I AM Dr.Strangelove. C'mon now,Kubrick's my favorite director. Anyway,I didn't say that 911 was caused by Iraq specifically. You have to look at the state sponsored terrorism in the region.Eventuallly we were going to get hit in some way.My point is Afghanistan and Iraq are pieces of a puzzle that foster/promoted threats against the US...some of the smaller stepping stones that we had to deal with first in order to go the distance with this thing.Afghanistan wasn't a kneejerk reaction and Iraq sure as heck isn't either.Like I said previously,look at the strategic value of Iraq and where it factors into the bigger picture.It's no coincidence that Iran and Syria are sitting right next door,just as it's no coincidence that those same Iranians are about to go nuclear.Yes,North Korea is near,but that little dog can keep on barking.China will handle them.Speaking of the Chinese,we need them to step up diplomatically and help us deal with Tehran.The problem is we are already fighting an economic war with China and I fear for the future. Our nation refuses to sit back and let it and the world be brought to it's knees... ...There will be shortterm side effects that people don't like but those same people don't have the intelligence that our govt. has. BTW.....Plots are stopped but not publicized everyday due to National Security.I would bet that if most knew exactly what goes on attitudes would change quickly.
There is no military solution, there is no battlefield. If you want to take out the dictators...fine....but don't use the Army, it only escalates a situation that ultimatly has no winning end game for us. DD
With all due respect, ultimately we must win or else we lose big. Taking a step back, "top dog, under dog" scenarios always end (100% of the time) with the top dog either being completely destroyed or victorious. There is no middle ground. We are the top dog. Iraq was always the linch pin between the countries of the mediterranean and the Arab gulf. Look at how the map of the region has changed since the president has taken over. Lets look at some of the Dictators/regimes he has put in a box (some literally): -Charles Taylor (Liberia - one of the most murderous men in the history of Africa which says a lot)- In Jail. -Qadaffi - Hiding under a rock. -The Taliban -When was the last time you heard about "The PLO" -- Think it was a coincidence that their is a civil war in Palestine, thereby adding to our stability through their instability. The first person Bush sent to resolve the Palestinian issue was George Tenet (Dir of the CIA) and it wasn't to negotiate. -Pakistan - Don't you remember Mushareff was blowing up nukes in the desert preparing for an exchange with India. How many millions did the USA save by giving Mushareff an ultimatum? -Iraq/Saddam -- One of history's worst mass murderers. Had every intention of being the great Martyr who struck out at the West at his first opportunity. - Not to mention stabilizing Yemen, Djbouti, and a host of other minor hot spots. And if it went well in Iraq -- Yes, Iran would have been next and probably Syria. Imagine that landscape -- a Middle East without dictators. Korea- They have no influence in the world and are in a box. They are developing missile technology to deliver their weapons which will be obsolete and completely defendable in less than 10 years. The country will eventualy implode.
I thought we were sexing mutombo in this thread, not discussing world peace....i'm sure cnn.com has a place for your posts....
What does anything in this post have to do with lampooning the president? Wouldn't keeping people from making fun of the president be making peaceful revolution impossible?
Check out the thread and you'll see I'm responding to something that was said. Anyway,don't get me wrong.It's a healthy thing to question our leaders and also an integral component of democracy.I just think that the proverbial line was crossed earlier. ..and I definitely don't want WW3,but I'm not going to pretend that something akin to it hasn't already started...push came to shove a long time ago.
I'm not sure whether to take this post seriously but here goes. Not exactly. Former top dog England still exists, although they're our lap dog now. The US wasn't destroyed by Vietnam. The US and the Bush Admin had little to nothing to do with that and Liberia still isn't very stable while neighboring countries are still unstable and a country that was very stable, Cote d'Ivoire, is now in Civil War. Qadafi has actually been quite visible. While I will admit that his giving up on WMD's probably had something to do with Iraq it also had a lot to do with sanctions taking a huge toll on Libya. [quote-The Taliban [/quote] Still fighting and have been resurgent in recent years. The PLO became the Palestinian Authority after Oslo. If you're arguing the PLO was defeated well technically they won since they finally got some official control and recognition in Palestinian territories. For that matter the PLO became the PA under Clinton. As for somehow hinting that the CIA created the civil war in the Palestinian territories and that being good for us if anything its the opposite. Civil war in Palestine means more extremist groups gain more power and the continued misery in the area creates a fertile breeding ground for terrorists while continuing to fuel anti-Israeli and US feelings in the Middle East. Under the PA while corrupt and feeble there was at least a single and secular organization. Mushareff is our ally but even then under our noses Musharef turned a fairly blind eye and possibly encouraged AQ Khan to sell nuke secrets to other countries. As for Mushareff planning a nuclear showdown with India that was highly unlikely. There is almost nothing to support that Saddam planned on being a great martyr or striking out at the west. Everything about Saddam indicated that preserving his skin was his primary concern. If Saddam had wanted to be a great martyr he would've fought it out in Baghdad instead of skulking off into hiding. Yemen still isn't that stable and also is considered to still be harboring Al Qaeda. Djbouti was relatively stable when GW Bush took office. OTOH there are many countries now that are far less stable since GW Bush took office. I will say the Bush Admin. isn't too blame in most of these cases but then again the Bush Admin. shouldn't get credit for stability in many countries either. If it went well in Iraq, possibly, but its not going well and it was pie in the sky to think it would to begin with. Instead what we are seeing is a far more unstabilized Middle East where local populations are more embittered towards the US because of Iraq and groups like Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic parties in other countries are gaining power capitalizing from that bitterness. If the Neo-Con idea of democracy flourishing in the Middle East from taking out secular dictators in monarchies things are likely to be replaced with fundamentalist Islamic parties that are much more anti-US. That very might well happen but NK imploding isn't or developing missile technology isn't a good thing for the US and the Bush Admin. is doing nearly nothing about addressing those other than doing its best to piss off NK.
