# Iraq Troop "Surge"



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

I am surprised the topic of the proposed build-up of forces in Iraq (aka the "surge") hasn't been the subject of of a thread here, given the amount of national debate it has engendered.

I will make my position clear. I thought from the outset that the invasion/"liberation" of Iraq was an unnecessary and ill-conceived piece of folly. Whether its architects were more fools or knaves, I will pass over for this discussion.

It has been cogently argued that if the American forces withdraw from Iraq anytime soon, the place will really blow sky-high, with the possibility of military intervention by any or all of Iraq's neighbors. So much for the U.S. intervention creating a "more stable" Middle East!

However, I strongly suspect that a "surge" of 20,000 or so will merely be spitting into the ocean. It is my belief that if we really want to "win" this thing by stabilizing the country enough to enable to central government to assert control, we need to levy somewhere between 500,000 and 750,000 additional troops. We would doubtless need to re-instate the draft to accomplish this. We can keep up present troop levels in a holding position for about a year as the new levies are given basic training and advanced training in CQB and MOUT and then just saturate Iraq with American troops for a couple of years, tamping down the insurgency to the point where the central government can build up its forces to the point where they can ensure stability and order. Then we can withdraw, perhaps leaving a substantial cadre of American forces to train and stiffen up Iraq forces (military and police) loyal to the government.

I doubt, given the present climate of public opinion, that this would be politically feasible, and I can only imagine the reaction on college campuses over the re-introduction of the draft, but it does seem to me the best way out of this impasse.

I'd be interested in the reaction of any of our forumites with military experience, especially those who have served in Iraq.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

The fact that the generals on the ground opposed the surge says enough to my limited military experience.

For the record, I supported our actions initially on the basis that I trusted the Administration...more specifically I believed Colin Powell's conviction on the matter.

That being said I do understand the neocon manipulation with regards to Iraq, and on an almost Twlight Zone level I do think they did have our interests at heart.

But the reality is pretty shocking, and the damage to our country will be long lived. It would appear that the "surge" is partially politics and part think-tank fantasy. 

What's scary is that it looks like they're pulling more troops from Afghanistan to support Iraq just at the time when the Taliban are mounting another offensive. 

What's also scary is that is looks like we're finding documents in Iraq suggesting newly formed terror cells aligned with al Qaeda in Iraq are looking to attack targets in the USA.

This is just some FUBAR dream right?

-spence


----------



## giff74 (Jan 15, 2007)

If we had a comprehensive, self reliant energy policy we could get the hell out of the Middle East and let them duke things out for control. I pay more for health care than 90% of the people in this country because I am self employed and my son is about to have major heart surgery, I am still paying my college loans off that put me through college with no help from any from any part of the the government and I pay a ton in self employment taxes. But I dont want the government to screw with any of those things!!!

Fix the energy policy....oh wait....we dont really have a comprehensive energy policy, the idgets from both sides of the isle cant get together enough to decide its bad for the US to be dependent on foreign energy. 

If we werent fighting for the oil in the middle east I dont think they would be so interested in blowing us up and we wouldnt have to have troops on the ground. Then we would only have to worry about Israel, but we should solve that issue on another day.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Everybody remember the tsunami in Indonesia, the earthquake in Pakistan? Anybody care to guess what nations kicked in the most cash, material and personel to recovery efforts post tsunami ? Anyone care to guess who gave the least? World Islam knows the price of our failure in Iraq, regardless of our intentions or their degree of hostility or friendship. The army of Glubb Pasha that took so much of Palestine is doing what? the Kuwaitis we liberated and their Saudi nieghbor's forces are doing, what? We know what our Iranian guardsmen are doing, and 3,000 of this troop surge are a second carrier battlegroup heading for the gulf. I doubt another fighter squadron is so much to deter suicide bombers as a possible pre emotive strike on the iranian atomic effort and other strategic targets. The real surge is in the blood pressure of regional leaders who stand to lose everything, are hoarding their resources in political game of self survival with all the duplicity of their tribal bandit forefathers. Comparisons with Vietnam are clumsy at best. But we suffered a prolonged 'surge' under LSD, er LBJ , never dealt with offlimit targets; Haiphong harbour/ iranian nuclear facility and, as my vietnamese friend says " all you did was leave fewer people to live under communism and got that staircase recently in continuing warming of trade interests." Our enemies see us as bogged down in Iraq. stripping 20,000 more who may be needed in another Pusan Perimeter is like a drunk selling his Rolex for a few more slot machine tokens.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Unlike most of my friends and fellow antiwar activists, I really don't think this war is about oil. I base that in part on the fact that we didn't need to spend what we're spending (well, borrowing) to get oil from Iraq. In fact, this is probably the most expensive way to get oil we could have thought of.

Nevertheless, there has been no demonstration of how this escalation will work, why it will work, and what difference it will make in the long term. This seems like an irreducible requirement for support of this plan.

One thing I just thought of: Am I missing something, or have they pretty much stopped bothering to pretend that this occupation is being run by a coalition? It seems as though I'm not hearing that very much anymore.


----------



## Armchair (Nov 12, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> One thing I just thought of: Am I missing something, or have they pretty much stopped bothering to pretend that this occupation is being run by a coalition? It seems as though I'm not hearing that very much anymore.


Don't forget Poland!


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

More troops won't accomplish anything, whether it's 20,000 or 200,000. Bush and a sizeable minority of Americans still believe it's possible for one country to "win" the civil war of another country. This is the exact same arrogance and utter stupidity which cost the lives of 58,000 of our kids in Vietnam, and 54,000 more in Korea. Some people never learn.

Has anyone reading this discussion seen a nightly news broadcast from Iraq? Do you know what "insurgents" are called in their own country? FREEDOM FIGHTERS. Do some research for chrissakes. 85% of the Iraqi people see us as an invader and occupier, not a liberator, and the people who're blowing away our kids on a daily basis are viewed as patriotic heroes! And now Bush is sending 20,000 more of our kids into harm's way, with the prior understanding that the move is out of desperation. Even his own generals are telling him it won't accomplish anything. If you were the average Iraqi "insurgent" on the street, the message is clear and simple: it's open season on our sons and daughters.

