I'm also not massively in favour of breaking Iraq up along ethnic lines. We don't have a wonderful record at this, Yugoslavia being an example. Iraq is a ethnic conglomeration with not too much history under its belt, true. The fear would be that the dominant one of the three would try and absorb the others at some point in the future and hindsight would judge our actions as harshly as the decisions made about Yugoslavia have been. Especially if there was more 'ethnic cleansing' directed at the Kurds.
Why we're gonna lose in the long run
- Thread starter longrifleman
- Start date
- Status
fix
Member
agricola
Please allow me to commend you for posting such a well thought out solution to the problem. While I disagree with your ideas because of the Turkish issue mentioned above, I certainly hope the rest of the anti-war crowd was paying attention and taking notes while reading your post. That, my anti-war friends, is how you disagree. Save the rhetoric for those who are too ill informed to recognize it. Again, thanks agricola, for arguing like a gentleman.
Please allow me to commend you for posting such a well thought out solution to the problem. While I disagree with your ideas because of the Turkish issue mentioned above, I certainly hope the rest of the anti-war crowd was paying attention and taking notes while reading your post. That, my anti-war friends, is how you disagree. Save the rhetoric for those who are too ill informed to recognize it. Again, thanks agricola, for arguing like a gentleman.
PATH
Member
Losing is not an option. Also, some of us here have very long memories and a deep sense of honor.
Lone_Gunman
Member
Turkey is part of NATO now, I don't think they would have jeopardized that relationship by invading Kurdistan.
I think it would have been a good idea to break Iraq up. Let the various factions fight all they want.
I believe that U.S. forces have written off the city of Falluja. No one in, no one allowed out except women and children. Apparently, the "good people" of Falluja, have a few bad apples mixed among them. Quite a few bad apples. Is it possible to extract the bad apples without heavy civilian casualties? In residential neighborhoods, probably not. The U.S. is caught up in a classic guerilla war, whereby the enemy is forcing the U.S. to engage the insurgents in densely populated residential areas, and as soon as the Marines take the city, the occupation will be completely militarized. This is a no win scenario for the Americans, which is why I believe the insurgents are fighting with such zeal. From a strategic standpoint, they can't lose.
The U.S. doesn't have any support in pro-Sadaam, Sunni Muslim Falluja.
For the short term, my guess is that the Marines will do what Marines do best, that is to send a large percentage of Falluja's population to heaven. Long term, Sunni fundamentalists and Baathists will rule Central Iraq, by virtue of a good strategy. Meanwhile, for Marines, Falluja remains a very target rich environment, and will be for some time to come.
The U.S. doesn't have any support in pro-Sadaam, Sunni Muslim Falluja.
For the short term, my guess is that the Marines will do what Marines do best, that is to send a large percentage of Falluja's population to heaven. Long term, Sunni fundamentalists and Baathists will rule Central Iraq, by virtue of a good strategy. Meanwhile, for Marines, Falluja remains a very target rich environment, and will be for some time to come.
Breaking up Iraq might be a way to save the area. As most know, Iraq is an "artificial" country, formed in the aftermath of WWI. Might have to tear up Iran too in order to get it done, but thats not much of a loss as I suspect, as do others that Iran is funneling money/support to those who fight us.
For Pete's sake-is 3,000 people not enough for everyone? Do we forget or minimize so quickly? If we do, then shame on us.
longrifleman
Member
It's unlikely that Turkey would mount a full scale invasion for several reasons. They wouldn't have to. Cross border "incursions" that result in a few well placed houses full of Kurdish leaders blowing up would be enough to get the message to a lot of folks and some promises of help with oil and Iran would probably get the US leadership to keep the Kurds in line. Almost certainly other things going on in the area that none of us here know about also.(at least nothing anyone's gonna talk about on the internet)
I say it's an even money bet we won't have to break up Iraq-they'll do it for us, even if the name on the world map doesn't change.
