War-Losing Faction
And the war-losing faction in this Cellar may keep its ill-founded comments to itself.
I wasn't aware we had a "war-losing faction" in this community! Will the members of that group please step forward and explain yourselves? I want to hear all about how you, uh, are all about losing wars.
I guess that would be any of us who thinks that things should be done a different way than it is being done now. In other words, anyone who is against further suckling of Haliburton on the public teats, anyone who thinks that money is being scandalously wasted, and anyone who doesn't just plain agree with the current administration.
You know...the same sort of people who lost the Vietnam War.
Ooow, me, me. Take me prisoner, strip me naked, do unspeakable things, make me cum. I just can't wait to lose.:right:
I don't know about you guys, but I just flat out hate America. I hate freedom, and I hate apple pie. That's the only reason anybody would criticize their government. Many smart-talking eggheads will try to tell you different, but deep down, they really just hate America. Take any situation: is America involved? Then I hope they lose. Our way of life? I want it destroyed, and I want to help that happen. Tax and spend, baby, tax and spend. I'm comin' after your guns, if I don't get your Bible first. And guess what? Mandatory abortions for all American citizens. Hail Satan!
I guess that would be any of us who thinks that things should be done a different way than it is being done now.
I've always heard that the reason this large group is busy "undermining the war effort" was because they wanted to see America punished for its actions, have a hatred of Bush so intense they want to see our troops killed, or that they really support a political agenda in line with the communists.
I don't like Bush's policy at all, and I don't like seeing people (including soldiers, innocent children and even insurgents) killed because of it.
I don't hate America. I just don't think the leader of America is doing a good job.
Well, there you have it -- from the Horses' Faces!:p
But seriously, folks: we had far too much of this during Vietnam, and in the end it paved the way for Communist victory and a free hand for their oppressions and abuses, did it not? Not exactly a triumph of the human spirit, here; more a victory for stupidity and weakness -- and for totalitarianism.
How is it that otherwise intelligent people missed the lesson? I got it at age ten -- where were the rest of you? If a ten-year-old can get it it ain't hard. And yet, the War Loser Faction -- doesn't.
apple pie eating victory monkey
But seriously, folks: we had far too much of this during Vietnam, and in the end it paved the way for Communist victory and a free hand for their oppressions and abuses, did it not?
You frequent
this place, don't you?
I love this nation and am a Patriot... that is why I want what it best for this nation.
Which is to impeach and arrest the traitors of BushCo. and get the hell out of our illegal actions in Iraq.
Pretty simple.
But seriously, folks: we had far too much of this during Vietnam, and in the end it paved the way for Communist victory and a free hand for their oppressions and abuses, did it not? Not exactly a triumph of the human spirit, here; more a victory for stupidity and weakness -- and for totalitarianism.
How is it that otherwise intelligent people missed the lesson? I got it at age ten -- where were the rest of you? If a ten-year-old can get it it ain't hard. And yet, the War Loser Faction -- doesn't.
LBJ has been reincarnated.
And Pol Pot was stopped--not by the glorious Americans--but by the 'scum-sucking' Vienamese army. Anyway, we don't hear much about the domino theory anymore since the end of Pol Pot's misrule, especially since the dominoes tumbled uphill (against Communist advancement, so to speak).
We're not necessarily losing. After all, it would be very difficult for them to force us to stop fighting. We could keep troops in Iraq pretty much as long as we want.
However, we are getting farther and farther away from winning.
I really do hate America.
Well, no. I wouldnt go that far.
UG claims to be pro-human... but he is, first and foremost, pro-US. Only AFTER that is he pro-human, and when US interests and human interests are in conflict, he sides blindly with the US, being the unthinking sheep he is.
I'm pro-human above all else. Period.
That's because you haven't had to interact with enough of them yet. :lol:
Having seen what else is out there, here's what I have to say: my entire life shows me America's cause is humanity's cause. You'll come to this view too, Ibram. It might take you 'til you're forty, but it's that way with many. I just had something of a head start, it appears.
Deadbeater, I think your view of the domino theory is incomplete. Here's how I understand it: North Vietnam -- first domino. Laos -- domino. Cambodia -- domino. South Vietnam -- domino.
Thailand managed to be robust enough to resist becoming a domino, because Thailand's government and people stayed in sympathy. But a domino theory is not invalidated because four dominoes fell and not five. All that means is that the disaster wasn't quite as extensive as we might have feared.
I do not entirely understand what motivated South Vietnam to take Pol Pot's boys down -- too crazy for the descendants of the Viet Minh, perhaps? Whether this actually constitutes pushing a domino back up is something that should probably be explored further. It's an interesting notion.
Isn't it remarkable that you would favor the country that you come from? Against all odds, one favors the familiar. Mind-boggling.
I caught most of the interview of Jim Webb by Chris Wallace this morning (transcript
here). I will say it was one of the most brutal interrogations of a politician I have seen in recent years. Considering how many politicians these days, especially high ranking ones like Bush and Clinton, force preconditions on questions, this seemed to be a no holds barred interview.
Wallace asked some tough questions. I think he was acting as a proxy for our own UG. Webb firmly answered back some tough questions, even insisting on addressing what he felt were insinuations built into the questions.
There were a lot of good moments in the interview. Here are a few.
