THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

McGentrix wrote:

Afghanistan isn't part of the Middle East.

Well, your Americans and your naming of geography :wink: ´

Some Europeans - like me - stuck to the traditionally names of an area:
Near East > Middle East > Far East.

Under this premises (and such is noted in wikipedia as well as in Britannica), Afghanistan certainly is part of the Middle East.

[I'm still wondering, were according to the American definition of Middle East the Near East would be: Western Europe perhaps?]

0 Replies

Quote:

U.S. lawmakers, in Iraq, talk of prospects to increase troop presence in Iraq
BAGHDAD (CNN) -- American lawmakers now visiting Iraq said they either believe more U.S. troops should be deployed to establish law and order in the war-torn country or are open to considering such a prospect.

The delegation -- including U.S. Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, Susan Collins of Maine, Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, and John Thune of South Dakota, and U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk of Illinois -- are visiting Iraqi and U.S. officials in Iraq and spoke to reporters Thursday in the capital's Green Zone.

All members of the contingent are Republicans except for Lieberman, a Democrat who ran as an independent in the November election. McCain, a Vietnam veteran, is a 2008 presidential aspirant.

Their concern about violence in the country echoed the Iraq Study Group's conclusions about the state of affairs in the country, which the report described as "grave and deteriorating."

But in contrast to the study group's conclusion that "sustained increases in U.S. troop levels would not solve the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq, which is the absence of national reconciliation," McCain said he thinks there is a "compelling reason to have increased troops" in Baghdad and the sprawling Anbar province. (Posted 10:56 a.m.)

I would not have voted for McCain in any event.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Afghanistan isn't part of the Middle East.

Well, your Americans and your naming of geography :wink: ´

Some Europeans - like me - stuck to the traditionally names of an area:
Near East > Middle East > Far East.

Under this premises (and such is noted in wikipedia as well as in Britannica), Afghanistan certainly is part of the Middle East.

[I'm still wondering, were according to the American definition of Middle East the Near East would be: Western Europe perhaps?]

What would a day be without another Waltism (tm)?

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
McTag wrote:
Brilliant response! Well quick, anyway.

And wrong, as usual. (er, replying to McG, pardon)

This is one of those times a snarky reply would be appropriate, but I have a bad head cold and don't have the patience for it. So, instead, I will just call you an idiot and move on.

If you ever care to look it up, you will find that Afghanistan is part of Asia, and not the Middle East. Not that I think you will admit it, but I am entirely right.

Hurts, doesn't it?

Your head cold (my sympathies) is befuddling even your usual judgement.

Whether you wish to place Afghanistan in Asia or the ME, the point of the article, and this thread, is about the whole of the region.

I can understand however your anxiety to get the argument away from the works of GWB and on to piffling semantic non-sequiturs.

Now read the article, and come back to me then.

I hope your cold is better soon.

I appreciate the sympathies. My tissue box is getting a full workout today.

The author takes a lot of liberty with laying blame for things happening in the Middle East. I did read the article before posting as that's why I made the comment I did.

Laying the blame on Bush for the crisis in Lebanon? That's a retarded idea. Might as well blame Bush for making the dinosaurs extinct. The whole article is a flimsy piece of, well, let's say it's not giving an honest portrayal of the situation so much as it is a biased fluff piece.

0 Replies

Kara wrote:

Bush is bad?

That is an irrelevant question.

He and his urgers and helper-deciders made an enormous foreign policy mistake, which was to attack Iraq. (It was not a mistake to want to take out Saddam. But that could have been done easily. The CIA has done more difficult take-outs..)

Having made that mistake -- a mistake that is now acknowledged by many if not most thinking people -- we are now in the position of trying to figure out what to do next.

It is unconscionable that he is lingering one moment in pondering his next move. What he will not do is accept that he and his fellow pie-in-the-sky dreamers were wrong and that he must accept that and move on, and not say any more that we are winning. If he would ever say to all of us....We are not winning. We have lost. I am trying to figure out where we go from here. Pray for me while your sons and daughters are dying and I am trying to sort this out.

Did you see his press conference after the ISG report came out? Did you think of Captain Queeg and the steel balls?

He said, You ask if I am taking this report seriously? I'll tell you how seriously we are taking it. We READ it.

Your response is confusing. On the one hand you claim the question of whether Bush is bad or not, "is an irrelevant question." On the other hand you claim, "It is unconscionable that he is lingering one moment in pondering his next move." I truly think that whether Bush is bad or not is irrelevant. I also truly think that whether Bush's lingering even several moments pondering his next move is unconscionable or not is also irrelevant.

What is relevant is the answer to the question "what to do next?" That will require considerable pondering by even the best and wisest among us in order to arrive at the wisest and best answer.