The clean up the mess argument is the only one that makes sense to me at this point also. Well said agricola, so I won't repeat it in my own words and look stupid.
I've been trying to watch what is happening on the ground and the reports vary so widely that I don't know what to believe anymore. Everything from a million reincarnations of Tom Jefferson to every American soldier is gonna be dead by day after tomorrow.
I say it's an even money bet we won't have to break up Iraq-they'll do it for us, even if the name on the world map doesn't change.
The clean up the mess argument is the only one that makes sense to me at this point also. Well said agricola, so I won't repeat it in my own words and look stupid.
I've been trying to watch what is happening on the ground and the reports vary so widely that I don't know what to believe anymore. Everything from a million reincarnations of Tom Jefferson to every American soldier is gonna be dead by day after tomorrow.
Thumper
Member
No kiddin'. My honest reaction to the ten dead Americans anecdote was "why so few?"
I read earlier that there had been 450 Iraqis killed in response to the deaths of the four Warriors in Fallujah. I reckon that's a decent start.
Sounds glib, but it's not.
idd
I'm not certain we installed the Baathists (more like bathterds )
Obviously, we did support them for a while because we thought they would stick it to the Iranians. One of those "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" deals which almost always means you are going to have to fight that group/nation/person fairly soon.
I'm not certain we installed the Baathists (more like bathterds
)Obviously, we did support them for a while because we thought they would stick it to the Iranians. One of those "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" deals which almost always means you are going to have to fight that group/nation/person fairly soon.
agricola
Member
rich,
I dont think the Turks would dare attack a Kurdish state that the US was actively engaged in protecting.
One must consider that, were the US to help the Kurds establish a state in northern Iraq, not only would it earn the gratitude of the world Kurdish population (which would mean safe bases within reach of almost all the Middle East to say nothing of oil) for several generations, but it would also enable the US to take the moral high ground with regards to the Kurdish situation (especially vis-a-vis Iran). Worldwide people will look once again to the US as a liberator, as well as a state that keeps its word.
Most importantly, you gain the alliance of a people who (like Israel) despise the Sunni and fundamentalist Islam, and who have proved their ability in fighting both Saddam and the MeK down the years.
The presence of strong US allies in Israel and Kurdistan, each capable of fighting the jihadists themselves (and winning), would radically improve the US situation in the region, to say nothing of being much cheaper, both in terms of lives and money, as well as freeing up the bulk of US forces for actions elsewhere, as bases in Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are transferred to Kurdistan.
These people in particular must be supported, if for no other reason than if they arent, noone will have any real long-term reason to support the US in future incidents.
The Shia are a somewhat different kettle of fish; at the end of the invasion I did think it would have been possible to promote al-Sistani to the political leadership of the Shia people, to deal with him exclusively and to make sure that he had a great deal of good news to bring to the Shia. However, this seems (thanks to Bremmer) to have been ruled out, so it comes down to a choice between Sadr (and allowing Iran to politically control what it could not take in 80-88) and al-Sistani (who is handicapped by his associations with the CPA and the same US who has been seen to be attacking Shia groups).
I dont think the Turks would dare attack a Kurdish state that the US was actively engaged in protecting.
One must consider that, were the US to help the Kurds establish a state in northern Iraq, not only would it earn the gratitude of the world Kurdish population (which would mean safe bases within reach of almost all the Middle East to say nothing of oil) for several generations, but it would also enable the US to take the moral high ground with regards to the Kurdish situation (especially vis-a-vis Iran). Worldwide people will look once again to the US as a liberator, as well as a state that keeps its word.
Most importantly, you gain the alliance of a people who (like Israel) despise the Sunni and fundamentalist Islam, and who have proved their ability in fighting both Saddam and the MeK down the years.
The presence of strong US allies in Israel and Kurdistan, each capable of fighting the jihadists themselves (and winning), would radically improve the US situation in the region, to say nothing of being much cheaper, both in terms of lives and money, as well as freeing up the bulk of US forces for actions elsewhere, as bases in Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are transferred to Kurdistan.
