[quote]Rockscar wrote:
I don’t see any of these other european countries or otherwise contributing to any solution do you?..other than complaining, do something dammit.
[/quote]
I think you can blame Bush and his foreign policy for alienating the rest of the globe.
Seriously, if somebody who was willing to think beyond military issues and who wanted to get into fixing underlying issues was running the US, I suspect the rest of the world would beat a fucking path to his or her door.
The only “doing something” Bush wants is military support so he can go around and kick some ass. Much of the world does not think of this as an overly effective strategy (sic).
The information age has deprecated the age of simple military control… case in point, Iraq. Iraq serves to provide fuel for the fire more than it does to extinguish it.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
I don’t see any of these other european countries or otherwise contributing to any solution do you?..other than complaining, do something dammit.
I think you can blame Bush and his foreign policy for alienating the rest of the globe.
Seriously, if somebody who was willing to think beyond military issues and who wanted to get into fixing underlying issues was running the US, I suspect the rest of the world would beat a fucking path to his or her door.
The only “doing something” Bush wants is military support so he can go around and kick some ass. Much of the world does not think of this as an overly effective strategy (sic).
The information age has deprecated the age of simple military control… case in point, Iraq. Iraq serves to provide fuel for the fire more than it does to extinguish it.[/quote]
I think the previous administrations are as culpable if not more. They tried to approach terrorism as criminal acts, or had limited responses to attacks, thinking they would go away, as if the attacks were anomalies.
It resulted in escalating attacks throughout the world. 911, USS Cole, 18 American hostages in Lebanon, the 1st World Trade Center, Marine barracks in Beirut etc, etc, ad nauseam.
The smoldering underlying terrorist element was always there. Yes, Iraq gives them the opportunity to come out of the wood work. The terrorist problem was growing prior to 911.
Now they are exposed, and our methods of search and destroy, whether direct combat or intelligence, is gathering strength and better methods are developed every day.
Someone mentioned 3rd generation tactics and we have lost the war (or something to that affect). Go meet someone in the upper echelons of the military. You will be amazed at the technology and ingenious solutions the intelligence and military communities are developing. The 4th generation of combat tactics are being addressed. It will take time and adjustments to be expected.
It all boils down to Israel and our support. Ill make a prediction, similar to Huntingtons observations: A Sino-Middle Eastern alliance will be made and to retaliate against the US position in the world, Israel will be attacked in an attempt to eliminate it.
What on earth makes you think that being a democratic republic prevents the U.S. from establishing an empire? There’s absolutely nothing, I tell you. Come on - Rome was a republic.
When you claim that “we never even knew where Afghanistan was before 9/11” are you referring to the dumb hicks who vote in this country or the people who actually set the policy? The policy makers certainly knew about Afghanistan prior to 9/11; after all, they armed the Afghan Mujahadeen against the Soviets in the 80’s.
You’ve lost “the war” already because you’re trying to fight a 4th generation conflict using 3rd generation tactics. If you don’t know what the hell that means, type it into Google. Terrorism is conducted by stateless entities, and as such, is a criminal act – not an act of war. The only way to combat it is to understand it’s root causes.
Terrorist extremists exploit legitimate grievances in order to win popular support. Without it, they would be unable to function - any more than an American crime syndicate could be sustained without the compliance of the general public.
Indeed, the Mafia in this country, when it existed in large numbers, was often seen as taking the side of the common man against police corruption and government meddling in private affairs. It, too, exploited common grievances, such as alcohol prohibition. When the 21st Amendment was repealed, the mobsters were no longer able to portray themselves as the defender of the common man.
In time, [non-governmental] organized crime in the U.S. died out. If you want to eliminate terrorism, stop invading other countries, stop fostering coups and revolutions, stop arming various groups and factions (only to make enemies of them later). People living in other countries don’t appreciate this kind of shit.
How would you like it if you woke up one day and you were suddenly unable to buy groceries, if foreign troops were patrolling your neighborhood, imposing curfews, if your power went out or your water stopped running?
We weren’t “minding our own business” before 9/11, for fucks sake.
Goddamn, you aren’t new here. Have you been ignoring every single post that wasn’t written by neocons? Why aren’t you aware that we had troops stationed in well over 100 countries well before 9/11? That Clinton bombed Sudan and attacked Serbia in the 90’s? That every Democratic and Republican administration since WWII has launched similar military conflicts?
This is not new information and it is very common on the net. The argument that the U.S. was minding it’s own business before 9/11 is completely indefensible, from any position. It is as idiotic a claim as anyone could possibly make about U.S. foreign policy, and I am not one of those individuals who considers every neocon argument “stupid by default”.
9/11 was blowback, 9/11 WAS the retaliation. Everything the U.S. did before and since then has been aggression and provocation – this, after all, has been the defining element of U.S. foreign policy since the Spanish-American war.
