Afghanistan... Iraq... What's the resemblance?

[Iceberg]

A sign at a peace rally at my university yesterday read,

"Afghanistan...
Iraq...
Who's next?"

Now, I'm liking the Iraq situation less and less with each passing day. On the other hand, from a geopolitical standpoint, we MUST prevail in Iraq, and Saddam Hussein MUST be thrown down. There is no other solution at this point which will preserve the geopolitical power of America (and thus the prosperity and safety of her citizens).

Make no mistake - American citizens are still by and large safe from foreign aggression in our homeland. The logistical challenges of mounting a concerted attack across the oceans are daunting, and nothing short of impossible for all but the most determined foe. The events of September 11, 2001 have proven to be a horrible anomaly, not the ordinary way of things.

To compare the two situations as if they have anything in common other than the United States armed forces going into a foreign land is to fundamentally misunderstand the politics of the two situations. Our actions in Afghanistan and elsewhere to suppress terrorism worldwide were and are a legitimate war of self-defense, as legitimate as was the four-year war to crush Imperial Japan. U.N. rhetoric to the contrary, the United Nations neither lends legitimacy to war efforts nor takes it away. Warfare, as a Clausewitzian extension of politics, is the right of a sovereign state. However, this war does represent a massive failure of diplomacy and politics. It would not have been possible to remove Saddam Hussein without warfare, but the Bush Administration did a piss-poor job of presenting its case for war, a worse job of acquiring and sustaining allies, and wasted untold amounts of political capital between 11 September 2001 and 19 March 2003 both at home and abroad in the pursuit of its goal.

War itself isn't necessarily the wrong thing here - the wrong thing is pursuing a war under false pretenses, without gaining the approval of our traditional allies and friends, which is, unfortunately, the whole point of the Bush Doctrine (America, according to the Bush Doctrine, has the right to intervene anywhere in the world, at any time, whenever American interests are at stake, regardless of the opposition). THAT, I believe, will be History's verdict on the greatest failure of the Bush Administration.

[MKSheppard]

A sign at a peace rally at my university yesterday read,

"Afghanistan...
Iraq...
Who's next?"

Now, I'm liking the Iraq situation less and less with each passing day. On the other hand, from a geopolitical standpoint, we MUST prevail in Iraq, and Saddam Hussein MUST be thrown down. There is no other solution at this point which will preserve the geopolitical power of America (and thus the prosperity and safety of her citizens).

Actually, I think of it as a necessary war, necessary as to clean up the mess
we left behind from GW I, when we didn't remove saddam.

[Queeb Salaron]

War itself isn't necessarily the wrong thing here - the wrong thing is pursuing a war under false pretenses, without gaining the approval of our traditional allies and friends, which is, unfortunately, the whole point of the Bush Doctrine (America, according to the Bush Doctrine, has the right to intervene anywhere in the world, at any time, whenever American interests are at stake, regardless of the opposition).

You raise an interesting point. While I know we tried (desperately) to gain the support of certain countries that have helped us in the past, I'm sure we could have done a better job. (Like you said, the cause for war was never really presented in a fashion that satisfied anti-war opinions. Too much has been left unsaid, I fear.) But shouldn't those allies have stepped up anyway? I mean, where's Israel in all this? I know they're having troubles in their own country, but all they're doing is blowing the shit out of Palestinian apartment buildings. Surely they could take some time off of that to jump a border or two and help out the US.

...Or am I forgetting something?...

[Colonel Olrik]

...Or am I forgetting something?...

All the middle east would rise in outrage if one Israeli troop entered Iraq.

Perhaps you're forgetting that.

[jegs2]

...Or am I forgetting something?...

All the middle east would rise in outrage if one Israeli troop entered Iraq.

Perhaps you're forgetting that.

You're correct -- they don't really care for each other...

[K. A. Pital]

THAT, I believe, will be History's verdict on the greatest failure of the Bush Administration.

Probably we'll have a huge war if the US continues like this. Check out how it will presumably go in the "WAR"

[Queeb Salaron]

...Or am I forgetting something?...

All the middle east would rise in outrage if one Israeli troop entered Iraq.

Perhaps you're forgetting that.

You're correct -- they don't really care for each other...

True, but wouldn't that be the ultimate slap in the face to Iraqis? To be shot and killed by an Israeli? Americans could use that to their advantage.

[Nathan F]

All the middle east would rise in outrage if one Israeli troop entered Iraq.

Perhaps you're forgetting that.

You're correct -- they don't really care for each other...

True, but wouldn't that be the ultimate slap in the face to Iraqis? To be shot and killed by an Israeli? Americans could use that to their advantage.

How? By having the strongest foothold we have in the Middle East wiped off the face of the earth?

You see, the moment an Israeli fires on an Iraqi, the wrath of all Arabic countries (sans Kuwait and Qatar, maybe the U.A.E.), wil be brought down upon them.

Israel has a strong military, but they just don't number enough to take on that many countries.

