34% - Page 20 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-13-2006, 04:08 PM   #286
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 12:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Maoilbheannacht


Well, if things were really that bad, I don't think there would be any Iraqi government. Seems like they have made a hell of a lot of compromises to get to where they are now. I also think the United States military would have been pushed out of several towns and parts of Iraq and would be thinking about a retreat into Kuwait, not as a matter of choice but one of necessity if things were really so dire.


well, things are quite dire.

some progress has been made, there's no question, but much of this progress has come at a tremendous and what i believe to be a very unnecessary cost. this entire operation, since 2002, has been bungled, badly, by this administration in so many ways that has resulted in so many unnecessary deaths, both American and Iraqi.

i might even be inclined to say that George Bush got the big picture right -- the Arab World needs democracy (though this begs the question as to whether nor not democracy is a good thing, as democracy could lend legitimacy to the most unimaginably repressive Islamist theocracy imaginable should it be elected), though how he has gone about doing this has been a tragedy from start to finish, and no accomplishment necessarily makes all the tragedies "worth it" in my opinion.

getting one thing right does not negate the dozen things that have gone horribly, horribly wrong, and we could also argue that the occupation of Iraq has done such long-term damage to the credibility of the United States -- from Abu Ghraib to Guantanamo to Haditha to no WMD's -- that future missions that might be of greater moral imperative will be that much harder to pull off.

i think the invasion has done much to bolster Iran's position in the Arab world as well as introduce a murderous religiosity in parts of Iraq that was absent before the fall of Hussein.

ultimately, we are not any safer, in fact, we might be less so.

i support the taking on al-Qaeda and the Taliban, convincing Pakistan to change its policies, and reconstructing Afghanistan after overthrowing the Taliban. this, done correctly, is a tough enough job.

instead of seeing the job through, Bush ran off to Iraq almost immediately beginning preparations during Operation Anaconda in the spring of 2002. Iraq has consumed money that might have been spent on reconstruction in Afghanistan.

basically, the Iraq debate is so over, and the interventionist argument has lost. at best, Iraq will be an Islamist, theocratic, Iran-dominated state, even with the insurgency suppressed. women will have far fewer rights than they had under Hussein. once the U.S. leaves, i would imagine that much of Iraq's oil revenue will be diverted to support Hezbollah and Hamas under Iran's influence.

in sum, Bush was wrong to go in as quickly as he did, and without international support. once again: it was NOT a coalition even remotely comparable to 1991. it was an embarassment, and we are now seeing its consequences. to make matters worse, after the WMD embarassment, the post-war has been shockingly mismanaged, in part because the war had to be sold as a low-cost operation to gain public support, but mostly because George Bush is one of the most mediocre, unimaginative, bored presidents to ever hold that office.

what scares me most, though, is the extent to which he has followed a 'narrative' that is simply not supported by any empirical evidence and, more importantly, that he has not been interested in empirical evidence or expertise, period. it's as if the discussion about the Iraq war, and how to wage it, has been a private conversation between Bush and his "higher father."

i feel torn, in many ways. of course I want the United States to succeed. losing the war in Iraq will have horrendous consequences. yet, do we want to win a war that was won because Bush 'listened to God'? what consequences would arise should US foreign policy be cut free from its traditional basis of rational assessment and empirical evidence, 'guided' by a president who thinks the rest of us should just 'trust him,' since God is whispering directly into his ear?
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-13-2006, 04:24 PM   #287
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,140
Local Time: 05:14 AM
Exxxxxxxxcellent post Irvine
__________________

__________________
U2democrat is offline  
Old 06-13-2006, 04:47 PM   #288
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 05:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




well, things are quite dire.

some progress has been made, there's no question, but much of this progress has come at a tremendous and what i believe to be a very unnecessary cost. this entire operation, since 2002, has been bungled, badly, by this administration in so many ways that has resulted in so many unnecessary deaths, both American and Iraqi.

i might even be inclined to say that George Bush got the big picture right -- the Arab World needs democracy (though this begs the question as to whether nor not democracy is a good thing, as democracy could lend legitimacy to the most unimaginably repressive Islamist theocracy imaginable should it be elected), though how he has gone about doing this has been a tragedy from start to finish, and no accomplishment necessarily makes all the tragedies "worth it" in my opinion.

getting one thing right does not negate the dozen things that have gone horribly, horribly wrong, and we could also argue that the occupation of Iraq has done such long-term damage to the credibility of the United States -- from Abu Ghraib to Guantanamo to Haditha to no WMD's -- that future missions that might be of greater moral imperative will be that much harder to pull off.

i think the invasion has done much to bolster Iran's position in the Arab world as well as introduce a murderous religiosity in parts of Iraq that was absent before the fall of Hussein.

