[POL] Winning Hearts & Minds...

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Do you have any meaningful numbers that reflect what % of deaths caused by the "Resistance" is Iraqi women and children and what % is American soldiers. 17,000+ attacks against American soldiers has caused how many casualties? 17,000- attacks against Iraqi civilians has caused how many casualties? That might help us better understand the motivations of the "Resistance".

I would be more than happy to look at official numbers, but I'm sure you're aware that the U.S. military does not track civilian deaths. IraqBodyCount.org shows that approx. 25,000 civilians were killed between March, 2003 and March, 2005. 18% of them were women or children. 37.3% of the deaths were caused by U.S. or U.S.-led forces. 13.3% were caused by anti-occupation forces. 2.5% were caught in the cross-fire between occupation and anti-occupation combatants. 11% were cause unknown, the rest was linked to criminal activity.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

If it's a positive aspect of the Iraqi occupation, it's "propaganda". If it's anything that tears down the military, it's news. Funny, that.

If it is from a news organization, Jesse and I tend to think it is news. If it is from an official propaganda organ of the US Military, we tend to think it's propaganda. That doesn't just seem funny, that seems logical to me.

BTW, what were the stories that you don't think the news agencies are covering?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

These things happened this week. I'm not sure if you were aware of it. Not just Americans taking innocent Iraqi's "hostage". Surprised?

I finally put my finger on what these stories reminded me of:

Originally Posted by Full Metal Jacket

"'Not While We're Eating. NVA learn Marines
don't like to be interrupted while eating chow.'
...Joker, the enemy never runs. He flees...
patrols aren't dangerous, they're danger-filled...
Style...style, Joker."
"Yes, sir."
"And, Joker, where's the weenie?"
"Sir?"
"The kill, Joker. The kill. All that fire,
the grunts must have hit something"
"Didn't see 'em, sir."
"Were you actually there on that op?"
"Yes, sir."
"Joker, I've told you we run two basic
stories here. Grunts who give half their pay to
buy gooks toothbrushes and deodorants - Winning Of
Hearts and Minds. Okay? And combat action which
result in a kill - Winning the War. I don't ask
much of you people but I do expect you to adhere
to my editorial policy. You must have seen blood trails, drag
marks?"
"It was raining, sir."
"Okay, well that's why God passed the law of
probability." He tosses the pages to Joker.
"Re-write it and give it a happy ending. One
killed. Make it a sapper. Or an officer.
Which?"
"Whatever you say," Joker says.
"Grunts like reading about dead officers."

-------------------------------------------------
47

"Okay - an officer. How about a general?"
"Joker, maybe you'd like our guys to read the
paper and feel bad. In case you didn't know it,
this is not a particularly popular war, and it's
our job to report the news that the why-are-we-here
civilian newsmen ignore."

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

If it is from a news organization, Jesse and I tend to think it is news. If it is from an official propaganda organ of the US Military, we tend to think it's propaganda. That doesn't just seem funny, that seems logical to me.

BTW, what were the stories that you don't think the news agencies are covering?

The US military doesn't have an 'official propaganda organ.' What you mean to say is that if the military news says something, it can't be trusted, or doesn't count, or ... actually, I have no idea what your point is. Are you seriously suggesting those stories are fabrications? Or just that they're not newsworthy, because they're not reporting possible war crimes by US soldiers?

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

The US military doesn't have an 'official propaganda organ.' What you mean to say is that if the military news says something, it can't be trusted, or doesn't count, or ... actually, I have no idea what your point is. Are you seriously suggesting those stories are fabrications? Or just that they're not newsworthy, because they're not reporting possible war crimes by US soldiers?

Yeah, he seems to discount anything that doesn't tear down the military, or the current Administration.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

The US military doesn't have an 'official propaganda organ.' What you mean to say is that if the military news says something, it can't be trusted, or doesn't count, or ... actually, I have no idea what your point is. Are you seriously suggesting those stories are fabrications? Or just that they're not newsworthy, because they're not reporting possible war crimes by US soldiers?

What I mean to say is that the US Military is about the most biased place to get news on Iraq in the world. And all of that may be true, I have no reason to think otherwise, but it's not really news. It's basic stuff that has been going on forever. Take the first story. The biggest revelation in it is that they have found some ammunitions and destroyed them. I read about 2 dozen of those stories on CNN over the past two years.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

What I mean to say is that the US Military is about the most biased place to get news on Iraq in the world.

