Post by: Werewolf on December 06, 2006, 07:54:50 AM
Quote
Embed more U.S. forces with Iraqi units.
Uhhhhh - didn't we try that in Vietnam? Didn't work there either.Quote
Renew the push to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict through a diplomatic offensive.
Hmmmmm... have those guys been asleep for the last 15 or so years. We've been doing that.Quote
Involve Syria and Iran in negotiations over Iraqs future.
Wouldn't that be like involving a couple of wolves in a discussion of whether or not a deer should be invited to dinner or be dinner?I hope the guys that worked on that panel did it for free because that's about all the advice they've dished out is worth.
Post by: wingnutx on December 06, 2006, 08:28:01 AM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 06, 2006, 09:31:03 AM
The results of this study panel are acutely underwhelming. After all the hype I guess I expected something profound, or at least something dramitically different. Negotiate with Iran and Syria, make he Arabs love us by tossing Israel to the wolves, train the Iraqi forces more, set a deadline for withdrawal...
The group's findings are a watered down version of the typical liberal BS. All it really lacks are the liberal attitudes of "hate America first" and "let's hurry up and defeat ourselves before they defeat us".
You out there Darwin? How's that Hanoi-like evacuation by year's end looking?
Post by: 280plus on December 06, 2006, 10:24:23 AM
What a bunch of (expletives deleted).
Post by: mfree on December 06, 2006, 10:35:53 AM
....
....STAY THE COURSE! BWAAAAAHAHAHAHhahahahhhrmm. Are the democrats' heads exploding yet?
Post by: grampster on December 06, 2006, 12:10:18 PM
Stunned silence for about 15 seconds, and several minutes of lame answers.
The reason why we are having a problem over there is that 1. Our country lacks the will to do the dirty work properly. 2. Everyone knows that. 3. This is a religious thing with many factions. (Northern Ireland anyone?) 4. Did I mention a lack of will? The only way negotiations work is when the opposition believes that we have the will to use our superior firepower to destroy them. That is what T. Roosevelt meant when he talked about walking softly and carrying a big stick. It's about respect and the belief that the most powerful nation on earth has the capability and will to use that power to serve its interests. We have proven that before. No one believes that we will do what we need to do. That's why you have tin pot 3rd worlders like Abidjabberjabber and Hugo Chavez spit in our eye.
In the end, besides the lack of will, there is the need for oil to fire our economic engine. The Lefties are right, it is about oil. We just are going about it wrong. We can blame the environmental wacko's and their sycophants within the two party system as well as corrupt judges. In the end what is OUR fault is not taking control of our political system. We'd rather buy a new snowmobile and bitch about the cost of a gallon of gas and who's on "reality tv", while the egotistical demagogues posture. In the meantime an abundance of resources lie untapped in our own country and off our shores while tin pot dictators disrespect us and we slowly but surely wallow in our angst and self pity.
Post by: Waitone on December 06, 2006, 05:30:22 PM
We have lost our will to win.
Post by: wmenorr67 on December 07, 2006, 03:02:36 AM
Post by: 280plus on December 07, 2006, 03:06:47 AM
Post by: wmenorr67 on December 07, 2006, 03:09:41 AM
Post by: grampster on December 07, 2006, 04:07:13 AM
You are a great American amongst other great Americans. Never forget that. We won't. God Bless and watch your six.
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 07, 2006, 04:19:22 AM
Bush now has the fig leaf to do one of his famous about face.
What "about face" are you expecting?
Post by: Paddy on December 07, 2006, 11:27:59 AM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 07, 2006, 11:30:38 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on December 07, 2006, 11:48:27 AM
Well, somebody needs to come along and bail GWB out of the mess he's gotten us into. "Stay the course" just ain't cuttin' it...............
What isn't it cutting? The public's desire for a swift speedy end to a threat that has been building for 30 years?
Americans have watched too much TV and expect everything to be able to be resolved within 60 minutes, less commercials. Life isn't like that. The terrorists know that. In that part of the world things are measured in centuries, if not millenia.
