|
|
|
|
|
| SFReader Forums > The Real World > World Events > Victory in Iraq | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
nathan
Sage
      
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 2176
| Posted 2/11/2007 4:18 PM (GMT -5) |   | Good morning 
Anyone who thinks you can bring any meaningful democracy at the point of a gun (provided by an "outside" force ) is reinventing history. It has always failed and it will fail again this time.
Have to respectfully disagree. Germany. Japan. S. Korea. American Independance, Kosovo etc, ad nauseam. Almost all democracy in the history of acctual democracy was bought at the end of a gun.
The only way to remove toliterian regimes is through a gun otherwise you have the hand wringing over Dafur that leads to nothing when the bad guys simply say "No." Without a gun opposition is as meaningless as the Free Tibet Movement.
Al-Queada are Sunni--but so what.
Well Al Queada's only inroads in the sandbox have been Sunni. The Shia have not embraced them. So the point was made about what I thought was a rather pie-in-the-sky "It'll all be fine: Iraqi's don't like foriegners" answer. Suddenly America leaves and Al Queada goes away after sub-letting most of An Bar? This is an argument?
Al-Queada are the self-proclaimed enemy of every Sunni state in the Gulf. To this end Bin Laden's stated goal was to cause a war between the US and a major Gulf state in hopes of turning the Gulf away from the US and enlisting more recruits for Al-Queada--
No his stated goal is a Caliphate of Islamafascism across greater pan-Arabia. Shia are lead by Immans. Immans and Shia have no love for the Caliphate ideal.
The sunni population and some regional government elements support that enterprise. However Bin Laden's opposition to sitting regimes only increases the chance that those government bodies will side with us: he's a wolf at their door as well.
best strategy--back off militarily.
If by this you mean intergrate diplomacy and espionage with military force--then you and I are sympatico, don't confuse some of my arguments as approval of how the Bush white house and cabinet is micromanagining this war.
If you mean military force, even massive military force at times, and a readiness to stand up to agression should be avoided like morals or ethics at a divorce lawyer's convention then I have to say the only ones pitching this are not people actually schooled in global stradegy.
Al-Queada will come here if we back off in Iraq--wrong! Same nonsense given to us by that group with that sparkling record of nothing other than failure. Would you listen to a broker who had a track record like that with your investments--I wouldn't.
I like intellectual debates like this, they can be fun, offer new perspectives, sharpen our arguments and, if kept light, are mostly harmless. I always think I'm going to learn something new.
But I have to admit that the one thing that pushes my button is Ostrich Politics. To state even in passing in casual conversation that the Bush Admi is the only one who things Al Queada wants to attack us again is silly. Global Jihad against the West means exactly that. Here's the track record: World Towers in the 90's. African Embassies, World Tower's on 9/11. Millienium Attempt. Tower Record attempt,etc etc. That's not Bush's trackrecord that's them.
Argue about how we should fight a better smarter terror war and I'm 100% behind you all day long. Start trying to pass that "Everything is Fine, Go about your Business, Folks" school of argument of as anything other than asinine and I'm going to stop considering your points.
All we can hope is that the majority of Americans get it this time and will not support people who have nothing but failure to show for their absolute insistence in knowing how to run foreign policy. Their track record speaks for itself.
Well, I agree here. Couldn't agree more in fact. I extend this to all the canidates, regardless of policy or party. For example the language Clinton uses is much different than the language Edwards uses--mainly because she sits on Intel/Mil committees and gets all the poop other politicians don't who talk about redeploying to Okinowa. Biden and Lieberman don't talk like Kennedy or even Obama--there is a reason for this: and it's not becuase they want Halliburton to get rich.
