[quote]rainjack wrote:
So wanting a strong defense is nationalism, now? [/quote]
Strawman. Of course it isn’t. Nationalism is what results from nations getting involved in our private lives. I do not want defense to be provided by a nation that will use it as the next tag line in a patriotic verse to itself.
Defense can be completely provided by voluntary citizen soldiers. It does not need to be provided by people on a government – and hence NATIONAL payroll.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
rainjack wrote:
So wanting a strong defense is nationalism, now?
Strawman. Of course it isn’t. Nationalism is what results from nations getting involved in our private lives. I do not want defense to be provided by a nation that will use it as the next tag line in a patriotic verse to itself.
Defense can be completely provided by voluntary citizen soldiers. It does not need to be provided by people on a government – and hence NATIONAL payroll.[/quote]
Not a strawman. You brought it up.
Except that it is one of the very few things our constitution allows for federal spending on.
It will only be a matter of hours before you contradict yourself yet again.
Seriously, sparky - you are full of shit, and spewing crap. DO you take a lot of drugs? Perhaps drink too much? Or are you supposed to be on a strict medication schedule which you ignore?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
rainjack wrote:
So wanting a strong defense is nationalism, now?
Strawman. Of course it isn’t. Nationalism is what results from nations getting involved in our private lives. I do not want defense to be provided by a nation that will use it as the next tag line in a patriotic verse to itself.
Defense can be completely provided by voluntary citizen soldiers. It does not need to be provided by people on a government – and hence NATIONAL payroll.[/quote]
Lemme make sure I have this straight.
In your vision everybody is an absolutely unaffiliated individual. Even states in your version of the world would actually be just small countries so they’re out too.
So if a group of people that do not subscribe to this ideology pool enough resources to amass military might such as China or Russia decide that they would like to add North America to their realm of territorial possessions, assuming we had lived your ultra individualistic philosophy to this point, [quote]"Defense can be completely provided by voluntary citizen soldiers[/quote]?
You’re nuts!!!
The very wise men who founded this nation recognized that the very nature of human history precludes anything like what you are proposing and thus the preamble to our Constitution declares the provision for a “COMMON defense”.
Article 1 sec. 8 reiterates that principle.
Every man for himself is a social, military, societal and moral impossibility if anything resembling civilization is to be maintained among a people.
Our original form of government was the best balance of the individual and state thus far in history and could have only improved if we were not now on a self destructive quest for socialistic bullshit.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Don’t get me wrong I do not believe it is every man for himself. That is an untenable position.
I don’t think that defense needs to be performed by the nation state. I think every free person has a responsibility to defend himself. I think private property must always be defended even if there is already a standing military that could do it.
I don’t have time to compose a longer post but I will find some time to expound upon the ideas I am trying to convey a little bit later.
Some more food for thought:
Moreover, how was it possible that men armed with no
more than box cutters could inflict the terrible damage they
did? Obviously, this was possible only because the government
prohibited airlines and pilots from protecting their own property by force of arms, thus rendering every commercial airline vulnerable and unprotected against hijackers. A $50 pistol in the cockpit could have done what $400 billion in the hands of government were unable to do.
~Hans-Hermann Hoppe
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Don’t get me wrong I do not believe it is every man for himself. That is an untenable position.
I don’t think that defense needs to be performed by the nation state. I think every free person has a responsibility to defend himself. I think private property must always be defended even if there is already a standing military that could do it.
I don’t have time to compose a longer post but I will find some time to expound upon the ideas I am trying to convey a little bit later.
Some more food for thought:
[i]Moreover, how was it possible that men armed with no
more than box cutters could inflict the terrible damage they
did?
Obviously, this was possible only because the government
prohibited airlines and pilots from protecting their own property by force of arms, thus rendering every commercial airline vulnerable and unprotected against hijackers. A $50 pistol in the cockpit could have done what $400 billion in the hands of government were unable to do.[/i]
~Hans-Hermann Hoppe[/quote]
You’re killin me here pal. KILLIN ME!!!
How? Pray tell, are the ideas of [quote]airlines and pilots protecting their own property by force of arms[/quote] and a common defense of the nation as a whole mutually exclusive?
What do they even have to do with each other? I am in favor of and the constitution provides for private citizens and business concerns protecting their own lives and property by lethal force.
I have the home defense drill with my wife twice a year where we go out and I refresh her on use of the shotgun and how to confront a potential intruder. Point it center mass and tell him one time what he is going to do depending on a couple general scenarios.
If he does anything except that… instantly… pull that trigger. 3in. 00 magnum buckshot, a virtually guaranteed kill with a solid hit from across a room. It’s kept loaded 4 in the mag and a snap cap in the chamber, hammer down safety off. Pick it up, chamber a round and ready to go
Why do you have it somehow ingrained in your mind that people who believe in a national defense also must believe in an unarmed helpless citizenry?
