A Timetable for Iraq withdrawl.....A BAD IDEA.

[Robace252]

Whether you are for or against the war, I feel there are two things people should be united over, or have a consensus opinion over.
1.) Is support for our troops on the battlefield. For most of them it is their choice to be there, doing a job most of us (including those in DC) would not want to do themselves. They fight everyday, and should be commended for it. I would fight again if asked....but lets get to point #2.

2.) Where my main talking point is.....NO TIMETABLE FOR IRAQ WITHDRAWL.
Many people that are against the war simply want the troops home, believe this is an illegal and unjust war, believe it hurts our standing in the world community, believe it empowers the terrorists/insurgants more than anything else, and many other talking points that are simply their point of view on something they feel strongly about. However many times I feel most of them do not fully understand the situation and are making a decision not based wholly on the entire situation but on what they are being "spoonfed" and told to think. While I will respectfully disagree with them for many reasons on many subjects and not call them "idiots", but on the aspect of a "timetable" I will.
I mean come on. It doesnt take a second grader to understand this concept.
Actually a second grader does understand this concept.
Mommy looks at her precious child and says, I will be leaving the dining room at 4 oclock to start laundry, dont touch the cookies on the table. What does the second grader do.....watches the clock. At 4, mommy leaves and the second grader gets a cookie.
Not hard to understand is it. Let me put it in other terms. Teenagers (we all remember these days) are told Mom and Dad are leaving for the weekend at 7pm Friday night...when do they schedule the party even though they were told not to......9pm Friday night.
Hypothetical......
The Police issue a statement that they WILL NOT under any circumstances be patrolling the roads for drunk drivers after 3am. When do all the drunkies wait to go home......3am.
How is this any diffrent. You announce the US Military will leave by March 1, 2008...the insurgants and terrorists simply hold back a little, start gaining internal support, plant leaders, underground networks, and plan a major cou to overthrow the government (with outside support of course) and wait.
When the last US plane with GI's and equipment leave.....all hell will break loose. Coalaition friendly people who have been scoped out for months will be murdered (in a vicious way) and displayed as a sign of whos in charge now.
Government leaders will declare a new allegance, suddenly turning sides.
A new military will be formed and oddly for such a short time be well equipped.
Terrorists from all over the country will come out of hiding and with the insurgants will do the "America has lost dance, come join up now. Since we beat them once, we can do it again rhumba" and their numbers will jump 10-fold in a week.
Large pre-staged rallies ("protected" by the death squads) will be center staged with people chanting and burning US flags all under the watchful gun barrel *ahem* I meant eye of the death squads *ahem* I mean police.

Its simple...you tell someone when your leaving, they know when to plan for the reclaiming of what they want.
It human nature...and intelligence working. You want to do something, you wait for the right time.
And its not the waiting that will kill you, its the waiting that will let you kill them.

Rob

[jugner]

My cousin is in the army, has been in Iraq for almost 3 years ( all together in the past few years). He hasn't trained anyone. He said that is what they're supposed to be doing, but they're not. You can't prepare an army overnight, but nothing is being done, at least not quickly enough. I'm ready for the US to say, hey we tried, but they're not receptive.

[Robace252]

My cousin is in the army, has been in Iraq for almost 3 years ( all together in the past few years). He hasn't trained anyone. He said that is what they're supposed to be doing, but they're not. You can't prepare an army overnight, but nothing is being done, at least not quickly enough. I'm ready for the US to say, hey we tried, but they're not receptive.
Im not saying that we should not leave, but we should not advertise a date that we are doing such a thing.
Personally I want us to pull a "Baltimore Raven's" type of thing. Sometime without saying a date just start picking up our toys and say "no, were not leaving were repositioning." And then in the cloak of night...leave.

I dont want the US to stay forever. I want the job to be done. But as it is looking more and more likely Iraq can not fix itself with our presence, I am more willing than now to begin a partial withdrawl...but not announce a date.

Rob

[jugner]

Im not saying that we should not leave, but we should not advertise a date that we are doing such a thing.
Personally I want us to pull a "Baltimore Raven's" type of thing. Sometime without saying a date just start picking up our toys and say "no, were not leaving were repositioning." And then in the cloak of night...leave.

I dont want the US to stay forever. I want the job to be done. But as it is looking more and more likely Iraq can not fix itself with our presence, I am more willing than now to begin a partial withdrawl...but not announce a date.

Rob
Sounds good.

[MrMacphisto]

You're right... A timetable for the Iraq withdrawal would be far less preferable to just getting the hell out of there NOW.

[Haltickling]

It astonishes me to hear such words from a military expert like you, Rob. How many troops does the US have in Iraq? And you want to get them evacuated within a night or two? Ts ts...

Apart from the logistic problems, a retreat (let alone a very hasty one like you suggest) would mean admitting defeat, something that Bush will never do. Whoever gets to office after Bush, the defeat would stigmatize the successor as "the one who gave up Iraq to the terrorists". A first-class political suicide...

All those things you predict for an announced withdrawal will hold true, no matter how the troops do it, particularly as keeping such a huge troop movement can never be kept secret from all the undercover informers.

Iraq will fall apart eventually, every ethnic group claiming control and fighting each other. The whole situation will get much worse than it ever was during the Saddam regime. US credibility will sink to an all-time low, not only in the Middle East. Think about what signal this would send to Iran, or to the China-Taiwan problem. No one trusts the newborn "surrender monkeys".

Face it: Invading Iraq was a bad idea, having no exit strategy was a bad idea, staying in Iraq would be a bad idea, and a withdrawal from Iraq would be a bad idea. But stealing out of the back door like a coward would be the worst idea of all.

The only halfway face-saving formula for the USA I can see would be to admit severe mistakes and, eventually, organize some kind of orderly retreat (unlike their retreat from Vietnam). At least this would prove that the US is able to learn from mistakes.

[Robace252]

It astonishes me to hear such words from a military expert like you, Rob. How many troops does the US have in Iraq? And you want to get them evacuated within a night or two? Ts ts...
Well perhaps I was being a bit too hasty and not fully explaining with my answer.
Do I want us to "run out in the night". Yes in a manner of speaking.
And in my referencing to us leaving, does not mean now or in the near future. But when the job is done, we need to pick up without a word, leave a well trained Iraqi Force (with a small US Contingent) there and go.
But I have always maintained that the US should and would maintain a presence there in the form of some kind of operational base.
With the ammount of US troops there, it really would not be long if we repositioned them. Take some units into Afghanstan, take some into other European bases for a time, see how it goes.
Other contingants could be on board our warships which certainly wont leave anytime soon.
Perhaps some units could be "redeployed" up north to Kurdish areas where our presence is certainly more welcomed.

Apart from the logistic problems, a retreat (let alone a very hasty one like you suggest) would mean admitting defeat, something that Bush will never do.
A political defeat. Lets make that clear. This is a political defeat, not a military one. The military did its job and then some. Its the politics and Washington DC and Political Correctness that are making this mission nearly impossible to complete, considering no matter what level of peace we could maintain within a month of us leaving would seemingly be broken.

Whoever gets to office after Bush, the defeat would stigmatize the successor as "the one who gave up Iraq to the terrorists". A first-class political suicide..
Which is what boggles my mind now of those asking for immediate withdrawl.
Dont they realize that by asking for it now they are only pandering to a near-sighted portion of the american public (not you Mac, I know your reasons, not shared by most the whacko's calling for this, your reasons are much more sound...I disagree with them, but they are more sound) who dont really know the scope of the mistake we made and how much worse it would be if we left.

All those things you predict for an announced withdrawal will hold true, no matter how the troops do it, particularly as keeping such a huge troop movement can never be kept secret from all the undercover informers.
Which is why I would much rather a redeployment to areas that are not an ocean away, and could be brought back if needed.

Iraq will fall apart eventually, every ethnic group claiming control and fighting each other. The whole situation will get much worse than it ever was during the Saddam regime. US credibility will sink to an all-time low, not only in the Middle East. Think about what signal this would send to Iran, or to the China-Taiwan problem. No one trusts the newborn "surrender monkeys".
Iraq very well may eventually fall apart, but hopefully with the proper planning the US can maintain the country let it implode then help pick up the pieces.
I never advocate surrender. I meerly think that our presence there politically is hurting the situation more and more everyday, and if those on Capitol Hill and in Lobby groups could shut their damn traps for a month, a lot of things could get done by simply letting the military do a job, and let the local politicians do their job. Would the local politicians do it? I dont know, but Id at least give them the chance.

Face it: Invading Iraq was a bad idea, having no exit strategy was a bad idea, staying in Iraq would be a bad idea, and a withdrawal from Iraq would be a bad idea. But stealing out of the back door like a coward would be the worst idea of all.
Actually invading Iraq was a good idea. The way we planned it and went about it was poor planning and piss poor management by those in government, both sides of it. Not to mention a press that in no way gets a pass from me on this subject. Staying in Iraq is not a bad idea, its leaving Iraq as it is that is a bad idea. Withdrawl from Iraq right now or in the near future would be a bad idea. And again Im not saying we leave out the back door like a coward. I say once the job is done, we make no fanfare and just leave. No "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" banners, no parades down the street with children throwing flowers as we pull onto planes. No "THANK YOU AMERICA" banners being hung from buildings. Just do the job....then leave quietly.


The only halfway face-saving formula for the USA I can see would be to admit severe mistakes and, eventually, organize some kind of orderly retreat (unlike their retreat from Vietnam). At least this would prove that the US is able to learn from mistakes.
Well I agree that the US has to admit severe mistakes, but everyone shares a little blame here. Intelligence from all over the world agreed that Saddam needed to ousted, that he had some kind of weapons, either in possesion or planning, and Saddam himself said he had weapons and would never give them up. No retreat is necessary, meerly a repositioning in the North, send some troops to Afghanstan, some in Europe for "quick strike" capability and then send some home. This way we could have done the job, be prepared for the next and know we made some mistakes and hopefully would have learned, as well as government officals, the media and those baddies wanting a little face time.

Rob

[MrMacphisto]

A political defeat. Lets make that clear. This is a political defeat, not a military one. The military did its job and then some. Its the politics and Washington DC and Political Correctness that are making this mission nearly impossible to complete, considering no matter what level of peace we could maintain within a month of us leaving would seemingly be broken.

It's not just political correctness... it's reality. But yes, we botched this in mostly a political way, not so much from the military aspect.

Yet, there's another part to this... This war was privatized beyond any previous operation, and because of this, contractors have been robbing us blind with overcharging. Halliburton comes to mind....

The reality of this matter shows that Iraq was basically a moneymaking scheme for war profiteering and a money pit for taxpayers.