As far as negotiating for oil--exploding the Middle-East in endless regional wars should bring the price down and put us in a position of strength--makes sense
I'm sensing sarcasm here  I hope it wasn't meant sharply. Even a casual perusal of the news shows this to in fact be the case. Saudia Arabia has opted out of/refused/vetoed a oil price hike. Why. To help out America? Yes. Bin Landen is the House of Saud's enemy as well (as I believe you pointed out) so he has brought us closer together. BUT also because of the war in Iraq. Iran is the puppet master of the Shia insurgency busy killing the Sunni. If the oil price went up the Iranian government would be cash flush and stronger--leading to an escalation and advantage in the proxy war Sunni Arabia and Shia Iran are now fighting through Baghdad militia sponsorship.
Look I'm not against changing stradegies. I'm not neccessarily against redeployment of troops in-theatre or regionally. I would love to see the posture of the SOCOM change from Policeman to Fireman, for example.
However when I talk to people about this and they tell me Iraq secterian violence will get better not worse, that Iran won't be strengthen, or that Global Jihadist don't want to strike us again if we just quit in Iraq I have to question how much serious thought people are putting into the argument.
We may have to screw the Iraqi's over and just pull out--lord knows they're not helping us help them. We may have to pull another Vietnam on them. But if we're considering doing this for our own self-interest or even just to stabalize our own internal politics we should have the moral courage to own up to it.
The resulting regional Shia v. Sunni rift and proxy battles that take place could in fact acctually help us by drawing all of the would be suicide bombers into an inter-Arab conflict that makes everyone in the West safer as they forget about us. In a machievelian sense the farther-leftist and isolationist arguments about percipitious withdrawl and the resulting collapse could in fact save us all from coordinated fundamentalism.
But lets be upfront about how dirty that would be.
VIEW IMAGE"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Specfiction
Neophyte
Date Joined Dec 2006
Total Posts : 67
| Posted 2/11/2007 7:54 PM (GMT -5) | | Japan, Europe, The Balkans--all of these are false comparisons. Europe can't be compared--they had a history of Democracy--as far back as the Greeks. Japan et al--bad comparison--they were a defeated, non--fundamentalist enemy when the US entered Japan. The Balkans fell when Serbia fell--the Balkans, by the time we got into it after the air war, was peace keeping—there is no peace to keep in Iraq. What we're talking about is an infinite insurgent guerilla war with a fundamentalist enemy that will never quit--they blow themselves up to take you with them. A better comparison is Vietnam. The details are important.
The effect of this military intervention is to sideline moderate Middle-Eastern allies and to get a flood of recruits for our enemy--just what Bin Laden said he wanted. Yes he wants to topple Middle-Eastern states friendly to the US--how--by coaxing us into a regional war. It's working.
As far as Al Queda being Sunni--Sadam's regime was Sunni, I repeat there was no Al Queda before the war. When we leave, Iraq will be Shiite, conditions there will be even worst for Al Queda. And if they need some help with that, the Kurds, Kuate, and Qutar have offered bases from which we could make percision strikes without refereeing a civil war.
The price of oil during the 90's, the time that Sadam was contained, hovered between $20-$25/barrel. In the four years since the war it is between $55-$65/barrel with highs in the $70s. Futures traders estimate the price could top $100/barrel it the conflict flares up--I think they're conservative.
The gratifying thing about this conversation on SFreader is how serious and passionate feelings are. All one can hope is that those feelings can be channeled into a smarter course of action than we've seen so far.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Raph
Stubborn Scholar
Date Joined Oct 2004
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 2/12/2007 1:19 AM (GMT -5) | | Nathan,
I think the key phrase in Specfiction's statement about democracy at the point of a gun was the part about an "outside force". Democracy cannot work unless the people involved are committed to it, and willing to use rational discourse and compromise to work out their differences. If they are, there's no need for the gun; if they aren't, forcing democracy on them can do more harm than good, and is likely doomed to faliure. It's like shoving a piece of food down a starving man's throat. Even though the food is good for him, and is something he desperately needs, forcing it will choke him, and most likely get you decked.
