Change of strategy needed - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

kerry · #16 11-12-2006, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

We lost Vietnam, not because the US military was unwilling or unable to fight. We lost because (as Bin Laden accurately opined) Americans have no stomach for war. That is the only major point in common between Iraq and Vietnam.
.

Seems too broad a generalization. Americans have no stomach for unjustifiable wars if Vietnam and Iraq are the examples. Or as Rumsfeld puts it; the voters can't understand his complex war. Rumsfeld has the moral subtlety to appreciate the value of an imperial war which has killed 100-600,000 people whereas the average American with their simplistic morality finds killing people in those numbers in a non-defensive war unacceptable.

Botnst · #17 11-12-2006, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry edwards

Seems too broad a generalization. Americans have no stomach for unjustifiable wars if Vietnam and Iraq are the examples. Or as Rumsfeld puts it; the voters can't understand his complex war. Rumsfeld has the moral subtlety to appreciate the value of an imperial war which has killed 100-600,000 people whereas the average American with their simplistic morality finds killing people in those numbers in a non-defensive war unacceptable.

You've conflating my view with Rumsfeld's. I cannot read his mind so I take on face-value taht he follows the president's lead. The President laid-out a number of reasons for deposing Saddam. NOT ONE of those reasons was enough reason for me to buy into deposing Saddam. Let's keep them separated, shall we?

Bin Laden & Saddam, and that ol' Ho from N Vietnam all came to the same conclusion -- the USA has no stomach for war. All three of them believed that if enough of the visual impact of war could be put before the American people that the Americans would quail from the objective.

Those are the beliefs stated independently by each of these men. They did not qualify their assertions as to just vs unjust. They just wanted to make sure the public saw lots of bloody images. They were absolutely right.

B

PS I will agree this much with Rumsfeld: Most people do not have a mind for geopolitical strategy. They have no concept of what will happen if the oil supply for 3/4 of the world's population were to be embargoed. People will demand their governments do "something" and they wont give a damn what "something" is.

If, due to interruption of 3/4 of the planetary production of petroleum the choice becomes between my kids starving or some kids in China starving, then my choice will always be for some other kids to starve, not my own. Multiply that by 3/4 * 6,000,000,000 people and the magnitude of the worldwide threat to stability should become more apparent.

kerry · #18 11-12-2006, 04:57 PM

What I was thinking about was WWII. While it was not easy to get the US into the war, Americans seemed to have the stomach for that war once it was entered. Bin Laden, Saddam and Ho may have been right that Americans had no stomach for a war against them.
I'm not sure about the geopolitical strategy question. Americans may not have the stomach for the Bush/Rumsfeld geopolitical strategy, just like they didn't have the stomach for the domino theory geopolitical strategy. But again, I think it's a big leap to think that Americans have no liking for geopolitical strategy on the whole.

soypwrd · #19 11-12-2006, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry edwards

... But again, I think it's a big leap to think that Americans have no liking for geopolitical strategy on the whole.

The geopolitics will melt into the background once we get hungry enough and shiver/sweat from the temperature extremes without the energy we've grown used to keeping us comfortable.

We'll come to understand when things get third worldish around here.

#20 11-12-2006, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

Whatever its there country, if they want to kill eachother let them. I am beginning to think that country needs a brutal government in order to function.

Agreed! Kinda makes me believe that Saddam was better and was doing a much better job. Lot less violence under Saddam even though most of the violence was done by Saddam's SS

soypwrd · #21 11-12-2006, 06:44 PM

Yep, things sure seemed to be alot better all around under Saddam, even if you where an Iraqi.

Makes ya wonder what the hell bush/rove was thinking.

#22 11-12-2006, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kip Foss

We lost Viet Nam because we were trying to fight an army of dedicated men who were fighting for their country and had the fire of patriotism in their bellies. While our allies were as corrupt and as spineless as they come. I was in the US embassy on May 1, 1975 when Saigon fell. To see the 'brave' government solders deserting their posts, stealing helicopters to fly their families out to the ships while leaving others to fend for themselves is a little disheartening to say the least.

In 1954 after the fall of Dien Pien Pho the French warned the US against getting involved in Viet Nam, but the US felt that they could show those 'frogs' how to fight a war. Boy, we really showed the world how the US could fight a war. The same way we showed those Somalians who was boss.

We lost nearly 69k men and women, wounded nearly a million, killed over a million Viet Namese, wounded about 3 million, absolutely destroyed Viet Nam, divided the US, sent back to the States hundreds of thousands of vets that never recovered and never became productive members of society, and for what?? We made Brown and Root, Halliburton, Bechtal, Kellogg, Trammel Crow, Boing, Lockeed, Bell, etc., etc. billions of dollers richer and for what?? What in God's good name did this country get out of Viet Nam?? The only thing we have ever gotten out of Viet Nam is cheap tennis shoes.

All the above is pretty much what we are going to get out of Iraq. Perhaps not to the scale of Viet Nam but certainly the defeat will be just as humiliating and just as costly. Bush has created a national debt that will take generations to pay off. Say what you want to about Clinton's morals but at least he had the balls and brains to pay off the 4 billion dollar debt that Reagan and Bush I ran up and then had the courtesy to leave this country with a half a billion dollar surplus.

Bush went into Iraq for political and economic reasons only. How many Iraqis were involved in 911? The answer comes back, "None". How many WMD's did we find-None. So if there were no Iraqis in 911, no WMD's and Iraq was not a terrorist training ground (remember, Saddam ran Bin Laden out of Iraq in 1993 when he tried to set up training camps there) why did Bush declare war on Iraq? Mostly because no wartime president has ever failed to be reelected. And maybe, just maybe it could be for the oil.

