BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it
From: Teribus
Date: 15 May 08 - 08:14 PM

Well wa' hae chouff 100

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it
From: Teribus
Date: 15 May 08 - 08:13 PM

Oh I see Guest Fantasma - in that case you haven't really thought it through at all.

By the bye, nineteen people recently illustrated that you, all cozied up there in the good old US of A are as vulnerable as anybody else. And just by wrapping up and going home does not diminish the threat one iota.

Now then Guest Fantasma go away and think about that and then think about what advice you would give to your President because he will be the one who is actually responsible for your well-being and your security. The guy who has been doing that job for the last eight years has, believe it or not, not done such a bad job, at least a damn sight better job than the guy who had the job before him.

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 15 May 08 - 05:36 PM

I have. I've been thinking about it for decades, actually.

I would expect the results would be pretty complex, but it wouldn't endanger us.

Unless you believe Mexico and Canada are big threats to our sovereignty, of course.

I am against empires and their imperial wars.

Even the US one.

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it
From: Teribus
Date: 15 May 08 - 11:47 AM

"I am talking about all troops--US military & the private contractor/paramilitaries out of Iraq, and back in the states, period.

I'm talking about taking US troops out of the world, and closing bases that sustain them, and ending the US military empire for good.

That is what I am talking about." - Guest Fantasma

Okay Guest Fantasma and what would be the result of this "world-wide" withdrawal?

Or like the massed "Get-them-out-NOW-crowd" have ye no thocht o' that yet??

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 15 May 08 - 07:19 AM

As Teribus points out, the Obama plan is really just a plan to keep US troops in Iraq and the region, just "redeployed" and--I actually agree with Teribus on this point, likely in a weakened position.

That isn't the solution I'm talking about. I am talking about all troops--US military & the private contractor/paramilitaries out of Iraq, and back in the states, period.

I'm talking about taking US troops out of the world, and closing bases that sustain them, and ending the US military empire for good.

That is what I am talking about.

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it
From: Teribus
Date: 15 May 08 - 01:29 AM

Fully realise that Artbrooks.

What I said however, was that what was stated on the site was "Rather short on detail and analysis isn't it" and I was not talking about Movement Orders:

from the Obama '08 Site:

"Bringing Our Troops Home
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."

Let's take a look at this in detail, could do the same for the others they all fall down in the same way.

- "Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq."
This states clearly that withdrawal begins immediately irrespective of conditions on the ground, or on advice or requirements of commanders in the field - Not such a wise move is it Artbrooks? or maybe you disagree.

- "He will remove one to two combat brigades each month,"
Now unless things have altered a great deal in the way the US goes to war, the biggest logistical problem in complying with Obama's intention would be the staged draw down of support units so that those that are left can be supplied and supported adequately (Give you an idea - 4/5ths of your troops in Vietnam were support units not combat troops).

- "Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq"
That's awfully nice of him. Mind you it was never written within the terms of the UN mandate that the MNF currently operates under that any permanent bases were to be built in Iraq. Bilateral agreements between the USA and the Government of Iraq are different, so this statement could apply to any discussion of permanent bases based on such bilateral agreements.

- "He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats;"
Now to do this he will have to keep troops in Iraq? Sort of like those US Marines in Beirut? Won't they need a permanent secure base in Iraq? Which is sort of at odds with what he's just said isn't it?

- "if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda"
Just to make sure that we all understand what the man is proposing here. He again says that he is going to keep troops in Iraq (In which case they require a permanent base, which he says he is not going to build), or he keeps the troops elsewhere in the region (Now this would imply a US Marine Assault Group plus all supporting elements permanently cruising the waters of the Northern Persian Gulf - OR - It means another state in the area playing host to a permanent US base on their soil. The uptake to fulfil this role by states in the region of course will be massive, the US having just been seen to have been as comprehensively defeated politically and militarily as it was in Vietnam). And these troops whether ashore wherever, or afloat are there to "carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda"? Is Obama saying that he intends attacking an independent sovereign state as the whim takes him. Sort of like that Delta Force Op that "Peanut" Carter gave the go ahead to. In all of this where is the intel coming from? You get it now because you are there and there in force, withdraw and all that disappears.

