Your War Policy Please...Draw You Plans

Discussion in 'Politics' started by canyonman00, Oct 14, 2002.

  1. I am sorry that you think the only answer can be a military. Never once did I limit the discussion to that. I merely ask that a participant be prepared to fully defend and/or elaborate on their plan. If you hadn't thought of the next problem/issue we would tackle it together. Levity, is not an option here. That can be found over on the other thread. :)
     
    #31     Oct 15, 2002
  2. Great, you've evidenced that you have a belief of what Bush wants to do. You have also gave a fairly competent listing of the parameters that we face. But you have yet to articulate YOUR way of handling the dilemma. I am not interested in your critique of the matters as they stand, I want your program. Front and center. Ready to be reviewed and tested. Otherwise, thanks for the outline. :)
     
    #32     Oct 15, 2002
  3. rs7

    rs7

    First off, if this was addressed to me, which it appears to be, I do not think the only answer "can be a military" response. I thought I made it clear that I believed a military response should be one of last resort.

    "levity is not an option"...ok. Well the LSD is obviously an extreme example of exaggeration. Yet the premise of actual one on one negotiation is actually a tried and true approach. Had Gorbachev and Reagan not met face to face in the late 80's, who knows what path the world would have followed afterwards. It is easy to sit back and say "well the Soviet Union was financially in ruins, and the system didn't work, and it would have collapsed anyway". But we can never KNOW for sure. If Kennedy and Kruschev had not spoken directly, who knows for sure if we would be here today. So if I spoke with "levity" about direct contact between Bush and Saddam, there was still the underlying concept of real discussion leading to real understanding.

    Now I readily admit that any such discussion would most likely be an exercise in futility. However, if it could be arranged, there truly would be very little downside. It is amazing how human beings can generally find some common ground or a way to compromise. It is human nature (in most cases..). Saddam is, to our knowledge not a rational human being. However, none of us have ever really been in a position to know exactly what goes through his head. From what we hear and read, he is not to be reasoned with. But can a complete lunatic really retain so much power for so long? And if he is as bad as we are lead to believe, how is it possible that he has not been eliminated by those closest to him? His family, his guards, his servants? The stories we hear of his blatant brutality defy reason.

    Please don't misinterpret my meaning. I personally think he personifies evil. But he seems to be such a caricature of himself that I can't help but wonder if our perceptions can be real. Can anyone be that purely evil? Even Hitler has his softer side. (No defense of Hitler intended...I would go back in time if I could and kill him myself if possible).

    We negotiated directly with Stalin. He turned on us eventually (as have so many of the Arab and other third world "allies" we have backed at one time or another). But even the brief alliance with Stalin served our purposes for the duration of the War with Germany.

    I just think every option should be considered. If nothing works, I believe a limited tactical strike on the leadership of Iraq would make more sense than a massive ground attack. Maybe the old adage "cut off the head and the body dies" will hold true. If we can eliminate Saddam, we may not have to bother with the Iraqi army. And certainly not with the Iraqi people.

    And an "occupation" could actually be beneficial to all. It could be a way to contribute food, education and financial support to a nation that otherwise would never accept our contributions without all the goods and services going to the corrupt regimes that are in control. You cannot give foreign aid of any kind when you try and bypass a regime like Saddam's. Remember Somalia.

    Just my disjointed thoughts for this morning. I don't see how the "Afghanistan" approach would play out in Iraq. Afghanistan was a different situation. No organized army, no distinct
    "popular" leadership, no conventional anything. And importantly, no natural resources with which to use as bargaining chips as there are in Iraq. Remember what the Iraqi forces did when they left Kuwait. If their mentality can conceive of such destructive behavior, then they could be manipulated into believing that we can sever their only assets that make them a viable presence in the world. Threaten to take their resources, and they may crumble with the fear that they would have nothing left with which to deal with the world. In the end, it comes down to putting Iraq in a position of being forced to decide what path will best serve their own purposes. And it would not seem that difficult to limit their choices to either cooperate, or be a global outcast. Broke, hungry and devoid of hope. And all they need to do is take some control over their own lives. These are more educated and more secular people than we have had to deal with in places like Afghanistan. Or Somalia. Psychological warfare should do the trick in Iraq. As long as we can clear the way by somehow taking Saddam and his lunatic sons out of the equation.

    Rs7
     
    #33     Oct 15, 2002
  4. canyonman, i am still getting my arms around the current state of events. I have not formulated a comprehensive policy on Iraq and probably won't.

