- This topic has 5 voices and 26 replies.
-
Posts
-
A foriegn policy defeat, oh yes. Not a defeat of American ideals. The two things are mutually exclusive.
Well, I simply point to the kind of elections existing now compared to what existed under Saddam Hussein. More according to American ideals, IMO. I don't think it's a stretch to think that elections would be changed again if ISIS started running the show. But this is beside the point...I still think it's a case of the Muslim world vs. Non-Muslim world, at least in terms of what the groups represent or who they side with.
I could care less about the thorny moral issue. The only thing those people over there understand is brute force. We tried to be nice and what did it get us? We could have installed another puppet tyrant to replace Saddam and let him take out the trash for us. Yes I wish the Iraqis could have maintained their freedom, but it's not worth American treasure and blood to keep that wretched nation patched together.
I don't think the Iraqis are worth another drop of American blood either. I just think it is a crying shame that the deaths and pain suffered by myself and friends of mine is being allowed to go down the toilet by the likes of the current president. I lost friends over there and it pisses me off to see their deaths wasted.
I could care less about the thorny moral issue. The only thing those people over there understand is brute force. We tried to be nice and what did it get us?
So sounds like you'd have no problem dropping a nuke on them, right? I mean if we're not concerned about morals and need to use brute force.... Ok, ok, I know you wouldn't suggest that. I also agree that the Iraqis need to step up sooner or later and take charge of their own situation. There's really only so much the U.S. can do.
So sounds like you'd have no problem dropping a nuke on them, right? I mean if we're not concerned about morals and need to use brute force.... Ok, ok, I know you wouldn't suggest that. I also agree that the Iraqis need to step up sooner or later and take charge of their own situation. There's really only so much the U.S. can do.
Actually, I have suggested nuking them in all seriousness. I would frame it as a demand and a threat at first though. Something like a demand to non-terrorist Muslims (there are some), that they round up and take care of the extremists by a date certain and if they do not, we nuke a Middle Eastern city of our choice unless they do. Further cities would be nuked for every terrorist attack that occurs after that until either terrorism stops or we turn the fertile crescent into a glass parking lot. I don't even think that is extreme since the terrorists will happily nuke a western city if they ever get their hands on one.I don't think we have been ruthless enough when it comes to terrorism. I think we have to be better at terror than they are. I would actually track down and execute the families of suicide bombers. How many more volunteers do you think they would have if we started doing that? The only thing terrorists understand is terror so why should we not give it back in spades?I am not bloodthirsty, but I do think we should act decisively to make terrorism such a painful proposition that no-one will dare attack us.
I also agree that the Iraqis need to step up sooner or later and take charge of their own situation.
That's the thing, though. They are. This is just how psychopathic, third world Muslim extremists do it. And unfortunately, that's what most Middle East/African nations are. This COIN or "moral" warfare garbage hasn't, doesn't, and will not work on them. Either total warfare, or don't even bother.I don't care if what I said is racist/prejudiced. Show me an Islamic ruled nation that doesn't hate Jews, doesn't kill little girls for going to school, doesn't car/suicide bomb anyone who disagrees with them, OK's the beating/stoning/capital punishment of women, etc., etc.
Ok, I want to play arm-chair quarterback for a moment. Starting from after the invasion in 2003, what should the goal have been for the U.S.? How should it have been achieved differently during both Bush's term and Obama's term?
Ok, I want to play arm-chair quarterback for a moment. Starting from after the invasion in 2003, what should the goal have been for the U.S.? How should it have been achieved differently during both Bush's term and Obama's term?
Starting from after the invasion is a false premise. What was the strategic logic in invading in the first place?If we accept the invasion as fact then once we toppled the regime we had a moral responsibility to replace it or facilitate the Iraqis coming up with one and then staying around long enough to ensure it would stick for at least a reasonable amount of time. We did the first, but not the second because of moral collapse at home in the States. All the whiny lefties did not think living up to our moral responsibility was worth the blood and treasure their cowardly behinds were not putting on the line anyway. By God, if we are going to do something then we need to do it right and that is something America has signally failed to do since at least the Bay of Pigs. That goes under both GOP and Dem admins.
We should have wrecked the Iraqi military as we toppled Saddam, and then simply just pulled out and watched the chaos ensue. Whoever came out on top we throw in our support to the new regime and help them rebuild their nation by investing in their oil industry via exclusive contracts. We turn our eyes away from the human rights issues and pay attention only to our national security interests. Otherwise we should have left Saddam alone.
Starting from after the invasion is a false premise. What was the strategic logic in invading in the first place?If we accept the invasion as fact then once we toppled the regime we had a moral responsibility to replace it or facilitate the Iraqis coming up with one and then staying around long enough to ensure it would stick for at least a reasonable amount of time. We did the first, but not the second because of moral collapse at home in the States. All the whiny lefties did not think living up to our moral responsibility was worth the blood and treasure their cowardly behinds were not putting on the line anyway. By God, if we are going to do something then we need to do it right and that is something America has signally failed to do since at least the Bay of Pigs. That goes under both GOP and Dem admins.
I was hoping to avoid the issue of whether we should have gone to war (still the biggest question though) and go to the secondary issues, which is why I put the question as I did. Interestingly, it seems like you and Donnie propose almost opposite approaches on a theoretical level.
We should have wrecked the Iraqi military as we toppled Saddam, and then simply just pulled out and watched the chaos ensue. Whoever came out on top we throw in our support to the new regime and help them rebuild their nation by investing in their oil industry via exclusive contracts. We turn our eyes away from the human rights issues and pay attention only to our national security interests. Otherwise we should have left Saddam alone.
That's actually a very interesting view in light of what we know now, since it would have saved Americans a lot of hassle. It sounds like you are against the micromanaging role that the U.S. took, and that in the future the U.S. should take more of a macromanagement role (if even that). Was the U.S. influenced too much by ideas of a Marshall Plan-like approach which could not translate well in the Middle East?
Yeah we had no business trying to nation build. We just needed to eliminate Iraq as a threat to the region militarily. It would have been cheaper just to throw money and resources to whichever dominate group emerged rather than occupying Iraq plus rebuilding.