Actually, that'd be CNN.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Yeah, he seems to discount anything that doesn't tear down the military, or the current Administration.

You know what, fuck this. I feel like I am in bizarro world, trying to explain why the AP is less biased than the US Military's news organization. I'm not going to dignify it with any more responses.

[Desnudo]

It's up to the individual to try and remain objective based on the information they have access to. Personally, I think the media leans more towards sensationalism rather than a liberal or conservative bias. If the story will bring readers or viewers, they will spend a lot of time on it, regardless of the overall value or slant of the story. That isn't to say that different media outlets aren't predisposed to emphasize different aspects of a story.

If you have an agenda, you are always going to see what you want to see and ignore other factors. That applies to both sides of an issue. Usually if you make an effort to be objective, then you find that the reality lands somewhere in the middle. Of course if people expended effort towards being objective, we wouldn't have nearly as many POL threads here.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

The slow moral decay of America.

You said it.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Actually, that'd be CNN.

Because they don't get on their knees and offer oral sex (can't forget the women) to every member of the miltary and the administration on a daily basis?

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Yeah, he seems to discount anything that doesn't tear down the military, or the current Administration.

Replace "tear down" with "put on a pedastal" and we have you and others so what's your point?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Actually, that'd be CNN.

Hey now ... keep up that sort of talk & you're just going to make CBS try harder

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

I would be more than happy to look at official numbers, but I'm sure you're aware that the U.S. military does not track civilian deaths. IraqBodyCount.org shows that approx. 25,000 civilians were killed between March, 2003 and March, 2005. 18% of them were women or children. 37.3% of the deaths were caused by U.S. or U.S.-led forces. 13.3% were caused by anti-occupation forces. 2.5% were caught in the cross-fire between occupation and anti-occupation combatants. 11% were cause unknown, the rest was linked to criminal activity.

US Forces just went out there and killed these people? Why?

[Raiders Army]

Well, the only conclusion that I can come to is that you cannot change anyone's mind on the internet. Believe what you want to believe.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Dutch

US Forces just went out there and killed these people? Why?

Read the report. Over 6600 were killed during the initial invasion phase, 630 during the first assault on Fallujah (Apr. 04), 775 during the second assault on Fallujah (Nov. 04), and there were a few other minor peaks in activity, but generally 20-40 civilian casualties per month. A large number of these, particularly during the invasion (over 6000 during that time alone), were related to air strikes. Shock and awe...

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Well, the only conclusion that I can come to is that you cannot change anyone's mind on the internet. Believe what you want to believe.

You change people's minds about politics in real life? When's the book coming out?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

Read the report. Over 6600 were killed during the initial invasion phase, 630 during the first assault on Fallujah (Apr. 04), 775 during the second assault on Fallujah (Nov. 04), and there were a few other minor peaks in activity, but generally 20-40 civilian casualties per month. A large number of these, particularly during the invasion (over 6000 during that time alone), were related to air strikes. Shock and awe...

We didn't target Iraqi civilians. Shock and awe, or rather, what happened at the beginning of the Iraq invasion is widely misunderstood. It was not really Shock and Awe. At least not to the Iraqi people or the television viewing audience back home. The primary goal of the bombing campaign was destroy command and control, AA systems, and communications throughout Baghdad while targeting any and all known military targets of high value. The only people that were shocked or awed by our military was the old Iraqi military, which ceased to function effectively within 48 hours of the beginning of the war. Shock and awe.

I can assure you that we were not about to waste this high-precision ordanance on killing innocent civilians. If we wanted to do that, we would take the smart bombs out of our planes and load them with old 1940's gravity bombs.

This is how I see the opposition's logic.

"The reputation of a terrorist, on a scale of 1-10 is a zero. But you can cite a day when they didn't kill a civilian, so they are now a 1 on that scale. And to commended and even called a "militant" or the "resistance"."

"The reputation of the US military, on a scale of 1-10 is a 10. But you can cite a day when they killed a civilian, so they are now a 9 on that scale. And to be ripped apart and called "terrorists"."

