Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on November 18, 2003, 08:34:57 AM
-
Any others who lean right of center feel the same way? I think Bush is blowing it right now in Iraq.
-
Go back to work. AirBus is creeping up on you.
-
Originally posted by MC_Honky
Go back to work. AirBus is creeping up on you.
I do military work too. No worries. ;)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Any others who lean right of center feel the same way? I think Bush is blowing it right now in Iraq.
You feeling ok, buddy? For a moment I thought I just heard you criticize our President.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Any others who lean right of center feel the same way? I think Bush is blowing it right now in Iraq.
Nah... he has Haliburton on the job.... 87 billion...that's a lot of trickle down economic power... can create a few high class exclusive resorts on the gulf ... think of all the Irqi jobs and stimilus that will bring to the Iraqi economy.
Unfortunately, the age of terrorism is just beginning...
fueled by the following perceptions...
Western perception is that Isalmic fundamentalists are terrorists randomly killing people for no other reason than they are evil infidels...
Arabic perception is that Americans are puppets of the Zionist Israeli government, which has illegally taken Arab lands and are waging war against Islamic people... and now Americans are occupying arab lands...
Until the perception of the west and middle east leaders become the same... (what ever that may be)... there will be conflict....
Isalmic people will fight, the way they know is most effective.. not with armies and machinery... but by attacking the morale of their enemy's people through terror and suicide bombs.
In the west money is the great pacifier... money means sucess... money means power... money is prestige... as long as the business is making money... nothing else matters (everything is good)... those are western values...
Bush thinks that once the Iraqi economy starts up... and the Iraqi people return to their jobs... have adequate food... representative government... law and order... prosperity... higher standard of living.. then there will be peace... again...those are western values... if Iraqi's adopt western values... then sure... there will be peace... However, Bush is deluded if he thinks he can change this culture in a few months.
Until then, there will not be peace as long as America occupies Iraq.... no matter how much aide America provides them....
I'm pretty sure there will be a terrorist bombing in America with in the next year... perhaps not as severe as WTC... though just as devastating.
The number and frequency of terrorist related bombings in the world against Europeans has risen since the Afghanistan and Iraq wars... it has not declined.
Not a good situation...
Also... report out Monday... over 9,000 American causalties in the Iraq war since March... that's including dead, maimed, and injured. The news media is only reporting deaths - which is hte lowest number.... the numbered injured and maimed is rahter high.... military experts at the Pentagon are expecting this number to be around 20,000 by next June.
We're talking about soliders loosing limbs, blinded, etc.
Americans don't want to hear those numbers... puts an entirely different perspective on this war.
-
Your talking about converting a people who have been used to millenia of fuedelsim, tribal politics, and warfare into a Democracy.
Is NOT going to be fast, bloodless, painless no matter WHO does it.
But it DOES need to happen, so let it happen.
-
It appears that Bush was the right man to get the first part of the job done, but I wonder whether he's up to task of getting the most difficult part done....the conversion to democracy.
Any President can kick bellybutton with the military we have, but the transition to democracy in Iraq is going to be the real test of this administration.
-
Originally posted by banana
It appears that Bush was the right man to get the first part of the job done, but I wonder whether he's up to task of getting the most difficult part done....the conversion to democracy.
Any President can kick bellybutton with the military we have, but the transition to democracy in Iraq is going to be the real test of this administration.
Exactly my worries...and, regarding if I am feeling alright, keep in mind I am the one who said that I held my nose going to the voting booth in 2000, although IMO, bush was the lesser of the two evils. He's done a fine job up until the last few months, I expected better progress in Iraq.
-
Originally posted by banana
It appears that Bush was the right man to get the first part of the job done, but I wonder whether he's up to task of getting the most difficult part done....the conversion to democracy.
It's going to take multinational support to democratize Iraq.
The world is a smaller place... nations can no longer be isolated islands... there's an interdependency and a need for international law.
Democratization of the middle east... will happen...
However, IMHO, done by military force lessens it's legitamacy...
It's very likely that people in that region will always hold who ever is elected in Iraq and Afghanistan suspect to American influence and puppetry.
