in case you thought Patraeus was apolitical ...

[Irvine511]

You are missing the part about moral and legal. He has every right as an American officer to disobey an unlawful or immoral order.

we're missing the forrest for the trees here.

why are we in Iraq? what is to be gain by "the surge"? why is Petraeus not being held accountable for the clear failure of the central goal of said surge -- political reconciliation? all that's going to happen so far is that the surge is going to end, and we'll be right where we were at the end of 2006, none of the goals achieved, but with much more wasted blood and treasure. our present forces are too small to actually subjugate a population, but large enough to enrage the rest of the Muslim world. it is making us less safe, and Petraeus knows this, but he can't say this, so he ducked the question

it seems to me that we have two options:

1. the surge is not working, and in order for it to work, we must send in 300,000 troops and fully occupy the country; all you kids out there, get ready to be drafted

2. the surge is not working, political reconciliation is impossible, so it's time to withdraw and leave the Iraqis to their own devices.

instead, we're choosing option 3: stall, and run out the clock, pass it on to the next administration, and then spend the rest of your life talking about how the surge just wasn't given enough time and we were "stabbed in the back" by murderous revolutionary Cindy Sheehan, the woman who toppled an empire in the Middle East. the surge was designed to give the Bushies the opportunity to say, "see, if we'd just stayed a little longer, we would have won," and those who grew up under the illusion of the invincible American Army (and by conventional terms, it is, but these are not conventional operations).

i thnk we are looking at a proxy war. if forced to choose, the US will side with the Sunnis against the Shiite controlled government that's controlled by Tehran. we're going to get a civil war that's a stand-in for a US vs. Iran, and that's going to spread throughout the Middle East.

and how ironic. for posters who were so *obsessed* with the threat that Saddam posed to the precious Saudi Arabian oil fields, it now seems as if there's a vastly greater, less containable threat than Saddam. and that's a regional war that the US will be funding, and what's worse, will have taken sides.

 

[Diemen]

Like Deep said, he can't speculate on something as vague as the overall safety of the country. He is mission focused. He is about facts and figures.

But it is not something as vague as the overall safety of the country. It is much more precise. As the general in charge of the entire operation in Iraq, it would be wise, especially before embarking on the mission, to take the time to determine whether the mission will increase, decrease or have little effect on our safety, based on the enemy we are fighting. To not do so runs the risk of embarking on missions that may end up decreasing the safety of the country he is trying to protect.

I think, quite honestly, that if the goals were clear from the beginning, the plan was laid out well, the administration was straight with the American people as to the challenges ahead, the surge actually really did what it was supposed to do, then Petraeus should have no problem saying "yes, I believe we are safer because of this." The fact that he couldn't is telling.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Like Deep said, he can't speculate on something as vague as the overall safety of the country. He is mission focused. He is about facts and figures.

Additionally, there is nothing blind about his service. I would imagine his daily responsibilities dwarf anything most of us will be assigned in our entire lifetime.

(btw - it is not just a degree from Princeton, it was a PhD)

Okay, PhD, technicalties of the English language I don't know.

Though this wasn't my point exactly. You argued that a soldier doesn't need to know "the entire reason he or she is being sent into battle", talking about Generaly Petraeus, the leading officer of this multi-national force in Iraq. And that makes him more than just a soldier carrying out orders from the politicians back home. This makes him responsible to know exactly what he does, and what it will cause.

A soldier, or a General, should serve the citizens of his country, not the political leaders alone. And this is why he should make up his mind whether the "why we are here" really is answered by the powers that lead him.

But you are probably aware that the US Army and the German Bundeswehr have different philosophies regarding this very topic.

 

[phillyfan26]

I think, quite honestly, that if the goals were clear from the beginning, the plan was laid out well, the administration was straight with the American people as to the challenges ahead, the surge actually really did what it was supposed to do, then Petraeus should have no problem saying "yes, I believe we are safer because of this." The fact that he couldn't is telling.

Let's say they were fighting al-Qaeda. If someone asked him, "Is this making America safer?" He'd definitely respond, "Absolutely."

The difference is that we're not fighting al-Qaeda.

 

[Irvine511]

i guess i want to know if supporters of the Bush administration are willing to do what it takes.

are you willing to occupy Iraq for at least another 10 years and watch a good 5,000 Americans die in the process (and god knows how many Iraqis), have a generation walk around on prosthetics, and spend billions?

is getting the hell out really that much worse?

 

[deep]

i guess i want to know if supporters of the Bush administration are willing to do what it takes.

are you willing to occupy Iraq for at least another 10 years and watch a good 5,000 Americans die in the process (and god knows how many Iraqis), have a generation walk around on prosthetics, and spend billions?

if it were only that simple and that was the cost

and the result was starting a change in the Mid-East for representative governments, free markets, more open governments

and an atmosphere where terrorists find it difficult to operate, recruit and expand?

look at the costs the U S paid in Korea

to answer your question?




the answer would be, yes.