It is a long slow process often without obvious progress. But the alternative is pretty unthinkable.
Post by: Paddy on December 07, 2006, 12:18:17 PM
Iran & Syria can't be trusted, but they can't be ignored, either. We negotiated with the USSR for years and ultimately and peacefully won the Cold War. Some catalyst is needed in order to re-think Iraq and develop a successful plan-Bush sure doesn't have one. Hopefully the Democrat win and the Iraq Study Panel will be that catalyst.
Post by: Ron on December 07, 2006, 12:39:00 PM
Quote
First it was WMD's, then 'regime change' and now 'democratization'. Clearly, there is no coherent strategy on the part of this administration. It makes no sense to continue this conflict.
Actually it was regime change as our government policy due to the fact that Saddam wouldn't prove he had eliminated all his WNDs. The burden was on Saddam to show he dismantled his weapons and programs. He continued to defy the UN resolutions. All this happened before George W Bush was even elected.
When GWB took office it was already our policy that regime change should occur, it was already accepted across the globe that Saddam was not complying with the UN mandates.
When we decided to enforce the UN resolutions and institute our policy of regime change Congress passed a resolution overwhelmingly. Outlining the reasons, regime change, WMDs, the abuse of the Iraqi people were all in there.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on December 07, 2006, 01:04:53 PM
Post by: Bogie on December 07, 2006, 01:18:55 PM
Post by: RevDisk on December 07, 2006, 03:03:19 PM
Quote
Quote
Embed more U.S. forces with Iraqi units.
Uhhhhh - didn't we try that in Vietnam? Didn't work there either.Advisors. Some ARVN units caused a hell of a lot more problems than they solved. Others were extremely good. Problem, from what I heard from the grunts that served as advisors, wasn't the troops. Most were soldiers. Their officers, especially the generals, on the other hand...
Quote
Quote
Renew the push to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict through a diplomatic offensive.
Hmmmmm... have those guys been asleep for the last 15 or so years. We've been doing that.The alternatives are war or genocide. My personal experience from seeing ethnic wars firsthand says "Stay the hell out of the situation completely and pretend it doesn't exist." Picking sides in an ethnic conflict is a bad idea.
Quote
Quote
Involve Syria and Iran in negotiations over Iraqs future.
Wouldn't that be like involving a couple of wolves in a discussion of whether or not a deer should be invited to dinner or be dinner?I hope the guys that worked on that panel did it for free because that's about all the advice they've dished out is worth.
And what would you recommend? The situation in Iraq is currently a low grade civil war, with a bit of ethnic cleansing for good measure. The US Army is keeping a lid on the worst, but no foreign army can keep the locals from sorting their own business out. Any time you push a number of ethnic groups together with artificial borders and a long history of grudges, it's going to explode when you take off the leash. A dictator can hold it together with enough brutality. Tito and Yugoslavia, Stalin and the USSR (think all those countries ending in -stan), etc etc.
I haven't spent as much time with the Shiites and Sunni as I did with the Kurds, but I do know the Kurds will never give up. I still have a very nice Kurdish rug hanging on my wall. I still remember one line in particular. "We've been fighting for the last six hundred years. If it takes another six hundred years, so be it." Not people to take lightly. They like us, dispite the number of times we've screwed them over. But folks have a thing about their homelands. They'll put up with us for as long as we stick around, but the day we leave, they're going to war. Doesn't matter if it's next month or five decades from now.
Sooner or later, we have to let the Iraqis make their own decisions. Sooner would be better than later. We can try to push our own ideas on the Iraqis. It won't work, but we can try anyways.
Post by: Werewolf on December 07, 2006, 03:58:13 PM
Quote
And what would you recommend?