It's flawed logic when put into perspective.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

A little touchy, are we? No one suggested that the US targets civilians. Nor has anyone called them terrorists. You can relax your persecution complex for a moment. You asked for the numbers on civilian casualties and I gave 'em to you. Maybe they didn't prove what you wanted them to prove. I'm sure they still had no impact on what you think about it. I don't think anything would. But so it goes...

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

A little touchy, are we? No one suggested that the US targets civilians. Nor has anyone called them terrorists. You can relax your persecution complex for a moment.

Reread the thread.

You asked for the numbers on civilian casualties and I gave 'em to you. Maybe they didn't prove what you wanted them to prove. I'm sure they still had no impact on what you think about it. I don't think anything would. But so it goes...

I know that we do not target civilians. The terrorists do. I don't think you can see that.

[Solecismic]

Civilian deaths, World War II: about 37 million (35,000 alone in the bombing of Dresden, and about 100,000 immediately during the atomic bomb drops on Nagasaki and Hiroshima).

Civilian deaths, Vietnam War (including leadup): about 3 million.

I think we're improving. Still not perfect by any means, but our military is doing its best to go after only the people who are active participants. If they didn't care, Baghdad would have been a big puddle of blood long ago and the long-romanticized "insurgency" would be just part of a landfill, indiscriminately lumped in with their neighbors.

My standard disclaimer: nothing I say here should be construed as support for Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq. I just give our military credit for being the best in the world and the most conscientous at what they do, which is very, very difficult and unpleasant work.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Reread the thread.

I reread it. Mojo said he would bomb military convoys. You asked if the resistance in Iraq were targetting military convoys. Mojo produced a government report saying that, yes, most Iraqi attacks were against military targets. You countered with saying that the military probably doesn't define 'attack' correctly, because otherwise your point would be completely wrong. Mojo the produced evidence that said that the US killed some civilians. You created a strawman and asked why Mojo thought the US targeted those civilians. Mojo countered that they were byproducts of invasions. You attacked your strawman again, telling Mojo that no matter what he thought, the US did not target civilians. Mojo mentioned that nobody said that the US targetted civilians. You said to read the thread.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Civilian deaths, World War II: about 37 million (35,000 alone in the bombing of Dresden, and about 100,000 immediately during the atomic bomb drops on Nagasaki and Hiroshima).

Civilian deaths, Vietnam War (including leadup): about 3 million.

I think we're improving. Still not perfect by any means, but our military is doing its best to go after only the people who are active participants. If they didn't care, Baghdad would have been a big puddle of blood long ago and the long-romanticized "insurgency" would be just part of a landfill, indiscriminately lumped in with their neighbors.

And that sort of relativity is missing from iraqbodycount.org and from most news reports. The truth is we have turned in our 1940's carpet bombing doctrine for high-tech "shock and awe" which targets the destruction of an enemies command and control and communications infrastructure. The reason for that was to be more surgical, more precise. To limit civilian deaths, and to reduce the effects of bad PR at home and abroad about how we fight wars.

The problem, as you correctly assertained, is that after the campaign of "Shock and Awe" was over, the Iraqi's, most notably the insurgents and their recruiting base weren't afraid to continue the fight. They never saw "Shock and Awe" because it wasn't aimed at them.

The insurgency by Nazi forces after Germany surrendered lasted maybe a month. And the people of Germany wouldn't hide or shelter them or support them. The german people had enough. The Iraqi people primarily missed the invasion. One day they woke up and said, "Is Saddam really gone? Are the Americans really in control of Baghdad?"

My standard disclaimer: nothing I say here should be construed as support for Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq. I just give our military credit for being the best in the world and the most conscientous at what they do, which is very, very difficult and unpleasant work.

I know you didn't support the decision. These soldiers that are there joined up for a lot of reasons. But none joined up to kill civilians, so I can assure you that they could appreciate your remarks. That much I can guarantee. As for the insurgents? It's hard to figure why they would be so willing to kill civilians. To actually target them. Perhaps I'll leave that up to some others to defend. Maybe iraqbodycount.org has the answer, but I doubt it.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

And that sort of relativity is missing from iraqbodycount.org and from most news reports.

