Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
ucodegen
Participantucodegen wrote:
almost like the scenario during the last Iraq war.. so we won, now what.. no real good plan for the population of Iraq)Sounds like nation building. I though that we weren’t going to do that after Kosovo anymore.
Quote is out of context
You are arguing the nits here and ignoring the points. If you go and attack a country and take out its government and military, you have a responsibility to make sure its people are safe. By taking out their military and government, you have created a power vacuum that many exploitative elements(including neighboring countries now that the attacked country does not have an effective military and government) would like to fill. As the ‘attacker’, you have put the people of that country at risk of these elements.
If you are not willing to help ensure the populace remains safe, reconsider the original attack. If you have already committed the attack, follow through with the security of the populace.If Obama is doing what Bush would have done, then what is the Republican beef?
We, progressives, should be upset.
No beef… as I pointed out.. Conservatives are pointing out that there is really no real change, other than more government in our lives.. and Obama presented himself as ‘yes we can’ to change! The only change the Conservatives are seeing is a further buildup in Afghanistan, a country that really has no tactical value. If you are going to expend money and lives, make it count!
So does it mean that we are sending our men and resources to protect European interests? Wouldn’t that make us gullible?
You said it.. not I…
Though protecting European interest does eventually trickle down to us (stabilizing oil prices in the long run, general foreign market balance). Might be interesting to see the squawking from the Euro block if their oil price goes through the roof. Then they will want us to do something. Right now, it is easier for them to condemn us. The only EU country set up enough to run without foreign oil is France(nuclear) and Norway(oil – they have their own). The second problem of not stabilizing oil is that it would allow Russia a bigger voice in the future of the EU.Participantucodegen wrote:
almost like the scenario during the last Iraq war.. so we won, now what.. no real good plan for the population of Iraq)Sounds like nation building. I though that we weren’t going to do that after Kosovo anymore.
Quote is out of context
You are arguing the nits here and ignoring the points. If you go and attack a country and take out its government and military, you have a responsibility to make sure its people are safe. By taking out their military and government, you have created a power vacuum that many exploitative elements(including neighboring countries now that the attacked country does not have an effective military and government) would like to fill. As the ‘attacker’, you have put the people of that country at risk of these elements.
If you are not willing to help ensure the populace remains safe, reconsider the original attack. If you have already committed the attack, follow through with the security of the populace.If Obama is doing what Bush would have done, then what is the Republican beef?
We, progressives, should be upset.
No beef… as I pointed out.. Conservatives are pointing out that there is really no real change, other than more government in our lives.. and Obama presented himself as ‘yes we can’ to change! The only change the Conservatives are seeing is a further buildup in Afghanistan, a country that really has no tactical value. If you are going to expend money and lives, make it count!
So does it mean that we are sending our men and resources to protect European interests? Wouldn’t that make us gullible?
You said it.. not I…
Though protecting European interest does eventually trickle down to us (stabilizing oil prices in the long run, general foreign market balance). Might be interesting to see the squawking from the Euro block if their oil price goes through the roof. Then they will want us to do something. Right now, it is easier for them to condemn us. The only EU country set up enough to run without foreign oil is France(nuclear) and Norway(oil – they have their own). The second problem of not stabilizing oil is that it would allow Russia a bigger voice in the future of the EU.ParticipantMy point was that liberals see the shades of gray in life. Conservatives are the ones who always claim that one has to make the best of the hand that God dealt. Period.
‘Couldn’t be more wrong. I also notice that this statement seems awfully black and white in and of itself. I hope it is not representative of the shades of gray that liberals see.
The fringes on both sides are black and white and the large middle(gray) which is considered both/either ‘liberal’ and/or ‘conservative’.. is largely ignored. Again, religion is brought into the situation and it it does not belong there.
So I find it very rich that a conservative, 34 years since the end of a lost conflict would still argue “what if”.