    I would prefer an open aired debate - which is not being waged through the major media but is through alternative media - among policy wonks, critics, war planners, peaceniks, social architects, business interests, religious leaders, politicians.

    What's your plan? Or are you just a critic laying in wait?
     
    #34     Oct 15, 2002
  5.  
    #35     Oct 15, 2002
  6. vvv

    vvv

    hmm, says who exactly, apart from dubya, in the face of a national debt 3x GDP?

    as it is, you are asking for arguments for a presupposition whose validity has in no way been established.

    only the moron in chief, dubya, actually came up with the imbecilic notion that anybody had to do anything much different than our policies towards other rogue states such as the ussr, syria, libya, north korea, iran, pakistan, and saudi arabia, etc, countries that either had, have or are seeking weapons of mass destruction, have invaded their neighbors, and used chemical weapons, said policies being containment and deterrence, and, specifically re iraq, the return of un weapons inspectors with an international mandate for full scale weapons inspections.

    iraq in no way poses a threat to the usa or even to its neighbors, why would saddam attack the usa either directly or indirectly, when full scale retaliation is a logical given that saddam is fully aware of, and where even the cia has publicly stated, as is indeed only common sense after all, that while it is unlikely that saddam would stage an attack against us unless provoked, said provocation would obviously make an attack very much more likely.

    going after saddam is therefore by no means a logical step in the effort against terrorism, no, it is just an extremely costly and illogical, indeed potentially extremely counter-productive, detraction from what should be a priority, namely fighting terrorism and its causes.

    if terrorism where really what bush were fighting. which of course he is not. same incompetence, different fields: the economy, and the effort against terrorism.

    thus, this entire hypocritical mess is just a classical case of

    [​IMG]

    http://www.wag-the-dog.com

    brent scowcroft, national security advisor to presidents gerald ford & george bush senior:
    Don't Attack Saddam
    It would undermine our antiterror efforts

    http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002133
     
    #36     Oct 15, 2002
  7.  
    #37     Oct 15, 2002
  8. vvv

    vvv

    oh, canyon, are you serious?? really looks like all you're doing here is attempting to play the game bush is playing, trying, with very happily ever decreasing success, to pull wool over the eyes of american citizens, by pretending, contrary to all evidence and even mere common sense, that a strike against saddam is legitimate and necessary, by trying to make those who opposes such tomfoolery be made out as unpatriotic, through ministry of propaganda slogans such as, if you're not with us, you're against us, wanted dead or alive, and similar nonsense.

    [​IMG]

    ...Even in her best-case scenario, with all the advantages of education, health, a car, and money for first month's rent, she has to work two jobs, seven days a week, and still almost winds up in a shelter...

    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...r=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-7311694-0445415?v=glance

    brent scowcroft, national security advisor to presidents gerald ford & george bush senior:
    Don't Attack Saddam
    It would undermine our antiterror efforts

     
    #38     Oct 15, 2002
  9. Hmm. Policy wonks are why we are where we are so they definitely would not be too high on my list of innovative planning. Nor would most of the other agenda specialists that you listed. That's why I am turning to you. Hopefully, you are expanding your mind beyond what you are hearing from all the pundits.

    Comprehensive policy? Now there's a novel concept. Is that possible with our government. Every side seems to be trying to get a leg up on the other rather than developing a long term path. A path that will be beneficial to us ALL. American, Iraqi, Arab, etc., all sharing in the efforts and results therof.

    My plan is still being put together. A little pepper here. Some sea salt there. The broth is coming along fine. I think this meal needs a salad too. I am not a sideline chef here. This, is my kitchen this time. Dinner will be served. Grab a chair, you're invited! :)
     
    #39     Oct 15, 2002
  10. vvv

    vvv

    invited to a magical mystery tour with the foregone conclusion that in a make believe world inhabited by the likes of dubya and his happily few comrades in arms logic need not apply, hence no need for bringing up any actual reasons with actual substance as opposed to mere spin doctoring for taking on saddam?

    wagging the dog, in other words?

    why, thanks for the invitation.

    if the the movie is anything to go by, that was good. and now we even have the undiluted pleasure of seeing it being enacted live.

    and live is always better, wouldn't you agree?

    ah, i'll just infer that you agree, as you have very graciously extended such a kind invitation to be first row participants in a good old game of spin spinning merrily away beyond belief.:D
     
    #40     Oct 15, 2002