The limits of US power - Illusion in Iraq

Forums: Politics, Iraq
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Are we indeed seeing the limitations on US power in Iraq? Is there valid cause to suggest that the US/UK forces will never achieve their objectives in Iraq of crushing resistance?

Quote:

The limits of American power are there for all to see. Ask yourself why Iran is so confident today.

As the sickle moon rose to mark the start of Ramadan, the Americans launched their biggest offensive in Iraq this year. Insurgents control Haditha and other towns near the border with Syria.

The aim of the simultaneous operations River Gate and Iron Fist is to kill as many as possible, and then turn the area over to forces loyal to the government in Baghdad.

If that sounds familiar, it's because you've heard it before.

Channel 4 - The limits of US power

Illusion in Iraq

Quote:

Iraqis have as many illusions as Bush about their country, like children closing their eyes and saying, "You can't see me".

Everyone has their fantasy Iraq, because reality is too hard to bear.

Tony Blair has an Iraq where things are gradually getting better, by way of things getting worse first - a bit like driving from London to Edinburgh via Brighton. "As we make the advance towards democracy, the terrorists will get more frenetic," explains John Reid, Secretary of State for Defence.

Their Iraq is full of democrats bravely standing up to terrorism.

Channel 4 - Illusion in Iraq

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 4,160 • Replies: 93

No top replies

Re: The limits of US power - Illusion in Iraq

freedom4free wrote:

Are we indeed seeing the limitations on US power in Iraq? Is there valid cause to suggest that the US/UK forces will never achieve their objectives in Iraq of crushing resistance?

Quote:
The limits of American power are there for all to see. Ask yourself why Iran is so confident today.

As the sickle moon rose to mark the start of Ramadan, the Americans launched their biggest offensive in Iraq this year. Insurgents control Haditha and other towns near the border with Syria.

The aim of the simultaneous operations River Gate and Iron Fist is to kill as many as possible, and then turn the area over to forces loyal to the government in Baghdad.

If that sounds familiar, it's because you've heard it before.

Channel 4 - The limits of US power

Illusion in Iraq

Quote:
Iraqis have as many illusions as Bush about their country, like children closing their eyes and saying, "You can't see me".

Everyone has their fantasy Iraq, because reality is too hard to bear.

Tony Blair has an Iraq where things are gradually getting better, by way of things getting worse first - a bit like driving from London to Edinburgh via Brighton. "As we make the advance towards democracy, the terrorists will get more frenetic," explains John Reid, Secretary of State for Defence.

Their Iraq is full of democrats bravely standing up to terrorism.

Channel 4 - Illusion in Iraq

If, as you A2K libs profess, your anti-American positions are just another form of patriotism, why do you seem so exultant when you advance the idea that America is failing? Pardon me, but your form of patriotism seems to me like what is usually called disloyalty.

0 Replies

I don't think that, in this case at least, it's a question of either "patriotism" or "disloyalty." It's a straight-forward pragmatic question -- what are the limits of America's unquestioned power and are many of the scenarios mere illusion? If one applies a "loyalty" test to questions such as these, one can never come up with a truthful answer, only defensive excuses for indefensible behavior.

0 Replies

Merry Andrew wrote:

I don't think that, in this case at least, it's a question of either "patriotism" or "disloyalty." It's a straight-forward pragmatic question -- what are the limits of America's unquestioned power and are many of the scenarios mere illusion? If one applies a "loyalty" test to questions such as these, one can never come up with a truthful answer, only defensive excuses for indefensible behavior.

Well, if you don't, then you're wrong, because they gleefully trumpet anything that could be interpreted as failure, even things that aren't failure. They never mention the occasional successes which must surely be occurring from place to place in Iraq. Odd behavior for someone who loves his country and wants it to succeed. A person who wants his country to fail is disloyal.

0 Replies

Brandon, it's not disloyalty.

I haven't read any comments here from anyone who is gleeful about people dying in an unnecessary war. I haven't read any comments that could be construed as giving comfort to the enemy. I have read critiques of the policy that led to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. If more people had been critical of that policy direction before the invasion and occuapation of Iraq (and here I include the legislators who approved of it) then this mess wouldn't be happening. No way is a critique of government policy disloyalty in a liberal democracy.

