[mike777]

Winstonm, on May 26 2007, 04:55 PM, said:

mike777, on May 26 2007, 04:36 PM, said:

Your best guess may very well be dead on but I see little or no discussion of this on the news or in the newspapers.  Do people know that get out now means American combat power stays in Iraq?  Americans continue to fight, lose limbs and die? I see no discussion if your guess is the best option for the USA or even what the options are.

I wonder how the American public would poll if they thought "get out now" means we stay, we fight, we continue to die.

What is wrong with a get out now strategy similar to the Vietnam get out now effort. I don't remember any troops left stationed in Ho Chi Minh City and don't recall any sent back. What is so incredible about Ron Paul's non-interventionist ideas. The only thing that keeps us in Iraq, and threatens to keep us there for centuries is U.S. policy.

The middle-east is quite capable of screwing up their own affairs without the U.S. helping them along. If a division of Islamic fundamentalists lands on Long Beach, then we can fight them. If terrorists plot to blow up Washington, we can arrest them. What we don't need to do is go halfway around the world to try to bully a country into adopting our views. Better for us to figure out how to maintain our own economy than to try to take an agenca by force to the rest of the world.

I think we are living in the past too much, thinking America is still such a huge superpower, when we are much closer to the end of our reign as world champs than the beginning. Dynasty's that lose control of their own economies are doomed to failure.

Ok, so you seem clear here. You want a policy, plan similiar to what we did in Vietnam. I hope this is not just refighting a war or afterwar from your youth.

In any event you are clear.

I just wish those pushing for the vote were this clear. I see nothing reported on these issues.

[Winstonm]

pbleighton, on May 26 2007, 05:00 PM, said:

Quote

I think we are living in the past too much, thinking America is still such a huge superpower, when we are much closer to the end of our reign as world champs than the beginning. Dynasty's that lose control of their own economies are doomed to failure.

Well, IMO we are still such a huge superpower, we are just completely delusional about the limits of force, and in denial about the criminality of *preemptive* wars.

Peter

As much as I respect your views, your intelligence, and your education, I regrettably must disagree. IMO, the only advantage the U.S. holds over the world is in military might - numbers of nukes and warring technologies.

China and the E.U. surpass us in increase of GDP. We are the largest debtor nation in the history of the world. We, at this time, depend on over $3B a day from FCBs to finance our debt. We import 50% of our oil. Our currency is being debased, with Kuwait, Iran, Brazil and Argentina now abandoning the dollar as its reserve currency.

And as Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq have proven, techonological military superiority doesn't count for much without the necessary troops to sustain the occupation against handfuls of insurgents. So we are really back to cold war status in that our only real advantage is in nuclear superiority - which we would have to be criminally insane to utilize.

Times have changed. Now we say, "Talk softy and have a good banker because you will need to borrow enough money to be able to buy your big stick from China."

[pbleighton]

Quote

I just wish those pushing for the vote were this clear. I see nothing reported on these issues.

Don't hold your breath, Mike. Americans hate losing, and love to shoot the messenger. We're polically immature, and get the government we deserve.

Peter

[hrothgar]

mike777, on May 27 2007, 12:36 AM, said:

Your best guess may very well be dead on but I see little or no discussion of this on the news or in the newspapers.  Do people know that get out now means American combat power stays in Iraq?  Americans continue to fight, lose limbs and die? I see no discussion if your guess is the best option for the USA or even what the options are.

No offense Mike, but maybe you need to spend more time reading newspapers... None of the comments that I made are in any way original. All of these themes are being discussed, both in print, radio, and on line. You simply need to spend some time and effort to know where to look.

As I've mentioned before, the "On Point" show that NPR produces is invaluable. In any given week, four of their 10 hour long shows are "must hear" events. There are a number of very good web sites that act as aggregators and provide good pointers at major happenings each day.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/ is a great source, though it tends to focus on domestic policy issues.