Already been discussed. It seems that the consensus here is that history doesn't repeat itself and no lessons can be learned from it <shrug>. That said and considering the excoriating response to the real solution suggested I suppose the easy answer is to just get the hell out of Dodge and let the barbarians over there kill each other off. Maybe if oil gets up to $100 a barrel and the price of gasoline climbs to 5 or 6 bucks a gallon a less politically correct solution will become more acceptable - after all our politicians pander to the masses and I imagine the masses would get pretty upset if they had to pay $6 a gallon for gas and the consequent high inflations rates that will result.
On the other hand if we leave and there is a real knock down drag out Civil War where one side or the other is permitted to achieve a decisive and final victory there's a very real possibility that stabilty could be achieved. Problem is though that the UN, the US, NATO and all the other do gooder buttinsky nations would interfere to the point that no final resolution would be possible. Thus the cycle of chaos and death will continut because we aren't leaving anytime soon and when we do a decisive victory by one side or the other won't be allowed.
Post by: Ron on December 07, 2006, 04:58:49 PM
Quote
I haven't spent as much time with the Shiites and Sunni as I did with the Kurds, but I do know the Kurds will never give up.
There was an excellent article in National Geographic a while back about the Kurds in Iraq. For all practical purposes they are operating a separate country in a country already.
If it wasn't for Turkey we probably would have let them officially announce the formation of Kurdistan.
Even though the Sunnis were the bad guys when Saddam was in power it seems to be the Shiites who are unable to coexist with other folks.
Post by: meinbruder on December 07, 2006, 08:15:46 PM
The reason why we are having a problem over there is that 1. Our country lacks the will to do the dirty work properly. 2. Everyone knows that. 3. This is a religious thing with many factions. (Northern Ireland anyone?) 4. Did I mention a lack of will? The only way negotiations work is when the opposition believes that we have the will to use our superior firepower to destroy them. That is what T. Roosevelt meant when he talked about walking softly and carrying a big stick. It's about respect and the belief that the most powerful nation on earth has the capability and will to use that power to serve its interests. We have proven that before. No one believes that we will do what we need to do. That's why you have tin pot 3rd worlders like Abidjabberjabber and Hugo Chavez spit in our eye.
Grampster, I think you left out an important point on your list. 5. We are dealing with a fourteenth century feudal society, which is ruled by corruption and revenge. Factor that, religious fundamentalism, and ethnic cleansing together and you get modern Iraq. Saddam may have been an animal but he knew how to make the trains run on schedule. No matter what the U.S., or any other outside power, does, there will be unrest.
Something else to consider, during the great colonial expansion of the various European powers; the Middle East was divided up into various states with no regard to the ethnic populations. One state which should exist but doesnt is Kurdistan, its people and potential borders include areas of Turkey, Syria, Iran, and (guess where) Iraq. The Kurds could quite possibly administer the country and put an end to all the violence. The problem here is that the Kurdish factions of the above mentioned countries will likely revolt with the intention of joining Iraq and fulfilling a six hundred year struggle for a united Kurdistan. How is that for a new direction? I hope the Democrats heads start spinning as soon as they see that one coming.
As far as the oil of Iraq is concerned, someone correct me if Im wrong here, isnt it a relatively low grade that the U.S. cant really use? I was under the impression that the lower standards for air quality made it exportable to China and the USSR, which would indirectly benefit the U.S.
A lack of will is right; where is TR when we need him.
}:)>
Post by: wmenorr67 on December 07, 2006, 11:09:44 PM
Post by: RevDisk on December 09, 2006, 03:29:53 PM
Quote
And what would you recommend?
Already been discussed. It seems that the consensus here is that history doesn't repeat itself and no lessons can be learned from it <shrug>. That said and considering the excoriating response to the real solution suggested I suppose the easy answer is to just get the hell out of Dodge and let the barbarians over there kill each other off. Maybe if oil gets up to $100 a barrel and the price of gasoline climbs to 5 or 6 bucks a gallon a less politically correct solution will become more acceptable - after all our politicians pander to the masses and I imagine the masses would get pretty upset if they had to pay $6 a gallon for gas and the consequent high inflations rates that will result.