0 Replies

Re: The limits of US power - Illusion in Iraq

Brandon9000 wrote:

freedom4free wrote:
Are we indeed seeing the limitations on US power in Iraq? Is there valid cause to suggest that the US/UK forces will never achieve their objectives in Iraq of crushing resistance?

Quote:
The limits of American power are there for all to see. Ask yourself why Iran is so confident today.

As the sickle moon rose to mark the start of Ramadan, the Americans launched their biggest offensive in Iraq this year. Insurgents control Haditha and other towns near the border with Syria.

The aim of the simultaneous operations River Gate and Iron Fist is to kill as many as possible, and then turn the area over to forces loyal to the government in Baghdad.

If that sounds familiar, it's because you've heard it before.

Channel 4 - The limits of US power

Illusion in Iraq

Quote:
Iraqis have as many illusions as Bush about their country, like children closing their eyes and saying, "You can't see me".

Everyone has their fantasy Iraq, because reality is too hard to bear.

Tony Blair has an Iraq where things are gradually getting better, by way of things getting worse first - a bit like driving from London to Edinburgh via Brighton. "As we make the advance towards democracy, the terrorists will get more frenetic," explains John Reid, Secretary of State for Defence.

Their Iraq is full of democrats bravely standing up to terrorism.

Channel 4 - Illusion in Iraq

If, as you A2K libs profess, your anti-American positions are just another form of patriotism, why do you seem so exultant when you advance the idea that America is failing? Pardon me, but your form of patriotism seems to me like what is usually called disloyalty.

Your hate for this country sickens me. A person who believes that killing civilians in Iraq, because some f*cking scumbag oilman says it's the right thing to do, turns my stomach. And whenever anyone points out the things that need to be fixed in America, you argue, idiotically, in my opininion, that the topic shouldn't be brought up, in the name of patriotism. Pardon me, but patriotism has nothing to do with ignoring the truth.

If you believe that we should ignore everything that doesn't make the USA look good, you are a traitor to this country and a disgrace to the very freedoms you profess to defend. Please, if you value freedom like you say you do, kill yourself, or at least, shut the f*ck up. It's the only way to keep freedom, as those of us who truly understand it, alive.

Judging from the things you've said here, I believe you would be happy if we all had to lock ourselves indoors and had army troops check into our homes every night to make sure we weren't thinking of doing anything "anti-american." Your thinking is about on the same level as a KKK guy who says "these nigras are gittin' uppity. We need to shut them up for the good of the country."

Seriously, you are helping the enemy, so please stop being such a small-minded moron...I beg you. Our future depends on people like you either waking up and ceasing the idiocy, or leaving the country all together and joining the insurgents. Your thinking is the exact road the terrorists will take to the eventual demise and bankruptcy of America, this country that I love. Please stop being a part of the problem. Wake up before it's too late! I beg you!!!

And before you give me your idiotic patented response of, "if you don't respond to specific points I made, you admit defeat in this debate, let me say, "YOU HAVEN'T MADE ANY POINT, EXCEPT THAT PEOPLE SHOULD NOT SPEAK THE TRUTH!

Idiocy personified.

0 Replies

Published on Saturday, October 8, 2005 by the Daily Mirror/UK

"The war, seen as unwinnable, is becoming a bleak burden, with nearly 2,000 American dead. Two-thirds think the invasion was a mistake.

The war costs $6billion a month, driving up a nose-bleed high $331billion budget deficit. In five years the conflict will have cost each American family $11,300, it is said.

Mr Bush says blithely he'll cut existing programs to pay for the war and fund an estimated $200billion for hurricane damage. He won't, he says, rescind his tax cuts. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel says Mr Bush is "disconnected from reality".

Americans have been angered by a reports that US troops have routinely tortured Iraqi prisoners. Some 230 low-rankers have been convicted - but not one general or Pentagon overseer. Disgruntled young officers are leaving in increasing numbers.

Meanwhile, further damaging Americans' self image, there's Afghanistan. The White House says its operations there were a success, yet last year Afghanistan supplied 90 per cent of the world's heroin."

