04-26-2007, 08:02 PM | #51 | |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
Quote:
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster |
|
04-26-2007, 08:21 PM | #52 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Memphis freakin' Tennessee!!!!!
Posts: 4,530
|
Sorry for abandoning the thread I started (and which has taken an unexpected turn). I’ve been in bed all day. I think I caught the SiEQ flu, so if what I write is Nyquil-induced incoherent drivel, then I’ll use that excuse, much like SU does with his “hey, couldn’t you see that was TIC?”
I still see only one rational choice, as outlined by Lieberman: remaining in Iraq until some form of credible stability can be established. Frankly, I don’t know what the Democratic leadership proposes as an alternative, aside from a staged pullout. That’s it, cut and run, let the Iraqis work it out (if I’m wrong, please correct me). Another component of their message is the blame game and putting forth the “reinstitute the draft and send in 300,000 troops” strawman. These are just politically expedient arguments, not helpful dialogue leading to a solution. Reid’s “the war is lost” statement while our men and women are still on the field of battle is unforgivable. Pelosi’s missing the Petraeus briefing says much about where she is on this issue. So I see basically two choices (both bad choices): 1) stay in strength and do what needs to be done to establish stability until the Iraqis can take over, or 2) commit to disengagement now and get out, leaving the Iraqis to work this out on their own. Both choices involve the eventual pullout of U.S. troops, only under extremely different circumstances. I fear the consequences of number 2 much more than those of number 1. I’m left with only one choice.
__________________
Give 'em Hell, Cougars!!! Religion rises inevitably from our apprehension of our own death. To give meaning to meaninglessness is the endless quest of all religion. When death becomes the center of our consciousness, then religion authentically begins. Of all religions that I know, the one that most vehemently and persuasively defies and denies the reality of death is the original Mormonism of the Prophet, Seer and Revelator, Joseph Smith. |
04-26-2007, 08:21 PM | #53 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
|
Quote:
__________________
Sorry for th e tpyos. |
|
04-26-2007, 08:37 PM | #54 |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
Detroit: Which culture is inferior: The drug culture or LDS culture?
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster |
04-26-2007, 09:38 PM | #55 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Bluth Home
Posts: 3,877
|
Quote:
I think we have a good idea at this point of what the continued cost of our presence there is. I think that there needs to be some talk about the cost, as best we can approximate it, of the slaughter that will ensue if we withdraw. Many folks who think we ought to get into the middle of what is happening in Darfur for humanitarian reasons seem to not be terribly focused on the idea that pulling out of Iraq may well create another Darfur. I think that is the only reason I remain willing to support us being there. That is, staying there is the devil I know.
__________________
The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. -Galileo |
|
04-26-2007, 09:45 PM | #56 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
|
That's like asking "Which vehicle is inferior: A Ferrari or the streisand remake of "A Star is Born", which is a star-vehicle?"
__________________
Sorry for th e tpyos. |
04-26-2007, 09:47 PM | #57 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,964
|
But the devil you know is extremely expensive and is costing American lives. I might get beat up for this, but I really don't give a rat's ass what happens to the citizens of Iraq. We didn't invade Iraq for their benefit and they don't want us there. If they end up killing each other, then Oh Well.
__________________
...You've been under attack for days, there's a soldier down, he's wounded, gangrene's setting in, 'Who's used all the penicillin?' 'Oh, Mark Paxson sir, he's got knob rot off of some tart.'" - Gareth Keenan |
04-26-2007, 09:51 PM | #58 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Bluth Home
Posts: 3,877
|
Quote:
__________________
The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. -Galileo |
|
04-26-2007, 10:05 PM | #59 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
|
Quote:
|
|
04-26-2007, 10:39 PM | #60 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
I am also concerned about creating another Darfur. What I don't know is whether we can prevent it by staying. If we can't, we would be better off to get out and save American lives while we can. The last thing we want is to be caught with over 100,000 American troops between two full out warring religious factions with support for the factions coming from Iran and Saudi Arabia, among others. Who knows what will happen with Turkey and the Kurds, or with the oil that the Kurds control. Staying under the status quo is not a good option. The Iraqis are devolving into a full civil war and will be there shortly. They are also growing angrier with the US occupation, killing our soldiers, and costing the US a fortune. Leaving will produce an immediate civil war, but would save American lives in the short term (and maybe in the long term as the Sunnis and Shiites focus on exterminating each other for a while). But this also produces lots of moral questions, akin to Darfur. Quite honestly, the least crappy solution immediately may also be the riskiest for the long term- the infusion of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers into Iraq. That is the route I would follow at this point, though it could be nothing short of catastrophic. The second best possiblity I see is to announce a date for withdrawal that is a year to two years in the future. This should calm down the insurgency (why fight when you know you can just wait things out with less risk), possibly allowing us to get more accomplished in the next year or two than would ever be possible otherwise. It also would force the Iraqis to get serious about preparing for their own security rather than relying on the power of the US military to handle their problems for them. Last edited by Cali Coug; 04-26-2007 at 10:47 PM. |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|