Which is what boggles my mind now of those asking for immediate withdrawl.
Dont they realize that by asking for it now they are only pandering to a near-sighted portion of the american public (not you Mac, I know your reasons, not shared by most the whacko's calling for this, your reasons are much more sound...I disagree with them, but they are more sound) who dont really know the scope of the mistake we made and how much worse it would be if we left.

I appreciate the mention, and I agree partially with your assessment of some of the antiwar crowd. Cindy Sheehan is an embarassment to the antiwar movement. I'm assuming you're referring to people like her.

I realize that the repercussions will be grave when we leave, but I still argue that it's cheaper for us in the long run if we pursue a more isolationist future. That begins with leaving Iraq as soon as possible, swallowing our pride, and doing everything possible to move away from foreign oil.

It sucks to be an Iraqi right about now, but in all brutal honesty, I really don't care what happens to them.

Iraq very well may eventually fall apart, but hopefully with the proper planning the US can maintain the country let it implode then help pick up the pieces.
I never advocate surrender. I meerly think that our presence there politically is hurting the situation more and more everyday, and if those on Capitol Hill and in Lobby groups could shut their damn traps for a month, a lot of things could get done by simply letting the military do a job, and let the local politicians do their job. Would the local politicians do it? I dont know, but Id at least give them the chance.

I respect your reasoning, but I guess I'm just too cynical to give them anymore time. American lives (military or civilian) should no longer face a daily risk of death by extremists who really have no relevance to our security issues in America. We're supposed to be fighting Al Quida and the Taliban in Afghanistan, not sectarian nutjobs in Iraq.

Actually invading Iraq was a good idea. The way we planned it and went about it was poor planning and piss poor management by those in government, both sides of it. Not to mention a press that in no way gets a pass from me on this subject. Staying in Iraq is not a bad idea, its leaving Iraq as it is that is a bad idea. Withdrawl from Iraq right now or in the near future would be a bad idea. And again Im not saying we leave out the back door like a coward. I say once the job is done, we make no fanfare and just leave. No "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" banners, no parades down the street with children throwing flowers as we pull onto planes. No "THANK YOU AMERICA" banners being hung from buildings. Just do the job....then leave quietly.

The only part I agree with you on here is the "leave quietly" part.

Well I agree that the US has to admit severe mistakes, but everyone shares a little blame here. Intelligence from all over the world agreed that Saddam needed to ousted, that he had some kind of weapons, either in possesion or planning, and Saddam himself said he had weapons and would never give them up. No retreat is necessary, meerly a repositioning in the North, send some troops to Afghanstan, some in Europe for "quick strike" capability and then send some home. This way we could have done the job, be prepared for the next and know we made some mistakes and hopefully would have learned, as well as government officals, the media and those baddies wanting a little face time.

Rob

Well, I'll agree that the intelligence was apparently so compelling that the Democrats bought it in the late 90s while the Republicans mostly denounced it, but then both sides switched positions after 9/11.

This bipartisan schizophrenia over war makes me distrust both parties on matters of foreign policy. I'm to the point where I wonder if a true revolution is necessary to fix things. As long as war profiteers are a large part of our governmental system, we can't trust the government to represent our interests, much less our "national security."

[wendynpeter]

I've gone on record before saying something different, but now, I'm all for just packing up and leaving them to their own nightmare. Will that have terrible repercussions for stability in the ME? Who the hell knows? we were wrong about every other fucking thing having to do with Iraq, there's no reason to think we know whether leaving would make a difference or not!

[MrMacphisto]

LOL... Wow, I never thought you and I would see eye-to-eye on this matter, Wendy.

I definitely agree with that post.

[Iggy pop]

2.) Where my main talking point is.....NO TIMETABLE FOR IRAQ WITHDRAWL.
Many people that are against the war simply want the troops home, believe this is an illegal and unjust war, believe it hurts our standing in the world community, believe it empowers the terrorists/insurgants more than anything else, and many other talking points that are simply their point of view on something they feel strongly about. However many times I feel most of them do not fully understand the situation and are making a decision not based wholly on the entire situation but on what they are being "spoonfed" and told to think. While I will respectfully disagree with them for many reasons on many subjects and not call them "idiots", but on the aspect of a "timetable" I will.

You know what timetables are? They are goals. They are deadlines. Eveybody has goals and everybody has deadlines. If you're boss asks you for a report, is a deadline set for you? Or do you tell him it will be "done when it is done"?

I mean come on. It doesnt take a second grader to understand this concept.
Actually a second grader does understand this concept.
Mommy looks at her precious child and says, I will be leaving the dining room at 4 oclock to start laundry, dont touch the cookies on the table. What does the second grader do.....watches the clock. At 4, mommy leaves and the second grader gets a cookie.
Not hard to understand is it. Let me put it in other terms. Teenagers (we all remember these days) are told Mom and Dad are leaving for the weekend at 7pm Friday night...when do they schedule the party even though they were told not to......9pm Friday night.
Hypothetical......
The Police issue a statement that they WILL NOT under any circumstances be patrolling the roads for drunk drivers after 3am. When do all the drunkies wait to go home......3am.

All of these anologies are flawed. It's forgetting the Iraqi government's role in the soloution. For example the kid is not going to being left alone with cookie jar, but uncle will sit and watch and make sure the kid does not take the cookie. When the parents go away for the weekend then the kid's uncle and aunt are going to stay and make sure there are no parties. When the State Police stop patrolling at 3am, the county sherrif will take over. The goal should not be to get rid of every terroist before we leave, but for the government of Iraq to be able to deal with terroists on their own.

How is this any diffrent. You announce the US Military will leave by March 1, 2008...the insurgants and terrorists simply hold back a little, start gaining internal support, plant leaders, underground networks, and plan a major cou to overthrow the government (with outside support of course) and wait.
When the last US plane with GI's and equipment leave.....all hell will break loose. Coalaition friendly people who have been scoped out for months will be murdered (in a vicious way) and displayed as a sign of whos in charge now.
Government leaders will declare a new allegance, suddenly turning sides.
A new military will be formed and oddly for such a short time be well equipped.
Terrorists from all over the country will come out of hiding and with the insurgants will do the "America has lost dance, come join up now. Since we beat them once, we can do it again rhumba" and their numbers will jump 10-fold in a week.
Large pre-staged rallies ("protected" by the death squads) will be center staged with people chanting and burning US flags all under the watchful gun barrel *ahem* I meant eye of the death squads *ahem* I mean police.

Its simple...you tell someone when your leaving, they know when to plan for the reclaiming of what they want.
It human nature...and intelligence working. You want to do something, you wait for the right time.
And its not the waiting that will kill you, its the waiting that will let you kill them.

Rob

If all this is true, it tell me that we have serious problems in Iraq, and we will be stuck there for decades because we cannot set up a stable government and that are enemies are a lot stronger than our allies.

[Robace252]

You know what timetables are? They are goals. They are deadlines. Eveybody has goals and everybody has deadlines. If you're boss ask you for a report, is a deadline set for you? Or do you tell him it will be "done when it is done."
The diffrence is though, if your boss tells you to be done by 5pm on Friday, when it gets to 5pm and you get it done and go home...there no one there to turn your desk upside down and set fire to your trash can.
There's no one plotting for you to fail. You dont have co-workers stealing your pencils, erasing your hard drive or putting M-80's on your seat.
This does not work with military operations. You have goals and a large timeframe, not a specific date. You look for certain conditions to see whether a goal or in military lingo "objective" is achieved.

All of these anologies are flawed. It's forgetting the Iraqi government.
Do the insurgants or terrorists CARE about the Iraqi government. The answer of course no. They are working to destabilize it. But we will look at your analogies to be fair.
And change them to be more accurate...
For example the kid is not going to being left alone with cookie jar, but uncle will sit and watch and make sure the kid does not take the cookie.
But the uncle is hungry also, so after the kid takes a cookie, he takes one too. And he wont tell, because he loves his nephew and wouldnt rat on him.

When the parents go away for the weekend then the kid's uncle and aunt are going to stay and make sure there are no parties.
But the kids aunt and uncle are more interested in boozing it up too, so they tell the kids to have the party....but keep it down, and DONT come upstairs while we get drunk.

When the State Police stop patrolling at 3am, the county sherrif will take over.
But the county sheriff is more involved in personal affairs (like his new secretary) and knows most of the folks in the neighborhood and thinks it would be best if he just stayed out of it and let them drive, and if they crash ehhh so be it.

The goal should not be to get rid of every terroist before we leave, but for the government of Iraq to be able to deal with terroists on their own.
Well I will agree Iraq needs to be able to take care of itself. But it is not ready now, and when it is ready....we should not set a deadline for leaving, we should just leave.

If all this is true, it tell me that we have serious problems in Iraq, and we will be stuck there for decades because we cannot set up a stable government.
Its really up to Iraq and its people. We cant be there forever, but we cant leave it like it is.

Rob

[Iggy pop]

The diffrence is though, if your boss tells you to be done by 5pm on Friday, when it gets to 5pm and you get it done and go home...there no one there to turn your desk upside down and set fire to your trash can.
There's no one plotting for you to fail. You dont have co-workers stealing your pencils, erasing your hard drive or putting M-80's on your seat.
This does not work with military operations. You have goals and a large timeframe, not a specific date. You look for certain conditions to see whether a goal or in military lingo "objective" is achieved.


Do the insurgants or terrorists CARE about the Iraqi government. The answer of course no. They are working to destabilize it. But we will look at your analogies to be fair.
And change them to be more accurate...

But the uncle is hungry also, so after the kid takes a cookie, he takes one too. And he wont tell, because he loves his nephew and wouldnt rat on him.


But the kids aunt and uncle are more interested in boozing it up too, so they tell the kids to have the party....but keep it down, and DONT come upstairs while we get drunk.


But the county sheriff is more involved in personal affairs (like his new secretary) and knows most of the folks in the neighborhood and thinks it would be best if he just stayed out of it and let them drive, and if they crash ehhh so be it.

Well I will agree Iraq needs to be able to take care of itself. But it is not ready now, and when it is ready....we should not set a deadline for leaving, we should just leave.


Its really up to Iraq and its people. We cant be there forever, but we cant leave it like it is.

Rob


If what you are telling me is true that means Iraq is a complete mess. It also tell me most do not want democracy. We have spent nearly 5 years training their police and military, but if we leave they will turn to complete shit. That says a lot.

[Brafus]

Those people wouldn't fight for their freedom under Saddam, what makes you think they will fight for it now? If they aren't willing to fight for their freedom, then they don't deserve to have it.

[Mastertank1]

If we publish a timetable and stick to it, it will cost US a lot of needless casualties.

The enemy will manuever to be ready to strike at the US forces that are still there after half or more have left, as withdrawl is a process which is likely to take at least a week. No matter how well organized.

I am terrified of the prospect that the last US rearguard will be overrun and wiped out.