Glenn Greenwald's Daily column at Salon invariably has some very useful information:
http://www.salon.com...nion/greenwald/

Salon also has a Blog Report that provides pointers at a number of the hot topics in the Blogsphere.
http://blogreport.salon.com/

If you are especially interested in the Middle East, Juan Cole normally has something interesting to say
http://www.juancole.com/

Regretfully, as the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. I have no clue what the average American believes "Get Out Now" means. The bulk of the population was woefully misinformed at the start of the war. I have little reason to expect that they are any better informed now...

[Winstonm]

Quote

Ok, so you seem clear here. You want a policy, plan similiar to what we did in Vietnam. I hope this is not just refighting a war or afterwar from your youth.

In any event you are clear.

I just wish those pushing for the vote were this clear. I see nothing reported on these issues.

The only politician I hear echoing these sentiments is Ron Paul - and he is being ignored by the media. I happen to think he is right on many fronts, that what the CIA terms "blowback" is a price we tend to ignore for our interventions. Would we have had the Iran hostage crisis without intervening in 1953 to re-institute the Shah? We first supported and trained Osama bin Laden to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan - what a surprise that he would have the ability and training to turn against us.

I find it odd that we constantly debate what to do about Iraq, when there never should have been an Iraq invasion in the first place. The question should be what penalties are justified for the warmongers who lied us into this insanity?

The fact that we invaded does not give us de facto justification for staying. When you take a bull into a china shop and it destroys half the china, the object at that point is not to try to tame the bull and put it on a leash, but to get the bull the hell out so the shopowner can clean up the mess. Of course, if you wanted to pay for the damage that would be civil - we'll ask the BoJ for a 0.5% loan to handle that, which they will be happy to comply with as the inflationary pressures of the expanded money supply leaves their little island and lands elsewhere.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Regretfully, as the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. I have no clue what the average American believes "Get Out Now" means. The bulk of the population was woefully misinformed at the start of the war. I have little reason to expect that they are any better informed now...

True, but I bet 8 out of 10 can tell you the names of the finalists on "American Idol". Unfortunately, for too many the major effort of digging out information is essentially remote control flipping among ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and Fox. It's hard to know if this is a condemnation of the average citizen or the media or both.

[Winstonm]

As was quoted in the original post.... "Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D."

Consider step C:

Quote

US citizens who apply for a job will need prior approval from Department of Homeland Security under the terms immigration bill passed by the Senate this week.
American Civil Liberties Union pointed out that the DHS's Employment Eligibility Verification System (EEVS) is error plagued and if the department makes a mistake in determining work eligibility, there will be virtually no way to challenge the error or recover lost wages due to the bill’s prohibitions on judicial review.

Even current employees will need to obtain eligibility approval from the DHS Within 60 days of the Immigration Reform Act of 2006 becoming law.

"EEVS would be a financial and bureaucratic nightmare for both businesses and workers," said Timothy Sparapani, ACLU Legislative Counsel. "Under this already flawed program no one would be able to work in the U.S. without DHS approval - creating a ‘No Work List’ similar to the government’s ‘No Fly List.’ We need immigration reform, but not at this cost."

Insidious. Incremental. First a shoe inspection. Then a drink ban. Then a no fly list. Now a no work list?

When they came for the Jews, I did not act, for I was not a Jew.

[mike777]

hrothgar, on May 26 2007, 05:24 PM, said:

mike777, on May 27 2007, 12:36 AM, said:

Your best guess may very well be dead on but I see little or no discussion of this on the news or in the newspapers.  Do people know that get out now means American combat power stays in Iraq?  Americans continue to fight, lose limbs and die? I see no discussion if your guess is the best option for the USA or even what the options are.

No offense Mike, but maybe you need to spend more time reading newspapers... None of the comments that I made are in any way original. All of these themes are being discussed, both in print, radio, and on line. You simply need to spend some time and effort to know where to look.

As I've mentioned before, the "On Point" show that NPR produces is invaluable. In any given week, four of their 10 hour long shows are "must hear" events. There are a number of very good web sites that act as aggregators and provide good pointers at major happenings each day.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/ is a great source, though it tends to focus on domestic policy issues.

