Withdraw from Iraq?

Short-term: Mr. Bush will lose any chance to be re-elected in 2004, no one would take him seriously.
Long-term: end of the Western civilization under impact of Islamic/Third World hordes somewhere in 2050-2060 (I hope, I shall die before such a thing happens).

0 Replies

steissd
Just a hypothetical question. Although I am reluctant to use the word never. I would say it can never happen. I do however wonder if that is what those who continue to demonstrate against the war are advocating.

0 Replies

I personally do not want to see a withdrawal. But I do see benefits in it. Steissd's apocalyptic warnings aside, this war will not affect western nations much.

The benefit I see from being forced to withdraw is that the antithesis to Vietnam will be further put off.

I think some of this administration's members think that they need to right the wrongs of Vietnam. Put the bark back into the military and generally increase the military's use.

I think that is a big motivation for this war and I'd like to send that kind of thinking back to the caves where it belongs.

But a withdrawal right now would make America look even worse than it does and I do not want to see it happen for geopolitical reasons.

0 Replies

I guess an immediate withdrawal could mean momentous loss of stature and believability to Bush, and I guess it could mean a strengthening of the Islamic "hordes" in the not too distant future.

But since we're throwing out hypotheticals, it could make Bush the biggest hero of the new millenium by his appearing to have rethought the situation, and decided to retry diplomacy with the added emphasis of force that he has already proven he would provide if necessary.
It could shake the M.E. Fundamentalists in a way that no WMD ever could - by making them bargain with someone who had obviously chosen peace, but who just as obviously carried a big stick.

0 Replies

A unilateral withdrawal would be a mistake.
Two mistakes do not make one right.

0 Replies

Fbaezer is right but I think we cannot withdraw even when the battle is won we will be forever a target and our Army forever in the area.

Secretary Powell went to Turkey today to discuss the rift in relations with that nation. Remember how the Romand and Greeks feared the Mongul hordes?

What is really scaring me is the threats made against Syria, what's up with that?

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

The benefit I see from being forced to withdraw is that the antithesis to Vietnam will be further put off.

I think some of this administration's members think that they need to right the wrongs of Vietnam. Put the bark back into the military and generally increase the military's use.
.

I disagree. Reagan, put the bark back into the military, and Gulf War 1 righted the wrong, up to the point that politicians got in the way again, and made the pull back. Eight years of Clinton, decimated the military, but after 9/11, funding and support is rebuilding it. The Military is alive and well, and only getting stronger. The pride that was lacking the last few years, is being rebuilt. This war is being fought with the determining factor of an "Unconditional surrender." A big difference from the "Police Action" we were fighting in Viet Nam.

Viet Nam, is a success story (for Viet Nam). Our problem, was that we supported the wrong side, got a lot of our young men killed, and thankfully got our tails, the hell out of there (the ol'e cut bait routine.)

I protested against the war in Viet Nam. I was a Conscientious Objector. We were fighting a "Police Action" supporting a corrupt dictator (Thieu), and waging a war against the people. We were not fighting an oppressive dictator, in Nam, but Ho Chi Minh. He was the man to have overseen the reorganization of Viet Nam after the French pulled out. Eisenhower got us involved, Kennedy committed observers, Johnson escalated the war, and Nixon ran up the body bag count. Thankfully, Nixon realized that he would have to kill, damn near every man, woman, and child if he expected to ever win this war. We weren't fighting just the North Vietnamese, but the people of Viet Nam.

I have two friends, that are Viet Nam vets, one living over there, and the other traveling back twice a year. They are helping other vets go back, and quite the nightmares that still are haunting countless other vets.

Viet Nam, has put the war behind them, and welcome back these vets with open arms. The stories I hear from these guys, coming back, make me feel really good, deep down inside. I am just glad, that I helped one of them, make it back. In all the years that I have know him, I have never seen him more at peace with himself.

I have noticed, a reoccurring theme of yours, with Viet Nam. Have you visited the country? I would highly recommend it. Just the thought of an American being welcomed into a foreign country is such a novelty, in these trying times.

