Liberal Generals in Iraq

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]deanosumo wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Why is it not OK to have a US presence in the Mid East, yet it is perfectly acceptable to have Mid Easterners live in the US?

The only reason the US has a military presence is to protect its interests and citizens. We have a right to free trade and commerce without piracy and terrorism.

It is NOT the US fault they are fucked up! They have been fucked up since before the US came into existence.

Learn some history!

Your post is moronic. You compare a people of middle eastern origin living in the US- citizens mostly, or exchange students, or permanent residents waiting for citizenship, working, living normal lives- to the US presence in the Middle East- which is mainly a) armed forces and b) corporations.

So what you are saying is that if it’s okay for people of Middle Eastern extraction to live in the US, it’s okay for the US to send an occupying army over there?

Or did you just not think before you wrote?

That part of the world is fucked. PART of the reason it is fucked is the interference of the US in the past, along with Britain, and Russia, and other countries who have meddled in the region, for their own economic and strategic reasons. The other part is their own savage backwardness.

Which we should leave them to.
[/quote]

You seem to be good at missing the point. We do not want to send our military over there, we HAVE to.

People of the world have a right to free trade, travel and immigration(within reasonable limits).

The oil in the Middle East is extremely important to the entire world. Unfortunately the American military has had to protect this for decades, much like the Marines had to defeat the pirates of the Barbary Coast 200 years ago to protect shipping in that region, the US military is needed there today.

Leaving them to there “savage backwardness” is not an option, much as leaving Japan to its “savage backwardness” was not an option to Commodore Perry and his Black Ships 150 years ago.

Isolating yourself from the world and killing all trespassers is not acceptable.

82

Zap,

Good post.

As I’ve stated on numerous occassions, isolationism is not a tenable position.

As you pointed out, it didn’t work in the 1850’s, 1914, 1941, and beyond.

Throw in oil and Israel, and the Middle East is critical for the United States both internationally and domestically.

Don’t underestimate the power of mass media in our decision making. More pressure than ever is put on the leader of the only Superpower to uphold the ideas of Democracy when there are ghastly pictures on the television.

JeffR

83

[quote]deanosumo wrote:
Which we should leave them to.
[/quote]

Subtitle: Why history class in high school shouldn’t be slept through.

84

It is reasonable to question whether the strategy to invade Iraq was the correct strategy in the war against (Islamic) Terrorism. We won’t really know the answer for years.

What is not reasonable us to take an isolationist attitude.

85

I would like to challenge anyone who reads this post to talk to a soldier, marine, airman, or sailor who is currently serving or has served their country to protect the freedoms that many Americans take for granted. The reason we have the right to vote, voice our opinions openly, send our children to the schools we choose, attend religous services without persecution, and live the lifestyles we choose to live are because of the sacrifices young men and women have made for this country both currently and in the past. My challenge to you is: Talk to one of these real heros and see what their view of the war is. I garantee that the response you get will be overwhelmingly positive. These soldiers, marines, airmen, and sailors have made tremendous sacrifices, in some cases they have made the ultimate sacrifice, to ensure we, Americans, continue to live with the inherent freedoms everyone is entiled to.

Note- I am in the military, and faught in OIF 1. I have seen the smiles on hundreds of Iraqi men, women, and children who are now free from fear and the oppresive Saddam regime. I have seen them wave the American flag and cheer as we drove through Baghdad. There is no doubt in my mind that the majority of the Iraqi people appreciate what we are doing for them. I ask that you keep in mind that the few thousand insurgents that continue to fight are Islamic Extremist and terroists that know if the United States and its Allies achieve its goal of a Democratic Iraq that their influence on the region will disolve.

Finally, for all those who oppose the war in Iraq/Afganistan for whatever reason. We all know that the media reports stories for ratings and shock value. I ask that you educate yourself by reading non-fiction books on the region and then make your assessment based on fact and not what some reporter who lives and stays in the “Green Zone” has to report on the daily news.