I'm thinking that the way to do it would be first to mass all our troops, then withdraw into Kuwait and Saudi Arabia as quickly as possible. The troops would all still be there, ready to come back in and support the rearguard, until everyone is out. Then we can move down the Arabian coast and embark at a relatively secure location. With a hundred or more miles between the Iraqi border and our embarkation point, US land based and naval air power would easily crush any attempt to swarm our last rearguard under.

But, we have GOT to do it without any published or stated timetable, unless we deliberately promulgate a false timetable as disinformation, and actually get out well ahead of that timetable. Now that would be a tactic worth pursuing, IMO.

[Deadsea7777]

Rob,

If the USA is going to finally live IRAK, the whole operation would have cost your nation a lot of money. Meantime China, Europe, Russia etc have no intervene really, but are free to critic and to do business.
Is it not too expensive to the USA treasure to pay for all this, in other words to be the world policeman, it does not make economic sense.
Is there a chance you think to push a more active role of the UN? Like with the first war of IRAK. Could you do a partial withdraw and share the country with the UN until it becames more quiet?
If you do it alone you pay all the bill, and the rest of nations is free to critic the USA even if probably most of the nations would have done similar to the USA if they had the power to do so.

[jugner]

If what you are telling me is true that means Iraq is a complete mess. It also tell me most do not want democracy. We have spent nearly 5 years training their police and military, but if we leave they will turn to complete shit. That says a lot.
Training them? Have we?

[natural tickler]

I agree there should be no public timetable, it should be done quietly. But we need to get the troops out of there. It is obvious this experiment didn't work, and not only Iraq, but we need to get the troops out of Afghanistan, and other places as well. It is obvious the people there don't want freedom, or democracy for that matter

[Dr. Vollin]

That right there is something else to be concerned about; once we're out of Iraq, it's just a matter of time before some start shouting "Bring the troops home from Afghanistan!" Which would be the worst mistake we could make.

I agree we'll have to leave Iraq eventually. IMO, it isn't setting timetables and dates that's a bad idea - it's publicly announcing those dates, as several others have said here, that we can't afford.

Also, remember this isn't happening in some vacuum; some folks in Afghanistan and Pakistan (and Somalia, for that matter) are surely watching what we do in Iraq. How to conduct a withdrawal without encouraging those folks, that's another thing we should consider.

[Redmage]

Rob, in one sense I know where you're coming from. Telling the opposition "You only have to hold on until this date" would be a bad idea. On the other hand, not setting a timetable is probably just not practical for a number of reasons.

First, it's just not practical to move 130,000 troops out of the country without giving plenty of lead time. It'll take us months to get those soldiers out of there in any sort of orderly way. And there's no way in the world that we'll get started on that without the media catching wind of it. Heck, once we start shipping troops back home faster than we're shipping them in, the opposition will probably notice that before we announce it. We can color it any way we want to (troop rotation, repositioning, etc.), but the people who matter will know what's what. So I think that for all practical purposes a timetable is inevitable at some point.

Second, there are the political issues. The American people are tired of this war. And as a whole, Americans are extremely short-sighted. That's how we got into this mess in the first place, remember. There were warnings all over the place about how this war would go, but the public supported going in there anyway.

If there is not some dramatic progress very soon with this "surge," then I believe that lack of vision will kick in again. People will say "Yeah, sure, Iraq might fall apart if we pull out. But I don't care. Looks like it's falling apart anyway. Get out of there."

So while in one sense I agree with your concerns, in another sense I think a timed pullout is going to happen no matter what. And I'm very doubtful that we'll be able to set up a trained, effective Iraqi security force before that happens. I think our best hope is to set up a standing troop presence in Saudi Arabia and/or Afghanistan to nip direct threats to US interests in the bud, and let Iraq go to hell by whatever path the Iraqis choose to take.

[TickledToDeath]

We should have Blown them off the face of the map years ago! :ignite:

Look at their location from a sattelite and you see a hole where they used to be.
:mad: :ignite:

[areenactor]

time table withdrawls only work if all side are in agreement.
if the iraqis don't go along, then we can't pull out.
that's why we need to beat them with the stick, and show them the carrot, so they get the idea.

[Redmage]

time table withdrawls only work if all side are in agreement.
if the iraqis don't go along, then we can't pull out.Um, sure we can. It's not like the Iraqis can blockade their ports and airfields and keep us there if we want to leave.

The only reason a timed withdrawal is a problem is because it will give heart to the opposition. They will know that they only have to hang on (or even lie low) until X date, and then they're home free. Unfortunately, as I pointed out to Rob a timed withdrawal is inevitable. It will happen, sooner or later. The only question is how much we can get done before it becomes unavoidable. And my fear and suspicion is that we can't do enough.

[ticklingnemesis]

If the politicians in Washington really want our troops home, then they should be pushing to bring them home now. Not a year later. They shouldn't be playing politics with our troops' lives.

[Louis]

For those Americans who think world opinion doesn't count, they are fools. I recently flew around the world on business starting in Tampa, then to LA, Singapore, Australia, Brussels, London and back to Tampa. It is an eye opening experience chatting with folks around the world. They view us as a self imposed world police and think Bush should have something really bad happen to him. We have stuck our nose where it never belonged. We have no interest there.

An argument that Iraq would become a terrorist state should we suddenly pull out is also foolish. Sure, it could, but Iran, Syria and North Korea are also significant threats. Terrorists and Iraq are not synonymous. Terrorists are terrorists and Iraq is Iraq. Is it time to watch the Iranian or Korean presidents hung? Would that benefit the US? Sure Saddam was a bad guy. Sure he should have been hung by his people. But who the hell are we? I am amazed that now that we ALL KNOW we were wrong about why we went, that so many want us to stay and finish the job. WHAT JOB? Do we really expect to be able to restore order to the Shiates and Sunnis, who have been warring for centuries? Saddam kept a balance of power by gassing those that opposed his party but at least there was order in the nation; an order that we cannot provide.

Look, we all believed the rhetoric about WMD's. Our government lead us down a path at a time when we were exteremely vulnerable that Iraq was developing capability to carry out 9/11 type destruction. We were lead to believe that terrorists had a connection to Iraq (not directly said but certainly implied). We had just seen precious monuments collapse at the hands of barbarians killing thousands. We were pissed. And we were deceived. Now our government glosses over the fact that they... well... were a bit mistaken. Well this mistake has cost the lives of not only our countrymen, but innocent citizens in other countries and soldiers from around the world (Another part of our problem is that we only worry about Americans and not the souls from other nations).

I am a verteran and proud to have served my country in both Panama and Iraq. Frankly seeing a dead 16 year old Iraqi soldier had the same impact on me as seeing an American. But ignorant, flag waving Americans who only view this world from their couch with a beer propped on their fat bellies really pisses me off.

I am not a passifist, by any means. In fact, I think if we see a REAL THREAT, just make a hole where that threat used to be, whether it's some dude's house or an entire continent.

Yes we should leave Iraq, we should leave now and admit we should have never been there. We should bow our head to the world and apologize for ignoring THE WHOLE FUCKING WORLD'S opinion.

Rob, my friend, I do not know you and I do not pretent to know all the right choices but I think your argument is a slippery slope. I don't think it matters if we leave today or announce we are leaving in 6 months. In fact, some of the smartest think tanks in the world have gotten the predictions of what would happen here dead wrong.

[Robace252]

For those Americans who think world opinion doesn't count, they are fools. I recently flew around the world on business starting in Tampa, then to LA, Singapore, Australia, Brussels, London and back to Tampa. It is an eye opening experience chatting with folks around the world. They view us as a self imposed world police and think Bush should have something really bad happen to him. We have stuck our nose where it never belonged. We have no interest there.]
Well then sir, I am a fool. World opinion means nothing to me. The US should not ever, I repeat ever, guide our foregin policy on what other nations think.
Its my opinion and not one that is shared, but I really care less about what anyone in Brussles thinks about US foregin policy. And why. Well simply put if they were in trouble, who would they turn to first. The US. If they need money or anything because of a disaster who would they go to first. The US. People all across the world can rant and rave and burn flags and tell me how horrible the US is, while at the same time have that backhand ready for a good ol fashioned US handout. Dont support our policies, fine. Its their opinion and they are welcomed to it. Do we have a vested interest there, I think we do, strategically. Should Bushie have something bad happen to him. Perhaps, I still think after his term is over he needs to be appointed "Warden" of Gitmo. Right now in terms of Bushie I am beyond frustrated over him and this administration. I used to try to see why Bushie did things and attempt to understand, but no more. Im not going to defend him unless the charges are just insane.
And yes, we are the self-imposed world police, because quite simply NO ONE ELSE WOULD STAND UP. They could be surrounded by an invading army and they still would call the US rather than defend themselves, and after the dust settled they would still insult US foregin policy. So again, I care more about 2 dust mites having a limbo contest than I do the world's opinion.
Does that make me an arrogant American, or a eliteist...nope, just a realist.
Im sure people in Singapore, Australia, Brussels, and London really dont care about what the US thinks of their foreign policy either. As they should not care what we think.

An argument that Iraq would become a terrorist state should we suddenly pull out is also foolish. Sure, it could, but Iran, Syria and North Korea are also significant threats. Terrorists and Iraq are not synonymous. Terrorists are terrorists and Iraq is Iraq. Is it time to watch the Iranian or Korean presidents hung? Would that benefit the US? Sure Saddam was a bad guy. Sure he should have been hung by his people. But who the hell are we? I am amazed that now that we ALL KNOW we were wrong about why we went, that so many want us to stay and finish the job. WHAT JOB? Do we really expect to be able to restore order to the Shiates and Sunnis, who have been warring for centuries? Saddam kept a balance of power by gassing those that opposed his party but at least there was order in the nation; an order that we cannot provide.
Its not the would, its the could that should be in the forefront. If you set a match infront of an leaking gasoline tank, to say it would blow up is foolish. But to suggest that most likely it could should be enough reason not to let it happen. Do I think we can fix everything, no. But do we need to in the process of making things right ensure that the country will not fall apart.
We are responsible, and for us not to take that responsibility is far worse than us just to pick up and leave them to kill each other off.