[SIZE=2]WALLACE: So in the absence of a diplomatic agreement — and we'll get to that in a moment. In the absence of that, is all this talk from Democrats about troop caps and withdrawals irresponsible?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]WEBB: I don't think it's irresponsible. I think what has been irresponsible has been the administration coming forward with solutions or so-called solutions that simply go back to the well again and again to the military without addressing the elephant in the bedroom.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]And the elephant in the bedroom is dealing with Iran and Syria. And we're getting that across the board. We even get it from the Baker-Hamilton report. We had them in front of us a few days ago, and I asked them about that.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]What actually would be the procedure for the United States government to reach a point where there was a diplomatic umbrella so that we could then begin withdrawing our troops?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]You're not going to do this simply by sending more troops in again and again, the way that we've been doing, and addressing a situation that even the National Intelligence Estimate has said is probably worse than a civil war.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]This isn't even sectarian violence anymore. There are so many components to it that it's chaos. And if you're a military person on the street, there's only so much you can do.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]WALLACE: Let me ask you directly my question.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]WEBB: Right, I'm getting to your question. But I need to be able to, you know, put my experiences on the table so that people can understand what I'm saying here.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]The way that this war has been defined is a 20-year war. In fact, I got mail at the beginning of this war when I was opposing it, before we went in, basically saying you need to sit down and shut up because you're being disloyal to a president.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]But when do you start talking? Twenty years from now? And particularly in a situation now where the — all the conditions that are being predicted if we withdraw from Iraq — and basically, by the way, they're saying precipitous withdrawal, and no one is saying that — are the conditions that those of us like myself were predicting would occur if we went in and are on the ground.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]Empowering Iran? That's one of the reasons I said we shouldn't go in. Being less able to fight the war against international terror — we were saying that. Focus on international terror, don't focus on this. Loss of American prestige around the world — we had the world with us before we went in. Economic disadvantages — we're going to put, what, $800 billion more into this war if we keep going?[/SIZE]
The interview also touched on economics, and whether the Dems are out to punish the rich. Webb brought up the income disparities. IMO, he could also have brought up the fact that that $800 billion war bill is currently unfunded but that the interest paid will probably offset government services.
The War-Losing Faction has even managed
to penetrate the military.
This is not the first time this has happened, not in this or any war.
I do not believe that they were part of any movement.
Most, IMO, would agree that being a conscientious objector should simply be "I will not kill, I will accept a support role" while honoring your military contract if you disagree with the killing of a specific people.
Your view is very simplistic. There is no "faction", just those who do not agree with the US breaking international law, invading & occupying a non-threating nation, then stealing their natural resources via a puppet government with a law we wrote, ourselves.
I suspect that Kitsune was making fun of UG there.
But seriously, folks: we had far too much of this during Vietnam, and in the end it paved the way for Communist victory and a free hand for their oppressions and abuses, did it not? Not exactly a triumph of the human spirit, here; more a victory for stupidity and weakness -- and for totalitarianism.
If we stayed in Vietnam do you think the outcome would have been different?
For the record I really hate the following: freedom of speech, free choice and hamburgers. Most of all hamburgers. Damn America!
Well, Jebbie, bend over and for your really-hates, I'll inject you your due reward.:p
All we really needed to do was to keep South Vietnam in supplies. Congress was Democratic-controlled at the time, and Nixon, who with benefit of national experience, hindsight and strategic reappraisal in prosecuting the Vietnam War, was employing a more successful strategy, Abrams' style rather than Westmoreland's, disgraced himself all the way out of office with the Watergate scandal. With the President too politically vitiated and distracted to get Congress to measure up to the demands of common decency to an ally, Congress' funds cutoff doomed South Vietnam as an independent political entity -- and more than a few South Vietnamese as living entities, let alone independent ones. Would a Republican-controlled Congress have been that feckless?
This is a grievance. It's also a shame.
National level Republicans do behave in a genuinely anti-communist manner. Their Democratic counterparts -- "have done everything differently."* And they've failed a lot and lost a lot thereby. When it came to coping with the major threat to the United States and the rest of the world of the twentieth century, the Democrats ran the gamut between singularly imperceptive incompetence and general failure, and they spent a solid fifty years staying hosed up. They're still in this habit, and they're still just as incapable.
I'm fed up.
South Vietnam's political fault lines seem really to be nothing more or less than the legacy of French colonialism and post-colonialism: in particular a policy -- seen also in Lebanon, to outcomes not very different -- of parceling out portions of a former colony's political power specifically to this or that faction/religion/definable group. The ruling South Vietnamese elite lacked close ties to the rest of the South Vietnamese population, particularly out in the sticks where the North's forces had freest hand. A political structure made from such rotten timber isn't going to handle pressure from outside at all, let alone anything approaching well. One good shove and crrraaackkkk, crunch!
Really, we went into Vietnam out of a humanitarian impulse. That we didn't succeed meant blood and sorrow, and no redress. That Vietnam has since enjoyed a measure of anti-Communist success, to the point where Communism is now maintained mainly as a sort of state religion to which one must outwardly subscribe at least if one wants to be an official, largely heals the ulceration.
*The words of Sen. John Kerry, a famous Democrat I can't be stupid enough to vote for.
It's such a shame you're not in charge of anything UG. I'm sure you would have made sure the US came out of Vietnam victorious! Just like if they let you run things in Iraq everyone would be saying how wonderful it is when another country invades your home and starts shooting at your friends and family.
Yeah, it's a shame you're not president UG. I'd feel a whole lot safer going to sleep at night if you were. ;)
Unfortunately, our foreign policy is run by folks with the same view of
history.
Prof. Andrew J. Bacevich of Boston University describes their mindset this way:
This convenient amnesia allowed the ISG to overlook a record of bipartisan bungling and shortsightedness extending over a period of decades. Franklin D. Roosevelt got the ball rolling in 1945, promising protection to the House of Saud in exchange for preferred access to Saudi oil. Dwight D. Eisenhower made his own distinctive contribution, engineering a coup in Tehran and forging a fateful partnership with the Shah. John F. Kennedy chipped in with another CIA-assisted coup, this one bringing the Ba’ath Party to power in Baghdad. Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon affirmed the Iranian connection and added another, establishing a costly “special relationship” with Israel. When revolutionaries tossed the Shah out on his ear, Jimmy Carter upped the ante: under the terms of the Carter Doctrine, the United States vowed henceforth to use any means necessary to secure its interests in the Gulf. If we stayed in Vietnam do you think the outcome would have been different?
For the record I really hate the following: freedom of speech, free choice and hamburgers. Most of all hamburgers. Damn America!
Elitism... how fashionable.
I think you may have stubbed your sarcasm detector.
Hard to tell with text... now that I know, it is very funny. Thanks.
