On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 6:57 AM, Loathe wrote: > I think Iraq was a next logical step. > > We had good reasons to invade. To be honest that war was going on for > the 12 years between 91 and 03. Additionally it allowed us to place our > selves in the middle of the gulf, between the Saudis and Iran, literally > placing American troops on both major Iranian boarders.
I think that just having a large force in the neighborhood would have done wonders. We stretched ourselves too thin, and moved away from Afghanistan too quickly, for what we ended up trying to do. But the lies... I can't stand blatant manipulation like that. We all do it to some degree, but when it gets criminal (I think it was, in the true sense of the word-- whatever the legal outcome will be), that's bad. > I believe that Saudi could be handled with stern diplomacy, Yemen is > coming around already, Kuwait is our ally, Qatar is our ally, Egypt is > our Ally, Jordan is our ally, Pakistan is our ally, Libya has come > around some. See, I think diplomacy and knife-like strikes would have been better. Let us stick to the tactics that worked, and kept them off their feet. Getting inside their OODA Loop, so to speak. I think our approach, at least at first, left us like the Rock Giant in the Never Ending Story... "they look like strong hands..." you can't use force with the "nothingness", sorta. Bah. Horrible analogy. I was looking for something about holding sand, perhaps, and that the right tool for the job make the job easier. Using the resources that were there from the beginning? Priceless. Diplomacy and team-work are really the best, and least bloody (even if lots of people still die-- it ain't quite so bloody). > I do not believe that we should conduct limited war. I think that > should we actually conduct ourselves in the manner in which we did > during the second world war, we would have had the troops and the money > needed to proceed in the Middle East. We lost part of our soul in WWII, which we shouldn't forget. To win, we used the very tactics that we were fighting in the first place. It sorta bummed me out that Mrs. Clinton went the route she went, for instance. But I hear you, generally. There hasn't been much "effort" in this war effort, by your average American Joe, or Jane. But, can you blame people, when you've got the head dude saying "nothing to see here folks, move along, just keep spending" (well, we /have/ to keep spending to keep afloat-- it's a vicious cycle, sorta-- money is funny-- but I digress). > You are correct that the return of the Russian bear isn't really > surprising, what is surprising that they are beginning to come down on > the side of the Muslims. They have had their own internal terrorism > issues for decades. It's like a big game of chess, but more complicated and the people move (reminds me of a great SciFi book which I can't remember the name of). You listed a bunch of "allies" up there that.. well, I think it's odd that in one context they're our friends, but in another, the enemy. Yet instead of keeping that in mind, they are one of the other, as the situation fits. Strategic Allies seems more like it, ya know? The enemy of my enemy? And we've seen how bad that can get, right? We trained and armed a lot our our enemies, strategically, at some point. *shrug* .... > Something I don't think most of you realize, the Clinton years were the > most heavily deployed that the military had been in 30 years. Conflicts > other than war, peacekeeping, nation building, raids and so forth were > the name of the game. It was coupled with a large scale draw down in > forces, reducing the manning numbers to the level that we have today, > causing many of the deployment issues we've run into. If you had to re-live one of them, Bush2 or Clinton1, which one would you pick? Clinton was capable, and I know he pissed off the .mil (no salutes!?), but I think he would have been able to swing a more successful deal. Whatever your gripes, he was Capable. And Culpable-ish! Versus the very thing that got me into this discussion, non-culpability!! And that's what bugs the fuck outta me, really. Generals have their heads roll, cabinet members have their heads roll, scientists who don't pull the party line's heads roll, onward down the chain (I think a reputable reporter retired(forced? Gave up? ;]) because of something he did), but somehow, people are still generally cool with the president and his minions? Or it might be better to say the president is a minion, he seems puppet-like sometimes. At least Clinton didn't make his handlers so obvious. ;-] LOL. Eh. The idea that the means justifies the ends also bugs the shit out of me. If we want to be really safe, we'll let the state take care of us. Now THAT sounds like socialism (with a capital "S"). Where is the outcry about the telephone records? WHERE? Do people think it is just made up, slander if you will? It ain't. Do people think it makes us safer? Some do, but they are Socialists. =-] .... > wants by outside influences. I think we're fighting the same war we > have been for 70 years. We stabilized Europe, and have been dealing > with the rest of the planet since. Being somebody who's into Fantasy and whatnot, it's easy for me to think that, perhaps, we're fighting the same war we have been, for a lot longer than 70 years. -- As long as our government is administered for the good of the people, and is regulated by their will; as long as it secures to us the rights of persons and of property, liberty of conscience and of the press, it will be worth defending. Andrew Jackson ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;203748912;27390454;j Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:266256 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
