Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
OT--new candidate
Mark Browne wrote:
"NOYB" wrote in message news "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message om... "Mark Browne" wrote in message news:9dR9b.369154 Now, back to the issue at hand - you did not answer my question: What sorts of signs would you accept that things are not working out - at what point would you make the call that it *is* time to cut and run? I certainly *did* answer your question: "We remain in our bases indefinitely to assure that no Baathists seize the country via a coup. If the newly democratically-elected government feels secure enough and asks us to leave, then we should consider leaving." You did NOT answer his question: "What sorts of signs would you accept that things are not working out - at what point would you make the call that it *is* time to cut and run?" I'd cut and run only if Saddam Hussein reemerges and is welcomed with open arms by the majority of the population. In any other scenario, we stay. So you are willing to run the country into the ground for an ideological point. For details - See the Soviet example in Afghanistan. Unless of course, you are able to explain how this is going to turn out different. Please explain in detail, using fully formed concepts. The underlying truth of the rebel actions is that it is *much* easier to break things then it is to fix them. We spend weeks of hair pulling effort to get something working - they blow it up in an hour. It is not physically possible to guard the infrastructure of an entire country. Efforts to do so are doomed; we want to use fewer people, not more. What are we going to do that the Soviets did not? Clams will like the part about the Soviets brutal punishment of the natives for attacks. The problems is that this provided an endless stream of converts to the rebel cause. While we would like the country to see things our way, the "freedom fighters" in Iraq seem to have other ideas. For the US to win, they have to do what we want them to do - quit! All the Iraqis fighters have to do is keep the USA engaged until we spend ourselves to death. With people like you around, they may be able to pull it off. But if we pull out now, they win, period. You do realise the psychological damage that would do to our cause and the credibility damage that it would bring to our military and our ability to "get the job done"? We are in a bad situation. You are suggesting that we cut our losses, and pull out. But you are not considering the emotional boost that this will give to terrorists the world over. It would send a loud and clear message that we do not have the stomach for this type of war, and that we're at their mercy. I'd rather drop a nuke or two than pull out in shame..... It's pretty much a given that these people don't like us. I personally don't care if they do "like" us as long as, either through respect or fear, they leave us alone. With that goal in mind, our options open up a bit. Which brings us to your earlier point about this being an unwinnable situation. In order for "negotiations", rather than battles to occur, both sides need a face saving "out" in order to change the direction of the campaign. Capitulation would be seen as a sign of weakness. There would have to be something which allows us to pull out gracefully, while not giving in to terrorists. I can't see any way to pull that off as of yet. Dave |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
OT--new candidate
snip
While we would like the country to see things our way, the "freedom fighters" in Iraq seem to have other ideas. For the US to win, they have to do what we want them to do - quit! All the Iraqis fighters have to do is keep the USA engaged until we spend ourselves to death. With people like you around, they may be able to pull it off. But if we pull out now, they win, period. You do realise the psychological damage that would do to our cause and the credibility damage that it would bring to our military and our ability to "get the job done"? We are in a bad situation. You are suggesting that we cut our losses, and pull out. Not yet. I *was* suggesting that we not get mired in this before it started. You seemed to think that was a bad idea then; can you remember that far back? Does it sound like such a bad idea now? Since we *are* in it - our goal should be to minimize loses while getting the job done. The administration is still trying to hang on to control while asking for assistance. Why in the world would anybody get involved without getting a piece of the action? Exactly how stupid does little Bush think the rest of the world is? It is getting to be time to suck it up and pass the baton to the UN. That means that it is time to let them have some say in how things are done. It means loosening our grip on potential oil supplies and rebuilding contracts. End of story. But you are not considering the emotional boost that this will give to terrorists the world over. It would send a loud and clear message that we do not have