What-ifs are only useful to learn. A person is forever doomed to repeat the past if they don’t learn from it. That said, the past is nothing to dwell upon or live in.. it is just.. the past.
Now the conservatives have the gall to blame Obama for conflicts that Bush started and screwed up since the beginning. Those wars have already been screwed up beyond repair.
Where? I don’t see any such ‘blaming’. I do see Conservatives bringing up issues.. ie potentially leaving Iraq in the lurch without a good exit plan (almost like the scenario during the last Iraq war.. so we won, now what.. no real good plan for the population of Iraq) Also it seems that Obama is literally following what Bush was likely to have done, with respect to both wars, would a third term be possible. Under those circumstances; questions about Obama’s plans w/respect to Afghanistan and Obama’s buildup are valid. Additionally, questions about the platform that Obama ran on with respect to both wars are valid.. particularly since his election platform with respect to these wars contributed to Obama’s win. A ramp up in armed forces does not look like the ‘negotiated exit’ he was stating during the election. Does Obama’s rhetoric on the wars match his current actions?
Some important notes:
The ramp-up in Afghanistan is considerably larger than the amount carried in the press. The numbers you are seeing in the press are the ‘fighting’ troups and do not include logistics and the large increase in the number of Army Corps of Engineers. Take the published number (20,000) and triple it.Strategically, the condition of Iraq is more important than Afghanistan(To the US, Europe and Asia). Afghanistan has minimal resources. On the other hand, Iraq has considerable resources (both oil and uranium). Should an organization like the Taliban or Al Qaeda gain power in Iraq, they will not need to raise funds to commit terror on other countries. Neither would they need to import uranium for a nuclear or dirty bomb. Leaving Iraq ‘in the lurch’ may create a large enough power vacuum to allow an organization like the Taliban or Al Qaeda to achieve power.
NOTE: With the recent advances in oil sands/shale processing, the importance of Iraqi oil to the US has significantly diminished. Europe is one of the primary consumers of Middle East oil.ParticipantMy point was that liberals see the shades of gray in life. Conservatives are the ones who always claim that one has to make the best of the hand that God dealt. Period.
‘Couldn’t be more wrong. I also notice that this statement seems awfully black and white in and of itself. I hope it is not representative of the shades of gray that liberals see.
The fringes on both sides are black and white and the large middle(gray) which is considered both/either ‘liberal’ and/or ‘conservative’.. is largely ignored. Again, religion is brought into the situation and it it does not belong there.
So I find it very rich that a conservative, 34 years since the end of a lost conflict would still argue “what if”.
What-ifs are only useful to learn. A person is forever doomed to repeat the past if they don’t learn from it. That said, the past is nothing to dwell upon or live in.. it is just.. the past.
Now the conservatives have the gall to blame Obama for conflicts that Bush started and screwed up since the beginning. Those wars have already been screwed up beyond repair.
Where? I don’t see any such ‘blaming’. I do see Conservatives bringing up issues.. ie potentially leaving Iraq in the lurch without a good exit plan (almost like the scenario during the last Iraq war.. so we won, now what.. no real good plan for the population of Iraq) Also it seems that Obama is literally following what Bush was likely to have done, with respect to both wars, would a third term be possible. Under those circumstances; questions about Obama’s plans w/respect to Afghanistan and Obama’s buildup are valid. Additionally, questions about the platform that Obama ran on with respect to both wars are valid.. particularly since his election platform with respect to these wars contributed to Obama’s win. A ramp up in armed forces does not look like the ‘negotiated exit’ he was stating during the election. Does Obama’s rhetoric on the wars match his current actions?
Some important notes:
The ramp-up in Afghanistan is considerably larger than the amount carried in the press. The numbers you are seeing in the press are the ‘fighting’ troups and do not include logistics and the large increase in the number of Army Corps of Engineers. Take the published number (20,000) and triple it.Strategically, the condition of Iraq is more important than Afghanistan(To the US, Europe and Asia). Afghanistan has minimal resources. On the other hand, Iraq has considerable resources (both oil and uranium). Should an organization like the Taliban or Al Qaeda gain power in Iraq, they will not need to raise funds to commit terror on other countries. Neither would they need to import uranium for a nuclear or dirty bomb. Leaving Iraq ‘in the lurch’ may create a large enough power vacuum to allow an organization like the Taliban or Al Qaeda to achieve power.