Glenn Greenwald's Daily column at Salon invariably has some very useful information:
http://www.salon.com...nion/greenwald/

Salon also has a Blog Report that provides pointers at a number of the hot topics in the Blogsphere.
http://blogreport.salon.com/

If you are especially interested in the Middle East, Juan Cole normally has something interesting to say
http://www.juancole.com/

Regretfully, as the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. I have no clue what the average American believes "Get Out Now" means. The bulk of the population was woefully misinformed at the start of the war. I have little reason to expect that they are any better informed now...

Yes, I know your comments Richard. They repeat what I have discussed here for a long time. But those were my comments, not what I see in the media.
I will check out your sites. I hope they discuss the pros and cons of the options.

My guess is close to yours and what will happen, more killing, deaths and pain and troops/air/sea assests in Iraq for decades. I am not saying anything new.

[pbleighton]

Mike, what would you do about Iraq if you were in charge?

Peter

[mike777]

pbleighton, on May 26 2007, 06:24 PM, said:

Mike, what would you do about Iraq if you were in charge?

Peter

1) Iraq is part of a true global war with Radical Islam
2) The war will last for 40 more years
3) We will make many mistakes, many will look silly years later.
4) Our options today in Iraq are crap and more crappier.
5) We will have thousands and thousands of combat assets in Iraq 40 years from today.
6) I would ask more questions.
7) Sept is a watershed month but we will never have a full pull out or anything close to how Vietnam ended for the USA.
8) If I was in charge I would make many mistakes in Iraq and the wider war in the next 8 years.

[pbleighton]

Quote

1) Iraq is part of a true global war with Radical Islam
2) The war will last for 40 more years
3) We will make many mistakes, many will look silly years later.
4) Our options today in Iraq are crap and more crappier.
5) We will have thousands and thousands of combat assets in Iraq 40 years from today.
6) I would ask more questions.
7) Sept is a watershed month but we will never have a full pull out or anything close to how Vietnam ended for the USA.
8) If I was in charge I would make many mistakes in Iraq and the wider war in the next 8 years.

So you would stay indefinitely in Iraq. That's what I thought.

Next question: whose side are we on in the civil war? Note that I'm NOT asking whose side we're against.

Peter

[mike777]

pbleighton, on May 26 2007, 06:44 PM, said:

Quote

1) Iraq is part of a true global war with Radical Islam
2) The war will last for 40 more years
3) We will make many mistakes, many will look silly years later.
4) Our options today in Iraq are crap and more crappier.
5) We will have thousands and thousands of combat assets in Iraq 40 years from today.
6) I would ask more questions.
7) Sept is a watershed month but we will never have a full pull out or anything close to how Vietnam ended for the USA.
8) If I was in charge I would make many mistakes in Iraq and the wider war in the next 8 years.

So you would stay indefinitely in Iraq. That's what I thought.

Next question: whose side are we on in the civil war? Note that I'm NOT asking whose side we're against.

Peter

I am on the side of the Kurds for starters. Yep that causes problems with the Turks and others I know.
In any event Iraq is just a small part of whose side I am on...global war...not just Iraq.
I would make Lieberman Defense Sec if elected as a Republican.
Cheney if elected as a Democrat..you get the idea.
I assume Powell would not take the job so I put him in somewhere close.

My main domestic goal...jobs..jobs and more jobs....

[hrothgar]

mike777, on May 27 2007, 02:37 AM, said:

pbleighton, on May 26 2007, 06:24 PM, said:

Mike, what would you do about Iraq if you were in charge?

Peter

1) Iraq is part of a true global war with Radical Islam
2) The war will last for 40 more years
3) We will make many mistakes, many will look silly years later.
4) Our options today in Iraq are crap and more crappier.
5) We will have thousands and thousands of combat assets in Iraq 40 years from today.
6) I would ask more questions.
7) Sept is a watershed month but we will never have a full pull out or anything close to how Vietnam ended for the USA.
8) If I was in charge I would make many mistakes in Iraq and the wider war in the next 8 years.