I've checked out the thread and it looks like you're confusing the policies of a particular president with the office. You're saying that the office should be respected because you believe that the policies of the current occupant to be correct. Whether the you agree or disagree with the policies of any particular president that is an independent matter from the office itself or the whether it is right or wrong to lampoon the office.
Hey Sishir. How are things? and to Dr. Strangelove. I hear what you are saying and I think it is a respectful addition to the conversation. I don't think we are too far apart on our view of things other than your view of how things would have gone if Iraq had gone well. I think our first initiative, towards the country that actually participated in 911, would have had to have gone well too. We still haven't finished things there. Add to that the total chaos in Iraq and I don't see how any of this could be imagined as a possible launching pad for utopia for the middle east. I do respect your opinion though. You seem like a cool cat... Regards, Brock
Thanks for asking. Things are very cold where I'm at -5 right now and it was -17 yesterday. 10 days ago I was sitting on a beach with temps in the high 80's and palm trees. Hope things are warmer where you're at.
Thanks Brock.Ditto for you and that goes for you Sishir too.I'm in here quite a bit reading but don't post and you guys seem to be pretty level headed. Man,I really want things to go well for our troops and our cause.It does seem that we're bogged down in quite a quagmire.What do you see happening from here on in?Again I feel we have to be proactive..... Sirshir - Where are you?I rotate between Galveston and Lake Tahoe.I seem to always get sick the first week up here going from sea level and more humidity to 8000 + and dry.It's unseasonably warm right now and we haven't had much snow so far this winter which means we'll probably get hit hard this month and next.(in fact it's supposed to dump Thurs. - Sun.)I have my fingers crossed.It's been like a blend of spring skiing with Northeastern snow conditions(let um run)...not complaining,but you know.... As far as the whole respect for the office versus policies of an administration thing,I can definitely differentiate between the two. Without a doubt I believe there should be a built in respect for the office..to a point,but it is also our duty to question and keep our govt. in line and accountable.Right now,to me the lines appear a bit blurred because of the nature of the type of conflict we're dealing with.I don't see Iraq as another Vietnam,but part of a bigger campaign that must not fail.I understand the polarization that occurs in times of crisis/war and with regard to Iraq I totally understand how bad it looks now and how many people have had it. But there be Dragons beyond us now that need to be dealt with somehow. Anyway,I digress again.I have no problem with hammering whoever is in office when needed.(to a point)I guess it's the whole "state of war" deal that confuses the issue for me.I realize that it cuts both ways.
Thank you for your kind comments and appreciate them. Although I wish I was in Lake Tahoe but unfortunately I'm in the frozen hell called Minneapolis. Certainly as a matter of decorum some respect should be paid to the office, for that matter respect should be paid to everyone, but its a great American tradition and right to both criticize the office and office holder. Even Lincoln was lampooned and charactured as a monkey and an oaf publicly. So this is nothing new. Also the Presidency can never be totally divorced from the individual holding it yet the Presidency is something beyond the individual. You could call Bush an idiot, Clinton a pervert, Reagan senile and Carter a moron yet that wouldn't mean that the Presidency is idiotic, perverted, senile or moronic. The office in many ways is greater than the men who have occupied it.
Yeah,the office is almost always greater than the man.We've had some extraordinary people in the oval office and also some real DoDo heads.And true we've hammered every single one before to some degree.From cartoon caricatures to skits on SNL. And that's always blown me away about Lincoln.Many people then were not enamored with him,esp. early on,yet he's probably our greatest president. Been fishing up there but not this time of year.The whole ice fishing thing just doesn't get my juices flowing.Icy,snowy,and a lot more time inside...different lifestyle,eh?