There's one lesson that we should have learned from Vietnam, but apparently didn't--it is nearly impossible to win a guerilla war with conventional troops. The fighting styles and the motivation of the combatants, not to mention the fact that you can't tell friend from enemy, makes it a losing proposition. What we should do is employ small, highly trained units to specifically target the terrorist groups. As it stands, it's like we're attacking an ant hill with a hammer, while trying to target specific ants. You might concievably take out some of the right ants, but you're probably going to piss off the rest, and leave yourself worse off than when you started.
Mike O. | | Back to Top | | |
|
nathan
Sage
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 2176
| Posted 2/12/2007 4:28 AM (GMT -5) | | | Japan, Europe, The Balkans--all of these are false comparisons. Europe can't be compared--they had a history of Democracy--as far back as the Greeks.
Said what? The Greeks? Stretch your arm much  ? The Sunni (unlike the Shia) have a history of democratic process much longer than the brief period immeidately after the Kaiser and before the Night of The Long Knives in Germany. They vote on Caliphs. It is (one of) the fundamental divides between them and the Succession-From-Mohammad Imans. Also--the Afghans voted just fine. The Kurds are running a regular PTA group up north and all but 4 disitricts of Iraq are doing it. Hell the Iraqis have already done the purple finger thing everywhere before as well. However. I readily agree the Baghdad-centerist area has fallen into 11th century tribalism--it is the major reason we may indeed wash our hands of the mess. However the comparison is apt, the application is ubiquitous in many proviences and A-stan.
Japan et al--bad comparison--they were a defeated, non--fundamentalist enemy when the US entered Japan.
Well of course we should aim to defeat them first, glad to hear such a logical observation. But if you want to try and tell me Imperial Japan, home of the original suicide-bomber in a Vehicle Based Improvised Explosive Device--the Kamakaze pilot--wasn't a fundamentalist society, don't expect me to scede the point.
A better comparison is Vietnam. The details are important.
Here's a detail that's improtant. In 1968 North Vietnam, lacking wide spread support among indiginous southerners, dropped all pretense of a peasant uprising and launched the Tet Offensive. The forces 'broke like waves on the shore' against American defenses. By the time it was over the northern military capability was through. Westmoreland asked for permission to launch severe counter-attacks and finish the long struggle.
Something else happened. People not in Vietnam, not there on the ground, saw the US Embassy taken and held for a brief time, they saw fighting in the Streets of Saigon they saw the seiges of the northern cities and decided we had lost. They decided it couldn't be won.
The Peace Movement exploded and political pressure mounted and aggressive action was forstalled. Momentum was lost and the north recovered and grew stronger even as Americans marched in the street. It ended and the north swept down, the doves had their way and millions of S. Vietnamese were slaughtered.
Details are important, you are correct.
The Balkans fell when Serbia fell--the Balkans, by the time we got into it after the air war, was peace keeping—there is no peace to keep in Iraq. What we're talking about is an infinite insurgent guerilla war with a fundamentalist enemy that will never quit--they blow themselves up to take you with them
We were the air war. Actually Clinton's success in Serbia is overshadowed by Blackhawk Down which is too bad. That was a great campaign. However in this case the point is not that the wars there and in Iraq are similar but rather that Democracy occured in a country coming out of 60 years of communism and Royal rule ending with the Arch Duke Ferdinand for centuries before that. The gun in this case of course is meant to represent force used to remove dictators; not just troops on the ground. The air war was "the gun". The people we bombed into peace then voted.
The effect of this military intervention is to sideline moderate Middle-Eastern allies and to get a flood of recruits for our enemy--just what Bin Laden said he wanted. Yes he wants to topple Middle-Eastern states friendly to the US--how--by coaxing us into a regional war. It's working
I agree with you here. I just don't draw the same inference you do. Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor was meant to draw us into a war as well. Sometimes you've got some bad guys who want to fight and you have to fight. It is not defacto logic that because Bin Landen is happy we are in a war that that means we shouldn't be in that war. So far Bin Landen seems to have coxed Shia Iran into a confrontation. Okay. Iran was coming up anyway and by making Iran the ogre it makes it a hell of a lot easier for Sunni Saudi, Jordan, Eygpt, Oman, Kuwait, A.E. States, Yemen to side with use by exploiting religious divides. All those states are linned up against who? Iran and Syria. Really I think Syria would be a wash if you had someone else other than Bush in the White House. They are not the natural allies of the Mullahs.