No...ham... ??? Good question. "ham" burger ... Oh... from Hamburg.
Exactly. They're made out of Germans.
Don't you find it a little strange that Uder disappears, and now they're feeding us this mysterious food, "Uder-braten" ???
Well, that's what happened with Frank. The next day the menu had Frank-furters.
I don't even wanna know what happened the day before they served us fish tacos.
Is Abe Vigoda dead?
Edit:
Just checked. He's still alive. What do you mean? "Fish" tacos?
But seriously, folks: we had far too much of this during Vietnam, and in the end it paved the way for Communist victory and a free hand for their oppressions and abuses, did it not? Not exactly a triumph of the human spirit, here; more a victory for stupidity and weakness -- and for totalitarianism....
...[i]This convenient amnesia allowed the ISG to overlook a record of bipartisan bungling and shortsightedness extending over a period of decades. Franklin D. Roosevelt got the ball rolling in 1945, promising protection to the House of Saud in exchange for preferred access to Saudi oil. Dwight D. Eisenhower made his own distinctive contribution, engineering a coup in Tehran and forging a fateful partnership with the Shah. John F. Kennedy chipped in with another CIA-assisted coup, this one bringing the Ba’ath Party to power in Baghdad. ...
Wait a minute. The Saudis, the Shah, Saddam, the Contras - they're all oppressive and abusiv..... oh, I get it!
Well, Jebbie, bend over and for your really-hates, I'll inject you your due reward.:p All we really needed to do was to keep South Vietnam in supplies. ~snip
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. ARVN? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. :lol2:
Well, Jebbie, bend over and for your really-hates, I'll inject you your due reward.:p
I didn't know we were at
that stage of the relationship yet :blush:
All we really needed to do was to keep South Vietnam in supplies. Congress was Democratic-controlled at the time, and Nixon, who with benefit of national experience, hindsight and strategic reappraisal in prosecuting the Vietnam War, was employing a more successful strategy, Abrams' style rather than Westmoreland's, disgraced himself all the way out of office with the Watergate scandal. With the President too politically vitiated and distracted to get Congress to measure up to the demands of common decency to an ally, Congress' funds cutoff doomed South Vietnam as an independent political entity -- and more than a few South Vietnamese as living entities, let alone independent ones. Would a Republican-controlled Congress have been that feckless?
If Nixon was so wise and caring he wouldn't have besmirched himself in the first place with Watergate. Or was it all a clever Democrat scheme to make sure communism could flourish? Either way supplying is what we did with a certain fellow named Saddam Hussein. Maybe you've heard of him? My point is that had South Vietnam won it didn't guarantee a good government.
National level Republicans do behave in a genuinely anti-communist manner. Their Democratic counterparts -- "have done everything differently."* And they've failed a lot and lost a lot thereby. When it came to coping with the major threat to the United States and the rest of the world of the twentieth century, the Democrats ran the gamut between singularly imperceptive incompetence and general failure, and they spent a solid fifty years staying hosed up. They're still in this habit, and they're still just as incapable.
It's pretty hard to fail when you don't play. Republicans are 0-2 from where I sit. They started, they failed. What exactly have Democrats failed? Rwanda? At least we didn't start that. When it comes to something big like wars I'd rather err on the side of caution than firing and missing the target.
South Vietnam's political fault lines seem really to be nothing more or less than the legacy of French colonialism and post-colonialism: in particular a policy -- seen also in Lebanon, to outcomes not very different -- of parceling out portions of a former colony's political power specifically to this or that faction/religion/definable group. The ruling South Vietnamese elite lacked close ties to the rest of the South Vietnamese population, particularly out in the sticks where the North's forces had freest hand. A political structure made from such rotten timber isn't going to handle pressure from outside at all, let alone anything approaching well. One good shove and crrraaackkkk, crunch!
Agreed. Which is why I'm not fond of the USA mucking in others affairs. Colonialism has been little but a mess in the end.
Really, we went into Vietnam out of a humanitarian impulse. That we didn't succeed meant blood and sorrow, and no redress. That Vietnam has since enjoyed a measure of anti-Communist success, to the point where Communism is now maintained mainly as a sort of state religion to which one must outwardly subscribe at least if one wants to be an official, largely heals the ulceration.
Oh please. You believe it was for humanitarian reasons and not trying to be the primary superpower in the world (as opposed to the USSR)? I have some ocean front property I'd like to sell you.
I didn't know we were at that stage of the relationship yet
Came as a surprise to me, too! :p Well, if either of us ejaculates mustard, we can use it on the hamburgers...
Dude, I live within pistol shot of Port Hueneme's City Beach. I've got all the ocean front I can stomach! Look again, though, at what we tried there -- at bottom, I can't see anything but a humanitarian impulse, especially with the understanding that international communism is not humanitarian by any definition, even Pravda's.
Your points are well taken; my point is that North Vietnam's winning did guarantee about the worst of all possible government. Pol Pot's government being an example of one that was slightly worse.
Yes, Nixon behaved stupidly -- and the thing about H2Ogate was the seeming
routineness of it all. It had the flavor of something that had gone on for a very long time, among almost everyone in the political process, but kept behind the scenes.
For an exhaustive list of Democratic failures, that's going to take some time and offline composition to get it all down. Stay tuned -- but it makes rather dreary reading.
well.. that's why america is the 'great experiment'.. this is an evolving process... damn shame that the thing has been co-opted by the jocks and jarheads.
Perhaps if you're neither, you should really try beating them at their own game, or playing your game better than they play theirs?
There comes a point when bitching is jejune.
I thought bitching was losing :confused:
I guess our big deviation, UG, comes from the intent we view. I'd have an easier time believing your humanitarian view if the US did not have such a large number of prisoners and homeless types. Or even national healthcare. If I am not believe Vietnam was for humanitarian reasons then I wonder why the US gov neglects its own people.
yeah, true that.. good point
Note that when the usual suspects decry our prisoners and our homeless, the usual suspects have no program to offer that isn't packed full of socialism, a highly inefficient, bureaucratic, and expensive form of sociopolitical order. This is why we reject these programs. The socialists, delusional in their sense of entitlement and of humane benevolence -- but organized poverty of whatever degree is neither benevolent nor in itself entitling -- then take opportunity to complain of meanness of spirit on the part of those who know an economic order takes one of two choices: either create wealth or organize scarcity. There are no socialist economies not to one degree or another plagued with scarcity. The capitalist ones tend to fix scarcities by the natural, human law of supply and demand: if there's a demand, somebody is going to make a living in its supply. Pleas for additional socialism do not move the capitalist zeitgeist. What's more, they amount to an unscrupulous scam by persons out to write themselves into positions as bureaucrats -- not part of the production, but part of the overhead.
When, moved by socialist impulses, a government starts voting a portion of the treasury to pay out dollars to people who've done nothing to earn dollars, what is created is not social betterment (allegedly what is desired, yet the record shows this simply never occurs) but instead a market for idleness -- and the market for idleness is wholly artificial. For an example of this in full cry, take a long look at downtown Amsterdam -- in the mid Eighties, the place was full of shabby hippies, mainly doing nothing at all. You could smell the spiritual miasma of this rolling in through the tour bus windows. I don't know if it's been cleaned up since, but I declare, that place was a spiritual energy sink.
Shut down the market for idleness and the people will enter the market of that which creates wealth. Then everybody lives better.
You know, for someone who quotes Heinlein like the word of god, you sure dont agree with him at all. Haven't you read FU,tL?
Oh please. You believe it was for humanitarian reasons and not trying to be the primary superpower in the world (as opposed to the USSR)? I have some ocean front property I'd like to sell you.
hahahahaha. \I like that. That made me giggle.
Urbane, sometimes you really amaze me. You are clearly a very intelligent, well educated and astute individual. Yet, you persist in wilfully misunderstanding realpolitik and ascribing humanitarian motives to the least humanitarian actions, whilst simultanously ascribing anti-human motives to the most humanitarian actions. Your creed has failed and it has failed abysmally. The people youo support have caused misery and grief to millions of your own citizens and dragged you into an illegal war which has fundamentally altered the way your country is viewed by the rest of the world; destroyed the infrastructure of another sovereign nation and chained them to America's will. For someone who claims a love of freedom you seem pitifully willing to enslave a country. For someone who claims to love humanity you seem woefully willing to support inhumane actions.
Having seen what else is out there, here's what I have to say: my entire life shows me America's cause is humanity's cause. You'll come to this view too, Ibram. It might take you 'til you're forty, but it's that way with many. I just had something of a head start, it appears.
i cant believe what i've just read.
you think the earth is 12,000 yrs old too? :rolleyes:
What? You don't believe he locked into his perception of the world when he was 10 and hasn't changed his position since?
I find his claim totally believable, considering he has the world view of a 10 year old. :cool:
DanaC, at this point you amaze me. There is a bit of difficulty with those outside our borders being willing to believe the most remarkable tripe about the United States -- it's been true for decades. Remember what's been said about the CIA over the years? -- quite a... well, heap of trash talk and bizarrerie. There's really nothing to be done about this, though, as these opinions are based on inexperience. Ignorance, in a word: not a slam on you, just that you're not here on the ground.
I should think if "millions of your own citizens" were suffering "misery and grief" I should have noticed it. I haven't, and I am no Punxatawny Phil, hibernating. (America has more fun with marmots than any society I know.)
The war is not illegal. Not only has our Congress, both houses, authorized the Executive Branch to prosecute the Global War On Terror, of which Iraq and Afghanistan are theaters, but we're backed up by sixteen UN Resolutions anent Iraq. We were polite enough to seek a seventeenth, committing the UN to supporting the US to fix the Iraq problem, though this one Resolution out of seventeen did not pass -- to the UN's shame, but not atypical of the UN when it comes to dealing with "the argument of kings."
The infrastructure of Iraq was destroyed by three decades of Ba'ath Party neglect, not by US artillery nor planes. Had Saddam Hussein been absent from 1991, the repair and reconstruction of Iraq could have been ongoing since that time; unhappily, it was delayed eleven years. You will also recall that since 1991, British forces were a part of the enforcement of the No-Fly Zones over Iraqi Kurdistan and the Shi'ite provinces.
For the least humanitarian of actions, you need only read a comprehensive history of world communism -- the end effect, indeed the whole point of the thing, was oppression, wholesale, nearly psychotic -- oppression was communism's answer to every problem, when you get right down to it. Shoot all complainers: Lenin was power-crazy, Stalin a sociopath, and Mao, under more ordinary circumstances, would have been beheaded as a felon -- but to our sorrow, he was too lucky for justice. We went to South Vietnam because we didn't want to see this sort of thing continue its march. That's humanitarianism, and something the previously great colonial powers were incapable of doing.
DanaC, I am afraid you have been duped by the frenetic anti-Americans on every single point you've raised. It is a shame to be led around by a nose-ring in this humiliating manner. Your understanding of the world's doings doesn't exactly qualify you as a commentator.
I'm not here to steer you wrong.
Turning to Phil: Ronald Reagan described your kind of thinking rather well when he commented that liberals sure know a lot, but it's too bad that what they know ain't so. I can't be as ignorant as you need me to be, and it happens geology is rather a hobby of mine. The tale told in the rocks runs 4.5 thousand million years long, and rocks have no agenda; they just lie there. Something mighty cool to read, by the brilliant John McPhee, is his pentalogy Annals Of The Former World -- five books about rocks, and he makes the rocks sing. I recommend it, with raves, and am rereading it as we speak.
I'm not here to steer you wrong, either.
Bruce, actually I have evolved in understanding and sophistication since age ten -- I just haven't fallen for pseudosophistication. I recommend this happy course to you, out of esteem for your intelligence. Hell, I recommend such things to stupid people, too, but it's a mark of their stupidity how seldom they take me up. Dullards tend not to get me.
Now then, Ibram, in what particulars do you figure I disagree with Mr. Heinlein? I can't follow your reasoning yet.