When people have running water, and food, and police protection, and employment opportunities, and adequate housing, and all the other fixtures of a stable government (not necessarily a democratic one, mind you) the last things on their minds are terrorism, revolution, extremism, and martyrdom.
It takes real shitty living conditions in order for such notions to influence the public at large. And thus it is during times of crisis that extremist groups have come to power. This is the way it has ALWAYS been, throughout history. Again, you’d have to be blind or stupendously ignorant not to see it.
The way to eradicate terrorism is through peace and trade. By trading with other nations, we can help them establish a modern standard of living. Trade takes place in the market, through the voluntary actions of individuals.
Government grants, be they in the form of food, money, clothing, or weapons, are not a legitimate form of trade. State capitalism is NOT capitalism, it is socialism. And socialism may be the biggest catastrophe ever faced by humanity…
You have much to learn. I suggest you start paying heed to the writings of those on this forum who don’t support the empire and it’s war machine.[/quote]
Yeah I know the U.S. intervened in a lot of latin american countries and we did overthrow a democratic government in iran and we did do a lot of other things i know that. But that doesn’t justify killing more than 3000 American civillians just because you have a problem with our government.
And by the way terrorism doesn’t have to be from stateless entities because some governments sponsor terrorists like the taliban. And yes i know we are responsible for them existing but they were our allies how the hell were we supposed to know they would turn against us?
The hundreds of thousands you killed already didn’t quench your thirst?
Whoever gave you that right did a grave mistake.
Hundreds of thousands? Thirst? Get a reality.
It’s easy to sit back and criticize as you do absolutely NOTHING to help the situation.
He also does nothing that gets people killed.
It works both ways.
If he had invaded Iraq however, how much money were you willing to bet that he had a better plan than “they will greet us with flowers”.
Empire building without admitting it and consciously building an empire is bullshit.
I don’t see any of these other european countries or otherwise contributing to any solution do you?..other than complaining, do something dammit.
[/quote]
Are there even thinkable scenarios were doing nothing is better than mindless actionism?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Hundreds of thousands? The UN says ~ 50,000 Iraqis have died and most of them are at the hands of the terrorists!!![/quote]
Well, seems like your allies consider the number more on the hundreds of thousands range.
Not only you don’t keep a body count but you raided the Fallujah hospital (a blatant breach of the Geneva convention) just because they happened to report casualties by the dozens.
Can’t argue with the “most of them are at the hands of the terrorists!!!” part; The US military has proved to master terrorizing techniques.
[quote]orion wrote:
JeffR wrote:
orion wrote:
Are there even thinkable scenarios were doing nothing is better than mindless actionism?
Yes, austria March 13th, 1938.
Would have been better had your relatives decided to do nothing.
Instead, you chose mindless actionism.
JeffR
Most Austrians wanted to join Germany.
They acted according that that.[/quote]
You asked for an example of when doing nothing would have been better.
Do you think joining germany on that date was a mistake?
Make sure to include a simple yes and no. If you’ve grown up any after being abused by Chucky T, you might want to also state that that was an excellent answer to your previously posed question.
War with Iran unlikely if Gates has any say
Simply put, the Pentagon chief is not a hawk on Iran
ANALYSIS
By Robert Windrem
Investigative producer
Updated: 1:03 p.m. MT March 28, 2007
NEW YORK - Since taking over the Department of Defense at the end of last year, Robert Gates has gotten kudos for what he has done, demanding responsibility for mistakes like the Walter Reed debacle and the cover-up of Pat Tillman?s death. He is also known to have wanted to close the U.S. prison at Guantanamo as a way of helping the United States recover some of its lost credibility in the Muslim world.
But Gates has also been getting quiet credit for something he hasn?t done: push hard on Iran, not raising the temperature in a time of crisis. In particular, Gates has distanced himself from some of the harshest criticism of Iranian operations in Iraq and pushed back on rhetoric calling for military solutions to U.S. problems in the Persian Gulf. Most prominently, on the supply of explosives technology, Gates has declined to point the finger of responsibility at the Iranian government, something his own Army Chief of Staff, Gen. George Casey, has done.
Gates says that some of the technology in improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and explosively formed projectiles (EFPs) has found its way into Iraq from Iran, but has left open the question of high-level Iranian involvement.
?I think the evidence is pretty solid that at least the materials for this and some of the machining associated with the EFPs is coming out of Iran,? Gates said in a March 13 interview with Pentagon TV, adding, ?What we’re not certain of is how high the level of approval these operations goes. That’s the area of uncertainty. The fact that these things are coming out of Iran, I think, is not in question.?
Carrots and sticks
Anyone who has followed Gates? interest in U.S.-Iranian relations should not be surprised at those comments, coming even as they did a month after a more conclusive Defense Intelligence Agency assessment appeared on the front page of the New York Times. Gates, quite simply, is not a hawk on Iran.