Are they just another CIA made Shaw of Iran?
-
Nuke and Martlet will be along shortly to accuse you of being an anti-Bush liberal United States basher.
I have the same concerns Rip.
-
"Of the people and for the people" is a term that is completely foreign in countries like Iraq and Afganistan. Changing thousands of years of tribal/regional rule will not happen in a few years. I assumed at the onset of hostilities that the war itself would be the shortest and possibly the least bloody part of the ultimate objective. I'm quite sure that Bush knew this as well. However, even if he gets re-elected, I doubt that a legitimate stability in Iraq would occur within the time frame of even his next term.
This is not something the President of the United States is going to accomplish. This part of the process MUST fall to the international community. Call me pessimistic, but I give it about ten years before Iraq can possibly stabilize and start contributing to the international community as a legitmate democracy.
Even though democracy is the obviously the most beneficial form of government in this day and age, being forced into it by some foreigners invading your homeland doesn't sit well with even the most passive of individuals. National pride, however misplaced it may be, is still a part of human nature. This is a long road, and we have yet to travel even the first mile IMO.
-
I agree Rip, but I am not sure what needs to be done differently.
I know we are not hearing all the good things going on there but we are hearing enough bad for it to worrysome.
My biggest fear is at some point who ever is running the country will decide the price is to high in votes and cut and run. Wether you thought the war was right or wrong, leaving before we try everything we can to make things right there would be a HUGE mistake. It would also be a horible thing to do to the people of Iraq.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
My biggest fear is at some point who ever is running the country will decide the price is to high in votes and cut and run. Wether you thought the war was right or wrong, leaving before we try everything we can to make things right there would be a HUGE mistake.
Mine too. Best to leave him in another 4 years and clean it up.
-
Originally posted by banana
It appears that Bush was the right man to get the first part of the job done, but I wonder whether he's up to task of getting the most difficult part done....the conversion to democracy.
Any President can kick bellybutton with the military we have, but the transition to democracy in Iraq is going to be the real test of this administration.
If he doesn't get it done, it will be because the majority of Americans today, do not have the stomach to handle anything difficult....our culture demands a quick and painless solution....that is until we get hit again in 9-11 fashion....then most libs will blame Bush due to Iraq or they will wish they would have kept him in office.
Kinda predictable.
Oh...btw, I'm ignoring my first poster since I've been on these boards...the winner is
-
Originally posted by Rude
If he doesn't get it done, it will be because the majority of Americans today, do not have the stomach to handle anything difficult....our culture demands a quick and painless solution....that is until we get hit again in 9-11 fashion....then most libs will blame Bush due to Iraq or they will wish they would have kept him in office.
Kinda predictable.
Oh...btw, I'm ignoring my first poster since I've been on these boards...the winner is
First time in 2 years I ever put someone on ignore was about 2 weeks ago..
Got a funny feeling it's the same guy, Rude.
Is he in this thread?;)
-
DmdNexus said:
It's going to take multinational support to democratize Iraq.
I keep hearing this, but exactly what do you mean by it? This question is not meant to be sarcastic or antagonistic in any way. I really don't understand what you mean here. There are thirty or more nations that have and are helping in Iraq. If by mulitinational you mean the U.N., what could they do that the Coalition is not already doing? What do they bring to the process that would make such a dramatic and/or immediate effect?
Admittedly, I have little faith in or respect for the U.N. They have failed (or simply failed to act) way more times than they have succeeded in such challenges as we face in Iraq. It is a bloated, ineffective collection of states, many that have no true legitimacy to the governments, with radically competing agendas. As has already been spectacularly demonstrated in Iraq over and over again, that body doesn't have the collective will to do what needs to be done. Indeed, they up and left the first time a bomb went off too close to there offices in Bahgdad. Many of the countries in the U.N. have no real interest in advancing the greater good, promoting peace and freedom, or helping the oppressed and down-trodden.
-
Originally posted by Sabre
DmdNexus said:
I keep hearing this, but exactly what do you mean by it? This question is not meant to be sarcastic or antagonistic in any way. I really don't understand what you mean here. There are thirty or more nations that have and are helping in Iraq. If by mulitinational you mean the U.N., what could they do that the Coalition is not already doing? What do they bring to the process that would make such a dramatic and/or immediate effect?