Bush is rewriting the book on military incompetence, and now the same catastrophe machine is gearing up for Iran. The harder we flag our private parts at other countries and toss diplomacy aside, the more our global influence goes from its current state of shattered to completely non-existent. Last week Bush said something to the effect of, "If you don't like my plan, tell me yours." Well, Congress and his own generals have given him diplomatic and political options, including the only one which has a chance of working (partitioning). Bush wants no part of it. He's convinced he can "win" their civil war.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

As anyone paying attention knows, I am not a Bush basher but I was also against the war. I have also stated repeatedly though, that once in, the US needed to play to win. It obviously has not done that nor is it likely too. Now the US has put the Western world in a lose/lose position: if the US withdraws, it further emboldens all islamic fundies. If the US stays, more troops die and the US still does not "win" the war as it is not playing to win, very similar to VietNam.

I have to set aside global geopolitics and figure out what is best for me and mine. That would simply be to stop spending my tax money in the butcher shop that has become Iraq.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

giff74 said:


> If we had a comprehensive, self reliant energy policy we could get the hell out of the Middle East and let them duke things out for control. I pay more for health care than 90% of the people in this country because I am self employed and my son is about to have major heart surgery, I am still paying my college loans off that put me through college with no help from any from any part of the the government and I pay a ton in self employment taxes. But I dont want the government to screw with any of those things!!!
> 
> Fix the energy policy....oh wait....we dont really have a comprehensive energy policy, the idgets from both sides of the isle cant get together enough to decide its bad for the US to be dependent on foreign energy.
> 
> If we werent fighting for the oil in the middle east I dont think they would be so interested in blowing us up and we wouldnt have to have troops on the ground. Then we would only have to worry about Israel, but we should solve that issue on another day.


I find this (along with a complete failure to try to use a market approach to address healthcare access/costs) to be one of the MOST galling aspects of the Bush administration (it makes me believe Democrat allegations that Bush is in the pocket of "big oil"). His refusal to address this issue was a terrible, terrible missed opportunity. What infuriates me is that oil is a fungible good - as part of the strategic issue, it doesn't matter whether we drill in ANWAR, of the coast of S. California, or wherever - Even if we were completely oil self-sufficient though massive exploration and exploitation all that might mean is that world oil prices on the world-wide market would go down (although, over the long run, there would be less incentive for conservation at the lower price and consumption may well go up, driving prices up) - the net effect is oil dollars are still going to corrupt middle east governments and to countries like Venezuela. We're still funding undesirable governments, some of whom, have helped fund (perhaps indirectly) terror activities. Bush, being a former oil man, would have had killer credibility to go to the nation and announce a Manhattan Project for alternative fuels. Call all the major automobile manufacturers together - give them 10 years to develop an alternative technology for powering cars to which no party has Intellectual Property rights (IP is owned by the Gov't and licensed, if need be) and which will be universally adopted (to avoid the betmax/VHS dilemma for future consumers) and go with it. I believe it was the FCC that did something similar for digital TV standards with the major TV manufacturers in the early/mid nineties. Probably need to raise gas taxes to incentivize people to adopt the new cars when they come out.

...Still, I haven't heard much from the Dems on this either....


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> More troops won't accomplish anything, whether it's 20,000 or 200,000. Bush and a sizeable minority of Americans still believe it's possible for one country to "win" the civil war of another country. This is the exact same arrogance and utter stupidity which cost the lives of 58,000 of our kids in Vietnam, and 54,000 more in Korea. Some people never learn.


Oh stop it! That is inane - Korea was not Vietnam and Iraq is is nothing like Vietnam - at any level. We may lose it, but it's not at all for the same reasons as Vietnam was lost. For starters - China isn't there helping, it's not an insurgency of tens of thousands, there's no jungle, etc. Most Americans in Vietnam weren't killed by IEDs/car bombs, etc. I don't know how old you are - I'm going to assume Vietnam was the "defining" moment of your generation - but, not every military action is Vietnam - get a grip. (BTW, weren't N. Korea forces forced to "give up" S. Korea and pull back behind the 38th?.)

I heard, and I have no idea if it's true, that in actuality, the U.S. only has about 5,000 actual combat troops in Baghdad, if the "surge" say, doubled or tripled the number of actual combat troops in Baghdad who, in conjunction with Iraqi forces, are patrolling 24 hours a day - it may well help. NO ONE here knows for sure one way or the other. Given that we're in the muck anyway, seems better to try this than to run away once again and only further encourage those who wish us harm.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Rocker said:


> What infuriates me is that oil is a fungible good...
> ...Still, I haven't heard much from the Dems on this either....


This reminds me of a cartoon I read last year where one character mentions oil is fungible and then another character goes on a completely off topic rant for about four frames, bashing Bush. The last frame is the original character asking, "You don't know what 'fungible' means, do you?" I have it laminated somewhere as I thought it was a spot-on slice of political life.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> This reminds me of a cartoon I read last year where one character mentions oil is fungible and then another character goes on a completely off topic rant for about four frames, bashing Bush. The last frame is the original character asking, "You don't know what 'fungible' means, do you?" I have it laminated somewhere as I thought it was a spot-on slice of political life.


Send it to FrankDC.


----------



## TheSaint (Jun 28, 2005)

Well everyone, get ready for more Jedi Mind Tricks and a fresh batch of Koolaid from Bush's State of The Union address tonight. Not Bush bashing here. Would say this regardless of who was in office. Looking forward to new elections. Maybe Mccain, Biden or someone else will get us out of this debacle. 

Cheers


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

TheSaint said:


> Well everyone, get ready for more Jedi Mind Tricks from Bush's State of The Union address tonight. Not Bush bashing here. Would say this regardless of who was in office. Looking forward to new elections. Maybe Mccain, Biden or someone else will get us out of this debacle.
> 
> Cheers


I voted for the guy - twice but, watching him speak causes me pain and discomfort. I prefer to avert my eyes/ears; his father was no great wordsmith either. I will gladly miss it.

I wish he would engage in a REAL act of leadership with this speech and cease the annoying practice of pointing to some heroic/noble "everyman" up in the balcony - very tiresome and cliched. Honestly, I wish the Pres. would just hand over a written report and be done with it.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

I think that 20,000 troops won't help. more than that, I don't know if we can scrape together an additioanal 20K comba ready infantry at this point - we seem to be streched real thin. 


