If your considering copy and pasting your latest drive by spam here because you cant find any other place.
DONT!
Oprano has a ZERO tolerance policy for spam. Yours WILL be deleted. If you are looking for more exposure for your product please contact advertising@oprano.com for more information.
Legacy Archived Main BoardBusiness chat and general industry chat. All participation is welcome. Dont post your fucking spam here.
[quote]Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Apr 7 2004, 11:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buff,Apr 7 2004, 01:39 PM
PD:
I know you understand at least part of the idea that something might not be worth the sacrifice. The last time you tried to construe my personal objections to the folly of this war as evidence that her son was a pussy, I asked you why you weren't still in and over there - and your response was that "we" - the people of the United States - were not worth fighting for.
Yes, I remember that. It's very easy to make sacrifices when we are not the ones paying the price. Soldiers know they may have to fight and possibly die for their countries one day. I don't recall ANYWHERE where it's written that they or their families have to LIKE it, especially when it's potentially needless loss.
Ok PD I can see your point but what is the answer?
What would you do if you had to be in command? Not in command militarily but politically?
Maybe you'll say we shouldn't have went there are all, too late for that. We are there now
Me, I'm a hawk.
Personally I believe the US fighting forces are holding back way too much. We should really do shock and awe like the campaign started out trying to do. A war from the air raining down destruction until there is little to no resistance left.
If we're going to be there we should do it and not halfway do it and in the process spare American Soldiers lives
Furthermore as I've stated we should totally control the country of Iraq, take their oil, set up a puppet government that we dictate
You as well as I remember the oil crisis of the 70's, the resulting spiraling inflation, double digit mortgage interest rates, high unemployment rates and so on
Do you want to do that again?
I don't give a Flying Fruitcake Fuck about anyone in Iraq,
I do care about America and Americans and most importantly my standard of living (which in turn effects my son's way of life)
Colin in answer to your statement starting this thread
I disagree
It's time to step up the war, end the nonsense
__________________
Pssst Click the Button Above
I once wanted to be a Gynecologist
But I couldn't find an opening
Personally I believe the US fighting forces are holding back way too much. We should really do shock and awe like the campaign started out trying to do. A war from the air raining down destruction until there is little to no resistance left.
Well, now, there's a problem with that - it is inconsistent with the latest rationalization for why we are there. The problem with disguishing a war with imperialistic objectives as a liberation effort is that you just can't do that. I don't think that a lot of the support the President has now
The first think I would do if I was in charge politcally right now is send anyone who even nodded in agreement with this sort of bravado off to some insignificant post in Figi. While, after recent events, it has a certain emotional appeal, tactically it has never proven to work - whether it was the saturation bombing tactics of WWII or the ten year long Rolling Thunder campaigns of Vietnam - not to mention that the technique did not work for the British, the French, the Dutch, the Belguins, nor the Portugese.
In addition to alienating the rest of the Iraqi population - which you may not care about, but have to admit we need - it would be the absolute best recruting campaign imaginable for the likes of alQaida. It could topple our new buddy in Pakistan, destroy what we've accomplished in Afghanistan, and further strengthen the bad guys in a number of the the other bumfuckistans that we need right now.
Short term? I'd get SERIOUS about the need to treat post-Saddam Iraq like post-Hitler Germany. At the risk of seeming to emulate Ribbentrop and Molotov, I'd get the foreign ministers of the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council together, carve the sucker up into zones, and REALLY occupy Iraq. Oh, the concessions that would be necessary to make that happen would probably cost the Haliburtons some money - but it would be well worth it.
When we occupied Germany a former Nazi couldn't fart without it being within earshot of the Allied occupation forces. In Vietnam in the 60s & 70s, like in Iraq today, the enemy can operate with impunity unless we happen to be in their face - and if we are they can simply wait ten minutes. "Occupation-lite" does not work. It failed in Vietnam for us twice (the first time it was American dollars and French lives); it failed for the other powers listed above; and it failed for the Soviets in Afghanistan. The smoke and mirrors fantasy that we can turn power back over to the Iraqis in June has got to end.