So, why not drop your vitriol against Bush, and begin yourself to honestly ponder "what to do next." That will help you discover that there is no such thing as a perfect answer to that question. That will help you discover that all answers you come up with involve tradeoffs between desireable and undesireable consequences for Iraqi good guys. For example, Cycl and I have been debating which is more preferable: helping the Iraqi good guys by a strategy that risks the lives of some Iraqi good guys to save the lives of many Iraqi good guys; or, helping the Iraqi good guys by leaving it to the Iraqi good guys to help themselves. That choice is itself dependent on the answer to the question of whether or not the Iraqi good guys are capable all by themselves of helping themselves. Then, of course, there is the question of what are the consequences for humanity if the Iraqi good guys succumb to the Iraqi bad guys?

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Afghanistan isn't part of the Middle East.

Well, your Americans and your naming of geography :wink: ´

...

I long ago decided that calling Europe and Asia separate continents is presumptious, because of the length of the boundary between the two. They are one contintent. Call it Eurasia. :wink:

By the way, Eurasia includes what is called the middle east which is therefore not a continent either. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Bush has created a comprehensive catastrophe across the Middle East

In every vital area, from Afghanistan to Egypt, his policies have made the situation worse than it was before

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1971749,00.html

Excerpt from your link, last paragraph emphasis added:

Quote:

Many a time, in these pages and elsewhere, I have warned against reflex Bush-bashing and kneejerk anti-Americanism. The United States is by no means the only culprit. Changing the Middle East for the better is one of the most difficult challenges in world politics. The people of the region bear much responsibility for their own plight. So do we Europeans, for past sins of commission and current sins of omission. But Bush must take the lion's share of the blame. There are few examples in recent history of such a comprehensive failure. Congratulations, Mr President; you have made one hell of a disaster.

Yes, Bush has so far led "a comprehensive failure." Had he like his predecessors not tried to take on "one of the most difficult challenges in world politics," he too would now be another popular failure due to omission.

For the sake of humanity, someone with at least the courage to try, better damn well figure out how to lead "Changing the Middle East for the better."

0 Replies

ican, The bipartisan group tried, and Bush said he "read it." Case closed.

0 Replies

McCain wants to send more troops to Iraq, but how? Sending 15,000 to 30,000 more troops is a temporary slow down of violence, and in time we'll have to send many of those back home on leave. What makes McCain think a temporary fix will cause a long-term resolution?

McCain calls for more troops in Iraq By THOMAS WAGNER, Associated Press Writer
Thu Dec 14, 10:13 AM ET

Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) said Thursday that America should deploy 15,000 to 30,000 more troops to Iraq to control its sectarian violence, and give moderate Iraqi politicians the stability they need to take the country in the right direction.

McCain made the remarks to reporters in Baghdad, where he and five other members of Congress were meeting with U.S. and Iraqi officials.

"The American people are disappointed and frustrated with the Iraq war, but they want us to succeed if there's any way to do that," McCain, a possible 2008 presidential candidate, said at a news conference at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone.

The Arizona Republican said five to 10 more brigades of U.S. combat soldiers must be sent to Iraq. Brigades vary in size but generally include about 3,000 troops, meaning he was recommending 15,000 to 30,000 additional forces.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (news, bio, voting record), D-Conn., said the delegation had met with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, and urged him to break his ties with anti-U.S. cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and disarm his Mahdi Army militia.

Al-Sadr controls 30 of the 275 parliament seats and is a key figure in al-Maliki's coalition.

The U.S. military has about 140,000 troops in Iraq, and President Bush is considering a change of strategy in the country, including Baghdad, where stepped-up efforts to curtail sectarian violence failed this summer. The U.S. force includes about 15 combat brigades made up of 50,000-60,000 soldiers, the U.S. military said.

McCain has joined other legislators and military analysts in saying that Bush sent far too few troops to Iraq after the coalition toppled Saddam Hussein in March 2003, leading to widespread violence at the hands of Sunni Arab insurgent groups and Shiite militias.

0 Replies

Joint Chiefs Advise Change In War Strategy
Leaders Seek No Major Troop Increase, Urge Shift in Focus to Support of Iraqi Army

By Robin Wright and Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, December 14, 2006; Page A01

The nation's top uniformed leaders are recommending that the United States change its main military mission in Iraq from combating insurgents to supporting Iraqi troops and hunting terrorists, said sources familiar with the White House's ongoing Iraq policy review.

President Bush and Vice President Cheney met with the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff yesterday at the Pentagon for more than an hour, and the president engaged his top military advisers on different options. The chiefs made no dramatic proposals but, at a time of intensifying national debate about how to solve the Iraq crisis, offered a pragmatic assessment of what can and cannot be done by the military, the sources said.

The chiefs do not favor adding significant numbers of troops to Iraq, said sources familiar with their thinking, but see strengthening the Iraqi army as pivotal to achieving some degree of stability. They also are pressing for a much greater U.S. effort on economic reconstruction and political reconciliation.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

ican, The bipartisan group tried, and Bush said he "read it." Case closed.