I would have liked to have seen the US do what it takes to win this war. that didn't happen. if and when the US pulls out of iraq, whether it is tomorrow or in 10 years, there will be chaos left behind. 

at this point, I would suggest that the US put in place 3 seperate special forces teams to support the 3 sides, and keep a steady flow of weapons and help to the 3 sides to keep the civil war running as long as possible. as long as the 3 groups are fighting each other, they can't do to much harm to the rest of the world.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Ole Karl Rove is a wizard. He has everyone arguing whether to maintain the current troop levels or increase them slightly to below the peak of force levels since the beginning of the war. This "surge" is below the levels we had for the election security missions. 

Agree or disagree, the man is a formidable foe. I wish they spent as much time manipulating the world media as they do the domestic one. Karen Hughes is not accomplishing anything with their new media-propoganda-goodwill mission

IMHO, the big mistake was made when we let Sadhr and his militia escape a couple of years ago when we refused to let the Marines attack the mosque in Falujah where they were held up inside under the argument that to shoot up a mosque would bring about the apocolypse. 

It was only a few months later that one sect blew up the other sect's mosque.

I was for federalism in Iraq all along. I think the Kurds rock. Screw Turkey's objections. They screwed us.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

ksinc said:


> IMHO, the big mistake was made when we let Sadhr and his militia escape a couple of years ago when we refused to let the Marines attack the mosque in Falujah where they were held up inside under the argument that to shoot up a mosque would bring about the apocolypse.


Kinda doubt that Sadr and his militia were ever hanging out in Fallouja--that's hard-core Sunni territory!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

JLibourel said:


> Kinda doubt that Sadr and his militia were ever hanging out in Fallouja--that's hard-core Sunni territory!


My mistake. It was Najaf. Same difference. We had him and let him go.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

JLibourel said:


> Kinda doubt that Sadr and his militia were ever hanging out in Fallouja--that's hard-core Sunni territory!


I seem to remember David Letterman, back in the early 90s, showing a T-shirt that stated, "If you're not Muslim, you're not Shiite."

This is of no particular relevance or import but, it amuses me still.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

For those calling this a "debacle" please explain exactly what you mean. What are the criteria for such a debacle. The word has become a punchline without any merit whatsoever. Things maybe moving slowly but that doesn't mean its a debacle. 

From the beginning a choice had to be made:
A) Do we dictate from on high; a sort of pseudo-colonial presence or, 
B) Do we encourage a government to be formed, albeit imperfect at first, that will ultimately be responsible to the people it represents. 

We chose the latter and although some mistakes have been made its slowly working. The center of mass if Baghdad and from the latest news reports Al-Sadr is blinking. The addition of 20,000 troops may not seem like much however if they are concentrated at the critical point they may be just the right antidote. 

And for goodness sakes, people please stop drawing comparisons to Viet Nam. This is Iraq! The political and military questions are completely different. We're not losing 100 troops a day and in comparison to civil wars of the past (ours, the Bolsheviks, etc.) this is quite low grade. Well, perhaps one thing is the same. We have politicians that vacillate like tall prarie grass on a windy day.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Nice knowing your son or daughter died in a low grade war.Thats the talk of R. Crumb's General Cockroach. Maybe we need those fund raising thermometers with the final toll from Vietnam at the top to make the comparison valid. " We're waist deep in the Big Sandy, the Big Fool says to push on." - apologies to Pete Seeger


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Mine was not an attempt to diminish the loss of a single brave soldier or marine. The "insurgency" however is nevertheless low grade in historical comparison.


----------



## AMVanquish (May 24, 2005)

I agree with those of you who have a hard time believing how another 20000 soldiers would help, seeing as how some generals said we needed 20 times that number BEFORE the war. Bush didn't even say anything about sealing the borders to Iran and Syria(where new terrorists are moving across like a speedbump.)

On the other hand, I don't see any choice but escalation. As it is now, Iraq is very close to becoming the next Afghanistan(a sizable, lawless country where anti-American and anti-Israeli terrorists are free to exist, train and plan more attacks.)

Withdrawing now or in the next year would be allowing another haven for the jihadists to be born.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> Mine was not an attempt to diminish the loss of a single brave soldier or marine. The "insurgency" however is nevertheless low grade in historical comparison.


Really? I guess the thousands of Iraqis who have died don't enter into the calculation. Between 1969 and 2001, during "The Troubles" in Ulster, a total of 3,523 persons, mostly civilians, were killed in the sectarian/political violence. More Iraqis, approximately 3700, were killed in October 2006 alone. We're also coming up on the four-year anniversary of the launch of this criminal debacle, and 3055 American soliders have been killed. In the first five years of the Vietnam War 1961 - 1965, total American military deaths were 1,864. (And you can save your hectoring horseshiit for someone else: I'm aware of the differences between the two conflicts - and evidently you overlook the, ah, inconsistency of denouncing those who make comparsions between Iraq and Vietnam, and then yourself comparing the Iraq conflict to the American and Russian Civil Wars.) Closer in time, total Soviet military deaths in the 10-year Afghan war were approximately 12,000 to 15,000, a figure we are sure to approach if we remain in Iraq for 10 years. So it depends on the comparison, doesn't it? I suppose so long as casualities remain below those of the Taiping rebellion all is well. Omelets and eggs, and all that sort of thing - right?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Gentlemen and friends, all of you, This is an important subject worthy of debate. We need to make informed choices as citizens. Lets at least have a modicum of peace with one another in this cyber world if not the very real one.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Armchair said:


> Don't forget Poland!


No, Armchair don't forget Poland. Don't forget how they saved Europe in 1683. Don't forget how Polish pilots helped bolster the RAF during the Battle of Britain. Don't forget how the Poles suffered under Communism and bravely defied Moscow and their own quislings through Walesa and Solidarity. Don't forget that Poland played a significant role in helping democratic forces in Ukraine during the Orange Revolution and is the leading advocate for the reform movement in Belarus. But you knew all that (right?) yet you still found the time to take a cheap shot at Poland and pat yourself on the back for your timely wit.

Don't forget Poland indeed.

Karl


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Karl, I do indeed appreciate the sentiments and perspective on Poland, but the real issue is that even the limited number of troops that country contributed to Bush's Folly has been drawn down to nearly nothing.

Polish President Lech Kaczynski said his country would pull its remaining 900 soldiers out of Iraq by the end of 2007. Italian Premier Romano Prodi said the last of Italy's soldiers in Iraq - about 60 to 70 troops - would return home this week.

Poland may be brave and courageous, but seems reluctant to play the fool.