Sorry Art & Bobert that is not a plan. It's fuzzy, it's muddled, it lacks clarity, it "reads more like a collection of mealy-mouthed, populist "sound-bytes" that clearly states the square roof of f**k-all to me".

With signals like this coming out of the campaign HQ of someone who at present is the front-runner for the Democrat nomination for President of the United States of America at the election in November, no wonder the Shia population of Iraq are restive and looking to Iran - It's history repeating itself, you guys have left them in the lurch once before, haven't you.

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it
From: Bobert
Date: 14 May 08 - 09:06 PM

Heck, what Obama has proposed isn't even an "immediate" withdraw of all troops... It's a 16 month disengagement...

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it
From: artbrooks
Date: 14 May 08 - 08:07 PM

Come-on, Terebus...were you expecting his site to say something like "on 17 March 2009 the 2d Bde. Combat Team of the 2d ID will commence a tactical roadmarch from its current location to Kuwait along Route Blue"? Presidents...and wannabes...give broad directions and their subordinates staff out the details.

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it
From: GUEST,Convidado
Date: 14 May 08 - 06:57 PM

What sorts of apocalyptic events do you expect to occur in the wake of an immediate withdrawal, Teribus?

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it
From: Bobert
Date: 14 May 08 - 12:38 PM

Yse, it ***is*** a plan...

You have a better plan, T???

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it
From: Teribus
Date: 14 May 08 - 09:53 AM

Apologies, correction that should've read:

"Reads more like a collection of mealy-mouthed, populist "sound-bytes" that clearly states the square root of f**k-all to me."

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it
From: Teribus
Date: 14 May 08 - 09:51 AM

Oh? You mean this from the Obama '08 Site:

"Bringing Our Troops Home
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

Press Iraq's Leaders to Reconcile
The best way to press Iraq's leaders to take responsibility for their future is to make it clear that we are leaving. As we remove our troops, Obama will engage representatives from all levels of Iraqi society – in and out of government – to seek a new accord on Iraq's Constitution and governance. The United Nations will play a central role in this convention, which should not adjourn until a new national accord is reached addressing tough questions like federalism and oil revenue-sharing.

Regional Diplomacy
Obama will launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent American history to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. This effort will include all of Iraq's neighbors — including Iran and Syria. This compact will aim to secure Iraq's borders; keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq; isolate al Qaeda; support reconciliation among Iraq's sectarian groups; and provide financial support for Iraq's reconstruction.

Humanitarian Initiative
Obama believes that America has a moral and security responsibility to confront Iraq's humanitarian crisis — two million Iraqis are refugees; two million more are displaced inside their own country. Obama will form an international working group to address this crisis. He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven."

That is a Plan??? Rather short on detail and analysis isn't it Bobert? Reads more like a collection of mealy-mouthed, populist "sound-bytes" that clearly states the square roof of f**k-all to me.

Reading stuff like that convinces me more and more that Barak Obama is as clueless as "Peanut" Carter and a hundred times more dangerous. Good luck America you're going to need every ounce of it if this clown is going to be your next President.

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it
From: Bobert
Date: 14 May 08 - 09:31 AM

T,

You aren't keeping up, ol' son...

Google up Obama and find out for yourself...

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it
From: Teribus
Date: 14 May 08 - 08:56 AM

Do you mean Obama actually HAS a plan Bobert?? What is it??

"Immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan is the only viable option for the US and it's allies," - Guest Fantasma

Recipe for disaster in epic proportions actually and it's high time some on this Forum started to address that prospect before coming out with the likes of:

"They could easily be out in about ten weeks.

They would destroy a lot of military equipment, precisely so it wouldn't fall into the hands of the insurgents, just as we did in Vietnam.

We would abandon the infrastructure, because it can't be moved anyway, so you would never bring it back with you anyway.

Much could be removed in six weeks time, considering much of the equipment doesn't "belong" to the US, it "belongs" to the contractors.

The contractors would be on their own to get out.

The End."

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 14 May 08 - 07:51 AM

And also notice that nearly every other nation that sent troops to Iraq to form the "coalition" (spit) has now withdrawn.