[Colonel Olrik]

How? By having the strongest foothold we have in the Middle East wiped off the face of the earth?

You see, the moment an Israeli fires on an Iraqi, the wrath of all Arabic countries (sans Kuwait and Qatar, maybe the U.A.E.), wil be brought down upon them.

Israel has a strong military, but they just don't number enough to take on that many countries.

Oh, yes they do. Using their 200+ tac nukes arsenal, thus causing millions of casualities and launching the world into WW3. Another spectacular political move on the part of Bush

[Stormbringer]

All the middle east would rise in outrage if one Israeli troop entered Iraq.

Perhaps you're forgetting that.

You're correct -- they don't really care for each other...

True, but wouldn't that be the ultimate slap in the face to Iraqis? To be shot and killed by an Israeli? Americans could use that to their advantage.

Even if the Israelis didn't get horribly mauled that would leave the population and the rulers of a lot of the Middle East dead set against us. Right now we're not the best loved but we have a shot to turn Iraq in our favor. If we brought in the Israelis in that would all disappear.

[phongn]

Oh, yes they do. Using their 200+ tac nukes arsenal, thus causing millions of casualities and launching the world into WW3. Another spectacular political move on the part of Bush

Nah, I doubt WW3 would start, but Israel will never be driven into the sea precisely because of their "nonexistant 200 nuclear warleads." The Arab nations understand this well.

[Joe]

"Afghanistan...
Iraq...
Who's next?"

A concussion, caused by slipping and cracking your head on the slippery slope.

[Coyote]

Plus, lets face it, this fight has very little to do with Israel at all unless Saddam attacks them. The Gulf War had nothing to do with Israel either until Saddam forced it.

Tacitly most of the Arab countries have resigned themselves to Israel's existence and some had learned to enjoy having an economic engine in the area. The global recession has dampened that somewhat but the governments now keep up a face of anti-Israel rhetoric to do two things: look tough to appease their internal agitators and extremists; and keep the pressure on for a Palestinian peace accord of some sort that looks honorable.

The fiery rhetoric of the Arab gov't also is helpful in justifying big defense industries and repressive political practices.

But I think regional war is actually less likely than we are given to think. There's really no payoff for the Arabs in it.

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

So, are you against poverty, death, taxes, lonelyness, hunger and human suffering as well?

How very big of you.

Because after all, the pro war, poverty, taxes, and death lobby is winning the fight.
This constant hand wringing angst, does NO ONE any good.
Just who do you think WANTS death and suffering?
Shrubby, of corse.

This, like medacine, is a strange case of being cruel, to be kind.
There is no benifit of pain medacine, to easy this pain.
Just as nuking Japan had the counterintuative effect of lowering the total death count, so will the war actualy save more lives, in the long run.

And don't give me the old cannard of, "destroy the village to save it" crap. The true meaning, in context, of that saying, is "we had to burn all the BUILDINGS, to creat the ILLUSION, that we were angry with the INHABITANTS, to spare them from the atrocities the NVC would do to the PEOPLE, for helping us after we LEFT, and could NO LONGER protect them."

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

Dammit, I have once again posted a reply in THE WRONG THREAD! Talk about your non sequter!
Can a mod move this to, "why I am against the war"

[Colonel Olrik]

Dammit, I have once again posted a reply in THE WRONG THREAD! Talk about your non sequter!
Can a mod move this to, "why I am against the war"

Mods cannot merge threads in this board.

Post your text in the correct thread and I'll delete your posts in this one (tell me when)

[paladin]

"Afghanistan...
Iraq...
Who's next?"

Quebec!

Why? Because it's close by, so we wouldn't need to ship troops overseas. Also, they insist on speaking French instead of English like the rest of Canada.

So, fear not our Canadian Brothers and Sisters! The hour of your liberation draws near!

[NecronLord]

"Afghanistan...
Iraq...
Who's next?"

A concussion, caused by slipping and cracking your head on the slippery slope.

Not a slippery slope. Bush has stated he has a hitlist. "Axis of Evil."

[Col. Crackpot]

"Afghanistan...
Iraq...
Who's next?"

Quebec!

Why? Because it's close by, so we wouldn't need to ship troops overseas. Also, they insist on speaking French instead of English like the rest of Canada.

So, fear not our Canadian Brothers and Sisters! The hour of your liberation draws near!

I nominate myself Overseer of Occupied Montreal, and will volunteer to liberate every strip club on St. Catherine street

[Joe]

"Afghanistan...
Iraq...
Who's next?"

A concussion, caused by slipping and cracking your head on the slippery slope.

Not a slippery slope. Bush has stated he has a hitlist. "Axis of Evil."

So? Other than possibly North Korea, the state department hasn't indicated it has any plans for war beyond Iraq.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

There have been noises about Iran, though I think that's more in terms of covert action than direct military operation, and one of Richard Perle's former aides published a plan to divide the KSA into seven minor States to negate its power. Perle's denied supporting the initiative, but we'll have to see. Naturally, it would be inadvisable to support it - Right now.