 

[kellyahern]

^ Funny that you mention Korea.

are you willing to occupy Iraq for at least another 10 years and watch a good 5,000 Americans die in the process (and god knows how many Iraqis), have a generation walk around on prosthetics, and spend billions?

Guess what? It might be longer than that:

Korea may be Bush's model for Iraq, officials say

President Bush is looking at the decades-long U.S. troop presence in South Korea as a model for a future U.S. role in Iraq, senior administration officials said Thursday.

More than 38,000 U.S. troops are stationed in South Korea and along the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea more than 50 years after the end of the war on the Korean Peninsula.

Wtf?

 

[diamond]

i guess i want to know if supporters of the Bush administration are willing to do what it takes.

are you willing to occupy Iraq for at least another 10 years and watch a good 5,000 Americans die in the process (and god knows how many Iraqis), have a generation walk around on prosthetics, and spend billions?

is getting the hell out really that much worse?

I hear ya gf!

Stalin, Hilter and Mao was such better philanthropists!

snap!

dbs

 

[Vincent Vega]

First apple and oranges from Bush, then from diamond.

 

[Diemen]

I hear ya gf!

Stalin, Hilter and Mao was such better philanthropists!

snap!

dbs

What in the hell do they have to do with anything?

 

[phillyfan26]

I hear ya gf!

Stalin, Hilter and Mao was such better philanthropists!

snap!

dbs

Not only is this irrelevant, but I'm sensing a bit of a trend here.

 

[AEON]

^ Funny that you mention Korea.




Wtf?

I think the point is that the US suffered over 33,000 combat deaths to keep Korea free. The result has been a thriving, globally competitive democracy.

 

[kellyahern]

nevermind, I give up.

 

[Irvine511]

I think the point is that the US suffered over 33,000 combat deaths to keep Korea free. The result has been a thriving, globally competitive democracy.

and the creation of the biggest nuclear threat since WW2. and things in iraq aren't nearly as clear as in Korea. Baghdad isn't Seoul. and this isn't a penninsula in the Pacific; this is the heart of the Middle East.

but if you're willing to do this, to sacrafice 5,000+ Americans and perhaps 50x that many Iraqis, just go ahead and say so.

but tell me what you hope to achieve.

 

[phillyfan26]

and the creation of the biggest nuclear threat since WW2. and things in iraq aren't nearly as clear as in Korea. Baghdad isn't Seoul. and this isn't a penninsula in the Pacific; this is the heart of the Middle East.

but if you're willing to do this, to sacrafice 5,000+ Americans and perhaps 50x that many Iraqis, just go ahead and say so.

but tell me what you hope to achieve.

Exactly.

As I said earlier:

What have we accomplished in Iraq, what are we going to accomplish in Iraq, and how does it make America safer? Those are important questions.

 

[AEON]

and the creation of the biggest nuclear threat since WW2. and things in iraq aren't nearly as clear as in Korea. Baghdad isn't Seoul. and this isn't a penninsula in the Pacific; this is the heart of the Middle East.

Which makes the mission even more important, not less.

but tell me what you hope to achieve.

What the US Army achieved with the deaths of 33,000 in Korea and 290,000 in World War II - the spread of democracy.

This is a good thing - unless you somehow think the Middle Easterners are genetically challenged therefore incapable or not worth having such a system.

 

[phillyfan26]

What the US Army achieved with the deaths of 33,000 in Korea and 290,000 in World War II - the spread of democracy.

This is a good thing - unless you somehow think the Middle Easterners are genetically challenged therefore incapable or not worth having such a system.

1. Isn't it anti-democratic to force a system upon a group of people?

2. When did someone infer that they are "genetically challenged?"

3. What happened to the safety of our country?

4. Didn't Bush state that this had something to do with terrorists from al-Qaeda, the war on terror, and the safety of America?

 

[BVS]

Which makes the mission even more important, not less.

What the US Army achieved with the deaths of 33,000 in Korea and 290,000 in World War II - the spread of democracy.

This is a good thing - unless you somehow think the Middle Easterners are genetically challenged therefore incapable or not worth having such a system.

Genetically challenged? 290,000 deaths a good thing? Your arguments are so "left field", detached, and down right bizarre, that it's hard to discuss anything with you...

 

[Diemen]

What the US Army achieved with the deaths of 33,000 in Korea and 290,000 in World War II - the spread of democracy.

So the spread of democracy is worth it regardless of the cost?

