BF2S Forums Time for me to take my lumps.

CameronPoe wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Looking at a globe I can see that Afghanistan is pretty far away also. We don't need to dumb the discuscion down to basic geography. The threat sold wasn't striking distance but rather a terrorism proxy.

Don't confuse my explanation as a means of justification neither. I'm just trying to elaborate on the circumstances at the time.

Yes and as Rumsfeld put it "There are no good targets in Afghanistan". Basic history 101 would have indicated to the most simple-minded of folk that conventional warfare in an alien land will do little or nothing to combat terrorism - because terrorism is open source and perpetratable from anywhere with the most rudimentary of tools. The fact that the majority of the bombers came from Saudi Arabia hints at this fact. What did Atta et al learn in Afghanistan? How to board a plane with a pair of box-cutters? Let's face it: both the Afghanistan and Iraq missions are farcical in terms of combatting terror. The west cannot financially sustain their involvement in these countries forever - not to mention the human cost. It's a great shame so many people in the west were so gullible. Unfortunately it wouldn't have made a difference if the public hadn't bought it - the hawks had made their decision and were always going in irrespective.

Small point - not being a dick here - but Blair sold it to the Brits as a 45 minute threat to the UK itself.

You are blurring the line between nation building and appropriate response. I'm sure most Americans were not thinking about an indefinite occupation just prior to the invasion of Afghanistan. To think there would not be some sort of response to a country that openly supported a group that claimed responsibility for the murder of thousands is just plain ignorant. Hitting the training camps and writing their constitution are two totally different ideas. Terror needs to be fought with different tools including intelligence, stopping the flow of funding, creating hope for the hopeless, and going after the people involved.

CameronPoe wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

You are blurring the line between nation building and appropriate response. I'm sure most Americans were not thinking about an indefinite occupation just prior to the invasion of Afghanistan. To think there would not be some sort of response to a country that openly supported a group that claimed responsibility for the murder of thousands is just plain ignorant. Hitting the training camps and writing their constitution are two totally different ideas. Terror needs to be fought with different tools including intelligence, stopping the flow of funding, creating hope for the hopeless, and going after the people involved.

Of course, but none of that had anything to do with Iraq as you would probably agree.

I would think it would go under the catagory of stopping funding, supply, and safe harbor. 
And, if you would like to add a bit of realpolitik, provide an area away from our homeland to try to concentrate 'enemy' resources and personnel for effective... removal.  Iraq is one of those areas we could attack with minimal effort, and provides a destabilizing force into the old Middle-East political makeup.  But this is my own opinion, and not going by anything official.  I am just a cold-blooded bastard.

That being said, since the Iraqi government is making noises about wanting us to leave, it should be time to start packing up.  A slow withdrawl to ensure the local forces can keep order, and pull back except for a 'reaction force' kept at a base in the middle of nowhere, Just In Case.

As for Afghanastan, if we were really serious about it, we should get heavy-handed with the neighboring countries and flatten anything suspcious, regardless of what side of the border it was on.  (Did I mention cold-blooded?)  That would create more problems then they would solve, but if you want to build empires, it is scrambled eggs and omletts for breakfast, and to hell with the eggs.




There are no easy solutions.  There are not even any complete solutions.  No one has the answers.  All of this is playing by ear, and all anyone does is scream about how it is being done wrong, no matter what is done.

***EDIT:  Okay, I may have stopped making sense a while back, but I won't delete it... just call it a rant.

Last edited by imortal (2008-08-05 12:29:23)

B.Schuss wrote:

You're arguing something that you don't know would ever have happened.

or i can sit back and arm chair quarterback like most of this section.

san4 wrote:

usmarine wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

you do ? Care to elaborate ? At the time, Iraq was under heavy international sanctions, weapons inspectors were patroling the area, and the no-fly zones, together with satellite surveillance made sure that they couldn't even build a chopper without the US and others knowing about it.

The country was a dumpster, and a threat to no one.

Without 9/11, I think it would have been nearly impossible for the US administration to convince congress that Iraq was any sort of threat to US interests, or security. 9/11 was the catalysator, that made it all so much easier to justify.

it was only a matter of time before saddam would kick the inspectors out.  he tested clinton and was bound to test bush imo.  except bush would call his bluff i would reckon.

Saddam's greatest fear was probably an Iranian invasion. A serious US administration could have kept him quiet by promising him we would step in if that happened. We wouldn't have let Iran take his oil.