[Master of Ossus]

War itself isn't necessarily the wrong thing here - the wrong thing is pursuing a war under false pretenses, without gaining the approval of our traditional allies and friends, which is, unfortunately, the whole point of the Bush Doctrine (America, according to the Bush Doctrine, has the right to intervene anywhere in the world, at any time, whenever American interests are at stake, regardless of the opposition).

You raise an interesting point. While I know we tried (desperately) to gain the support of certain countries that have helped us in the past, I'm sure we could have done a better job. (Like you said, the cause for war was never really presented in a fashion that satisfied anti-war opinions. Too much has been left unsaid, I fear.) But shouldn't those allies have stepped up anyway? I mean, where's Israel in all this? I know they're having troubles in their own country, but all they're doing is blowing the shit out of Palestinian apartment buildings. Surely they could take some time off of that to jump a border or two and help out the US.

...Or am I forgetting something?...

Are you out of your fucking mind? The Israelis CANNOT get involved in a war against an Arab nation. If they were to do so, they would risk turning the entire Muslim world against the war. That is what the Iraqis were trying to do when they fired SCUDs at Tel Aviv and other Israeli targets during the Second Persian Gulf War. They were TRYING to get the Israelis involved, so as to turn the war into a religious conflict between the Arab world and the Israelis. Trust me. If the Israelis were to get involved, the situation would be far worse.

[Queeb Salaron]

War itself isn't necessarily the wrong thing here - the wrong thing is pursuing a war under false pretenses, without gaining the approval of our traditional allies and friends, which is, unfortunately, the whole point of the Bush Doctrine (America, according to the Bush Doctrine, has the right to intervene anywhere in the world, at any time, whenever American interests are at stake, regardless of the opposition).

You raise an interesting point. While I know we tried (desperately) to gain the support of certain countries that have helped us in the past, I'm sure we could have done a better job. (Like you said, the cause for war was never really presented in a fashion that satisfied anti-war opinions. Too much has been left unsaid, I fear.) But shouldn't those allies have stepped up anyway? I mean, where's Israel in all this? I know they're having troubles in their own country, but all they're doing is blowing the shit out of Palestinian apartment buildings. Surely they could take some time off of that to jump a border or two and help out the US.

...Or am I forgetting something?...

Are you out of your fucking mind? The Israelis CANNOT get involved in a war against an Arab nation. If they were to do so, they would risk turning the entire Muslim world against the war. That is what the Iraqis were trying to do when they fired SCUDs at Tel Aviv and other Israeli targets during the Second Persian Gulf War. They were TRYING to get the Israelis involved, so as to turn the war into a religious conflict between the Arab world and the Israelis. Trust me. If the Israelis were to get involved, the situation would be far worse.

Hm... I'm firmly convinced that war would not exist (or would exist to a lesser extent) if religion did not exist. Then again, I'm convinced that we'd all be like sheep if religion didn't exist.

But I digress. I forgot about Tel Aviv. My bad.

[fgalkin]

You raise an interesting point. While I know we tried (desperately) to gain the support of certain countries that have helped us in the past, I'm sure we could have done a better job. (Like you said, the cause for war was never really presented in a fashion that satisfied anti-war opinions. Too much has been left unsaid, I fear.) But shouldn't those allies have stepped up anyway? I mean, where's Israel in all this? I know they're having troubles in their own country, but all they're doing is blowing the shit out of Palestinian apartment buildings. Surely they could take some time off of that to jump a border or two and help out the US.

...Or am I forgetting something?...

Are you out of your fucking mind? The Israelis CANNOT get involved in a war against an Arab nation. If they were to do so, they would risk turning the entire Muslim world against the war. That is what the Iraqis were trying to do when they fired SCUDs at Tel Aviv and other Israeli targets during the Second Persian Gulf War. They were TRYING to get the Israelis involved, so as to turn the war into a religious conflict between the Arab world and the Israelis. Trust me. If the Israelis were to get involved, the situation would be far worse.

Hm... I'm firmly convinced that war would not exist (or would exist to a lesser extent) if religion did not exist. Then again, I'm convinced that we'd all be like sheep if religion didn't exist.

But I digress. I forgot about Tel Aviv. My bad.

I think you got it wrong. Religion is the thing that turns us into sheep.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Nathan F]

How? By having the strongest foothold we have in the Middle East wiped off the face of the earth?

You see, the moment an Israeli fires on an Iraqi, the wrath of all Arabic countries (sans Kuwait and Qatar, maybe the U.A.E.), wil be brought down upon them.

Israel has a strong military, but they just don't number enough to take on that many countries.

Oh, yes they do. Using their 200+ tac nukes arsenal, thus causing millions of casualities and launching the world into WW3. Another spectacular political move on the part of Bush

I was referring to non-nuke. Using nukes would be political suicide.