Why is that relativity important? The idea of anti-war people isn't that the war kills as many people as other wars, the idea is that the war kills a lot of people and they think it's not worth it. Is putting on trial a cruel dictator a good thing? Yes. Is it worth 1 life? 10 lives? 30,000? 100,000? 1 million? 1 billion? Sooner or later even you Dutch would say it isn't worth it. So it doesn't matter that more people died in WWII or in Vietnam. What matters is the people dying now, and the benefit derived from that cost. I, along with a clear majority of the world and an increasing majority in our own country, do not believe that the loss of life and money is worth anything that there is to gain in Iraq.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Why is that relativity important? The idea of anti-war people isn't that the war kills as many people as other wars, the idea is that the war kills a lot of people and they think it's not worth it. Is putting on trial a cruel dictator a good thing? Yes. Is it worth 1 life? 10 lives? 30,000? 100,000? 1 million? 1 billion? Sooner or later even you Dutch would say it isn't worth it. So it doesn't matter that more people died in WWII or in Vietnam. What matters is the people dying now, and the benefit derived from that cost. I, along with a clear majority of the world and an increasing majority in our own country, do not believe that the loss of life and money is worth anything that there is to gain in Iraq.

My belief is that Saddam Hussein was willing to support terror and it is my belief that if given the chance he would reconstitute his nuclear program and my belief that he would be willing to give a nuclear device to a terror group such as Hamas to be used against millions of people in Tel Aviv.

I don't support war for war's sake. At best, any sort of war, even war waged by the most technically sufficient army in the world is flawed.

But to me, the argument has never been about war and peace. It's been about war and war^10.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

You change people's minds about politics in real life? When's the book coming out?

I'm working on my mind control through the internet. I'm having a problem with DSL subscribers and there are quite a few bugs with those people on AOL. Other than that, I have mind control down when I have line of sight.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I just give our military credit for being the best in the world and the most conscientous at what they do, which is very, very difficult and unpleasant work.

Speaking as a veteran, thank you for your kind words.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Originally Posted by Dutch

My belief is that Saddam Hussein was willing to support terror and it is my belief that if given the chance he would reconstitute his nuclear program and my belief that he would be willing to give a nuclear device to a terror group such as Hamas to be used against millions of people in Tel Aviv.

I don't support war for war's sake. At best, any sort of war, even war waged by the most technically sufficient army in the world is flawed.

But to me, the argument has never been about war and peace. It's been about war and war^10.

The only problem with that argument is that Saddam basically had his nuclear program stopped after the 1991 War in Iraq, save when ordered a "crash program" to extract enough fissile material for a bomb that could be used against invading coalition forces or Israel right before the current War, which was unsuccessful. To quote the Post, Inspectors, he said, found no evidence of "concerted efforts to restart the program."

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Dutch

My belief is that Saddam Hussein was willing to support terror and it is my belief that if given the chance he would reconstitute his nuclear program and my belief that he would be willing to give a nuclear device to a terror group such as Hamas to be used against millions of people in Tel Aviv.

I don't support war for war's sake. At best, any sort of war, even war waged by the most technically sufficient army in the world is flawed.

But to me, the argument has never been about war and peace. It's been about war and war^10.

Yet your belief would be wrong. It however, would hold true to other countries that for some reason we aren't invading. Imagine that...

[Jesse_Ewiak]

C'mon Chubby, Pakistan are our allies! Who cares that their lead scientist probably sold more useful info to terrorists than Saddam ever did.

[duckman]

Some of the liberals in this thread make me sick. I literally tore my body apart to make this country safer and yet I have read the drivel like that in the article and what is stated in the thread.

Despite what the article is trying to portray, the US military is one the most ethical fighting forces in the world. It's drilled into our skulls from the time we entered basic training to be ethical in what we do on- and off-duty. 99.95% of the entire military does what they are supposed to do. Unfortunately, we have to deal with that .05%. Instead of attacking the military as a whole, you should be going after the individuals who actually make those unethical decisions. And what I mean by "individuals" is the troop(s) who committed the act.

What's being done here is "bush league" and is the actual moral decay that most of the liberals are clamoring about.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Jesse_Ewiak

C'mon Chubby, Pakistan are our allies! Who cares that their lead scientist probably sold more useful info to terrorists than Saddam ever did.