Look, we all believed the rhetoric about WMD's. Our government lead us down a path at a time when we were exteremely vulnerable that Iraq was developing capability to carry out 9/11 type destruction. We were lead to believe that terrorists had a connection to Iraq (not directly said but certainly implied). We had just seen precious monuments collapse at the hands of barbarians killing thousands. We were pissed. And we were deceived. Now our government glosses over the fact that they... well... were a bit mistaken. Well this mistake has cost the lives of not only our countrymen, but innocent citizens in other countries and soldiers from around the world (Another part of our problem is that we only worry about Americans and not the souls from other nations).
I personally worry about all soldiers, but the other problem is people want to blame us for being there, when no one blames those that are doing the killing.
I will never understand those that blame the result but not the cause. I just shake my head at the people who blame Bush for the deaths of US troops, but seem to forget about the insurgant or terrorist that ACTUALLY did the deed. I guess they have no responsibility at all from what I hear.
Policemen are killed everyday but I dont see anyone calling for us to pull the police out of high crime neighborhoods. Fire's kill firemen, but I dont see anyone balming the firemen or those who sent them to battle a wildfire. They blame the fire. And rightly so.
Was intelligence wrong. Absolutely. Were we fooled by Saddam himself insisting he had weapons. Absolutely. But the thing people forget, is that we know he had weapons, they have not been found in Iraq but there is no record of them ever being destroyed..or any evidence they ever existed. So where are they. And everyone forgets about that.


I am a verteran and proud to have served my country in both Panama and Iraq. Frankly seeing a dead 16 year old Iraqi soldier had the same impact on me as seeing an American. But ignorant, flag waving Americans who only view this world from their couch with a beer propped on their fat bellies really pisses me off.
First off thank you for your service....
I am also a veteran, and proudly served my country in Iraq, and seeing a dead Iraqi soldier still has the effect on me as when I saw a fellow serviceman dead. But ignorant, uninformed or media spoonfed Americans who have never served a day in the military in their life, nor would they ever, who do not understand square one of what its like to be a soldier let alone in a warzone or think the world is or should be all kisses and candy while sitting on their leather couches drinking bottled water really piss me off.
Now granted the flag waving beer bellies piss me off as well, because they are not supportive for the right reasons, and often times are as misinformed as those they argue with.

I am not a passifist, by any means. In fact, I think if we see a REAL THREAT, just make a hole where that threat used to be, whether it's some dude's house or an entire continent.
I cant disagree with you there.

Yes we should leave Iraq, we should leave now and admit we should have never been there. We should bow our head to the world and apologize for ignoring THE WHOLE FUCKING WORLD'S opinion.
Here I disagree. We should not leave until we achieve some order there, and we should never bow our head to world and apologize for ignoring any opinion.
We are a soverign nation, and have the right to do as well feel necessary for our security and often times global security. People might not agree and that is their right, but never should the US take any opinion but our own when it comes to dictating foreign policy. After all, if you take a straw poll if other nations care about what the US thinks about their policies it would rank between "not at all" and "barely registers".
As the only superpower left in the world right now, we are going to make mistakes, there are no longer sides to pick..either pro US or pro USSR. Now there are only 2 choices, Pro US or anti-US. And I dont expect the world to follow us blindly, but I also know that we make decisions on what information we have at the time and make the decision that is felt best for the US and its interests. Again, mistakes will be made...no one is perfect, and unfortunately this administration has more and more and looks less and less able to deal with reality. But I blame the politics and the politicians, not the military.

Rob, my friend, I do not know you and I do not pretent to know all the right choices but I think your argument is a slippery slope. I don't think it matters if we leave today or announce we are leaving in 6 months. In fact, some of the smartest think tanks in the world have gotten the predictions of what would happen here dead wrong.
And I do not know you either sir, but let me thank you for making well thought out, concise and even-handed statements for your point of view, without comming off as insulting or hateful.
I will never tell anyone they are wrong, because I can see everyone's point of view. I might not agree with it, but I can certianly see why people feel the way they do.
While many think-tanks got this wrong there were those that got it right by knowing that Iraq would break down into sectarian violence, that the US could not force something without enough power there. That the US did not have the local political allies it needed. And also that public support would not be in for the long haul.
My feelings and opinions might be a slippery slope, but I feel that I keep informed and can see things for what they are or might become.
Although I might agree with you (Ill put more thought into this later) that the situation might be the same whether we left today, 6 months from now or in 2 years. Although recent numbers have shown the "troop surge" has had some succeses with bombings down 30% and murders from death squads down 50%. And even noted by the AP that many areas are returning to normal with shoppers in markets and people unafraid to come out.
Success in Iraq ultimately I beleive will depend upon Iraqi's themselves. We can only do so much. The main part has to be done by them.

Thank you Louis for a very insightful and well thought out post. I hope to see you around the P&R more often.

Rob

[New2u]

Rob, it reminds me of that old saying, "When you're up to your ass in alligators..."

This is a war that this country should have never gotten into in the first place, possibly one of the biggest foreign policy blunders of all time. But now, we're in it, what do you do? I do agree that to pull out suddenly would probably make the civil war in Iraq even worse. One thing's for sure, the insurgents have absolutely no intention of stopping and laying down their arms, in fact, combat is virtually their life blood, they live to kill Americans or anyone else they deem as an "enemy of God", blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda. I think Bush underestimated the viciousness of these people. This is probably one of the reasons why this region of the world has never advanced in over 2,000 years. They love war.

[Haltickling]

So again, I care more about 2 dust mites having a limbo contest than I do the world's opinion.
Does that make me an arrogant American, or a eliteist...nope, just a realist.
It just makes you... well, a typical American. They know next to nothing about the rest of the world, and they just don't care. I'm not saying they should listen to every single opinion, but they should listen when the whole rest of the world cries out "FOOL". That would have spared the US their current situ in Iraq.
Im sure people in Singapore, Australia, Brussels, and London really dont care about what the US thinks of their foreign policy either. As they should not care what we think.
The majority in the US simply doesn't know anything about other countries' foreign policies, while US foreign policy affects the whole world. That's the difference.

[Louis]

I like to think of the world as a deed restricted community. That's what we call it here in Florida where you live in a neighborhood that has rules like how high a fence can be, yard must be groomed etc. I personally don't live in one of those but they do keep houing values up. I digress.....

Ok, each house is it's own country. You can trade with any neighbor you like, socialize with whoever you like, do what you want in the confines of your own home etc. If one person in the community doesn't follow the rules, the association has the right based on the orginal deed, to sue and have the offender removed from the neighborhood and then sell the home to cover legal costs. It does happen here. No one neighbor, though, has the right to go into the others home and kill him or her for braking the rules.

Rob, one of my greatest sadnesses is hearing you and many others say that the opinion of others does not count. We Americans are simply right and to hell with the rest of them. I wonder if you would feel the same way if you were born of one of those countries. The idea that we should "police" the world because no one else could do it makes me ashamed. Ask the catholics how proud they are of the Inquisition. I love living in a democratic nation and while I think it's the fairest form of government for the people, I don't think it is my right to deliver that to the rest of the world.

I assure you, we may have the nicest house in this neighborhood, but there are others in this neighborhood that conduct themselves better than we do. And while we help other countries around the world in trouble, we haven't bailed out an industrial nation since WWII. The countries I recently visited want nothing from us and since they don't go invading their neighbors, have no need for us. Singapore has one of the most logically and practically governed countries (City State actually) I have ever seen. Their economy puts ours to shame and no one there is impoverished (literally no one).

And I see nothing wrong with apologizing if you believe you were wrong. Now if you don't think we were wrong then that's one thing. But I believe our government KNOWS they screwed up and screwed up really bad. For reasons that are strictly political and partisan, we will never turn to the world and admit it. While typing this, the news just announced more soldier deaths in Iraq.

Last analogy... You're in a room with 193 people (the number of countries in the world). Each person tells you your an idiot but you think you're not. Who's right? Probably them. There are those that would say to me, "If you think it's so cool somewhere else, why don't you go live there?". Well, we do live in a great country. I am convinced however that we are not the smartest.

[Louis]

Hal, you bring up an interesting point. I notice that many people around the world think we Americans all are a united front on this war. Nothing could be further from the truth.

We the people (we love saying that) have elected a Congress (Parliment to you) that is vastly againt the war. They are very indecisive about how to proceed however and even if they were united, their role is legislative and the control over the military is the responsibility of our executive branch (Bush).

My point is though that Bush barely won re-election and his party has lost control in congress. At this point, EVERY poll of the American people shows the majority feel we shold have never gone and should leave.

[Haltickling]

Louis, I'm aware that Americans are deeply divided about this issue, as well as I'm aware of the current administration's situation. I wasn't trying to imply that all Americans were the same. But I remember rather clearly that over 70% of Americans were for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The Bush/neocon propaganda machine did a remarkable job.

In my post, I only commented on Rob's disdain for the rest of the world, trying to explain how many Europeans and Asians feel about that, and therefore about America.

[Louis]

You and I are of the same mind, Hal. I don't recall the statistics but 70% of Americans favoring the war might be an underestimate. We were so wounded at that time. Our ignorant pride made us all believe our soil was untouchable. We found that out not to be true. (I was in Germany during the night club bombings in the mid 80's) We were hopping mad and there was "good intelligence" that Iraq had weapons that could cause mass casualties and it was IMPLIED that these could EASILY find their way to our soil. With the sting of 9/11 in our hearts, invading Iraq made sense to almost all of us. I was not immune at the time either and was beaming with pride at the viewing of that Saddam statue being pulled down.

I'm ashamed that I was so easily mislead and I'm amazed that ALL Americans don't feel the same way. If I were king, I'd apologize to the world myself.

A famous American named Mark Twain said that the easiest way to cure social ignorance is to simply travel (I paraphrase). Whereas Europeans get passports as children, most Americans live their lives without one. Yet we feel we have the right to tell the rest of the world what to do.

Patriotism and pride are wonderful. Blindly following under the guise of patriotism is.... uhhhh..... well...... stupid.

[MrMacphisto]

It just makes you... well, a typical American. They know next to nothing about the rest of the world, and they just don't care. I'm not saying they should listen to every single opinion, but they should listen when the whole rest of the world cries out "FOOL". That would have spared the US their current situ in Iraq.

The majority in the US simply doesn't know anything about other countries' foreign policies, while US foreign policy affects the whole world. That's the difference.

Yep... I know what you mean....

[Robace252]

Here we go......... :)

This is a war that this country should have never gotten into in the first place, possibly one of the biggest foreign policy blunders of all time. But now, we're in it, what do you do? I do agree that to pull out suddenly would probably make the civil war in Iraq even worse. One thing's for sure, the insurgents have absolutely no intention of stopping and laying down their arms, in fact, combat is virtually their life blood, they live to kill Americans or anyone else they deem as an "enemy of God", blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda. I think Bush underestimated the viciousness of these people. This is probably one of the reasons why this region of the world has never advanced in over 2,000 years. They love war.
New, my beliefs in this war run deep. I fully believe that IF this war was ran properly, no stinking political interference and no political grandstanding by Bushie that it would be over now and would have been seen as a great thing America did. BUT that is certainly not the case and can be seen and agreed as a HUGE blunder.
And your right these people are vicious, which is something many fail grasp. As OBL said himself..."The United States loves life, we love death. That is the diffrence between us."
Next post....comming up.

