long since bitten the dust, of course.
I'm afraid that the current definition of "victory," for this administration, is "making sure that the next President has to deal with all the consequences of this debacle." Keeping the surge going until the Bush leaves office is an end in itself, so Bush isn't saddled with accusations of "retreat" or "surrender."
NickEllis
Member
I personally like Fred Thompson because he did a stand up job here in TN, a voice of common sense and reason, especially after the slime we waded through with Gore.
mljdeckard
Member
Without reading the entire thread, (or really any of it for that matter,) Ron Paul's snowball in hell finished melting when he said we were responsible for 9-11. (And you can blame ME for moving the sunlamp over it if you want.)
There is a point at which, by moral ethic, men like Saddam Hussein need to be disposed of. (In his case it was LONG before 2003.) There are situations in which, America is the only nation with the capability to do so. EVERY time force is used, there are questions about motives, rashness, futility, and unnecessary loss of life. (As if the NECESSARY loss of life is any less important.) Every time America acts, we are blamed for all the world's problems. I would rather the world despise us for deposing dictators and the negative results thereof than the whole world hating us for being rich and ALLOWING evil to continue.
Fred Thompson is the closest thing I've seen to Ronald Reagan in a LONG time. I wish he would clone himself so he could be his own running mate.
There is a point at which, by moral ethic, men like Saddam Hussein need to be disposed of. (In his case it was LONG before 2003.) There are situations in which, America is the only nation with the capability to do so. EVERY time force is used, there are questions about motives, rashness, futility, and unnecessary loss of life. (As if the NECESSARY loss of life is any less important.) Every time America acts, we are blamed for all the world's problems. I would rather the world despise us for deposing dictators and the negative results thereof than the whole world hating us for being rich and ALLOWING evil to continue.
Fred Thompson is the closest thing I've seen to Ronald Reagan in a LONG time. I wish he would clone himself so he could be his own running mate.
Marshall
Member
Need to take a look at Frances recent election. It speaks volumes.
Wooo, you got me there Len. I believe we're talking terrorist and Jihadist Len, keep up, don't try to make it what it's not. Or are you saying all Muslims are terrorist and Jihadist, thus coming up with the one billion figure?
Yea Len, and who changed that? Who prevented that from happening? Sure wasn't the US Military, they did their job. A) Islamic Jihadist, B) Islamic Jihadist, C) Islamic Jihadist? You're choice.
As far as Bush leaving this to the next President? I think you're wrong. I believe he doesn't want to leave a free terrorist haven for the next president to deal with. The next President may like you, do nothing and wait to be attacked again.
Ron Paul- still 0%. http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27598
Ron Paul 1%. I don't know how they rounded up that far. They must of voted one of your four guys twice. http://americanresearchgroup.com/
Yup.
The GWoT is a war against an ideology more than a war against specific organization. As such it's a battle for hearts and minds. Can anybody show me where the war in Iraq is helping us to win?
Titan6,
Your argument is very well thought out and presented. I used to think along the exact same lines, but it ended for me once the Iraqis ratified their Constitution. I truly believe that there is now no way to win the war in Iraq.
I hate that it's so and wish it wasn't, but there it is.
budney
member
...but don't you dare call us bigoted!
Titan6
member
I will say that we will have the answer to the $640,000,000,000 question by the this time next year. If we are not winning by then several things will happen in order 1. The congress will pull funding. 2. The terrorists will become embolded and ratchet things up. 3. Things will really go down hill for the people of Iraq as the country begins to disintegrate. 4. We will leave Iraq 5. The central government either falls or becomes impotent 6. The terrorists will shift resources to focus attacks on the US at home.
There really is no other possible outcome in the event of failure.
Success merely means that the government is strong enough to fight the terrorists and rebels and provide services and what passes for freedom in the middle east to the people of Iraq. This is something that they almost had under Saddam but were short in most areas. Victory means that the terror attacks drop to a Lebanon/ Isreal type level. A great victory means that they stop altogether and people get along.
I am going to work hard to make sure we at least succeed. We can not fail. The price of failure is too high. If you want to work towards the failure scenario that is too bad but at least I know who my friends are.
There really is no other possible outcome in the event of failure.