These people in particular must be supported, if for no other reason than if they arent, noone will have any real long-term reason to support the US in future incidents.
The Shia are a somewhat different kettle of fish; at the end of the invasion I did think it would have been possible to promote al-Sistani to the political leadership of the Shia people, to deal with him exclusively and to make sure that he had a great deal of good news to bring to the Shia. However, this seems (thanks to Bremmer) to have been ruled out, so it comes down to a choice between Sadr (and allowing Iran to politically control what it could not take in 80-88) and al-Sistani (who is handicapped by his associations with the CPA and the same US who has been seen to be attacking Shia groups).
How very refreshing
a cordial, gentlemanly exchange of ideas, only occasionally marred by parisan jabbing. I've learned from this thread.
Agricola's idea seems attractive to me. Maybe it's too late for it now. I do agree that we seem to have mishandled things in postwar Iraq. That, however, does not constitute disagreement with the war in the first place.
a cordial, gentlemanly exchange of ideas, only occasionally marred by parisan jabbing. I've learned from this thread.
Agricola's idea seems attractive to me. Maybe it's too late for it now. I do agree that we seem to have mishandled things in postwar Iraq. That, however, does not constitute disagreement with the war in the first place.
longrifleman
Member
Misc. responses
Delmar;
My point about the major attack was to create new bloodlust to justify killing everyone is sight in response to the current attacks. The Iraqis had nothing to do with 9-11 no matter how much spin is put on the facts. Twisting facts to support what you want to do anyway is what created the current mess. You're right on with the enemy of my enemy analysis.
agricola;
Our political leadership are intellectually and morally incapable of doing the right thing if it will cost them in the short term. No American politician is going to risk themselves to give the Kurds a homeland. If I was a Kurd there is no way I would trust us anyway. The next change of administration the Turks might very well be given free reign to go in to Kurdistan and "restore order" and we will have another genocide to deal with.
The current invasion (or liberation, depending on your point of view) wasn't done for "right" reasons, it was done for realpolitik reasons with a humanitarian cover. That should get the keyboards clicking!
Delmar;
My point about the major attack was to create new bloodlust to justify killing everyone is sight in response to the current attacks. The Iraqis had nothing to do with 9-11 no matter how much spin is put on the facts. Twisting facts to support what you want to do anyway is what created the current mess. You're right on with the enemy of my enemy analysis.
agricola;
Our political leadership are intellectually and morally incapable of doing the right thing if it will cost them in the short term. No American politician is going to risk themselves to give the Kurds a homeland. If I was a Kurd there is no way I would trust us anyway. The next change of administration the Turks might very well be given free reign to go in to Kurdistan and "restore order" and we will have another genocide to deal with.
The current invasion (or liberation, depending on your point of view) wasn't done for "right" reasons, it was done for realpolitik reasons with a humanitarian cover. That should get the keyboards clicking!
mercedesrules
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,010
"NAP" stands for the "Non-Aggression Principle". Self-defense is a bedrock libertarian principle. Maybe you meant "pacifists".
MR
7.62FullMetalJacket
Member
From where I sit I could not tell the difference between NAP and pacifism. I guess the difference would be the pacifists know what they are. The NAPs would "discuss" what exactly NAP "is" and ultimately frustrate the enemy to death.
I think NAP is a good idea in a peaceful, idyllic world. We live in neither.
I think NAP is a good idea in a peaceful, idyllic world. We live in neither.
mercedesrules
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,010
I still want to, though.
Why don't you want to acknowledge the difference between aggression and defense?
MR
7.62FullMetalJacket
Member
I believe that a strong defense must also involve offense in some circumstances.
The ability of a single person to kill with a handgun is defense.
The ability for the deployment of a nuke would require offensive measures to PREVENT the destruction.
I believe that in your NAP, offense is aggression.
The ability of a single person to kill with a handgun is defense.
The ability for the deployment of a nuke would require offensive measures to PREVENT the destruction.