Karl89 said:


> No, Armchair don't forget Poland. Don't forget how they saved Europe in 1683. Don't forget how Polish pilots helped bolster the RAF during the Battle of Britain. Don't forget how the Poles suffered under Communism and bravely defied Moscow and their own quislings through Walesa and Solidarity. Don't forget that Poland played a significant role in helping democratic forces in Ukraine during the Orange Revolution and is the leading advocate for the reform movement in Belarus. But you knew all that (right?) yet you still found the time to take a cheap shot at Poland and pat yourself on the back for your timely wit.
> 
> Don't forget Poland indeed.
> 
> Karl


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

BertieW,

Reasonable people can disagree on Iraq but I did not appreciate the slight on Poland, as if they don't matter and their contribution doesn't count. The Poles didn't go to Iraq to steal oil or bc they fell victim to some Neo-con plot, the Poles (under a previous left-wing government mind you!) went bc they recognize tyrrany and the threat it poses.

Though not of Polish descent myself, I will never take lightly a slight on Polish honor. And I realize that you are well aware of the Polish record but I am not sure that Armchair is - and if he is, his statement is even more contemptible.

Karl


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Armchair said:


> Don't forget Poland!


If you are ever in Chicago, make sure to stop in at a local bar in the Archer Heights neighborhood and tell your jokes.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> BertieW,
> 
> Reasonable people can disagree on Iraq but I did not appreciate the slight on Poland, as if they don't matter and their contribution doesn't count. The Poles didn't go to Iraq to steal oil or bc they fell victim to some Neo-con plot, the Poles (under a previous left-wing government mind you!) went bc they recognize tyrrany and the threat it poses.
> 
> ...


No, what was contemptible was Colin Powell jetting around the world threatening dire economic and political consequences if heads of state didn't sign onto Bush's "preventive invasion" mindlessness. For all practical purposes the coalition is and has always been a scam.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

FrankDC,

I forgot about the sanctions we applied to France, Germany, Canada and Russia after they refused to join the coalition. And the only one to threaten the Poles, since Yuri Andropov, was Jacques Chirac, who warned them about "consequences" if they rejected the EU Constitution.

Not for the first time you have your facts wrong but then again it must be hard being both supremely self-righteous and accurate at the same time.

Once again I urge you to lighten up Francis. The Neo-con bogeyman does not lurk around every corner.

Karl


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Lushington said:


> More Iraqis, approximately 3700, were killed in October 2006 alone.


An you think this will go down, how?
By withdrawing US forces to the borders?
By withdrawing US forces totally?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> FrankDC,
> 
> I forgot about the sanctions we applied to France, Germany, Canada and Russia after they refused to join the coalition.


And exactly how does the fact that France, Germany, Canada, and Russia did not suffer sanctions prove that no sanctions were threatened, especially against smaller, weaker countries?

If you think the assertion that Powell threatened sanctions is false you should be able to back it up with something more than sarcasm.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> BertieW,
> 
> Reasonable people can disagree on Iraq but I did not appreciate the slight on Poland, as if they don't matter and their contribution doesn't count. The Poles didn't go to Iraq to steal oil or bc they fell victim to some Neo-con plot, the Poles (under a previous left-wing government mind you!) went bc they recognize tyrrany and the threat it poses.
> 
> ...


Karl, I don't see Bertie's pun as a slight on Poland. Any contributions made by other European countries are appreciated, at least by me. Poland has always stood up and been counted, even before the days of John I Sobieski. Their unfortunate lot in life was to be geographically placed between Russia and Prussia.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Lushington said:


> Really? I guess the thousands of Iraqis who have died don't enter into the calculation. Between 1969 and 2001, during "The Troubles" in Ulster, a total of 3,523 persons, mostly civilians, were killed in the sectarian/political violence. *More Iraqis, approximately 3700, were killed in October 2006 alone.* We're also coming up on the four-year anniversary of the launch of this criminal debacle, and 3055 American soliders have been killed. In the first five years of the Vietnam War 1961 - 1965, total American military deaths were 1,864. (And you can save your hectoring horseshiit for someone else: I'm aware of the differences between the two conflicts - and evidently you overlook the, ah, inconsistency of denouncing those who make comparsions between Iraq and Vietnam, and then yourself comparing the Iraq conflict to the American and Russian Civil Wars.) Closer in time, total Soviet military deaths in the 10-year Afghan war were approximately 12,000 to 15,000, a figure we are sure to approach if we remain in Iraq for 10 years. So it depends on the comparison, doesn't it? I suppose so long as casualities remain below those of the Taiping rebellion all is well. Omelets and eggs, and all that sort of thing - right?


Civilians? One of my good friends is a Ranger, currently serving in Iraq, and has been shot at a great many times by these so called civilians. Some of them have been women, who appeared to be carrying laundry, but were actually carrying an AK-47 hidden in their basket.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Rocker said:


> An you think this will go down, how?
> By withdrawing US forces to the borders?
> By withdrawing US forces totally?


Oh, I get it: the Babylonian adventure is now a humanitarian mission. The US occupation must continue or god only knows what will occur. Kind of like the "Reconstruction of Iraq," right? We blew it up, so now we get to . . . I mean, now we have to rebuild it. What preposterous rubbish. If you wish to address the matter in moral terms, to determine our responsibility to Iraq, the US obligations are clear: immediate withdrawal of all US personnel; the immediate closure of all bases and military facilities in the region; the impeachment and removal from office of all public officials responsible for this war of aggression; and the payment of enormous war reparations to the Iraqi people. Of course, all of this is unimaginable - for us. However, if the People's Republic of China had undertaken a twelve-year bombing and sanction regime against Taiwan, which led to the deaths of several hundred thousand citizens of that island, followed by a four-year invasion and occupation that had unleashed a savage civil war among competing factions - a program much like the one I've described would be demanded by the US adminstration and the US ambassdor to the UN would seek a security counsel and general assembly resolutions calling for more or less the same thing. If the Chinese protested that they had to remain in occupation of the island or all hell would break loose, American officials would dismiss those protests as lame, self-serving pigshiit, and rightfully so. So the matter is one of situational, Great Power ethics, isn't it? We have one imperative in Iraq: leave now, as we left Vietnam in 1975. "But there'll be a bloodbath!" Given that one is already occuring, and 20,000 additional US soldiers will change nothing, this argument is somewhat moot. If we leave, the Shia will probably prevail in the struggle, and the US and Israel can contemplate the fruit of their insane foreign policy: a militant and aggressive Shiite crescent running from Tehran to Beirut. Nice work fellas.

Oh, and for those who decry comparisons between Vietnam and Iraq: Save it. Yeah, there's no jungle in the Mesopotamian desert, I believe that is well-established. The policy and strategic imperatives supporting both conflicts have many similarities, however, as is the propaganda employed to whitewash our crimes. For instance, the "bloodbath" cry was also raised quite often during Vietnam to justify our continued occupation of the South. It was BS then, and it's BS now.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> Civilians? One of my good friends is a Ranger, currently serving in Iraq, and has been shot at a great many times by these so called civilians. Some of them have been women, who appeared to be carrying laundry, but were actually carrying an AK-47 hidden in their basket.


I used "civilians" in reference to Ulster to distinguish the majority of casualties from the British soldiers killed in the conflict. Civilians, as opposed to the members of regular armed forces: many of the Irish killed were also members of irregular "terrorist" organizations, the Provos, the UDF, etc. Actually, a larger percentage of the Iraqis who have died during our occupation were through and through civilians than were the dead Irish. As for your friend's experience: I'm sure this principle isn't found in the curriculum at West Point, but as a general rule, when women are routinely shooting at our soldiers it's time for the soldiers to leave.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Jack,

You must have skipped logic in school, along with rules of evidence in law school. In our system the accussing party has the burden of proof. Perhaps I missed it where either your or FrankDC offered proof of Powell's nefarious threats of sanctions. You offer no proof of such a threat but claim that the fact that no sanctions were levied doesn't mean that they weren't threatened. I realize you live in Vermont but such Orwellian logic doesn't jive in the real world.

Perhaps next time you try and make a claim that is baseless you should be sarcastic - at least it would be something.

Karl


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Lushington said:


> I used "civilians" in reference to Ulster to distinguish the majority of casualties from the British soldiers killed in the conflict. Civilians, as opposed to the members of regular armed forces: many of the Irish killed were also members of irregular "terrorist" organizations, the Provos, the UDF, etc. Actually, a larger percentage of the Iraqis who have died during our occupation were through and through civilians than were the dead Irish.* As for your friend's experience: I'm sure this principle isn't found in the curriculum at West Point, but as a general rule, when women are routinely shooting at our soldiers it's time for the soldiers to leave.*


Easier said than done in this case. He and his men can't just run away when they suddenly find themselves in the midst of shooting. They are forced to defend themselves, and unfortunately often times civilians are killed. My uncles had the same sad experience during Vietnam, the enemy hiding amongst civilians.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Laxplayer,

Remember we have to abide by the Geneva Convention and lawyers at the Pentagon are constantly revising the rules of engagement, sometimes in real time during tactical engagements. And in the instances where we fail to meet that standard there is rightfully an international public uproar. However the insurgents don't play by the "rules" and intentionally target civilians yet there is no real public outrage in the Muslim world about the insurgents conduct. Fellow Muslims get a pass to butcher their co-religionists it seems.

Karl


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

Lushington said:


> Oh, and for those who decry comparisons between Vietnam and Iraq: Save it. Yeah, there's no jungle in the Mesopotamian desert, I believe that is well-established. The policy and strategic imperatives supporting both conflicts have many similarities, however, as is the propaganda employed to whitewash our crimes.


You mean the Iraqi was justified as used to stop the spread of Communism? 
You've completely mischaracterized my question and in your usual style did it snidely and with great bombast - congrats. Unfortunately, I have to draft a memo summarizing voting powers for three different classes of preferred stock. I don't have time, right now, to deal with your sniveling, hand-wringing, collective guilt issues (e.g., "our crimes").

You should, however, remember that you were the one who brought up Iraqi civilian casualties - the implication was that you seemed concerned about them and I asked what you suggested we do to improve their lot. It was a simple enough question, and all you could do was vomit forth your usual pretentiousness and bold assertions. HINT: I believe the "twelve-year bombing and sanction regime" to which you refer was approved by the UN and the Security Council - do you know something different? You think the sanctions and no-fly zone patrols were illegal?

I was clearly wrong - you have no concern about the Iraqis, as with the case of Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos following our pull-out in Vietnam, your undoubtedly content to see them killed by the millions as in Cambodia or to flee to other countries in vast numbers, like Laos. Your answer - run away, run away regardless of the cost. So, if you don't care about how many died under the regime before we invaded and your indifferent to the vast numbers which will die or flee after we precipitously pull out, why'd you bring them up in the first place?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Jack,
> 
> You must have skipped logic in school, along with rules of evidence in law school. In our system the accussing party has the burden of proof. Perhaps I missed it where either your or FrankDC offered proof of Powell's nefarious threats of sanctions. You offer no proof of such a threat but claim that the fact that no sanctions were levied doesn't mean that they weren't threatened. I realize you live in Vermont but such Orwellian logic doesn't jive in the real world.
> 
> ...


Good grief Karl, your ignorance is nothing short of astonishing. The claim that Powell threatened consequences to heads of state around the world has been perfectly documented and isn't even debatable, e.g. https://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/04/23/sprj.nilaw.france.sanctions/

Also, use of the word "sanctions" was YOUR use, not mine.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Wow, Frank came up with a fact. I sign off on Bush. It has been a *VERY* strange day.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

"Came up"? Look, Karl's claims speak for themselves, better than I ever could. Y'all are literally swimming in a sea of ignorance and denial on the subject of Iraq.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> "Came up"? Look, Karl's claims speak for themselves, better than I ever could. Y'all are literally swimming in a sea of ignorance and denial on the subject of Iraq.


Amazing. Frank, you did notice I stated you came up with a fact, right? You have paid enough attention to see me repeatedly state I was against the war for nearly a year now, right? So Frank...could you elucidate what sea of ignorance and denial I am swimming in?

All is right with the world again. I can now safely assume it was a random event for you to post a pertinent fact.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Amazing. Frank, you did notice I stated you came up with a fact, right? You have paid enough attention to see me repeatedly state I was against the war for nearly a year now, right? So Frank...could you elucidate what sea of ignorance and denial I am swimming in?
> 
> All is right with the world again. I can now safely assume it was a random event for you to post a pertinent fact.


Oh, I've been paying attention alright, and I stand by my comment. You have the correct position for an entirely incorrect reason. You believe in the "play to win" Americentric nonsense, i.e. if only we had sacrificed 500,000 of our kids instead of 50,000 in Vietnam and Korea, we could have "won" the civil wars in those countries. And if only we could send 2 million troops into Iraq we have some chance of "winning" the civil war there as well. I stand by my claim that this belief stems from nothing other than arrogance and ignorance, and denial of basic human nature.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Oh, I've been paying attention alright, and I stand by my comment. You have the correct position for an entirely incorrect reason. You believe in the "play to win" Americentric nonsense, i.e. if only we had sacrificed 500,000 of our kids instead of 50,000 in Vietnam and Korea, we could have "won" the civil wars in those countries. And if only we could send 2 million troops into Iraq we have some chance of "winning" the civil war there as well. I stand by my claim that this belief stems from nothing other than arrogance and ignorance, and denial of basic human nature.


If you were really paying attention, you would see my major beef is spending my tax money on the war. As for 'Nam, I am afraid mastering the toilet was my sole concern at that time and history has shown us what we need to know about wars the US wages without the will power to win. I do give you points though for managing to disagree with me over Iraq even though you agree with my Iraq policy. It shows a certain intransigence that is to be commended.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> You believe in the "play to win" Americentric nonsense


Would you rather we suppose a "play to lose" attitude when it comes to the deployment of our forces?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> Would you rather we suppose a "play to lose" attitude when it comes to the deployment of our forces?


When it comes to deployment of our armed forces my attitude is, "If the cause is good enough to send my kid to fight and die, it's good enough for yours." There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that, if our president and congress had been required to send their own kids into battle first, we never would have gotten involved in Vietnam, or Korea, or Iraq, or any of the other "police actions", military adventurism etc etc which have occurred since WWII.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> When it comes to deployment of our armed forces my attitude is, "If the cause is good enough to send my kid to fight and die, it's good enough for yours." There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that, if our president and congress had been required to send their own kids into battle first, we never would have gotten involved in Vietnam, or Korea, or Iraq, or any of the other "police actions", military adventurism etc etc which have occurred since WWII.


I apologize for not knowing names off the top of my head however a number of congressmen, both R & D, have children serving. In addition there are a number of elected state officials who have and are currently serving. Your notion, while it certainly appeals to a bygone era of 60's radicalism and socialism, simply does not hold water. We have a 100% volunteer force. No one is obligated to join. Study after study has also shown that the ratio of minority:white in the military is rougly the same as in society as a whole.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

FrankDC,

The article you cite is hardly a fact that supports your claim. The Bush administration at the time was very upset with France, not bc they refused to join the coalition, but rather bc they actively tried to hamper US efforts at the UN and tried to undermine the push for a binding resolution just prior to the war. The call at State at the time was to "Forgive Germany, Isolate Russia and Punish France."

So nice try but no cigar.

Karl


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

*Right, Karl*

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell has warned that France will face consequences for having opposed the United States over war in Iraq.

Powell said the United States had to review its relationship with France following its promise to veto any U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing war against Iraq.

"It's over and we have to take a look at the relationship. We have to look at all aspects of our relationship with France in light of this," Powell said during an interview on the Charlie Rose television program Tuesday.

Asked by Rose if there are consequences for standing up to the United States, Powell replied "yes," but did not elaborate.

https://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/04/23/sprj.nilaw.france.sanctions/


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Rocker said:


> You mean the Iraqi was justified as used to stop the spread of Communism?
> 
> <snip, various incoherencies>


I mentioned Iraqi casualties not for the purpose of demonstrating my profound love for the all god's children, but to show that pt4u67's contention that the Iraq conflict is a "low-grade" affair by "historical comparison" depends upon the historical conflict to which it is compared. Further, I answered your question: the US must leave Iraq and the region now, *and* the US should sanction itself for launching this indefensible war. Neither of these desirable events will happen, of course, but that hardly matters from an analytic standpoint. And what a remarkable display of compassion on your part, crying a river of crocodile tears for dead Cambodians and Iraqis while urging that we destroy the village to save it. Very touching. Yes, the US more or less brought the Khmer Rouge to power, then "ran away" - and Vietnam put an end to the regime. If the US were to withdraw from Iraq, regional powers, primarily Iran, would also put a stop to the civil war now raging under our tender auspices, a civil war that our additional 20,000 soldiers will do nothing to abate. Here's a secret: left to its own devices the rest of the world can get along just fine without the US, a state of affairs that we - yes, we - find most unacceptable, as there is little point in being a Cittee on a Hill if no one is paying attention. As for your questions regarding bombing and sanctions: the relevant Security Council resolutions, particularly 688, did not authorize the no-fly zones; rather, the no-fly zones were a part of a unilateral US strategy to produce a _casus belli_ at some point in the future, should one be needed. (I know this may come as a shock, but the architects of American foreign policy actually look several years into the future when devising strategic and tactical plans for future action. You may wish to make a note of this.) Regarding sanctions: the UN Security Council imposed draconian sanctions on Iraq in 1990 in response to the invasion of Kuwait, a fairly standard practice. Those sanctions remained in place *after *the Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait because the US hoped that the hardship and suffering caused by the sanctions would lead to a coup and the end of Saddam's rule. When it became clear that this would not happen, the US refused to approve any substantial modification to the sanction regime so long as Saddam remained in power.

The sad fact is, Rocker, virtually every disaster in the Middle East in the last 30 years can be laid at the feet of the United States and its various allies: from the Iranian revolution, to the creation of Al Qaida, to the current civil war. I deeply regret that such "sniveling" bothers you, but there it is. I'd suggest a double dose of Fox News, followed by a good long listen to John Wayne's spoken-word epic, _America: Why I Love Her._ If you follow that protocol you should feel better in a day or so.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> I apologize for not knowing names off the top of my head however a number of congressmen, both R & D, have children serving. In addition there are a number of elected state officials who have and are currently serving. Your notion, while it certainly appeals to a bygone era of 60's radicalism and socialism, simply does not hold water. We have a 100% volunteer force. No one is obligated to join. Study after study has also shown that the ratio of minority:white in the military is rougly the same as in society as a whole.


My "notion" has nothing whatsoever to do with appealing to "radicalism and socialism". If you must slap a label on it, call it a basic Christian principle. Nor did I claim no one in Congress has children serving in our armed forces. Nor do your points have anything to do with mine.

My point, one which is hardly debatable is that our elected representatives would think much longer and harder before committing our armed services, if their own kids were to be sent before anyone else's. I am not putting this forward as a viable proposal, in fact it wouldn't even be constitutional. But the fact is, Bush and Cheney e.g. are very adept at sending other people's kids to fight and die in Iraq, but the fact is they haven't and wouldn't ask their own kids to do the same.

This is just one example of right wing hypocrisy, among many. Ask 100 "pro-life" Republicans whether they're in favor of legal abortion on demand and you'll get somewhere close to 100 negative responses. Then turn right around and ask them, would they want the government involved if their own daughter had an unwanted pregnancy and you'll get nearly the SAME NUMBER of negative responses. Or same-sex marriage: Bush and Cheney part ways on a constitutional amendment banning them, simply because Cheney's own daughter is a lesbian and he can't get away with this kind of institutionalized gay bashing. It's one hypocrisy after another!


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> Easier said than done in this case. He and his men can't just run away when they suddenly find themselves in the midst of shooting. They are forced to defend themselves, and unfortunately often times civilians are killed. My uncles had the same sad experience during Vietnam, the enemy hiding amongst civilians.


My proposed principle is addressed to strategy, not tactics. Obviously, the principle has been hopelessly transgressed if American soldiers find themselves in a theater where they are being routinely attacked by the civilian population they are ostensibly there to protect.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

From one angle we should leave. From another angle were almost done and won. The goofy news media is the problem.

I keep hearing soldiers say we have made great progress. I think the luney media wants us to loose. I think Bush went over there to up his ratings. I think the Middle East is beyond help.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Lushington said:


> My proposed principle is addressed to strategy, not tactics. *Obviously, the principle has been hopelessly transgressed if American soldiers find themselves in a theater where they are being routinely attacked by the civilian population they are ostensibly there to protect.*


As I clicked submit, I thought that maybe you were referring to the Iraq situation as a whole. My mistake. I do agree with you on this btw.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

WA said:


> From one angle we should leave. From another angle were almost done and won. The goofy news media is the problem.
> 
> I keep hearing soldiers say we have made great progress. I think the luney media wants us to loose. I think Bush went over there to up his ratings. *I think the Middle East is beyond help.*


You know WA, we have disagreed on quite a few things, but I actually agree with you on this one. The ME does seem to be beyond repair. That's why I wish Bush had the guts to say we need to cut oil dependence by 50% in ten years, rather than 20%.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> You know WA, we have disagreed on quite a few things, but I actually agree with you on this one. The ME does seem to be beyond repair. That's why I wish Bush had the guts to say we need to cut oil dependence by 50% in ten years, rather than 20%.


I was thinking 90%. I was watching this program on different cars that didn't use gasoline; The electric car sounded really nice because when you stop there is no sound and I love silence.

Wonder what replacement fuel for aircraft would be.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

It's a pack of lies, regardless of the number. You think a president and administration consisting almost exclusively of oil company execs are interested in reducing our dependence on oil? Wake up.

Anyone recall Ronald Reagan's primary campaign issue in 1979?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> It's a pack of lies, regardless of the number. You think a president and administration consisting almost exclusively of oil company execs are interested in reducing our dependence on oil? Wake up.
> 
> Anyone recall Ronald Reagan's primary campaign issue in 1979?


You seem awfully smug about this, so what exactly are you doing to reduce your own dependence on oil? I use a motorless lawn mower, my wife and I drive fuel efficient cars, we walk or ride our bikes to local businesses, use the metro when we head downtown and we burn corn pellets in a Franklin stove for heat in our home rather than pay the high cost of natural gas...want me to keep going? Come on Mr. Self-righteous, what do you do? 
And, before Brompton calls me a leftist again: I'm also pro-life, pro-family, against nationalized healthcare, I support the military and enjoy hunting and fishing.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

We haven't owned a car since 2000, and as far as possible have converted to natural gas for our appliances. The only oil we use (at least directly) on a regular basis is a can of WD40 to fix squeaky door hinges.

But you countered my point with an unrelated point. We've heard Bush's claim before, from every president since Ronald Reagan. And without exception, as soon as the SOTU speeches are over nothing further is heard about it. Time will tell how serious Bush is, although again, the idea that a bunch of oil execs are interested in reducing our country's dependence on oil is laughable even at face value.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> My point, one which is hardly debatable is that our elected representatives would think much longer and harder before committing our armed services, if their own kids were to be sent before anyone else's.


I'm sorry but your statement makes absolutely no sense. Those making such decisions should make them based on the national interest not narrow personal preferances. Lets expand your notion to all policy decisions:
"Will this change in the tax code benefit my kids? Yes, well then lets do it."


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Excuse me, tax code changes don't fire bullets into my son's brain. And in any case "narrow personal preferences" have nothing to do with my point. The simple fact is, it's easier to send someone else's kids to fight and die in a "preventive invasion", or "police action", or whatever other happy face labels one chooses to slap on our country's obscene foreign policies since WWII, rather than send your own kids.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Anyone recall Ronald Reagan's primary campaign issue in 1979?


Yes, lower taxes.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

The only real answer to your dilemma is to make it law that, in order to serve as President (and maybe the VP; throw is some immediate relatives of each) are required to have sons or daughters in the Marines or front line Army corp. Other branches probably wouldn't satisfy, as they are too easily kept in somewhat safer environs, even in war zones.

This would need be required even to run for the office, as otherwise, how could one make an appropriate decision to go to war (or not) without the necessary emotional aspect coming into proper perspective.

Obama, Clinton, and doubtless, most, if not all, others on both sides of the aisle would be ineligible for 2008, as they don't meet this requirement.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I wonder how many supporting a "child in the military" policy voted for the "Draft-Dodging Canadian - Slick Willy Clinton"?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I wonder how many supporting a "child in the military" policy voted for the "Draft-Dodging Canadian - Slick Willy Clinton"?


Liberal intellectuals have left the building and left in their place people that yell, scream and utter platitudes. The whole argument boils down to a base and childish argument that will echo well with the Michael Moor/Cindy Sheehan crowd but can't be substantiated. Did lawmakers during any other conflict in our history show this propensity. I think claims like this should be held up to some historical standard.

If what others are suggesting is true, that if a politician has a child in the military he/she is less likely to involve us in a war, then what about those Dem congressmen who don't have children in the military that are calling for our retreat. And what about John McCain who has a son in the military who is calling for more troops?


----------



## rnoldh (Apr 22, 2006)

*Cheney on CNN Wolf Blitzer last night!*

Did anyone see VP Cheney on CNN with Wolf Blitzer last night?

To me, it seemed almost surreal.