Success merely means that the government is strong enough to fight the terrorists and rebels and provide services and what passes for freedom in the middle east to the people of Iraq. This is something that they almost had under Saddam but were short in most areas. Victory means that the terror attacks drop to a Lebanon/ Isreal type level. A great victory means that they stop altogether and people get along.
I am going to work hard to make sure we at least succeed. We can not fail. The price of failure is too high. If you want to work towards the failure scenario that is too bad but at least I know who my friends are.
Michigander
Member
So it would seem that the only successful answer is that our troops will have to be in Iraq, and possibly Afghanistan (eventually Iran and Pakistan too?) forever.
Marshall
Member
Not bad Fred.
budney
member
That's the beauty of the "War on a Tactic" that Bush has declared. Since the tactic can never be exterminated from the earth, he has finally found the conservatives' Forever War. After all, why should liberals have all the fun with their "Forever War on Drugs"?
Since war is the health of the state, a Forever War(tm) is like granting the state eternal youth.
--Len.
Since war is the health of the state, a Forever War(tm) is like granting the state eternal youth.
--Len.
Titan6
member
Forever?- Only if you believe that the central government will never be strong enough. But consider this. We have only 120,000 ground troops over there. This is a fraction of the prewar Iraqi Army. Should we be able to expand the Iraqi Army to even half of it's prewar size as an effective fighting force that should be enough.
budney
member
Even if Iraq turned into Canada overnight, some person somewhere would decide to adopt "terror" as their tactic, and so the "War on Terror" will continue. If Iraq turns into Canada we'll simply invade Iran. If Iran then turns into Canada, then we'll invade Syria. If every muslim country in the world turns into Canada, we'll start dealing with the Tamil Tigers and Sinn Fein.
But none of those countries will turn into Canada; within each, SOME will continue to advocate terrorism--and in each case, we'll claim that the local government isn't doing enough to stop it, so they need our "help."
In short, this war is guaranteed to go on forever.
--Len.
Titan6
member
Len- You either did not read my post #192 or you decided to ignore it out of your distrust and hatred of the fed.
budney
member
I read it. There's just nothing to say in reply, really. We created most of our problems in the Middle East with our policies since WWI, and now we're trying to "clean up" our own mess with... more of the same, with an extra helping of slaughter.
It's guaranteed not to work. If we did manage to turn Iraq into Canada, blowback from the Iraqi invasion is still inevitable. But we can't and never will turn it into Canada. The government we're trying to prop up is seen by most Iraqis as a US puppet, so it will never get broad-based support from Iraqi citizens. Ultimately, there are only two realistic outcomes: either a "strong man" emerges and sets up an Islamic dictatorship similar to the others in the ME, or Iraq itself balkanizes into Sunni, Shia and Kurd republics, with the Shiite republic soon merging into Iran.
So I appreciate your view that we now have a mess on our hands, and we should at least stick around long to "clean it up," but the problem is that cleaning it up is impossible. What we SHOULD have done is not made the mess in the first place. Now, prolonging the occupation makes it worse with no realistic prospect of ever making it better.
--Len.
Michigander
Member
You cannot honestly believe that we are going to ever leave an Iraqi government to itself, especially after helping to build-up a large enough Iraqi Army. It would be and will be way too easy for that government to fall and for that army to fall under the powers of those who'd rather see us dead, especially if we do not somehow (invade? bomb?) get control of Iran.
No, we are forever embedded there now. There is no "successful" way out.
Titan6
member
Really? You claim to know the unknowable?
''It's guaranteed not to work.''
''The government we're trying to prop up is seen by most Iraqis as a US puppet, so it will never get broad-based support from Iraqi citizens.''
''cleaning it up is impossible.''
''no realistic prospect of ever making it better.''
At least your negativity is consistent even if it is not honest. These are all opinions stated as fact, and some are at odds with the facts or based on untruths. Also I looked at policy. No one said turn Iraq into Canada.
''It's guaranteed not to work.''
''The government we're trying to prop up is seen by most Iraqis as a US puppet, so it will never get broad-based support from Iraqi citizens.''
''cleaning it up is impossible.''
''no realistic prospect of ever making it better.''
At least your negativity is consistent even if it is not honest. These are all opinions stated as fact, and some are at odds with the facts or based on untruths. Also I looked at policy. No one said turn Iraq into Canada.
- Status