the stomach for this type of war, and that we're at their mercy. For someone who does not do much reading and has never spent any time talking to these people, you seem to know a lot about the psychology of the Arab people. Not! Just how stupid do you think these people are? I don't think they need the USA to tell them if they are winning or loosing - they can figure these things out for themselves.They already know that the emperor has no clothes! I'd rather drop a nuke or two than pull out in shame..... It's pretty much a given that these people don't like us. Kill them to liberate them - Where have I heard that before? In any case - the population was ruthlessly oppressed by a small group before we dropped by. Now you want to continue the oppression of these people by nuking them? Dave, you should be ashamed! So how would you better than Saddam? Would it buy our security? I think not. On the other hand, it might turn a lot of people that did not care one way or the other into vengeful enemies. If you remember the OK city bombing, some of the ****ed off people might even be American citizens! I personally don't care if they do "like" us as long as, either through respect or fear, they leave us alone. With that goal in mind, our options open up a bit. I don't think they respect or fear us. Actually, I think that they are laughing at us! They *are* just killing us; the longer we stay there, the better they will get at it. At this point, little Bush has driven us into a box - We have very few viable options. I did outline them in march while the war was still running hot. http://www.google.com/groups?q=end+g...nsc04&rnum= 1 Do you see *any* other options besides the ones outlined? Which brings us to your earlier point about this being an unwinnable situation. In order for "negotiations", rather than battles to occur, both sides need a face saving "out" in order to change the direction of the campaign. Negotiations? Now there's a hoot! Um, who do you intend to talk to? What embassy do you go to? What do you have to offer that is better then *them* winning? Can you think of any carrot that they might go for? Capitulation would be seen as a sign of weakness. Who are we trying to kid? We can run our country into the ground without ever impressing them. Do you have any idea what *they* are thinking? I do spend some time reading some of what is available on the web and exchanging the odd email with Arab friends. I don't think we are making the impression you are hoping for. There would have to be something which allows us to pull out gracefully, while not giving in to terrorists. I can't see any way to pull that off as of yet. Why would *they* negotiate? We are in the loosing position. *They* are very aware of that. All they have to do is more of what they are doing. As I have stated before, this area has been invaded several times and the locals have formed some very effective strategies. They have driven off every super power that has dropped by. All we can do at this point is loose more money and people without any possibility of winning. We can't get to the people behind this without killing everybody. They *do* know that. In the revolutionary war the rascally colonists refused to stand and fight like they were supposed to; instead they hid behind trees and killed lots of red coats. The administrations "dash to Baghdad" killed anybody that opposed us, and left all tens of thousands of soldiers in the field. Now *they* stage 15 or so raids a day, blow up a power station or town hall, and fade back into the crowd. This is much better for them than standing and fighting in the open desert like we hoped they would. Instead they hide behind the civilian population and kill some US soldiers. Do you see any parallels here? Mark Browne PS - I told you so! |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
OT--new candidate
Mark Browne wrote:
snip While we would like the country to see things our way, the "freedom fighters" in Iraq seem to have other ideas. For the US to win, they have to do what we want them to do - quit! All the Iraqis fighters have to do is keep the USA engaged until we spend ourselves to death. With people like you around, they may be able to pull it off. But if we pull out now, they win, period. You do realise the psychological damage that would do to our cause and the credibility damage that it would bring to our military and our ability to "get the job done"? We are in a bad situation. You are suggesting that we cut our losses, and pull out. Not yet. I *was* suggesting that we not get mired in this before it started. You seemed to think that was a bad idea then; can you remember that far back? Does it sound like such a bad idea now? Since we *are* in it - our goal should be to minimize loses while getting the job done. Which is what we are doing. Do you think we are intentionally letting our soldiers get killed? What the leftist pravda news does not report, is the covert operations which are attempting to route out the "bad guys", as well as much of the