As a senior former U.S. intelligence official who worked with Gates said of him, ?If Bob Gates is Secretary of Defense, we are not going to war with Iran.?
In fact, three years ago, Gates and former Carter National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski co-chaired a Council on Foreign Relations task force on U.S.-Iranian relations. The comments and recommendations found in the report, entitled, ?Iran: Time for a New Approach? give a sense of what Gates thinks about Iran.
Conceding the wide gaps on issues like nuclear weapons development, terrorism and Iraq, Gates and Brzezinski still argued for a rapprochement with the Islamic Republic:
?The Task Force proposes selectively engaging Iran on issues where U.S. and Iranian interests converge, and building upon incremental progress to tackle the broader range of concerns that divide the two governments," the final report concluded.
?U.S. policies toward Tehran should make use of incentives as well as punitive measures. The U.S. reliance on comprehensive, unilateral sanctions has not succeeded in its stated objective to alter Iranian conduct and has deprived Washington of greater leverage vis-?-vis the Iranian government apart from the threat of force.?
Shades of d?tente
Analysts say Gates? position is one that was finely honed during the Cold War, which he sees as the model for dealing with Iran.
?Just as the United States maintains a constructive relationship with China (and earlier did so with the Soviet Union) while strongly opposing certain aspects of its internal and international policies,? the two Cold Warriors noted, ?Washington should approach Iran with a readiness to explore areas of common interests, while continuing to contest objectionable policies.?
And while that was 2004, Gates more recently gave strong support for negotiations with Iran and Syria while a member of the Iraq Study Group. Gates left the group before its final report to take the Pentagon job, but during his confirmation hearings he reiterated his fundamental support for the talks.
Gates is also on the record as being opposed to those in the White House and elsewhere in Washington who think the Iranian issue can best be resolved by working with Iranian dissidents to overthrow the current regime.
?Despite considerable political flux and popular dissatisfaction, Iran is not on the verge of another revolution,? he and Brzezinski wrote. ?Those forces that are committed to preserving Iran?s current system remain firmly in control and currently represent the country?s only authoritative interlocutors.
?Direct U.S. efforts to overthrow the Iranian regime are therefore not likely to succeed; nor would regime change through external intervention necessarily resolve the most critical concerns with respect to Iran?s policies.?
Bottom line for Gates and Brzezinski: Iran ?could play a potentially significant role in promoting a stable, pluralistic government in Baghdad. It might be induced to be a constructive actor toward both Iraq and Afghanistan, but it retains the capacity to create significant difficulties for these regimes if it is alienated from the new post-conflict governments in those two countries.?
Reading tea leaves
NBC News military analyst Bill Arkin also pointed to Gates? appointment of Admiral William Fallon as the head of Central Command as evidence that the new secretary of defense is not going to be calling for extreme measures. Appointment of a Navy admiral, the first for Centcom, indicated to some a readiness to go to war with Iran. Fallon himself has disputed such a characterization.
Arkin said the reverse is true.
?Fallon is a d?tente-ist,? Arkin says. ?Like Gates, he believes more in diplomacy. That is the story here, not his being a Navy admiral.?
Of course, Arkin noted sometimes your adversary does stupid things and you have to react, and there is no guarantee that Gates can play hardball with some of the hard-liners at the White House who want confrontation. But so far, the bottom line is different from past Pentagon thinking.
?It seems to me that Gates has declared that he believes in negotiations and believes in diplomacy so therefore he defers to the State Department," Arkin said. That is not what we would have had if Rumsfeld was still in charge.?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
…
Blatantly wrong? I speak from the vantage point of social philosophy and natural law, not man-made fiction.
…
“Social philosophy” is a man made fiction.[/quote]
Social philosophy is an attempt to understand the natural conditions which govern human interactions. For centuries, rulers and politicians have based their actions on such principles. Our present rulers are much the same.
In philosophy, unlike law, everything is open to debate. Any edict can be challenged. Arguments are backed up not by brute force, but by their intellectual merit. Thus, if you want to call it a “fiction”, you’ll need to come up with a different and more severe word to describe the far greater fictions of governmental law.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The choice, in 1940, was for either Hitler’s Germany and the Japanese to run the world, or us. Britain chose us. Blame them.[/quote]
The choice, for the U.S. in 1917, was either to stay true to the campaign promise of staying out of the war, or to embark on a journey of Wilsonian interventionism that would forever alter the fate of the nation and the world. The U.S. chose to intervene, and thus toppled the balance of power in Europe and the Near East, creating a new world order and paving the way for the rise of fascism, communism, Pan-Arab nationalism, and the great majority of bloodshed in the 20th century (which is to say, the greatest bloodshed in history of the world).