__________________ SEX STORY TEXT Exotic Material for Adult Websites Available for part time (project or ongoing) work ...
and I think to some degree you and I agree on (part of) the end objective -
stabilization of the region
But we look at different means to do it
My thought is it's best in the hands of the US and if I understand correctly you'd prefer a multinational force.
Not certain we need the Iraqis - if we occupy the country and dictate the terms it's our game. Where is the difference between treating post-Saddam Iraq like post-Hitler Germany and American occupation?
Because it's done by one country with their best interests solely in mind
(Isn't that why the France opposed the war, their own interests)
The other side of the coin with regards to Pakistan, Afghanistan and the other bumfuckistans
If they see a real shock and awe campaign and know what the US is capable of and will do don't you think that will help um ... keep them in line
Basically we better be buddies and play ball or we could be next
Does fear go a long way with extremest or are they so far gone they don't give a flying fig about their own lives?
My major concern is American interests (read oil)
As far as why we're are there or our stated reasons (latest rationalization if you will) no longer matters from my perspective
We're there .........
Let me mull this over the second glass of scotch <_<
and yes my ideas and opinions may be brash, crude and even ignorant but they are honest, no candy coated liberation bullshit here
__________________
Pssst Click the Button Above
I once wanted to be a Gynecologist
But I couldn't find an opening
Originally posted by Vick@Apr 7 2004, 08:14 PM Where is the difference between treating post-Saddam Iraq like post-Hitler Germany and American occupation?
the support of the overwhelming majority of the people. one united people (not 3-4 major islamic groups with 1000's of years of killing each other). the lack of a religion that demands you die killing the enemy. a society based on a religion that demands that non believers be killed and that their presence on thier land is the ultimate sin. the desire of the German people to rebuild and rejoin the european and world community, exhaustion of years of war and devistation and lives lost, the horror of a nation realizing what crimes the Nazis perpetrated etc etc etc.
the two cannot possibly compare in any way. the list of differences is impossibly long.
you cannot instill democracy in a place that does not want it. you cannot control a murderous mob by democracy. you can only do it the way Saddam did, Stalin did, Hitler did and other similar powers.
i think the whole issue of invading Iraq was a horrible mistake and i fear that the near future (1-2 years of struggle and loss of life) will prove that to be an undeniable fact.
My thought is it's best in the hands of the US and if I understand correctly you'd prefer a multinational force.
My preference for an international force are based on practicalities and realism, before I come close to anything idealogical. I do not believe that America has the manpower to do the job alone if we are to do it properly. We can do a sham job - that's what Bush seems intent on doing, with the turnover of power in June. That will NOT, however, do anything to ensure the long term stability of the region, nor will finding ourselves a puppet leader- a Shah of Iraq, perhaps?
Quote:
The other side of the coin with regards to Pakistan, Afghanistan and the other bumfuckistans
If they see a real shock and awe campaign and know what the US is capable of and will do don't you think that will help um ... keep them in line
Basically we better be buddies and play ball or we could be next
Gee ... more tonnage dropped on "that pissant country" Vietnam during Nixon's part of that war than was dropped on either Japan or Germany during WWII, and it really scared them into submission, didn't it? The Russians awed the Afghanis, the French awed the Algerians, the Belgins awed the Congolese and others, the Portugese awed the Angolans ... terror will begat nothing more and nothing less than terror in return. Show me an example where it worked, and I'll consider it.
Quote:
Does fear go a long way with extremest or are they so far gone they don't give a flying fig about their own lives?
Your extremist is their patriot. Fear of arguably the greatest power in the world did not seem to deter a ragtag bunch of colonists in 1776 at Lexington and Concord, did it? B52s didn't deter the gooks from humping field pieces 1000 miles down jungle trails, did it? Fear of one of the two greatest powers in the world didn't stop the Mujahadeen from taking on the Russians (who were hardly as encumbered as a democracy might be in the tactics they employed), did it? Fear of absolutely overwhelming odds did not deter the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto from rising up, did it? I say again - show me an example where your theory has worked, and I'll listen.