NOTE: With the recent advances in oil sands/shale processing, the importance of Iraqi oil to the US has significantly diminished. Europe is one of the primary consumers of Middle East oil.ParticipantMy point was that liberals see the shades of gray in life. Conservatives are the ones who always claim that one has to make the best of the hand that God dealt. Period.
‘Couldn’t be more wrong. I also notice that this statement seems awfully black and white in and of itself. I hope it is not representative of the shades of gray that liberals see.
The fringes on both sides are black and white and the large middle(gray) which is considered both/either ‘liberal’ and/or ‘conservative’.. is largely ignored. Again, religion is brought into the situation and it it does not belong there.
So I find it very rich that a conservative, 34 years since the end of a lost conflict would still argue “what if”.
What-ifs are only useful to learn. A person is forever doomed to repeat the past if they don’t learn from it. That said, the past is nothing to dwell upon or live in.. it is just.. the past.
Now the conservatives have the gall to blame Obama for conflicts that Bush started and screwed up since the beginning. Those wars have already been screwed up beyond repair.
Where? I don’t see any such ‘blaming’. I do see Conservatives bringing up issues.. ie potentially leaving Iraq in the lurch without a good exit plan (almost like the scenario during the last Iraq war.. so we won, now what.. no real good plan for the population of Iraq) Also it seems that Obama is literally following what Bush was likely to have done, with respect to both wars, would a third term be possible. Under those circumstances; questions about Obama’s plans w/respect to Afghanistan and Obama’s buildup are valid. Additionally, questions about the platform that Obama ran on with respect to both wars are valid.. particularly since his election platform with respect to these wars contributed to Obama’s win. A ramp up in armed forces does not look like the ‘negotiated exit’ he was stating during the election. Does Obama’s rhetoric on the wars match his current actions?
Some important notes:
The ramp-up in Afghanistan is considerably larger than the amount carried in the press. The numbers you are seeing in the press are the ‘fighting’ troups and do not include logistics and the large increase in the number of Army Corps of Engineers. Take the published number (20,000) and triple it.Strategically, the condition of Iraq is more important than Afghanistan(To the US, Europe and Asia). Afghanistan has minimal resources. On the other hand, Iraq has considerable resources (both oil and uranium). Should an organization like the Taliban or Al Qaeda gain power in Iraq, they will not need to raise funds to commit terror on other countries. Neither would they need to import uranium for a nuclear or dirty bomb. Leaving Iraq ‘in the lurch’ may create a large enough power vacuum to allow an organization like the Taliban or Al Qaeda to achieve power.
NOTE: With the recent advances in oil sands/shale processing, the importance of Iraqi oil to the US has significantly diminished. Europe is one of the primary consumers of Middle East oil.ParticipantMy point was that liberals see the shades of gray in life. Conservatives are the ones who always claim that one has to make the best of the hand that God dealt. Period.
‘Couldn’t be more wrong. I also notice that this statement seems awfully black and white in and of itself. I hope it is not representative of the shades of gray that liberals see.
The fringes on both sides are black and white and the large middle(gray) which is considered both/either ‘liberal’ and/or ‘conservative’.. is largely ignored. Again, religion is brought into the situation and it it does not belong there.
So I find it very rich that a conservative, 34 years since the end of a lost conflict would still argue “what if”.
What-ifs are only useful to learn. A person is forever doomed to repeat the past if they don’t learn from it. That said, the past is nothing to dwell upon or live in.. it is just.. the past.
Now the conservatives have the gall to blame Obama for conflicts that Bush started and screwed up since the beginning. Those wars have already been screwed up beyond repair.
Where? I don’t see any such ‘blaming’. I do see Conservatives bringing up issues.. ie potentially leaving Iraq in the lurch without a good exit plan (almost like the scenario during the last Iraq war.. so we won, now what.. no real good plan for the population of Iraq) Also it seems that Obama is literally following what Bush was likely to have done, with respect to both wars, would a third term be possible. Under those circumstances; questions about Obama’s plans w/respect to Afghanistan and Obama’s buildup are valid. Additionally, questions about the platform that Obama ran on with respect to both wars are valid.. particularly since his election platform with respect to these wars contributed to Obama’s win. A ramp up in armed forces does not look like the ‘negotiated exit’ he was stating during the election. Does Obama’s rhetoric on the wars match his current actions?
Some important notes:
The ramp-up in Afghanistan is considerably larger than the amount carried in the press. The numbers you are seeing in the press are the ‘fighting’ troups and do not include logistics and the large increase in the number of Army Corps of Engineers. Take the published number (20,000) and triple it.Strategically, the condition of Iraq is more important than Afghanistan(To the US, Europe and Asia). Afghanistan has minimal resources. On the other hand, Iraq has considerable resources (both oil and uranium). Should an organization like the Taliban or Al Qaeda gain power in Iraq, they will not need to raise funds to commit terror on other countries. Neither would they need to import uranium for a nuclear or dirty bomb. Leaving Iraq ‘in the lurch’ may create a large enough power vacuum to allow an organization like the Taliban or Al Qaeda to achieve power.
NOTE: With the recent advances in oil sands/shale processing, the importance of Iraqi oil to the US has significantly diminished. Europe is one of the primary consumers of Middle East oil.ParticipantMy point was that liberals see the shades of gray in life. Conservatives are the ones who always claim that one has to make the best of the hand that God dealt. Period.
‘Couldn’t be more wrong. I also notice that this statement seems awfully black and white in and of itself. I hope it is not representative of the shades of gray that liberals see.
The fringes on both sides are black and white and the large middle(gray) which is considered both/either ‘liberal’ and/or ‘conservative’.. is largely ignored. Again, religion is brought into the situation and it it does not belong there.
So I find it very rich that a conservative, 34 years since the end of a lost conflict would still argue “what if”.
What-ifs are only useful to learn. A person is forever doomed to repeat the past if they don’t learn from it. That said, the past is nothing to dwell upon or live in.. it is just.. the past.
Now the conservatives have the gall to blame Obama for conflicts that Bush started and screwed up since the beginning. Those wars have already been screwed up beyond repair.
Where? I don’t see any such ‘blaming’. I do see Conservatives bringing up issues.. ie potentially leaving Iraq in the lurch without a good exit plan (almost like the scenario during the last Iraq war.. so we won, now what.. no real good plan for the population of Iraq) Also it seems that Obama is literally following what Bush was likely to have done, with respect to both wars, would a third term be possible. Under those circumstances; questions about Obama’s plans w/respect to Afghanistan and Obama’s buildup are valid. Additionally, questions about the platform that Obama ran on with respect to both wars are valid.. particularly since his election platform with respect to these wars contributed to Obama’s win. A ramp up in armed forces does not look like the ‘negotiated exit’ he was stating during the election. Does Obama’s rhetoric on the wars match his current actions?
Some important notes:
The ramp-up in Afghanistan is considerably larger than the amount carried in the press. The numbers you are seeing in the press are the ‘fighting’ troups and do not include logistics and the large increase in the number of Army Corps of Engineers. Take the published number (20,000) and triple it.Strategically, the condition of Iraq is more important than Afghanistan(To the US, Europe and Asia). Afghanistan has minimal resources. On the other hand, Iraq has considerable resources (both oil and uranium). Should an organization like the Taliban or Al Qaeda gain power in Iraq, they will not need to raise funds to commit terror on other countries. Neither would they need to import uranium for a nuclear or dirty bomb. Leaving Iraq ‘in the lurch’ may create a large enough power vacuum to allow an organization like the Taliban or Al Qaeda to achieve power.