Only a dumbass would believe that the “world began in 1940” and nothing before then had any relevance.
This is one of the “glorious myths” of neocon lore that was used to justify every American conflict and intervention post-WWII. But now we’ve entered a new era, and the “beginning of history” is no longer 1940 but 9/11/01. A new generation of Americans is being indoctrinated with this alternate history.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
This is why we need Canada’s help. We are spread thin, trying to keep peace in Iraq. All of this crap would end MUCH more quickly if the rest of the world would come on board and stamp out these bastards.
[/quote]
Lol we have a few thousand soldiers to help, and there are protests if even one dies. It would probably more of a hassle to you guys than helpful.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Not only you don’t keep a body count but you raided the Fallujah hospital (a blatant breach of the Geneva convention) just because they happened to report casualties by the dozens.
Can’t argue with the “most of them are at the hands of the terrorists!!!” part; The US military has proved to master terrorizing techniques.[/quote]
Isn’t that the hospital where terrorists were hiding and storing munitions?
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
lixy wrote:
Not only you don’t keep a body count but you raided the Fallujah hospital (a blatant breach of the Geneva convention) just because they happened to report casualties by the dozens.
Can’t argue with the “most of them are at the hands of the terrorists!!!” part; The US military has proved to master terrorizing techniques.
Isn’t that the hospital where terrorists were hiding and storing munitions?
[/quote]
They are “freedom fighters”. They are allowed to hide in hospitals and holy places. They also like to hide behind their own women and children and then blame Israel when they are caught in the crossfire.
They are also allowed to kill Israeli children because they will grow up some day and become soldiers.
[quote]vroom wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
Lixy, and the rest of the world for that matter, would then proceed to affix all blame for for the chaos on the shoulders of the United States.
Flaming, I suppose you think that because Lixy might try to affix all blame to the US, that the US is therefore completely blameless?[/quote]
No, why would you assume that? Your assumption is quite a reach on your part as I’ve never taken that position.
That “order”, produced an unacceptable amount of terrorism and was responsible for extremely deplorable acts of state sponsored torture, beheadings, rape, etc. If the middle east was what you consider “order”, then I don’t want to see what you’d consider chaos.
So do I
We’ll have to disagree on that as I think it was the right move. I think that Bush’s bumbling of post war Iraq makes the position of “Iraq was a mistake” an easy one to take. I think it was the right move, just handled very badly after the initial invasion and removal of saddam and his cronies.
The middle east had a smoldering fire waiting to explode for a long time before the Iraq invasion. As long as we’re using the fire tetrahedron for analogies, lets assume that the state of Isreal is the fuel, the arab nations (especially those without oil money) are the heat, and radical islam is the self sustaining chemical reaction; all we need now is some oxygen and we have the ensuing explosion.
This fire does not go out if the U.S. leaves. IMHO, we’ll just have a bigger fire to put out later. (sorry, but yopu got me started with all the fire analogies :-])
I do not think this has to be the case. Why such a pessimistic view? We’ll find a solution, but only if we’re commited to finding one. If all we’re looking for is a hasty retreat, then we’ll surely find that as well. Only time will tell.
My point is that we need to focus on a solution, not retreat. If we retrat now, the ensuing atrocities will be enormous, and we’ll be directly responsible.
Yes I do, and I think this subversion of Iraq’s government, and our attempts to rebuild Iraq could be an act of war on their part.
If this is a game, and Iran is taking advantage of bad moves on our part, then they’ve decided to play the game. If we’re gonna play any games with Iran, then we need to play to win.
On this I will agree. Which is why I advocate composing a new strategy for Iraq and doing the right thing by fixing what we broke. The way I see it, Iran and the terrorists in the region are doing all of the breaking right now, not the U.S.
Ask yourself this, If not for the terrorists, or Iran’s support of them, where would Iraq be right now? My guess is that they would be alot farther along than they are right now.
I agree, well said.
A wise man once said, “if you can’t get out of a fight, get into it”.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
lixy wrote:
Not only you don’t keep a body count but you raided the Fallujah hospital (a blatant breach of the Geneva convention) just because they happened to report casualties by the dozens.
Can’t argue with the “most of them are at the hands of the terrorists!!!” part; The US military has proved to master terrorizing techniques.
Isn’t that the hospital where terrorists were hiding and storing munitions?
They are “freedom fighters”. They are allowed to hide in hospitals and holy places. They also like to hide behind their own women and children and then blame Israel when they are caught in the crossfire.
They are also allowed to kill Israeli children because they will grow up some day and become soldiers.[/quote]
The sad part, is that lixy and others like him, actually believe these things to be true.
You seem confident in your assertion. I have one question: How do you differentiate between the Al-Qaeda style terrorists and indigenous Iraqi resistance to the US occupation?