Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "It took 100 years and a Civil War for the United States to evolve as a democratic republic. What makes us think we can force Iraq to be an effective government in a matter of a few years?" Excellent point.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip You would basically have to level Sadr city in Baghdad and take down other cities dominated by insurgents. There would be virtually no way of doing this without killing 100's of thousands of innocent people. If we were determined to win even at that cost we could win it by then end of next week. But we're not willing to win at that cost (thank God), which means we will not win at all. Period. As for anyone who has loved ones in the war; I honor their sacrifice and know that they have no choice in what wars they fight. They are committed to serving their country no matter what the cause and that is as is should be. But as a father who at one time had a son in the Navy; I would have been heartbroken to see him put in harms way for a war with no purpose... a war that WE started.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip ^^^ Copy/Paste error resulted in incomplete post. Here is what I meant to post: <<We can win in Iraq...>> Sadly, I don't think we can. Yes, I know we "won" in Afghanistan. But there we brought down a GOVERNMENT, not an insurgency. Big difference. We brought down the government of Iraq over three years ago. But there is really no way of defeating an insurgency unless we are willing to kill a large percentage of the population. You would basically have to level Sadr city in Baghdad and take down other cities dominated by insurgents. There would be virtually no way of doing this without killing 100's of thousands of innocent people. If we were determined to win even at that cost we could win it by then end of next week. But we're not willing to win at that cost (thank God), which means we will not win at all. Period. As for anyone who has loved ones in the war; I honor their sacrifice and know that they have no choice in what wars they fight. They are committed to serving their country no matter what the cause and that is as is should be. But as a father who at one time had a son in the Navy; I would have been heartbroken to see him put in harms way for a war with no purpose... a war that WE started.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>It took 100 years and a Civil War for the United States to evolve as a democratic republic.<< It was a lot longer than that. Our roots stretch back to the Greek experiment in Democracy, the Roman system of government, and the old Scandinavian concepts of the Thing. (Their legislative bodies, made up of men in the community, with elected leadership.) There was also the Magna Carta, and the English Civil War. And many of those who fled England during the Restoration - those who didn't want a monarchy - landed in America a generation before the Revolution. Iraq has no history like this. They've never had a representative government or the idea that the governed have a right to have a say in how they are governed. We've had that ideal for over 2000 years, at least on some level.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Another insurmountable problem is having religion intertwined with government. The root cause of the violence in iraq is religious conflicts. Each perpetrator feels that they are on a blessed mission ordained by god, and who's going to tell them that they're wrong? Not us - we're the heathen christian imperialists, and have zero credibility.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj In reality, the only reason this administration has to escalate the war is the futile effort to prevent U.S. GDP growth from going negative in the next quarter. The recession is upon us, and our leaders seem to think that if they print more money that we don't have in the bank we'll buoy the economy out of its slump. With housing, manufacturing, and commodity sectors already in recession, defense and government spending are the only games in town left to manipulate in the effort to pump up the economy.
Originally Posted By ecdc "The solution to Vietnam was giving the South Vietnam the support they needed so that they could defend themselves. That's what the policy became under President Nixon, and it was working. Unfortunately we withdrew that support too soon, with disastrous results." Yowsah! Where's Doug when you need him to call historical revisionism? It wasn't working under Nixon at all. We lost over 15,000 between 1969-1972 in Vietnam. Is that the "support" you're talking about? Is that what you'd like to see in Iraq? We'll just keep our support there until 15,000 Americans are dead? And what if we had stayed in Vietnam? How many more would have died? Another 15,000 until 1980 maybe? But hey, gotta support 'em. We're not just talking about money here, Douglas (though we've wasted plenty of that, too). And although conservatives still here in the States seem to think support equals putting that "Support Our Troops" magnet on their car, it's a bit more. These are American men and women cut down in the prime of their lives for a battle we won't win. And if we do, it's still not worth it. Period.
Originally Posted By alexbook "Support Our Troops: Bring Them Home" (Saw that bumper sticker on a soldier's grandmother's car.)
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It wasn't working under Nixon at all. We lost over 15,000 between 1969-1972 in Vietnam.> While every death is a tragedy, it's not the way to measure success or failure in a war. Considering we lost a lot more than 15,000 in the years before President Nixon took charge of the war, I'd say his tactic worked a lot better than his predecessor's. <And what if we had stayed in Vietnam? How many more would have died?> At that point, it wasn't a matter of "staying" in Vietnam. It was a matter of giving them air support and monetary support. The same can be true of Iraq. <We're not just talking about money here, Douglas (though we've wasted plenty of that, too).> It won't be wasted if we succeed. Here's a newsflash, we would have spent a lot of money even if we hadn't invaded.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> Considering we lost a lot more than 15,000 in the years before President Nixon took charge of the war, I'd say his tactic worked a lot better than his predecessor's. << You constantly surprise me with the way your logic works. My mind could never even come up with some of these things you post - I'm just not wired that way.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <My mind could never even come up with some of these things you post - I'm just not wired that way.> Thanks for the compliment.
Originally Posted By jonvn "You would basically have to level Sadr city in Baghdad and take down other cities dominated by insurgents. " Yes. The only way we'll do anything there is if we add not 20,000 troops, but 200,000 troops and basically destroy the entire country and wipe out entire cities where insurgents exist. This is what we need to do to win. If we are not willing to do that, we need to leave. This is what we did in France. They had a German occupying army. We didn't try to flush them out, we actually destroyed French towns and reduced them to rubble to get rid of the Germans. We did the same in Germany. I'm sure we've all seen pictures of what was left of the country after we were done with it. Basically, nothing was left. That's what we have to do here. We went into Germany and that was their home country. We are now in Iraq, and that is their home country. We did it there, we could do it in Iraq. You have to be willing to do what is necessary to win, or you do not win, period. And if you are not willing to do what it takes to win, then you need to pull up stakes and leave, because you're just wasting time, money, and lives.
Originally Posted By jonvn This is the problem, then, you see. We are in the country, and killing people. You don't do that unless you are at war with them. Ever hear like how if you try to please everyone, you please no one? Well, that's what we are doing now. Either you do or you don't do (to quote Yoda). Get it there, blast them to pieces--killing every last single person who could be a threat, and rebuild from scratch, or get the heck out and let them be. One way or the other. Either way is better than what we are doing now. A lot of people on here, the LIBERALS!!! would want us to just leave. That's a perfectly viable option. I personally think that another option is to go in there with overwhelming force and kill. Kill everyone who might possibly be a threat. Wipe them out. That's a much tougher stance than I think people are willing to take, though. We'd have to kill an awful lot of them. But I think we could do it. I don't know if we have the will or the interest, or the moral imperative, though. So, failing that, we need to just get out, and let the people in Iraq sort it out for themselves. Maybe there will be an "ethnic cleansing" maybe there will be a solution that doesn't involve millions of deaths. But one way or another, we are not going to be part of it, and we need to just leave. What we are doing now is not helping to find a solution.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 "In reality, the only reason this administration has to escalate the war is the futile effort to prevent U.S. GDP growth from going negative in the next quarter. The recession is upon us, and our leaders seem to think that if they print more money that we don't have in the bank we'll buoy the economy out of its slump. With housing, manufacturing, and commodity sectors already in recession, defense and government spending are the only games in town left to manipulate in the effort to pump up the economy." Really, mrichmond, where do come up with this absurd stuff?
Originally Posted By mrichmondj ^^ I don't really come up with it. That's pretty much the standard story on every macroeconomics website today. The Wall Street Journal doesn't dare put it on their front page yet -- they'll wait until the stock market crashes and the small investor gets hurt before they report the bad news.