other background duties that are being performed. The administration is still trying to hang on to control while asking for assistance. Why in the world would anybody get involved without getting a piece of the action? Because WE are the ones who are taking the biggest pounding. Do you think we should hand the spoils over to the wimps like France and Germany (Who had their own self serving reasons to oppose the war) when they did nothing to earn the right? Exactly how stupid does little Bush think the rest of the world is? It is getting to be time to suck it up and pass the baton to the UN. The UN!?!? The UN has no power other than what our military is willing to sign on to. What can the UN accomplish that we cannot? What, is the French military going to do something that we have not been able to? That means that it is time to let them have some say in how things are done. And if the UN becomes involved, it will magically eliminate terrorist action? How naive can you be? Most Iraqis and Arabs alike consider the UN to be a puppet of the U.S. anyway, at least when it comes to physical might. It means loosening our grip on potential oil supplies and rebuilding contracts. You guys on the left just can't seem to let go of this issue. End of story. Nothing is ever that easy. But you are not considering the emotional boost that this will give to terrorists the world over. It would send a loud and clear message that we do not have the stomach for this type of war, and that we're at their mercy. For someone who does not do much reading and has never spent any time talking to these people, you seem to know a lot about the psychology of the Arab people. I never said that I don't read. That was Doug who promoted THAT rumor. I read ALOT, I just don't read fiction stories, or trite "artsy" forms of literature. There are far more intriguing true stories to read. I was not refering to the psychology of the Arab paople specifically, but rather the perception, that us pulling out with our tails between our legs, would give to the rest of the world. Just how stupid do you think these people are? Judging from the many leftists, with their naive and idealistic attitudes in this country, statistically there's bound to be a few in Iraq as well. I don't think they need the USA to tell them if they are winning or loosing - they can figure these things out for themselves.They already know that the emperor has no clothes! But at what cost? We all know that there are warped Arabs, who are willing to strap on a bomb and take themselves out in the name of Jihad. How many family memebrs will die before these people start to question the sense of their actions? I'd rather drop a nuke or two than pull out in shame..... It's pretty much a given that these people don't like us. Kill them to liberate them - Where have I heard that before? Not liberate them. We're trying that now. If they don't want freedom, and instead declare "Jihad" on us, then it becomes a battle of survival of the fittest. Us or them. Who do you vote for? In any case - the population was ruthlessly oppressed by a small group before we dropped by. Now you want to continue the oppression of these people by nuking them? Then those people should rise up in opposition to those who are fighting a terroristic battle plan against us. Only the most paranoid, xenophobic radical Islamic, would stand in the way of progress. Dave, you should be ashamed! So how would you better than Saddam? Would it buy our security? I think not. No? If they're all dead, who will carry out terrorist acts against us? On the other hand, it might turn a lot of people that did not care one way or the other into vengeful enemies. If you remember the OK city bombing, some of the ****ed off people might even be American citizens! There has been a good deal of evidence that suggests that Tim McVeigh was "enouraged" by Iraqi agents who were all too happy to have an American face to place on their actions. Tim Mc Veigh fit the psychological profile almost perfectly for someone to be recruited into a terrorist cell (Or a religious cult for that matter). He had esteem issues, he felt disenfranchised, he was an underachiever. Oh, and since I'll anticipate your next question, here's the link: http://www.marsearthconnection.com/okc.html I personally don't care if they do "like" us as long as, either through respect or fear, they leave us alone. With that goal in mind, our options open up a bit. I don't think they respect or fear us. Actually, I think that they are laughing at us! They *are* just killing us; the longer we stay there, the better they will get at it. So will we. At this point, little Bush has driven us into a box - We have very few viable options. I did outline them in march while the war was still running hot. This war was inevitable. Sometime in the future we would have to deal with this threat. How do you effectively fight a target which is not well defined? You have two choices; Dialogue, or military action. For dialogue to be effective and meaningful, there has