No offense, but this looks to be a random collection of justifications and excuses.
You haven't identified any kind of coherent policy other than asking questions.

I'm not saying that asking questions is a bad thing, not am I surprised to see that this represents the totality of your policy prescription. (Indeed, I've faulted you for this on many an occasion). However, it would be nice to see some kind of concrete recommendation...

[mike777]

hrothgar, on May 26 2007, 06:54 PM, said:

mike777, on May 27 2007, 02:37 AM, said:

pbleighton, on May 26 2007, 06:24 PM, said:

Mike, what would you do about Iraq if you were in charge?

Peter

1) Iraq is part of a true global war with Radical Islam
2) The war will last for 40 more years
3) We will make many mistakes, many will look silly years later.
4) Our options today in Iraq are crap and more crappier.
5) We will have thousands and thousands of combat assets in Iraq 40 years from today.
6) I would ask more questions.
7) Sept is a watershed month but we will never have a full pull out or anything close to how Vietnam ended for the USA.
8) If I was in charge I would make many mistakes in Iraq and the wider war in the next 8 years.

No offense, but this looks to be a random collection of justifications and excuses.
You haven't identified any kind of coherent policy other than asking questions.

I'm not saying that asking questions is a bad thing, not am I surprised to see that this represents the totality of your policy prescription. (Indeed, I've faulted you for this on many an occasion). However, it would be nice to see some kind of concrete recommendation...

Me too, but I would need many more questions answered and more information.
Bottom line, I would expect to make many mistakes.
I think tech will help in the long run.
Mainly, find the enemy and kill it. Is that pretty vague, yes in someways it is. I agree.
I know that only sounds like a partial plan, yep.

[pbleighton]

Quote

I am on the side of the Kurds for starters.

That's easy. How about the other 90% of the country?

Cheney as SecDef. Wow! A guy with a track record!

At least you wouldn't have to worry about intelligence which contradicted your policies

Jobs, jobs, jobs... would you institute a draft, so we could have the 450,000-600,000 combat troops which the counterinsurgency manual says we need to do the job in Iraq? Plus another 1.5 million to do the same to Iran?

Dude, you'd be rocking!

Peter

[mike777]

pbleighton, on May 26 2007, 06:58 PM, said:

Quote

I am on the side of the Kurds for starters.

That's easy. How about the other 90% of the country?

Cheney as SecDef. Wow! A guy with a track record!

At least you wouldn't have to worry about intelligence which contradicted your policies

Jobs, jobs, jobs... would you institute a draft, so we could have the 450,000-600,000 combat troops which the counterinsurgency manual says we need to do the job in Iraq? Plus another 1.5 million to do the same to Iran?

Dude, you'd be rocking!

Peter

If you got a fuller plan, I am listening.

[pbleighton]

Quote

If you got a fuller plan, I am listening

Vietnam. Out. Dig it?

Peter

[mike777]

I.C.


My best guess in fighting the global war on terror is:
1) convincing people it is real war.
2) it is worth fighting and winning
3) ok....one and two are huge and very tough.
4) fight the war akin to how we fought the American Indian wars.
5) point 4 would be very tough to get agreement to do, maybe impossible.

[pbleighton]

Quote

4) fight the war akin to how we fought the American Indian wars.
5) point 4 would be very tough to get agreement to do, maybe impossible.

Yes, genocide has become unpopular.

Peter

[Winstonm]

Quote

Cheney as SecDef.

Gee, Mike, if you could only get Goebbels as Propaganda Minister and figure out a way to invade Poland I think you'd have it.

Quote

1) convincing people it is real war

If it is a real war, it doesn't require convincing.

Quote

fight the war akin to how we fought the American Indian wars.

Along with this plan, do we also change the Star Spangled Banner to Onward Christian Soldiers?