Why cannot there be both? Local police forces are virtually useless for protecting individual citizens or families, I agree, that must be done by them.
However, it does not follow from that that WAR, between nations, on an international, maybe intercontinental or even global scale should be done or is even possible in the same manner.
How in the name of all that’s reasonable can you not grasp that?
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
In other words, we (ie our fearless leaders) have learned nothing from Korea to the present-- that you can’t fight wars from your living room and worry about polls.
[/quote]
I thought after 9-11 we would have understood this.
Maybe the next war.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
In other words, we (ie our fearless leaders) have learned nothing from Korea to the present-- that you can’t fight wars from your living room and worry about polls.
I thought after 9-11 we would have understood this.
Maybe the next war.[/quote]
What should we have done? Assuming the decision is made. We are invading Iraq. What do people think our mission and methods should’ve been. From the start.
Repeated re deployments would wind up costing more than the present occupation in the long run. He’s right that Iraq won’t be stable for 24 whole hours after we’re gone. Anybody who believes it will probably believed we’d have a repeat of Paris 1944 when we went in which I did not for one second.
So, assuming the intelligence that we, and everyone else had, that an unfettered Hussein was not an option and we are going to fire him, what should we have done?
I’m asking seriously.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
So, assuming the intelligence that we, and everyone else had, that an unfettered Hussein was not an option and we are going to fire him, what should we have done?
I’m asking seriously. [/quote]
The insurgency happened because we allowed it. We went in, took the country in a matter of hours, and then allowed the insurgents, and rebel clerics to hide in houses, mosques, and historic buildings.
We couldn’t fire on an enemy combatant until we had permission from someone miles away.
We needed to go in, with extreme prejudice, and destroy the enemy where they hid. All manner of history was destroyed in WWII - and the US went into Iraq as if they were not allowed to break anything. We should have went in there like a bull in a china closet, rooted the murderous motherfuckers out, and killed them.
You can’t fight a PC war. If you are not prepared to destroy the enemy, you should just stay home.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
<<< The insurgency happened because we allowed it. We went in, took the country in a matter of hours, and then allowed the insurgents, and rebel clerics to hide in houses, mosques, and historic buildings.
We couldn’t fire on an enemy combatant until we had permission from someone miles away.
We needed to go in, with extreme prejudice, and destroy the enemy where they hid. All manner of history was destroyed in WWII - and the US went into Iraq as if they were not allowed to break anything. We should have went in there like a bull in a china closet, rooted the murderous motherfuckers out, and killed them.
You can’t fight a PC war. If you are not prepared to destroy the enemy, you should just stay home. [/quote]
I agree 100%
Then what?
I do not believe that even had we crushed opposition from day one that the remaining Iraqis would be up to a functioning government capable of maintaining her borders without us. I still don’t. There will be both civil war and an Iranian invasion while were still on the planes coming home.
In other words we would have been several years ago where we are now except it would have been a lot less costly.
So again. what should we do?
I’m not being a smartass, but I am going somewhere with this.
Fortify the borders and the oil fields first and foremost.
Armed and trained the Iraqi military and police off Iraqi soil to stop them from being targets of insurgents.
Most of the people who wanted a democracy and would have backed the US were killed by insurgents. We should have protected them.
Protect contractors. These people fell prey to the insurgents as well.
Let the Iraqis have the government they wanted as long as they remained an ally.
Lastly, we should either brought Al-Sadr to the barganing table or wiped him and his forces out.
Same with the bastards in Fallujah. We let them grow stronger when we should have wiped them and gave them ample warning to escape instead of striking without mercy.
[quote]AynRandLuvr wrote:
"Mongol General: Wrong! Conan, what is best in life?
Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women!
Mongol General: That is good.
Yesterday, put on ‘Rage Against the Machine’ and had a heavy DL day. If I closed my eyes, I imagined being in a plane and could see Iranian nuke facilities, and I’m shooting my missles at them.
They go up in a smoldering ruin. Now, I can see Tehran in the distance and am closing in on it. Iranian defense is next to nothing against my technology. “Ain’t nothin’ but a peanut!” (Ronnie Coleman) I storm in and shred their city, leaving the hellfire they deserve in my wake. They are shredded and destroyed.
Ah, the sheer joy of bombing…
[/quote]
Mongol General: WRONG! Bombing is for pussies! Men fight in close combat! The sheer joy of close combat!Man to man!
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Fortify the borders and the oil fields first and foremost.
Armed and trained the Iraqi military and police off Iraqi soil to stop them from being targets of insurgents.
Most of the people who wanted a democracy and would have backed the US were killed by insurgents. We should have protected them.
Protect contractors. These people fell prey to the insurgents as well.
Let the Iraqis have the government they wanted as long as they remained an ally.
Lastly, we should either brought Al-Sadr to the barganing table or wiped him and his forces out.
