Iraqi withdrawal? [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Iraqi withdrawal?



piece-it pete
06-27-2005, 12:15 PM
I figure that, since we're all cooling down from controversial topics, we could discuss something calming like the Iraq war for a bit :D . I feel like a politician entering a race - "no mudslinging, I swear!"

It appears that if you repeat something often enough and loudly enough it becomes true.

Iraq = Vietnam. Not by a looooong shot.

The Iraqis are taking heavy casualties now in THEIR fight. The press makes hay. Where were they when Saddam was in power? Why is it OUR fault that the Iraqis are taking casualties fighting their fight? We can't fight the bad guys, and if they do, it's still our fault?

I'm worried over the pressure for a pullout deadline. If it's to pressure Iraq and the world community, fine. But we should be told this behind the scenes so we don't get our hopes too high. If true what are we, crazy? Like it or not we have a great deal of credibility issues at work here. In Azerberjian (sp) they're actually carrying photos of Bush - in the pro democracy movement!

It might be chic in the 1st world, to hate us for going into Iraq. But for those protesters, and the Iraqis, and like minded folks all over (particularly Iran!) what will they do if we walk away? And I can hear the mullahs now: "We TOLD you they were weak! Cowards! They hide behind their missles!"

Won't a unilateral pullout be the same thing we did to Iraq in 1992?

Regardless of the reason we went in, don't we owe it to the dead to continue? If we leave before the jobs' done, or at least until it's clear we gave it our best shot, those dead Americans would have died in vain.

Pete

Resident Loser
06-28-2005, 08:54 AM
...unfortunately most folks want results...usually yesterday...If the Revolutionary War was met with that attitude, we'd all be drinkin' tea and eatin' crumpets...I know SOME of us are, but that's a whole 'nother thing...

jimHJJ(...clotted cream anyone?...)

piece-it pete
06-28-2005, 09:31 AM
mions' a pint!

:D

Still love the mother country.

Anyway, I guess some folks DO have some independent thought left:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/27/AR2005062700270.html?referrer=email

Pete

kexodusc
06-28-2005, 09:38 AM
Won't a unilateral pullout be the same thing we did to Iraq in 1992?

Regardless of the reason we went in, don't we owe it to the dead to continue? If we leave before the jobs' done, or at least until it's clear we gave it our best shot, those dead Americans would have died in vain.

Pete
I think you nailed it here, and this should be something all the liberals agree with.

Whether we like it or not, we owe it to Iraq, as well. We CANNOT just pull out and hand Iraq back over to another Saddam-in-waiting. 1/2 ass effort since 1992 has made this entire mess, now it's time to see it through to its ultimate conclusion.

Calling Iraq another Vietnam is insulting to anyone involved in either of these wars.
The thing that worries me the most is that Iraq is and was among the smallest of our worries, IMO. Heaven forbid that some other crises comes up in the near future.

piece-it pete
06-28-2005, 10:39 AM
Thanks, Kex.

I posted the wrong chart, this is the one:

piece-it pete
06-28-2005, 10:46 AM
The thing that worries me the most is that Iraq is and was among the smallest of our worries, IMO. Heaven forbid that some other crises comes up in the near future.

No kidding. If the medias' kicking a fuss NOW wait till there's a real fight! Pick one: Iran. Syria (although these may be quite onesided). North Korea (could be bad depending on the Chinese). Or a surprise.

I hope not, but it's a guarentee something will happen somewhere eventually.

Pete

kexodusc
06-28-2005, 10:55 AM
Yep, North Korea and China are some serious heavyweights, and we do not treat them the same way we did Iraq. I don't think the China's massive growth can be stopped, hopefully it can be steered. I think their leaders recognize they have more to gain through cooperationg than confrontation...North Korea I'm not so sure about. Sad part is we do know North Korea has WMD's, and far greater likelihood of ever using them than Iraq. But we don't dare march into North Korea because let's face it, compared to Iraq they're armed to the teeth and actually willing to fight back...our next President better be far more diplomatic and credible than either Bush or Clinton. One thing at a time I guess.