0 Replies

I think it could be the smart move to withdraw, and (though I doubt this would hold true for the current administration) I think we have the intelligence to do so positively and gracefully. The disadvantage is, if it were done well, Bush would be back for another term. How's that for being a contrarian!!

0 Replies

ferrous wrote:

I disagree. Reagan, put the bark back into the military, and Gulf War 1 righted the wrong, up to the point that politicians got in the way again, and made the pull back. Eight years of Clinton, decimated the military, but after 9/11, funding and support is rebuilding it. The Military is alive and well, and only getting stronger. The pride that was lacking the last few years, is being rebuilt. This war is being fought with the determining factor of an "Unconditional surrender." A big difference from the "Police Action" we were fighting in Viet Nam.

I consider the frequent allegation that the military was wilting away under Clinton to be a great lie. The military continued to distance itself from the rest of the world's militaries. The military will always ask for more money. They are overwhelmingly overfunded.

The recent increase in speding was bourne on a wave of fear from attacks that increased speding will not prevent. The notion that the military is being restores is not accurate. The military is getting a windfall.

As to he use of the military I prefer those who err in underuse rather than those who err in overuse. And silly notions like pride don't factor into my opinions.

ferrous wrote:

I have noticed, a reoccurring theme of yours, with Viet Nam.

2 mentions in one day does not a "reoccuring theme" make.

ferrous wrote:

Just the thought of an American being welcomed into a foreign country is such a novelty, in these trying times.

I've lived in 10 and been to many more. I was welcomed in all of them. Americans are usually treated with a different opinion than the American government is. Most people separate their feelings along those lines.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

I consider the frequent allegation that the military was wilting away under Clinton to be a great lie.

Consider it, or felt it first hand? I know people in the military, and have spoke with these people first hand. The military was over used, underfunded, and decimated under Clinton. Morale was at a low point, and career soldiers were leaving in droves.

Again, I ask... Do you know this from first hand knowlegde? Or, are you just slipping this in, hopping that it will just slide?

0 Replies

ferrous wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:

I consider the frequent allegation that the military was wilting away under Clinton to be a great lie.

Consider it, or felt it first hand? I know people in the military, and have spoke with these people first hand. The military was over used, underfunded, and decimated under Clinton. Morale was at a low point, and career soldiers were leaving in droves.

Again, I ask... Do you know this from first hand knowlegde? Or, are you just slipping this in, hopping that it will just slide?

COMMENT:

Ferrous, that is abject nonsense.

I know people in the military also -- and nearly as I can tell from them, you are exaggerating.

The military is, on average, more conservative as an institution than the general population. Conservatives hated Bill Clinton from the moment he was elected. After Reagan and Bush the Elder, they had been spouting off nonsense about how no person would ever be elected president over the objections of the conservative vote.

Then Bill Clinton came along -- and the American public showed the conservatives who was really boss here.

The conservatives dropped to the floor and kicked their heels for 4 years -- and when Bill Clinton won re-election, they truly went nuts.

Obviously, since the military is more conservative than the general population -- that dissatisfaction showed itself there -- but not nearly as severely as you conservatives wish -- and pretend.

Kraven was correct -- and you are wrong on this one, Ferrous.

0 Replies

BTW -- no way we should withdraw now.

0 Replies

Craven -- Could we solicit (do we have) an opinion from Snood about the military during the Clinton administration?

0 Replies

ferrous wrote:

I know people in the military, and have spoke with these people first hand. The military was over used, underfunded, and decimated under Clinton. Morale was at a low point, and career soldiers were leaving in droves.

Again, I ask... Do you know this from first hand knowlegde? Or, are you just slipping this in, hopping that it will just slide?

Facts, ferrous, facts.

These two graphs are from http://www.missouri.edu/~polswww/papers/pp011106.pdf - "Determinants of U.S. Military Expenditure After the Cold War. The Reason for Increasing U.S. Military Expenditure".

http://home.wanadoo.nl/anepiphany/images/us_military_expenditure.gif

After the end of the Cold War, military spending in the US stabilised - at two-three times the level it had been on in the seventies.