86

CPTK, thanks for the post. It is always good to hear from people that are involved first hand.

Thank you for your service.

87

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Zap,

Good post.

As I’ve stated on numerous occassions, isolationism is not a tenable position.

As you pointed out, it didn’t work in the 1850’s, 1914, 1941, and beyond.

Throw in oil and Israel, and the Middle East is critical for the United States both internationally and domestically.

Don’t underestimate the power of mass media in our decision making. More pressure than ever is put on the leader of the only Superpower to uphold the ideas of Democracy when there are ghastly pictures on the television.

JeffR

[/quote]

You, and Zap, seem to have the mistaken belief that if someone is against invading the middle east, they are for isolationism. That’s your George Bush ‘all or nothing, you’re either with us, or with the terrorists’ kind of thinking coming to the fore.

I say ‘We shouldn’t have invaded Iraq’ you say ‘Dean’s an isolationist’. Eh? We can still trade, and engage in diplomacy, and we can still have an armed presence in Afghanistan. Is this isolationist? Both of you are twisting my words.

88

[quote]deanosumo wrote:

You, and Zap, seem to have the mistaken belief that if someone is against invading the middle east, they are for isolationism. That’s your George Bush ‘all or nothing, you’re either with us, or with the terrorists’ kind of thinking coming to the fore.

I say ‘We shouldn’t have invaded Iraq’ you say ‘Dean’s an isolationist’. Eh? We can still trade, and engage in diplomacy, and we can still have an armed presence in Afghanistan. Is this isolationist? Both of you are twisting my words.

[/quote]

Why was it OK to invade Afghanistan?

Afghanistan did nothing to us.

9/11 was an act of Saudi Arabians. Just because their supposed leader lived in Afghanistan does that make invasion right?

Consider the invasion of Iraq. In 1991 Iraq invaded Kuwait. A giant coalition was formed to expel them from Kuwait. A peace treaty was signed. Iraq did not abide by the terms of the treaty and often shot missles at US warplanes enforcing the no fly zone (a term of the treaty).

Iraq was to give free access to UN inspectors, yet it kept expelling them.

The UN passed resolutions authorizing military force against Iraq if they did not abide by the treaty.

The US invaded Iraq because Iraq continually broke the treaty.

How is the invasion of a country we have been at war with since 1991 not OK yet the invasion of Afghanistan is OK?

We certainly have more of a “legal” right to be in Iraq than in Afghanistan.

As to twisting your words you said:

"That part of the world is fucked. PART of the reason it is fucked is the interference of the US in the past, along with Britain, and Russia, and other countries who have meddled in the region, for their own economic and strategic reasons. The other part is their own savage backwardness.

Which we should leave them to. "

That sounds isolationist to me.

89

Ultimately the Iraq War needs to be viewed in context. The context is actions taken by others such as Al Queda and the inaction taken by Middle East leaders in dealing with the problem.

The Middle Eastern powers were given a choice and an option. When they attempted to bargain they were rebuffed. The world’s only superpower is pissed and rightly so.

We are at war with Al Queda. It’s complicated. Alliances have been formed broken and formed again.

Iraq needed to be invaded for a number of reasons.

  1. As a demonstration of US power.
  2. To establish a base that allows us
    operate in the middle of things.
  3. To prevent Sadaam from furthering
    his alliance with Al Queada.
  4. To destroy or prevent him from
    obtaining WMD’s.
  5. Because he needed to be deposed due
    to his actions against his people.

These are the most common reasons that anyone with a basic grasp of strategic thinking would see as apparent. You can argue the details but in the end it was bold and it accomplished it’s strategic objectives. What’s important now is what is next.

Al Queda has a terminal illness, it needs to be killed. We can do it now or we can wait but make no mistake it has to be done.

