[quote][i]Originally posted by KYYX4ever[/i]
that's another thing I meant. We're supposed to be the most technologically advanced nation on earth, and we can't put our resources together to open a can of High-Tech WhoopAss on these bad guys?[/quote]
Yessss!! Let's make war so convenient to wage that we can attack countries at the mere touch of a button! Unleash our armada of flying robo-cops and subjugate our enemies! Mwuhahahaha!
Scary thoughts there. We have an almost religious belief in technology in this country-- as though messy, complex things like warfare can somehow be automated and shrink-wrapped.
Warfare changed radically after WWII, when it was proved that low-cost guerrilla movements were perfected into a "poison pill" strategy against conventional forces. When faced with a determined and mobilized enemy, we can only hold on to territory if you annex it, expel the occupants (or commit genocide), raze the entire place and then repopulate it with our own citizens. That is some hard-core subjugation right there. There's no technological solution; you're always going to need boots on the ground to assert authority and defend that which you own.
| Site Announcements |
|---|
|
View the results of the New Wave Outpost 20th Anniversary Top Songs Poll here: http://www.nwoutpost.com/poll/results Coming Soon: Top Albums Poll. Stay tuned! Welcome to the new forum! If you are a previously registered user, you must do the following: 1) Click on 'I forgot my password' at the login prompt 2) Enter your username and email you registered with and submit 3) You will receive an email with an activation link. Please click it and then log in using the random password provided 4) Go to your User Control Panel and click on the Profile tab 5) Click on 'Edit Account Settings' and enter your new password twice followed by the random password provided earlier. Click Submit. 6) That's it...you're back in! You may have to log in again with your new password. If you forgot your email address, please email me (MikeP) at: mikepaulsen12@gmail.com Note: you must now use bb code buttons in the Post form for embedded images, YouTube videos, etc. For example, to post embedded YouTube videos: paste in the link (e.g., http://www.youtube.com/watch?XYZ1234567), highlight it and then click the YouTube button. |
Bush,Iraq and WW II
32 posts
• Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
by SallyLightfoot » Sat Aug 25, 2007 4:56 am
- SallyLightfoot
- Room at the Top
- Posts: 1184
- Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 4:52 am
- Location:
by KYYX4ever » Sat Aug 25, 2007 5:31 am
well, I don't know what to say to that.
I don't mean that we should use high-tech to attack another [i]country[/i]. The people of Iraq for the most part have nothing to do with terrorists. they are just ordinary folks trying to live their lives. I mean that if the administration is really so concerned with capturing those in charge of alleged terrorist activities, why war? That obviously isn't working. It reduces this war to silliness (sorry shovelbum, that's my word and I'm sticking to it). It's ruining everything. I meant to say that the administration should skip all that and go after who they claim are the enemy (al-Quaida) directly, maybe using some of that high-tech we claim to be so good at. Instead of warfare.
I don't mean that we should use high-tech to attack another [i]country[/i]. The people of Iraq for the most part have nothing to do with terrorists. they are just ordinary folks trying to live their lives. I mean that if the administration is really so concerned with capturing those in charge of alleged terrorist activities, why war? That obviously isn't working. It reduces this war to silliness (sorry shovelbum, that's my word and I'm sticking to it). It's ruining everything. I meant to say that the administration should skip all that and go after who they claim are the enemy (al-Quaida) directly, maybe using some of that high-tech we claim to be so good at. Instead of warfare.
- KYYX4ever
- Room at the Top
- Posts: 4191
- Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2003 4:51 pm
- Location:
by ben_at_work » Sat Aug 25, 2007 6:51 am
[quote][i]Originally posted by NuWaveRx[/i]
<br>Ben, I hate to break the historical bubble surronding you, but both FDR and Truman WERE democrats.
[/quote]
Consider it broke [;)]
Well, our reasons for war back then were a tad different than whats going on now. I personally see a definite need to finish what we started in Iraq. Regardless if there were terrorist in Iraq prior to us being there and regardless if there were any WMD's. Sadadam needed to be ousted. Yes we should have done it the first time when he ordered the rape of Kuwait.
