A place for me to talk about whatever happens to be floating through my mind.
No questions allowed.
In 1968 Hubert Humphrey ran for the presidency on the campaign promise of winning the Vietnam War. Ricard Nixon promised voters he had a secret plan to end the war. FIVE YEARS later, after the start of Nixon's second term, the fighting in Vietnam officially ended.WWII ended in 1945. But the US military remained in Germany and Japan until 1952 -- SEVEN YEARS -- managing the reconstruction of those countries and their governments. Meanwhile, the US still maintains major troop strength in both countries.The Korean War ended in 1953. But there are 40,000 US troops on the border between North and South Korea to ensure no resumption of hostilities. If you think Obama can "bring home the troops in a year or so" after taking office and simultaneously walk away from the problems caused by muslims in that region, you will be sadly and horribly disappointed by the reality that would follow from such foolish action.You may have some valid criticisms of McCain, but he understands the military issue, while Obama is clueless. and therefore, dangerous to the well being of Americans.
Iraq isn't a military issue. General Petraeus has said as much himself, not to mention the hundreds of other top level current and former generals.My statement here is that McCain is promising that in 5 years Iraq will be a "bastion of freedom and democracy" as others have said it. Yet he gives no plans beyond Bush's eternal plan of "stay the course."Obama and Clinton are listening to those generals I mentioned above and are pushing for true diplomacy (although Clinton has been a bit more hawkish when it comes to one of the key neighbors). They understand that it is our troop presence that is stoking the fire, and that keeping our troops there will encourage further terrorism and prevent long lasting peace.In all of your examples, our troops were not under fire from the locals. That will not be the case in Iraq, even 50 or 100 years from now.
john j, you said:"Iraq isn't a military issue."Please. Iran and Iraq fought a war that lasted 8 years and led to 1,000,000 deaths, according to the best estimates available. Saddam Hussein had visions of controlling the middle east, as his invasion of Kuwait showed. Meanwhile, all the theocracies of the middle east survive because the tyrants suppress the boiling sentiments of citizens always on the edge of ripping apart these grotesque nations. The situations we face in that part of the world demand a shrewder and more calculated military solution. Personally, I'd remove the leaderships of Iran and Syria. By eliminating as many of the leaders as possible in those two countries with a few dozen cruise missile, it's likely the region would change for the better, and rather quickly.The notion that "Iraq" is not a military issue is just silly. But it is a situation that requires an improved approach. You wrote:"My statement here is that McCain is promising that in 5 years Iraq will be a "bastion of freedom and democracy" as others have said it. Yet he gives no plans beyond Bush's eternal plan of "stay the course.""It's a lttle early in the campaign for McCain to reveal all his thoughts on the key issue of this race. Whatever people think of McCain, they undoubtedly know he has an informed view of what a military can and cannot do. Meanwhile, Obama and Clinton have also given nothing more than vague statements about the actions their administrations would take in Iraq.The subtext of your position is that retreat from the region is the only solution you will accept, which means you believe that the world would be freed from the threat of muslim terrorism if only we withdraw from the region. HOwever, muslims have been killing Americans and thousands of other for decades. I mark the start with the assassination of Robert Kennedy, by Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian.You wrote:"Obama and Clinton are listening to those generals I mentioned above and are pushing for true diplomacy (although Clinton has been a bit more hawkish when it comes to one of the key neighbors)."They are grandstanding with comments made by RETIRED generals who are as politically minded as any passionate citizen. There's always an "expert witness" to back you up. OJ Simpson found experts willing to state that he didn't slit the throats of his ex-wife and Ron Goldman. You said:"They understand that it is our troop presence that is stoking the fire, and that keeping our troops there will encourage further terrorism and prevent long lasting peace."This is nonsense. As muslims in the middle east demonstrate every day, they kill each other with extraordinary zeal, murdering each other over the insignificant differences between Sunnis and Shiites, among other idiotic reasons.Moreover, the oil factor is inescapable. If you really wanted to reduce the significance of Iraq, you would support the expansion of oil drilling in the US. But Congress seems unwilling to take obvious steps that would reduce our need for imported oil.Meanwhile, no matter how quickly people adopt better energy habits, we will use more energy every year. Thus, redevelopment of the Iraqi oil industry will continue -- to the benefit of the world and the Iraqis.You said:"In all of your examples, our troops were not under fire from the locals."Your statement suggests there was no residual animosity in the populations of the defeated Germany and defeated Japan, that if no US military forces were present there would have been no attacks of any kind. That's simply ridiculous, as well as false.The populations of both nations were defeated. But, as my uncle who served in the Army of the Occupation in Germany can tell you, they were fired upon from time to time.You said:"That will not be the case in Iraq, even 50 or 100 years from now."Really? Are you stating that freedom, democracy, plurality and prosperity are forever blocked from becoming part of life in the middle east outside of Israel?
Point by point:1) You propose killing off the leaders we don't like. First, we aren't judge, jury, and executioner. Second, if removing Saddam from power without having a plan to replace him worked so well, why do you think repeating that would work? I forget, how well did that work in Iran 25 or so years ago?2) You're criticizing Clinton and Obama for being "vague" while praising McCain for giving even less detail? And they say irony is dead.3) General Petraeus is retired? Admiral Fallon, former head of CentCom, was just a "politically minded citizen"? These aren't "my" experts, they are Bush's "commanders on the ground."4) "As [M]uslims in the [M]iddle [E]ast demonstrate every day, they kill each other with extraordinary zeal, murdering each other over the insignificant differences between Sunnis and Shiites." So why do we hop in the middle of it? Why piss both of them off enough that they will almost ignore their arguments to fight us? Every terrorist attack by radical Islamists in the past 60 years has been inspired by an action of the victim nation. This doesn't make the terrorists right, but it is a fact. Reaching to your engineering background, every action has an equal and opposite reaction.5)"Your statement suggests there was no residual animosity" No, but we were invited to reconstruct in these countries after they attacked us (or our allies). This doesn't come close to the animosity in Iraq where we aren't wanted and we were the instigator.6) I said nothing about democracy in Iraq. I don't expect animosities to calm any if we continue on the path that Bush has set us on though.
john -- you fell right in the slap trap
No_slappz, if I had reported you to Blogger for some of the comments you left on my own blog that I deleted, they probably would have deleted your account. Comments like the one you just left, which, ASIDE from being illogical, morally repugnant, and only barely tangentially related to the discussion in the thread, clearly violates the Blogger TOS.
Post a Comment