Rob

[Robace252]

It just makes you... well, a typical American.
And PROUD of it.

They know next to nothing about the rest of the world, and they just don't care.
I know plenty. But your right I dont care. Nothing Germany does with its foregin policy is going to affect me. Why should I worry. Im sure Germany can take care of itself without my country meddeling in its affairs. Im sure it makes mistakes, but who doesnt. Im not going to sit around and bad mouth other nations because of decisions they make. They made the choice that is best for them, and who better to know what they need than themselves.

I'm not saying they should listen to every single opinion, but they should listen when the whole rest of the world cries out "FOOL". That would have spared the US their current situ in Iraq.
The thing is not everyone cried out FOOL. It wasnt even much over half. Plenty of nations rallied along with us, more than you would admit. So there was no everyone in a circle pointing at the US and saying fool. There were a few, but they had their hand in Saddam's pocket and vice-versa.
Now of course Id have a problem listening to an opinion of someone who is being taken care of under the table....wouldnt you.

The majority in the US simply doesn't know anything about other countries' foreign policies, while US foreign policy affects the whole world. That's the difference.
And. Thats the difference. Our policies affect the world so everyone should have an opinion and it be followed. Nope. Sorry. Not going to happen.
And why again should we care about other nations policies, it doesnt affect us too much. Perhaps if rest of the world tended to their own, they wouldnt spend so much time worring about the US. We do just fine, and of course when the time comes we will bail everyone out again.

Rob

[Robace252]

I like to think of the world as a deed restricted community. That's what we call it here in Florida where you live in a neighborhood that has rules like how high a fence can be, yard must be groomed etc. I personally don't live in one of those but they do keep houing values up. I digress.....

Ok, each house is it's own country. You can trade with any neighbor you like, socialize with whoever you like, do what you want in the confines of your own home etc. If one person in the community doesn't follow the rules, the association has the right based on the orginal deed, to sue and have the offender removed from the neighborhood and then sell the home to cover legal costs. It does happen here. No one neighbor, though, has the right to go into the others home and kill him or her for braking the rules.

Rob, one of my greatest sadnesses is hearing you and many others say that the opinion of others does not count. We Americans are simply right and to hell with the rest of them.
But its not like that. No where even close. And lets just say for arguments sake that it is like that. What do you do when you sue to remove the troublemaker, yet he refuses to leave and starts shooting at his neighbors and anyone comming near his property. You call the police and they are unwilling, unable or not strong enough to do anything. What happens, you find the one neighbor that has the will, the power and the resolve to do something...and they do. Then afterwards everyone grips about the mess left and doesnt do much to help out. But if another neighbor starts acting the same way....you call the big guy yet again.
Im not saying they dont count....IM saying the US should never allow others to dictate our foregin policy. Listening costs nothing and does no harm. Sometimes it is wise to seek counsel...but if it is deemed necessary or is wanted. Would you like everyone in your family to tell you who you should dso business with, how you should raise your kids, if you should have cable or satellite, should be a Bears or Colts fan....Im sure you wouldnt. Now perhaps there is a middle ground where important decisions you might ask for some opinions to help....but how do you feel about those that know nothing of your whole situation telling you what you can and can not do.
What makes me sad is that people think we should let everyone else tell us what to do and when to do it, on their terms. And I for one will never accept that.

I wonder if you would feel the same way if you were born of one of those countries.
Honestly probally not. Id be jealous and envy the power and influence the US holds. And Id want a piece of that action as well. If I couldnt be on top Id sure like to steer and influence it my way.
But then again, if I was the same person as I am now, I would understand that it is wrong for me sitting in another country not knowing the entire situation to dictate what others should do.

The idea that we should "police" the world because no one else could do it makes me ashamed.
Im sorry that you feel that way. But its the truth. No one else would do anything...so the US either is damned if we do or damned if we dont. And I prefer the damned if we do...because at least we doing something.

Ask the catholics how proud they are of the Inquisition.
Depends on who you ask.

I love living in a democratic nation and while I think it's the fairest form of government for the people, I don't think it is my right to deliver that to the rest of the world.
Now granted here I will agree. We should not force our views upon someone, we should lead by example, and we have not been much of one as of late. But when it pertains to warfare, I still think if we kick someone out, we got to place something back...and trying to establish a democracy isnt that bad.

I assure you, we may have the nicest house in this neighborhood, but there are others in this neighborhood that conduct themselves better than we do.
Of course they do. When you have little or no power or influence its pretty easy to stay straight and narrow. Not to mention no one really is looking out at every move you make.

And while we help other countries around the world in trouble, we haven't bailed out an industrial nation since WWII
And why should we. They should be able to take care of themselves.

The countries I recently visited want nothing from us and since they don't go invading their neighbors, have no need for us.
Well I hope they do want something from us, considering a little over 1/3 of the money the recieve in renevues are from investments from US companies. Not to mention their military trains with ours, they get equipment from the US, they have a long standing agreement with the US Military. And why. In case of a "neighbor" getting jumpy...who would be on speed dial. The United States. They have plenty of need, as does rest of the world. No one likes admitting it though. But to be fair, we need rest of the world as well. As soon as both groups realize it, I think things will be understood better.

And I see nothing wrong with apologizing if you believe you were wrong. Now if you don't think we were wrong then that's one thing.
This is a wierd area for me, because I dont think we were wrong with the information we had at the time. Now that we know it was poor intelligence, we can certainly do something about that. But with the information and attitude at the time, I believe we did the right thing. Its easy to morning morning quarterback after the facts come out.

Last analogy... You're in a room with 193 people (the number of countries in the world). Each person tells you your an idiot but you think you're not. Who's right? Probably them.
You know Henry Ford probally had a lot people tell him that. The Wright Brothers, Edision. And you know that little country that told people that a certain dictator was bad news back in 30's...they were laughed at and called a fool by the room also.....whos laughing in retrospect.
And all 193 are not saying that. Id wage dollars to donuts its closer to about 130 at most. And if thats true I was in a room with 193 and 130 called me a fool, and I personally thought 110 of those 130 were fools, and the 63 people who did not think I was a fool also thought those 110 are fools....well you can get the picture. This is not as one sided as you think. Sometimes all it takes is one to stand up, and not to follow the flock.

There are those that would say to me, "If you think it's so cool somewhere else, why don't you go live there?". Well, we do live in a great country. I am convinced however that we are not the smartest.
Well Id never say that. And do I think we are the smartest. No. The most powerful, yes. If we were the smartest, things would be A LOT WORSE than they are now.

Rob

[Robace252]

In my post, I only commented on Rob's disdain for the rest of the world, trying to explain how many Europeans and Asians feel about that, and therefore about America.
I have no disdain for rest of the world (except the French...I hate the FROGS! And I make no apologies for that)I just think that people need to worry about themselves before worring about others.
I just feel that Germany should not tell the US how to deal with Iraq, and the US should do the same.
Funny though that the US and Germany are on the same page on Iran.
Its only the diffrences that make people angry and "HEAR MY VOICE".
When there is compromise and agreements then its "Oh yeah, they made up their own mind. We had no input, but we are glad they agree with us."

The United States of America is just that, not the United States of Earth.

Rob

[Redmage]

As with so many things, the truth is somewhere in the middle. Yes, the US is a sovereign nation, with all the freedom that implies to pursue our own best interests. On the other hand no man or nation is an island.

It comes down to this question: where does our interest truly lie? We can go off on our own designs and let our diplomatic relations go to hell, but when we need a favor later - to save us trouble, or to get something done that we can't easily do ourselves - then what? Sure, we might be able to buy it - if our situation isn't too dire. But that's an expensive proposition. Good will and willing cooperation are cheaper.

Saddam Hussein pursued his nation's sovereign destiny, as he saw it. And he managed to alienate almost all of his neighbors. When it all dropped in the pot, they were glad to be rid of him. None of his neighbors raised more than a token protest, and certainly none of them tried to help him.

How much is uncaring "sovereignty" worth, compared to the value of being a neighbor?

[Robace252]

Interesting thoughts Redmage.
Ill ponder on that some more later, but my main gripe is that sometimes, not all the time and perhaps not with this particular subject, but sometimes what is best for one country is not for many others, but should that alone stop them.
When the old argument comes up.."weighing the needs of the many against the few", sometimes it does work backwards. You need to weigh the needs of the few against the needs of the many.
Sometimes it works, and sometimes it does not.
Do I think the US all the time should ignore opinions or wishes of other nations. No. Not all the time. But when it comes to matters that are deemed of national security or national interest, the decision should remain the decision only of the US. After all, we know best (most of the time) of what the current situation dictates. We dont sit on the sidelines and lecture. We actually do the job.
Which is a lot more than others can say.

But your post Redmage does give me some things to think about.
Ill be sure to post again on your thoughts when I get mine lined up.

Rob

[nowayjose]

Only a completely humiliating withdrawal under fire of the Bush Forces, with tail tucked in between legs, will be able to prevent such a stupidity happening again at least for the next decade (I hope). Your "heroes" are a bunch of murdering, coward, ignorant kiddies led by a staff of incompetent yes-men. If you military types had any balls, you'd have bundled up Bush, Cheney and the rest of gang and dropped them over Baghdad.. without parachutes.

[areenactor]

Only a completely humiliating withdrawal under fire of the Bush Forces, with tail tucked in between legs, will be able to prevent such a stupidity happening again at least for the next decade (I hope). Your "heroes" are a bunch of murdering, coward, ignorant kiddies led by a staff of incompetent yes-men. If you military types had any balls, you'd have bundled up Bush, Cheney and the rest of gang and dropped them over Baghdad.. without parachutes.

oh no this will not stand! how the fuck dare you to call our fighting men a bunch of murdering cowards! you talk like the complete asshole you are.
if you knew anything you'd know with the constraints and rules of engagment our troops are under, the last thing they are ar murdering cowards. so fuck you, from someone who's been there, you magot!
and if you wanna make something of it, i'll be happy to meet you any time any where, you sniviling shit head.

[Redmage]

Jose, reenactor, I think you're both stepping over the line - areenactor probably moreso in a technical sense, since you're getting personal. But jose you made a gross overstatement and generalization about troops who are just ordinary people by and large. And you probably should have expected a reaction like the one you got.

[areenactor]

i only insulted one jagoff. he insulted thousands of good people. his crime is much worse.
i'll now leave this thread. i don't need to sit here and have my people being cowardly insulted behind their back!

[Haltickling]

Well I hope they do want something from us, considering a little over 1/3 of the money the recieve in renevues are from investments from US companies.
WE receive the revenues from US investments? In that case, US investors would be incompetent fools. Do you think US investors send their money as donations? They invest in other countries' businesses because it's more profitable than in the US.

