Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
rockermike
Mountain climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2006 - 01:19am PT
|
There's only one solution at this point. Reinstate Saddam and his bathists. He'll have a lid on things again within months. He's the only guy in the world with sufficient experience in keeping that place quiet. And he's not a radical Muslim so W and friends should be able to get along with him just fine. (oh yea, that was George the First's reason for not going into Bahgdad. Better Saddam than Iran. But little Bush wanted to make a name for himself...)
Of course we'll have to publicly apologize for the error in our ways, then pick up all our toys and go home.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2006 - 02:16am PT
|
The pre-invasion state of Iraq with Saddam was eminently preferable to what we are facing now. That was the whole reason Bush Sr. had his finger on the trigger, but didn't pull it - he wasn't deluded by crackpot fantasies...
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2006 - 12:09pm PT
|
Fattrad - that's an entirely plausible and self-consistent scenario given where we are today. That's exactly the sort of door the administration has opened. How it actually plays out will have to be seen, but with the new missle batteries in place it's now going to cost the Israelis take out those facilities. And China is the clear winner in all such turmoil - they are simply making hay right now and will make all the more as events give them the opportunity.
|
|
WoodySt
Trad climber
Riverside
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2006 - 12:31pm PT
|
The probability is high that, if Israel hits Iran, we'll be along for the trip. This time around, do the job right.
|
|
monolith
Trad climber
Albany,CA
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2006 - 12:36pm PT
|
"I'll tell you why you are wrong, now that it hit the news for five seconds. Israel has a crusie missile equipped fleet of submarines that will launch the attack."
And of course Fattrad, you knew it all along, cause your an insider.
|
|
UncleDoug
Social climber
N. lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2006 - 01:05pm PT
|
"And of course Fattrad, you knew it all along, cause your an insider."
Not as inside as Jeff may have you think.....
Had a chat with AIPAC over yesterday evening and this morning.
Jeff has NO PULL with AIPAC what so ever.
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
places you shouldn't talk about in polite company
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 14, 2006 - 01:32pm PT
|
karl-
that WP op-ed by mccaffery ends: "Our troops and their families will remain bitter for a generation if we abandon the Iraqis, just as another generation did after we abandoned the South Vietnamese for whom Americans had fought and died. We owe them and our own national interest this one last effort. If we cannot generate the political will to take this action, it is time to pull out and search for those we will hold responsible in Congress and the administration."
i suppose he did leave that a bit open for interpretation, but the way i interpret that sentence, he's saying that we are all in this thing together, but once we admit it's a failure and bail out, it will then be time to pin the blame on those who so completely deserve it, those who wasted our blood and treasure, and so horribly misled us all, and then so horribly mismanaged the entire effort.
while he is saying that we'd be abandoning the iraqis (and that we'd abandoned the vietnamese too), he seems acutely aware that it's a political failure to have lost the will of the people. after all, weren't we sold a 9 month excursion? weren't we expecting flowers in the streets? and weren't we going to make sure all the WMDs were not going to be passed on to "terrorists"?
also- this is an incredible statement, considering it's source:
"We are in a very difficult position created by a micromanaged Rumsfeld war team that has been incompetent, arrogant and in denial."
beer-
(how original)
if you think it's just the young and inexperienced in our country that are opposed to and upset about this war, maybe you have been to focused on those artic walls?
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2006 - 03:38pm PT
|
Fattrad,
Standing off with cruise missiles will not begin to get the job done. The only way to insure it will be done as well as possible is with the GBU-28's we've been furiously shipping them. And weighing in at around 5000 lbs. you aren't going to wrap a cruise missile around them. They are laser guided which means you have to put yourself in harms way for a significant period to deliever them with any accuracy. You might as well just throw rocks at them instead of sea-launched cruise missiles and I very seriously doubt you'll be able to take out the new missile units with them either as they'll be moving them almost hourly. Those cruise missiles will likely be reserved for high-value command and control targets. Oh, and there has never been anything remotely secret about their subs or cruise missiles.
|
|
UncleDoug
Social climber
N. lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2006 - 05:04pm PT
|
"Quite frankly, I don't know why Israel doesn't come right out and declare nuclear weapons if they have them. They would only have to follow the same rules as France, England and India. My only guess is that they feel it is better not to flaunt the power in front of so many enemies, if it were my choice I'd bring it out in the open"
Holy shit! I'm blown away by your response, Jeff.
There is hope....
Equal playing field and equal application of the rules makes for a more "civilized" world.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
Venice, Ca
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2006 - 06:17pm PT
|
Well, what is really happening as opposed to what we are told, or wish to believe, is happening. And how might this new information steer ourselves in another direction soon a possible, as opposed to haning with the now-defunct model of the "bigger hammer."
First, it seems clear (are previously stated by many) that an occupational-style strategy (especially with a big insurgency faction) is a bust, costs a fortune and gets many killed and maimed. So clearly this is no loger a viable option unless you are good with A) the costs; B) the sacrifice (and it sure ain't gonna be your sacrifice if you're fine with all those people dying), and C) never being able to accomplish your goal, whatever it is, within a reasonable time frame--like 3-4 years.
Second, just lobbing bombs at folks (like Israel did to Lebanon and vica versa) simply causes turmoil, suffering, and tends to consolidate previously estranged elements of each community. A counter-productive waste of lives, time, and money.
Third, training a security force to manage their own domestic affairs is so far proving a disaster--probably because they are not managing "their own affairs" but rather are nationals called upon to impose our will and philosophy onto themselves and their own. There's no historical evidence that a functional democracy can be anything but homegrown, arising out of the natural evolution of power-sharing and social blending as opposed to feudal and tribal social structures.
Fourth, while the war has provided a windfall for some US companies, our overall economy will take a hit on this one. I do wonder about how game Bush and cronies would be about the whole thing if no US company stood to make a dime off any of this. Not a dime. Would we be there at all?
I could list other interesting stuff but I wonder if the only workable strategy is diplomacy, and if that fails, isolating the nation or region with the caveat that they can do all the infighting they want, thqat they can kill each other down to the last man, but if the conflict spills over, beyond their borders, they will suffer nuclear attack.
The problem with this strategy is that terrorists do bleed over borders, so if you want to eliminate this threat, unless you want to liquify entire nations (ludicrous), we're back to diplomacy, since the other options have no signs of working. Brute force worked in Yugoslavia, but that's basically a western-style nation. When the underlying creeds vary as they do between the west and middle east, military options tend to devolve into insane strategies, perhaps the most insane being that if this amount of force didn't work, then simply keep applying more till it does work. This is basically doing the same thing and expecing different results--the definition of insanity.
JL
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
places you shouldn't talk about in polite company
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 15, 2006 - 07:03pm PT
|
you really need to run for office pal, and make that your main battle cry when you do- cable tv here you come!
i love it when a guy i've been calling an idiot and a chickenhawk for years somehow ramps it up and becomes even more of an idiot and a chickenhawk- wait, how is that possible...?
bty- in your plan, what do you do to prevent future 9/11's from coming home to roost? just occupy the entire middle east and be "ruthless"? that sounds great.
|
|
Hootervillian
climber
the Hooterville World-Guardian
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2006 - 08:00pm PT
|
if you want an inside look at how incestuous cartels accomplish wealth grabs, look no further than the basic premise of the sports book.
Go Patriots!
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2006 - 08:17pm PT
|
"I've been trying to tell you that I'm very pragmatic about how the world works and various peoples interests. "
There is a difference between being pragmatic and always looking for a violent solution. While maybe in your own head things are otherwise on this forum you come across as always welcoming the next opportunity to blow something up as "the only way."
|
|
quietpartner
Trad climber
Moantannah
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2006 - 12:43am PT
|
Two reasons I think the Iraqi problem will never get better as long as we continue the present course:
1. It's a muslim nation. Show me a single muslim nation that has embraced western style democracy and freedom. In Iraq, they have been killing each other for over a thousand years, and we'll NEVER change that.
2. Our present rules of engagement. We're deathly afraid to inflict civilian casualties in any raid. In WW2 we killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians in a single bombing raid, to try to break Germany's and Japqn's spirit. Can you imagine anything remotely like that happening again? I don't think that's the way to fight wars....in fact I think it's horrible; but it shows the commitment we had to defeat the enemy. We're lacking even a fraction of that decisiveness in Iraq.
So what do we do? Bomb thousands of innocents to try to crack their back? Hardly.
Ramp up the troop numbers in Iraq to gain stability? If so, how long will it last after we leave? Remember, we can't force western style freedom on a people that have never known it and have never shown enough desire to get it.
Let the Iraqis fight it out among themselves?
Maybe this is't so far off. The Saudis are already quietly funding the Sunnis, the Iranians are funding the Shiites, and a Saudi diplomat has said that they may be willing to dump huge amounts of oil on the market to drive oil prices down, to try to damage Iran's economy. So forces are already at work, beyond any possible control we could muster, to destabilize the region.
Those are the kinds of outside influences we can't do anything about. By the way, cheap oil prices couldn't hurt, even if they didn't last long.
If our troops were here, and we spent even a fraction of the 300 billion dollars we've already wasted in Iraq with a "get to the moon" intensity to develop alternative fuels, we'd get it done. And never need to depend on the damned Middle East again.
Impossible? Right now, Brazil already is producing about 40% of its energy needs from NON OIL sources, especially biomass, and with an oil discovery they recently made,they'll be close to 100% energy independent in a few years. They can merrily tell the Middle East to kiss their ass.
I realize we guzzle a LOT more oil than Brazil, and it will take longer to get where they are, but it can be done, dammit, if there's the WILL.
Sadly, that's what we lack. And always will, until enough crises FORCE us to get it.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2006 - 01:45am PT
|
Nice post above. A half trillion would buy a lot of solar panels, clean coal, oil shale and energy efficiency.
Fatty wrote
"As I wrote to Karl above, the only long term solution to the ME is to wope the lines off the sand and start all over. This would take a US ground force of 600,000. We would have to be ruthless in our occupation for ten years and then trnasition the "new" contries to King Abdullah of Jordan"
Sounds violent and expensive and probably wouldn't work or make us any friends. How do you think the cost and sacrifice would compare with letting them fight among themselves and spending the money at home?
Peace
karl
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2006 - 02:07am PT
|
Why would king Abdullah, or any of the Hashemite family, be a welcome or capable ruler of any more of the middle east than Jordan? The Hashemite family was the hereditary Sharif of Mecca for many centuries. After World War I, the British and French tried to impose Sharif Hussein on Arabia, without success - he was ousted by the ibn Saud family, who still rule Saudi Arabia. So Hussein ended up ruling Jordan, albeit only with the support of the (British) Arab Legion. The family's hold on the throne of Jordan has never been steady, and although supposedly descendants of the Prophet, they don't have a lot of respect elsewhere in the middle east.
One of Hussein's sons was made king of Iraq, but all family members then in Iraq were murdered in a coup in 1958. No reason to think they'd be welcome back.
In theory, all Arab and Muslim lands are part of the caliphate. However, the caliph hasn't had any real power since the 13th century (or earlier), and the last one (in Turkey) abdicated in the 1920s. Not sure if there's any descendant.
Some countries in the middle east are fumbling towards democracy and the rule of law. At least Turkey, Morocco, Jordan, and in some senses even Iran. Although neither Turkey nor Iran is an Arab country.
Read "Seven Pillars of Wisdom", or see "Lawrence of Arabia", for a romanticised view of some of this.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2006 - 04:16am PT
|
Moved to Kerry thread...
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2006 - 10:28am PT
|
HealyJ, didn't you mean to post that in Lois's 'kerry goes to iran" thread where the question about Reagan was asked?
Peace
karl
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2006 - 01:34pm PT
|
The news from yesterday put another nail in the coffin of the idea that we believed that Saddam had weapons and was a threat. The Brits tried to surpress the evidence but the diplomat got tired of living with the lie.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1215-06.htm
"..A devastating attack on Mr Blair's justification for military action by Carne Ross, Britain's key negotiator at the UN, has been kept under wraps until now because he was threatened with being charged with breaching the Official Secrets Act.
In the testimony revealed today Mr Ross, 40, who helped negotiate several UN security resolutions on Iraq, makes it clear that Mr Blair must have known Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction. He said that during his posting to the UN, "at no time did HMG [Her Majesty's Government] assess that Iraq's WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK or its interests."
Mr Ross revealed it was a commonly held view among British officials dealing with Iraq that any threat by Saddam Hussein had been "effectively contained".
He also reveals that British officials warned US diplomats that bringing down the Iraqi dictator would lead to the chaos the world has since witnessed. "I remember on several occasions the UK team stating this view in terms during our discussions with the US (who agreed)," he said.
"At the same time, we would frequently argue when the US raised the subject, that 'regime change' was inadvisable, primarily on the grounds that Iraq would collapse into chaos...
...It shows Mr Ross told the inquiry, chaired by Lord Butler, "there was no intelligence evidence of significant holdings of CW [chemical warfare], BW [biological warfare] or nuclear material" held by the Iraqi dictator before the invasion. "There was, moreover, no intelligence or assessment during my time in the job that Iraq had any intention to launch an attack against its neighbours or the UK or the US," he added.
Mr Ross's evidence directly challenges the assertions by the Prime Minster that the war was legally justified because Saddam possessed WMDs which could be "activated" within 45 minutes and posed a threat to British interests. These claims were also made in two dossiers, subsequently discredited, in spite of the advice by Mr Ross...."
Fatty, I think you summed up what happened to Yeshua (Jesus is a greek word) pretty well.
peace
Karl
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2006 - 09:10pm PT
|
I'm pretty sure that's called "The Davinci Code" Fatty.
If war is such a waste then why are you so eager to participate? Why do you keep pushing an ideology that says "yes, violent means are an excellent way to force a nation of people to conform to our idea of stable government." Nothing that has transpired thus far has gone in a direction that brings us closer to the goals that Wolfie and Pearle wanted.
This entire strategy has been wrongheaded. We have made Iran three times as powerful as it was and made all of the other countries in the region even more wary of our motives and power.
I welcome the shift of power in Congress, as we are finally confronting the issues that our government has been in denial of for years now. Things are only going to get harder because we are choosing to actually confront the fact that we have no good options in Iraq or the Middle East in general. I would love for there to be a way that we could pull this whole thing off, but I don't think that our government has the necessary tools to make it happen.
Contrary to what you say Fatty, I dont think that a draft alone is going to make a difference here. Even Kissinger has admitted that there is no military only strategy viable anymore, if there ever was. Even the modest 20,000 troop increase has the Generals saying "um...for how long exactly?" because they can't sustain it. I don't know why you keep saying the military has plenty of resources. You are the only one on earth other than Tony Blankley I hear saying this.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!