Very good, but let’s extend this just a little bit. The lesson here is the classic project management problem of not clearly identifying who the major stakeholders are and what they need to be able to see the project as a success. In the case of the Vietnam War, the public was not sufficiently informed and otherwise brought on side. This certainly contributed to the public’s later perception that the war was a failure. In this ME situation an even broader more fundamental perspective on who the major stakeholders are, and what “success” is, is needed. In order for a subsequent, significantly-more-desirable-than-Hussein’s, regime to be established and sustained in Iraq it will need the support of it’s neighbours and the allies. If conditions are not established beforehand that ensure the installation, support, and long term survival of the successor regime, then the project will ultimately be a failure, and the situation may even become worse than if no intervention had occurred. If the US has not yet succeeded in getting the allies and other ME countries on side, then I suspect that the conditions necessary for long term success are not in place. You know this isn’t how I see the military. The military acts at the request of the government. It is the wisdom and strategic abilities of the government that are in question. Have we really looked to see where we’re diving, to make sure we’re diving in the right place and not about to split our own heads open on the rocks? Undoubtedly there is a lot going on behind the scenes that we don’t know about, but the fact that a strong coalition has not been established suggests to me that the right amount of groundwork has not been done yet. If you or your fellow soldiers die truly liberating Iraq, then I’m very confident that the public will greatly respect what you’ve done. We’ve had huge parades here to greet the returning soldiers from Afghanistan. http://cbc.ca/stories/2002/08/09/ppcli020809 If this turns out to be an ill-timed, ill-conceived intervention that eventually backfires, then the response may be much like that of the Vietnam war. This is very good to hear. It would seem that the thought processes are broadening. What “success” really is is being more broadly, and accurately, considered. Again, very good to hear. There’s no free lunch in this world. What we do, how we conduct ourselves, we will have to face and account for at some point down the road. Moral conduct has a power, a moral authority, that is difficult to account for in simple strategic analysis, but it is very real and it’s effects last for all time. It’s guys like Delay that rapidly and radically erode the rest of the world’s confidence in the ability of the US to make sound decisions. Apart from that, however, I don’t see how an intervention can be successful in the long run without the establishment of a broad based coalition that includes significant power blocks in the ME. Such an action would not have, IMO, the moral authority or the support structure required to ensure long-term success. Unless there is an imminent threat of attack wit WMD, I would not think it wise to proceed without such a coalition.
Treeman: Tom DeLay is an extreme 'Right Wing' 'Red Neck' Warmonger, who has no empathy with life! He would have Americans kill Americans if it suited his purpose! His tolerance is very limited to his own beliefs, which are certainly not that of a Christian. Everything that he utters can't be taken at face value, even when he sounds patriotic. He is full of hatred for anything that does not fit into his mold. He must neve gain real power in our Country, for most of us it would be disaster. NB. No bad language used, it's not necessary!
Those were certainly Pres. Eisenhower's warnings/misgivings about the industrial military complex. Only those insignificant are sent to die and die first. The important people don't. Makes you feel good, doesn't it?
haha first time i check the bbs in a couple months and this is what i see. 'hussein is an expanstionist'. go check isreal on your map. see all that land it has now. it took it over by 'expanstionist' adventures. and it wants more.
I don't think you want to delve into this with me. Ask around. I have been as critical of Israel as anybody on this BBS. Just because I'm willing to give a little equal time to Saddam on the expansionist front doesn't make me wrong.
As I have never mastered the whole quote within quote thing, my comments will be surrounded by ***'s. Oh, and treeman, this is JAG, in case you remeber me...Is haven about? *** Basically might = right, and to hell with any opinion which differs from your own...***
Just a small note...Of the 10 posts in this thread before you gallantly leapt to his defense, 5 were from treeman himself, 2 were from Mad Max in support of treeman's stance, one was a "WOW!", and exactly two (2) were opposed...Not exactly Custer's last stand here...
Actually: 5 were from treeman 2 were from F.D. Khan - against 1 from DaDakota - WOW 1 from Madmax in support 1 from Sonny (me) in support and next time, don't quote the whole damn article... too long.
When did I say that he was being totally ambushed? Ummm...that would be never. Treeman was being disagreed with strongly by Khan (who I think has a political axe to grind), so I decided to jump in. I'll be sure to get your permission prior to posting.
Well you damn well didn't get my permission to use one of those little rolley-eye things! Good help is hard to find... P.S. Custer wasn't ambushed, he was killed during an ill-conceived attack on a Native gathering. My point was that he was mostly arguing with himself...before you helped him. P.P.S. In view of the above mentioned advice at pre-empting, I'll concede your sarcastic gratitude for the 'history lesson'... P.P.P.S. Upon further review, I just realized how snipey I'm being here, and I apologize...I guess the subject and my past debates with treeman get me a little aggressive. Again, sorry...