And I have no idea where your figures about the percentage of US investments in foreign countries come from. They certainly don't apply to the EU. I've said it before, and I repeat it: Stick to your military expertise. You don't know enough about global economy and policy matters. Everybody's got their hands in everybody's pockets in a global economy.
The thing is not everyone cried out FOOL. It wasnt even much over half. Plenty of nations rallied along with us, more than you would admit.
Oh, they were rallying to your support? Are you talking about Italy and Spain, whose leaders "rallyed" against their populations' explicit will? Or about Palau and other third world countries, whom the US diplomats bribed, cajoled or "convinced" to participate? Sure, some Eastern Europe countries participated out of pure gratitude for bringing their old Soviet overlords down. The only country who really supported you wholeheartedly was Britain, and they've come to regret it deeply already.

You're right that the world used to have the US number on quick dial for military matters. They never called you for advice on diplomatic, cultural, or social matters. Guess why? And they might even change their quick dial in military matters, too, after the Iraq fiasco...

Sorry for using Louis's analogy, but it's too good to pass. If one of the neighbors suddenly commits some serious crimes, what do you think the community will do? Mind their own business, like you're suggesting? Even friends would criticize the criminal actions of a friend, unless they want to become accomplices. It's not only their right, but their duty. Too bad that this analogy doesn't include calling the cops, because the cop role has aleady been usurped by the neighbor in question...

Oh, and thanks for confirming my opinion about you, Rob. You couldn't have shown your disdain more clearly.

[Strider]

They view us as a self imposed world police

For better or worse, we are the world police. And whether anyone likes to admit it or not, we would never have become such if the rest of the world didn't, on some level, like things that way. As they say, it takes two to tango.

Foreign Policy had an article on this a while ago, and one sentence really struck me: "The gap between what the rest of the world says about American power and what it fails to do about it is the single most striking feature of 21st century international relations."

[ribber]

Im not saying that we should not leave, but we should not advertise a date that we are doing such a thing.
Personally I want us to pull a "Baltimore Raven's" type of thing. Sometime without saying a date just start picking up our toys and say "no, were not leaving were repositioning." And then in the cloak of night...leave.
Rob
Precisely Robace. I thought the somewhat of the same thing. I am completely against this war, but I thought to myself, why do they put the iraq pullout date onb international news? Everyone sees it then...not helpful at all.

[Redmage]

Foreign Policy had an article on this a while ago, and one sentence really struck me: "The gap between what the rest of the world says about American power and what it fails to do about it is the single most striking feature of 21st century international relations."I guess I've never really wondered about this myself. I'm not sure that we could stand off the whole world, but it would take a sizable coalition of major powers working together to beat us. And not only is this unlikely, but if we "lost" then the whole world would lose from the collateral damage.

To say nothing of the fact that we're one of the largest markets any nation has for their goods.

So it never occurred to me to wonder why other nations talk more than they do about us. They might not like us, but actually doing anything about that would almost surely cost them more than it's worth. This fact is probably a large part of the legendary American arrogance.

[tickledgirl]

World opinion means nothing to me. The US should not ever, I repeat ever, guide our foregin policy on what other nations think.

Maybe you're just overstating your case out of frustration. We certainly shouldn't decline to defend outselves just because someone might object. But "World opinion means nothing"?

I strongly disagree. And so have Americans throughout history, going back to the guy who wrote about "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind (http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm)" and the guys who signed that Declaration back on July 4, 1776.

[Robace252]

Like Portrait sang............He we go again......

WE receive the revenues from US investments? In that case, US investors would be incompetent fools. Do you think US investors send their money as donations? They invest in other countries' businesses because it's more profitable than in the US.

And I have no idea where your figures about the percentage of US investments in foreign countries come from. They certainly don't apply to the EU. I've said it before, and I repeat it: Stick to your military expertise. You don't know enough about global economy and policy matters. Everybody's got their hands in everybody's pockets in a global economy.
I got that from a professor of ecomonics at Georgia State University. His speciality is global economics.
Here is something I found at this website....
http://www.nationbynation.com/Singapore/Economy.html
to help my referencing.
Singapore continues to attract investment funds on a large scale despite its relatively high-cost operating environment. The United States leads in foreign investment, accounting for 39% of new commitments to the manufacturing sector in 2003. As of 2003, the stock of investment by U.S. companies in the manufacturing and services sectors in Singapore reached about $61.4 billion (total assets). The bulk of U.S. investment is in electronics manufacturing, oil refining and storage, and the chemical industry. More than 1,300 U.S. firms operate in Singapore.
So perhaps it was not 1/3 as the professor told me, a little over 1/3.
And of course I dont know that much about global economics, but thats why I went to someone who did, I just didnt feel I had to quote him on a conversation we had.

Oh, they were rallying to your support? Are you talking about Italy and Spain, whose leaders "rallyed" against their populations' explicit will?

Populations will I understand are not always those of their leaders, as this country can attest to you. But to say it was everyone opinon vs. our opinion is a HUGE overstatement.

Or about Palau and other third world countries, whom the US diplomats bribed, cajoled or "convinced" to participate?
Or how about other countries recieving kick backs from Iraq not to participate. It works both ways. This is a scratch my back and Ill scratch your back world. I dont agree with it, but its the way things are.

Sure, some Eastern Europe countries participated out of pure gratitude for bringing their old Soviet overlords down. The only country who really supported you wholeheartedly was Britain, and they've come to regret it deeply already.
Your forgetting Japan and Australlia, and yes they too are starting to regret it. I understand that bad, very bad decisions were made in hindsight. But the outfront advertising has hit the fan since we found out a lot of truths.

You're right that the world used to have the US number on quick dial for military matters. They never called you for advice on diplomatic, cultural, or social matters. Guess why? And they might even change their quick dial in military matters, too, after the Iraq fiasco...
I dont have to guess why Hal. I know why. The US is not in any position or should be to dictate the cultural or social matters of the world. I agree with that. We are by far not the "beacon" we claim to be in those matters. Many more nations have a cultural and social grip than we do in this country. I totally with that. And on the diplomatic front, again....we are certainly not one that negoiate with everyone. And there are many reasons for that. The biggest being the only 2 things the US can offer is money or military. And yes with this administration the bullet comes before the buck. So again I dont disagree with you.
But I will disagree that even with the Iraq fiasco, if any nation found themselves invaded or threatened by an outside nation or force...the US would be #1, #2 and #3-#10 on the list to call.

Sorry for using Louis's analogy, but it's too good to pass. If one of the neighbors suddenly commits some serious crimes, what do you think the community will do? Mind their own business, like you're suggesting? Even friends would criticize the criminal actions of a friend, unless they want to become accomplices. It's not only their right, but their duty.
Of course they will criticize. Of course they will "speak out". But thats about it. Put it in a useless corupt commitee where they KNOW nothing will be done, but can home and put their head to bed feeling good that "I did my part."

Too bad that this analogy doesn't include calling the cops, because the cop role has aleady been usurped by the neighbor in question...
One neighbor had to be the cop, because when the cops we called they didnt have the manpower or the will to do anything. Or were bound into committees.

Oh, and thanks for confirming my opinion about you, Rob. You couldn't have shown your disdain more clearly
Anything to help. Always glad to clear something up.
But at least Ive learned a little more about you. You actually dissapointed me. But Hal, we always cant agree on everything, and on this matter we oboviously will have to disagree.

Rob

[Robace252]

For better or worse, we are the world police. And whether anyone likes to admit it or not, we would never have become such if the rest of the world didn't, on some level, like things that way. As they say, it takes two to tango.

Foreign Policy had an article on this a while ago, and one sentence really struck me: "The gap between what the rest of the world says about American power and what it fails to do about it is the single most striking feature of 21st century international relations."
Intersting way to put that Strider. Good Post.

Precisely Robace. I thought the somewhat of the same thing. I am completely against this war, but I thought to myself, why do they put the iraq pullout date onb international news? Everyone sees it then...not helpful at all.
Thank you ribber. But just to make it clear, Im not saying we leave like a thief in the night, just that when we leave....lets not grandstand or advertise.

So it never occurred to me to wonder why other nations talk more than they do about us. They might not like us, but actually doing anything about that would almost surely cost them more than it's worth. This fact is probably a large part of the legendary American arrogance.
DARN YOU REDMAGE!! :ranty:
Youve given me something else to ponder on. I think you have it in for my freetime this week dont you? CURSE YOU!!!

Maybe you're just overstating your case out of frustration. We certainly shouldn't decline to defend outselves just because someone might object. But "World opinion means nothing"?
Tgirl, like I said when it comes to matters of national security mainly, no we should not let world opinion guide our decisions. Advisement in a lot of cases is just fine. But if we as a nation decide that something needs to be done, then it should be done. Period. Why should the US listen or bend to the will of someones opinion if they are not in it themselves or have all the information or even have an interest in it. Or perhaps they DO have an interest, they are getting kickbacks from the place we are against.
Everyone...including the US...has ulterior (I hope I spelled that right or am using the term correctly) motives for decisions they make. Id would be wrong if I didnt think so.

I strongly disagree. And so have Americans throughout history, going back to the guy who wrote about "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind" and the guys who signed that Declaration back on July 4, 1776.
First off, we all know how I personally feel about quoting things from hundreds of years ago when the world was a larger place and a lot diffrent and using them to make points about today's world.
But anyway, back to your point....you should have posted the enitre statement because when you do it changes the meaning of what you posted, well at least to me it does but I will let everyone judge for themselves.
He is the statement in full.....
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
In that time a lot of opinion was that we not seperate from England, but we did. We in fact went against a lot of the opinions of mankind, because we felt that we needed to act in our own self-interest.
Again we could agree/disagree back and forth on what they meant in that sentence....but Ill let each person read the entire paragraph and make up their own minds. To me it has nothing to do the government of this country needing to listen to other governments opinions before we act.

Rob

[nowayjose]

oh no this will not stand! how the fuck dare you to call our fighting men a bunch of murdering cowards! you talk like the complete asshole you are.
if you knew anything you'd know with the constraints and rules of engagment our troops are under, the last thing they are ar murdering cowards. so fuck you, from someone who's been there, you magot!

Boasting, murdering cowards who think that with a fat rifle they're invincible. 19-year old imbecile brick-shitters emptying their cartridge at anything that moves, be it a "towelhead", a friendly soldier, or a stray dog. Your army is a bunch of morons loaded to the teeth with the fine output from your masters, the almighty arms industry and their client politicians. You are nothing but fodder, a convenient, inexpensive and expendable product demo.

[Iggy pop]

The majority in the US simply doesn't know anything about other countries' foreign policies, while US foreign policy affects the whole world. That's the difference.