In the context of what else is going on, the war is plainly a stupid endeavour.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Merry Andrew wrote:
I don't think that, in this case at least, it's a question of either "patriotism" or "disloyalty." It's a straight-forward pragmatic question -- what are the limits of America's unquestioned power and are many of the scenarios mere illusion? If one applies a "loyalty" test to questions such as these, one can never come up with a truthful answer, only defensive excuses for indefensible behavior.

Well, if you don't, then you're wrong, because they gleefully trumpet anything that could be interpreted as failure, even things that aren't failure. They never mention the occasional successes which must surely be occurring from place to place in Iraq. Odd behavior for someone who loves his country and wants it to succeed. A person who wants his country to fail is disloyal.

And you are suggesting -- what? That "anything that could be interpreted as failure" be steadfastly ignored? The successes, as you yourself say, are "occasional"; the failures seem to be overwhelming. I don't say this as a "liberal" because I don't consider myself to be one. If you would just pull your head out of that sand dune for a moment and read the polls and the news stories, you would see that quite a number of self-described conservatives are questioning the way this war has been waged. To not criticize an administration which seems intent on destroying this country, of suborning the democratic principles we have heretorofre enjoyed, and in pulling the wool over the eyes of the citizenry -- now, that is truly traitorous. Before you start calling anyone else "disloyal," examine your own behavior. You are defending an indefensible usurper of the Oval Office, an administration which is eroding the principles on which this country was founded. It is you who are being not only "disloyal" but downright treasonable.

0 Replies

There is a difference between occassional criticism and constant criticism.

The occassional jab at your lover about their weight, maybe that a shirt doesn't look nice, that a hat looks goofy is one thing, but compare that with constantly nagging about every little thing that person does, the way they dress, the way they comb their hair, the way they walk, eat, drink, breath, work, play, watch TV, read, etc ad nauseum and you start to believe that person may not be right.

Will this go over the head of some of our compatriots here on A2K? Probably, but some may get the point...

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

There is a difference between occassional criticism and constant criticism.

The occassional jab at your lover about their weight, maybe that a shirt doesn't look nice, that a hat looks goofy is one thing, but compare that with constantly nagging about every little thing that person does, the way they dress, the way they comb their hair, the way they walk, eat, drink, breath, work, play, watch TV, read, etc ad nauseum and you start to believe that person may not be right.

Will this go over the head of some of our compatriots here on A2K? Probably, but some may get the point...

Criticism without providing a constructive alternative is mindless "blather" by those unable or unwilling to objectively debate an alternative.

For example, it looks like you are gaining weight...so maybe you should stop eating all that food.

But to keep blurting out YOU"RE FAT>>>YOU"RE FAT>>>YOU"RE FAT falls on deaf ears.

0 Replies

And if someone's behavior justifies constant criticism?

There are two approaces to failure. One can shrug and move on to make the same mistake again and again, or one can attempt to analyze the error and try to correct it in the future.

0 Replies

Give me a break.

It's not a case of "hey honey Jenny Craig has a special on this month how about you sign up and lose some of that lard!"

Iraq is a bloody disaster in foreign policy terms. Sorry if it offends those who were hot to go for it but it is a disaster. Stuff sensitivities. Did you elect your President or did he descend from the clouds on chariots of fire to take the throne? Assuming that he isn't claiming either the Divine Right of Kings (er......let me think about that for a minute) or that he is directly descended from the Sun God, then he can be booted out and damnit he should be.

He and his administration have failed. For the benefit of the rest of us get rid of him and start working out how to sort out the various massive failures of policy both domestic and foreign.

We stand by ready to help.

0 Replies

Well, he is doing the things that I voted for him to do:

Take a hardline stance on terrorism
promote family values
reduce the tax burden on American citizens

I am not happy that the Iraqi war is in the state it is and I believe mistakes have been made, but I also see the good that has come from it. Apparently some can not. I feel sorry for those people.

0 Replies

ROTFL.

He hasn't accomplished any of those. Nor even tried very hard, from what I can see.