ultimately, we are not any safer, in fact, we might be less so.

i support the taking on al-Qaeda and the Taliban, convincing Pakistan to change its policies, and reconstructing Afghanistan after overthrowing the Taliban. this, done correctly, is a tough enough job.

instead of seeing the job through, Bush ran off to Iraq almost immediately beginning preparations during Operation Anaconda in the spring of 2002. Iraq has consumed money that might have been spent on reconstruction in Afghanistan.

basically, the Iraq debate is so over, and the interventionist argument has lost. at best, Iraq will be an Islamist, theocratic, Iran-dominated state, even with the insurgency suppressed. women will have far fewer rights than they had under Hussein. once the U.S. leaves, i would imagine that much of Iraq's oil revenue will be diverted to support Hezbollah and Hamas under Iran's influence.

in sum, Bush was wrong to go in as quickly as he did, and without international support. once again: it was NOT a coalition even remotely comparable to 1991. it was an embarassment, and we are now seeing its consequences. to make matters worse, after the WMD embarassment, the post-war has been shockingly mismanaged, in part because the war had to be sold as a low-cost operation to gain public support, but mostly because George Bush is one of the most mediocre, unimaginative, bored presidents to ever hold that office.

what scares me most, though, is the extent to which he has followed a 'narrative' that is simply not supported by any empirical evidence and, more importantly, that he has not been interested in empirical evidence or expertise, period. it's as if the discussion about the Iraq war, and how to wage it, has been a private conversation between Bush and his "higher father."

i feel torn, in many ways. of course I want the United States to succeed. losing the war in Iraq will have horrendous consequences. yet, do we want to win a war that was won because Bush 'listened to God'? what consequences would arise should US foreign policy be cut free from its traditional basis of rational assessment and empirical evidence, 'guided' by a president who thinks the rest of us should just 'trust him,' since God is whispering directly into his ear?
So you think the Iraq war could have been a "cake walk", but Bush bungled that opportunity?
__________________
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 06-13-2006, 05:11 PM   #289
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 12:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Maoilbheannacht


So you think the Iraq war could have been a "cake walk", but Bush bungled that opportunity?


the war itself was always going to be a cake walk since Saddam's forces were pretty decimated after 1991.

the post-war was always, always going to be extraordinarily difficult -- Westerners occupying an Arab country? just when in history has that ever gone well?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-13-2006, 05:16 PM   #290
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,140
Local Time: 05:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




the war itself was always going to be a cake walk since Saddam's forces were pretty decimated after 1991.

the post-war was always, always going to be extraordinarily difficult -- Westerners occupying an Arab country? just when in history has that ever gone well?


As far as I can recall, never.
__________________
U2democrat is offline  
Old 06-13-2006, 05:25 PM   #291
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 05:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




the war itself was always going to be a cake walk since Saddam's forces were pretty decimated after 1991.

the post-war was always, always going to be extraordinarily difficult -- Westerners occupying an Arab country? just when in history has that ever gone well?
Well, then how can you say Bush had done such a terrible job when you admit it was always going to be extraordinarily difficult?

On the other hand, Afghanistan is not an Arab country, but it is a Muslim country, and the occupation there has gone comparitively well. Jeez, just look at what happen to the Soviets in Afghanistan compared to the current occupation there.
__________________
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 06-13-2006, 05:39 PM   #292
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 09:14 PM
Quote:
An Iraqi Shiite cleric walks across a series of British and American flags painted across a street in Karbala in Iraq Tuesday, June 13, 2006. The flags are painted on the ground in order that passers-by step on them, which is considered an insult. (AP Photo/Alaa al-Marjani)
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 06-13-2006, 05:40 PM   #293
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 12:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Maoilbheannacht


Well, then how can you say Bush had done such a terrible job when you admit it was always going to be extraordinarily difficult?

On the other hand, Afghanistan is not an Arab country, but it is a Muslim country, and the occupation there has gone comparitively well. Jeez, just look at what happen to the Soviets in Afghanistan compared to the current occupation there.

the administration never thought it was going to be difficult -- look at Cheney's quotes about greeting us as liberators with roses, calling to mind the Dutch greeting the Americans in 1944.

it was willful self-delusion from the beginning, which i thought i had made clear in my earlier post.

yes, Afghanistan has gone *comparatively* well, but you've given us two disasterous occupations as points of comparison, and it's currently undergoing it's worst surge of violence since 2001, and we still don't have OBL. and the Soviets were in Afghanistan for 10 years, it's only been 4 for us.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-13-2006, 06:35 PM   #294
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 05:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



the administration never thought it was going to be difficult -- look at Cheney's quotes about greeting us as liberators with roses, calling to mind the Dutch greeting the Americans in 1944.

