OCCOM BILL wrote:Frank, your predictions may very well prove accurate... but unless you have a crystal ball (actually, even if you do :wink:) those are still just a guesses at this juncture. Your un-provable prediction of the eventual outcome does NOTHING to substantiate your comparison today. Today, you're comparing two efforts at their respective beginnings... NOT the ends.
Well...you are MISTAKENLY supposing that I am confining my comparisons to Vietnam JUST to the possible outcome.
But that ain't so.
Here is a list of Robert McNamara's 11 items of mistakes we made going into the Vietnam misadventure.
Quote:In 1995, former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara published In Retrospect, the first of his three books dissecting the errors, myths and miscalculations that led to the Vietnam War, which he now believes was a serious mistake. Nine years later, most of these lessons seem uncannily relevant to the Iraq war in its current nation-building, guerrilla-warfare phase.
* We misjudged then -- and we have since -- the geopolitical intentions of our adversaries . . . and we exaggerated the dangers to the United States of their actions.
* We viewed the people and leaders of South Vietnam in terms of our own experience. . . . We totally misjudged the political forces within the country.
* We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to fight and die for their beliefs and values.
* Our judgments of friend and foe alike reflected our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders.
* We failed then -- and have since -- to recognize the limitations of modern, high-technology military equipment, forces and doctrine. . . . We failed as well to adapt our military tactics to the task of winning the hearts and minds of people from a totally different culture.
* We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement . . . before we initiated the action.
* After the action got under way and unanticipated events forced us off our planned course . . . we did not fully explain what was happening and why we were doing what we did.
* We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are omniscient. Our judgment of what is in another people's or country's best interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our image or as we choose.
* We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action . . . should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community.
* We failed to recognize that in international affairs, as in other aspects of life, there may be problems for which there are no immediate solutions. . . . At times, we may have to live with an imperfect, untidy world.
* Underlying many of these errors lay our failure to organize the top echelons of the executive branch to deal effectively with the extraordinarily complex range of political and military issues.
Look them over, Bill.
I mentioned that the end game will be the same as Vietnam...but don't for a moment think that the steps leading up to the invasion were not the same mistakes as were made in the Vietnam situation.
Frank Apisa wrote:Vietnam is a terrific comparison.
in the first couple of years, "vietnam" wasn't "VIETNAM". it was over the course of time that it became clear that the intended objective wasn't being achieved.
what was being achieved was a huge loss of american lives, physical and mental injury, big spending and an absolutely polarized american public.
sure seems familiar to me...
Gelisgesti wrote:Who were the insurgents when Saddam was in charge and the death squads were roaming freely? I would think that the opposing force would be the insturment of the ' human shields' demise....... don't make much sense to shoot your shield ......
The more you defend these bastards, the more morally bankrupt your argument becomes. Do a google search about human shields and learn how often the kidnapper becomes executioner once the shield has out
lived his or her usefulness. Really Gel... you probably want to abandon this line defense of these murderers.
Frank: War is war. Comparisons are easy to make. I've read that list several times, btw, and comprehensive it's not. What do you see on that list, which causes you such great pause? What relevant comparison there, was absent other more successful campaigns, and leads you to believe we're doomed? And, how long have you thought of McNamara as the path to truth?
Thinking like you on this issue, Bill, is gonna get our country doing a Groundhog Day on these kinds of wars.
I'll leave it be.
Your side seems to need to feel this war is not like Vietnam.
Whatever spins your top.
But the similarities are startling!
dyslexia wrote:Quote:We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are omniscient. Our judgment of what is in another people's or country's best interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our image or as we choose.
An American said that? I'm impressed. Amen.
Quite a lot of people recognised that GWB is not omniscient though, I seem to remember. He's not even partially scient.
Quote from the above link, Bush: "I talk to General Abizaid quite frequently. I'm constantly asking him does he have what he needs, whether it be in troop strength or in equipment."
Rummy, "You fight a war with what you have, not with what you think you need."
There seems to be some disconnect all the way around between the president, abizaid, and rummy.
Bush is lucky his nose does not grow with every lie he tells. If it did it would have reached Iraq by this time. Bush and the truth are virtual strangers.
Bill, you're fond of accusing people of avoiding your questions, but you avoided my last.
Here it is again: The US is building new large modern military bases in Iraq and an embassy which is unprecedented in size, 3000 staff or so, so it's more of a control centre than an embassy.