To this day Cheney will say that Iraq was connected to Al qaeda prior to the invasion. And that there were WMD's. And that Iraq was a center of the war on terrorism "PRIOR" to the invasion.

Of course, it's politically, and perhaps personally impossible. But I would have so much more respect and confidence in GWB, Cheney et al, if they just said. "We screwed up royally, and now because of our screw ups we must do certain things!"

That's probably as likely as a 50% decrease in oil consumption!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

rnoldh said:


> To this day Cheney will say that Iraq was connected to Al qaeda prior to the invasion. And that there were WMD's. And that Iraq was a center of the war on terrorism "PRIOR" to the invasion.


Maybe because the FACTS support the arguments that Iraq was connected to Al Qaeda prior to the invasion and that there WERE wmds. Except for your last claim which Cheney doesn't say AFAIK. He does say, "Iraq is a central front in the war on terror" which is the administration line and the truth. Perhaps you are confusing two different things he said or perhaps I missed something. Do you have an in-context quote we can peruse?


----------



## rnoldh (Apr 22, 2006)

*My main point is the "PRIOR" part.*



ksinc said:


> Maybe because the FACTS support the arguments that Iraq was connected to Al Qaeda prior to the invasion and that there WERE wmds. Except for your last claim which Cheney doesn't say AFAIK. He does say, "Iraq is a central front in the war on terror" which is the administration line and the truth. Perhaps you are confusing two different things he said or perhaps I missed something. Do you have an in-context quote we can peruse?


My main point is that prior to the invasion, Iraq was not a center of the war on terrorism. Everyone agrees that it is now.

Do you have valid and reasonable evidence that Iraq was a center of the war on terrorism prior to it's invasion.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

rnoldh said:


> My main point is that prior to the invasion, Iraq was not a center of the war on terrorism. Everyone agrees that it is now.
> 
> Do you have valid and reasonable evidence that Iraq was a center of the war on terrorism prior to it's invasion.


No, I'm saying no one said it was. Which I'm sure was clear the first time I said it. Quit running around the barn.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I wonder how many supporting a "child in the military" policy voted for the "Draft-Dodging Canadian - Slick Willy Clinton"?


For the second (or is it third?) time, I'm not proposing this as a "policy". If you choose, disagree with the basic reality of what I'm saying, but please spare us the non sequiturs.

And for the record I don't differentiate between presidents of one party from another. Clinton would have throught much longer and harder about sending troops into Kosovo had he been required to send Chelsea first.
​


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Clinton would have throught much longer and harder about sending troops into Kosovo had he been required to send Chelsea first.
> 
> ​


So you want our President's judgement regarding what is in our national interest to be swayed by such things?

I'll grant that you are not proposing this be policy however you are presenting scenarios which appeal to your sensibilities. What if the Iranians attacked an oil tanker flying under the U.S. Flag? Should the president not consider this an act of war and proceed to act accordingly because he does not have a child in the military?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> So you want our President's judgement regarding what is in our national interest to be swayed by such things?
> 
> I'll grant that you are not proposing this be policy however you are presenting scenarios which appeal to your sensibilities. What if the Iranians attacked an oil tanker flying under the U.S. Flag? Should the president not consider this an act of war and proceed to act accordingly because he does not have a child in the military?


His response might or would be different if he had a child in the military, and diplomacy wouldn't be abandoned nearly as quickly in favor of a military response. That's my point.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> His response might or would be different if he had a child in the military, and diplomacy wouldn't be abandoned nearly as quickly in favor of a military response. That's my point.


"Diplomacy without arms is like music without instruments" - Frederick the Great


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Any President that looks at a situation and allows the fact that he has a loved one who might be in harm's way to play any part in a decision to make peace or war is the wrong man (or woman) for the job.

A right or wrong decision for the sake of the country (maybe even mankind) does not include as a proper component the status of the decision-maker's loved ones.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Relayer said:


> Any President that looks at a situation and allows the fact that he has a loved one who might be in harm's way to play any part in a decision to make peace or war is the wrong man (or woman) for the job.
> 
> A right or wrong decision for the sake of the country (maybe even mankind) does not include as a proper component the status of the decision-maker's loved ones.


Obviously, but it simply doesn't work that way. You're ignoring human nature or pretending it doesn't apply in this case. It most certainly does.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> For the second (or is it third?) time, I'm not proposing this as a "policy". If you choose, disagree with the basic reality of what I'm saying, but please spare us the non sequiturs.
> 
> And for the record I don't differentiate between presidents of one party from another. Clinton would have throught much longer and harder about sending troops into Kosovo had he been required to send Chelsea first.
> ​


There is no reality to what you are saying to disagree with. You were already told McCain has a son in the military and voted for the war in Iraq and more troops. What part of that reality do you not accept?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> There is no reality to what you are saying to disagree with. You were already told McCain has a son in the military and voted for the war in Iraq and more troops. What part of that reality do you not accept?


I not only fully accept that reality, I respect it. Good for McCain. However I still stand by my claim. Finding exceptions (i.e. politicians who put their own families where their mouths are) do not disprove the general rule.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> There is no reality to what you are saying to disagree with. You were already told McCain has a son in the military and voted for the war in Iraq and more troops. What part of that reality do you not accept?


Never let reality get in the way of a good posturing.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> I not only fully accept that reality, I respect it. Good for McCain. However I still stand by my claim. Finding exceptions (i.e. politicians who put their own families where their mouths are) do not disprove the general rule.


How many would we have to find?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> How many would we have to find?


I can already tell you how many you'd find. Of the 535 members of Congress, you can count them on one hand. There's Tim Johnson (D-South Dakota), whose son Brooks is currently serving in Iraq. Another had a nephew who served briefly in Afghanistan. The other three are serving stateside (e.g. the son of John Kline, R-Minnesota is training units in Georgia).

And in all of the Bush Administration? Zero. John Ashcroft was the last person who had a child serving anywhere in the Middle East.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> I can already tell you how many you'd find. Of the 535 members of Congress, you can count them on one hand. There's Tim Johnson (D-South Dakota), whose son Brooks is currently serving in Iraq. Another had a nephew who served briefly in Afghanistan. The other three are serving stateside (e.g. the son of John Kline, R-Minnesota is training units in Georgia).
> 
> And in all of the Bush Administration? Zero. John Ashcroft was the last person who had a child serving anywhere in the Middle East.


You were talking historically in totality. Weren't you?

Why are you only doing the Iraq war?


----------