it was willful self-delusion from the beginning, which i thought i had made clear in my earlier post.

yes, Afghanistan has gone *comparatively* well, but you've given us two disasterous occupations as points of comparison, and it's currently undergoing it's worst surge of violence since 2001, and we still don't have OBL. and the Soviets were in Afghanistan for 10 years, it's only been 4 for us.
I never said the administration said it was going to be difficult, you said it was always going to be an extraordinarily difficult task. In light of that then, how can you say Bush has done such a terrible job when you admit it was always going to be extraordinarily difficult?
__________________
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 06-13-2006, 07:41 PM   #295
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:14 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

the administration never thought it was going to be difficult -- look at Cheney's quotes about greeting us as liberators with roses, calling to mind the Dutch greeting the Americans in 1944.

it was willful self-delusion from the beginning, which i thought i had made clear in my earlier post.

yes, Afghanistan has gone *comparatively* well, but you've given us two disasterous occupations as points of comparison, and it's currently undergoing it's worst surge of violence since 2001, and we still don't have OBL. and the Soviets were in Afghanistan for 10 years, it's only been 4 for us.
You know the concept of disaster seems to be a victim of hyperbole in the modern world, one wonders what you would think of the Battle of the Bulge or Okinawa - that had genuinely military blunders.

The persistent threat posed by Saddam Hussein is permanently gone, the ethnic tensions in Iraq would have occured after any power shift and in the absence of the coalition the forces most likely to step in would have been Iran, Syria and Turkey. Iraq now has a democractically elected government that is allied with the United States in the GWOT and has an army that is getting stronger and more self-sufficient every day - the best course to get US troops out is supporting the elected government of the Iraqi people. Saddam has WMD programs which were ready for the time when sanctions were lifted, he was buying banned weapon systems up to the start of the war with money scammed from oil for food such as the North Korean missiles,.

The "narrative" that the stoppers are pushing don't gel with their own predictions pre-war , namely those of mass casualties (tens of thousands coalition troops, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's), mass exodus (millions of refugees) and inability of the Iraqi people to vote in elections because "it isn't in their culture". This coupled with a severe case of Vietnam attatchment syndrome which declares any foreign action a Vietnam-redux regardless of the actual conditions or forces has resulted in consistently wrong predictions (e.g. the actual time it took to topple the regime, taking Baghdad, casualties, elections, ratification of constitution, cabinets).

Furthermore right on Europes doorstep NATO still hasn't caught Radko Mladic or Radovan Karadzic - is the inability to capture OBL in the desolate terrain of the Afghan-Pak border really that much worse?
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-13-2006, 08:16 PM   #296
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 12:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer

Furthermore right on Europes doorstep NATO still hasn't caught Radko Mladic or Radovan Karadzic - is the inability to capture OBL in the desolate terrain of the Afghan-Pak border really that much worse?
Like they've really been trying to catch them? For political reasons they've been waiting for the government to hand them over.

NATO is just sitting around. Mladic was essentially walking around Belgrade openly a couple of years ago and nobody did a thing.

Not a good comparison, IMO.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 06-13-2006, 08:30 PM   #297
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 05:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


Like they've really been trying to catch them? For political reasons they've been waiting for the government to hand them over.

NATO is just sitting around. Mladic was essentially walking around Belgrade openly a couple of years ago and nobody did a thing.

Not a good comparison, IMO.
Given that Bin Ladin is likely in an area of Pakistan where the local population supports him, its not as bad a comparison as you may think. NATO is not going to invade Serbia just to get Mladic, and the United States and NATO are not going to invade Pakistan just to get Bin Ladin. They are working with the governments of Serbia and Pakistan in order to get these people.
__________________
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 06-13-2006, 08:35 PM   #298
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 12:14 AM
NATO doesn't need to invade anywhere since they are in Bosnia already which is where these thugs were for years.

Last I heard, the US didn't have thousands of troops in Pakistan.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 06-13-2006, 09:13 PM   #299
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 05:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
NATO doesn't need to invade anywhere since they are in Bosnia already which is where these thugs were for years.

Last I heard, the US didn't have thousands of troops in Pakistan.
Mladic is in Serbia, not Bosnia. The US and NATO do not have any troops in Serbia just like they don't have any troops in Pakistan. Mladic likely either moved across to border into Serbia prior to the first NATO troops setting foot in the country, or had an easy plan to get across the border if he got into trouble.
__________________
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 06-13-2006, 09:28 PM   #300
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 12:14 AM
He was crossing the border back and forth, according to local media reports.

Karadzic is still believed to be in Bosnia. Why isn't NATO picking him up?
__________________

__________________
anitram is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com