You're right there are many nations involved with the Iraq reconstruction - Japan, Turkey, Italy, England - to name a few.
The situation needs unbiased legitamacy in accordance with international law and that comes from the UN because it's the largest multi-nation organization... and most importantly it includes arabs states as members.
So far the coallition is comprised of mostly European nations.
UN Right or wrong... whimpy... skittish... powerless.. whatever...
It's the best option to bring legitamacy to region.
perhaps the UN charter needs to be rewritten to eliminate the ability of one country having blocking veto power... in that case a 60 majority vote may allow the UN act move decisively in the future.....
More good can be served by working with and then changing the system then to abandon it altogether.
-
Originally posted by Rude
If he doesn't get it done, it will be because the majority of Americans today, do not have the stomach to handle anything difficult....our culture demands a quick and painless solution....that is until we get hit again in 9-11 fashion....then most libs will blame Bush due to Iraq or they will wish they would have kept him in office.
Kinda predictable.
that's a rather broad brush stroke... and if it were true... then that would mean the party which is currently in power...
which was elected by the majority of the people... because that's how elections work in America... isn't it? The majority wins....
So that would mean these representatives... represent the majority of the people... and who are they again? Oh yah the Republicans....
So according you your broad generalization then the majority of Americans (Republicans) don't have the "stomach to handle anything difficult"
I think Americans can handle and stomach difficult situations...
they also want to be told the truth by their government
They want to believe that what they are doing is for a just cause....
They don't want the lies and endless and senseless killing of Vietnam to be repeated.
They want this war to end as quickly as possible... who wouldn't...
So I find that your broad accessment of the American people to be patonly false...and has nothing to do with liberals.
-
Huzzah!
Have no fear. If the US has another terrorist attack, or things get even worse in Iraq so that Bush's "approval rating" continues to plummet, that the US administration will attempt to resurrect any waning patriotic fervor (or poll points) by simply bombing the ever living snot out of some "dangerous" Arab country like Djibouti or Yemen.
-
Westy
Clinton is long out of Ofice!:aok
-
You're talking Democracy in a country where the people have never had anything in common except the oppressing power. To get the Sunnis, Shia and Kurds to work together to build a common nation is going to require serious social change. Enforcing that kind of social change from the top down is going to require some serious governmental intervention in daily life on a level that would make the most liberal democrat blanch.
It doesn't really help matters either the State Department's plan for a post-invasion Iraq, a year in preparation, was tossed out in favor of a competing plan that to me looks like it's based on the notion that the Iraqi people would recognize the Americans as their liberators and welcome Chalabi as their leader.
-
I think the lessons of Vietnam needed to be heeded here. Fighting a half-assed war against Islamic Radicalism is not going to stop it. We either need to grow some balls and waste all of the mother****ers, not just in Iraq, or we get the hell out of there and deal with the consequences. Half-assing it is not going to cut it. It's just going to get lots of American boys killed for no gain.
-
Originally posted by Dinger
To get the Sunnis, Shia and Kurds to work together to build a common nation is going to require serious social change. Enforcing that kind of social change from the top down is going to require some serious governmental intervention in daily life on a level that would make the most liberal democrat blanch.
That's what I'm talking about. If we aren't willing to err on the side of killing or jailing too many, in order to make sure we get all the bad guys, and if we aren't willing to kill 100 Iraqis for every US serviceman who is murdered, we shouldn't be playing at war.
-
I don't see how HE is blowing it.
I think things are not going as fast and as well as some had wanted or expected but I don't think that means HE is blowing anything.
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
I don't see how HE is blowing it.
I think things are not going as fast and as well as some had wanted or expected but I don't think that means HE is blowing anything.
Commander in Chief. Nuff said. He needs to start firing people then.
-
Ripsnort: Any others who lean right of center feel the same way? I think Bush is blowing it right now in Iraq.
It only seems so, but in reality there was no way to do it any better. He blew it when he decided it could be done at all.
miko