Nobody supports the occupation, and the entire world is holding it's collective breath, hoping some sanity might return to the US government by next January.

But if you are looking at the two likely candidates for the gig, sanity prevailing in US policy in the Middle East isn't looking too good. In fact, more and more each day BOTH candidates keep moving closer and closer to the Bush administration's positions on nearly every issue regarding the Middle East, including Iraq.

Withdraw in 16 months is not a realistic plan. Staying for a 100 years is not a realistic plan.

Immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan is the only viable option for the US and it's allies, yet it is the one option the presidential candidates refuse to consider.

That is known as a political stalemate. In the case of Iraq, it is a virtual gridlock.

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 14 May 08 - 07:46 AM

And the British and French have done so well there too.

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it
From: artbrooks
Date: 14 May 08 - 07:44 AM

Actually, the Arab occupation of what we call the Middle East has been pretty successful.

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 14 May 08 - 07:32 AM

And BTW, why should the American or Iraqi people be forced to suffer any more, when it is the government's fault, both Republicans and Democrats, for invading a country with no exit strategy?

Even Colin Powell was flat out honest about that, even though all he would ever say was the lack of an exit strategy troubled him.

No, the intent here with the Bush invasion was not to have an exit strategy, because they were planning to be welcomed with open arms, and to maintain a permanent "peace time" occupation force, because the mission was accomplished as soon as they sacked Baghdad and bagged Saddam.

In other words, the plan was always to stay in the region with a huge military presence, to "guard our nation's interests" in the region's oil.

I guess nobody ever told them there had never been a successful occupation of this part of the world. So who'd a thunk it?

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 14 May 08 - 07:26 AM

They could easily be out in about ten weeks.

They would destroy a lot of military equipment, precisely so it wouldn't fall into the hands of the insurgents, just as we did in Vietnam.

We would abandon the infrastructure, because it can't be moved anyway, so you would never bring it back with you anyway.

Much could be removed in six weeks time, considering much of the equipment doesn't "belong" to the US, it "belongs" to the contractors.

The contractors would be on their own to get out.

The End.

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it
From: Bobert
Date: 14 May 08 - 07:08 AM

Well then, T-Bird... Would you be in support of Obama's plan???

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it
From: Teribus
Date: 14 May 08 - 01:41 AM

Well Guest Chief Chaos, that is a question that has been asked on this forum before, and none of the "Get them out NOW", or at least "as quick as Christ will let you", crowd will come out with any answers.

"Do we just drop everything and run and leave weapons and supplies behind for the insurgents and other bad guys to inherit?"

Interesting question that, I have one for you relating to it. What would they use all these US weapons and supplies for, they didn't need them to defeat you, so what would they use them for? Their Soviet designed armoury proved to be perfectly adequate.

"I can think of several radical countries who would just love to come in and sweep up the pieces. And think of all the misery left behind that will just generate the next wave of radical Islam for the world to deal with." - Chief Chaos

So could I CC, plus some others and the ripple effect would be amazing to witness in its extent, not least in the USA. Oh and if you think the price of a barrel of oil is high now, just wait.

"Okay let's pull them all out now. .....Nice idea Fantasma, it just isn't a real world solution."

The not being a real world solution - I couldn't agree more.

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 13 May 08 - 09:26 PM

Okay let's pull them all out now.
How many days/weeks do you think that's going to take?
Do we just drop everything and run and leave weapons and supplies behind for the insurgents and other bad guys to inherit?
And what about the Iraqis whose country is a smashed and stinking hole who still count on us to provide some semblance of order (as corrupt as that order might be)?
Regardless of who is at fault for the mess should we just bail out?
I can think of several radical countries who would just love to come in and sweep up the pieces. And think of all the misery left behind that will just generate the next wave of radical Islam for the world to deal with.

Nice idea Fantasma, it just isn't a real world solution.

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 May 08 - 02:46 PM

Ralph who?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it
From: Bobert
Date: 13 May 08 - 12:23 PM

At least iot is a plan, FtP...

But I could live with an immediate withdrawl, as well...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 13 May 08 - 08:11 AM

Freethinker is dead on the money.