I personally think the bad mistakes that were made still led to something that eventually would have needed to be done. Sorry to drsevrin, sallylightfoot and the rest if I offended you, I guess I was just venting as I have to listen to a lot of this stuff at work as well. [;)]
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v359/ben_at_work/Benatworklogo.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>
<br>Ben, I hate to break the historical bubble surronding you, but both FDR and Truman WERE democrats.
[/quote]
Consider it broke [;)]
Well, our reasons for war back then were a tad different than whats going on now. I personally see a definite need to finish what we started in Iraq. Regardless if there were terrorist in Iraq prior to us being there and regardless if there were any WMD's. Sadadam needed to be ousted. Yes we should have done it the first time when he ordered the rape of Kuwait.
I personally think the bad mistakes that were made still led to something that eventually would have needed to be done. Sorry to drsevrin, sallylightfoot and the rest if I offended you, I guess I was just venting as I have to listen to a lot of this stuff at work as well. [;)]
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v359/ben_at_work/Benatworklogo.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>
- ben_at_work
- Room at the Top
- Posts: 3513
- Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:54 am
- Location: USA
by SallyLightfoot » Sat Aug 25, 2007 9:50 am
[quote][i]Originally posted by KYYX4ever[/i]
<br>well, I don't know what to say to that.
[/quote]
Sorry if I misunderstood. I was worried that we weren't questioning our judgment and motivations, but rather the efficacy with which we wage war.
<br>well, I don't know what to say to that.
[/quote]
Sorry if I misunderstood. I was worried that we weren't questioning our judgment and motivations, but rather the efficacy with which we wage war.
- SallyLightfoot
- Room at the Top
- Posts: 1184
- Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 4:52 am
- Location:
by NuWaveRx » Sat Aug 25, 2007 11:12 am
[quote][i]Originally posted by ben_at_work[/i]
Regardless if there were terrorist in Iraq prior to us being there and regardless if there were any WMD's. Sadadam needed to be ousted. Yes we should have done it the first time when he ordered the rape of Kuwait.
[/quote]
No offense here, ben, just discussion.
The only reply I'd have to the above is the defense for the Iraq conflict that goes, "Saddam was a terrible dictator--he needed to be overthrown." puzzles me.
There is no doubt the Saddam was a horrific, brutal man and, if there is a hell he is hanging out in the ninth circle. But since when was that the sole criteria for us invading a country? Are we the World's policeman? If that's the case we should have gone into Darfur years ago. I'm sorry that I just don't get that defense for our continued presence in Iraq.
Regardless if there were terrorist in Iraq prior to us being there and regardless if there were any WMD's. Sadadam needed to be ousted. Yes we should have done it the first time when he ordered the rape of Kuwait.
[/quote]
No offense here, ben, just discussion.
The only reply I'd have to the above is the defense for the Iraq conflict that goes, "Saddam was a terrible dictator--he needed to be overthrown." puzzles me.
There is no doubt the Saddam was a horrific, brutal man and, if there is a hell he is hanging out in the ninth circle. But since when was that the sole criteria for us invading a country? Are we the World's policeman? If that's the case we should have gone into Darfur years ago. I'm sorry that I just don't get that defense for our continued presence in Iraq.
- NuWaveRx
- Der Kommissar
- Posts: 1014
- Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 3:42 am
- Location:
by SallyLightfoot » Sat Aug 25, 2007 12:56 pm
I feel that the events of the past four years have demonstrated that a policy of containment, however imperfect, is more practical than invasion and occupation. Our containment of Saddam cost us virtually no lives and around 2 billion per year. Compare that to the invasion/occupation costs of 850 troops lives (setting aside civilian deaths and the far higher US casualty count) and 100+ billion per year.
Finishing what we started is a good general principle, but isn't it pretty clear after 4 years (longer than WWII) that we're in over our heads? How can we continue to pursue a failed policy/strategy at such a steep price? Even the current surge-- our last big try to turn it around-- has shown lackluster results. Unless a military draft is instituted, there is no practical way to sustain our troop levels into the Spring of 2008.
