ucrzymofo87 wrote:Your argument is convoluted and it is an attempt to say that since we armed the terrorists to fight the Soviets, we should not fight them after they attack us.
No, I never said that. Please read and comprehend my post before responding.
I said that the United States is suffering from the short-sighted strategy it employed in the Cold War. Perhaps we would be well served by considering the long term implications of foreign policy in the future so as to avoid these sorts of consequences.
ucrzymofo87 wrote:The Afghan rebels were essential to defeating the Soviet Union in the Cold War.
Even Dr. Phillip Zelikow, chair of the 9-11 commission and a former high level advisor in the first Bush Administration thought the Afghan rebels were unnecessary and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan of little import.
ucrzymofo87 wrote:If you would have what you want, the United States would leave Iraq to the terrorists, Iran would be more emboldened to throw its weight around, and our allies would no longer respect us to keep our promises.
No, I never said that. Please read and comprehend my post before responding.
I question why Iraq instead of the many other more pressing security concerns.
I question why Iraq instead of the many other more pressing humanitarian concerns.
I question why we didn't commit enough troops to Iraq to put down the insurgency in its infancy.
I question why we didn't consider the larger implications of an occupied Iraq before we got involved.
But I have never and will never suggest in any way that Iraq would be better off in the hands of "terrorists."
Firstly, Iraq is not a disaster. We are winning the war there.
We don't even know who we're fighting any more. We've botched this bad and now we have to live with the consequences. How are we winning? What is winning? Under what conditions have we won? No bombings in... what... a month? Two months? There is no victory condition and thus there can BE NO VICTORY. It sucks, I wish that Bush would figure out what my countrymen are dieing for so that they can accomplish it and come home.
We have successfully held two elections where the Iraqis have elected their government.
Hitler, Napoleon, and Mussolini also held elections. Lets find a better yard-stick by which to measure success eh?
American and coalition casualties have been minimal compared to past wars.
I assume you mean minimal, with the exception of the following wars/military actions [
source]
Operation Secure Tomorow (Haiti)
Operation El Dorado Canyon (Libya)
Operation Allied Force (Kosovo)
Korean Expedition (Shinmiyangyo)
Operation Uphold Democracy (Hati)
Operation Eagle Claw (Iran)
All anti-pirate actions in the 19th Century
Bosnia
Operation Urgen Fury (Grenada)
The Quasi-War
The El-Salvador Civil War
The Barbary Wars
The Boxer Rebellion
The Persian Gulf Escords
Operation Just Cause (Panama)
Operation Restore Hope (Somalia)
Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghani and Philipine theaters)
The Beirut Deployment
The Polar Bear Expedition (Russia)
The Persian Gulf War
Second, if the world community shows unity and demands Iran abandon their nuclear efforts, then they would be compelled to face military action or be forever excluded from world affairs.
That's a big if - and thanks to our extended deployments in Iraq we're unable to respond militarily -- how long do you imagine it will take Iran to build a bomb? Once they have one, is attacking them really a wise idea?
By respect, I hope you don't mean bend over and grab our ankles in front of the Iranians (which you probably do believe we should do). We have to show that we are determined to make sure they do not have nuclear weapons, otherwise they will feed off of our division and make even more dangerous threats. As I said earlier, there is more danger to them having nuclear weapons that most people realize.
Given my fairly extensive expertise in the field of Cold War history, I think we can safely assume that I am conversant with the dangers of a nuclear Iran. Are you? Seriously – how far do you think Iran is from a nuclear weapon. Assuming Iran is able to produce such a weapon, at what point is it no longer advisable to attack them? What considerations must be taken for dispersal of radioactive materials?
I’ve spent years of my life studying this kind of problem in an academic environment with some of the brightest minds on the planet. Upon what do you base your lofty tone?
In this statement, you make an even better case for why the Iranians should not have nuclear weapons. They can pawn these weapons off to terrorists, with whom we know Iran is fairly chummy with. Islamic radicals with nuclear weapons is not something I think we can afford to wait and see what the effects are.
Islamic radicals with Soviet Era engineered doomsday plagues are the kind of thing we can’t afford. Iran, incidentally, already has those viruses. I should think that securing those bio-weapons would be a high priority for us. How, exactly, does your clearly well thought out strategy of “lots of bombs” address this issue? I’m aware of several ways to deal with this threat – but you’ve certainly approached this as if you have all the answers, so what would you suggest? Keep in mind that if the Iranians stall long enough they get to keep their nasty superflu and get pretty bombs to go with it.
There is a difference between "knocking over another Middle Eastern country" and making precision air strikes to take out specific targets.
Precision air strikes like the one that took out a civilian family earlier this month? With precision like that, who needs carpet bombing?
You can also say that no President who has lost the popular vote in an election ever won reelection, wait, except of course for George W. Bush. Democracy is not being implanted on Iraq. If the Iraqis did not want to vote, they did not have to vote. They turned out in fantastic numbers to elect their own government. I think by any stretch of the imagination, they have adopted democracy.
The historical jurry is still out on both of those “wins.” Voting isn’t enough to guarantee the self perpetuation of a democratic system. If you’re right though, we can pull out tomorrow with no problems, after all – they’ve voted, and that means they’re peace-loving westerners now – right?
Killfile wrote:Your desperate mudslinging doesn't make your argument any stronger; and telling lies only makes you look like a xenophobic politico. I'm not aware of anyone on the left who's actually hoping for defeat in Iraq. Several people have predicted it, but let's not rush to shoot the messenger just yet. Cough up - let's see your evidence on that claim.
Howard Dean the leader of the Democrat party said in a radio interview quote, "The idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong."
source
If that is not defeatism, I do not know what else you can call it. Now, compare that with George Bush who said, "I know we're going to win' in Iraq.
source
Way to prove my point. Care to try again? Read, comprehend, respond – that’s the way it’s done. You seem to be skipping that middle step.
WMDs were not the only issue in the war.
They were the only issue that Bush was able to sell to the US population – too bad it was a lie.
There was also, "Saddam was asked to stop threatening Iraq's neighbors and fomenting instability in the region.
Yes, because it was Saddam who’s created instability in the region. The number of terrorist attacks has more than tripled since we invaded Iraq according to the Bush administrations own numbers.
Any survey of Iraqi propaganda under Saddam would show it as a means of fomenting hatred against many Arab governments, thus acting against the region's peace and stability."
So it’s just like Fox News?
Also, no American general requested more troops to fight the war in Iraq, so your solution to add more troops would have been counter-productive to waging the war. Good job.
What about General Nash – who was asked to retire after he expressed concerns that the troops estimates were far too low?
MacArthur was let go for a number of reasons – not the least of which was his desire to use nuclear weapons to win the war. JFK inherited the Bay of Pigs fiasco from Eisenhower and ordered US air cover back when he received word that there might be Soviet troops on the ground in Cuba (which would have ended badly for everyone). LBJ’s continuance of Vietnam, while easy to criticize now, years later, was a decision to which there is still no easy answer.
Any claims that Reagan won the Cold War are inherently flawed in that they fail to grasp the significance of Gorby’s reforms – which his biographers will tell you were wholly independent of Reagan and his policies.