This is a stunning lack of knowledge of the realities of foreign policy. It of course would have been better to demand Musharraf hand over Khan to the United States to stand trial (or demanded Khan stand trial in Pakistan), which would have led to a coup and a takeover by anti-American forces in Pakistan.

Sometimes in foreign policy, your choices aren't going to be between the guy in black hat and the guy in the white hat. You might have to choose between two guys who are both wearing black. But you make the choice that is in this country's best interest. And right now, playing ball with Musharraf is much better than dealing with the guys most likely to take over in a coup.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

This is a stunning lack of knowledge of the realities of foreign policy. It of course would have been better to demand Musharraf hand over Khan to the United States to stand trial (or demanded Khan stand trial in Pakistan), which would have led to a coup and a takeover by anti-American forces in Pakistan.

Sometimes in foreign policy, your choices aren't going to be between the guy in black hat and the guy in the white hat. You might have to choose between two guys who are both wearing black. But you make the choice that is in this country's best interest. And right now, playing ball with Musharraf is much better than dealing with the guys most likely to take over in a coup.

And when you pick wrong simply ignore the fact that you backed the person who you now say is the spawn of Satan...

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Chubby

And when you pick wrong simply ignore the fact that you backed the person who you now say is the spawn of Satan...

Who says we picked wrong? Are you really suggesting that a) should have and b) could have allied ourselves with Iran in the 1980's? If so, please give me some details on how that would have worked. I'd love to hear it.

Or maybe you're suggesting that we should have backed the Soviets in their invasion of Afghanistan, rather than supporting the mujahadeen. Again, I'd love to hear details of how that would have worked.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Who says we picked wrong? Are you really suggesting that a) should have and b) could have allied ourselves with Iran in the 1980's? If so, please give me some details on how that would have worked. I'd love to hear it.

Or maybe you're suggesting that we should have backed the Soviets in their invasion of Afghanistan, rather than supporting the mujahadeen. Again, I'd love to hear details of how that would have worked.

I just love all the hate and rhetoric spewed forth against OBL and Saddam (obviously not saying that they aren't evil guys) while it's convienently forgotten that they were once our allies. And this isn't a partisan attack, it falls on both parties.

We may have been allies with them but were they allies with us? Or did they merely accept our guns/money in order to ensure self-preservation? Couldn't we have merely chosen to not support either? Sure doesn't look like we've supported either Iran or Iraq in the last decade or so...

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by duckman

Some of the liberals in this thread make me sick. I literally tore my body apart to make this country safer and yet I have read the drivel like that in the article and what is stated in the thread.

Despite what the article is trying to portray, the US military is one the most ethical fighting forces in the world. It's drilled into our skulls from the time we entered basic training to be ethical in what we do on- and off-duty. 99.95% of the entire military does what they are supposed to do. Unfortunately, we have to deal with that .05%. Instead of attacking the military as a whole, you should be going after the individuals who actually make those unethical decisions. And what I mean by "individuals" is the troop(s) who committed the act.

What's being done here is "bush league" and is the actual moral decay that most of the liberals are clamoring about.

I think people are more concerned with the systemic nature of the problems, which suggests some centralized direction. After all, if people in Cuba, Iraq, and Afghanistan are all using the same immoral techniques, it's hard to believe it is some kind of coincidence or just a couple of bad apples. Dismissing a story of hostage taking and violating the Geneva Convention as 'drivel' does not give you the moral high ground.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Chubby

I just love all the hate and rhetoric spewed forth against OBL and Saddam (obviously not saying that they aren't evil guys) while it's convienently forgotten that they were once our allies. And this isn't a partisan attack, it falls on both parties.

We may have been allies with them but were they allies with us? Or did they merely accept our guns/money in order to ensure self-preservation? Couldn't we have merely chosen to not support either? Sure doesn't look like we've supported either Iran or Iraq in the last decade or so...

That's because the Soviet Union isn't still around.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Sometimes in foreign policy, your choices aren't going to be between the guy in black hat and the guy in the white hat. You might have to choose between two guys who are both wearing black. But you make the choice that is in this country's best interest. And right now, playing ball with Musharraf is much better than dealing with the guys most likely to take over in a coup.

Here's a novel concept: Choose neither.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

That's because the Soviet Union isn't still around.