90

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
It is reasonable to question whether the strategy to invade Iraq was the correct strategy in the war against (Islamic) Terrorism. We won’t really know the answer for years.

What is not reasonable us to take an isolationist attitude. [/quote]

Well we know it wasn’t the right strategy as far as terrorism is concerned. It’s a miserable failure in that regard. Note the state dept now not publicizing the terror reports now. (Terror attacks tripled! terror in Iraq way up! terror in afghanistan up by double!) Wouldn’t want average american voter to wise up on the whole “strong on terror” propoganda. So no it won’t take years.

91

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Why was it OK to invade Afghanistan?

Afghanistan did nothing to us.

9/11 was an act of Saudi Arabians. Just because their supposed leader lived in Afghanistan does that make invasion right?

Consider the invasion of Iraq. In 1991 Iraq invaded Kuwait. A giant coalition was formed to expel them from Kuwait. A peace treaty was signed. Iraq did not abide by the terms of the treaty and often shot missles at US warplanes enforcing the no fly zone (a term of the treaty).

Iraq was to give free access to UN inspectors, yet it kept expelling them.

The UN passed resolutions authorizing military force against Iraq if they did not abide by the treaty.

The US invaded Iraq because Iraq continually broke the treaty.

How is the invasion of a country we have been at war with since 1991 not OK yet the invasion of Afghanistan is OK?

We certainly have more of a “legal” right to be in Iraq than in Afghanistan.

As to twisting your words you said:

"That part of the world is fucked. PART of the reason it is fucked is the interference of the US in the past, along with Britain, and Russia, and other countries who have meddled in the region, for their own economic and strategic reasons. The other part is their own savage backwardness.

Which we should leave them to. "

That sounds isolationist to me.[/quote]

Lets see you attack afghanistan to try and kill the people directly responsible for you. You don’t attack Iraq, because wisdom would have told you to be successful you’d have have a huge force to occupy Iraq in order to keep troops safe, keep the public safe and deal with massive power vacuum (we didn’t have such wisdom enacted). In the meantime this would trigger high levels of anti-american sentiment creating even more terrorists, thus shooting oneself in the foot at the cost of 1.5 billion dollars —no wait that’s what they said it was going to cost, hell they blow through that in a day or so—anyway at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, and the resentment of the muslim world (leading to more mad scheming terrorists!)

92

Dean, Dean, Dean.

What’s happened?

Are your hemorrhoids acting up?

I thought we were past all the “Bush is the devil” crap.

Oh, well.

Too bad!!!

Dean wrote:

"You, and Zap, seem to have the mistaken belief that if someone is against invading the middle east, they are for isolationism. That’s your George Bush ‘all or nothing, you’re either with us, or with the terrorists’ kind of thinking coming to the fore.

I say ‘We shouldn’t have invaded Iraq’ you say ‘Dean’s an isolationist’. Eh? We can still trade, and engage in diplomacy, and we can still have an armed presence in Afghanistan. Is this isolationist? Both of you are twisting my words."

Dean, Dean, Dean.

You wrote this ON THIS THREAD!!!

"That part of the world is fucked. PART of the reason it is fucked is the interference of the US in the past, along with Britain, and Russia, and other countries who have meddled in the region, for their own economic and strategic reasons. The other part is their own savage backwardness.

Which we should leave them to."

Meddling for their economic and strategic reasons?

“Which we should leave them to.”

If that isn’t the exact words used by isolationists from the beginning of the Republic, then I’m John “pay my parking tickets, bitch” Kerry.

Now I expect this sort intellectual laziness from lumpy.

You can’t type something like this in the same thread and then act shocked when we call you on it.

Honestly, sir, I’ve come to expect more from you.

If you persist in insulting our intelligence, we are going to have to reinstitutionalize the undercapitalization of your name.

You don’t want that!!!