You are standing there pointing at a bright yellow Yugo painted with Sunkist labels all over it, attempting to convince me that maybe this one really IS a Cadillac - and I ain't buying it.
Quote:
Not certain we need the Iraqis - if we occupy the country and dictate the terms it's our game. Where is the difference between treating post-Saddam Iraq like post-Hitler Germany and American occupation?
We didn't finish the war with the Germans and immediately begin a gurilla war, did we? The only place we encountered ongoing reisistance after the surrender in either theater of war was in the 454 square miles of Okinawa, and we probably had damn close to the same number of troops there that we now have in the 171,599 square miles of Iraq - and it took us 3 (?) years to finally crush the resistance.
I point out to you again - we are not occupying Iraq like we occupied Germany. We have not defeated the Iraqis in the way we defeated the Germans.
In one of the few things Mike's said all day that I agree with, he pointed out that "they don't think like us." The Iraqis are not Germans - they are not Westerners. They are a disparte group of tribes and clans who want noting more than to (with apologies to Ray Stevens) hop on their camel named Clyde and go kill some of the other guys in the name of Allah. Sunni and Shiite have scores to settle with each other, unless of course there are infidels to kill; both want to exterminate the Kurds who really want nothing more than to be left alone and blow up Turks, Shiite, Sunni, Syrians, Iranians - anyone will do.
If you are following Mike AI off into the past - the glorious days of imperialism - you aren't just attempting to reinvent the wheel. You are trying to revitalize that early version of the wheel that had four eqally flat edges. It will not work, and an attempt to make it work will, far from ensuring your son's future lifestyle, almost guarantee him a harder battle agaist "evildoers" than he is going to encounter anyway.
__________________ SEX STORY TEXT Exotic Material for Adult Websites Available for part time (project or ongoing) work ...
Originally posted by Naughty@Apr 7 2004, 01:41 PM
Wow Colin, I'd never thought you'd say this.
I thought you were a firm believer of the war (which is actually almost a year over now), and still were so.
I was. Am still. Actually, when I wrote "It's time to leave Iraq", I basically meant "let's hurry up, hang Saddam in Baghdad Central Square, declare victory, hoist the American flag and bring the boys home".
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Apr 7 2004, 12:15 PM How long until it reaches a critical mass when things are no longer "pretty good"?
No Idea. But I thinkwe should hurry up, tidy up, and leave. I know it can't be done today but soon it would be good. Get that whole transfer of power thing going on.
The natives are restless.
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Apr 7 2004, 05:34 PM Didn't think much of it, actually. It's based on the traditional right-wing misconception that the war in Vietnam was "winnable", and followed by a well-honed right wing trick of blaming the defeat on a lack of political will which was sapped by back-stabbers at home.
This is an easy war to win. Just come home. The sooner the better. Saddam is out of power. The war goal is complete. Easy to declare victory.
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
US army did great on the battlefield in Iraq, where there were real targets. However after "the war" Bush made a major mistake (IMHO) not getting the whole of EU to help with rebuilding Iraq and install Democracy. Why was this important? Well - there are MILLIONS of refugees from Iraq in Europe - they all hate Saddam, they all have families in Iraq, and they all understand western culture to some degree.
EU would benefit greatly from a democratic Iraq, because it could send home refugees, which would save money and make the right wing movement in Europe less powerful. EU would probably have spend billions in Iraq - not only by rebuilding infrastructure, but also by giving direct economic help to refugees returning home. This money would create jobs, and stability. And with refugees returning home to Iraq, then real links to the rest of the world would be established - and not like today when some Mullah is the only person with "connections".
Now today most Iraqis still think that getting rid of Saddam was a good thing, however like all people then their "basic" needs (food, housing, security, jobs, electricity etc.) come before any "idealistic" ideas (religion, politics, democracy, freedom etc.). The western democratic world should have massively supported these basic needs, then Iragis would have time to take care of the more idealistic needs. Instead Mullahs are giving these basic needs to people, and western politicians are throwing away valuable
time talking about, if there were any WMD or Terror connection in Iraq, when they should talk about how to solve basic problems in Iraq.