We probably stood a much better chance of success for transforming Iraq during the first Gulf War, but that still didn't guarantee success. Apparently Bush Sr. and his cabinet, who know a few things about foreign policy and intelligence, had strong justifications for leaving Iraq in its place.
Finally, speculating that we'd eventually need to go in and take out Saddam is not a strong rationale for invasion. You wage a war when it is critically important-- when there are no other options; not because it's on a list of things you'll need to get around to eventually. By that logic, there are a dozen countries we should launch pre-emptive strikes against.
Finishing what we started is a good general principle, but isn't it pretty clear after 4 years (longer than WWII) that we're in over our heads? How can we continue to pursue a failed policy/strategy at such a steep price? Even the current surge-- our last big try to turn it around-- has shown lackluster results. Unless a military draft is instituted, there is no practical way to sustain our troop levels into the Spring of 2008.
We probably stood a much better chance of success for transforming Iraq during the first Gulf War, but that still didn't guarantee success. Apparently Bush Sr. and his cabinet, who know a few things about foreign policy and intelligence, had strong justifications for leaving Iraq in its place.
Finally, speculating that we'd eventually need to go in and take out Saddam is not a strong rationale for invasion. You wage a war when it is critically important-- when there are no other options; not because it's on a list of things you'll need to get around to eventually. By that logic, there are a dozen countries we should launch pre-emptive strikes against.
- SallyLightfoot
- Room at the Top
- Posts: 1184
- Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 4:52 am
- Location:
by drsevrin » Sat Aug 25, 2007 3:18 pm
[quote][i]Originally posted by ben_at_work[/i]
Sorry to drsevrin, sallylightfoot and the rest if I offended you, I guess I was just venting as I have to listen to a lot of this stuff at work as well. [;)]
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v359/ben_at_work/Benatworklogo.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>
[/quote]
Thanks Ben, but no apology needed - it's all good. As far as the troops in Iraq go, I have two thoughts. First, they've done all we could possibly ask of them and more. They already won the "war". I'm not sure there's even a job left for them to finish. What remains is a job for the diplomats and the Iraqi's themselves. It makes me very angry that the troops are the ones paying the price for all the political fuckups. They deserve to go home now, instead of driving around making targets of themselves. We don't even know who our enemy is anymore: is it the secular Baathist Sunni's? Is it the Islamist Sunnis allied with Al Qaida? Is it the Shiite militias allied with Iran?
Second, as someone once said "the only thing worse than asking a soldier to die for a mistake . . . is to ask more soldiers to die for a mistake."
Finally, the cynical side of me suspects all is going exactly according to plan. The Neocons never really wanted a strong, unified, democratic Iraq. They want chaos leading ultimately to partition. The strategy of the US and Israel has always been to divide the Arab world and pit the Sunni's against the Shia, the Kurds against the Arabs, the secular Fatah against the Islamist Hamas, the maronite Christians against Hezbollah, etc. Iraq was an unnatural state created by an arbitrary partition on the part of the British following WW I. It's constituent parts have always been at odds with each other - which is why a strong central authority (Saddam) has been required to keep it unified. I find it unbelievable that people who make it their life's work to understand history and diplomacy are only now coming to realize that a soft western-style democracy isn't going to work in Iraq. They knew. The most disgusting aspect of this - is that our troops are being kept in Iraq and sacrificied by an administration that has long known there is no military endpoint - only domestic political considerations.
The War on Terror needs as much effort in the conference room as it does on the battlefield. The single most effective thing the US can do to reduce terror is to force Israel to enable the creation of a viable Palestinian state while guaranteeing the security of Israel. This is the elephant in the room and the source of much (justified) anger on the part of the Arab world. As Richard Haas of the CFR has noted, there are two types of terrorists: the traditional terrorist, like the IRA for example, who have very clear and limited political aims, and "existential terrorists" who have broad, non-specific aims that can almost never be met. The former can be dealt with by changes in policy, if just and reasonable; the latter need to be confronted with force - like Al Qaida. We're trying hard to do the latter, but failing miserably with the former.