On the other hand if we leave and there is a real knock down drag out Civil War where one side or the other is permitted to achieve a decisive and final victory there's a very real possibility that stabilty could be achieved. Problem is though that the UN, the US, NATO and all the other do gooder buttinsky nations would interfere to the point that no final resolution would be possible. Thus the cycle of chaos and death will continut because we aren't leaving anytime soon and when we do a decisive victory by one side or the other won't be allowed.
Less politically correct solution would be what exactly? Genocide? Imperialism? Seizing the oil fields and declaring it US property? While they are easier answers, I'd disagree with using them. Historically governments that use such methods tend to not exactly be nicest towards their own citizens. Maybe the US could happily use less politically correct methods and not shred the US Constitution regarding US citizens. I doubt it, but it's possible.
Quote
As far as the oil of Iraq is concerned, someone correct me if Im wrong here, isnt it a relatively low grade that the U.S. cant really use? I was under the impression that the lower standards for air quality made it exportable to China and the USSR, which would indirectly benefit the U.S.
The oil isn't substandard, the infrastructure is. Sanctions, corruption and insurgency all played a part in effectively destroying the oil flow out of Iraq. In the States and other countries that license our technology can refine just about any grade of crude.
Post by: 280plus on December 12, 2006, 01:18:48 PM
By Paul Hughes
1 hour, 20 minutes ago
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday told delegates at an international conference questioning the Holocaust that Israel's days were numbered.
ADVERTISEMENT
Ahmadinejad, who has sparked international outcry by referring to the killing of six million Jews in World War Two as a "myth" and calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map," launched another verbal attack on the Jewish state.
"Thanks to people's wishes and God's will the trend for the existence of the Zionist regime is downwards and this is what God has promised and what all nations want," he said.
"Just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out," he added.
His words received warm applause from delegates at the Holocaust conference, who included ultra-Orthodox anti-Israel Jews and European and American writers who argue the Holocaust was either fabricated or exaggerated.
His remarks were condemned in Washington, where State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters that the Iranian president's behavior was "despicable" and called his comment "absolutely outrageous."
The Vatican, Germany and the European Commission added their voices Tuesday to others -- such as the United States and Israel -- who have condemned the Tehran meeting.
Iran says it organized the conference to shed light on the reasons behind the formation of the state of Israel after World War Two and to allow researchers from countries where it is a crime to question the Holocaust to speak freely.
"Iran is your home and is the home of all freedom seekers of the world," Ahmadinejad said. "Here you can express your views and exchange opinions in a friendly, brotherly and free atmosphere."
"FACT-FINDING" COMMITTEE FORMED
He urged countries where Holocaust denial is a crime, to respect freedom of speech and not to take action against any of the conference participants on their return.
Human rights groups frequently number Iran as one of the world's worst violators of free speech, where scores of newspapers have been closed, journalists jailed, access to Web sites blocked and government critics hounded out of the country.
Delegates at the meeting earlier Tuesday agreed to form a "fact-finding" committee to study the Holocaust.
The head of the new committee, identified as Iranian academic Mohammad Ali Ramin, said its members were "not racist or opposed to any particular group."
"Rather they are just seeking the truth to set humanity truly free," the ISNA students news agency quoted him as saying, without naming the committee members.
Robert Faurisson, a French scholar who has described the Holocaust as a "historical lie," said the committee included members from the United States, France, Canada, Switzerland, Austria, Iran, Bahrain and Syria, ISNA reported.
The Vatican called the Holocaust an "immense tragedy" which had to remain forever a warning for all people to respect the rights of others.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the Tehran meeting "shows the danger of the situation Israel is in and in particular the threat that Israel lives under."
She was speaking after meeting Ehud Olmert, who was on his first visit to Germany as Israeli Prime Minister.
Germany has made it a priority to support Israel since the Holocaust under the Nazis and the end of World War Two in 1945.
EU Commissioner Franco Frattini expressed "shock and indignation," adding: "Anti-Semitism has no place in Europe; nor should it in any other part of the world."