|
Author
|
Topic: Please explain Cut and Run criteria in light of Afghanistan
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 5.3
|
|
Message 15 of 191 (355416)
10-09-2006 3:25 PM
|
Reply to: Message 13 by iano
10-09-2006 2:46 PM
|
|
America found out how hard it is to win wars like Vietnam.
Quite evidently, they did not learn. They flunked that lesson. Otherwise they would not have started the utterly stupid Iraq war.
Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 13 by iano, posted 10-09-2006 2:46 PM | | iano has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 18 by RAZD, posted 10-09-2006 4:23 PM | | nwr has seen this message but not replied |
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 5.3
|
|
|
Message 26 of 191 (355571)
10-10-2006 10:15 AM
|
Reply to: Message 25 by iano
10-10-2006 8:38 AM
|
|
Iraq isn't about such short terms goals - it is about securing the region so that oil supply long term can be protected. Fluctuations and blips the worlds economic system can handle.
This is revisionist history. Bush and his gang of thugs were quite clear that this was to be a very short war.
The necessity to go in again wasn't necessarily "finishing off the job" of Saddam. Maybe he had WMD, maybe not. He was but one potentially destabilising influence.
It was well known that if Saddam had WMD, he didn't have many and he was well contained by policies that had been in effect for 10 years. That Bush and Co said otherwise was a clear misrepresentation, intended to gain political support for a stupid and ignorant policy.
Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 25 by iano, posted 10-10-2006 8:38 AM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 27 by iano, posted 10-10-2006 10:48 AM | | nwr has replied |
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 5.3
|
|
|
Message 28 of 191 (355599)
10-10-2006 11:36 AM
|
Reply to: Message 27 by iano
10-10-2006 10:48 AM
|
|
If security of the worlds economic and industrial health was the agenda then that was the agenda.
I doubt that was ever the agenda. It it was, then there has been a colossal failure. The world's economic and industrial health is more threatened now than it would have been if Bush had stayed out of Iraq.
Do you think Israel are going to let Iran progress with nuclear power - the waste product of which is weapons grade nuclear material (give their 1981 response to Saddam attempting the same thing)? And if not do you think the US should be there - in the region.
I don't try to predict what Israel will do. The future existence of Israel depends on them finding a way to get along with their neighbors. They have foolishly ignored this obvious truth. Perhaps they have already sealed their own doom. Maybe they can recover, and find a more intelligent strategy than the one they are now following, but count me as skeptical.
Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 27 by iano, posted 10-10-2006 10:48 AM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 32 by iano, posted 10-10-2006 12:29 PM | | nwr has seen this message but not replied |
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 5.3
|
|
|
Message 31 of 191 (355611)
10-10-2006 12:20 PM
|
Reply to: Message 30 by kuresu
10-10-2006 12:09 PM
|
|
Just so you know, I'm not pushing to fix "daddy's mistake". All I'm saying is that over here across the pond, a lot of us have this theory about junior fixing his dad's "mistake".
A quick comment here. Ever since the end of Desert Storm, some people (most particularly the neocons) have been complaining that Bush Sr. made a collosal mistake by not marching into Bagdad. Personally, I thought at the time that it was a brilliant move by Bush Sr., Powell et al. The alternative, I thought, would likely bog us down in an unwinnable vietnam-style war. Bush Jr's folly has since demonstrated that my assessment was correct.
Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 30 by kuresu, posted 10-10-2006 12:09 PM | | kuresu has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 35 by iano, posted 10-10-2006 12:51 PM | | nwr has seen this message but not replied |
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 5.3
|
|
|
Message 37 of 191 (355643)
10-10-2006 1:25 PM
|
Reply to: Message 36 by iano
10-10-2006 1:13 PM
|
|
With 9/11 came the necessity to crank things up a little.
No, that's a misreading of 9/11. The events of 9/11 were because there are some people who are very angry at us. The "war against terrorism" should have been a battle to win the hearts and minds of well meaning people everywhere. Causing the deaths of maybe 100,000 innocent Iraqis isn't going to win many hearts and minds.
Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 36 by iano, posted 10-10-2006 1:13 PM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 42 by iano, posted 10-10-2006 6:39 PM | | nwr has replied |
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 5.3
|
|
|
Message 49 of 191 (355750)
10-10-2006 7:43 PM
|
Reply to: Message 42 by iano
10-10-2006 6:39 PM
|
|
I remember well the conversation my dad and a friend of mine had when my friend was about 20. The craze of 'joyriding' (robbing cars and driving around looking for a chase from the cops) was in full swing and mothers with prams were getting run down on the streets of Dublin. Barry was saying that the problem needed to be solved at root level: poverty and hopelessness drove kids to seek excitment and this was the way they did it "you must tackle the root causes or else there is no point.." was Barry's approach
I can't imagine why anybody would think that poverty was the cause of joyriding. This looks to me like a strawman argument.
Winning the hearts and minds of people might reduce recruitment levels at some point but this is a problem of now.
Immediately after 9/11 there was an upwelling of good will toward America and Americans around the world. This could have been used to win the hearts and minds of people around the world. Bush, however, managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. His foolish invasion of Iraq has generated a great deal of hatred and anger. His advocacy of torture and his suspension of habeus corpus have demonstrated to the world that America has no principles. It is hardly surprising that instead of winning the hearts on minds of citizens of the world, we have earned their contempt. And terrorism is up. The Iraq war has been a great recruiting tool for the terrorists. As far as dealing with the problem of now, the Bush policy has been a ghastly failure.
Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 42 by iano, posted 10-10-2006 6:39 PM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 52 by iano, posted 10-10-2006 8:05 PM | | nwr has replied |
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 5.3
|
|
|
Message 56 of 191 (355770)
10-10-2006 9:51 PM
|
Reply to: Message 52 by iano
10-10-2006 8:05 PM
|
|
Talk about missing the "now" aspect of the point.
I addressed it in detail. You chose not to respond to that part.
"Winning hearts and minds" is a vacuous objective if a relative drop in the ocean (those that dissent) is all that is required to cause a a global wobble.
What do you suggest - kill off all the terrorists? For every terrorist you killed, a dozen more would be recruited. You would have to kill off all of the arabs. And, when done, the Europeans would hate us for doing that, so it would be necessary to kill of all of the Europeans. Have you really thought that one through?
Addressing why they hate you (the West) is long term.
Yes, it is. But only because the incompetent bungling Bush still has two more years in office. If he had followed the advice coming from the state department, instead of that coming from the neocons, he could have made substantial gains quite quickly, using the good will that existed toward America just after 9/11.
Folk are wringing their hands as to whether his pronouncement that suicide bombers are a legitimate weapon of war (but only against Israel mind!!) or not could indict his being an extremist or a moderate (they quote his more moderate tones in defence).
Keep in mind that Britain and U.S.A sent people on suicide missions against Hitler, during World War II.
Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 52 by iano, posted 10-10-2006 8:05 PM | | iano has not replied |
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 5.3
|
|
|
Message 101 of 191 (356133)
10-12-2006 12:49 PM
|
Reply to: Message 99 by jar
10-12-2006 11:59 AM
|
|
Re: On Afghanistan and Iraq
I admit I was skeptical of the Afghanistan invasion at the outset, partly because its mountainous territory is very difficult, and partly because it was based on the naive idea that Afghanistan was a terrorist nation. My skepticism has proven to be well founded.
Invading Afghanistan was the first really stupid step in this fiasco.
I would not call it a fiasco - at least not yet. A strategic blunder for sure, but hardly a fiasco. Iraq is certainly a fiaso. Moreover, it was easily predictable that it would be a fiasco. I strongly suspect that the state department and the CIA both warned Bush that it would probably be a fiasco.
Another claim has been that invading Iraq was to secure the oil supply. That also seems very weak and to accept that premise places the US and Great Britain in the same moral position as Imperial Japan. It is a claim that because we need some resource and have the technological capability to take the resource, we have the obligation and right to do so. Such an argument is without any moral redemption, it is far more destructive to the Western Political and Social system than any terrorist threat. It is disgusting and reprehensible.
I completely agree.
Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 99 by jar, posted 10-12-2006 11:59 AM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 103 by jar, posted 10-12-2006 1:11 PM | | nwr has seen this message but not replied |
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 5.3
|
|
|
Message 102 of 191 (356134)
10-12-2006 12:52 PM
|
Reply to: Message 100 by iano
10-12-2006 12:45 PM
|
|
Re: On Afghanistan and Iraq
Protecting ones way of life takes many forms.
History may well show that this invasion was the turning - where the U.S.A began its slip from status of super power to a has-been nation. Protecting one's way of life - bah humbug.
Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 100 by iano, posted 10-12-2006 12:45 PM | | iano has not replied |
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 5.3
|
|
|
Message 111 of 191 (356168)
10-12-2006 3:52 PM
|
Reply to: Message 109 by Silent H
10-12-2006 3:29 PM
|
|
Re: On Afghanistan and Iraq
Invading to displace the ruling warlords who are impoverishing and radicalizing the nation would be.
To do that would involve nation building. Bush had already made clear (in his 2000 election campaign), that he was against nation building. The conduct of both Afghanistan and Iraq policy has been entirely consistent with that attitude toward nation building.
Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 109 by Silent H, posted 10-12-2006 3:29 PM | | Silent H has replied |
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 5.3
|
|
|
Message 115 of 191 (356187)
10-12-2006 8:20 PM
|
Reply to: Message 113 by Silent H
10-12-2006 6:06 PM
|
|
Re: On Afghanistan and Iraq
I think you have a typo there (serious not sarcastic). You did mean inconsistent, right?
Actually, I meant what I wrote. But perhaps that was confusing. Bush sent the troops to Afghanistan to clear out the Taliban. But he did little for nation building. He essentially told the Afghans to build their own nation. And that's why things have been steadily deteriorating. Likewise, in Iraq, he basically expected the Iraqis to do their own nation building, but they seem to be building a civil war instead.
Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 113 by Silent H, posted 10-12-2006 6:06 PM | | Silent H has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 119 by Silent H, posted 10-13-2006 4:42 AM | | nwr has seen this message but not replied |
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 5.3
|
Re: So let's change direction
When someone thinks of 'invasion,' does it not invoke hostile actions? Of course it does. Sending missles into a country is a hostile action, whether it be retaliatory or otherwise, is a hostile action. Stop trying to derail the argument with the hair splitting.
This seems to be a classic logic fallacy. From "invasion implies hostile action", you are fallaciously concluding "hostile action implies invasion."
Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 5.3
|
Re: So let's change direction
The Democrats were all for the invasion of Iraq, as you can clearly read by their own words.
If you are talking about support for the Bush invasion of Iraq, then some did support it and some didn't. But this was after had deliberately misrepresented the situation in Iraq. If you are referring to the Clinton administration, then no you have not shown support for invasion.
Jar praises Clinton for Somalia but condemns Bush for Iraq.
Bush deserves condemnation. He lied to the American people, and got us into an unwise unjust war under false pretenses. If Congress were truly representing the interest of the American people, they would impeach (and convict) Bush, and then ship him off to the Hague for trial as a war criminal.
Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 137 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-15-2006 8:03 PM | | Hyroglyphx has not replied |
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 5.3
|
|
|
Message 140 of 191 (356773)
10-15-2006 9:07 PM
|
Reply to: Message 138 by jar
10-15-2006 8:07 PM
|
|
Re: So let's change direction
How do we get out without it becoming even worse than it is?
That's a very difficult problem. It is far easier to avoid getting into a quagmire, than it is to extricate yourself once you are there. The first step is to start being honest with the American people.
Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 138 by jar, posted 10-15-2006 8:07 PM | | jar has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 143 by RAZD, posted 10-15-2006 10:14 PM | | nwr has seen this message but not replied |
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 5.3
|
Re: Reply to OP
The problem, I think, is that people forget the frenetic tone that led to the war to begin with.
What frenetic tone was that? I saw a cool calm tone in the reports by Hans Blick, indicating that there was no imminent threat from WMD in Iraq. Or by "frenetic tone", do you mean the stream of dishonest propoganda streaming from the white house?
As I've unequivocally proven, both high level Dems and Reps were all for the ousting of Hussein who routinely ignored UN sanctions and policies.
You cannot have proven that, for some - admittedly too few - of the high level Dems were opposed to this war from the beginning.
But, lest we forget, our opinions about the war can only be as good as the intelligence we recieve.
There was enough evidence available to the general public, that one could conclude that there was no imminent threat. Anybody who adequately understood the lesson of the Vietnam war could have predicted that this would likely lead to a quagmire.
Maybe the NSA and CIA need to step up and take some flack for their handling of evidence.
I don't know for sure what happened here. It is my impression that both CIA and Dept of State were giving Bush private advice against the war, at the same time that they were showing public support. The flack is properly due to Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney, the three corners of the axis of evil. This was an unjust immoral war from the get-go. This was a war "justified" by a tissue of lies.
Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber
|
™ Version 4.2