Sorry to drsevrin, sallylightfoot and the rest if I offended you, I guess I was just venting as I have to listen to a lot of this stuff at work as well. [;)]
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v359/ben_at_work/Benatworklogo.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>
[/quote]
Thanks Ben, but no apology needed - it's all good. As far as the troops in Iraq go, I have two thoughts. First, they've done all we could possibly ask of them and more. They already won the "war". I'm not sure there's even a job left for them to finish. What remains is a job for the diplomats and the Iraqi's themselves. It makes me very angry that the troops are the ones paying the price for all the political fuckups. They deserve to go home now, instead of driving around making targets of themselves. We don't even know who our enemy is anymore: is it the secular Baathist Sunni's? Is it the Islamist Sunnis allied with Al Qaida? Is it the Shiite militias allied with Iran?
Second, as someone once said "the only thing worse than asking a soldier to die for a mistake . . . is to ask more soldiers to die for a mistake."
Finally, the cynical side of me suspects all is going exactly according to plan. The Neocons never really wanted a strong, unified, democratic Iraq. They want chaos leading ultimately to partition. The strategy of the US and Israel has always been to divide the Arab world and pit the Sunni's against the Shia, the Kurds against the Arabs, the secular Fatah against the Islamist Hamas, the maronite Christians against Hezbollah, etc. Iraq was an unnatural state created by an arbitrary partition on the part of the British following WW I. It's constituent parts have always been at odds with each other - which is why a strong central authority (Saddam) has been required to keep it unified. I find it unbelievable that people who make it their life's work to understand history and diplomacy are only now coming to realize that a soft western-style democracy isn't going to work in Iraq. They knew. The most disgusting aspect of this - is that our troops are being kept in Iraq and sacrificied by an administration that has long known there is no military endpoint - only domestic political considerations.
The War on Terror needs as much effort in the conference room as it does on the battlefield. The single most effective thing the US can do to reduce terror is to force Israel to enable the creation of a viable Palestinian state while guaranteeing the security of Israel. This is the elephant in the room and the source of much (justified) anger on the part of the Arab world. As Richard Haas of the CFR has noted, there are two types of terrorists: the traditional terrorist, like the IRA for example, who have very clear and limited political aims, and "existential terrorists" who have broad, non-specific aims that can almost never be met. The former can be dealt with by changes in policy, if just and reasonable; the latter need to be confronted with force - like Al Qaida. We're trying hard to do the latter, but failing miserably with the former.
- drsevrin
- Personal Jesus
- Posts: 264
- Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 3:55 pm
- Location: USA
by ben_at_work » Sat Aug 25, 2007 5:14 pm
Well, you all make very good arguments. I stick with what I believe but damn all of you for making sense and for a moment making me rethink everything. for the love of God "STOP MAKING SENSE" [:D][;)]
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v359/ben_at_work/Benatworklogo.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v359/ben_at_work/Benatworklogo.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>
- ben_at_work
- Room at the Top
- Posts: 3513
- Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:54 am
- Location: USA
by SallyLightfoot » Sat Aug 25, 2007 10:16 pm
Thanks for being so agreeable, Ben.
When we went into Iraq, your reasoning pretty much summed-up my support for the war. My support was, at its roots, founded upon anger at Saddam's defiance of the US during the post Gulf War period, which the US media played to the hilt. It was contrary to logic that after all that effort in Kuwait we would leave that dictator in power.
Only after a month or two after the 2003 invasion, after I started to scrutinize what was going on, did I realize how wrong I was. Before the war, I was uninformed and accepting of what was probably the biggest lie of my generation. I dismissed the anti-war crowd as looney-liberals. Today I regret my complicity in this disaster and tragedy, and I want it to properly end.
When we went into Iraq, your reasoning pretty much summed-up my support for the war. My support was, at its roots, founded upon anger at Saddam's defiance of the US during the post Gulf War period, which the US media played to the hilt. It was contrary to logic that after all that effort in Kuwait we would leave that dictator in power.