The claim that we can't pull out quickly is pure military and political propaganda, being spread by people with an interest in perpetual war.

Like Blackwater.

Like the no bid military contractors.

Like the ruling elite with connections to military related "privatized" management of the armed forces.

Bring home the troops NOW.

Period.

The Obama plan is just as pro-war and the Clinton and McCain plans.

You want to end this war, vote for an authentic anti-war candidate, or sit out the election.

But don't expect those of us who don't buy the mainstream propaganda to buy your "agree to disagree" crap arguments about it.

Obama won't pull out any more than the other two. Which is why Wall Street loves Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 12 May 08 - 08:04 PM

Not asking you to. I've never really understood how we got involved in the first place aside from an irrational fear of communism in small out of the way countries. I do know that the Pres. was lied to about the Gulf of Tonkin incident and that the whole damn thing was handled miserably. I'm definitely not trying to defend the folks that were really behind the whole thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it
From: Bobert
Date: 12 May 08 - 07:53 PM

The French left in the mid 50's... If there were going to be reprecussions they would have occured long before '61 when the US stepped up it's activity with "advisors"... So I don't really buy into that motive...

Rubber??? Yes...

Geo-political stuff??? Yes...

Protecting folks who 6 years ago worked for the French colonialists??? Nah...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 12 May 08 - 06:54 PM

I forgot also to ask how a predominantly budhist country with apparently a not so insignificant Catholic minority was taken over by a "godless" communist regime.

I don't think the U.S. should have been involved in Vietnam after the French decided to throw in the towel but considering what happened after the Soviet Revolution and the Peoples Revolution of China I can see where some might have believed they were keeping a great deal of the native population from being slaughtered simply because of the fact that they lived in and worked for the French.

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 May 08 - 06:45 PM

Actually, LH, historically Vietnam was two countries, with the north (Tonkin), under the Trinhs, tied fairly closely with China and the south (Cochin), under the Nguyens, more connected to the other regions of SE Asia and the archipelago. The latter managed to consolidate the entire "nation" under its rule for about 40 years, in the late 18th century, until it was, in turn, taken by the French.

Otherwise, except for the usual political and grammatical spin, your history is essentially correct.

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it
From: Bobert
Date: 12 May 08 - 06:37 PM

Yes, Russia and China had their own little military/industrial complexes cranking out arms for the North Vietnamese and some for the Viet Cong, as well... Wereever there's a war you can bet that some military/industrialist is there to provide arms...

The US very much included...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 12 May 08 - 06:30 PM

LH - There were a good deal of Chinese communist forces as well as Soviets on the ground and in the air in Vietnam. I'm not disagreeing with you but saying that the North Vietnamese fought with their own arms and people is ludicrous.

I know you see the military industrial complex behind these things, but most people seem to want somebody to do something for the oppressed and disadvantaged like the people in Darfur, Tibet and Myanmar.

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it
From: Bobert
Date: 12 May 08 - 06:25 PM

I agree, LH, that reparations will not be paid to Iraq... I think this is because that no matter what an Iraqi governemnt looks like in 3 years it will not be one that was part of the plan...

As for getting out now??? If it were up to me I'd go for it... If Gworge Bush said that he was pulling out tomorrow I would be doing the Eagle Rock dance all over this farm...

Reality 101: A President Obama, in an attempt to seem the "uniter" will pander to those who will be disappointed that there will be no "coon skin" to nail to the wall but should appreciate the effort that will be made to create the best diplomatic efforts in the region and the softest defeat...

I am deeply saddened that during those 16 months that hundreds of Americans and thousands of Iraqi's will die... I mean, torn up inside, saddened...

This war is the worst foriegn policy decision since Fort Sumpter but given the fact that Fort Sumpter really wasn't a "foriegn policy decision" I'd have to say that it was the worst decision in the history of the United States... Worse than Vietnam because we had Vietnam as a model...

And with Senator Obama as president this is probably the best realistic outcome... And it may cost him a 2nd term but if he is the real "stright talker" in this race and is the next president then I believe that he will keep his word...