JeffR

93

Cognitive Dissonance. Again Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism or al queda. Nothing about it needed to or had to have been done. Since terrorism is increasing, at that goal it has failed. The better question is you have hundreds of billion of dollars to wipe out terrorism. Do you invade iraq with no terrorists and then create new terrorists? Or just save tons of cash and kill just previously existing terrorists (Al queda). It certainly was a bold move, but also an incredibly stupid move–costly to boot!

94

What Al Qaeda-Iraq alliance? There was no Al Qaeda-Iraq connection before the US invaded Iraq.

Come on, you can’t just make stuff up. People might notice.

95

Jeff, okay. Perhaps I have not been clear. My bad.

What I mean by ‘leave that part of the world to it’ is- DON’T try to run their governments. DON’T invade and subjugate Iraq and create more hatred. DON’T force ‘democracy and freedom’ onto them. They won’t appreciate and don’t deserve it unless they earn it on their own.

DO retain diplomatic ties. DO retain some economic ties- we need their stinking oil, at least at the moment, (although that’s another issue I could write a book about). DO let everybody in that part of the world know that terrorism against America will be punished swiftly (which has NOTHING to do with the invasion of Iraq, despite unfounded claims to the contrary).

This is not isolationism, just not exercising influence through force, or invading countries because you think it is cool to call yourself a war President. I hope I have cleared some things up for you.

96

[quote]Cream wrote:
deanosumo wrote:
Which we should leave them to.

Subtitle: Why history class in high school shouldn’t be slept through.[/quote]

When I was taking it or when I was teaching it?

97

[quote]100meters wrote:
Cognitive Dissonance. Again Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism or al queda. Nothing about it needed to or had to have been done. Since terrorism is increasing, at that goal it has failed. The better question is you have hundreds of billion of dollars to wipe out terrorism. Do you invade iraq with no terrorists and then create new terrorists? Or just save tons of cash and kill just previously existing terrorists (Al queda). It certainly was a bold move, but also an incredibly stupid move–costly to boot![/quote]

Why did we invade North Africa after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor instead of reinforcing the Phillipines?

Because we believed it was the right strategy to win the war.

Just because you are completely unwilling to understand or acknowledge the strategy in the current war does not change that it is a legitimate strategy to take the fight offshore where it belongs.

Saddams ties to Al Queda we not very strong before the war in Iraq, however his funding of suicide bombers was shown on Arabic TV as he cut checks to their families. Do not pretend Iraq was not a terrorist state!

98

[quote]deanosumo wrote:
When I was taking it or when I was teaching it?
[/quote]
I hope you are joking about teaching history.

99

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
deanosumo wrote:
When I was taking it or when I was teaching it?

I hope you are joking about teaching history.[/quote]

No.

100

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Cognitive Dissonance. Again Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism or al queda. Nothing about it needed to or had to have been done. Since terrorism is increasing, at that goal it has failed. The better question is you have hundreds of billion of dollars to wipe out terrorism. Do you invade iraq with no terrorists and then create new terrorists? Or just save tons of cash and kill just previously existing terrorists (Al queda). It certainly was a bold move, but also an incredibly stupid move–costly to boot!

Why did we invade North Africa after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor instead of reinforcing the Phillipines?

Because we believed it was the right strategy to win the war.

Just because you are completely unwilling to understand or acknowledge the strategy in the current war does not change that it is a legitimate strategy to take the fight offshore where it belongs.

Saddams ties to Al Queda we not very strong before the war in Iraq, however his funding of suicide bombers was shown on Arabic TV as he cut checks to their families. Do not pretend Iraq was not a terrorist state!
[/quote]

Uhmmm and we funded Saddam… I acknowledge the strategy, Just pointing out grossly it has failed, and how unwise it was to begin with. In a crisp clean war against terrorism, step 2 would not be invade foreign islamic country unrelated to al-queda and spend years, billions of dollars, thousands of lives, and exhaust our military in the process. Especially since the net result is (painfully) now fighting even more terrorists.