to be something to be gained and lost which can be negotiated through the art of compromise. If your enemy refuses to play the game, then what is left? http://www.google.com/groups?q=end+g...nsc04&rnum= 1 Do you see *any* other options besides the ones outlined? Most of those solutions are the obvious ones. Each is fraught with the problems of uncertainty, and lacks a "rewind" mechanism to use when we find that it wasn't the best solution. Which brings us to your earlier point about this being an unwinnable situation. In order for "negotiations", rather than battles to occur, both sides need a face saving "out" in order to change the direction of the campaign. Negotiations? Now there's a hoot! Um, who do you intend to talk to? What embassy do you go to? What do you have to offer that is better then *them* winning? Can you think of any carrot that they might go for? Who says they are winning? They might be putting up a good battle, but they are self destructing themselves in the process. When it is all said and done, and if they do succeed in forcing us out, what will they have to show for it, besides knowing that they bested the best military in the world? Their land will be in ruin, their population decimated. Is pride THAT important? Capitulation would be seen as a sign of weakness. Who are we trying to kid? We can run our country into the ground without ever impressing them. Do you have any idea what *they* are thinking? Not directly, but I do know human nature to some degree. I do spend some time reading some of what is available on the web That's suspect already. How do you know what you read on the web reflects the actual feelings of anyone besides the bias of the writer? and exchanging the odd email with Arab friends. That's probably a little more reliable, depending on the insight of the particular Arab. Judging from the correspondance that I've read, a great many Iraqi's are grateful that we removed Saddam for them. They just don't want us hanging around. If the terrorists would stop mucking up the rebuilding effort, then we'd be out of there that much sooner. All the more reason why the Iraqi people should dime these radicals out. There would have to be something which allows us to pull out gracefully, while not giving in to terrorists. I can't see any way to pull that off as of yet. Why would *they* negotiate? We are in the loosing position. How do you figure? We can blow them back into the next century, if we decide to. They would be making a great gamble, on just how far they can push us before we decide that we've finally had enough. *They* are very aware of that. As long as you guys on the left continue to erode our resolve at home, then they can bank on it. Otherwise, they have a lot to fear. They have guys like you to thank for their will to stand up to us. Your country owes you a great debt....... All they have to do is more of what they are doing. As I have stated before, this area has been invaded several times and the locals have formed some very effective strategies. They have driven off every super power that has dropped by. When was the last superpower in Iraq? All we can do at this point is loose more money and people without any possibility of winning. You are really pessimistic aren't you? Is this a result of just wanting the Bush Doctrine to fail, or are you just not willing to fight for a good cause? If we all were to adopt your attitude, we might as well disable our whole military, since you seem to feel that it would be ineffective against the "new wave" warriors. We can't get to the people behind this without killing everybody. They *do* know that. And they should fear that, since we have the capability to do just that. In the revolutionary war the rascally colonists refused to stand and fight like they were supposed to; instead they hid behind trees and killed lots of red coats. The administrations "dash to Baghdad" killed anybody that opposed us, and left all tens of thousands of soldiers in the field. Now *they* stage 15 or so raids a day, blow up a power station or town hall, and fade back into the crowd. This is much better for them than standing and fighting in the open desert like we hoped they would. Instead they hide behind the civilian population and kill some US soldiers. Do you see any parallels here? Then we should adopt their own tactics against them. We too should fade into the background and track and apprehend each and every terrorist we can find. Dave |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
OT--new candidate