Same with the bastards in Fallujah. We let them grow stronger when we should have wiped them and gave them ample warning to escape instead of striking without mercy.[/quote]
That’s all well and good, but I contend that even under a best case scenario Iraq could not have remained stable without our presence there.
There’s no way once we leave that a struggle for power will not ensue with all that oil money up for grabs. That would have been the case regardless of how we played it and should have been part of the planning before the first bomb fell.
How do we ensure they remain in alliance with us and what do we do if they don’t?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
That’s all well and good, but I contend that even under a best case scenario Iraq could not have remained stable without our presence there.[/quote]
Did you just acknowledge the idea that the US didn’t try its best to go after Al-Sadr? Do you also believe anyone who’s not on the US’ side is against a democratic Iraq?
Seems to me that you haven’t read GKhan’s post closely.
If you recall what the White House was talking about before the invasion, the plan was that a majority of Iraqis would be welcoming the US troops as “liberators”. Well, not as much a plan as it is wishful thinking, but that was what they were saying. The media along with 70% of the American public bought it, and I believe got scared by all the “mushroom cloud” rhetoric and the fear of being called “unpatriotic”. Do they need to be blamed for refusing to ask though questions, I don’t know but I don’t think for a second that Bush and his cronies are utterly incompetent. The only plausible explanation that remains is that the Bush administration knew the chances of finding any WMDs was slim and the country’s longstanding feuds would ensure an instability for years to come. Which was the perfect excuse to build giant military bases on the ground. With the US history in the region, there was simply no way a stable democratic Iraq would approve of US bases on their soil.
For starters, when looking for allies, avoid bombing the crap out of the country you’re trying to get on your side. Don’t support and arm the brutal dictator ruling it. In case of a democracy, if the ballots are not in your favorite candidate’s favor, don’t do like you did in Iran, Venezuela, Lebanon, The Occupied Territories and so many other places. It just ensures people hold a grudge for generations to come.
To answer your original question, your country should have assassinated Saddam. That would have precipitated the fall of the Ba’athists in Iraq (who weren’t exactly popular in 2003). You then leave them to sort it out. The North would have declared independence and the Turks would have done what they do best - exterminate Kurds - and at that point, Ankara would have taken hell from the world in general and the EU (which they’re desperately trying to join) in particular. The west of the country would have allied with the oppressed Shi’ites in Saudi Arabia and started pushing for one of two things: 1) serious reforms of the regime in place in Ryad, or 2) a secession proper. The East allies itself naturally with Iran whatever you do, so it’s a moot point. Sunnis get to keep a good chunk of the country, albeit oil-free (which might incite them to actually work and develop the place). Al-Qaeda and similar groups would have never been able to get such a foothold because they’ll lack all motive to be tolerated in Iraq (remember, you just killed the secular Ba’athist leader) as no invasion is taking place. Tribal groups wouldn’t be so powerful as civil institutions would still be in place. Women would still have their full rights, unlike the Shari’a crap Bremmer & co pushed for. Israel would be happy that their sworn enemy is gone and what was once a powerful country at their doorstep is breaking up. US taxpayers wouldn’t have spent trillions. 4173 American troops would still be alive. Many more private contractors. A pile of Iraqis would still be alive and kicking. No demolished Iraqi houses.
The only people pissed would be the PNAC folks who never hid their intentions of getting military bases in Iraq. The MIC would have also not appreciated having unused bombs in their warehouses.
[quote]Berserkergang wrote:
Mongol General: WRONG! Bombing is for pussies! Men fight in close combat! The sheer joy of close combat!Man to man!
[/quote]
I take offense to that.
The Mongol general was correct. There was no bombing in his day. But the Mongols knew the advantages of tactics and used arrows to great advantage. They knew that they could kill at a distance and win the battles with little loss to their own forces. They ruled one of the largest empires in history because of this.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
pushharder wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Ahmadinjad Get’s It
I have seen many a nonsensical post on the Pol forum but this just absolutely screams, “Dumb as a fuckin’ rock”. In fact, I’ve seen rocks with Phd.s in nuclear physics compared to this asinine assertion.
Sir, you have got to stop the cerebral hemorrhaging soon. You’re going to make a huge mess.
He he. He can’t even spell a 4-letter word correctly in the title.[/quote]
I also misspelled his name. Unfortunately the correction didn’t take.
[quote]lixy wrote:
<<< Another Long Post >>>[/quote]
There’s a reason why it’ll be a while before I answer you and may happen in another thread.
[quote]lixy wrote:
To answer your original question, your country should have assassinated Saddam. [/quote]
But Lixy, if we had, people like you would have been bitching about the US assassinating a head of state. And any chaos which insued would have been blamed on us. You know, sort of how you blame the US for terrorist attacks in Iraq. We are quilty by default iyo.
Tell me I am wrong about this.