Only after a month or two after the 2003 invasion, after I started to scrutinize what was going on, did I realize how wrong I was. Before the war, I was uninformed and accepting of what was probably the biggest lie of my generation. I dismissed the anti-war crowd as looney-liberals. Today I regret my complicity in this disaster and tragedy, and I want it to properly end.
- SallyLightfoot
- Room at the Top
- Posts: 1184
- Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 4:52 am
- Location:
by SallyLightfoot » Sat Aug 25, 2007 10:19 pm
[quote][i]Originally posted by CodyK46[/i]
<br>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD7dnFDdwu0
Ron Paul knows the deal.
[/quote]
Thanks. I've been watching Ron Paul, but I have to say-- he has zero chance of winning a nomination in the Republican Party. They simply will not nominate that guy-- his anti-war stance is repellent to the republican base.
<br>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD7dnFDdwu0
Ron Paul knows the deal.
[/quote]
Thanks. I've been watching Ron Paul, but I have to say-- he has zero chance of winning a nomination in the Republican Party. They simply will not nominate that guy-- his anti-war stance is repellent to the republican base.
- SallyLightfoot
- Room at the Top
- Posts: 1184
- Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 4:52 am
- Location:
by drsevrin » Sun Aug 26, 2007 1:49 am
[quote][i]Originally posted by ben_at_work[/i]
<br>Well, you all make very good arguments. I stick with what I believe but damn all of you for making sense and for a moment making me rethink everything. for the love of God "STOP MAKING SENSE" [:D][;)]
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v359/ben_at_work/Benatworklogo.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>
[/quote]
You're a good egg, Ben. Cheers.[:)]
<br>Well, you all make very good arguments. I stick with what I believe but damn all of you for making sense and for a moment making me rethink everything. for the love of God "STOP MAKING SENSE" [:D][;)]
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v359/ben_at_work/Benatworklogo.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>
[/quote]
You're a good egg, Ben. Cheers.[:)]
- drsevrin
- Personal Jesus
- Posts: 264
- Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 3:55 pm
- Location: USA
by KYYX4ever » Sun Aug 26, 2007 3:28 am
You guys are saying what I think, as well. This is such a sad situation. This admininstration's refusal to NOT engage in diplomacy is so frustraing. Frustrating for the troops, too, as drsevrin pointed out. It makes me mad and sad that they continue to be pawns in Bush's fantasy. "Soft western-style democracy" indeed.[V]
- KYYX4ever
- Room at the Top
- Posts: 4191
- Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2003 4:51 pm
- Location:
by ben_at_work » Sun Aug 26, 2007 2:05 pm
[quote][i]Originally posted by drsevrin[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by ben_at_work[/i]
<br>Well, you all make very good arguments. I stick with what I believe but damn all of you for making sense and for a moment making me rethink everything. for the love of God "STOP MAKING SENSE" [:D][;)]
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v359/ben_at_work/Benatworklogo.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>
[/quote]
You're a good egg, Ben. Cheers.[:)]
[/quote]
[;)] Thanks dude!
It's like I always say "It's sheep were up against" [;)][:p]
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v359/ben_at_work/Benatworklogo.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by ben_at_work[/i]
<br>Well, you all make very good arguments. I stick with what I believe but damn all of you for making sense and for a moment making me rethink everything. for the love of God "STOP MAKING SENSE" [:D][;)]
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v359/ben_at_work/Benatworklogo.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>
[/quote]
You're a good egg, Ben. Cheers.[:)]
[/quote]
[;)] Thanks dude!
It's like I always say "It's sheep were up against" [;)][:p]
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v359/ben_at_work/Benatworklogo.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>
- ben_at_work
- Room at the Top
- Posts: 3513
- Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:54 am
- Location: USA
by drsevrin » Sun Aug 26, 2007 2:47 pm
<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n141/drsevrin/bushiraq.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>
- drsevrin
- Personal Jesus
- Posts: 264
- Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 3:55 pm
- Location: USA
32 posts
• Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Return to —Not Necessarily New Wave—
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest