Bold talk for a one-eyed...er, snake-headed...

Anyway...reponse in kind: Going in to Iraq was a good thing. Keeping one's eyes on the ball does not mean one should ignore the entire playing field. A democracy can work even in a land of terrorists, religious fanatics, rebels and loyalists...for example, the United States of America.

Jamo,
Yep, many do ignore Waltz, Snyder, and a bunch of others. I do not. I am firmly in the realist camp. Chamberlain was a hopeful idiot*. Hussein was contained, Hitler was not. I completely agree that states do not always act for good. However, I also subscribe to a bit of Morganthau in that that morals really have no place in foreign relations.

Most states act in either the best interests of themselves, or their leaders. The state will always view itself as 'good', so one country trying to impose a morality onto another will never work. What CAN be imposed on another country is force, and what can be even more effective than force is the threat of force. I've said before that Bush was one of the only US leaders that Hussein actually feared. This was a much better situation than what Clinton did by backing down when push came to shove.

We also have a responsibility to be consistent. Bush and Hussein faced off, and Hussein blinked. A lot. At that point all we needed to do was keep pressure on him. Waltz talks about each nation seeking it's own survival. Hussein was interested in his own survival and power. Hussein ultimately had no choice but to back down, thinking he was ensuring his own survival. The next country we face will not back down because they know that it will not do them any good. The only hope they have is to rile up their populations and fight a long protracted war that we cannot afford, and that is exactly what Iran is currently doing.

Oh, check out the Powell Doctrine for my rules of engagement.

Steve

*On a historical note, if France and England had gone to war with Germany earlier than they did there would have been a better chance of them losing as they were even less prepared.

Oh, Jamo,
If Hussein had weapons that could reach Israel (and I agree that he did), and he hated Israel, why didn't he just use them and wipe out as many Israelis as he could?

Steve

I disagree with your analysis of the post-9/11 Saddam. Think about it for a moment. Even after we kicked the high holy hell out of the Taliban and were geared up in the Gulf and the Indian Ocean, he still refused to back down and continued to gear up. He continued to phuk around with the UN inspectors. He gained strength by watching our allies stare at their shoes while they dicked around and kept pushing us to keep talking. He played the same game Hitler did for the five years leading up to the invasion of Poland. He never thought Bush would follow through. Why should he...Clinton never did. The threat of force relied upon since the early 90s had run its course. I don't think he feared Bush at all. Even if he did, he relied on France and Russia to slow things down. Note that North Korea played the same gambit until China got on board with us.

You say he was contained. Like Sudan is contained? Like Somalia was contained? Like Nazi Germany was contained? Does it not bother you in the least that within that relm of containment, it was literally hell on earth? Once he could obliterate any and all opposition within his borders, like Hitler, he would find his borders once again too confining. Do we wait for a regional war and the economic ruin it would bring to us, and acts of terrorism extending thousands of miles away to our own cities, or do we simply say enough is phuking enough given his proven track record? What good does it do to take out the Taliban and leave this basturd standing?

Tell you the truth, I place more trust in the damn Persians to be the stabilizing regional power than this crazy basturd and his crazier sons.

Leaders like Saddam (which constitute the "state" in such a tribal atmosphere, not the people who have little chance to control their own destiny) are the building blocks of international anarchy...there are no checks and balances for them internally. They can only be brought to bear from external sources...other regional powers, or, indeed, superpowers, of which only one remains.

In the future, the bilateral control we were a part of with the USSR may well be replaced with a Europe of single thought, with a China which is part of the global economy and with regional checks and balances in Latin America, Africa, etc. But this is right here, right now.

BTW, we do NOT have the responsibility to be consistent...that, my friend, is a fool's game. You play chess? Do you play the same game every time? I sure as hell don't. I don't make my case the same phuking way trial after trial either. I would like to think the leaders of my country don't act in such a mundane fashion that other nations think they know us. Thank god we elect our leaders and have change ups every few years. Let the rest of the basturds on this globe wonder what we're going to do next (presuming, of course, we never elect another Carter).

Hitler was even less prepared...you need to look at the whole board, not just the squares in front of you.

Sorry, but as a general making war, Powell did a fine damn job. As the representative of our country to the world, he turned out to be a POS. He failed to make our case to the other powers and get them to believe in us. He's no Ben Franklin.

He didn't attack Israel because that was his "threat"...his doomsday weapon if you will. He knew damn well that if he did, he would lose whatever little support he thought he still had from a gutless Syria, and the moderate Arabs in the region. He still thought they would intercede and let him (or his sons/party) stay in control.

Snyder has explained how dillusional such leaders can be...

That is a political talking point. Effective, but irrelevant. Parroting.

Mike

Steve - You simply wear posters down, so presenting points to a closed mind would fit the definition of insanity and you of all people know about dealing with insanity.

We all have hindsight, but most Americans were on board as things progressed over the years, including the invasion of Iraq. As with all wars, when things start to go south, people like you come out of the woodwork at some level of protest as if War is a piece of cake and not close to being in hell. Yes, mistakes were made but no, it's not possible to explain everything in hindsight as you seem to want.

All of us elected representatives at all levels, they voted to go into Iraq, we did and now we are looking to get out in the right way. This isn't rocket science.

Jamo,
He did dick around, but he did let the inspectors in and they were doing their job. Under Clinton there was no threat of force. Not real force anyway. That's why Iraq never let in any inspectors until Bush came along. Iraq could absorb a few cruise missiles, but Hussein knew that Bush was itching to go get him. He was completely contained and, externally, mostly harmless.
Where was he going to go?

Internally, yep things were pretty bad for many, but not all. Iraq was actually one of the more advanced societies in the ME. Women could work, engineering was taught in schools, they had internet access, and so on. That is not the case now, and most Iraqis blame us for that.

My comment about being consistent only has to do with the rules themselves, not how we enforce those rules. Arbitrary rules do not promote stability. A mad dog who attacks on a whim is usually put down.

I've met Carter. Hes a nice guy, but totally in over his head.

I prefer go to chess.

Steve

Well, I'm glad you have explained all of that to your own satisfaction.

Peace on you. ;)

CdC,
Having a closed mind means that there is no capability for learning. I prefer to think that even old dogs can still be taught new tricks once in a while. My mind is not closed - you have the chance to convince me with facts, historical reference, whatever. However, most of you make statements with little or nothing to back them up. When I challenge the statements many of you make I usually get insults, caveman pictures, and so on. That, to me, sounds like a lot of people on Kool-Aid who do not want their personal reality disturbed.

There were plenty of people who predicted the mess that we would be in, but everybody was too hyped up to go kick some ass to listen to anything but the rosy-case scenario. The leaders we currently have in place also have closed minds. As a result we will be unable to learn from our mistakes, and we will continue to do the same thing (or minor variations thereof) and expect different results. That is the definition of insanity.


You call me a liberal - what does that mean to you?
You say that you are conservative. What does that mean, and how does that compare with the people you last voted for?

Steve

Jamo,
I asked you this one before and you didn't answer. Here is your chance to convince me why we should stay.

If we are one of the biggest sources of instability in Iraq, how does us staying keep that country stable?

Steve

So, presuming you are gay, would you rather suck or take it in the bum?

Same type of question. ;)

That's all very interesting, but you've discounted yourself as a poster, so I'm elected not to enter into another discussion with you as time is money.

In addition, you need to recall the old saying "You cannot teach an old dog new tricks" and you are clearly an old dog, an old liberal dog. Normally, I like dogs.

Jamo,
You were the one who originally set me up to ask that question on another thread by saying that we are there to provide stability. But you are right - it is a 'Have you stopped eating your wife' question.

Perhaps this works a bit better for you:
If the majority of people fighting us in Iraq are doing so to get us out of their country, then doesn't it make sense to leave, or withdraw to bases and stop holding their hand every day?

Steve

You've missed the point again, VRM as the point is that the majority or people are not fighting us - they want us there and want us to finish the job right. The majority of people fighting us want to kill us, either there or here.

Ahem...I presume you meant to say [b]eating? :JEKYLHYDE

Ditto what CDC said.

Maybe I did, and maybe I didn't...:eek: :LOL:

What CdC said:
Jamo,
First off, I did not say that the majority of people are fighting us. However, in March of 2007 78% of Iraqis polled opposed the presence of Coalition forces in Iraq, and 51% thought that attacks on Coalition forces were acceptable. To be fair, some of the results are a bit contradictory - 35% want us to leave now, but 38% want us to stay until security is better.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/h...raqpollnew.pdf

From General Dannatt:
"So, because as an Army we are enemy focussed, some words on our adversaries in southern Iraq. The militants (and I use the word deliberately because not all are insurgents, or terrorists, or criminals; they are a mixture of them all) are well armed – certainly with outside help, and probably from Iran. By motivation, essentially, and with the exception of the Al Qaeda in Iraq element who have endeavoured to exploit the situation for their own ends, our opponents are Iraqi Nationalists, and are most concerned with their own needs – jobs, money, security – and the majority are not bad people. In amongst them, however, are a hard core of well trained, well motivated, ruthless individuals who have the capacity to organise and control a highly effective campaign, or perhaps better described as a matrix of campaigns, of violence and intimidation. They live amongst the people, are difficult to track and human intelligence, HUMINT, is difficult to obtain. They have the capacity to generate forces quickly, they will offer extreme violence against us in large urban areas through the use of complex ambushes and IEDs. They also offer violence against each other in the South, not just an account of any Sunni / Shia divide, but within the Shia community. We, meanwhile, are channelled in these urban areas, which makes the operational environment 3 dimensional, truly complex and challenging."

That majority does NOT sound like a bunch of people who want to hunt us down. There was no Al Quaida in Iraq before we arrived. They and the Iranians are there now, in some cases supplying the Iraqi nationalists because we are a common enemy of both.

Going back to that poll again, in 2007 88% of polled Iraqis said it was not acceptable to attack Iraqi government forces, so it sounds like if we leave the Iraqis to their own devices everyone except Al Quaida would benefit.

Steve

Yes, Steve, you know it all and you post it. Good luck with that, sort of like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich - you are of the same mold. And, the chances of your view prevailing is about as high as their view - Thank God!

BTW - citing polls is not necessarily going for doing the right thing....

Yup, you changed my mind. Your were always right, Steve.

I'm voting for Hillary!!!

Yap, me too, Jamo - Steve's the man - he'a a know it all, perfect hindsight, access to poll results - let's all go with experience, with Hillary - she will get us out of Iraq, hunker down in America - besides, we need funds for all her wonderful social programs - $5K for each baby, $1K for each of us for a 401K start, health care for all - we leave the terrorist along, they will leave us alone - no problem.

Gee, life is so wonderful when posters like Steve set the record straight - thanks, Steve.