The UN never approved of the invasion in any way.
I would be interested in which resolution accepted an invasion as acceptable. I read them.
http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2002/sc2002.htm
http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2003/sc2003.htmThat being the matter of the seventeenth Resolution, just off the top of my head, Rk. Look for text in the UN Resolutions about consequences to Iraq should it stay in violation -- there, no?
I direct your particular attention to Resolution 1441: it is hard to imagine what if anything might have been done about the problems set forth therein short of an invasion. While 1441 didn't say "fly at it, USA," it most certainly does not say "don't." Typical UN, really -- its perennial dysfunction (designed into the institution from the beginning, some have said) compromises its international authority to a severe degree. Nations will not cede that authority to the UN, and that has the happy feature of being a check and balance.
No, there was nothing giving a go for an invasion... there were some conditions setting up discussions for possible actions.
I'll double check, but I'm fairly sure of my facts.
The UN never OK'd the invasion & has not to this day.
He did open all access at the 11th hour anyway, it was at the last min. but he complied, regardless.
For the least humanitarian of actions, you need only read a comprehensive history of world communism -- the end effect, indeed the whole point of the thing, was oppression, wholesale, nearly psychotic -- oppression was communism's answer to every problem, when you get right down to it. Shoot all complainers:
Explain to me then Guantanamo Bay. Explain to me how a state which supposedly values freedom and justice would seek to remove habeas corpus and the basics of a free trial? Don't get me wrong UG, this isn't just a slam against America: the UK now has several citizens under house arrest, their choice of where to live removed; their homes subject to summarary search; their right to use telephones, internet and other telecoms removed; their movements scrutinised and checked through the wearing of tags.......and all with no trial and no right to see the evidence against them.
While 1441 didn't say "fly at it, USA," it most certainly does not say "don't."
"Don't" is the default. You shouldn't need a resolution to say "don't".
interesting UG, but i'm not persuaded, as aren't most others who have replied to your posts.
the invasion was illegal : one of the few facts that are black and white in this whole sorry mess. could you give an example of one "war" where America (the leaders) decided to invade another country and actually got something good from it?
i agree with Dana C : you are an incredibly intelligent person who seems to fall for the bullshit on the spoon they feed you with.
America (the leaders) decided to invade another country and actually got something good from it?
Actually, we made out like bandits from the
Spanish-American War, which may have been started by a boiler explosion on the Maine.
The Spanish-American War was a conflict between the Kingdom of Spain and the United States of America that took place from April to August 1898. The war ended in victory for the United States and the end of the Spanish Empire in the Caribbean and Pacific. Only 113 days after the outbreak of war, the Treaty of Paris, which ended the conflict, gave the United States control over the former Spanish colonies of Puerto Rico, the Philippines and Guam, and control over the process of independence of Cuba, which was completed in 1902.
Not to mention that it gave us an excuse to annex Hawaii. Now one could argue that the Philippines is costing us more than it's contributing, but we definitely made out with Hawaii and Puerto Rico. The Philippines and Guam do have strategic value.
Those were the grand old days when you could wave the flag with one hand to distract the suckers while grabbing up real estate with the other.
They're some mighty big hands to grab real estate with.
The UN never approved of the invasion in any way.
I would be interested in which resolution accepted an invasion as acceptable. I read them.
http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2002/sc2002.htm
http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2003/sc2003.htm
What makes you think that we need UN approval for any invasion..I don`t recall that we needed one for Afghanistan or Kosovo.
What makes you think that we need UN approval for any invasion..I don`t recall that we needed one for Afghanistan or Kosovo.
That is because the media hasn't covered those areas and Afganistan had at least some justification in the eyes of other countries, Bush's "you are with us or you are against us" lost us all that support.
That is because the media hasn't covered those areas and Afganistan had at least some justification in the eyes of other countries, Bush's "you are with us or you are against us" lost us all that support.
John B. Bellinger, III, Legal Advisor to the United States National Security Council, wrote in a letter to the Council on Foreign Relations on April 10, 2003:
*
"The United States has clear authority under international law to use force against Iraq under present circumstances.
The legal authority to use force to address Iraq’s material breaches is clear.
Nothing in UNSCR 1441 requires a further resolution, or other form of Security Council approval, to authorize the use of force. A 'material breach' of the cease-fire conditions is the predicate for use of force against Iraq. And there can be no doubt that Iraq is in 'material breach' of its obligations, as the Council reaffirmed in UNSCR 1441.
Accordingly, at the outset of hostilities, the United States formally advised the United Nations pursuant to UNSCR 678 that military operations in Iraq 'are authorized under existing Council resolutions, including resolution 678 (1990) and resolution 687 (1991).' The United States noted that 'Iraq repeatedly has refused, over a protracted period of time, to respond to diplomatic overtures, economic sanctions, and other peaceful means designed to help bring about Iraqi compliance with its obligations to disarm Iraq and permit full inspection of its WMD and related programs.'"
4/10/03 John Bellinger
How did Iraq fail to comply?
How did Iraq fail to comply?
Here are a few....
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security CouncilOh well, as long as America says it doesn't need international approval for preemptive strikes against another nation state, then obviously that doesn't run counter to international law.
That is because the media hasn't covered those areas and Afganistan had at least some justification in the eyes of other countries, Bush's "you are with us or you are against us" lost us all that support.
No, it was the administration's 'La la la la I'm not hearing you!' attitude that crested support and converting it into hostility.
Here are a few....
Whereas Iraq ....
Whereas the current Iraqi regime ...
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has ....
And not one "Therefore American can attack Iraq". Notice how Ronald Cherrycoke posts a half truth. Notice how he forget to the the part that says, "Therefore military action is justified." Why does he forget? That part never existed.
Ahh, but when does permission ever stop crooks or liars - Nixon or George Jr?
What makes you think that we need UN approval for any invasion..I don`t recall that we needed one for Afghanistan or Kosovo.
First, we have approval and were attacked by Afghanistan (perhaps indirectly).
I never stated that we
had to
have anything, I do state that invading a nation that is not a threat, especially not threatening us in any way, is wrong. Period. We are there to steal oil/natural gas and for no other reason. Not even to get rid of SH, that was only for PR.
I state that internationally the Iraqi insurgency is legal and right and what we would be doing in their shoes. I can state that while supporting our troops because those putting our troops in that positions are traitors and criminals, both US and internationally.
Iraq complied with the UN requirements within the deadline... the US kept changing theirs after the fact, not acceptable.
What makes you think that we need UN approval for any invasion
Well, that all depends on whether you subscribe to the concept of international law, or simply the idea that might is right. If you subscribe to the idea that Might is Right, then no you do not need UN approval, or indeed any other sanction, in order to invade any country you want. You have a natural right, as the most powerful nation on earth to attack or invade any other sovereign nation at any time and with any objective.
By doing so however, you vacate the moral highground which as a country you seem to want to occupy. By vacating that moral highground you lose credibility on the international scene and any potency you may have had when attempting to persuade other aggressive nations not to engage in unwarranted invasions.
All depends on how you see yourselves of course. Do you still see yourselves as the strong, moral, defender of freedom? Or are you the aggressor whom the rest of the world needs to defend against? What makes America's aggression different to any other nation's aggression?
When you so dearly respect the sovereign rule of tyrannical dictators, who maintain their sovereignty by killing their own people with nerve gas and feeding them into industrial shredders, you actually honor the concept of "might is right" and are first to vacate that moral high ground.
The will of the people is still the only valid source of sovereignty.
The will of the people in Iraq was not taken into account. What was taken into account was the will of the Whitehouse. This is not a defence of Saddam's sovereignty, it's a defence of Iraqi sovereignty. More to the point it is a denial that any single nation has the right to determine another nation's political or developmental path.
That a country is run by a dictator is not, in and of itself, a justification for invasion and occupation. It may however, be a justification for exerting international pressure. When South Africa was run under the system of apartheid, in which the larger part of its population was utterly subjugated, the west did not invade. When Afghanistan was under the rule of the Taliban and they were burning down the girls' schools and subjugating their entire female population, the West did not invade until after America had been attacked. There are vicious dictators the world over, it has never been seen as an acceptable rationale for invasion and enforced occupation by another sovereign power.
Will of the coalition, fellow coalition partner.
But not by accident, the Iraqis did vote and then did vote again, in numbers higher than in our own countries. With the recognition that it doesn't matter if it all falls back into totalitarian control, there is still currently more recognizable sovereignty than there was in Saddam's Iraq. And more grounds for optimism that, even if it breaks into three parts, the voters will demand their role in each part.
Not in and of itself a justification for invasion and occupation. I agree. Certainly not if something better can't replace it. But one notices that tyrannical "big man" dictators don't give two shits about international pressure, and when they go to the UN they make demands of it, not ask for even the slightest forgiveness from it.
Well, that all depends on whether you subscribe to the concept of international law, or simply the idea that might is right. If you subscribe to the idea that Might is Right, then no you do not need UN approval, or indeed any other sanction, in order to invade any country you want. You have a natural right, as the most powerful nation on earth to attack or invade any other sovereign nation at any time and with any objective.
By doing so however, you vacate the moral highground which as a country you seem to want to occupy. By vacating that moral highground you lose credibility on the international scene and any potency you may have had when attempting to persuade other aggressive nations not to engage in unwarranted invasions.
*nodding*
All depends on how you see yourselves of course. Do you still see yourselves as the strong, moral, defender of freedom?
The 'administration' does obviously
Or are you the aggressor whom the rest of the world needs to defend against?
I am feeling like we are looking this way.
What makes America's aggression different to any other nation's aggression?
To at least half of Americans we don't see any difference. There is an 'administration' at work here. They have too much power to do too many wrong actions with the wrong thinking behind it. I think the American people tried to take some of that power away by making Democrates the majority in both governing branches. At least we might have some accountability after a while.
"Don't" is the default. You shouldn't need a resolution to say "don't".
Finding or expecting defaults in a UN Resolution is going on a snipe hunt. Ain't real. And again, the problems to world security presented by Ba'athist Iraq as run by Saddam -- two invasions and every prospect of more, genocides north and south -- would only be solved by removing Saddam, his sons, and the Ba'ath Party from the picture, and about the only way to do that is with an invasion. I would not credit the notion that the UN did not understand this.
And again, the problems to world security presented by Ba'athist Iraq as run by Saddam -- two invasions and every prospect of more, genocides north and south -- would only be solved by removing Saddam, his sons, and the Ba'ath Party from the picture, and about the only way to do that is with an invasion.
Ah, I love this line of thinking that our administration shares: the problem will be solved by removing Saddam and not much will be needed beyond that. Force the dictator out, and the people will resolve the rest, right? Everyone over there supports our ideals, so it should all go smoothly. We should only need 5,000 troops stationed in Iraq right now since they should all mostly be pro-American by now, right? Cultural, tribal, political, and religious issues aside, we can fix anything by simply removing the dictator and letting the people do the rest! It really is that easy.
What? You say there's still violence, unrest, and instability? I have no idea why -- the plan was perfect from day one and it was the only way to solve the world's security problem. It must be an outside force, as the difficulty we're experiencing could
never come from within a country we've fully "liberated". Yes, it must be some other entity interfering, someone else that supports the Axis of Evil. It must be Iran, right? What can we possibly do to solve that problem?
I often hear that we're in Iraq because of WMDs/genocide and I often hear that we are there to fight terrorism. By removing the dictator to solve the first problem, we've increased the other. All the air superiority and weaponry in the world will not
change people's minds that are set through religion and hundreds of years of cultural differences. Our army is not equipped to do that. We may have removed a dictator, but that thing you fear so much, terrorism, is being made worse by our actions and the power vacuum we created.