How does US foreign policy affect Germany? I am not saying it does not, but I am curious how it does. And what is Germany's foreign policy exactly?

[Haltickling]

How does US foreign policy affect Germany? I am not saying it does not, but I am curious how it does. And what is Germany's foreign policy exactly?
US foreign policy mainly affects Germany (and most other nations) when they go to war somewhere in the world. Or when they veto or boycot international treaties which Germany supports (International Court for War Crimes, Kyoto Protocol, cluster bomb ban, etc). Or when they threaten other countries with military interventions, while Germany's and the EU's policy is to seek a diplomatic solution. Or when they use air bases in Germany to "render" prisoners to secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe. Or when the CIA abducts German citizens from neighboring countries to Guantanamo. And so on.

What is Germany's foreign policy in regard to which nation? Of course, we have different policies towards other EU countries, or towards Russia, or towards the US, or towards every single country or block, depending on our relations with them.

As Rob mentioned already, Germany supports US positions on the Israel/Palestine Road Map, or the general distrust regarding Iran nuclear efforts (minus the military option). Germany plays a big role in rebuilding Afghanistan, or in securing the seaways near the Horn of Africa and in Lebanese waters. Germany supported the US in the first Gulf war when Iraq annexed Kuwait, but we voted against the second invasion. So Germany's (and every other nation's) foreign policy depends on the situation.

Hope this helps, incomplete and brief as it is.

[New2u]

For better or worse, we are the world police. And whether anyone likes to admit it or not, we would never have become such if the rest of the world didn't, on some level, like things that way. As they say, it takes two to tango.

Foreign Policy had an article on this a while ago, and one sentence really struck me: "The gap between what the rest of the world says about American power and what it fails to do about it is the single most striking feature of 21st century international relations."

Strider, spoken like a true neoconservative (LOL). "W" would've been proud of you.

[Strider]

I'm not a neocon (which is basically a meaningless term nowadays).

[New2u]

I'm not a neocon (which is basically a meaningless term nowadays).

Not quite, Strider. A NeoCon does having a meaning when it comes to the philosophy of using the USA as the world police. Bush is a subscriber to this thinking.

[Redmage]

Not quite, Strider. A NeoCon does having a meaning when it comes to the philosophy of using the USA as the world police. Bush is a subscriber to this thinking.Not exactly. "Classic" neoconservatism is more about American hegemony than about policing the world. A neoconservative in that sense thinks that we should police the world the way the Roman Empire "policed" the Mediterranean.

What Strider is pointing to is the fact that world treats us like their policeman. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, there was no question in anyone's mind who was going to lead the coalition forces that would remedy that situation. Similarly in Bosnia, and we've seen the same thing in earlier conflicts.

And just as people complain about the police until they need them, so people complain about us until they need us. That's not conservative, liberal, or anything else. It's just an objective assessment of the last 60 years of world history.

[Robace252]

And just as people complain about the police until they need them, so people complain about us until they need us. That's not conservative, liberal, or anything else. It's just an objective assessment of the last 60 years of world history.
Redmage, you put into two simple sentences what I tried to put into a thesis.
A very great point, and a equally great post.

Rob

[Mastertank1]

Back when the second US invasion of Iraq was still in the furture, and after it had just occurred, there were a number of news stories which should have been related to world opinion against the invasion and possible ulterior motives, but the news media here never made the connection.

A)The international opinions against the war were rallied and led mainly by 3 countries; France, Russia and Germany.

B) During the fighting, we ran into advanced weapons that had been sold to the Iraqis by French, Russian and German firms in violation of the U.N. sanctions against Iraq that were in place since the first Gulf War.

C) It came out that all three of the lead contries in opposing the war were either owed immense debts for goods already delivered to the Hussein regime or had contracts to sell massive quantities of goods to that regime in the near future. and they just MIGHT have opposed the war because the war would mean that they would never get paid for what they had already delivered and that the cintracts they had been counting on would be cancelled.
The amounts were significant.
They mentioned 4 billion dollars worth for France, 5 billion for Germany, and 8 billion for Russia.

Seems to me that France, Russia and Germany just might have had some very monetary ulterior motives for being against the US invasion of Saddam's Iraq.

I tend to heavily discount the 'opinions' of anyone who has ulterior motives that blatant and powerful.
Mitch

[Haltickling]

MasterTank, there were indeed illegal business connections, but the perpetrators were prosecuted and indicted in court, at least in Germany and in France (Russia may be a different topic). Neither the governments nor the population in general were involved in smuggling contraband, but both governments as well as the population were strictly against the war. Neither the governments nor the population profited from those illegal actions, carried out by a few criminals. So your argument is simply invalid.

Besides, there was a substantial amount of anti-war US citizens as well, so what was their gain? Or did the pro-war US population profit from the war (I mean except Halliburton and the Carlyle Group)? Surely not.

[red indian]

Heaven forefend the idea that the US might have "Ulterior" motives in any of its foriegn policy of course!

Perhaps Tank could tell us why the US has no plans to invade Zimbabwe, and remove one of the worlds most odious and evil dictators, in the form of Robert Mugabe?

How about bringing the gift of democracy to Cuba? surely the Florida fire brigade could take cuba in an afternoon?

Get real Tank! the name of the game is self interest, and the US is no different to any other nation on this earth. Far too many Americans still have this absurd notion of themselves as a nation who's birth was the result of an immaculate conception between Debby Reynolds and John Denver

[Robace252]

A couple of things....
Ill have to ask this in the form of a question because Im not privy to how weapons are sold from foregin governments, just how the US does business.

Hal,
are you telling me that companies in Germany that make weapons can do business with whomever they choose, and the government never knows?
Seriously. I really dont know.

And if not, is it POSSIBLE....being serious not an ass....that whomever these people that were brought down in court were meerly "scapegoats" for the government just as "Scooter" Libby is a scapregoat for the Bush Mis-Administration.
Just wondering. And Im not being snarky about it.

Or did the pro-war US population profit from the war (I mean except Halliburton and the Carlyle Group)? Surely not.
Actually yes. War has always increased workloads at major manufacturing plants. While US cars might be in decline, the need for more HUMVEE's and other vehciles such as the Striker, keep more people employed and help the overall job market. Not to mention the ammuntion factories, suppliers and what not. I personally have some stock in certain companies and in the last 4 years these stocks have jumped an average of 112% in my portfolios. And I know Im not the only person who invested in these defense companies... my stockbroker did also.

Rob

[Robace252]

Heaven forefend the idea that the US might have "Ulterior" motives in any of its foriegn policy of course!
Of course we do. Just like everyone else on the planet. I have no problem with that. To each their own.

Perhaps Tank could tell us why the US has no plans to invade Zimbabwe, and remove one of the worlds most odious and evil dictators, in the form of Robert Mugabe?
This one I never understand, except for the screw-up in Somalia. Zimbabwe is necessary for its copper, nickel, and tin deposits. Very necessary for our modern military. Granted we have some of those ourselves....but it wont last forever.

How about bringing the gift of democracy to Cuba? surely the Florida fire brigade could take cuba in an afternoon?

I rather bring them the gift of year old kippers Red, and hopefully while they are "otherwise disposed of" (throwing up that is) just swoop in and take the reins. Besides, why do we want another island for the rich to buy "beachfront" property on then complain and whine when a hurricane blows it away. LOL

Get real Tank! the name of the game is self interest, and the US is no different to any other nation on this earth. Far too many Americans still have this absurd notion of themselves as a nation who's birth was the result of an immaculate conception between Debby Reynolds and John Denver
Of course its self interest, and we admit that. And it wasnt Debby and John. It was Mr. T and Julie Andrews.

Rob

[Haltickling]

Hal,
are you telling me that companies in Germany that make weapons can do business with whomever they choose, and the government never knows?
Seriously. I really dont know.

And if not, is it POSSIBLE....being serious not an ass....that whomever these people that were brought down in court were meerly "scapegoats" for the government just as "Scooter" Libby is a scapregoat for the Bush Mis-Administration.
Just wondering. And Im not being snarky about it.
Nope. No weapon producing company can export anything without a special license given by the government AND by the parliament.

However, the "advanced weapons" which Mastertank mentioned were not produced in Germany, but in Iraq. Those German companies only exported some goods on the embargo list, like electronic parts, declared as non-embargo goods. When you see a semiconductor plate, you can't tell whether it's for a washing machine or for a SAM.

As far as I know, the only real weapons were sold by a French company, some small anti-aircraft missiles. The French company sold them legally to a non-embargo country (I don't remember which one), but the load was rerouted to Iraq on the way. A simple case of arms smuggling, not a case of political support.

[Strider]

I guess I've never really wondered about this myself. I'm not sure that we could stand off the whole world, but it would take a sizable coalition of major powers working together to beat us. And not only is this unlikely, but if we "lost" then the whole world would lose from the collateral damage.

Well, why would a challenge have to be military? It could just as easily come in the form of acting as a diplomatic counterweight to American power and influence. But, aside from a few somewhat noisy exceptions, there's no serious effort to do that right now. That's not to say things won't change sometime in the future, but right now, the world is probably closer to being governed by a Pax Americana than at any time in the past 50 years.

There's basically three categories of states to think of here. The first are those that are officially allied with the US, and basically voluntarily accept junior partner status to us in exchange for the perceived benefits of hitching your wagon to the super-power. If the EU (for instance) really desired more lattitude from American foreign policy, it wouldn't be overly difficult for them to increase their defense spending and formulate a common foreign policy of their own and act as a counterweight on the US. France has been advocating they do just that for quite some time now, but the rest of the club doesn't seem particularly interested.

The second category would be rising powers in the developing world like China or India. They may wish to contest our influence in the future, but for now, they're more focused on internal development, and will be for at least the next couple decades. After that, things may get interesting.

The third would be those states that are currently attempting to contest our influence. There's not a whole lot of these, and in most cases, their challenge to us is more motivated by the personalities and ambitions of specific individuals than by any official grand strategy on the part of their governments (Iran and Venezuela, eg), generally speaking, these types tend to be more bark than bite anyway. The only country I can think of that legitimately tries to contest our influence now is Russia, which, with its ingrained patriotism and messianic sense of its own destiny in the world, is arguably the country the US has the most in common with.

[Redmage]

Well, why would a challenge have to be military? It could just as easily come in the form of acting as a diplomatic counterweight to American power and influence. But, aside from a few somewhat noisy exceptions, there's no serious effort to do that right now.No, there hasn't been since the end of the cold war. The Soviets used to do that all the time, but they went away and China has her own issues right now.

Most of the other nations that have the pull to try something like this (like the EU) are really too dependent on American markets for their goods. And they wouldn't do it in any case unless we directly threatened their interests - and while they complain about this, that, and the other thing, so far they haven't felt directly threatened (at least not enough to ignite that sort of hullabaloo).

