We should liquidate all, or almost all, of our bases. When we have a base in a country, we are effectively guaranteeing the safety of the country. For instance, should N & S Korea square off, always a possibility, all our forces in S. Korea would be quickly wiped out by the large and fast moving N. Korean army. If we have to be guarantors of S. K., we should do it at a distance.
Nope, wrote it on the fly. I know it falls on deaf ears, but it seems like far too many people fail to appreciate just how great a threat we are facing. Radical Islam assumes that the West is decadent, with more concern over a writer's strike than being targeted for destruction. In their eyes, Americans are so self-centered and selfish that they can't see beyond the tip of their noses. A whole generation of addicts to perversion and luxurious dreams will not have the fortitude to long endure discomfort and lack of resolution. American's are without character and easily swayed by slick television images and advertising, so that has become a major theater of this war.
I don't think that the Radical Islamic Movement is correct in its views about America and Americans. I believe that most Americans can see and understand the larger issues, and that they can see beyond the empty catch phrases that typify most political advertising. Americans detest the idea of useless bloodletting, but when the chips are down Americans will always rise to the occasion. Americans don't handle complexity well, and that is a particular problem when the threat to our existence is perceived to be small and the means of conducting this new kind of warfare still so murky. I'm so confident in the American People, that I believe they will elect John McCain as the next President of the United States as the best qualified to lead us in these perilous times.
On the other hand, no one ever went broke underestimating the American People. The slick ads, empty promises, and charisma of Democratic candidates appealing to their primary interest groups, may actuall win. I doubt it, but if they win and try to fulfill their promises to leave the Middle East to the Radical Islamic Movement, fasten your seat-belts because its going to be a rough four years. Higher taxes, more federal bureaucrats and Federal control from Washington, increased terrorist operations inside CONUS, a more volatile Middle East, a less capable military, loss of national prestige, and less ability to arbitrate problems around the world Oh well... the nation will survive, even if it will have to overcome un-necessary problems associated with Democratic priorities.
A, the multitude of bases we have puts us in more danger. For instance, bin-Laden, on a number of occasions, made it clear that 9/11 was due to our presence in the ME, primarily SA.
We can duplicate the benefit of bases there and other hot spots with bases over the horizon. Also, aircraft carriers give us a potent presence anywhere we wish to place a carrier group.
Staying in Iraq is folly. We are hated there, with a large majority of Iraqis wanting us dead. Our presence has spurred the growth of al-Qaida, which was once on the ropes. Moreover, radicals fighting there have left for all parts of the globe.
Advocate.
"Staying in Iraq is folly.
We are hated there"
I hate not the Americans who uphold tortures and barbaric behaviours in the name of spreading democracy
but I get fed up with Iraq citizens to allow this barbarism.
I i were in Iraq i would have chased away all the criminals.
I MEAN ALL THE CRIMINALS.
Asherman; we have been doing it the republican way for almost eight years now and around the world militant extremists' has gotten worse not better. Your right, we are dealing with a different enemy than we have in the past. An enemy without uniforms and an enemy on their home turfs with nothing but time to loose and nothing in it for them to quit. They merely wait for things to die down and then regroup again as has happened at other places and will again in Iraq. Unless we plan on dropping a bomb everywhere in ME like we did in WWII; there are always going to extremist that we are going to have fight. I don't want to live that way myself. I would rather at least try and negotiate at times. I think pulling out all of military out of the ME (at least Iraq) would help things in that area and would not hurt as staying sure hasn't done any good.
Right now we are containing the violence in Iraq somewhat compared to what it had been in 2006-2007; but it is still at the same levels of 2005. We were lucky in that some of the Sunni insurgents got tired of the ways the foreign AQ tactics. There is no political progress in Iraq between the principle factions and we are not liked enough to influence anyone; nor should we in any case. We are perceived as the occupiers not the deliverers. It is a different atmosphere than after the WWII when the world was united against Hitler and all that killing of the Jews. The world has seen the invasion of Iraq as an act of defiance of the US to occupy a country just because it wanted to; not because it needed to. We were never in any danger from Iraq.
There is now more trouble in other parts of the ME which we are in no condition to handle even if we should handle them because of Iraq.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/17/6428/
I think what we should do is what we do everywhere else; track the trouble and respond as needed. Be diplomats again and peace makers.
(Blessed are the peacemakers for they should be called the children of God; funny all the ones who espouse Christianity so much in politics forget that little one)
Please don't bring up how we done that and look what happened. If Bush had followed through on the plans in place to deal with the threat of AQ instead of ignoring it; 9/11
might not have happened.
From Wikipedia:
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
I needed that to counter the negative effects of some of the posts.
I should read carefully all of the previous posts but I've only skimmed them.
This thread, which I've only come across, is moving toward a discussion of whether our foreign policy should be focused on a radical Islamist terror threat. I would be willing to talk about that but I want first to make a few comments on the thread topic of how the main presidential contenders are dealing with Iraq.
I have listened and read, assiduously, in recent months and find no one -- certainly not any of the leading candidates -- who will will talk about a middle position between the viewpoint that we were right to go to war and should hang in there until we perceive the job to be finished and the viewpoint that it was wrong to go to war and we should get out as soon as possible.
Where am I in all of this? I was vociferously against the war and even marched in DC against it. But we are in this war. We destroyed Iraq and have not made much headway toward making the country whole again. How can we walk away from the chaos that we created? I do not agree with McCain on many issues (although I'm with him on immigration...) but he is right that we will be in Iraq for 20 years if not longer.
People say....but our soldiers are dying every day for a country that is riven with tribal division and killing. Yes. That is what happens when you decide that you are wiser than anyone else in the world and take your army to occupy a country that has not threatened you. If we have a shred of morality left, we do not withdraw our soldiers and leave this country to implode with sectarian violence that we unleashed when we toppled the strong man that was holding this ancient group of tribes together by his own violent and vicious regime.
JTT wrote:Asherman wrote:How is it delusional to recognize that the United States is under attack by a group of international terrorists who hate and despise western humanitarian values?
Are you G Bush incognito? What utter bullshit!
Radical Islam makes no effort to hide or disguise its long term intention of installing Islamic Theocratic dictatorships everywhere in the world. Radical Islam is willing, even eager to target the most vulnerable members of society (even their own people), to snatch a headline or two. These people have declared all-out and perpetual war against us, and have demonstrated their willingness to commit suicide in the process.
Please stop. You're killing me! Look at all the sucky American movies there were thru the fifties and sixties extolling the virtues of the crazy audie murphy's rushing some enemy or other's impregnable nest.
"He gave his life for us, for the mission, for the good ole USA.
PUKE PUKE PUKE
Radical Islam has a large number of sympathizers who already hate the idea that the UN created Israel, and who blame their own miserable existence on the Western world. This enemy was carrying out active terrorist operations long before 9/11, and their rhetoric has remained unchanged since.
Compared to the USA, these guys are pikers, new kids on the block. The USA has been carrying out terrorist operations for as long as it's been a country and even before. A nation that was founded on terrorism has never changed, not one iota.
Care to recount the terrorist activities that the USA has been involved in since, forever.
What has changed is that an Iraqi government is beginning to become viable. The most rabid Al Quida operatives have been marginalized, captured or killed. Stability in Iraq is slowly developing. Apparently volunteer suicide bombers are getting harder to recruit. No successful terrorist attack against the US has succeeded in several years. Oil continues to be exported to Europe, Asia and the Western hemisphere.
Those aren't delusions. The delusion is that if the United States were to withdraw inside its own borders, and give up its military supremacy the world would become a peaceful Eden in short order.
A tiger with a taste for human flesh was cornered by a hunter between a high cliff and a rock wall. The tiger laid down and saw that the hunter hesitated. "You know, Hunter, killing me would be a terribly injustice?"
"How so tiger? You've eaten numerous villagers, some of them only infants. ... "
You're getting nuttier with each passing day, Asherman.
Asherman wrote:Nope, wrote it on the fly.
Could have been written by a fly for all the sense it made.
JTT,
"Ye shall know them by their enemies."
You're making me look pretty good, with your negative views of America and personal attacks.
Kara,
"We destroyed Iraq and have not made much headway toward making the country whole again." Wrong, the United States did not destroy Iraq, but it has made heroic efforts to rebuild that country. Damage from the US invasion was purposely minimal and limited. Use of very expensive "smart munitions" were used to pinpoint only key military and political targets. The Iraqi forces were not so careful and the damage they did often seemed purposeless. In the chaos of the end of a brutally repressive regime there was widespread looting and revenge killings, all carried out by Iraqis against Iraqis. US forces were too small on the ground to effectively impose order. Leaders of various factions made a bid to seize control with personal armies. Violence and destruction escalated, and attacks on Coalition Forces became more common. "Volunteers" streamed into the country from radical religious schools of Saudi Arabia, from Yemen and Syria. Iran was waiting to take revenge for the crimes committed by Saddam's Iraq during their war. Iran has its own agenda, which is to dominate the region. Iran has been training and supplying "insurgent" forces to keep the pot aboil, and prevent a secular Iraqi government from coming into existence.
The problems in Iraq were not visited upon them by the US, but are the direct consequence of the tactics adopted by the Radical Islamic Movement with the tacit approval and support of Iran, Syria and religious zealots inside Saudi Arabia.
Revel,
U.S. tactics in Iraq have not been Republican for eight years. Our military first put into place new doctrines designed to reduce costs and increase efficiency. Those doctrines were extremely successful during the initial phases, but clearly fell apart in the aftermath of Iraqi collapse. Too few troops on the ground faced by novel conditions that they were unprepared to handle. It seems to me that the administration's policies have changed very little, though the rhetoric has shifted. Finally, US forces are making headway and stability is slowly returning. Bombs alone can not secure victory, but the presence on the ground of US soldiers is essential for further progress to be made.
One can no more carry on useful negotiations with homicidal religious fanatics than with a mad dog. Only when the opposition is convinced that they are facing eminent ruin will they come to the table, and then only to find a brief respite. The pressure against them must be consistent and offer them no hope of "winning" by an appeal to popular sentiment. We may not be winning a lot of friends among those Muslims who have sympathy for the Radicals, and unreasoning hatred for Israel and the West. That's tough, but our purpose shouldn't be to be loved, but to secure peaceful security throughout a critical region. The danger to the United States from Iraq was small, but the fight against the Radical Islamic Movement in the region is every bit as serious as the Axis Powers were over half a century ago.
9/11 was not the first attack in the war against the Western Infidels, it just was the first major successful operation carried out on American home soil. The enemy has not lost its will to inflict terror around the world, and terrorist operations inside the United States are still a major goal. Those attacks will not end with the withdrawal of US forces, if anything we should expect renewed commitment by the Radical Islamic leadership.
I favor Senator McCain's approach, more or less for the reasons he gives in arguing for it. Namely that the adverse consequences of a precipitous withdrawl would be very great - particularly with respect to Iran and (interestingly) Saudi Arabia. In addition Iraq is clearly settling down to a tolerable level of violence; the beginnings of political accommodations between Kurds, Shia, and Sunni are in place; and reconstruction is rapidly underway - we are almost there. If we can preserve an independent Iraq - and I believe we can - that will do much to stabilize the situation in the Middle East and it will leave us with some military leverage there which may well prove beneficial in preventing other adverse events.
My ideas about the strategic choices we have made in the region have undergone some changes over the past few years, as has my view of the significance of the confrontation an aroused Islamic world has created with the West and the U.S. in particular.
In the first place I have come to the conclusion that the 1992 Gulf War was a great strategic error, and that the Iraq intervention, which was a direct consequence of it, was unnecessary in terms of our real strategic interests.
The United States had and has no interest in the existence of the government of Kuwait. In fact it was a creation of the British, designed by them after they defeated the Ottoman Empire to create a local sovereignty in the area of the then richest oil discoveries that they in turn could easily control and manage. The same, of course was true of Iraq - it too was an artificial creation of the British, who in that case deliberately crafted an unstable arrangement of hostile Ottoman provinces (one Kurd, one Suni, and one Shia) so that they could maintain the balance of power with minimum use of their own resources (this was the standard technique of British imperialism. It is interesting to note how small was the force with which they ruled India for so long, using the same methods.)
Our real strategic interest in Iraq was to preserve it as a bulwark against Iran, a nation of 50 million people in the grip of a radical Shia theocracy, and to leave the angry Islamic world stalemated in its Shia/Sunni/secular conflicts. After the eight year war with Iran Saddam was broke. He needed Kuwait's wealth to rebuild his economy. This of course would leave a vicious tyrant in place and involve continued suffering for the people of the region. However, divided by internal strife, and backward both politically and economically, the Islamic world really doesn't present much of a threat to us as long as they remain in the grip of their internal conflicts --- and providing that we take some serious action to quit exporting so much money to them to fund our rapidly expanding petroleum imports.
History offers us many useful lessons. The problem is that it is very difficult to understand just which of the many, often contradictory, lessons applies in a given circumstance. We have focused on the dangers of ignoring a growing and dangerous tyrant - the lesson of Hitler and Munich. However, history offers numerous other examples and lessons involving great powers that wasted their strength and energy by compulsively taking on every threat and failing to allow other actors and other processes to deal with them more economically. Which model applies best to the situation in the persian Gulf??
There is another factor. After the end of the Cold war the United States was the last remaining "superpower" - an intrinsically dangerous situation in which we could expect, suddenly and without notice, to become a threatening specter to friends and foes alike. Something also like the old Western movie about the weary but famous gunfighter who comes home to see friends, but finds himself the target of every two bit punk in a hurry to make a name for himself. We really don't have any friends in the world, and being nice isn't likely to improve the situation either. In this situation we need to use every available means to deflect potentially costly but strategically non critical conflicts - just to conserve our wealth and power.
Frankly the Islamic menace is much more of a threat to Europe than to us, and we should do what we can to keep it that way, and let them shoulder this burden - one that they themselves largely created in their imperialist follies. Western Europe has emerged from the destruction of WWII to great prosperity and growing economic power, all under the benevolent protection of the United States. Now like privileged and protected children they have come to regard their success as the unique result of their own brilliance, and not their good fortune. The EU is a rival, not a friend - and that is increasingly the view of the European powers. The United States needs to confront the new strategic realities of the 21st century - a contest involving the United States, China, the EU and possibly Russia - and to conserve its energies for that.
We have already paid the price in Iraq, and we might as well hang in and collect the marginal benefits of it, and, more importantly, head off any instability that might benefit Iran.
Asherman; you are blinded by your narrow vision and stuck in a cold war era switched over to so called Radical Islam. Just the very name is an insult to moderate Muslims plus being incorrect. Islam is the religion; Muslims are the followers of Islam.
Quote:We have already paid the price in Iraq, and we might as well hang in and collect the marginal benefits of it, and, more importantly, head off any instability that might benefit Iran.
What marginal benifits would those be?
So now the reason we are staying is to head of the instablity of Iran? Boy the reasons just keep changing. Why don't we stay to head off the instability of the Saudis which might benifit the Saudis? Oh I forget; the Saudis are not our enemy because their regeme is friendly to our oil companies in the US. Never mind their country produced most of the folks who blew our country up.
georgeob1 wrote:We have already paid the price in Iraq, and we might as well hang in and collect the marginal benefits of it, and, more importantly, head off any instability that might benefit Iran.
Might be the same reasons France is building their permanent military base in the region. Something to ponder.
It is sad that most people here favor McCain's approach to Iraq. Without unacceptable and unnecessary sacrifice, we will remain there for many years under McCain's plan. If we pull out, the Iraqi's will reject occupation from Iran and al-Qaida pretty easily.
We should immediately begin to negotiate withdrawal from Afghanistan with the Taliban. It is their country, like it or not, and we should give it back. Our fight is with al-Qaida.
Asherman wrote:JTT,
"Ye shall know them by their enemies."
You're making me look pretty good, with your negative views of America and personal attacks.
You're making a fool of yourself, Asherman, dancing around what are the negative aspects of the USA. Why don't you have the courage and integrity to deal with them?
You are just like Foofie. It's the same delusional nature.
Advocate wrote:It is sad that most people here favor McCain's approach to Iraq. Without unacceptable and unnecessary sacrifice, we will remain there for many years under McCain's plan. If we pull out, the Iraqi's will reject occupation from Iran and al-Qaida pretty easily.
We should immediately begin to negotiate withdrawal from Afghanistan with the Taliban. It is their country, like it or not, and we should give it back. Our fight is with al-Qaida.
Would you advocate that we follow the same principles with respect to the conflict in Palestine?
georgeob1 wrote:Advocate wrote:It is sad that most people here favor McCain's approach to Iraq. Without unacceptable and unnecessary sacrifice, we will remain there for many years under McCain's plan. If we pull out, the Iraqi's will reject occupation from Iran and al-Qaida pretty easily.
We should immediately begin to negotiate withdrawal from Afghanistan with the Taliban. It is their country, like it or not, and we should give it back. Our fight is with al-Qaida.
Would you advocate that we follow the same principles with respect to the conflict in Palestine?
Are you saying that we occupy Palestine and no one told me?
No, you are merely evading the obvious question, because it reveals the inconsistency of your views.
I'm asking you if you also believe the United States should adopt the same principles you advocated with respect to Afghanistan in formulating a new policy for dealing with Israel's continued oppression of the Palestinian populations of the West Bank and Gaza. Should we continue to subsidize and guarantee the security of a state that does these things?