We got Mullahs one side backed by one of the poorest nations in the world (Iran), and we got the riches part of the world (the west) who should have been massively investing in Iraq, but instead they are using their time talking about unimportant things.
I understand why some of you think the Mullahs are winning, when we are not even talking about the real issue... the future of Iraq.
Should we leave them to the faith of Mullahs, or should we give them Democracry (and yes, people in Iraq want democracy - not a Taliban ruled goverment).
__________________ "Chaos is the law of nature, order is the dream of man."
~Henry B. Adams (Historian) 1838-1918
Hmmmm
Very interesting reading and thanks to everyone for sharing their insights and opinions
Rolo - I'm not to keen on throwing money (and other resources) at the problems of the middle east (The western democratic world should have massively supported these basic needs) unless we are getting something material and immediate back in return (gratitude has a damn short shelf life)
PD - Guess I'm tying 2 problems together, I see rising oil prices as a HUGE problem
As for a puppet I mean a long term solution not another Shah
As for military might being a deterrent I'm going to go apples to oranges here and say military might of the USA (and the USSR) kept the world from being annihilated from oh about 1960-1995 or so
MAD - mutually assured destruction
I'll go on record again by saying that I'm not sure we even should have went into Iraq
But now we are there I believe we can't just walk away and should work for an acceptable and favorable (to the US) resolution
__________________
Pssst Click the Button Above
I once wanted to be a Gynecologist
But I couldn't find an opening
Originally posted by Rolo@Apr 8 2004, 07:13 AM US army did great on the battlefield in Iraq, where there were real targets. However after "the war" Bush made a major mistake (IMHO) not getting the whole of EU to help with rebuilding Iraq and install Democracy. Why was this important? Well - there are MILLIONS of refugees from Iraq in Europe - they all hate Saddam, they all have families in Iraq, and they all understand western culture to some degree.
EU would benefit greatly from a democratic Iraq, because it could send home refugees, which would save money and make the right wing movement in Europe less powerful. EU would probably have spend billions in Iraq - not only by rebuilding infrastructure, but also by giving direct economic help to refugees returning home. This money would create jobs, and stability. And with refugees returning home to Iraq, then real links to the rest of the world would be established - and not like today when some Mullah is the only person with "connections".
Now today most Iraqis still think that getting rid of Saddam was a good thing, however like all people then their "basic" needs (food, housing, security, jobs, electricity etc.) come before any "idealistic" ideas (religion, politics, democracy, freedom etc.). The western democratic world should have massively supported these basic needs, then Iragis would have time to take care of the more idealistic needs. Instead Mullahs are giving these basic needs to people, and western politicians are throwing away valuable
time talking about, if there were any WMD or Terror connection in Iraq, when they should talk about how to solve basic problems in Iraq.
We got Mullahs one side backed by one of the poorest nations in the world (Iran), and we got the riches part of the world (the west) who should have been massively investing in Iraq, but instead they are using their time talking about unimportant things.
I understand why some of you think the Mullahs are winning, when we are not even talking about the real issue... the future of Iraq.
Should we leave them to the faith of Mullahs, or should we give them Democracry (and yes, people in Iraq want democracy - not a Taliban ruled goverment).
Very good post!!
__________________
Make big money on your Domains! Why wait 40 days to get paid with the other guys? Parked.com pays the most for your traffic, and cuts checks twice a month!
Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Apr 7 2004, 01:43 PM yeah, PD, tell us why do people join the voluntary ARMED forces?
do you need multiple choice answers or you can pull it on your own?
I did that to Meni and I'll do it to you,
bug the shit out of you 'till I get the answer
Serge you join to fight for what you believe it
this is a bullshit war idiot
and ask the troops
no doubt 70% think its bullshit and want out
so shove that up your boca ass
"We're facing an enemy that's unafraid to fight from behind women and children, from occupied apartment buildings, from protected sites," said a Marine officer in Fallujah.
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
Battlefield decisions are now clearly being made for political reasons.
"The U.S. military today halted its offensive against anti-coalition forces inside the city of Fallujah to allow talks that could lead to a cease-fire and to allow humanitarian aid, civilian administrator Paul Bremer said."