It would be nice if McCain had top clean uop this mess but he just is not wired to see it as a mess...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 May 08 - 05:57 PM

Art, Vietnam had always historically been one country. It was one country before the French colonized it. It was one country when it fought against the French, prior to WWII. The French found their most willing Vietnamese servants and collaborators amongst the Catholic minority in a Buddhist country.

It was one country when the Japanese took it over in WWII, and the Vietnamese revolutionaries fought the Japanese as they had fought the French before them. Ho Chi Minh was at that time considered a valuable member of the Allied cause, and he was.

The Viet Minh expected to be given Vietnamese independence after WWII, but they were not. Instead the French colonial forces returned, and the war for Vietnamese independence resumed. Vietnam was still one country.

The USA chose to give the French quite a bit of help fighting the Viet Minh. THAT's where your problem between Vietnam and the USA starts. The USA should not have helped the French, they should have pressured the French to leave and to grant independence to Vietnam...as one country.

The French finally threw in the towel in the mid-50's after the lengthy battle at Dienbienphu...and they had to negotiate a French withdrawal from Vietnam, still ONE country.

The withdrawal was to take 1 year. During that year Ho Chi Minh would set up the new Vietnamese government in the north, the French would maintain an interim administration in the south.

The country was thus divided for an offical period of one year by the peace accords to allow the French to disengage in an orderly fashion.

At the end of that year, the line of division was to cease to exist and national elections were to be held.

That never happened.

Why did it never happen? Well, the CIA and the USA and the French had decided that "their people" (meaning the Catholic minority Vietnamese) could not win such national elections, therefore Ho Chi Minh's people would win, and they didn't want that.

They unilaterally therefore broke the agreement when the time came. There's your original violation. They refused to hold the scheduled countrywide elections. They refused to do away with the artificial division of that country into two zones. They thus betrayed the vast majority of Vietnamese, artificially divided ONE country into two ireconcilable halves, and put their half in the south under the rule of a series of Catholic Vietnamese despots who were no proper representatives of a predominantly Buddhist country, but rather former collaborators with the French colonials.

That is when the Vietnamese civil war began. It was as inevitable as your American Civil War, but unlike that one, it was provoked by foreign colonialism...first in a direct sense, then by proxy.

That war ended in the mid-70s when Vietnam became again, one country, and I think that the fall of the southern regime at that time was about as well-deserved as the fall of any regime I can think of, other than Pol Pot's, which was even more deserving of oblivion, needless to say.

The South Vietnamese regime was nothing more than a militarily and politically moribund and incompetent puppet of Washington's special interests in the region. The North Vietnamese, on the other hand, were and are and always have been their own bosses, and they represented Vietnam, period.

Were they nice and gentle and democratic in their ways? No! And neither were the dictators and stooges who worked for Washington in the South of that country.

As the French before them, the Americans had found natural allies amongst the Vietnamese minorities (Catholics and Montagnards). This is what the Empire always does when it engages in economic/military colonization of some foreign country...it finds various disgruntled or frightened religious or ethnic groups who are either in the minority or are disadvantaged in their local power base and then arms and empowers them against the other groups in the country. They proceed to kill each other for America and their country gets devastated. Divide and conquer tactics. In the end the Empire betrays all of them, because the Empire does not go in to help anyone, it goes in to exploit local resources and achieve strategic advantage in a region.

That is exactly what has been done in Iraq too, and you can see with what dire results. Iraq, once considered the most progressive and modernized country in the entire Arab world, has been turned into a complete disaster...and hundreds of thousands have died while millions have been displaced. Many more will die before it's over.

How many Vietnamese died? A million or so? They died for Washington's imperial ambitions, just like Iraqis are dying right now.

Reparations were never paid to Vietnam by the USA. I predict that they will not be paid to Iraq either.

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 12 May 08 - 05:56 PM

I'd love to see a withdrawal of forces of some decent amount. I believe that half the problem is caused by the fact that we're there supposedly "keeping the peace". If it came to the Iraqis actually having to deal with the day to day relationships between the factions they might actually work at it. As it is I think that the Powers That Be (PTBs) and the Iraqi gov't, are abusing the troops to try to shore-up the position of the current gov't.