So true...  but that makes far too much sense for neocons to implement.

usmarine wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

So true...  but that makes far too much sense for neocons to implement.

just the neocons eh?  and you call yourself moderate and in the middle...lol

Actually, those old pics of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam from the '80s suggest that the neocons were smart enough to use Saddam to contain Iran at one point.

usmarine wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

So true...  but that makes far too much sense for neocons to implement.

just the neocons eh?  and you call yourself moderate and in the middle...lol

Before the Republicans went nuts after Bush #2 entered office, they weren't really neocons.  They wisely decided to work with Clinton in keeping Saddam in a stalemate with air strikes.

But yes, I also blame the spineless Democrats for not standing up to Bush when he lobbied for war with Iraq.

usmarine wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

usmarine wrote:

just the neocons eh?  and you call yourself moderate and in the middle...lol

Before the Republicans went nuts after Bush #2 entered office, they weren't really neocons.  They wisely decided to work with Clinton in keeping Saddam in a stalemate with air strikes.

But yes, I also blame the spineless Democrats for not standing up to Bush when he lobbied for war with Iraq.

i hardly find an illegal no fly zone, cruise missiles, and spec ops roaming around a sovereign country model behavior by the dems.

It might not be model behavior, but it was bipartisan.  For most of this, there was a Republican Congress in power.

I'd rather do the above than actually invade the country because...  it's much cheaper and much more effective at maintaining stability.

Turquoise wrote:

usmarine wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

So true...  but that makes far too much sense for neocons to implement.

just the neocons eh?  and you call yourself moderate and in the middle...lol

Before the Republicans went nuts after Bush #2 entered office, they weren't really neocons.  They wisely decided to work with Clinton in keeping Saddam in a stalemate with air strikes.

But yes, I also blame the spineless Democrats for not standing up to Bush when he lobbied for war with Iraq.

James Madison was a neocon "like". He was expansionist, supported the idea of a national bank, built up the military, he went after states rights (thus taking sovereignty away from the citizens).. I could go on but I've got to give him some credit.. _*cough* Bill of rights _*cough*.

He also once said:

James Madison wrote:

In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate.

Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body.

A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.

Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.

It doesn't get any better than that. When you look back over our history you can see clear warnings by the people who we now paint as conspirators. I used to have a very poor opinion of Madison. For the most part it was due to the revisionist. The people who rewrite history need to explain the root of our problems by means of "evil men" who have been long dead. It's very popular and easy to get behind due to the lack of intellect required to support those ideas. Once you put some effort into actually educating yourself you can see all the key points that have been excluded from the grand scheme.

My point is that trying to pigeonhole each other into Neo-con, liberal, religious right, etc.. is just illogical. It's a shame that so many of us can't live without labels.

Turquoise wrote:

The point is...  it was still a more logical situation than what we committed to with invading and nation-building Iraq.

i dont really agree with the more logical part.  imo it would have lead to a war eventually anyway.

usmarine wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

The point is...  it was still a more logical situation than what we committed to with invading and nation-building Iraq.

i dont really agree with the more logical part.  imo it would have lead to a war eventually anyway.

What's logical about invading a country you can't afford to rebuild?

usmarine wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

usmarine wrote:

i dont really agree with the more logical part.  imo it would have lead to a war eventually anyway.

What's logical about invading a country you can't afford to rebuild?

i didnt say that was logical, but what we were doing did not make much sense either.

What would you have done if you had been in charge?

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

My point is that trying to pigeonhole each other into Neo-con, liberal, religious right, etc.. is just illogical. It's a shame that so many of us can't live without labels.

It's not pigeon-holing when certain people really do fit a stereotype.

Still, I agree with you on principle.

It is when you change the meaning of words to fit the person. The people who blast liberals have hijacked the true meaning of the word. Those words now lack relevance and they have removed the desire to truly understand an individual.  People are people..

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

My point is that trying to pigeonhole each other into Neo-con, liberal, religious right, etc.. is just illogical. It's a shame that so many of us can't live without labels.

It's not pigeon-holing when certain people really do fit a stereotype.

Still, I agree with you on principle.

It is when you change the meaning of words to fit the person. The people who blast liberals have hijacked the true meaning of the word. Those words now lack relevance and they have removed the desire to truly understand an individual.  People are people..

Depeche Mode rocks!

But anyway...  I would agree.