That's this morning's news and it is alarming. I won't spell out the comparisons. They are obvious. PD's bells are going off and for good reason. All wars are political but in the "political war" equation, the word war should play a larger role than the word political.
This war was pretty much over after 21 days when armored columns drove right into Baghdad opposed by nothing more than the Iraqi equivalent of the American redneck. Towel headed guys driving Ford pickup trucks with old Iraqi flag bumper stickers armed with militia-styled weapons. Hell, they even believe the South will rise again. I saw it on TV. Where were the tanks? Incinerated with airpower. I saw it on TV.
The war was REALLY over when Saddam was captured. We've achieved our goals. It's amazing that we've captured Saddam. Bush should gloat more.
The path to Democracy has started in Iraq. No more Saddam! I don't agree with putting more troops in Iraq. I don't agree with putting EU troops in Iraq. That's just more targets. The goals of the war were achieved quickly and efficiently with a historically small operation. That part of the war was run as well as any way has ever been run. If you disagree, go ahead and cite counterexamples.
But a war can't be won if you are still fighting it. It's in the rules.
If I were president this is what I would say,
"700 of our bravest died to free you 25 million Iraqis from the savage Saddam. Now, you 25 million get your shit together and run your country. You have 90 days. If you fuck it up, too bad. We're going home!
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
Originally posted by Meat@Apr 8 2004, 05:07 AM
To do something extreme would be to round up all the bad asses in the world, take them from the jails murderers rapists terrorists etc, send them all to iraq and then nuke the whole goddamn country.
if a load of muslims invaded the usa to liberate you of George Bush then hung around setting up a muslim government you'd probably get pissed after a while and start shooting at them too
Originally posted by spanno@Apr 9 2004, 11:13 AM if a load of muslims invaded the usa to liberate you of George Bush then hung around setting up a muslim government you'd probably get pissed after a while and start shooting at them too
hmmm...another one I thought left for good not to torture us with his "wisdom"
Originally posted by Colin@Apr 9 2004, 04:59 AM Battlefield decisions are now clearly being made for political reasons.
"The U.S. military today halted its offensive against anti-coalition forces inside the city of Fallujah to allow talks that could lead to a cease-fire and to allow humanitarian aid, civilian administrator Paul Bremer said."
That's this morning's news and it is alarming. I won't spell out the comparisons. They are obvious. PD's bells are going off and for good reason. All wars are political but in the "political war" equation, the word war should play a larger role than the word political.
This war was pretty much over after 21 days when armored columns drove right into Baghdad opposed by nothing more than the Iraqi equivalent of the American redneck. Towel headed guys driving Ford pickup trucks with old Iraqi flag bumper stickers armed with militia-styled weapons. Hell, they even believe the South will rise again. I saw it on TV. Where were the tanks? Incinerated with airpower. I saw it on TV.
The war was REALLY over when Saddam was captured. We've achieved our goals. It's amazing that we've captured Saddam. Bush should gloat more.
The path to Democracy has started in Iraq. No more Saddam! I don't agree with putting more troops in Iraq. I don't agree with putting EU troops in Iraq. That's just more targets. The goals of the war were achieved quickly and efficiently with a historically small operation. That part of the war was run as well as any way has ever been run. If you disagree, go ahead and cite counterexamples.
But a war can't be won if you are still fighting it. It's in the rules.
If I were president this is what I would say,
"700 of our bravest died to free you 25 million Iraqis from the savage Saddam. Now, you 25 million get your shit together and run your country. You have 90 days. If you fuck it up, too bad. We're going home!
Like the idea of doing a reinactment of Dresden or Tokyo on a couple of Iraqi cities, "You have 90 days. If you fuck it up, too bad. We're going home!" has a certain emotional appeal.
We can't do that. Like what I've referred to as "occupation lite", we've tried it before and it cost us dearly. It's a lot easier to conduct military operations if you've already got boots on the ground, however - so from a logistics point, it makes no sense to bring the boys home if you're going to have to put them right back.