Some lines may have needed drawing for this thing to end.
As far as Al Queda being Sunni--Sadam's regime was Sunni, I repeat there was no Al Queda before the war. When we leave, Iraq will be Shiite, conditions there will be even worst for Al Queda.
It sure won't be that simple...if we leave, southern Iraq will be Shiite. Sunni states will recieve massive support from Saudi Arabia and the overwhelming majority in the muslim world: the Sunni. With a harsh, violent bent-on-ethnic-cleansing Shia threat the An Bar equipped and organized Al Q will only be cemented. Who will protect the Sunni when no one's left and the Malaki government crumbles? The militias. Who have infiltrated, trained and equipped the Sunni militias? Al Quida. If you think Iraqi Sunnis are really going to suddenly turn on Al Quida once the Americans are gone and the Shia have a completely free hand to get some post-Sadaam payback then I can't argue with you anymore. We'll have to agree to disagree. It matters little what was there before the war. What matters is what will be there when we leave and what is there now.
And if they need some help with that, the Kurds, Kuate, and Qutar have offered bases from which we could make percision strikes without refereeing a civil war.
This I honestly think maybe a viable plan or at least a legitimate idea. It means we really haven't "left" like we did in Vietnam. It means Fireman instead of Policeman. However forget percision strikes. Maybe sometimes, but unless there is a coordinated effort to militerize all militias you'll just see revenge killings and car bombs spreading west from Baghdad to Ramadi. No open troop movements. Having no one to "hold" a cleared area will simply mean the cycle continues. No military intervention? Dafur anyone? When we leave the central government is over.
The price of oil during the 90's, the time that Sadam was contained, hovered between $20-$25/barrel. In the four years since the war it is between $55-$65/barrel with highs in the $70s. Futures traders estimate the price could top $100/barrel it the conflict flares up--I think they're conservative.
You bunny-hopped over a whole nest of economic issues to get to that point. The consumption of the Chinese alone, not counting India, rose dramatically in that decade. I'm not being purposefully obtuse here, I agree oil flow out Iraq is below pre-war levels. Iran v Saud is helpful but not a panacea. The point is not just about the price of oil but also about who controls it however. We maybe could have got real cheap oil if we had genuflected in front of Sadaam. More expensive consumer oil may be a price we pay not to enrich enemy regimes, we may have to seek balance.
The gratifying thing about this conversation on SFreader is how serious and passionate feelings are. All one can hope is that those feelings can be channeled into a smarter course of action than we've seen so far.
Right back at ya.
Hey Raph There's one lesson that we should have learned from Vietnam, but apparently didn't--it is nearly impossible to win a guerilla war with conventional troops. The fighting styles and the motivation of the combatants, not to mention the fact that you can't tell friend from enemy, makes it a losing proposition. What we should do is employ small, highly trained units to specifically target the terrorist groups. As it stands, it's like we're attacking an ant hill with a hammer, while trying to target specific ants. You might concievably take out some of the right ants, but you're probably going to piss off the rest, and leave yourself worse off than when you started.
Let me offer another scenario. Just offer it because I do like many elements of what you're saying. The problem is much as SpecF says. These are fundamentalists willing to die. Spec Ops v. Terror Cells is dagger v. dagger. If the cell is isolated, uncoordinated, and finite then I'm with you 100%.
However. That isn't really what is going on in Iraq (IMO only of course). Because militias are so widespread and are contributing to general anarchy as oppossed to simply conducting geurilla ops against a legit government, you do this: You Clear. You Hold. You Rebuild.
Sound like 'stay the course?'  Bear with me. Rummsfeld knew this was the way to stamp out an insurgency. It is the only way when the insurgency is at this level (not all levels, agreed). However, while he was doing this he also had this idea that Too Many Boots On The Ground would lead to the Iraqi's relying on America and not standing up on their own. Which they didn't. We Cleared. They Held. Everyone Rebui--- OOPS the Iraqi's loose their hold. Rummy couldn't face the fact that (most) Iraq national army/police units couldn't hold their own jocks if Americans weren't imbedded with them. Note; imbedded, not just doing it for them.
We never got the toe-hold for the foundation of security before liberty that would have allowed a sense of nation after Sadaam empire that could have led them to ape the Kurds and the Afghans and the Serbians and the Japanese and Germans and the Americans.
We had to do it for them. We had to hand them a pacified country for them to come together. We didn't do that. We bet on them and lost.
The troop surge is the last best chance for Clear-Hold-Rebuild. If it fails Spec has my support 100%: we had better get out to the Kurds and to Kuwait and along the Iraq borders because the central government is done.
I also have to agree with (both of) you in that I'm starting to feel like those Iraqi's in the troubled 4-5 provinces are exactly like post-colonial African states and the Palastinians: completely incapabale of being a democracy.
VIEW IMAGE"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Specfiction
Neophyte
Date Joined Dec 2006
Total Posts : 67
| Posted 2/12/2007 1:10 PM (GMT -5) | | Well Nathan, I appreciate your thoughtful, non-rant analysis of this issue. I don't, however, agree with you.
Democracy by the purple finger means nothing when 90% of the voters were told how to vote by their sectarian masters--this is just a charade. A pseudo democracy of people who don't have a history of democracy can not be translated into a multi-tribal, religious society held together for 30 years by a murderous strong man whose idol was Stalin. By the way, that murderous strong-man, Sadam, was our ally during the 80's while we gave him logistic support in a war that killed more than half a million Iranians--some by poison gas. I can send you a picture of Sadam hugging Rummsfeld.
The idea of democracy in many repressive societies throughout the world is ill concieved--you'd better hope it doesn't happen. The first thing they'll do is elect the most religious repressive strong men they can find, and then that will be the end of any hope for real democracy with very bad consequences in those regions for US foreign policy. Like Iran--a democracy in name only--elected officials have very little power--the Ayatollahs rule Iran.
I could go on and on about history (Europe, Japan, etc), but the bottom line here is this will not work--the whole thing is flawed conceptually and operationally. Back in 2004, I had many conversations will people in my sphere who cringed when I described what would happen and what I thought of this inept, dishonest administration. Safe to say I wasn't very popular. These days when I see the people who used to give me hard looks about these issues, they instead have adopted positions to the left of mine.
Bottom line--lets elect better people, lets improve our economy (which is structurally in very bad shape), lets reestablish the excellent reputation America used to have in the world so that we can be more effective. And lets stop letting a 7th century bunch of thugs use our troops for target practice as they struggle to control Iraq's oil. We owe our soldiers better leadership than that.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
erazmus
Master
Date Joined Jul 2005
Total Posts : 4554
| Posted 2/12/2007 1:31 PM (GMT -5) | | Specfiction,
Give me a second to dry up after that tear-jerking emotional appeal for our troops welfare. sniff
There, now on with what you said.
Democracy means nothing if it doesn't meet some unspecified standard. We must not accept any outcome that has established sectarian leaders providing guidance to voters? Louisiana had less free elections right through the 1950's but they muddled on to a better system. You have to start somewhere. Though I myself don't care if the people of Iraq just don't accept democracy, I don't believe they have the maturity, as a nation state, to excersize it.
History is a funny thing, different people seem to see different things in it. Someone up thread said that there was no way, historically, for a conventional force to counter an insurgancy. This is certainly true, if your history starts in 1940 or so. The fact is there's no way for a conventional force to counter an insurgancy and look like goodguys on the news broadcasts. Going back before television, say from the age of Sargon the Great through Roman times, through the reign of the Mongols in China and even the british in India-- who faced a fanatical religious insurgancy with the Thugee cult, ruthless application of military force against insurgants and the population that hides them can, has and usually does effectly supress them. It doesn't make you any friends and plays poorly on the evening news, but it usually works.
I'm not advocating it for Iraq, tempting though it is. Just illustrating the differences of historical perspective.
And I'm all for electing better people here at home. Do you think we can get some to run? All I see is the usual cast of characters from both sides of the spectrum, with precious few ideas of any kind, no ideals at all and little hope of anything better than what we have right now. Until those new people show up, I'm supporting the guys who send gun-men into foriegn countries, rather than the ones who send them into farms in Texas.
Mike
Michael D. Turner
"Psyched Up" in _Turn the other Chick_-ed. E. Friesner-Baen books
www.baen.com
"Dutchman Rescue"in Continuum SF #6
www.continuumsciencefiction.com/orders.htm
"An Incident at Black Tongue Tavern" in _Bash Down the Door and Slice Open the Badguy_ from Fantasist Enterprises:
www.fantasistent.com/books/anthologies/BASH.php | | Back to Top | | |
|
nathan
Sage
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 2176
| Posted 2/12/2007 2:53 PM (GMT -5) | | Well Nathan, I appreciate your thoughtful, non-rant analysis of this issue. I don't, however, agree with you.
Again, right back at you. Not once have you straw man'd or vered of topic to attack ad homin. You do your points justice by how you conduct yourself. Also I don't agree with the conclusions you draw.
Democracy by the purple finger means nothing when 90% of the voters were told how to vote by their sectarian masters--this is just a charade.
I would humbly summit you don't disrespect a population that faced death and torture to vote. Also don't paint all of Iraq with that brush. Keep your points narrowed to the 3-5 proviences where the process truly isn't working. Reconstructionist South was not a smooth boat right up until the 1970's.
A pseudo democracy of people who don't have a history of democracy can not be translated into a multi-tribal, religious society held together for 30 years by a murderous strong man whose idol was Stalin.
Again, in 3-5 proviences you are correct. In totality you have a majority being passive advocats of democracy-format being cowed by extreme violence of a minority. Perhaps, just perhaps the concept of democracy is noble enough to get our hands bloody?
By the way, that murderous strong-man, Sadam, was our ally during the 80's while we gave him logistic support in a war that killed more than half a million Iranians--some by poison gas. I can send you a picture of Sadam hugging Rummsfeld.
Yes, thank you. Because I had no idea we were allied with Saddam before you told me. The point is more like; so what? Radial Shia islam had occurred in Iran, Saddam was a secular force against a Soviet allie who had taken Americans hostage. History is fluid, Saddam screwed it up. Next year Canada could run rouge then you can send me pictures of Bush with the PM.
The idea of democracy in many repressive societies throughout the world is ill concieved--you'd better hope it doesn't happen. The first thing they'll do is elect the most religious repressive strong men they can find, and then that will be the end of any hope for real democracy with very bad consequences in those regions for US foreign policy. Like Iran--a democracy in name only--elected officials have very little power--the Ayatollahs rule Iran.
Okay. I could get behind this point. Does this mean you favor backing pro-western strongmen (ala Sadaam in the 80's)? Rather un-idealistic of you but extremely pragmatic. I'm on board.
I could go on and on about history (Europe, Japan, etc),
Yes, me too. However I think our conversation to date has shown that we view the facts of history and the lessons to be learned from them in such fundamentally different ways that Vietnam is a reason to leave Iraq for you and a reason to stay for me.
but the bottom line here is this will not work--the whole thing is flawed conceptually and operationally.
Yes and no. A-stan worked fine. In most of Iraq "it" is in its infancy and without Iran would be as likely to work there as anywhere else that I can see from the way it unfolded. However Bush isn't the man for the job. Rummy blew it by refusing to go big from the start. So acctually, on the "operationally" part I'm with you.
Back in 2004, I had many conversations will people in my sphere who cringed when I described what would happen and what I thought of this inept, dishonest administration. Safe to say I wasn't very popular. These days when I see the people who used to give me hard looks about these issues, they instead have adopted positions to the left of mine.
Note: I'm a democrat. I'm not here to defend Bush. There are some universal truths/issues/ideals/concepts that Bush is confronting that I think people misappropriately think of as Bush problems when it comes to the War on Terror, but he's no friend of mine.
Bottom line--lets elect better people, lets improve our economy (which is structurally in very bad shape), lets reestablish the excellent reputation America used to have in the world so that we can be more effective. And lets stop letting a 7th century bunch of thugs use our troops for target practice as they struggle to control Iraq's oil. We owe our soldiers better leadership than that.
What? I'm going to argue with that? No way, lol. Part of what we owe our soldiers is to listening to what it is exactly they are asking for and not imposing our own removed-from-the-reality ideals on their situation. But that certainly goes for Bush as much as Jane Fonda.
VIEW IMAGE"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Specfiction
Neophyte
Date Joined Dec 2006
Total Posts : 67
| Posted 2/12/2007 3:26 PM (GMT -5) | | Let me state my personal opinion clearly. I'm for messing with no one. I'm for minding our own business. I’m not for sending gunmen anywhere.
I saw a businessman interviewed on TV. He was stepping out of Morgan Stanley or something like that, on Wall Street, sporting what looked like a $2000.00 wool coat--very nice. The newsperson asked him, “what are your views on the Iraq war?” The guy thought a moment, then said; "I can't figure out what's in it for us." Bingo. Nothing at all, except a lot of pain for those with some skin in the game, a failing economy here at home, and a total collapse of our foreign policy. Let me say it again, our troops deserve better leadership than this.
Mike above makes a very good point--a guerilla war IS win-able. He's also right as to what you have to do to win it. I didn't go there historically because I believe (perhaps I'm mistaken) that we don't see ourselves as psychopathic barbarians. Some people might describe killing everything in sight as winning—I can’t speak to that—it doesn’t make sense. That's not how I see America or what it stands for. And BTW, conducting wars that way grantees one thing, you'll have war forever.
PS Nathan--we didn't vote for Jane, we did vote for Bush.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
nathan
Sage
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 2176
| Posted 2/12/2007 3:49 PM (GMT -5) | | | Let me state my personal opinion clearly. I'm for messing with no one. I'm for minding our own business. I’m not for sending gunmen anywhere.
Sure. It lacks nobility and sohpistication or nuance but it could work for an individual, but as format for geo-politics in a global age I'm not signing on to that platform. It seems reasonable on the surface but could quickly degenerate into a theology of cowardice. But I believe you are sincere.
The guy thought a moment, then said; "I can't figure out what's in it for us." Bingo. Nothing at all, except a lot of pain for those with some skin in the game, a failing economy here at home, and a total collapse of our foreign policy. Let me say it again, our troops deserve better leadership than this.
Yes there is nothing in it for us. Sandwiching Iran between two pro-western countries sure isn't in our interest. Breaking up a SW Asian hemogeony of enemy states that used to stretch unbroken from Pakistan to the Mediterrian is absolutely nothing that could benifit us. Splinter the oil cabals? No good from that. Spreading democracy, hey that's messing with people Note: I'm not saying Bush pulled it all off. I'm saying the idea wasn't all bad and might have been big enough to fight for.
P.S. our economy is 'failing?' What Wall Street Journal have you been reading? If your talking socio-economic splits or worker outsourcing hurting the middle class okay we'll talk--I'm a freakin marxist on that, but it is impossible to have record breaking tax revenues and a failing economy--but we digress.
Mike above makes a very good point--a guerilla war IS win-able etc:
I actually disagree a little with Mike. True: collateral damage is an unavoidable consequence of urban insurgency but the British model in Malay seems a little more approp than pre anti-colonialism action. Hell, the anti-Taliban model we're using now seems to be working fine. As did the British action in N. Ireland. The point we agree on is that the Baghdad Iraqis are screwing the process up.