You're right, now we can be the only bully on the block.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Chubby

I just love all the hate and rhetoric spewed forth against OBL and Saddam (obviously not saying that they aren't evil guys) while it's convienently forgotten that they were once our allies. And this isn't a partisan attack, it falls on both parties.

We may have been allies with them but were they allies with us? Or did they merely accept our guns/money in order to ensure self-preservation? Couldn't we have merely chosen to not support either? Sure doesn't look like we've supported either Iran or Iraq in the last decade or so...

Who says we were allies with them? Perhaps we were using them as much as they were using us. Could we have chosen not to support either? Why would we have done that? We're not isolationists, and there were tactical reasons to root for an Iraq victory, most notably stopping the Ayatollah's pronounced goal of spreading his theocratic style of government to Syria, Egypt, Iraq, and other Middle Eastern countries. Plus, there was that whole hostage taking situation (to bring this thread back full circle) in Tehran in the early 80's.

Hindsight's 20/20, and I'm sure we'll always be able to look back and say "mmm, wish we hadn't made that decision". But it's entirely unrealistic to say we'll never have to ally ourselves with people we don't like. You think the picture of Rummy shaking hands with Saddam is bad? Take a look at Roosevelt hanging out with STALIN, fer chrissakes.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

Here's a novel concept: Choose neither.

Dola:

Not really feasible, especially when you're dealing with a region in which we have a vital interest at stake.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Dola:

Not really feasible, especially when you're dealing with a region in which we have a vital interest at stake.

You're right, blast USSR for trying to increase their sphere of influence then turn around and do the same thing while being righteous.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Dola:

Not really feasible, especially when you're dealing with a region in which we have a vital interest at stake.

I actually like the implications of his idea; raise the American flag over the entire region, declare ourselves a true imperial power, a la Athens or Rome, and start building schools and hospitals. In a couple of generations everything will be great.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Chubby

You're right, blast USSR for trying to increase their sphere of influence then turn around and do the same thing while being righteous.

I don't think we were blasting the USSR for trying to increase their sphere of influence as much as we were blasting them for what their influence meant for other countries.

And it's not as if we were attempting to annex Iraq, or even bring them into NATO. As a matter of fact, we came down on the same side as the Soviets in the Iran-Iraq war.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Who says we were allies with them? Perhaps we were using them as much as they were using us. Could we have chosen not to support either? Why would we have done that? We're not isolationists, and there were tactical reasons to root for an Iraq victory, most notably stopping the Ayatollah's pronounced goal of spreading his theocratic style of government to Syria, Egypt, Iraq, and other Middle Eastern countries. Plus, there was that whole hostage taking situation (to bring this thread back full circle) in Tehran in the early 80's.

But then, maybe if we hadn't already been meddling in Iran, the Ayatollah would never have gained power. Supporting Saddam was closing the barn door once the horse was out...

I'm receptive to your argument that sometimes foreign policy is messy and you can't always be too picky about who you work with. For example, I agree that we're doing about as well as we can in our current dealings with Pakistan. However, the history of our foreign interventions suggests that we were tremendously lacking in foresight. Often times our later compromises were a result of trying to clean up after the blowback of our previous compromises. We wouldn't have to coddle Pakistan right now if we hadn't screwed the pooch on post-Soviet Afghanistan.

How much of the resentment we face in these various countries relates to the fact that we regard manipulating their governments as "the great game"? I just think that in the past we've been too quick to compromise our core values, without fully thinking through why we hold those values and what will be the long-term ramifications of our actions.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

But then, maybe if we hadn't already been meddling in Iran, the Ayatollah would never have gained power. Supporting Saddam was closing the barn door once the horse was out...

I'm receptive to your argument that sometimes foreign policy is messy and you can't always be too picky about who you work with. For example, I agree that we're doing about as well as we can in our current dealings with Pakistan. However, the history of our foreign interventions suggests that we were tremendously lacking in foresight. Often times our later compromises were a result of trying to clean up after the blowback of our previous compromises. We wouldn't have to coddle Pakistan right now if we hadn't screwed the pooch on post-Soviet Afghanistan.

How much of the resentment we face in these various countries relates to the fact that we regard manipulating their governments as "the great game"? I just think that in the past we've been too quick to compromise our core values, without fully thinking through why we hold those values and what will be the long-term ramifications of our actions.