About 20 years ago we contributed to the destruction of much of the infrastructure and virtually all of what passed for civil authority in Afghanistan. Now, there was a war going on and those things happen in war. After the war, we went home. It led to the Taliban, who provided safe haven to alQaida.
__________________ SEX STORY TEXT Exotic Material for Adult Websites Available for part time (project or ongoing) work ...
Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Apr 9 2004, 11:33 AM We can't do that.
Not "IF you fuck it up THEN too bad we're going home" but .. "We're going home, if you fuck it up after that, too bad". There is no more occupation in my 90 day plan. The end.
Maybe we'll go back in 20 years? Maybe, maybe not. Sometimes you fight the enemy more than once. That's why wars have numbers. ;-)
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
Liberation is just occupation after it has been through the spin cycle. Same thing, people come from outside, get rid of yoru leaders, and try to make your government be like theirs.
US calls it liberation because they are bringing "freedom"... whatever the fuck that is.
Alex
__________________
Let's go to the edge of disaster Push the pedal and go a little faster Let's slam into a wall at ramming speed Let's go to the edge of a mountain Jump off and lets start countin' Hit the ground and tell me if it bleeds
Originally posted by RawAlex@Apr 9 2004, 09:01 AM Liberation is just occupation after it has been through the spin cycle. Same thing, people come from outside, get rid of yoru leaders, and try to make your government be like theirs.
US calls it liberation because they are bringing "freedom"... whatever the fuck that is.
Alex
"freedom" Alex, is when you attack someone and then force them to be just like you.
The ancient Greeks fought for "freedom". They even had a god of freedom, Eleutherios. When they defeated the Persians about 2500 years ago many formed a cult of Freedom. They built a temple and everything. I think it's still standing. Socrates used to hang out there telling everyone how ignorat he was . For some reason this made everyone that met him feel stupid. Later some people got annoyed with him and killed him.
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
What is everyone's thought on how America HELPED democratize Germany, Japan and Italy? In hindsight were those "good" decisions? Did the Allied forces (and specifically America because it was a majority of US funds that were used to help construct those new democracies) have any choice but to do it? What would the World look like had the US not assisted in that endeavor.
It certainly sickens me when I see US soldiers and citizens being killed. But, look back over a year ago when many people were asking (paraphrasing and yes it is a sick question) "How many US soldiers would you be willing to "give up" in order to see Sadam overthrown and a democracy in Iraq?" The numbers were usually well into the thousands. I myself thought that we would lose a number that was similar to the CIA projected number of 10k.
But aren't all these arguments subject to the end result. If Iraq can't be "democratized" because of history, religion, conditioning and tradition then the US going in would have been a disaster whether we lost 1 person or 100,000. If the US is successful then in 20 years this will be a successful campaign no matter how many losses. So, I believe the ends really do justify the means - in hindsight of course.
One only needs to look to Iraq's Northern border for a model democratic Muslim nation. Iraq has the double edged sword of Islamism and pan-Arabism to contend with. We'll see. My opinion is that sometimes such things turn out for the better and sometimes not. It's too complicated for anyone to confidently predict.
Regression towards the mean though. The odds that Iraq will end up worse without Saddam than with him is pretty low.
Will we be back to Iraq again? No idea. We'll be back in the Middle East again. Somewhere, sometime. Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Syria. Of course we will.
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
I didn't say "leave today". I said "hurry up". If we're turning Iraq over to an Iraqi government in 90 days they can police the place too. This is now a police action and the Iraqi police should handle it.
Got Sunnis in your sandbox? Call 9-1-1.
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
Regression towards the mean though. The odds that Iraq will end up worse without Saddam than with him is pretty low.
Consider lasik surgery to replace the rose colored glasses. While I don't think its as far removed from reality as Cheney/MacRumsfeld's "parades to greet the liberators", it's in the neighborhood.
How many people would have predicted that the fall of Communism would have resulted in the mess formerly known as Yugoslovia?
You really do seem to be advocating a 1989 Afghanistan policy. I think that's as foolhardy as the jingoistic facade of a policy that's gotten us here.