The Iraqis are having an election, and we are told that Iraq will be independent as soon as possible after that.
Question: What will the US position be if the new (it's to be completely independent, remember) Iraqi government says
"Thanks, but no thanks, we don't want your money nor your offers of further help, we want to be friendly with our neighbours the Iranians. Please leave our lands now, and by the way we want to market our oil in Europe and China."
In other words, how independent can the US afford to let the new Iraqi regime be?
Puppet?
OCCOM BILL wrote:Gelisgesti wrote:Who were the insurgents when Saddam was in charge and the death squads were roaming freely? I would think that the opposing force would be the insturment of the ' human shields' demise....... don't make much sense to shoot your shield ......
The more you defend these bastards, the more morally bankrupt your argument becomes. Do a google search about human shields and learn how often the kidnapper becomes executioner once the shield has out
lived his or her usefulness. Really Gel... you probably want to abandon this line defense of these murderers.
Frank: War is war. Comparisons are easy to make. I've read that list several times, btw, and comprehensive it's not. What do you see on that list, which causes you such great pause? What relevant comparison there, was absent other more successful campaigns, and leads you to believe we're doomed? And, how long have you thought of McNamara as the path to truth?
You only answer with rhetoric and expect your assertions of truth to be valid just because you say them. I assume you have done such a google search and can supply the group with the results .... to bear out what you claim to be factual, not just uttered.i
McTag
I believe under that scenerio the US would be hard pressed not to comply. What a kick in the face that would be for Bush and unfortunately the US. Imagine with all the American blood spilled and treasury expended we would have to leave with our tail between our legs.
McTag wrote:Question: What will the US position be if the new (it's to be completely independent, remember) Iraqi government says
"Thanks, but no thanks, we don't want your money nor your offers of further help, we want to be friendly with our neighbours the Iranians. Please leave our lands now, and by the way we want to market our oil in Europe and China."
oh, no mctag. that couldn't happen. surely you're thinking of saudi arabia?
the Defence Science Board. obviously a bunch a liberals...
good post revel.
McTag wrote: Bill, you're fond of accusing people of avoiding your questions, but you avoided my last.
Nonsense. I answered you
here.
OCCOM BILL wrote:McTag wrote: Suppose the new Iraqi authority decides that it wants the US to leave its new bases and go away; what do you think will happen then? Will the US go?
For starters; I think the question is a non-starter because it is very unlikely to happen anytime soon. Before it would, I think we'll more than likely have negotiated some form of a long-term instrument (like a lease) in exchange for our assistance. I'm also guessing that they'll go for it. :wink:
IF, they adamantly want us to vacate their country so they could run it themselves, under a duly elected government; I think we'd declare victory and come home. We'd still have our bases in Kuwait
and no Iraqi will soon forget Saddam's fate
so we wouldn't be treated like impotent wolf-criers like we were in the past. Again, that's not something I expect to see come up anyway. In about a month you're going to have to admit that the majority of Iraqis don't want us to leave. Frankly, McTag, they'd be fools if they did.
McTag wrote:In other words, how independent can the US afford to let the new Iraqi regime be?
Puppet?
Nope. IMHO, if a duly elected Iraqi government asks us to leave, we do.
revel, Good post. All those in support of this war keep trying to compare it to Japan and Germany. They just can't see the fact that most Muslims now hate the US and our government like in no other time in our history. They thnk that the goodness of our heart is the primary motivation for this ill-gotten quagmire while we continue to lose our men and women in the military and our treasure in trying to force American-style democracy on the middle east. How they are able to continue the illusion that Iraq is anything like Japan and Germany is beyond any logic, but they continue to rationalize and rationalize until they contradict their own posts. But they're blind to all that too!
Gelisgesti wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote:Gelisgesti wrote:Who were the insurgents when Saddam was in charge and the death squads were roaming freely? I would think that the opposing force would be the insturment of the ' human shields' demise....... don't make much sense to shoot your shield ......
The more you defend these bastards, the more morally bankrupt your argument becomes. Do a google search about human shields and learn how often the kidnapper becomes executioner once the shield has out
lived his or her usefulness. Really Gel... you probably want to abandon this line defense of these murderers.