If we were so anxious to bring democracy to Iraq why didn't we help out in Dafar where 2.4 million have been killed in the last 10 years, or in Ruwanda where a million were killed, or in the Congo there they lost over 800k? The answer is OIL. We need it and they don't have it.

This administration and the right wing can use terms like, "freedom, democracy, liberty, anti-terrorism, blah, blah, and wave the flag all they want but it is not going to change the fact that the US is in Iraq for no other reason than the whims of a deluded egotist. He tries to make 'staying the course' sound like some sort of high idealism, but, when in fact, is it is just the failed policy of a cabal of men who never had a very good plan to start out with. And now they want you, me and all out children to pay the price. Thanks, but no thanks.

I am in agreement with this passage 100%.
The question is HOW do we get out of there, save face and dignity, and also make things right?

I believe that the answer is ALL of the following:

1. Give the Iraqis exactly one year and tell them to get their act together and take control and bring stability before Christmas day, 2007 because that will be the day our last troop will be off the ground and they will have absolutely no support from us at all. They will learn to swim pretty fast if you push them into the deep end of the water.
2. Pay restitutions to every Iraqi who has lost a loved one because of this ILLEGAL war based on deliberate lies that was brought on to them; a war which was baseless, senseless, unethical, and nothing short of mass murder at the hands of our president and our country.
3. Turn over Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld to be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity and cross our fingers that the millions of terrorists that WE (USA) has given birth to would be humbled or softened by this action which is highly unlikely.
4. A class action law suit should be filed against Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld on behalf of the innocent Iraqi civilians who lost loved ones (650,000) and who have suffered by this war and those who have lost their homes and jobs in addition to restitutions and for the wrongfull deaths of 650,000 civilians and Bush's, Cheney's, and Rumsfeld personal assetts should be fair game. It should not matter if these innocent people were killed accidently by our forces, or by the terrorist insurgents, or by suicide bombings as America's action and America's illegal war is the cause of the deaths because America's war has set the stage and has provided this environment for the insurgency.
5. Rebuild Iraq's infrastructure to pre-war level without any charge to them. That should also come out of our pockets.

Botnst · #23 11-12-2006, 07:56 PM

Something familiar here.

soypwrd · #24 11-12-2006, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MB1

... 3. Turn over Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld to be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity and cross our fingers that the millions of terrorists that WE (USA) has given birth to would be humbled or softened by this action which is highly unlikely.
4. A class action law suit should be filed against Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld on behalf of the innocent Iraqi civilians who lost loved ones (650,000) and who have suffered by this war and those who have lost their homes and jobs in addition to restitutions and for the wrongfull deaths of 650,000 civilians and Bush's, Cheney's, and Rumsfeld personal assetts should be fair game.

Let's not forget wolfowitz, pearle, fieth (sp.?), libby, the whole bunch of slime behind it. How about haliburton, McDonnel/Douglas et. al. And throw in the cheerleaders too, the ones who supported and made $ on the war; limblow, hanity... let's confiscate their wealth to help pay for it all.

I'm dreamin, I know. Justice ain't that real.

Just saw a show on the war hospitals. Damn bush/rove. I wish there was a hell.

t walgamuth · #25 11-12-2006, 10:31 PM

there is ....

and the average iraqi citizen is living through it.

tom w

soypwrd · #26 11-13-2006, 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

there is ....

and the average iraqi citizen is living through it.

tom w

Well then perhaps the bush/rove team could be transferred there and attempt to run that show rather than ours.

Ah hell no, they've already put the poor Iraqis through enough. We're the ones who elected them, we should have to be the ones to live with our democratic choices.

aklim · #27 11-13-2006, 05:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

werent we doing pretty well with sadaam in power...oil wise?

tom w

Till Gulf War, I would agree.

retmil46 · #28 11-13-2006, 11:58 AM

If you read up on the history of Iraq, you could pretty well come to the conclusion that only a dictatorship or other form of strictly authoritarian government could ever hold that country together. At the best, a more liberal form of government would work only if the majority of Iraqis felt it was completely free of foreign (read Western) influence.

Iraq in it's present form has only been around for about 90 years, less than a century old. It was created after WW1 when the French and the British carved up the remains of the Ottoman Empire. The borders were drawn by the colonial powers to divide up territory, not to produce a workable nation-state. That's why it's ended up with 3 disparate religious/ethnic/tribal groups that have a hard time getting along with each other.

Back in the 70's a scholar wrote an essay titled "The Kingdom of Iraq", which examined the period of British administration up thru WWII. Deja vu, it strongly parallels what we're going thru now. Ethnic/tribal violence, hatred of foreigners, distrust of the central government that was aided/advised by the British, at times the British had to resort to military force to maintain order and even recorded instances of sending out the RAF to bomb entire villages to bring everyone back into line.

In one part of the essay, it tells where a British official asked a tribal leader what his beef was - they had their own government, police, etc. The tribal leader's reply was "Yes, but they all speak with a foreign accent".

By the late 20's/early 30's, the British had pretty much reached the same conclusion we have today - that if they ever left, the country would fall into chaos and disintegrate along ethnic/religious/tribal lines, unless there was some form of strictly authoritarian central government that would do whatever was necessary to hold the country together.

Botnst · #29 11-13-2006, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soypwrd

Let's not forget wolfowitz, pearle, fieth (sp.?), libby, the whole bunch of slime behind it. How about haliburton, McDonnel/Douglas et. al. And throw in the cheerleaders too, the ones who supported and made $ on the war; limblow, hanity... let's confiscate their wealth to help pay for it all.

I'm dreamin, I know. Justice ain't that real.

Just saw a show on the war hospitals. Damn bush/rove. I wish there was a hell.

Don't forget the puppetmasters!

http://www.illuminati-news.com/graphics/pyramid-of-satan(5).gif