LOL...I know the feeling my friend. Touche. See above...touche. No worries. Excellent response to my response to your original post (if I include anymore responses I'll need a flowchart ).
Treeman's post goes to prove my point. Tom Dely is practically a drft dodger. Treeman at least is a common guy who is willing o serve. For another top military man who opposes the "War of the Draft Dodgers". Seeanother top military guy against the arm chair warriors. For those who missed it the lack of military service of Tom Delay and most of the other "chicken hawks" that surroundBush and call for war.Who served and who didn't
How soon should we send the Lusitania through the Gulf of Tonkin? "Hawks & Doves" by Neil Young Ain't getting old, ain't getting younger though Just getting used to the lay of the land I ain't tongue-tied, just don't got nothin' to say I'm proud to be livin' in the U.S.A. Ready to go, willin' to stay and pay U.S.A., U.S.A. So my sweet love can dance another free day U.S.A., U.S.A. In history we painted pictures grim The devil knows we might feel that way again The big wind blows, so the tall grass bends But for you don't push too hard my friend. Ready to go, willin' to stay and pay U.S.A., U.S.A. So my sweet wife can dance another free day U.S.A., U.S.A. Got people here down on their knees and prayin' Hawks and doves are circlin' in the rain Got rock and roll, got country music playin' If you hate us, you just don't know what you're sayin'. Ready to go, willin' to stay and pay U.S.A., U.S.A. So my sweet love can dance another free day U.S.A., U.S.A.
You mean misinterpretation. He makes a pretty clear point. Every generation there are those that would choose appeasement over confrontation. That doesn't mean you never cooperate with anyone else. It means there will always be a segment that would rather 'hope' the problem resolves itself, NEVER opting for extreme measures. Saddam is a clear danger to the US, among others. The longer we wait the closer he gets to nuclear weapons (assuming you believe he is not close now). Once he gets nukes do you REALLY think he is going to sit on them as defensive weapons? DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT, JAG, er...Macbeth? In your worldview NO country has ANY values at the core, except might = right. You could name any country in existence today and there are SOME injustices being committed or have been committed in their name. You can take any statement and regress infinitely until you hit some down points. I particularly like the 'witch hunt' reference ... You forgot the Spanish Inquisiton and a few others. Yep. For a variety of valid reasons. Security being the one at the forefront of this discussion. The fact that Saddam is not a democratic leader, but a despot, makes removing him easily in line with our democratic values. Uh, yeah. If we defined them like Saddam then you are correct that there would not be much of a problem. Yep. And they were no worse in the end that the Soviet backed alternatives. In many ways they were better, as now in Chile and the Philippeans there are free elections. In Cuba there are NOT, and in the whole of the Soviet sphere of influence there are only elections now that the Soviet system has collapsed upon itself. Believing that the system in the West is inherently better than the Soviet system does not make me a fanatic. Believing that the system in the West is inherently better than Iraq's does not make me a fanatic. Believing that Hitler and Stalin et al were 'evil' does not make me a fanatic. That is silly. You don't seem to think there is a 'good' or 'evil' only a difference of opinion. I disagree. It can be just as easily argued that appeasement and moral relativsm caused those conflicts. You don't seem to be a big fan of US Cold War policy of deterrence, but I think you're in denial about the needs of the post Cold War world. Do you think we should allow any country to get nukes? Deterrence has NOT stopped proliferation. Europe has shown over and over again an inability to act, even in their own backyard. And it could be that we are right? Oh yeah, but not in your worldview, of course. Might = responsibility. Responsibility to use our power and status to our own security from external threat and responsibility to protect those unable or unwilling to do so themselves.
Let me bottom line this for you glynch. You might not like DeLay (he isn't my favorite person either) but you don't have to attack him personally. Or do you? Another typical example of the Democratic party's politics of personal destruction. Very distasteful. You lose serious style points on this post. If we don't do anything then in a few years you can talk about how much you hate DeLay and draft dodgers and all of that while your neighbor uses your butt as a nightlight from something Saddam launched over here. DeLay's point is very simple. How would posperity have judged the US had we not liberated Europe? The same way it will judge us now if we allow Saddam to obtain nukes and conquer the Middle East. Poorly is the answer as to how posperity will judge us. You are awfully quick on the draft dodger button for somebody who likely voted for Clinton. The fact is that anybody with money got out of Vietnam. They went to study abroad or they went into the national guard. Your accusations are shallow, base and ignores the reality of the time.