JeffKnob
06-28-2005, 11:06 AM
Although there is nothing I like about this administration I like and despise the fact that we went to Iraq, I know we are there and that is the way it is. I don't feel that setting a date for pulling out is a smart thing to do. It only makes sense that the insurgents will just wait until that date and take over once we are gone. I wish there was more we could do to move the process along faster so that can have less casualties. I am deeply troubled when I hear in the news that the troops don't have enough supplies and haven't for a while now. Maybe it would help some if the troops had supplies. It also doesn't seem like there is any strategy going on much of the time. I guess it is possible that it would be hard to have strategy against an enemy that is so unpredictable.

A similarity between this war and Vietnam is that our enemies and the innocent citizens look the same so it is hard to tell who is friend and who is foe. They are not as similar as people want to make it out to be. People just want to equate this to Vietnam because it just adds more power to their arguments against the war.

Swerd
06-28-2005, 12:57 PM
As Colin Powel said, "If you break it, it's yours". So whether or not we agree with W's reasons for going into Iraq 3 years ago, we broke it, and if we leave without fixing it we'll give the entire world the message that we quit when the going gets tough. That's what happened in the 1980's when Ragan sent Marines into Beirut, Lebanon and then pulled out after large losses due to a suicide truck bomb. It gave the clear message to the Arab terrorists that the USA doesn't have the will to oppose dedicated fanatics. That conclusion has motivated all their actions since then.

I think we failed when we cut our strength in Afghanistan to invade Iraq. It was a move that offers us no strategic advantage in the conflict against el Qaida and certainly does nothing to make our our homes more secure.

The Vietnam analogy is not entirely correct, nor is it entirely wrong.


Vietnam - 58,000 dead Americans. Iraq - 1,700 dead Americans, and still counting.
Neither country attacked us, and both countries only wanted to harm us after we invaded them.
Failing to win in Vietnam greatly damaged our military and diplomatic reputation. Failing in Iraq will have similar consequences.
Winning in Vietnam would have done nothing to enhance our direct national security interests. Similarly, winning in Iraq will not secure us against further attack by el Qaida.
Vietnam was a civil war between the communist-supported Vietnamese independence forces in the north and the western-supported (formerly French colonial-supported) forces in the south. It also became a proxy war between the USA and the USSR.
Iraq was an independant nation ruled by a brutal dictatorship. Nothing like Vietnam. Now that the dictator is gone, Iraq is becoming a civil war and a proxy war between the anti-western Islamic forces and the pro-western forces. Sound familiar?
Iraq, like Vietnam before, is becoming a war where the politicians who started it are having an increasingly difficult time explaining their actions to a more-than-patient American public. These politicians undersestimated the strength of the enemy and proposed a limited war which they believed would be accepted by the American public. The real requirements and costs of both wars were either never understood or were deliberately ignored.
And finally Iraq, like Vietnam, is becoming a war where the American public is becoming unwilling to pay the cost in lives because we are not fighting to defend ourselves against a genuine threat to our homes and our way of life.

bjornb17
06-28-2005, 01:12 PM
kex and pete, i agree with you both 100%

Keep in mind that a large number of our troops that are over there are proud of the job they are doing. the least we can do is support them and cheer them on.

Although this war is a bit of a mess, unfortunately it is probably necessary to help secure the future

dean_martin
06-28-2005, 01:26 PM
I heard a little intelligence on the bombs being used by the "insurgents" a couple of weeks ago in interviews with military specialists. The bottom line is that the types of bombs and detonators have become progressively complex. Some of the developments include more advanced remote detonators and more powerful bombs that explode projectiles in a single direction. The advanced detonators are being used to prevent detection. The more powerful, uni-directional bombs are being used to concentrate the impact of the explosion on an isolated target such as a heavily armored vehicle. This is seen as a direct response to our increased armor for our vehicles. In other words, the insurgents have been answering our responses. The theory is that explosive experts from either outside Iraq or from the old Baathist army are assisting the insurgents.

I would probably meet the liberal litmus test by a small margin, but I agree that we can't cut and run and that we can't tip off our pull-out date. I am disappointed in the prospect that we've seemed to under estimate the enemy and that our intelligence gathering on the ground seems to be next to zero. Of course intelligence gathering by nature should be secretive, but there's very little evidence that we're doing an effective job.