During the nuclear arms race in the eighties and then the Gulf War under Bush Sr., expenditure had boomed. When the Soviet Union had collapsed, the Cold War was over and the Gulf War was too, a lot of talk was about the "peace dividend". As you can see, Clinton didn't cash it. Budget reductions were only a fraction of the increases of the 1980s. After 1996 spending increased again in fact.

Let me use the second graph from that article to put this in perspective.

http://home.wanadoo.nl/anepiphany/images/us_military_expenditure2.gif

The boom in military expenditure under Reagan had at least been parallelled by that in the Soviet Union. But the latter was indeed almost "decimated", to use your term, in Russia in the 90s. That meant that the US military budget under Clinton was almost four times that of its nearest rivals.

In fact, world military spending, in 1995-1996, "was down 40% from the 1987 peak level" (same source). US military spending, in the same period, was down six percent.

"Underfunded and decimated"?

0 Replies

(oy, whadido with the A2K window?

first versions i posted of these graphs were too big for the window, so it got all stretched out of shape. by now i've replaced them with smaller-size graphs, but the window remains all stretched to the right on my screen, on yours too?)

0 Replies

Au1929 wrote:

steissd
Just a hypothetical question. Although I am reluctant to use the word never. I would say it can never happen. I do however wonder if that is what those who continue to demonstrate against the war are advocating.

I guess, your "can never happen" refers to Islamic hordes. I am afraid that unilateral withdrawal of the Allied forces will be tantamount to their being defeated, this will be considered by the collective enemy (not mandatory Iraqis) as a sign of weakness, thus providing an incentive of increasing violent pressure on the West (not only the USA, UK and Australia).
The anti-war demonstrators, in their majority, do not mean to support the Islamic global aggression, but in fact, their actions are in favor of the latter. The young Europeans that protested against deployment of the American neutron warfare in Europe in '70s did not get orders from the Soviet General Staff HQ, but despite of this, they promoted its agenda: it was very much undesirable for the USSR that the Western Europe would be protected by such an efficient anti-tank weapon...

0 Replies

Despite all the republican ballyhoo about being "friends of the military", and all the potshots taken at the Democrats for hurting the military, my experience was not demonstrably different under Clinton. The yearly pay increases have remained constantly piddly throughout both Bushs' administrations and Clinton - never more than a single digit; if I recall correctly never more than 7%. And from what stats I've seen on real spending on defense, Clinton actually spent more $.

0 Replies

And Bush, I hear, has cut the benefits to retired military, quite quietly.

0 Replies

ferrous wrote:

Consider it, or felt it first hand? I know people in the military, and have spoke with these people first hand. The military was over used, underfunded, and decimated under Clinton. Morale was at a low point, and career soldiers were leaving in droves.

Again, I ask... Do you know this from first hand knowlegde? Or, are you just slipping this in, hopping that it will just slide?

a) you have several very good rebuttals already so I will add little

b) you can't "feel" a budget. You can however look it up. Like nimh said "facts"!

c) In the Clinton admin most argue that the military was underused and underfunded, you are the only person I know of who claims it was overused. In any case, I reject the notion that it was underfunded for the reasons already talked about. The military actually increased it's distance from the world's militaries during that time.

d) Morale is subjective, but I'm willing to concede that moral is higher with Bush. This, IMO, is because Bush is willing to throw handfuls of money toward military spending and Bush is more willing to wage wars.

This thing about "first hand knowledge" is pure bull. I'm not going to stoop to "I am more connected" arguments. I do know military people and what they say about this means nothing to me. What I care about are the facts. The military did not suffer during the CLinton administration. They received adequate amounts of money.

Anyone can complain that they are not getting enough money, this doesn't mean it's true.

And for the record, I NEVER "slip it in, hoping that it will slide". Anything I take a position on is not something that I'll back down from based on a "I know people in the military" argument.

If you'd like to contest my assertion that the military was overfunded, as usual, during the Clinton administration please do so with facts. It's an argument that can be made with facts. When those facts are presented I'll respond to them in kind.

0 Replies

Withdraw from Iraq?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know