Here we go again...

Time to stock up on the macaroni and cheese!

 

I agree.

GW isn't as dumb as the left wing pansies think.

 

But he's not as smart as the right wing momma's boys think, either!

Rodger

 

Wouldn't the diplomatic way to parlay our triumph in Iraq be to handle this with visits by the Secretary of State and other foreign policy diplomats? Atleast as a first step? I don't totally disagree with the tactic but the method of execution is counterproductive IMO. Then again, this issue should have been taken up before any military action began in Iraq. James Baker did an outstanding job, as Secretary of State, behind the scene's before, after, and during Desert Storm to get/keep everyone inline in that region.

 

TALLLYYY----HOOOOOOOO !

 

"James Baker did an outstanding job, as Secretary of State, behind the scene's before, after, and during Desert Storm to get/keep everyone inline in that region.

It doesn't look that way fom here. If it was such a diplomatic success why have we had to go back and do it with violence and why did we abandon the tribes we talked into rising up.

The reasons for both are that we let ourselves be "diplomatically" talked out of following through with the actions necessary to support our words.

It seems to me that some people's definition of diplomacy is "whatever it takes not to fight". That includes flat "giving up". Losing the peace through diplomacy is not "successful diplomacy". It's just plain old "losing".

"Wouldn't the diplomatic way to parlay our triumph in Iraq be to handle this with visits by the Secretary of State and other foreign policy diplomats?"

Who says we can't do that too. And won't the diplomats be that much more credible if they are able to cast Bush as a "Crazy Man" who is held back only by a thread and with the American people behind him?

 

LMAO!!

Yes I would say you are correct.

 

You have no way of knowing for sure what would happen. Your opinion is based entirely on conditions as they are right now and not how things could be if we were a peaceful and benevolent country.

There are worlds other than the ones we experience now and have experienced in our lifetimes. If we can't 'see' them, we are bound to repeat the same series of events over and over...kind of like this debate.

 

RSDad: "Why do you insist on talking about how we are "wired"? We aren't computers - again you are about two paradigms behind in this analogy when compared with contemporary philosophers, neurologists, etc. - and there is no neurobiological support for some specific brain structure that supports your philosophy. Those are your beliefs based partly on genetic predisposition, life experience and consciousness. The power of a paternalistic, competitive, relatively immature (in terms of age) and capitalist-based society are likely to have had more of an impact on your views than any inherent "wiring"."


OH YEAH!!!!

 

Joss: OH YEAH WHAT???

 

Sorry but they are views based closely on reality not some euphoric drug induced fantasy wonderland of peace.

just kidding about the drug induced.

 

Uh, are we both talking about Desert Storm? The conflict with the predefined end-state of pushing the Iraqi military out of Kuwait and back into their own country? For good measure we crippled Iraq's offensive capability and passed U.N. resolutions to severly limit their future capabilities. We were successful in every aspect of that conflict and it forms the modern model for U.S. military conflict. Additionally, our politicians were successful in giving our military a foothold in the region by securing indefinite occupation of bases in Saudi Arabia and Jordan with an increased presence in Turkey. This has paid big dividends in the years since.

Abondoning the tribes is another issue entirely and only recently acknowledged. That was a big mistake and obviously a political dicision. Remember, our troops (Special Forces) were organizing and assisting those rebels to rise up. Unfortunately, that move was not without precident.

My heartburn is that with all that ground work laid, and a decade of cooperation, our political mouthpeices couldn't manage a single supporter in the region besides Kuwait. Perhaps U.S. support has erroded that much over time or Arab nations simply weren't going to support an invasion of Iraq. At the very least, the borders should have been sealed - that's not a tough negotiation. To visit that issue now, after a month of military involvement, is way too late. To address the issue with threats is Bush league!

How effective will negotiations be with a country that has been threatened? My opinion is that you cannot prejudice a nation against you and then successfully negotiate an amicable solution.....or, you'll catch more bee's with honey than vinegar (borrowed from my grandmother).

 

One of the biggest canards is, "That was then, this is now. We're different/better."

You know the old saying, Dad: "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it." It has been proven true countless times.

ARE we an evolving species? Other than technology, tell me what advances we've made. What evolutionary factor distinguishes Edison from Archimedes? What evolutionary factor distinguishes Neville Chamberlain from King John? Be precise.

 

I think Dad is refering to the evolution that is constantly occuring in our culture. For example, Bush would not think of dropping a nuke on Damascus as that would slaughter thousands of innocents -- this was something we did freely in WWII.

the general point is that we can learn from history and that we should strive to be better both as a culture and as individuals.

Rodger

 

"Uh, are we both talking about Desert Storm?"

Yes. Hugh picture perfect military victory, that was pulled up short of removing Saddam by the politicians and ineffective "diplomacy".

What I have heard is that the "then" coalition balked at removing Saddam.... so we didn't do it. That is Bush senior's legacy.... perfect battles to a stalemated war. Then the battles needed to be re-fought because of it.

"How effective will negotiations be with a country that has been threatened?"

We shall see.

 

Where do you come up with this stuff!? We defined an end-state for our conflict and met our objective. We removed our forces too quickly perhaps and didn't support a coup attempt. That's it. There was never an agenda to march to Bagdad and take out Saddam. We effectively neutered him and had every reason to believe we were done. Revisionist historians have run with this idea that we should have removed Saddam at that point. That's just mental masturbation so I'll stick to the facts.

 

"We effectively neutered him and had every reason to believe we were done. "

If we were DONE, then WHAT have we just fought.... and why?

And if there was never an agenda to take out Saddam, why not?

You started this in saying:

"James Baker did an outstanding job, as Secretary of State, behind the scene's before, after, and during Desert Storm to get/keep everyone inline in that region."

If everyone was in line, how come we had to go back?

The reason is we set the line so LOW.... just so we could say everyone agreed. Well it turns out to have been a job half finished and now we have had to go back and do it right.

Now you can go masturbate if you want... or try discussing this without the cute comments.

 

So what you're saying is that only Democrat presidents use nuclear weapons?

As someone who takes great pains to understand the reasons behind historic events and not just pop off whatever revisionism is popular at the moment, I would like to take this opportunity to point out that:

1. There were very few (if any) "innocents" in Japan. The civilian population, including women and children, was training en masse to repulse an invasion force. The calculation was that fewer people would ultimately die on both sides if the A-bombs were dropped than if they were not. That calculation was correct.

2. Now here we are getting close to 50 years later and we are forced to deal with terrorists, petty dictators and unstable, overpopulated nations who possess or potentially have access to nuclear weapons.

You call that evolution? I don't.

That wasn't the "general point" Dad was making. He was saying that we have EVOLVED.