|
|
 |
|
|
|
#1
07-08-2007, 09:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I read the links you put up. The first one, dated Sept 4, 2005, is no longer current. Circumstances have changed during the interim. The second one, May 2006, spells out a rationale for the invasion and occupation, "a resource rich region". Why not just say oil? Oh, and it also trots out the "domino theory"...'nuf said. The third one, Sept 20, 2004...ummm, can we stick to "current events"? Blair has been replaced by Brown. Old PR and justifications don't seem to be effective given the circumstances of July 8, 2007. Question...how can the US military gain "victory" in a civil war, and what will be necessary to sustain that "victory"? 
|
|
#2
07-08-2007, 09:57 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
This is now a RELIGIOUS WAR, not a civil war...and NOBODY wins in a religious war...it's been going on since the Crusades (or longer). Our US Army can not stop this Muslim religious war. IMO
__________________
The decisions you make today...dictate the life you'll lead tomorrow! http://<b>http://www.facebook.com/pr...ef=profile</b>
|
|
#3
07-08-2007, 10:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Actually, some no longer call it a "war" as it's an occupation involved in "peace keeping". Back to the question of "victory"...how many more military lives will be taken to gain "it", and what will it look like?
|
|
#4
07-08-2007, 10:48 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Here is a more recent article that does a nice job of pointing out the reasons to remain engaged in Iraq by those that consider such as the proper course of action. I personally have no predominant opinion and concede insufficient wisdom to know the best path for our nation. To me, it looks like "damned if you don't...damned if you do". I think it's inevitable that the US will be forced to take a major stand against radical Islam in some place at some point in time.
http://bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu/publica...e&item_id=1711
|
|
#5
07-08-2007, 11:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Of the three options presented, the one that makes the most sense is tainted with hypotheticals. 3 "may"s and one possibly. Perhaps the author needs a consult with Madame Zelda and her magical cards. "If the U.S. withdraws without achieving even this minimalist definition of "success", Iraq will deteriorate into ever worsening violence and may splinter into its component parts. Turkey may then invade Kurdistan, whose possible independence it views as a threat to its own territorial integrity. Iran will become not only a primary player in Iraq, but the primary one, possibly even annexing Shiite areas outright. The Saudis, already threatened by rising Shiite influence in the region, petrified by a possible Iranian presence right on their border, may similarly choose to preempt this by grabbing parts of Iraq. Jordan, with an Iranian controlled Iraq on its border, might collapse. For Israel, the consequences will be severe." Oh, I wonder why the author is looking out for the interests of Israel? hmmm.....
|
|
#6
07-08-2007, 11:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
i don't think the u.s. remains at this point to help in any civil, religious, culture war. i think bush et al have finally understood why we didn't take saddam out in gulf one, and it's kinda late to worry now, since they chose to ignore this particular issue in gulf 2--iran. if we leave, the power vacuum will most certainly exist, it probably does already. this leaves iran as the predominant power in the region. all the years that saddam the thug and murderer was there, he kept his enemy in check. bush and congress chose to ignore the wider view, the wider picture when they invaded to take saddam out--and now iran is making itself heard. there is far more at stake then just iraq.
the problem remains who is going to put this right? not bush--and i'm not so sure that anyone who is running to succeed him will be able to take on this issue either. certainly all the finger pointing won't fix the problem. bush led the call, and congress so willingly followed. just to leave will NOT solve the problem.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#7
07-08-2007, 03:07 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I've stayed out of this thread but I read this and I start looking for my time machine...did I just travel back to the 60's? This is the same crap Henry K and the boys used to justify Nam...in fact it was the mindset that led to Korea...use to call it the domino theory...names no doubt changed to protect the guilty but still...the more things change, the more they stay the same! I'm not an isolationist but I'd rather see our troops in the Sudan stopping genocide than trying to create something in Iraq that goes against everything the folks there believe!
__________________
"Always be yourself...unless you suck!"
|
|
#8
07-08-2007, 04:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I called attention to the "domino theory" in post #25. Same old, same old. It was a lie then, and it's still a lie. If the Bushco junta really wished for this to end (and I don't think they do, cause Halliburton, BKR, Blackwater, and major GOP corporate contributors are continuing to cash in on the blood expended by our troops), Condi would be arranging a "Moslem Summit" involving many of the nations in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, where moderate Moslems might be enlisted to find a diplomatic solution. Let's face it. This really is a quagmire. Old arguements will be trotted out to justify it. History is a circle that runs on blood.
|
|
#9
07-08-2007, 04:14 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I have no intention of defending the Iraq war. Just pointing out views some have ragarding consequences of a quick withdrawal of troops from Iraq. One has to wonder what is gonna happen to those Iraqi citizens that bought in and supported the concept of a free and democratic nation. Upon a US pull-out, many of them are as good as dead I suspect.
|
Hybrid Mode