I believe that in your NAP, offense is aggression.
longrifleman
Member
NAP ( I need a nap)
In the current context as a small l libertarian I think the action in Afghanistan is justified. The invasion of Iraq isn't. If you could show Saddam had been harboring/aiding the people that had attacked us then sick'em. That hasn't been done. Saddam had been helping several groups to attack Israel. If you want to make the case we should come to their aid make it. Let the people of this country decide if that's what our military should be doing. I have no problem as a libertarian with aiding allies. It's no different than me as an individual helping a neighbor stop an assault on his family. Entirely justified under the NAP. Just don't hide your true motives.
I think if the admin had made this kind of case, along with the evil dictator oppressing his own people argument the people of this country would have backed him without nearly as much problem.
The rest of the world would still be a problem because most of the other countries would be happy to see the Arabs exterminate the Jews in Israel. A few of them even admit it if you listen closely.
The country that provided the most support for(probably not direct govt support) the 9-11 attack was Saudi Arabia and everyone knows it. Explain to me why we are in the next country east if 9-11 is our justification?
As for us nappies not fighting I think the % of libertarians owning firearms vs. the % in the general population would really suprise you. I also don't think that you want to pick a fight with one of us. Most will go a long ways to avoid a fight but we also have a better than average understanding of force and it's usage. Defining the proper use of force is another way to describe the entire philosophy.
As a kid I read a lot of American western history and one observation that always stuck with me from some book (can't remember which one) was the Apache never left a live enemy behind them.
Think on that as you lump all us utopian libertarians with the pacifists.
In the current context as a small l libertarian I think the action in Afghanistan is justified. The invasion of Iraq isn't. If you could show Saddam had been harboring/aiding the people that had attacked us then sick'em. That hasn't been done. Saddam had been helping several groups to attack Israel. If you want to make the case we should come to their aid make it. Let the people of this country decide if that's what our military should be doing. I have no problem as a libertarian with aiding allies. It's no different than me as an individual helping a neighbor stop an assault on his family. Entirely justified under the NAP. Just don't hide your true motives.
I think if the admin had made this kind of case, along with the evil dictator oppressing his own people argument the people of this country would have backed him without nearly as much problem.
The rest of the world would still be a problem because most of the other countries would be happy to see the Arabs exterminate the Jews in Israel. A few of them even admit it if you listen closely.
The country that provided the most support for(probably not direct govt support) the 9-11 attack was Saudi Arabia and everyone knows it. Explain to me why we are in the next country east if 9-11 is our justification?
As for us nappies not fighting I think the % of libertarians owning firearms vs. the % in the general population would really suprise you. I also don't think that you want to pick a fight with one of us. Most will go a long ways to avoid a fight but we also have a better than average understanding of force and it's usage. Defining the proper use of force is another way to describe the entire philosophy.
As a kid I read a lot of American western history and one observation that always stuck with me from some book (can't remember which one) was the Apache never left a live enemy behind them.
Think on that as you lump all us utopian libertarians with the pacifists.
7.62FullMetalJacket
Member
That was a well reasoned reply. That is libertarianism I could live with.
Unfortunately, most libs do not support either intervention. We can agree to disagree about Iraq; the people did decide, or rather their representatives in Washington decided when the Resolution was passed. Pre-emption is not always an exact science
Unfortunately, most libs do not support either intervention. We can agree to disagree about Iraq; the people did decide, or rather their representatives in Washington decided when the Resolution was passed. Pre-emption is not always an exact science
longrifleman
Member
The point about the resolution is right as far as it goes. That brings up several off topic points that have probably been beat to death before in different threads. I can't resist at least one. If our weasley mealey mouthed @#%$%^#&%^ congresscritters are going to send American kids to their deaths they should at least have the stones to stand up and declare war and call it a war. I do think the resolution passes constitutional muster(barely).