UN rules, international policy, and morals aside, the money, manpower, time, and lives wasted in this war could have been better used to build a successful security force here at home. $366,000,000,000+ would have purchased plenty of x-ray machines, metal detectors, radiation scanners, port security, biological agent detectors, and other federal infrastructure to keep out all those WMDs that didn't even exist in the first place. Hell, think of what good that money could have done in the
other country we invaded and seem to have already forgotten about? Think of how we could have changed people's minds about us that way? Spending $366,000,000,000 dollars on humanitarian aid in Afghanistan would have destroyed twenty times as much terrorism than we've created by going into Iraq. Instead, we spent our resources on destabilizing an entire country, allowing political extremists to not only rise up, but reinforce their ideology, pour over the now unsecured border, and recruit more people that have had their lives turned upside-down by the US invasion.
Is the solution to stop these new terrorists to overthrow the governments of the countries they are coming from? Gee, what do you think would happen if we did that?
We removed a dictator with the full expectation that the people would support us, that there would be no corruption, that no one would attempt to take advantage of a population that grew up under tyranny in a country where a myriad of religious and political groups, both internal and external, were straining to kill each other and take over. You could call that the fault of someone's optimistic dream, but I tend to think we might have, oh, rushed into this war without too much thought. We just needed to do it.
It was the only way.
Oh, if only someone could have warned us! Too bad the only people opposed to this war want us to lose it!
I'd say I'm thankful we didn't destabilize the entire region, but with the recent words coming out against Iran, I don't want to speak too soon.
I think this was very well said. I applaud you.
We removed a dictator with the full expectation that the people would support us,
'
WE" meaning the 'administration' I hope because I know there are alot of people who knew it wouldn't work right from the beginning. I am included in that count.There is at least half of America who were against this and voted in another President.The writing was on the wall for anyone to see. It was the perverbail 'Emperors new clothes' People were told what to see and they saw it.
Oh, if only someone could have warned us!
I heard lots of warnings at the time. I havn't heard the administration bemoaning that. I hear alot of denial though.
Just my personal thoughts as I was reading. I very good read too Kitsune!
'WE" meaning the 'administration' I hope because I know there are alot of people who knew it wouldn't work right from the beginning. I am included in that count.There is at least half of America who were against this and voted in another President because the writing was on the wall.
Sorry about that -- I keep saying 'we' as in 'The United States'. It was drilled into my head at an early age and I really should have said 'this administration'.
I also couldn't turn off my sarcasm in writing that post, either.
Agree or disagree, good times or bad, I am not dropping my we.
Sky, I don't think anyone really believes that America is wholly united behind Bush and the war. That just isn't how countries work generally. There's a spectrum in every country, every polity. Just for the record, when I personally refer to 'America' doing something, I am referring to the polity not to the individuals or diverse camps within it.
"Don't" is the default. You shouldn't need a resolution to say "don't".
Finding or expecting defaults in a UN Resolution is going on a snipe hunt.
And like I said, you shouldn't have to look in a resolution to find it. "Don't invade" is the universal default. Failing to say "do invade" is equivalent to saying "don't".
big snip ~ Hell, think of what good that money could have done in the other country we invaded and seem to have already forgotten about? Think of how we could have changed people's minds about us that way? Spending $366,000,000,000 dollars on humanitarian aid in Afghanistan would have destroyed twenty times as much terrorism than we've created by going into Iraq. Instead, we spent our resources on destabilizing an entire country, allowing political extremists to not only rise up, but reinforce their ideology, pour over the now unsecured border, and recruit more people that have had their lives turned upside-down by the US invasion.~ big snip
Iraq is going to take forever to stabilize and heal. Fortunately Afghanistan, because we were busy in Iraq, has almost completely healed.
Except for a couple small areas the Canadians and Aussies are controlling, the Taliban holds sway again. The poppy crops are buying materiel, the girls have been kicked out of the schools, that is the ones that haven't been torn down.
Yes sir, Afghanistan is almost healed.:right:
You know if we'd spent all that money on oil-less Afghanistan it would be all screwed up. With decent roads think of the injured children from speeding vehicles. With clean water supplies, they would lose the ability to build up their immune systems. With sustainable crops, they'd pick up all kinds of diverse food to have to learn how to prepare, which would take away from begging time. Without the taliban they would have to go to school, get literate, learn to think, and make decisions that have always been made for them. Oh, the pressure, oh, the humanity.
As noble as your comments are here Bruce, I doubt the outcome for Afghanistan would have been any better than it has been for Iraq. The political system there is very much the same, with western influences declaring a land mass a country without consultation with the different factions within those borders.
As noble as your comments are here Bruce, I doubt the outcome for Afghanistan would have been any better than it has been for Iraq.
The Taliban were so hated that it took five years of doing nothing for the Taliban to return in strength. But again, that fundamental fact from military science 101 is repeated. Without plans for the peace, then a military victory is lost. We promised to build a water distribution system for Kabul. America did not even do that. America did nothing - essentially zero - to 'nation build' in Afghanistan.
America did nothing to get bin Laden. Even Iran was desperately asking to help because Iran's so hates the Taliban. Of course everyone knows why Iran so hates the Taliban - I need not post the most obvious example. Only wacko extremists among us did not learn that news.
An extremist American president stifled any assistance from Iran, from Pakistan, NATO, etc until it was too late to save Afghanistan. So how much of Afghanistan is controlled Taliban? 10%? 20%? From 2005 and 2004:
Understanding terrorism
Let Him Run Free
Today we measure our fruits planted many years ago. Afghanistan was so ready for assistance that it sat waiting for 5 years. Sat waiting longer then America's entire involvement in WWII. Today, NATO needs on the order of hundreds of thousands to restore what has been lost. So George Jr is sending another 3,000. Just enough so that Afghanstan is not lost under his watch? Deja Vue Nixon.
Do you realize how extensive and how long America's denial has been? Of course you have read every week since 2001 this question: "When do we go after bin Laden." Why not? How extensive is this denial?
Afghanistan can still be saved. Iraq is now lost. Read previous warnings about violence in Kirkuk - and today's news.