NOTE: With the recent advances in oil sands/shale processing, the importance of Iraqi oil to the US has significantly diminished. Europe is one of the primary consumers of Middle East oil.ParticipantSome of Krugmans statements may be true, but unfortunately it is like the saying about a broken clock..
ParticipantSome of Krugmans statements may be true, but unfortunately it is like the saying about a broken clock..
ParticipantSome of Krugmans statements may be true, but unfortunately it is like the saying about a broken clock..
ParticipantSome of Krugmans statements may be true, but unfortunately it is like the saying about a broken clock..
ParticipantSome of Krugmans statements may be true, but unfortunately it is like the saying about a broken clock..
ParticipantAmerica capitulated when Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho (Nobel Peace Laureates) negotiated secretly to end the war. It was Nixon, a Republican, who capitulated to the enemy.
Actually it was congress.. Nixon did linebacker. Nixon previously presented congress with a decision; either ramp up the attacks or get out. Continuing as it has been would only mean more deaths for our armed forces. Ramping up was unpopular.. so the political decision was to get out.
More info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Linebacker_IIQuote ‘president feared that the heavily Democratic legislative branch would preempt his pledge of “peace with honor” by legislating an end to the conflict’. — can’t claim it was ‘a Republican, who capitulated.
As for winning the war.. I don’t think so.. but we did win them over ideologically.. eventually.
NOTE: An interesting sidenote on Linebacker II was that it almost caused the North Vietnamese to surrender (according to a North Vietnamese). Most of the North Vietnamese infrastructure was destroyed. Of course the politicians rescued defeat from the jaws of victory. So why didn’t the military brass use the linebacker attack near the beginning of the war?.. dunno, but that would be a good question. It would have won Vietnamese war quickly.
NOTE: If you read through the Wiki reference from a military tacticians perspective, you will note many glaring problems that make you wonder what the military establishment was thinking tactically. Same path into North Vietnam each time? Not going after SAM bunkers until the last day? The planners needed to read “The Art of War”. Being predictable and allowing your opponent the ability to strike back are not the ways you win a war. Vietnam was a war planned by military brass in Washington down to the nit. The military had to execute it the ‘brass’s way even if it did not make sense.
ParticipantAmerica capitulated when Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho (Nobel Peace Laureates) negotiated secretly to end the war. It was Nixon, a Republican, who capitulated to the enemy.
Actually it was congress.. Nixon did linebacker. Nixon previously presented congress with a decision; either ramp up the attacks or get out. Continuing as it has been would only mean more deaths for our armed forces. Ramping up was unpopular.. so the political decision was to get out.
More info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Linebacker_IIQuote ‘president feared that the heavily Democratic legislative branch would preempt his pledge of “peace with honor” by legislating an end to the conflict’. — can’t claim it was ‘a Republican, who capitulated.
As for winning the war.. I don’t think so.. but we did win them over ideologically.. eventually.
NOTE: An interesting sidenote on Linebacker II was that it almost caused the North Vietnamese to surrender (according to a North Vietnamese). Most of the North Vietnamese infrastructure was destroyed. Of course the politicians rescued defeat from the jaws of victory. So why didn’t the military brass use the linebacker attack near the beginning of the war?.. dunno, but that would be a good question. It would have won Vietnamese war quickly.
NOTE: If you read through the Wiki reference from a military tacticians perspective, you will note many glaring problems that make you wonder what the military establishment was thinking tactically. Same path into North Vietnam each time? Not going after SAM bunkers until the last day? The planners needed to read “The Art of War”. Being predictable and allowing your opponent the ability to strike back are not the ways you win a war. Vietnam was a war planned by military brass in Washington down to the nit. The military had to execute it the ‘brass’s way even if it did not make sense.
-
AuthorPosts
