Who has the best plan for how to deal with Iraq?

"... dancing around what are the negative aspects of the USA. Why don't you have the courage and integrity to deal with them? "

I'm well aware of our nation's failings, and its strengths as well. We are not a perfect nation, but one governed by imperfect men doing the best that they can under often difficult circumstances. No nation has ever been free of mistakes and errors, and there never can be such a nation. The United States has long been the secret hope of downtrodden people around the world. Given the opportunity all, but the most implacable enemies of individual liberty, would choose an American-styled life over other alternatives. And, why shouldn't they? In the United States individuals are free to pursue their own notions of happiness. There isn't much in the way of a "free lunch", but any individual with initiative will find many opportunities to build their own idea of success. In America a person can disagree with the government without fear... as the Advocate and others here so amply illustrate.

Unfortunately, there is some truth to the accusations that Americans tend to be lazy, self-centered, impatient, overly idealistic and simplistic. We too often choose the "easy" over the "difficult", even when the "payoff" may not be in our own best interests. Americans love to dream, and mistake Hollywood and television as accurate representations of reality. We like our drugs and various addictions are a plague on our society. We Americans are saps, for a sob story and an easy touch for every beggar on the block. A significant minority of Americans have become disillusioned with our system of government, and believe that it should be replaced with something different. Utopia beckons, and some are foolish enough to believe it can be achieved quickly and without much sacrifice. Americans live about as well as is possible in the world today, and many don't appreciate their good fortune at all. There is something very wrong when citizens hate their elected leaders, and profess admiration for those who make no secret of their hatred for America.

Extremists on both sides of the political divide are the most vocal and delusional, yet their whining and sloganeering get attention. The system is rigged to prevent just such zealots from seizing and holding on to the reigns of federal government. Most Americans are moderate, and will generally vote in the largest numbers for moderate candidates. Given the number of slick Madison Avenue televsion plugs we are bombarded with, its sometimes difficult to catch any glimpse of any candidates true character and nature.

In the present contest, I believe the best suited to lead this nation is John McCain, and that the comparisons to all other candidates is so clear that in November moderate America will elect John McCain Pesident of the United States.

0 Replies

Quote:

In the present contest, I believe the best suited to lead this nation is John McCain, and that the comparisons to all other candidates is so clear that in November moderate America will elect John McCain Pesident of the United States.

I remember you made a similar boast before the 2006 election and you were wrong.

0 Replies

Hey, I wrong often and never claimed otherwise. Trying to project with any degree of accuracy what people will do is a fool's errand. In 2006, I believed that the GOP would hold on to the Senate, and was wrong. As it turns out the Democrats have failed to do much more than obstruct needed legislation, feather their own nests (just like the Republican's they displaced), and got Ms Pelosi more headlines. The fact is that no person or Party can easily dictate legislation, and ultimately everyone shares some responsiblity for both successes and failures. It is good to have these periodic power shifts within Congress.

Obama is a young man in a hurry, he has great charisma, but nothing in his background seems to suggest that he could effectively manage the Executive Branch. His only accomplishment so far in life is to have been elected a US Senator. What evidence is there that he has the least understanding of international politics and diplomacy? His understanding of military mattes is nil, and his ability to effectively act as the Commander-in-Chief is more than doubtful. He says he stands for "Change", but "change" is the natural order of the universe and we have only the vaguest hints as to what policy changes he would pursue. Instant withdrawal of US forces out of the Middle East, and willingness to negotiate with terrorists is disturbing at the very least. His campaign ads are slick, but tell us nothing of his character and how he can be expected to act under highly stressful circumstances. He can raise money, and that's a fact, but almost the only fact about Obama that is clear.

Hillary Clinton has no better background to suggest she is capable of handling the Nation's affairs than Obama. She does have a record though, and we all know of her grand plans to Federalize health insurance, raise taxes, and expand Federal controls and bureaucracy. She learned her political craft from her husband, and we are asked to believe that his experience is also her experience. Her life's biggest crisis was to betrayed as a wife who politically had to "stand by her man" during the dirty impeachment process. She's still married to Bill, but one suspects that their's is a marriage of political expediency for both of them. She got enough sympathy and left wing votes to become a carpet bag Senator from New York and hasn't done much of note in the Senate beyond getting the occasional headline. She's another unlikely Commander-in-Chief for the U.S. military. All things considered, she's probably less of a risk to the nation than Obama is.

I believe that John McCain will be the Republican candidate, and that older, moderate American voters will overwhelmingly vote for him later this year. Maybe not, as you've pointed out I've been wrong before.

BTW, I take exception to the term "boast", I don't think I did that. I did make a prediction based on my own analysis and hopes.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

"... dancing around what are the negative aspects of the USA. Why don't you have the courage and integrity to deal with them? "

I'm well aware of our nation's failings, and its strengths as well. We are not a perfect nation, but one governed by imperfect men doing the best that they can under often difficult circumstances. No nation has ever been free of mistakes and errors, and there never can be such a nation. ... .

I said "honesty and integrity", Asherman, not the same sort of disguised claptrap that we hear from george.

Here's a fine example.

Quote:

What If Iran Had Invaded Mexico?

Noam Chomsky

Promoting Democracy -- at Home

These facts suggest a possible way to prevent the current crisis from exploding, perhaps even into some version of World War III. That awesome threat might be averted by pursuing a familiar proposal: democracy promotion -- this time at home, where it is badly needed. Democracy promotion at home is certainly feasible ...

If public opinion mattered, the U.S. would accept UN Charter restrictions on the use of force, contrary to a bipartisan consensus that this country, alone, has the right to resort to violence in response to potential threats, real or imagined, including threats to our access to markets and resources. The U.S. (along with others) would abandon the Security Council veto and accept majority opinion even when in opposition to it. The UN would be allowed to regulate arms sales; while the U.S. would cut back on such sales and urge other countries to do so, which would be a major contribution to reducing large-scale violence in the world. Terror would be dealt with through diplomatic and economic measures, not force, in accord with the judgment of most specialists on the topic but again in diametric opposition to present-day policy.

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20070405.htm

0 Replies

Asherman; we'll see I guess.

0 Replies

And another.

Quote:

0 Replies

I believe George, as a retired Naval officer to be a gentleman of honor and integrity. Since you know nothing about me other than that I'm a conservative Republican who is totally committed to our country and its Constitution, just how are you to judge my honesty and honor?

You folks on the Left are terribly quick to hurl slurs and denigration upon anyone who doesn't agree with your opinions. Its as if you believe all those who fail to fall into lockstep with you are stupid, conniving, and crooked. Instead of taking the time and effort to construct some rational basis for your views, it is sooo much easier to resort to pettiness.

Noam Chomsky, still touting his Marxist points of view.

Yep, Revel, we'll just have to wait and see. It is a curse to live in interesting times. Outcomes are always in some doubt. Decisions and opinions rest on imperfect data that can screw up the best analysis. Good intentions often have horrendous outcomes, and unintended consequences seem inevitable.

0 Replies

Asherman,

I generally ignore JTT's posts. Lots of name calling and misplaced aggression, very little content.

Relevant old Navy saying ...

"Don't get in a fight with a pig.
You both get dirty, but the pig likes it."

0 Replies

George; and you guys imply you don't insult? You just do it better.

On McCain; personally I find him to be dishonest for someone who is called a straight talker and part of the establishment for someone who is called a maverick. He has made so many proven misleading statements concerning Iraq with regard to our success there that I just don't understand his popularity with moderates or with those who are against the war.

I can understand some like Kara thinking that we broke it we go to stay and fix it; not sure I agree; I tend to go both ways on that. I don't see how we can stay for twenty years and still maintain our country both militarily and our economy. But as far as staying because of our security; I don't buy that at all and never had. AQ is everywhere in that region. Take a look at Pakistan for example. We will be in no more danger from Iraq if left than we are from many other parts of the ME now. We cannot just stay in Iraq to have a base in which to launch wars in that part of world. Iraqis are against permanent bases in any case and I am sure they would be against it because we think we need to fight "Islamic radicals." If we stayed and had permanent bases it would have to be for the good of the country we are staying in. They would not ever accept permanent bases so that we could launch wars in that part of the world. We will always have trouble with insurgents against our troops fighting to get foreigners out of their country. (Not talking about AQ who make only 2% of their country; but mostly Sunni insurgents and other Shiite militias who don't want us in their country.) Most of the Iraqi population does not want us there. The Iraq government does so they can keep their power away from the Sunnis.

You guys will not agree with my posts; but you cannot dismiss them as leftist and claim I am being insulting while not giving a basis for my positions.

0 Replies

Revel,

I've only made a few posts on this thread and I'm not sure I follow your argument. My opinions on the Iraq intervention have changed a good deal in the last several years. I once saw it more or less as Asherman has described, but slowly, and with some personal difficulty, over the past three years I have come to change my views to those I described a couple of pages back on this thread.

I don't detect the inconsistencies in McCain's stated positions on the matter that you have described. Perhaps I have not followed it closely enough, but I just don't see the things you assert.

Again, my central view is that Iran is and long has been the central threat to our interests in the region. It is a much larger country than any other in the region with a population more than three times that of Iraq and more than twice that of Saudi Arabia. In the 1980s, during the long Iraq/iran war, our policy was to do what we could to prevent either side in the conflict from winning a decisive victory. I believe it was the correct thing for us to do then and that we need to shore up the Iraqi state now for precisely the same reason.

I don't think that al Quada is nearly as much of a threat to us any more. Islamic rage and terrorism will be with us for a long time, but the various factions are divided and preoccupied with each other; much of their leadership has been destroyed; and resistence to their murders is beginning to grow in many Moslem states. The Western states are now much more alert to the threat they pose and increasingly effective in thwarting their actions. Finally I believe all this is a much more serious threat to Europeans than to us and that we should let them worry about it and carry this share of their load themselves.

I agree with McCain in that a precipitous U.S. withdrawl from Iraq at this stage of the game would be disastrous to our interests. Perhaps you should reflect for a moment on the Korean War and our now 50 year military presence there. Many of the same arguments we hear today were put forward against our continued efforts to shore up the governments of South Korea as that country proceeded on its long journey from authoritarian rule to self-determination and democracy. I believe the historical judgement now is that the effort was well worth the cost in terms of what South Korea has become; the unfolding ghastly reality of the alternative regime in North Korea; the economic and political health of the region; and finally in the strategic balance of the region vis a vis Japan and China.

It is hard to know these things in prospect -- the processes involved take a long time and history offers us many, often contradictory lessons. Most of all we must deal with the fact that history (and life) don't reveal their alternatives.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

I believe George, as a retired Naval officer to be a gentleman of honor and integrity. Since you know nothing about me other than that I'm a conservative Republican who is totally committed to our country and its Constitution, just how are you to judge my honesty and honor?

Honor and integrity demand of a person that they don't simply and blindly accept the nonsense they're fed. They require that a person scrutinize the negative aspects of what their government does and take active steps to prevent abuse.

You folks on the Left are terribly quick to hurl slurs and denigration upon anyone who doesn't agree with your opinions. Its as if you believe all those who fail to fall into lockstep with you are stupid, conniving, and crooked. Instead of taking the time and effort to construct some rational basis for your views, it is sooo much easier to resort to pettiness.

And you're terribly quick to run off on inane tangents instead of addressing those things that you find uncomfortable. That clearly indicates just how dishonest you are, with others and with yourself, Asherman.

Noam Chomsky, still touting his Marxist points of view.

There was nothing in any of those things I posted that had anything to do with Marx. Professor Chomsky dealt honestly and openly with the issues. Talk about avoidance on your part!

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Revel,

Again, my central view is that Iran is and long has been the central threat to our interests in the region. It is a much larger country than any other in the region with a population more than three times that of Iraq and more than twice that of Saudi Arabia. In the 1980s, during the long Iraq/iran war, our policy was to do what we could to prevent either side in the conflict from winning a decisive victory. I believe it was the correct thing for us to do then and that we need to shore up the Iraqi state now for precisely the same reason.

Iran is not a threat to us.

I don't think that al Quada is nearly as much of a threat to us any more. Islamic rage and terrorism will be with us for a long time, but the various factions are divided and preoccupied with each other; much of their leadership has been destroyed; and resistence to their murders is beginning to grow in many Moslem states. The Western states are now much more alert to the threat they pose and increasingly effective in thwarting their actions. Finally I believe all this is a much more serious threat to Europeans than to us and that we should let them worry about it and carry this share of their load themselves.

I don't know where you get the data to arrive at this conclusion when all news reports say about the opposite. But I agree that mostly the AQ threat is more to other areas more than ours.

I agree with McCain in that a precipitous U.S. withdrawl from Iraq at this stage of the game would be disastrous to our interests. Perhaps you should reflect for a moment on the Korean War and our now 50 year military presence there. Many of the same arguments we hear today were put forward against our continued efforts to shore up the governments of South Korea as that country proceeded on its long journey from authoritarian rule to self-determination and democracy. I believe the historical judgement now is that the effort was well worth the cost in terms of what South Korea has become; the unfolding ghastly reality of the alternative regime in North Korea; the economic and political health of the region; and finally in the strategic balance of the region vis a vis Japan and China.

Like the WWII analogy; the North Korea analogy has been used to death as well.

Quote:

source

It is hard to know these things in prospect -- the processes involved take a long time and history offers us many, often contradictory lessons. Most of all we must deal with the fact that history (and life) don't reveal their alternatives.[/[/color]

An alternative is simply to withdraw our troops from Iraq and simply respond as needed to situations as they come up but keep our military in readiness. It is not as though we have to row over in boats.

Since you and Asherman seem fond of comparisons; why not try the Veitnam comparison? We withdew our troops from there and nothing bad happened.
quote]

(obviously my responses are in green and your statements in red)

0 Replies

Actually, a lot of negative things resulted from our withdrawal from Vietnam. A lot of good people died on the ground. The U.S. lost prestige in the world and its influence was diminished. Vietnam taught the marginal outlaws of the world that they could win victories that were impossible in direct battle through managing American television images. Potential allies lost faith in American promises and ability to defend their clients when the going gets tough. Vietnam encouraged Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, and Africa. Communist insurgencies around the world were revitalized, and the U.S. wasn't in a position to effectively respond.

After Vietnam, the US military moral sank to possibly the lowest point since the War of 1812. LBJ's dream of a Great Society was compromised and he chose not to run knowing defeat was likely. LBJ was followed by Nixon who promised to get us out of the Vietnam quagmire. Nixon did that, normalized US/PRC relations, and secretly used his office to satisfy his personal hatreds.

Back in those days, I was one of the activists who protested against continuing in Vietnam as a lost cause not worth a single American casualty. I was then a Democrat, but joined in the chorus, "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today". It was a heady time, feeling that we were going to change politics forever. The People were going to reclaim control of government and sweep away all the pettiness, greed, and cynicism of traditional politics. Ah, the idealistic blindness of youth caught up in emotions! As I grew older, learned more about the world and came to have a greater understanding of complexity, things no longer seemed quite so black and white. I discovered that LBJ, Nixon and others had both strengths and weakness like every other person on the planet. Our idealism and belief that we could profoundly change politics was revealed to be overly simplistic and foolish. I saw idealism perverted into an excuse of behavior that should rightly have been condemned rather than applauded. I grew up, came to have greater respect for our Constitutional system, and eventually changed my Party affiliation.

Vietnam and how we Americans and the world related to it, had great impacts that will reverberate for decades yet to come. Some of those impacts ultimately proved positive, but in retrospect and on-balance, I today firmly believe we should not have left Vietnam the way we did, and for the reasons we found so convincing at the time.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

Like the WWII analogy; the North Korea analogy has been used to death as well.

Is that supposed to be a refutation of the point ??? The fact that it has been used doesn't mean it is any less relevant or instructive - quite the contrary. I believe Kaplan's arguments are misleading and specious.

revel wrote:

Since you and Asherman seem fond of comparisons; why not try the Veitnam comparison? We withdew our troops from there and nothing bad happened. [/color]

Nothing bad happened???? See Asherman's post above. ---- In addition A generation of Vietnamese were held in captivity in "reeducation camps" and the country was kept in dismal poverty and oppression for the next thirty years. The "peaceful agrarian reformers" turned out to be incompetent oppressors. Vietnam emerged the poorest and most backward country in Asia, though the government is now attempting to follow the Chinese model of capitalism with a comforting (to them) veneer of socialism.

0 Replies

Geoge,

Well, now I don't think there is anyplace on the planet that is poorer, more oppressed and backward than the DPRK.

0 Replies

You are right. Vietnam is second.

0 Replies

I meant nothing bad happened to us when we left Veitnam. They didn't follow us home or form big alliances to blow us away. Had we stayed; I doubt the Veitnams would have fared any better what with bombing the crap out of them and getting the crap bombed out of us as well-again for no reason.

Another interesting reading on the subject. (can do this all day if you want; just google in veitnam and iraq.)

http://hnn.us/articles/43591.html

I think the Kaplan's arguments are good ones; haven't seen anything to counter it.

0 Replies

i would take a wild guess: "the iraqis?"

maybe , i mean it is there country, for like the last few thousand years...
if they want a civil war, let them ******* finish it.

if it raises oil prices WHO CARES SUCK IT UP AND PAY WHAT THE MARKET DICTATES, LIKE EVERYONE ELSE. buy a fuckin hybrid FFS.

well, im done injecting reality into everyones day.

0 Replies

Excuse me if I already mentioned this, but Edwards had an excellent plan.

He said that we should limit our involvement to training the Iraqis in military matters, which would allow a large reduction of forces. Further, we should be doing this, in the near future, outside of Iraq, which would limit our occupation of the country. He would leave a few thousand troops in Iraq to protect the embassy and certain other critical places.

0 Replies

Revel, how do you define "bad"?

These "bad" things happened to us:

The U.S. lost prestige in the world and its influence was diminished. The U.S. lost prestige, and the Soviet Union was quick to fill the vacuum. Undecided groups and nations, all of whom want to be on the "winning" side, suddenly became cautious. In fact, it became fashionable around the world for envious peoples to snub their noses at the United States. Almost any initiative proposed by the United States must still overcome the loss of prestige we suffered at the end of the Vietnam era.

Vietnam made terrorism and media coverage a viable alternative to more traditional means of war. Al Quida and other terrorist organizations came to believe, with some justification, that even if America can not be beaten on the battlefield, it can be divided and destroyed by clever utilization of the media. American openness, individuality, desire for justice and reluctance to shed blood are all used against us, as a result of how Vietnam ended.

Potential allies lost faith in American promises and our ability to defend clients when the going gets tough. This remains a problem for the U.S., and makes it difficult for others to trust the US to keep its promises. Its hard to imagine that Japan would reconsider its Constitutional ban on nuclear weapons, if they had complete faith in our willingness to defend Japan to the end. If Taiwan leaps into the arms of the PRC, it will partially be because they fear that the USN might suddenly disappear from their waters.

Vietnam encouraged Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, and Africa. Communist insurgencies around the world were revitalized, and the U.S. wasn't in a position to effectively respond. The result un-necessarily prolonged the Cold War, and encouraged the rise of revolutionaries with only marginal capability to "try their strength against the wounded giant".

After Vietnam, the moral of the US military reduced its capability to effectively carry out national policy. Our military doctrine was in shambles, and had to be rebuilt from the ground up. Congress and the American People held the military in such unwarranted contempt, that its transformation into the finest military organization in the history of the world is little short of miraculous. Ask almost any Vietnam era veteran if the end of that war had only positive effects?

The Great Society was derailed. The government couldn't deliver both guns and butter as promised, and LBJ's dreams of improving life for all Americans got lost along the way, even though he was a master politician when it came to passing legislation.

Nixon was elected on the promise to get us out of Vietnam. Nixon delivered on his promise, but left Americans profoundly distrustful of their government. That disillusionment remains a major problem today, and may persist for decades more to come. After Nixon, it has become fashionable to believe that the President of the United States is not entitled to any respect or confidence, and that our enemies are just as credible as our own leadership.

0 Replies

Who has the best plan for how to deal with Iraq?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know