__________________ SEX STORY TEXT Exotic Material for Adult Websites Available for part time (project or ongoing) work ...
Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Apr 9 2004, 09:48 AM
Quote:
Regression towards the mean though. The odds that Iraq will end up worse without Saddam than with him is pretty low.
Consider lasik surgery to replace the rose colored glasses. While I don't think its as far removed from reality as Cheney/MacRumsfeld's "parades to greet the liberators", it's in the neighborhood.
How many people would have predicted that the fall of Communism would have resulted in the mess formerly known as Yugoslovia?
You really do seem to be advocating a 1989 Afghanistan policy. I think that's as foolhardy as the jingoistic facade of a policy that's gotten us here.
I find it amazing that only a few months ago a majority (small majority at just over 50%) thought their lives were already better than when Saddam was in power. In this is still with the US there, this is after the US dropped tons of bombs on them and their country is a disaster. I think that says something. The number will obviously fluctuate with the things that are going on the country. If the "Insurgence" get more of a foothold then that number will go down. If the US gains "control" again them that number will probably go up.
Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Apr 9 2004, 12:48 PM You really do seem to be advocating a 1989 Afghanistan policy. I think that's as foolhardy as the jingoistic facade of a policy that's gotten us here.
How many people would have predicted that the fall of Communism would have resulted in the mess formerly known as Yugoslovia?
Nearly all policies look bad in hindsight because the world changes. What can I say? I think supporting an enemy of the USSR was a really good idea in 1989.
So what if the Yugo region is STILL a mess. Are you saying you'd rather have the USSR back and events like the Cuban Missile Crisis rather than "the mess formerly known as Yugoslovia"?
I don't know what world you live in. In mine, the land once known as Yugoslavia has been a damned mess for 1000 years - excepting the Pax Ottoman Empire. I'll take who was Gavrilo Princip for $1000, Alex?
Last edited by Colin at Apr 9 2004, 01:08 PM
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
Colin, your correct. The ever changing political and religeous landscape in this area makes finding a successful outcome all but impossible. Like it or not, this is a section of the world that isn't happier with dictators, but they tend to work better when they have someone to tell them what to do.
No matter when the US decides to leave, it is only a matter of time before the next civil war / coup / overthrow / religeous takeover. The only real question will be which way the "victor" will lean.
Freedom cannot be ordered.
Alex
__________________
Let's go to the edge of disaster Push the pedal and go a little faster Let's slam into a wall at ramming speed Let's go to the edge of a mountain Jump off and lets start countin' Hit the ground and tell me if it bleeds
Yes, Colin, the Balkans have been a clusterfuck for a thousand years. My point is that walking away now without stabilizing Iraq would put whoever did that in the position of Gavrilo Princip with pair of nuclear detonations instead of a pair of pistol shots.
It can be argued that Gavrilo Princip is the founder of both Yugoslovia and Iraq ... since the little conflict he helped spark lead to the creation of both artificial countries.
I cannot guarantee that a post WWII style occupation of Iraq would, even after 10 or 20 years, eliminate the possibilty that Iraq won't follow the path that Yugoslovia did.
I can almost guarantee you that walking away now would ensure it. While I think that the proponents of the war as an imperialist exercise are about as out of touch with reality as the Flat Earth Society, they do have a point - the stability of the region is important because of the oil.
__________________ SEX STORY TEXT Exotic Material for Adult Websites Available for part time (project or ongoing) work ...
btw, Colin ... I wasn't expecting to see the term "Pan-Arabism" show up in the discussion on Oprano. Not as surprising as someone attacking the proponents of the Iraqi excursion as justifable imperialism as neo-colonialists, perhaps, but still unexpected.
__________________ SEX STORY TEXT Exotic Material for Adult Websites Available for part time (project or ongoing) work ...
Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Apr 9 2004, 02:46 PM btw, Colin ... I wasn't expecting to see the term "Pan-Arabism" show up in the discussion on Oprano. Not as surprising as someone attacking the proponents of the Iraqi excursion as justifable imperialism as neo-colonialists, perhaps, but still unexpected.
04-07-2004
<_< 
h34r:
Linear Mode