His tax plan sounds like me telling my wife we're gonna increase savings by using credit cards to pay for everything, and put our cash in the bank.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

There is a difference between occassional criticism and constant criticism.

The occassional jab at your lover about their weight, maybe that a shirt doesn't look nice, that a hat looks goofy is one thing, but compare that with constantly nagging about every little thing that person does, the way they dress, the way they comb their hair, the way they walk, eat, drink, breath, work, play, watch TV, read, etc ad nauseum and you start to believe that person may not be right.

Will this go over the head of some of our compatriots here on A2K? Probably, but some may get the point...

No, that didn't go over my head at all, McG. I got the point. You're talking about all the criticism of Clinton's sex life, right?

0 Replies

as an example, yes, but I was mostly referring to the constant, high-pitched drone from the left regarding Bush and the current administration.;

0 Replies

I agree that some of the "drone from the left" is a tad over the top at times. But I also note that, in most cases, the criticism of the chief executive's discharge of his and his administration's duties, not on personal issues and the way he harts his hair. I agree that sniping at such easy tragets as over-long vacations in Texas and constant slips of the tongue at press conferences is not productive and only shows that the critic could not find anything substantive to latch onto. So, we do agree on some things, McG. Where I disagree is that there is some inherent disloyalty to the Republic in criticising gaffes such as the conduct of the Iraqi incursion (one cannot call it a 'war' as a war has not been declared by Congress). Nor is it constant carping to point out that all of the tax reform measures are designed to favor the upper crust at the expense of the struggling wage-earners.

True, some of the "lefties" on these threads would criticise Bush for wearing the wrong tie with the wrong shirt and jacket. But most of the "righties" here are apt to blame Clinton for the fact that the relief effort for Hurricane Katrina's victims was well below criticism.

You can't have it both ways.

0 Replies

You got to now include more than just the left in that constant drone unless the left suddenly became the majority of Americans when I wasn't looking.

0 Replies

Merry Andrew wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Merry Andrew wrote:
I don't think that, in this case at least, it's a question of either "patriotism" or "disloyalty." It's a straight-forward pragmatic question -- what are the limits of America's unquestioned power and are many of the scenarios mere illusion? If one applies a "loyalty" test to questions such as these, one can never come up with a truthful answer, only defensive excuses for indefensible behavior.

Well, if you don't, then you're wrong, because they gleefully trumpet anything that could be interpreted as failure, even things that aren't failure. They never mention the occasional successes which must surely be occurring from place to place in Iraq. Odd behavior for someone who loves his country and wants it to succeed. A person who wants his country to fail is disloyal.

And you are suggesting -- what? That "anything that could be interpreted as failure" be steadfastly ignored? The successes, as you yourself say, are "occasional"; the failures seem to be overwhelming. I don't say this as a "liberal" because I don't consider myself to be one. If you would just pull your head out of that sand dune for a moment and read the polls and the news stories, you would see that quite a number of self-described conservatives are questioning the way this war has been waged. To not criticize an administration which seems intent on destroying this country, of suborning the democratic principles we have heretorofre enjoyed, and in pulling the wool over the eyes of the citizenry -- now, that is truly traitorous. Before you start calling anyone else "disloyal," examine your own behavior. You are defending an indefensible usurper of the Oval Office, an administration which is eroding the principles on which this country was founded.

I am not saying that any criticism of government policies is disloyal. I am saying that criticism of the country can be disloyal, and that this is an example of disloyal criticism. The people in question do not show happiness when something we are doing works and sadness when it doesn't. They never talk about the things that work in Iraq, and gleefully trumpet as a failure anything that could conceivably be construed as failure. It is not that all criticism needs must be disloyal at all, just that this particular set of people happens to be disloyal.

Merry Andrew wrote:

It is you who are being not only "disloyal" but downright treasonable.

Given that treason is defined in the Constitution as giving aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war, how does labelling certain people as disloyal do that?

0 Replies

OK, Brandon, I'll grant you that my use of the word "treasonable" might have been a bit hyperbolic. What I meant was that criticising the critics is counter-productive.

0 Replies

The limits of US power - Illusion in Iraq

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know