 

[Infinity]

1. Isn't it anti-democratic to force a system upon a group of people?

2. When did someone infer that they are "genetically challenged?"

3. What happened to the safety of our country?

4. Didn't Bush state that this had something to do with terrorists from al-Qaeda, the war on terror, and the safety of America?

Don't ask questions like that, you are being unpatriotic and not supporting the troops.

 

[AEON]

290,000 deaths a good thing?

No - the spread of democracy is the good thing these men and women died for.

 

[Infinity]

Personally I think the idea of bombing a country in order to "spread" democracy is the biggest load of bullshit i've ever seen.

The idea of forcing a democracy onto the people kills the whole idea of democracy. What neo-cons fail to understand is that a democracy is a government made by the people, not by the world police (U.S.).

 

[Irvine511]

Which makes the mission even more important, not less.

but does that make it more achievable or less?

are you ready to see an old school draft implemented? are you ready to sacrafice all these kids, our best and brightest, in order to force one country to adopt our government? didn't this already happen before, didn't the UK already try this, a good 100 or so years ago?



[q]What the US Army achieved with the deaths of 33,000 in Korea and 290,000 in World War II - the spread of democracy.[/q]

you haven't even defined what the US achieved in Korea. yes, Seoul is one thing, but we got North Korea as well. is this really a good thing?

This is a good thing - unless you somehow think the Middle Easterners are genetically challenged therefore incapable or not worth having such a system.

it's funny when conservatives play the race card in reverse. you'll moan about affirmative action, but then call me a racist when i say that i'm not terribly encouraged by the ability of Arab culture to adopt liberal democratic values. can we have a democracy? sure. there was voting in Iraq last year and the year before. but is it a liberal society? (and by liberal i mean the toleration of differnet points of view) no, not by any means. in fact, in Iraq, as in Gaza, all democracy has done is legitimize thugs. Hitler was elected, never forget that. simply because there's a democracy in place doesn't mean that it's suddenly going to become Canada. it's far, far, far more complex than that, and i'm disappointed that after 4 years and exactly ZERO progress you're still playing the whole "you're a racist if you think that Iraqis can't be like Canadians" card.

 

[AEON]

1. Isn't it anti-democratic to force a system upon a group of people?

2. When did someone infer that they are "genetically challenged?"

3. What happened to the safety of our country?

4. Didn't Bush state that this had something to do with terrorists from al-Qaeda, the war on terror, and the safety of America?

1. I know of a few Southerners circa 1861 that would answer "yes"

2. By somehow thinking that the Middle East is incapable of democracy.

3) The entire Global War on Terror is about the safety of our country and democracies around the world. Petraeus is in one theater out of many.

4) In Iraq we are indeed fighting al-Queda, GWOT, and preserving US safety. The president and the congress are the right people to speak about the overall success GWOT, not Petraeus. I don't see why this is so difficult for people to understand.

 

[BVS]

No - the spread of democracy is the good thing these men and women died for.

Really? Can you honestly give me a detailed reason, how it worked here, and why democracy is the only government that works and therefore needs to be spread throughout?

 

[AEON]

Really? Can you honestly give me a detailed reason, how it worked here, and why democracy is the only government that works and therefore needs to be spread throughout?

Give me an example of a government that is NOT a democracy that you consider "working" (I presume you mean working to mean good for the overwhelming majority of the citizens).

Do you prefer totalitarianism? communism? oligarchy? monarchy?

 

[BVS]

Give me an example of a government that is NOT a democracy that you consider "working" (I presume you mean working to mean good for the overwhelming majority of the citizens).

Do you prefer totalitarianism? communism? oligarchy? monarchy?

Nice detail of how it worked in Korea...

So are we to invade Canada next?

 

[namkcuR]

Give me an example of a government that is NOT a democracy that you consider "working" (I presume you mean working to mean good for the overwhelming majority of the citizens).

Do you prefer totalitarianism? communism? oligarchy? monarchy?

That's not the point. We're not talking about the effectiveness(or non-effectiveness) of democracy. We're talking about the idea of forcing ANY governmental system on ANY country. Going from a totalitarian dictatorship to a democracy(or any governmental shift of that magnitude) is a revolution, and more often than not in world history, revolutions start within, not externally. This is not about whether democracy works or not, it's about why America feels like it has the right to force any governmental system at all on anyone. What gives us that right? Why do we think it's our place? Some of us think it is our place, and some of us think we have absolutely no right. That's what this is about.

 

[AEON]

Nice detail of how it worked in Korea...

So are we to invade Canada next?

Do I really need to say that South Korea is "working" and North Korea is not?

 

[BVS]

Do I really need to say that South Korea is "working" and North Korea is not?

yeah, you do, when you say the loss of that many lives is a "good thing" then yes you better back it up with something, it's apparant you can't...

You still haven't told me why democracy HAS to be spread...