I really don't think withdrawing to Kuwait is an option. If there is a "real" Al-Quaida in Iraq they will attack across the border and cause problems for the Kuwaitis. I think we should withdraw to home and then augment the troops in Afghanistan and limit the number of fronts we're engaged in. We should have never gone to Iraq in the first place much less before actually defeating Al Quaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it
From: GUEST,Freethinker
Date: 12 May 08 - 05:56 PM

There is propaganda suggesting that we can't pull out immediately. If there was will to do it, it could be done without the casualties that the leading "pundits" say would be there.

Otherwise we have "military excuses" for not disengaging in a fruitless occupation.

The longer we stay, the more casualties there will be as evidenced by the longest
occupation in the history of the US.

Any casualties would be minimal compared to what happens if the US stays in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 May 08 - 05:34 PM

I wasn't suggesting that anyone was, Bobert - I was attempting, in my usual crude way, to address the idea that we could leave quickly. I think that 16 months is quite reasonable and do-able.

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it
From: Bobert
Date: 12 May 08 - 05:25 PM

I don't believe that anyone is advocating the kind of disengagement that you have described, Art...

Obama certainly hasn't... He has suggested a 16 month operation... Figuring that if the 16 months begins Jan. 20, 2009 then the disengagement will be completed around May of 2010 some 7 years and 3 months after the initial invasion...

7 years, 3 months!!! If we can't accomplish any worth objective in that amount of time there is little chance that another 100 years will make a difference...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it
From: GUEST,Freethinker
Date: 12 May 08 - 05:20 PM

Get Blackwater and Triple Canopy out of Iraq. That's why you don't have a draft.

The military has been privatized.

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 May 08 - 04:29 PM

Those who advocate a "rapid withdrawal" from Iraq should recall that it took over two years to disengage in Vietnam, but it was completed, on schedule, 90 days after the signing of the Paris Peace Accords. It was about two years after that when the North violated the conditions of the armistice and invaded the South.

Abandoning everything where it is and driving south to Kuwait would, besides leaving Iraq in worse chaos than it is now, result in a couple of hundred thousand troops being crammed into a small area, with the need to bring in massive amounts of supplies to sustain them until they can be lifted out.

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it
From: Teribus
Date: 12 May 08 - 04:26 PM

Following question from yet another one-post-Guest-Mushroom

"Teribus. Why do you think the use of force is always the solution ?"

Do I? Where? When?

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 May 08 - 03:54 PM

War is good business for those at the top of the "food chain". That's why the USA is addicted to war. It's an addiction that will be very hard to break as long as it benefits the wealthy elite who are calling the shots.

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it
From: Bobert
Date: 12 May 08 - 03:52 PM

Well, yeah, it is addicted to war... Problem is that it's having a hard time payin' for the fix... Time for some serious Betty Ford and WMA (War Mongers Annonomuos)...

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 May 08 - 03:24 PM

Yes, I agree that a new consciousness has to be established in that situation, Bobert. Just as you say. Obama could theoretically do what you are suggesting, in the way you are suggesting. Whether he will or not (if elected) remains to be seen.

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 May 08 - 02:10 PM

Every truth passes through three stages before it is recognized. In the first it is ridiculed; in the second it is opposed; in the third it is regarded as self-evident.
                                                                                                                      --Arthur Schopenhauer

The problem there, Fantasyhead, is that this is not true in all cases. Sometimes a statement that someone asserts as the truth, in the final analysis, turns out to be ridiculous. History is full of such.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it
From: GUEST,Duarte Pio
Date: 12 May 08 - 12:25 PM

Teribus. Why do you think the use of force is always the solution ?
There is no justification of the use of armed aggression against a civilian population.

I never met such a war munger in my entire life.

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it
From: Bobert
Date: 12 May 08 - 10:11 AM

Withdrawl needs to be packaged and sold, LH, as part of a new consciousness... We are all stuck in a erat where failure after failure is acceptable... Someone has to be at the helm when we diseengage and I can't see McCain as capable since his thinking is too steeped in "military"...

Einstein said that "a problem cannot be solved with the saame consciousness that created it"... I very much beleive this to be true... Vietnam is a good example... We did have to disengage but we didn't have to bungle it the way we did... Had we used more creative diplomacy with Hanoi it could have been accomplished more orderly but we used military thinking in the disengagement...