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... What the leftist pravda news does not report, "Pravda"? Holy smokes! Dave has a new word! It means loosening our grip on potential oil supplies and rebuilding contracts. You guys on the left just can't seem to let go of this issue. Forget "potential oil supplies" and focus on "rebuilding contracts". You don't think it's just a tad tasteless (and arrogant and stupid) to bomb the snots out of a country, and then restrict the rebuilding process (smirk) to a handful of political cronies? I never said that I don't read. That was Doug who promoted THAT rumor. It's a rumor? How many family memebrs will die before these people start to question the sense of their actions? A whole lot more will die. You're only able to think like a Westerner. Johnson....Nixon...Bush....Dave Hall...all the same. That's why we got hammered so badly in Vietnam. You cannot understand that other cultures don't view war, death and victory/defeat the way we do. If an invading force was marching through your neck of the woods, you would do exactly what the Iraqis "terrorists" are doing. Not liberate them. We're trying that now. If they don't want freedom, and instead declare "Jihad" on us, then it becomes a battle of survival of the fittest. Us or them. Who do you vote for? Get out, and begin inflicting enormous financial pain on the Saudis through voluntary oil use reduction by Americans. ...OK...just get a little more worm on the hook so it doesn't get nibbled off in tiny pieces... Then those people should rise up in opposition to those who are fighting a terroristic battle plan against us. "Terroristic" ??? Bush-Bot Alert! Your monkey-leader is begin to affect your mind, Dave. I wonder if mind control can be considered a biologicalular weapon. Dave, you should be ashamed! So how would you better than Saddam? Would it buy our security? I think not. No? If they're all dead, who will carry out terrorist acts against us? If WHO is all dead, Dave? Everyone in Iraq? Or, are you dreaming about tiny nuclear weapons that only "take out" half a building or a car? apologies for "take out", a favorite term of the impotent right-wing I don't think they respect or fear us. Actually, I think that they are laughing at us! They *are* just killing us; the longer we stay there, the better they will get at it. So will we. Well, our soldiers are getting to the point where they aren't too thrilled about being outdoors in Iraq. For some people, mostly TV droid/couch potatoes, that's fine, but some folks like to walk around. Not being able to do that sorta makes them depressed or crazy or both. Bad for morale. At this point, little Bush has driven us into a box - We have very few viable options. I did outline them in march while the war was still running hot. This war was inevitable. Sometime in the future we would have to deal with this threat. How do you effectively fight a target which is not well defined? You have two choices; Dialogue, or military action. For dialogue to be effective and meaningful, there has to be something to be gained and lost which can be negotiated through the art of compromise. If your enemy refuses to play the game, then what is left? Sigh...you are intensely stupid, Dave. You say the target is not well-defined, but a war was inevitable. You know that the 9/11 gang was primarily made up of Saudis. Your chump leader says there was no clear connection between 9/11 and Iraq. So, no target, dead bad guys from country A, no clear finger pointing at country B, so it's inevitable that we invade country B. We have a logic bomb here. If I give you ten bucks, would you pith yourself, please? * *1 a : to kill (as cattle) by piercing or severing the spinal cord b : to destroy the spinal cord or central nervous system of (as a frog) usually by passing a wire or needle up and down the vertebral canal |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
OT--new candidate
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
... But if we pull out now, they win, period. You do realise the psychological damage that would do to our cause and the credibility damage that it would bring to our military and our ability to "get the job done"? We are in a bad situation. You are suggesting that we cut our losses, and pull out. News flash: We were in a bad situation the moment your leader, who thinks he's playing a video game, first opened his mouth and began sabre rattling. That was long before the first shots were fired, but from that moment on, he put us in a position where there was no turning back. "Bad situation"? That was obvious to a whole lot of people long ago, Dave. The enemy could've been crumbled in other ways: 1) Having their leaders snuffed out in spooky ways, like that truck we nailed with a drone-launched bomb in Sudan or wherever the hell it was. 2) Telling a few of those countries that they can rot in their own **** for all we care (a policy that's even suggested by some progressive Arab thinkers who've had it up to here with the extremist whiners). But...no. When you're the president and your need for a constant erection can only be satisfied by scenarios resembling something from "Ghost Recon", you have to go to war to be satisfied. Question: If we had to kiss Saudi Arabia goodbye for a few years as an oil supplier, and ask Americans to immediately find ways to sacrifice by driving their cars 30% less, do you think we'd do it, or would we prefer to send our kids overseas to be killed? |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|