Of course, the case is not closed. A recommended solution from an allegedly bipartisan group is not necessarily the best solution just because the group is allegely bipartisan. Obviously, a reading of same by the President does not necessarily mean the recommended solution is unsatisfactory.

Analyze the Baker-Hamilton group's recommended solution in terms of its probable positive and negative consequences. There is no such thing as a perfect answer to the question of how to "[change] the Middle East for the better"--allegedly "one of the most difficult challenges in world politics." So properly analyzing the Baker-Hamilton group's recommendation to weigh positive versus negative consequences, will help you discover that all answers you come up with involve tradeoffs between desireable and undesireable consequences for both Iraqi good guys and Humanity's good guys.

0 Replies

ican, You've been missin the Bush rhetoric about "success in Iraq" after he read the ISG report.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

McCain wants to send more troops to Iraq, but how? Sending 15,000 to 30,000 more troops is a temporary slow down of violence, and in time we'll have to send many of those back home on leave. What makes McCain think a temporary fix will cause a long-term resolution?

Quote:
McCain calls for more troops in Iraq By THOMAS WAGNER, Associated Press Writer
Thu Dec 14, 10:13 AM ET
...

I think the problem is not solvable by more troops. I think it solvable by the right kind of troops. I think we should replace a large number of regular forces in Iraq with special forces capable of focused and competent covert operations to destroy the bad guys in Iraq.

0 Replies

That won't help either, for reasons I've outlined in the past.

We will not kill our way out of this mess!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

ican, You've been missin the Bush rhetoric about "success in Iraq" after he read the ISG report.

Bush's rhetoric is irrelevant. I haven't missed it (unfortunately). I have ignored it. What is relevant is what is the best way to solve:
"Changing the Middle East for the better ... one of the most difficult challenges in world politics."

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

That won't help either, for reasons I've outlined in the past.

We will not kill our way out of this mess!

Cycloptichorn

Your reasons for why you think, "We will not kill our way out of this mess" are themselves absent relevance to your conclusion.

You have merely advocated that the USA leave Iraq and leave the solution to its problem to the Iraq good guys who currently lack the capability to kill their way out of this mess. You may think the Iraq good guys can talk the Iraq bad guys into stopping the murder of the Iraq good guys. Iraq history suggests the talk method will not succeed in stopping such murder. The best that can be achieved by such talk is for the Iraq good guys to end up capitulating again to their tyrannical systematic murder by the Iraq bad guys.

The covert strategy implemented by the USA military that I have advocated, has worked several times in the past in stopping bad guys from tyrannizing good guys in other countries.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
That won't help either, for reasons I've outlined in the past.

We will not kill our way out of this mess!

Cycloptichorn

Your reasons for why you think, "We will not kill our way out of this mess" are themselves absent relevance to your conclusion.

You have merely advocated that the USA leave Iraq and leave the solution to its problem to the Iraq good guys who currently lack the capability to kill their way out of this mess. You may think the Iraq good guys can talk the Iraq bad guys into stopping the murder of the Iraq good guys. Iraq history suggests the talk method will not succeed in stopping such murder. The best that can be achieved by such talk is for the Iraq good guys to end up capitulating again to their tyrannical systematic murder by the Iraq bad guys.

The covert strategy implemented by the USA military that I have advocated, has worked several times in the past in stopping bad guys from tyrannizing good guys in other countries.

It has worked several times in the past?

A covert strategy of blowing up the homes of suspected insurgents and militia members?

Where has this worked in the past? And you'd better not say WW2, because we most certainly did not have a covert strategy of blowing up houses of suspected insurgents and militia members.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

By the way,

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. - John Kenneth Galbraith[/quote]

The modern liberal is engaged in man's oldest exercise in moral philosophy: that is the search for a superior moral justification for stealing. - ican711nm.

0 Replies

Is that anything like the Jews stealing the property of Palestinians?

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...

ican711nm wrote:
The covert strategy implemented by the USA military that I have advocated, has worked several times in the past in stopping bad guys from tyrannizing good guys in other countries.

It has worked several times in the past?

A covert strategy of blowing up the homes of suspected insurgents and militia members?

Where has this worked in the past? And you'd better not say WW2, because we most certainly did not have a covert strategy of blowing up houses of suspected insurgents and militia members.

Cycloptichorn

Your use of terms like insurgents and militia members does not change the fact that we are talking about bad guys. Remember, my definition of bad guys is: bad guys are people who deliberately kill non-killers. Remember, my definition of good guys is: good guys are people who do not deliberately kill non-killers. Sometimes in an effort to save good guys, good guys deliberately kill bad guys. Sometimes in an effort to save good guys, good guys risk killing good guys when they deliberately kill bad guys.

In helping win WWII, our covert forces helped save good guys by risking killing good guys while destroying buildings suspected of containing bad guys.

In helping win a few Central American civil wars, our covert forces helped save good guys by risking killing good guys while destroying buildings suspected of containing bad guys.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know