This is where, IMO, Obama has the best chance to to avoid "worst case scenerio" in that during the 16 months of disengagement he has time to use a fresh foriegn policy that doesn't merely threaten but brings our adversaries into discussion of "regional security", which is the crux of what everyone in that part of the world wants...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 May 08 - 08:47 AM

You could be right about this, Fantasma. A rapid USA pullout back to Kuwait would result in some very nasty internal violence in Iraq as the Shiite majority slammed down on the Sunnis and the Kurds...but Iraq is riddled with very nasty internal violence anyway already. It's like hell on earth in Iraq, and the different communities have been divided utterly against each other. In Baghdad the city has been more or less ethnically cleansed into sealed neighborhoods of one group or the other. The harm that has been done to that society by the American invasion has been simply catastrophic, and the fallout from it is going to last a long time. It has become a self-fulfilling prophecy which will explode like the Geni from the lamp as soon as the lid of foreign occupation is taken off the pot.

None of this has much of anything to do with Al-Queda (which is a largely fictional entity, specially in Iraq). It has to do with the aspirations of 3 separate ethnic/cultural communities IN Iraq...the Sunnis, the Shiites, and the Kurds, and they will fight it out as soon as restraints to their doing so are removed.

Someone will win that fight and take over in Baghdad, and a new "strong man" will emerge, possibly worse than Saddam, but life will gradually get back to normal, if you could call it "normal".

****

Bobert, I like Obama's proposal okay, as it stands...but I don't trust it to stand once he's in office and he has to start dealing with the great corporate powers that be which stand all around and behind the presidency. I don't trust him to hold to that promise, even if he now is being genuinely honest in making it.

I would vote for him, yes, on the basis of what he says now...but I highly doubt that it will play out that way afterward.


*******

Keep this in mind, folks. The Germans did not know how to withdraw from France either. It was a real conundrum. Even when defeat was inevitable, they could not figure out how to withdraw.

Withdrawing from Russia was even more problematical, not to mention withdrawing from Greece or Yugoslavia. No withdrawal plan could be found which was...well...comfortable to contemplate.

Criminal aggressors, you see, have a real problem on their hands when they are occupying a foreign land, but it just doesn't work out according to their original plan.

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it
From: Bobert
Date: 12 May 08 - 08:42 AM

Yup, FtP, that's purdy much what is going to happen on the "military side"... And that is reality... We have proven over and over that there is no military solution to Iraq... Many of us, as Chief Chaos has pointed out, saw this coming... I know I did and my feeling's are archived here in Mudville...

But ending the occupation doesn't mean washing our hands of Iraq like we had to do in Vietnam... This is where the State Department comes into play where we engage Iraq's neighbors in negoitiations to assist in the "human consequences" of our military withdrawl... This is where the wok needs to begin...

And the Iraqis understand that "the world [will be] watching" and so it is to their interest to play as nice as they can in the midst of their civil war... This is where Obama's pledge to talk with the Iran's (without preconditions) is a step forward... The sabre rattling of the Bush/McCain/Clinton camps does not send out that message and therefore is counter-productive in insuring that neihboring countries become involved in helping with the "human" concerns...

This is a plan that sho nuff ain't perfect but it beat the heck out of "stay the course", or not leaving without "victory", both of which are terribly flawed and impossible... And it sho nuff ***ain't*** like Saigon...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 11 May 08 - 09:50 PM

Here is how we do it.

We pack up, and hit the road back to Kuwait. Load up all the ships and planes, abandon plenty.

And then it is done. Just like the fall of Saigon.

No sense delaying the inevitable, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Opposing war vs stopping & ending it
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 11 May 08 - 09:46 PM

The real problem here is that you, Fantasma, seem to think that we can just "end" the war. No matter who the future president is there are just too many different variables to just "end" our involvement.
We're not deluded or in denial, we who were against the war from the start saw all that has happened but were branded as pessimist doomsayers. The warhawks decided to ignore the warnings but now are admitting we were right. But nobody really knows how to bow out.