PS Nathan--we didn't vote for Jane, we did vote for Bush
What? Okay, no more iconic personnas in conversation: substitute the left-of-left politician of your choice. The point is no one left or right should presume to speak for or on behalf of the troops if what they're saying isn't exactly the same as what the troops themselves are saying. The Left slogan "Support Our Troops: Bring Them Home" is just as false as "Stay The Course" in this context.
VIEW IMAGE"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." | | Back to Top | | |
|
MichaelEhart
Sage
Date Joined Jul 2005
Total Posts : 2352
| Posted 2/12/2007 4:58 PM (GMT -5) | | Interesting analysis from William E. Odom, former lieutenant general, head of Army intelligence and director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/09/AR2007020901917_pf.html
"The Scarlet Colored Beast" The Sword Review, September 2007 "Nothing But Our Tears" The Sword Review. August 2007
"Weaving Spiders Come Not Here" The Sword Review, July 2007
"The View From the Shotglass Floor" Ray Gun Revival, coming soon!
"Six Zombies Doing That Mick Jagger Strut" Damned in Dixie, March 2007
"The Death of Number 23" Dark Krypt, Fall 2006
"Servant of the Manthycore" Sword Review, April 2006
"Voice of the Spoiler" Better Fiction, Spring 2006
"Dancing with the Elder Gods"-- Thirteen Magazine, October 2005
"It's a Living" Byzarium---November 2005
"An Exorcism Straight, Hold the Elvis" The Sword Review, October 2005
Host, 2005 Nebula Awards Live Chat, sff.net
http://mehart.blogspot.com/ | | Back to Top | | |
|
nathan
Sage
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 2176
| Posted 2/12/2007 5:12 PM (GMT -5) | | Nathan, you keep sucking me in.
"A theology of cowardice."
You did it to yourself. You kind of cherry picked. I said:
[quote]It seems reasonable on the surface but could quickly degenerate into a theology of cowardice. But I believe you are sincere.[/quote]
I stand by the quote in its entirity. I gave you the qualifier of "could" and I ended by noting my faith in you personally.
Oh man--some day we have to figure out how to moderate Testosterone.
Well so muc for your points on ad homin attacks. Any view different than your own must, of course, be knuckle dragging.
I should have said: "Don't mess with others unless they mess with you first." Translation: Only a fool goes around picking a fight.
I have no idea how you could, with a straight face think that somehow applies to Sadaam.
Afghanistan--For some weird reason we were actually smart about that one--we let the Northern Alliance take them down (BTW we trained and armed the Taliban to resist Russians in Afghanistan. After ten years the Russians failed by doing it the dumb way.)
Really? During the height of the cold war we trained a Soviet expansion oppossition force? Dumb us. Iraq wasn't A-stan. There was no NA to use as a stalking horse. The take down of Iraq went perfectly as did the Taliban removal. The post-invasion management was the screw up. Something you said about the details...?
The economy--etc
Look, no disrespect Spec, but one good ad homin insult deserves another. If your command of economic theory is as nuanced as your command of history I'll go ahead an opt out of this argument.
There has been a terrible tendency in the US lately to be reactive instead of proactive (military interventions not withstanding). It's always cheaper to be proactive in well thought out ventures
Well if the truism is true it would be true for military interventions as well (not neccessarily the way Bush runs them, of course) which would break the no messing with people foundation of geo-politics.
VIEW IMAGE"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." | | Back to Top | | |
|
nathan
Sage
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 2176
| Posted 2/12/2007 5:30 PM (GMT -5) | | |
Would it be possible, I wonder, to find an op-ed disagreeing with Odom? I think this quote/link would have been better served in the News Junkies Thread, IMO only.
My favorite quote by Odom was [quote]Has anybody asked the troops?[/quote] The answer of course is that NBC did just last week.
VIEW IMAGE
"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." | | Back to Top | | |
| | |