If you want to withdraw from the world stage and turn this country into Fortress America, I suggest you run for office on that platform. I actually think the right politician could win on that message.

But, if you think that the United States will have to have dealings with the rest of the world, then you'd be an idiot to think that we should approach our foreign policy in any other way other than "what best benefits the United States?"

Again, hindsight is 20/20. I'm sure we could have done things differently in post-Soviet Afghanistan. I'm sure we could have done things differently in Iran. And maybe ten years from now, we'll look at Pakistan and say "well, we should have done this instead of that". We're playing chess with 168 different opponents. Sometimes it's hard to look ahead and see what the board will look like in 20 or 30 turns.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

If you want to withdraw from the world stage and turn this country into Fortress America, I suggest you run for office on that platform. I actually think the right politician could win on that message.

But, if you think that the United States will have to have dealings with the rest of the world, then you'd be an idiot to think that we should approach our foreign policy in any other way other than "what best benefits the United States?"

Again, hindsight is 20/20. I'm sure we could have done things differently in post-Soviet Afghanistan. I'm sure we could have done things differently in Iran. And maybe ten years from now, we'll look at Pakistan and say "well, we should have done this instead of that". We're playing chess with 168 different opponents. Sometimes it's hard to look ahead and see what the board will look like in 20 or 30 turns.

So this justifies completely ignoring looking at what the future ramifications may be of our actions? Of course, it is easier to just spout off "hindsight is 20/20" in response to everything...

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Chubby

So this justifies completely ignoring looking at what the future ramifications may be of our actions? Of course, it is easier to just spout off "hindsight is 20/20" in response to everything...

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that it's very easy for critics of this country to point out mistakes that were made in the past, but it's a very different thing to ask them for a plan for the future.

But if we want to look at the future ramifications of our actions, let me ask: what's your plan? What do you think we should be doing now that we're not?

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that it's very easy for critics of this country to point out mistakes that were made in the past, but it's a very different thing to ask them for a plan for the future.

But if we want to look at the future ramifications of our actions, let me ask: what's your plan? What do you think we should be doing now that we're not?

let me ask: why is it my job to come up with a plan? Am i running for office/in office? Nope, I'm not.

I think we should not be wasting our soldiers lives in Iraq. I think we should have found OBL by now but obviously Iraq is more important I think we should be decreasing our national dependance on oil.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Cam, I realize that we couldn't have asked for Khan's extradition. But since it seems like Musharraf in power does nothing, since Osama is likely in Pakistan - why back him if in twenty years, it's likely we'll be talking about his 'torture chambers' and 'rape rooms' when a President needs a new target.

Now, I don't have a degree in International Relations or get a daily e-mail from the RNC telling me who to attack daily, but two things are to me abundanty clear.

1. Figure Out a Withdrawl Plan - Why? Because we're never going to win. Nations occupying others never end well unless there's a plan for getting out from the beginning (see Japan, Germany post-WWII. We set current reasonable expectations, those nations hit them, we got the hell out aside from bases we neogotiated for.) Fifty percent of Iraqi's now think the invasion was a 'bad idea.'

Is it likely Iraq will break down to sectarian warfare the moment we leave? Yeah. But it's likely to happen no matter when we leave, whether it's one year or ten years from now. Look at Yugoslavia. The moment their strongman fell, the nation fell apart almost immediatedly. Remember, Iraq has no centuries long history of being a united nation. It's like were drawn on a map by the British less than a century ago. There's an insane amount of tension in that nation and it's not likely to calm down whether we're there or not.

We've already won the war, but we're going to lose the occupation no matter what.

2. Actually finish the job in Afghanistan - Outside of Kabul, Afghanistan is still largely the same warlord controlled, crumbling nation it was before we got there. Actually get that done, then we can focus on the rest.

As for the rest, I don't know. I'll be honest with you. But what I do know is that it isn't 1985 anymore. We don't have to be an ally with a nation because otherwise, the Russians/Fundamentalists/Enemy of the Week will take it over. Any supposed idealism doesn't really take with me when we're buddies with some mini-Saddams already.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Dola:

Not really feasible, especially when you're dealing with a region in which we have a vital interest at stake.

What's the vital interest? US corporations?

Many other countries of the world seem to do quite alright (in regards to oil) without invading Middle Eastern countries.