Of course 'bean counter' politicians are still ignoring the ISG and discussing body counts in Iraq rather than admit reality - deja vue Vietnam. To save Afghanistan means at least 100,000 in country this spring. Nothing new are numbers defined in military doctrine. What is necessary will not happen. Our leaders are so in denial as to even ignore the Iraq Study Group. To even stifle a Senate vote. Anything to obstruct a solution for a poltical agenda. We have the wacko leaders that we wanted. Ironic are similarities between George Jr's agenda - and posts from Ronald Cherrycoke & Urbane Guerrilla.
Meanwhile Afghanistan was so ready to become stable that it took 5 years for Afghanistan to welcome back the Taliban. So when do you finally decide to go after bin Laden? That question defines the intelligence of George Jr and those who are his brown shirt supporters.
Your memory isn't serving you correctly tw. The Taliban never left Afghanistan. They just stayed quiet and let GWB's administration create a war in another country while they sat back watched.
As to Afghanistan being able to be saved, well, if you believe that, you'll believe just about anything.
Not many of the Taliban are Afghanis. It's primarily a foreign force taking advantage of the wide open spaces and lack of opposition/law enforcement. They fill the void created by the lack of a national government that rules more than the capitol.
Unlike Iraq, the bad guys are fairly easy to spot because they aren't fading into the local population. Although they do fade into the mountains and wilderness, they move as a force, large and small groups. More like a non-uniformed army or militia.
There's no urban massacres because there's no urban. It's a whole different world from Iraq, in infrastructure, lifestyle, wealth and simply because there's no civil war going on. Lack of hostilities, if not cooperation, can be attained and maintained between religious and secular factions, unlike Iraq where multiple religions are competing for power.
The Afghanis don't generally have clean water, electricity, sanitation, schools and medical care, but unlike Iraq, they didn't have it before we got there. We didn't deprive them, just failed to aid them.
Afghanistan can still be neutralized as a training/staging area and cash cow for terrorists, but the door is closing quickly. :skull:
Your memory isn't serving you correctly tw. The Taliban never left Afghanistan. They just stayed quiet and let GWB's administration create a war in another country while they sat back watched.
Correct that the Taliban were still in Afghanistan because Taliban - an organization from Afghanistan tribal regions (mostly tribes in southern Afghanistan) was all but eliminated. Clear majority opposed the Taliban - strongly disapproved of what the Taliban did to their country. Taliban - the organization - mostly disintegrated. People called Taliban quit - returned to their tribes. Those people still existed. Organization mostly did not. Remnants fled to places such as Pakistan. Afghanistan would be peaceful for first of the past five years while American promises - ie nation building - did not happen. As a result, the people called Taliban have reconstituted an organization called Taliban.
We can argue minutia all day. Taliban was all but dead with little hope of reconstitution IF Americans leaders were intelligent. If wacko extremist political agendas were ignored and if planning for the peace was executed (as military doctrine demands), then a Taliban organization would not reconstitute. But American leaders and their right wing wacko supporters so hated America as to not even ask this question - "When do we go after bin Laden?"
A conquered nation with no program for the peace will rebel after 6 months or one year. Distaste for Taliban rule was so strong that it took five years for Taliban to become popular again. One need only look at highest levels of America's government to appreciate why Taliban have returned.
Aliantha, the Afghan war - a war justified by a smoking gun - is still winnable. However an Afghan victory is becoming less likely with each month. Situation is deteriorating quickly. Why? Well look at the intelligence of an American president, wacko extremism of the real boss Cheney, and an intransigent ideology of those here who support those scumbag leaders.
Iraq is done. Last chance we had to win required 500,000 troops last summer. The Iraq Study Group has simply defined how to get out - an exit strategy - with minimal losses. Afghanistan is now quickly going the way of Iraq. Massive deployment is the only way Afghanistan can be 'saved'.
Deja vue Nam. Whereas the Wise Men in 1968 defined Vietnam as lost; Iraq Study Group in 2006 has defined how to minimize an Iraq defeat. American wacko extremists simply massacred another 30,000 American soldiers in Nam to protect the legacy of an anti-American president. That war ended in 1975. How many years will Americans be massacred in Iraq to protect George Jr's legacy?
In both cases, an American president ignored facts so that the defeat did not happen under his watch. In both cases, the president (and his wacko supporters) worried more about the president's legacy than about supporting the troops.
And so Afghanistan will also be lost. It could be saved if the president was patriotic - admitted defeat in Iraq. But he will not do that. He would rather have both Iraq and Afghanistan lost under some other president's watch. And then 'big dics' Urbane Guerrilla and Ronald Cherrycoke will rewrite history to blame that other president.
We are pretending Afghanistan does not exist. Afghanistan is a war justified by a smoking gun. Because of Iraq (as Aliantha accurately notes), American will lose its first 'justified' war. Special thanks to our 'big dics' who will say anything to support the mental midget and his unjustified war.
We all are not asking the only important question that 'big dics' fear: "When do we go after bin Laden." When was the last time you asked that question of Urbane Guerrilla, Ronald Cherrycoke, and George Jr? Having not asked that question weekly, we all contribute to a defeat in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan can still be won. But the door is closing fast. Why? Where do American patriots ask every day, “When do we go after bin Laden?” You know that ‘big dics’ will not ask that question. It is THE question that separates patriots from ‘big dics’.
No urban in Afghanistan? Afghanistan population was about 30 million. Iraq population was only 26 million - including the 2+ million that have since left Iraq. Where does Afghanistan put all those people if major urban centers do not exist?
Kabul - 3,120,963
Kandahar (Qandahar) - 401,395
Mazari Sharif - 314,915
Herat - 278,209
Jalalabad - 208,960
Kunduz - 166,824
Ghazni - 149,998
Bamyan - 131,233
Balkh - 126,553
Baghlan - 111,902
Not very urban. :headshake
I've been trying to get a shisha & tea bar around here for ages!
there is a diamorphine shortage in the UK. with Afghanistan's poppy crop there could be a legal trade in heroin but of course, the chicken-shit politicians would never go for it.