JohnMichael
06-28-2005, 02:29 PM
First off I support our troops 100%. I want them to have the best equipment to do the job they have been asked to do. No we can not leave again with the job unfinished. I think two things have disheartened the people of the US about the war. The first was that no WMD were found. I think the next thing that changed a lot of opinions was when President Bush announced Mission Acomplished and we still have young men dying over there. Regardless of those two issues we need to continue our support of the troops and be aware of the issues they face. The media went from imbedded reporters giving us constant coverage of the war to all of a sudden much less interest. I remember people stating the war was over and those of us with children or family in the military who were either serving in Iraq or preparing to serve were upset by the sudden lack of interest. The soldiers I have spoken with are proud of their service and are willing to do what is asked. They want to finish what was started and help Iraq develop a new government. I wonder if this war became entertainment early on and like so many things the general public loses interest quickly.

bjornb17
06-28-2005, 08:35 PM
I wonder if this war became entertainment early on and like so many things the general public loses interest quickly.

Sadly i think that is the case.

Many people in the US wanted to see us (americans) kick some terrorist buttox, but after a while they got bored with it, and want to move on to new things. Of course our military doesnt have the luxury of having such a short attention span, and they have to stick to their commitments.

If we withdraw, we KNOW things will turn out to be a total mess

If we stay, we have a change of making a possitive difference.

mystic
06-28-2005, 11:30 PM
Sadly i think that is the case.

Many people in the US wanted to see us (americans) kick some terrorist buttox, but after a while they got bored with it, and want to move on to new things. Of course our military doesnt have the luxury of having such a short attention span, and they have to stick to their commitments.

If we withdraw, we KNOW things will turn out to be a total mess

If we stay, we have a change of making a possitive difference.

Hi bjnorb,

Have you ever heard the gambling expression "good money after bad?" At least in a poker game, you are only risking money. It may not be a good analogy, but I think of it ever time the question of stay or fold comes up on Iraq.

ARGUMENT: We should stay as long as it takes for Iraq to become a secure country and a working democracy because then they will be our friends and help us spread democracy throughout the Middle East. If we don't stay until Iraq is safe and can govern itself, a civil war may occur(Sunni vs Shiite), and our credibility will be damaged.

COUNTER: We should leave soon and let Iraqis be responsible for Iraq. They lived together thousands of years before we came. Even if we succed in helping establish a working democracy, it may not last after we leave, especially if seen as being pro U.S. Moreover, our continued military presence is motivating young people in other countries to volunteer for terrorism.

I lean toward the first argument, but I am pessimistic, and wish we hadn't gotten into this mess in the first place. As someone said "unecessary, and no end in sight." I never liked the idea of going to war on the basis of a theory.

bjornb17
06-29-2005, 06:47 AM
Hi bjnorb,

Have you ever heard the gambling expression "good money after bad?" At least in a poker game, you are only risking money. It may not be a good analogy, but I think of it ever time the question of stay or fold comes up on Iraq.

ARGUMENT: We should stay as long as it takes for Iraq to become a secure country and a working democracy because then they will be our friends and help us spread democracy throughout the Middle East. If we don't stay until Iraq is safe and can govern itself, a civil war may occur(Sunni vs Shiite), and our credibility will be damaged.

COUNTER: We should leave soon and let Iraqis be responsible for Iraq. They lived together thousands of years before we came. Even if we succed in helping establish a working democracy, it may not last after we leave, especially if seen as being pro U.S. Moreover, our continued military presence is motivating young people in other countries to volunteer for terrorism.

I lean toward the first argument, but I am pessimistic, and wish we hadn't gotten into this mess in the first place. As someone said "unecessary, and no end in sight." I never liked the idea of going to war on the basis of a theory.

although i can understand where you're coming from (don't worry, i dont think you're a 'liberal wacko'), I don't think the time for withdrawal has come yet.

I dont think we should be there forever, but we can't leave at this time, we should stay for a while still. I sort of wish we had no gone there knowing how it turned out, but of course nobody has the luxury of knowing if things will turn out good or bad

piece-it pete
06-29-2005, 09:24 AM
Neither country attacked us, and both countries only wanted to harm us after we invaded them.
Winning in Vietnam would have done nothing to enhance our direct national security interests. Similarly, winning in Iraq will not secure us against further attack by el Qaida.
Vietnam was a civil war between the communist-supported Vietnamese independence forces in the north and the western-supported (formerly French colonial-supported) forces in the south. It also became a proxy war between the USA and the USSR.
Iraq was an independant nation ruled by a brutal dictatorship. Nothing like Vietnam. Now that the dictator is gone, Iraq is becoming a civil war and a proxy war between the anti-western Islamic forces and the pro-western forces. Sound familiar?
Iraq, like Vietnam before, is becoming a war where the politicians who started it are having an increasingly difficult time explaining their actions to a more-than-patient American public. These politicians undersestimated the strength of the enemy and proposed a limited war which they believed would be accepted by the American public. The real requirements and costs of both wars were either never understood or were deliberately ignored.
And finally Iraq, like Vietnam, is becoming a war where the American public is becoming unwilling to pay the cost in lives because we are not fighting to defend ourselves against a genuine threat to our homes and our way of life.
[/list]

Excellent post Swerd. I do however have to say that some things aren't that cut and dry. The Gulf of Tonkin resolution was passed after we got into a fight. We were in international waters and intercepted a VC communication that said those boats were going to attack us. Iraq attacked our ally (Kuwait) and had repeatedly opened fire on our Air Force as it was enforcing the terms of surrender that Saddam agreed to. This fact alone justifies our invasion from a "legal" standpoint.

There is some debate over whether Iraq and Vietnam is/was a real threat. The Vietnam thing sounds like a no-brainer now (of course it was useless - right?) but do you think the USSR/China would've stopped at the shore if we would've done nothing? A fully red Southest Asia (and Japan) was a real possiblity at the time, and without our involvement a very real probability.

We'll never know for sure. Same with Iraq. One for sure thing: we positively, absolutely cannot allow terrorists a staging area (anywhere), particularly with a large income (from oil in this case) if we want to stop them.

This might be a proxy war now but the similarities end there. Both China and the USSR could supply their proxy with real arsenals. One won't be able to actually "beat" us with IEDs' and shoulder fired missles. Or a car bomber or 50. Unless we wimp out.

And one could make a good argument that this proxy war plays to our advantage.

Citizen support. See the second graph I posted above. After two weeks of Congress THINKING they needed to push for a withdrawal timetable (100% egged on by the press) they sure found out different - now they're furiously backpedaling. Not to argue the link between Iraq and 9-11, but regardless 9-11 has changed us.

Anyone watch the big speech? Does anyone else wish that, just once, he would look right into the camera and say "and to our enemies: If you open fire on us, we will kill you.". Although "hunt you down" comes pretty close.

I watch on PBS for the commentary afterwards. Glen Iffel - how biased. Maybe she's just not good at covering it. Anyway, they had a retired general on a panel who talked about intellegence, Vietnam, and withdrawal.

Others on the panel (and Iffel), now slapped down by the public for pushing for a withdrawal timetable, are pushing for a planned withdrawal when certain parameters - "metrics" - are met.

Addressing this and other issues the general talked about Secretary of State McNamara and how he decided if we were doing well or not. He had a checklist of things (metrics) like how many casualties where, and who occupied what. The general (wish I got his name) said this just doesn't work. You ask the soldiers on the ground - they will tell you if the population is with you or not (in their narrow area). This, he said, is the key to these types of engagements, deciding probable success/failure, and changing/formulating your plans. Imposing arbitrary measures won't help and will probably hurt.

Iffel didn't like this much.
_________

The bogged down thing, if we're really bogged down in this historically small engagement we are in TROUBLE. Perhaps we need a definition of bogged down.

I'll reiterate: we can't let the Al-Qiada types have a staging area anywhere. Hostile or "friendly" - we discover a camp (or assistance to these people) we've got to take it out regardless of the momentary consequences. Even N. Korea.

I'm not conviced N Korea will be a big issue IF China backs us, which I think they will, eventually, when it comes to brass tacks, they've now got too big a stake in world economics to walk away from. If not we should shut down trade with them and try to boot them from the WTO. We have the ability to throw their economy into a depression. But it should be the last resort - it would hurt ours too and destroy our 50+ year bipartisan policy of bringing China into the world community.

Jeez I'm rambling. I'll stop now!

Pete

mystic
06-29-2005, 12:33 PM
There is some debate over whether Iraq and Vietnam is/was a real threat. The Vietnam thing sounds like a no-brainer now (of course it was useless - right?) but do you think the USSR/China would've stopped at the shore if we would've done nothing? A fully red Southest Asia (and Japan) was a real possiblity at the time, and without our involvement a very real probability.

We'll never know for sure. Same with Iraq. One for sure thing: we positively, absolutely cannot allow terrorists a staging area (anywhere), particularly with a large income (from oil in this case) if we want to stop them.

Hi Pete,

Who knows whether more countries in S.E. Asia would be red if not for our involvement in Vietnam. And what if they were? Aren't we on good terms with China and becoming friendly with Vietnam, both of which are Communist countries? After fighting the V.C. and North Vietnamese for years, we pulled out and let them take over, and now instead of being a threat to us they are going to be our friends.

As for al-Qaeda and other Jihadists groups, we certainly shouldn't give Muslims more reason to volunteer for these outfits, which is what invading Iraq has done. It's disturbing to think our presence in Iraq drives recruitment of the kind of radicals we are trying to eliminate in Afghanstan. You don't put out a fire by pouring gasoline on it.

We are told he Jihadists come mostly from outside Iraq, and that the other terrorists are Iraqi Sunnis who don't want to give power to the Shiite majority. The key to our exit is supposed to be a power sharing arrangement mutually satisfactory to these two groups, so that the Sunni insurgents no longer have a cause. These groups would then kick the foreign Jihadists out of the country.

I agree it would not be wise at this point to announce a timetable for withdrawal. What Bush has not made clear to me, however, is exactly what kind of conditions would have to exist in Iraq before he would pull out our troops. I can understand him wanting some wiggle room on this. But the lack of specifics doesn't inspire confidence.

piece-it pete
06-30-2005, 09:37 PM
Hello Mystic.

Did you live under the shadow of nuclear annihilation? It was much worse than the possibility of a plane flying into a building.

The reds were a real threat in their time, far bigger than the current problem, and their reaction to us now has more to do with the way we've handled them vs the other way around - apparently the carrot and stick (and a successful model) is effective if consistent.

There probably should be a seperate post about bipartisan foreign policy in this country (shhh it's a secret, except it's really not after 50 years) and how phenomally successful it's been. With war in general and natural "tensions" between counties, even that 58,000 is a success (better than our wildest hopes) by normal standards.

Success three times! In two paragraphs. That doesn't even come close to the totality of that success. Even if it all falls apart right now.

Add in the 3k dead of 9-11 - we are still living in a golden age, brought to us (worldwide) largely through us (the U.S). Myst my bigggest fear is that we'll get too cocky, overconfident, too self assured. Jingoistic 'cause it seems easy.

I believe this shouldn't STOP us from trying great things. We either go forward or backward, there's no standing still. I don't believe we should go looking for dragons to slay, but by golly ( :) ) it became clear to us that something had to be done. It was forced upon us. And the potential payoff in Iraq is huge. For them as well as us, for surely you don't believe we're occupying a vassal state. It is in our enlightened self interest to have a fellow democracy vs a bitter enemy, particularly when that maybe friend has a ton of that neccessary worldjuice.

Although we may end up with a bitter enemy. But we had that already.

Pete

mystic
07-01-2005, 10:44 PM
Hello Mystic.

Did you live under the shadow of nuclear annihilation? It was much worse than the possibility of a plane flying into a building.

The reds were a real threat in their time, far bigger than the current problem, and their reaction to us now has more to do with the way we've handled them vs the other way around - apparently the carrot and stick (and a successful model) is effective if consistent.

There probably should be a seperate post about bipartisan foreign policy in this country (shhh it's a secret, except it's really not after 50 years) and how phenomally successful it's been. With war in general and natural "tensions" between counties, even that 58,000 is a success (better than our wildest hopes) by normal standards.

Success three times! In two paragraphs. That doesn't even come close to the totality of that success. Even if it all falls apart right now.

Add in the 3k dead of 9-11 - we are still living in a golden age, brought to us (worldwide) largely through us (the U.S). Myst my bigggest fear is that we'll get too cocky, overconfident, too self assured. Jingoistic 'cause it seems easy.

I believe this shouldn't STOP us from trying great things. We either go forward or backward, there's no standing still. I don't believe we should go looking for dragons to slay, but by golly ( :) ) it became clear to us that something had to be done. It was forced upon us. And the potential payoff in Iraq is huge. For them as well as us, for surely you don't believe we're occupying a vassal state. It is in our enlightened self interest to have a fellow democracy vs a bitter enemy, particularly when that maybe friend has a ton of that neccessary worldjuice.

Although we may end up with a bitter enemy. But we had that already.

Pete

Hey Pete,

If you lived in that "Mistake by the Lake" what did you have to worry about during the Cold War? The Russians weren't going to nuke a place that was already a disaster. It would have been easy to find though -- just follow the burning river. Pete, I'm just joking. I hear the Cleveland area is pretty nice. I'll be pulling for the Browns this fall.

Your question, however, was about me. You asked: Did you live under the shadow of nuclear annihilation? Yes, I lived and worked In Washington,D.C. throughout most of the Cold War, a city probably at the top of the taget list. I wasn't worried about being nuked,however, and I don't recall others around me being worried either. Where I was street crime was more of a concern than what the Russians might do. I thought they won't nuke us for fear we will retaliate in kind. Pull the trigger, and everyone is a loser.

But Jihadists suicide bombers obviouly are not deterred by fear of retaliation. If nuclear bombs or other WMD's can be downsized to fit suitcases and get into the hands of these religiously motivated terrorists, we have a BIG problem. The potential danger may be much greater than we faced from the Soviet Union. As a reason for invading Iraq, it was claimed Saddam had such weapons and might turn them over to terrorists. He didn't have the weapons. Our invasion and occupation, however, has outraged many Muslims around the world, and motivated more to become terrorists. Thus, the threat to our national security is greater than it was before we invaded. We didn't find and destroy WMD's, but we drove up the supply of suicide bombers who will gladly deliver those lethal suitcases.

Democracy doesn't mean much if a country is unstable and can't assure the safety of it's citizens and their property. Can we help stabilize Iraq and make it a safe place. Possibly, but we may need greater American troop strength to succeed. Our forces with the Iraqis helping have not been able to put down the insurgency, drive out the foreign Jihadists, and restore order. Crime also is a serious problem. Obviously, we can't pull out now and expect the Iraqis to do more than we both are doing together. A troop increase, however, may be hard to sell to the American public.

I like your idea of trying to put American wars in a historical perspective. It's interesting that fewer Americans died overseas in the foreign wars of the 20th Century than in our Civil War of the 19th Century. I don't know if that means we have been are our own worst enemy, but it's something to think about. Probably cars are our worst enemy.

Have a happy 4th of July!

________________________________________

Question: If you could live forever, would you and why?
Answer: "I would not live forever, because we should not live forever, because if we were supposed to live forever, then we would live forever, but we cannot live forever, which is why I would not live forever,"
--Miss Alabama in the 1994 Miss USA contest

alfbinet
07-02-2005, 07:57 PM
Good retort! And I live in a southwestern Cleveland suburb.

alfbinet
07-02-2005, 08:05 PM
I am a "Liberal Democrat" and I think we DO Need to bring back the draft. No deferments. Let all of us share the pain.

trollgirl
07-05-2005, 07:04 PM
I am a "Liberal Democrat" and I think we DO Need to bring back the draft. No deferments. Let all of us share the pain.


...we should first draft all the kids of senators/congresspersons who voted to go in there, starting with Dubya's daughters!


No, seriously, I don't give a damn about our reputation, our prestige, or our anything. We have gone in there and killed over 100,000 Iraquis. We should get the hell out NOW with a sincere apology, and help them mend their country, like we did for Germany and Japan. Even that may not be possible, as we have poisoned Iraq with depleted uranium, which has a half life of millions of years. There is no repairing our image - the whole world knows what we are at this point in our history.

Laz

piece-it pete
07-22-2005, 10:01 AM
Darn it I had a brilliant irrefutable post all written up about two weeks ago and my computer froze.

Trust me, it was AWESOME, and all of yous guys would have enthusiastically become true conservatives. Really.

;)

You can believe it, too, because as you know Cleveland is a hotbed of cutting edge ideas and home of the new economy. Only cool people live in Cleveland.

Except for Kusinich supporters :p . He polled like 70% without even campaigning. Well campaigning to be our Congressman, anyway. Yes alf I'm poking fun at you lol. I'm in his district too, near you (Parma by State and Snow. I'm outnumbered by Democrats here by around 100 to 1) (Hey, I'm a minority!).

"The Russians weren't going to nuke a place that was already a disaster"

:lmao:

Cleveland was possibly on the first volley of icbms' and certainly on the second, due largely to our former glory in aerospace, and manufacture of munitions. There are still huge formerly "secret" manufacturing complexes on the cities east side, now either ripped down, or decaying. Even now we (Ohio) are still the 3rd or 4th biggest exporter of manufactured goods overall, much from Cleveland. And Cleveland is certainly the 1st or 2nd butt of jokes :) .

I too am rooting for the bad-news Browns. I learned a loooong time ago that holding your breath waiting for them to "control their own destiny" is a great way to pass out!

The only way the terrorist threat could grow worse than the red plague (in it's time) is if the whole Islamic population worldwide went up in flames. Even that might not match the overall threat. MAD was a good acronym, and we are very very lucky ww3 didn't happen.

Although 100% agreed the chance of a single nuke strike is much greater now than then. Interesting that those suitcase nukes we're worried about were built by the USSR.

I disagree that our action in Iraq is "creating" more jihadists. I believe that these people had it in them, and given the oppretunity would have become what they are anyway. Shooting them over there is what we want.

I have no doubt that Bush would send more troops over if neccessary, when it comes to this I don't think he takes public opinion into account. It looks like we are trying to stay in the background, to deny our (and free Iraqs) enemies a visible target.

"I don't know if that means we have been are our own worst enemy, but it's something to think about." No kidding. This is largely true of any large empire historically. The founders were well aware of it, even more so because it was one of the biggest arguments against democracy! We are SO FORTUNATE Washington was the man he was.

Laz, we didn't cut and run from Germany and Japan, we are still there, our troops created the stability that gave them a chance to get back on their feet. Their governments do not want us to leave. This is a historical first, kinda - WANTING foreign troops inside your borders (Greece gave Athens control willingly, not quite the same thing).

Have a great weekend, everyone!

Pete

mystic
07-24-2005, 10:20 AM
Hey Pete,

I'm sorry to hear about the computer problem. Did you spill beer in it?

I will comments on two of your paragraphs:

You said: "I disagree that our action in Iraq is "creating" more jihadists. I believe that these people had it in them, and given the oppretunity would have become what they are anyway. Shooting them over there is what we want."

I would agree that Bush has given the Jihadists the opportunity to kill Americans by sending our troops to Iraq. But I don't agree with your theory that there has always been this fixed suppy of people eager to carry out suicide bombing missions, and who are going to regardless of whatever is going on the world. That makes no sense to me.

You said: " I have no doubt that Bush would send more troops over if neccessary, when it comes to this I don't think he takes public opinion into account. It looks like we are trying to stay in the background, to deny our (and free Iraqs) enemies a visible target."

He might send more troops. Unless he is afraid sending more would be like "good money after bad."

trollgirl
07-24-2005, 04:27 PM
"Laz, we didn't cut and run from Germany and Japan, we are still there, our troops created the stability that gave them a chance to get back on their feet." -Piece-it-Pete

Pete, I think that's pretty much what I implied...

LAZ

piece-it pete
07-25-2005, 09:16 AM
"spilled beer in my keyboard" lol!

My 'puter doesn't like pdf files much, I tried downloading a manual with other windows open and instant freeze. The risks of multitasking.

We should do a thread on suicide bombers. What are these people thinking?

I saw an excellent documentary on PBS on the Russian grade school hostage thing. Far worse than 9-11 in a way imo. The hour long show was 40 min documentary and 15 min discussion. After all this horrible footage on the poor kids, teachers, and parents trapped (and killed) in that hell what do they discuss?

Why the Checken rebels were justified! I'm sorry, but Moyer is an ASS.

I'm not arguing about Russian policy or tactics. There is NO EXCUSE for intentionally targeting civilians in this matter - go after military targets. And the parades were they have the children dressed up in mock vest bombs - .

I guess what I'm getting at is, if these folks feel this way all we can do to stop them is shoot them. You're either willing to blow up a bus, maybe a diner, (maybe a school?), or fly a plane into a building, or not. If the slime crawl out of the woodwork, they're easier to ID.

Laz, I don't understand how we can get out now, and support them?

Pete