Though actually in the run-up to the Iraq war Germany, France, and Russia did try some diplomatic arm-twisting to counter our diplomatic arm-twisting. The rhetoric got pretty sharp there for a while. But in the end we weren't annoying them enough for them to seriously jeopardize the things we give them politically and economically.

There's basically three categories of states to think of here. The first are those that are officially allied with the US, and basically voluntarily accept junior partner status to us in exchange for the perceived benefits of hitching your wagon to the super-power. If the EU (for instance) really desired more lattitude from American foreign policy, it wouldn't be overly difficult for them to increase their defense spending and formulate a common foreign policy of their own and act as a counterweight on the US. I think it might be harder than they'd be willing to do for the forseeable future. The GDP of the United States is higher than that of all the EU states combined, and we spend a higher percentage of our GDP on our military than any industrialized nation in the world. I think that for the EU nations to come together on such a project, and for their citizens to accept the pain of building their military up to that extent, we would have to piss them off in a major, major way. I think they'd have to feel directly threatened to do that.

Basically we annoy them, but not enough to unite them against us, and not enough to pay what they'd have to pay to seriously oppose us.

The second category would be rising powers in the developing world like China or India. They may wish to contest our influence in the future, but for now, they're more focused on internal development, and will be for at least the next couple decades. After that, things may get interesting.I've been saying that for a while now. I think we need to be focusing on China rather than fiddle-farting around in the Middle East. At the moment the Chinese couldn't take us, and they know that perfectly well. But anyone with eyes can see that within 15-25 years there won't be room on this planet for the two of us, as China modernizes and needs more and more resources. So they're perfectly content to let us bleed into the sand while they gear up for the inevitable. That might be the most idiotic thing about America's mideast policy in the long term.

The third would be those states that are currently attempting to contest our influence. There's not a whole lot of these, and in most cases, their challenge to us is more motivated by the personalities and ambitions of specific individuals than by any official grand strategy on the part of their governments (Iran and Venezuela, eg), generally speaking, these types tend to be more bark than bite anyway.More bark than bite indeed. Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, etc simply don't have the political or military power to do us any serious mischief yet. Iran might acquire it, thanks to Bush's blunders in Iraq (at the moment Iran stands to be the only state in the region that will be stronger when this is over, no matter how it ends).

I think that in countries like that the US is used mainly as the most credible external threat to keep their populace supportive of their government and minimize dissent. Their governments arguably are doing that deliberately, just as their shaking their fists and shouting at us to make themselves look brave. But it's noteworthy that the countries that are opposing us directly are those that have the least involvement with us economically, so they don't have as much to lose as, say, the EU would.

[tickledgirl]

If they work together, they can do a good job of messing us up non-militarily. After 9/11 we started establishing military outposts in the former Soviet Republics. That made both China and Russia very nervous. They hung together on that and pushed back hard. And now we have very little military presence left there.

No shots fired. Just diplomacy. Two big neighbors leaned hard on the FSRs, and they understandably caved. (And in some cases were just as happy to do so.)

[New2u]

Not exactly. "Classic" neoconservatism is more about American hegemony than about policing the world. A neoconservative in that sense thinks that we should police the world the way the Roman Empire "policed" the Mediterranean.

What Strider is pointing to is the fact that world treats us like their policeman. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, there was no question in anyone's mind who was going to lead the coalition forces that would remedy that situation. Similarly in Bosnia, and we've seen the same thing in earlier conflicts.

And just as people complain about the police until they need them, so people complain about us until they need us. That's not conservative, liberal, or anything else. It's just an objective assessment of the last 60 years of world history.

10-4, Red

[nowayjose]

I personally have some stock in certain companies and in the last 4 years these stocks have jumped an average of 112% in my portfolios.

So you're now officially a war profiteer.

Hope the cash won't leave any blood stains in your wallet.

[Mastertank1]

Heaven forefend the idea that the US might have "Ulterior" motives in any of its foriegn policy of course!

Perhaps Tank could tell us why the US has no plans to invade Zimbabwe, and remove one of the worlds most odious and evil dictators, in the form of Robert Mugabe?

How about bringing the gift of democracy to Cuba? surely the Florida fire brigade could take cuba in an afternoon?

Get real Tank! the name of the game is self interest, and the US is no different to any other nation on this earth. Far too many Americans still have this absurd notion of themselves as a nation who's birth was the result of an immaculate conception between Debby Reynolds and John Denver
I want a US pullout from Iraq, just not a pre-announced timetable. I was against going in to start with, because the reasons given were bogus.
We have not invaded those other places for two reasons, both equally important.
1-The Bush family does not have a personal vendetta against the rulers there.
2-The Bush administration has not figured iout a way to have their big business friends reap additional windfall profits, (beyond what they're alreeady getting from the mismanaged wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the equally mismanaged relief efforts in the American south) by invading those countries.
I never said we should be in Iraq, I never said our motives were pure. I'm only saying France, Russia and Germany opposed the war in Iraq for reasons just as morally suspect as US motives for the original invasion of Iraq.
It's a matter of "Tu Quoque". (I'm one and you're another).

Oddly enough, I do NOT know of any such ulterior motives for U.K. involvement in Iraq. As far as I know, they just came in because they were tricked by the Bush administration and wanted to be good allies in the war on terror. Red Indian, do you know any different?

[Mitchell]

Politically, I see a very viable reason for pulling out before Bush leaves office, several in fact.
The latest approval ratings I heard on our boy Bush were 29%, and dropping. The biggest sticking point with the American people is the war. People are fed up with this never ending war, with our soldiers dying every day, and there being no end in sight, and no troop pullout timetable. Bottom line, this is Bush's war. He blatantly misled the American people on his reasons for going to war. No WMD's were ever found. Saddam was not a threat, and now, Saddam is dead, and there is still civil unrest, and troops dying every day.
I also think that, since this is Bush's war, the next president should not be left to deal with the problems caused by the war. Bush keeps screaming about vetos, and no timetable for an end to the war. Bottom line, people, Bush has to leave office on January 20, 2009, at noon. Whoever the next president is, especially if it is a Democrat, and even if it is someone like Rudy Guliani, they can start pulling the troops out immediately upon taking office. Were I the GOP members of Congress who are up for re election in 2008, I would encourage Bush to have a troop pullout before the election, because, anyone who supports keeping the troops in there, and is up for re election, might well be jeporadizing their seats in Congress.
I hope that some agreement can be reached, and that the troops come home sometime next year. Enough is enough already. This war has gone on for four years, and Bush has made his mark in the history books, with his decisions, and his approval rating. How much more violence do we have to have, and how many more soldiers have to be killed, before Bush can finally admit he made a mistake with taking us into this war, and, right the wrong, by bringing our brave men and women home?

Mitch

[Robace252]

I say....forget the politics and politicans, and let the soldiers DECIDE for themselves. I just done with a conference session on a secure tele-conference with 25 ground commanders in charge of over 10,000 US Troops.
You know what they say.....
They are sick of Washington telling them how to do their job. They were sent to do a job, WMD's or no WMD's, they were not told to find WMD's, they were told to defeat the Iraqi army, find Saddam Hussein, keep Iraq safe until it could protect itself, and by doing so they would not only be protecting their country but quite possibly the world . Thats why they went. Thats the calling they answered. But yet armchair generals want to manage a war from 10,000 miles away and people who have never served a day in their lives, nor would they if asked, also rant and rave about bringing them home. In a straw poll the commanders took....guess what. Out of 10,000 troops, less than 100...thats right ONE HUNDRED wanted to go home without first finishing what they came to do.
Progress is being made right now. Death squads are down by half, bombings down over 30%, new vehicles arriving that can take a direct IED blast with the occupants inside receiveing only a minor jolt...and the tires can drive at 50 mph for miles when flat.
They are so sick of the press back home, they dont even want to see the news or read hometown newspapers.
As one Pvt. told me personally in a email....
"They dont understand the life of a soldier, and they never will. I just want to do my job, I dont care about the specifics of where and why. Im a soldier and thats my job. Too bad more people couldn't understand that. I dont need anyone to protect me or bring me home. I dont need people speaking for me, I can speak for myself. And I want to stay until the job is done."

I think if Congress is SERIOUS about wanting them home the fastest way possible, they need to do a few things...
1.)Call all the generals in for a conference call.
2.)Ask THEM for a "reasonable" timetable
3.)Shut the hell up, not tell the press what date was set and let the military do its job.
4.) IF the generals deadline passes, you call them back and ask why is the job not done yet. You give them 1....only ONE extension for a date. Again you keep the damn mouths shut and let them do their work.
5.) If the next extension passes and they say the job is still not done, apologize to the generals let the people know what the deal was and then tell the Iraqi government, you had your time now we have to go.

Its real simple, not Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Pres. Bush, John McCain, or any other member of congress knows EXCATLY what is going on right on the ground right now. Sure maybe they can read from the comfort of their leather chair or perhaps the stairmaster at the Capitol Fitness Center the latest reports, but they DO NOT KNOW.
They need to stop TELLING the troops whats best for them, and let the troops tell them what is best.

Rob

[Redmage]

Rob, I'd have been a little surprised if the soldiers did want to come home before the job is done. If nothing else it'd make them and their units look bad, but more than that it would mean that the buddies lost and the months spent chewing sand and dodging shrapnel would be for nothing.

Unfortunately in the real world it's not that simple. Those soldiers have mothers, fathers, wives and friends back home, and people who just care about them because they're our troops, and those people often have a very different set of priorities. And they all vote. So Congress has to pay attention to that as well, whatever the soldiers might want.

I am heartened by what we've seen in recent weeks, but only a little. I expect that the new tactics and higher troop strength will push back the insurgency for a time. But I think pretty soon they'll start adapting their own tactics. And then they'll push back. I think the Phrase of the Day in Washington is "cautious optimism." At this point I'm more with the caution than the optimism, but I hope optimism gets a chance.

Like I wrote in an earlier message, I think a deadline is inevitable. Sooner or later we'll have to decide that we've done enough, and set a date to begin standing down. The problem with keeping that date secret is this: The only good thing about a deadline (aside from actually getting us out of there) is it tells the Iraqi government that they have only this long to get their act together and prepare to take over from us. That means that the Iraqi government has to know the schedule, and THAT means that pretty soon the insurgents will know as well. I just don't think it's practical to keep that secret.

[MrMacphisto]

Why can't we just be honest? We've gotten to the point where military industries are a large part of our economy, and since "bombing brown people" is one of the few things we're still good at, we might as well admit that war is part of what keeps our economy afloat.

We can go ahead and bomb the hell out of Iran, take what we want, and then we can do the same with Pakistan, then various nations in Africa... etc.

While we're at it, we can balance the budget by ending all so