Frank: War is war. Comparisons are easy to make. I've read that list several times, btw, and comprehensive it's not. What do you see on that list, which causes you such great pause? What relevant comparison there, was absent other more successful campaigns, and leads you to believe we're doomed? And, how long have you thought of McNamara as the path to truth?
You only answer with rhetoric and expect your assertions of truth to be valid just because you say them. I assume you have done such a google search and can supply the group with the results .... to bear out what you claim to be factual, not just uttered.i
Google searches return tons of information Gel. Some factual, some opinion, some utter nonsense. They neither prove nor disprove any claim to be
factual. Great way to get familiar with topics you don't know about, though.
Your categorizing my condemnation of hostage-taking murderers for their despicable acts as
rhetoric is making me sick. I will provide neither photo evidence of the victims who received bullets in their heads at point blank range (by their captors) nor read through a list of similar disgusting stories to locate some for your satisfaction. I got more than my fill when I read it as news the first time around. Don't believe me? Than go ahead and pretend the stories do not exist if it suits you. Those who read the news daily (probably including you
) will likely remember reading the stories I'm referring to.
What do you hope to accomplish by denying the vile acts of these murderers anyway?
posted December 27, 2004, updated 11:30 p.m.
Iraq officials reject US election proposal
Idea of 'special' seats for Sunnis called 'unacceptable' interference.
by Tom Regan | csmonitor.com
A proposal floated by the US government and several prominient US senators Sunday to 'adjust' the outcome of next month's election in Iraq to ensure more Sunni representation has been rejected by the Iraq Electoral Commission (IEC). The Daily Star of Lebanon reports that IEC spokesman Farid Ayyar described the US proposal as "unacceptable" interference, saying: "Who wins, wins. That is the way it is. That is the way it will be in the election." Meanwhile, the BBC reports that Iraq's main Sunni party announced Monday it would withdraw from the January 30 election, all but ensuring an assembly overwhelmingly dominated by Shiite representatives. Iraq is composed of 60 percent Shiites, 20 percent Sunnis and 20 percent Kurds.
On Sunday, The New York Times reported that US officials in Baghdad had already raised the issue of special seats for top Sunni vote-getters with an aide to Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's top Shiite cleric. The US is reportedly afraid that if the new assembly doesn't reflect the ethnic and racial mix of Iraq, then sectarian violence will continue, and the current insurgency will grow even stronger.
As if to underline this point, CNN reports that a car bomb exploded at the gate of the home of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. Mr. Hakim is also the head of Iraq's largest Shiite political bloc of parties, and is expected to be one of the dominant figures in Iraq after the election. Although Hakim was not hurt by the blast, the Associated Press reports that at least 15 others were killed.
Last week, the BBC reported that attacks on top Shiite clerics and around many Shiite holy places like Najaf and Karbal are believed to be attampts by Sunni militants to provoke a Shiite reaction that would undermine both the January election and reconstruction efforts. So far Shiite leaders have called for calm and order after these attacks.
The International Republican Institute, a US government-funded nonprofit organization that promotes democracy worldwide and whose board of directors contains many Republican party foreign policy experts, has released a new poll of 2200 Iraqis that shows that nearly three-quarters intend to vote in the January election, and that a small majority believe the country is headed in the right direction.
But the poll also shows that significantly fewer Sunnis intend to vote. Respondents to the poll broke down roughly 60 percent Shiite and 36 percent Sunni, close to Iraq's actual ethnic makeup. The cities of Ramadi, Fallujah and Mosul were not included because of fears of violence against poll takers.
Finally, Haifa Zangana, an Iraqi author who was imprisoned by Saddam Hussein, writes in the Guardian that women in Iraq, long viewed as being the most liberated women in the Middle East, are now in danger of losing much of that independence in the upcoming elections.
Of all the blunders by the US administration in Iraq, the greatest is its failure to understand Iraqi people, women in particular. The main misconception is to perceive Iraqi women as silent, powerless victims in a male-controlled society in urgent need of 'liberation.'
Ms. Zangana writes of the growing gap between the average Iraqi citizen and the "cocooned" members of the US-led coalition and the interim government of Prime Minister Iyad Allawi. They do not understand, she says, that when Iraqi mothers want to quiet misbehaving children, they threaten, "Quiet, or I'll call democracy."
Just for emphasis. Quote, "Iraq officials reject US election proposal. Idea of 'special' seats for Sunnis called 'unacceptable' interference."