Not an exact science is in the running for the biggest understatement of the year-but the year is young
If our weasley mealey mouthed @#%$%^#&%^ congresscritters are going to send American kids to their deaths they should at least have the stones to stand up and declare war and call it a war. I do think the resolution passes constitutional muster(barely).Not an exact science is in the running for the biggest understatement of the year-but the year is young
Whats going to happen, is that Iraq is going to turn into 1980's Lebanon. A wasteland of roving gangs and Militia's and a powereless puppet govenment, propped up by enclaves of U.S. troops confined to their bases, for fear of casualties or truck bombs.
The Bush Administration will continue to show us polls, claiming that The majority of the Iraqi people are on our side, while Osama Bin Laden builds terrorist training camps for our eventual removal, in kindergardens just down the street from the Green Zone.
Kerry will be elected President, as the the guys down at the VFW realise, that Bush's actions of this last week, are an even bigger sellout of the American Fighting Man, than Clinton's debacle in Mogadishu.
The Soldiers and Marines, who died this week to "pacify" Fallujah, will have died for nothing, as the well manicured Harvard and Yale theorists, negotiate their blood away and allow Fallujah to remain in the hands of the Sunni mob.
Sadr will be allowed to leave Iraq. only to return someday, as Lenin stepped off the train at Finland Station or Khomeini stepping off the jet from Paris, as the much awaited, exiled, revolutionary saviour of the masses.
Our lack of will to finish what we started in the War on Terror, will go down in history as the begining of the final phase of Americas decline as the overseas wolves circle the fire, sensing our weakness.
The Wolves will jump in a couple of years and an unprepared John Kerry will be faced with WWIII.
We are so totaly done.
The Bush Administration will continue to show us polls, claiming that The majority of the Iraqi people are on our side, while Osama Bin Laden builds terrorist training camps for our eventual removal, in kindergardens just down the street from the Green Zone.
Kerry will be elected President, as the the guys down at the VFW realise, that Bush's actions of this last week, are an even bigger sellout of the American Fighting Man, than Clinton's debacle in Mogadishu.
The Soldiers and Marines, who died this week to "pacify" Fallujah, will have died for nothing, as the well manicured Harvard and Yale theorists, negotiate their blood away and allow Fallujah to remain in the hands of the Sunni mob.
Sadr will be allowed to leave Iraq. only to return someday, as Lenin stepped off the train at Finland Station or Khomeini stepping off the jet from Paris, as the much awaited, exiled, revolutionary saviour of the masses.
Our lack of will to finish what we started in the War on Terror, will go down in history as the begining of the final phase of Americas decline as the overseas wolves circle the fire, sensing our weakness.
The Wolves will jump in a couple of years and an unprepared John Kerry will be faced with WWIII.
We are so totaly done.
7.62FullMetalJacket
Member
Slidelock,
Welcome to THR.
What a grim start
Welcome to THR.
What a grim start
I'm wondering if this whole Cease Fire thing, is being done because we do not control the Baghdad/Fallujah Highway.
There have been alot of fuel trucks being blown up and hostages taken on that highway in the last few days. The AH-64 that got shot down this morning was involved in fighting to resecure the highway.
I'm starting to think we've got the better part of a Marine Brigade, sitting up there at Fallujah, with an additional armor component, that we'er not to sure we could resupply with fuel and ammunition.
There have been alot of fuel trucks being blown up and hostages taken on that highway in the last few days. The AH-64 that got shot down this morning was involved in fighting to resecure the highway.
I'm starting to think we've got the better part of a Marine Brigade, sitting up there at Fallujah, with an additional armor component, that we'er not to sure we could resupply with fuel and ammunition.
longrifleman
Member
Slidelock, you thinkin Khe Sahn? (sp)
This is why you better be darn sure and totally commited before you start a ground war anywhere.
Unfortunately I think your analysis is all to likely(no suprise, huh).
This is why you better be darn sure and totally commited before you start a ground war anywhere.
Unfortunately I think your analysis is all to likely(no suprise, huh).
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked