0
   

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

 
 
nappyheadedhohoho
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Feb, 2008 03:26 pm
Advocate wrote:
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.


Where? Okinawa?

Radical islamists would be ok with "a few thousand troops in Iraq"? Says who?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Feb, 2008 04:16 pm
Asherman wrote:
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.


Could have just easily been we lost the prestige for carrying on an unjustified war.

[u]Vietnam made terrorism and media coverage a viable alternative to more traditional means of war. [/u] 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.

This is merely conjecture on your part based on zero evidence. Merely because one fact is true and another fact is true does not mean there is a correlating link.

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.

More baseless suppositions



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".

This is wild speculation supported by nothing that i have ever heard or seen.

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?

Could have just easily been a disgust with all the horrible things we did in Veitnam (we did do horrible things which have been confirmed) and for being there in the first which led to a distrust of the military and squandering all of resources in Vietnam for twenty years could have had something to with the depleating military resources.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-vietnam6aug06,0,2932312,full.story

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.

Don't know what this means as it realates to ending the war in Vietnam.

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.[/[/color]

Again; the distrust was deserved as we did go to war for nothing based on lies in Vietnam and Iraq. Presidents should have to earn respect. When they do good; they should be commended. When they do not; they don't deserve respect for it.
quote]
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Feb, 2008 04:20 pm
nappyheadedhohoho wrote:
Advocate wrote:
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.


Where? Okinawa?

Radical islamists would be ok with "a few thousand troops in Iraq"? Says who?



Don't we have about a thousand bases around the world, not to mention the USA? Regarding the radicals, why should we care about their views?
0 Replies
 
nappyheadedhohoho
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Feb, 2008 05:47 pm
Advocate wrote:
nappyheadedhohoho wrote:
Advocate wrote:
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.


Where? Okinawa?

Radical islamists would be ok with "a few thousand troops in Iraq"? Says who?



Don't we have about a thousand bases around the world, not to mention the USA?


Yes, but somewhere on this thread you said that all, or almost all, of them should be closed. Are we closing them before or after we train the Iraqis in Okinawa?

Advocate wrote:
Regarding the radicals, why should we care about their views?


Well, you said,

Advocate wrote:
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.


If we're hated there and it's clear that 9/11 was due to our presence in the ME (which many Democrats believe), won't the radical islamists have a bit of a problem with your thousand troops?
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Feb, 2008 10:41 pm
Could be!
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Feb, 2008 10:43 pm
Could be!

Regarding why al-Qaida attacked, you don't have to take the word of the Dems, listen to bin-Laden.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/29/2020 at 01:11:28