|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 20, 2007 5:13:51 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by jeffolie on Feb 20, 2007 11:02:15 GMT -6
I consider myself modestly conservative and I now favor withdrawing from Iraq. Democracy in Iraq is not working very well but a have strong convictions that democracy is the best form of government. Iraq has turned into a religious, low level civil war. So, count me among those who have changed their minds.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 21, 2007 3:55:52 GMT -6
I favor withdrawing as well. I agree that democracy is the best form of government. However, it doesn't appear that feeling is strong among Iraqis. At least the feeling is not strong enough to force them to compromise and come together into some type of unified government.
My view on Iraq is this. Though a withdrawal in the near future will be disastrous, it will be even more disastrous if we stay longer and withdraw later. We can no longer win. We can only cut our losses.
Iraq kind of parallels the housing bubble. A collapse in the near future will be bad. But prolonging the war will make the future collapse even worse.
We're destroying our military in a war we can't win. Our soldiers are in the middle of a civil war. The only our military can "win" in a civil war is to take one side only. If our mission is to create a democracy, by definition we can't take one side only. Consequently, we can't accomplish anything militarily in a civil war. There's no victory to achieve, because there is no one side we can help win. Trying to defend both sides in a civil war is impossible. The Bush administration knows this. That's why they refuse to accept that Iraq is in a civil war.
A civil war can only end when one side wins, or when both sides agree to stop fighting. The U.S. military can't help with either one. So it's time to get out, and get out soon. It's time to cut our losses and let the Iraqis resolve this themselves.
|
|
|
Post by jeffolie on Feb 21, 2007 11:40:05 GMT -6
Our military is not being runover nor destroyed. We have not lost that many dead but the injuries are high. The kill rate (only a little over 3000) is so low because of better personal armour but limbs are lost in lieu of deaths.
One military side effect of the war is that our vehicles, armour and techniques are being battle tested. Out with the old and in with the new and improved may be callous but that is the only way to establish the flaws in our equipement and battle tactics.
I do not view Iraq as a major war on the scale of the world wars. The military industrial complex will just have to 'make do' with the war it has. It will have to ramp up to sell new and improved stuff to the Pentagon. Time is running out on this war, the end of US envolvement is clearly in sight.
One technique has proven extremely effective - suicide car bombs against civilians. This low tech and high kill rate method serves to destroy morale and raise the level of desparation among each religious side. There is very little defense. The Israelis defend against suicide bombings with better human intel and an overbearing presence by guards at every mall enterance and wherever they can guard. The US is not willing to commit to such a large presence and the Iraqis have not learned the lesson Israel has learned on how to defend against this technique.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 22, 2007 3:50:50 GMT -6
I do not view Iraq as a major war on the scale of the world wars. The military industrial complex will just have to 'make do' with the war it has.... Time is running out on this war, the end of US envolvement is clearly in sight. I agree with that. I just hope we can get out before a bad situation becomes a complete disaster.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Feb 24, 2007 7:32:43 GMT -6
While there are prominent conservatives backing away from Iraq, my observation is that its more motivated by distancing themselves from an unpopular president and war, than by doing the right thing, basically saving their own skins.
Its funny to watch these guys who were beating the drums 6 years ago now try to deny they had anything to do with it.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 24, 2007 15:40:13 GMT -6
While there are prominent conservatives backing away from Iraq, my observation is that its more motivated by distancing themselves from an unpopular president and war, than by doing the right thing, basically saving their own skins. That's exactly right. My view is that this is a battle between the will of average Americans vs. the will of the pampered rich. The majority of Americans want us out. However, a large number of big-money interests want us to stay. And the Corporate-controlled media gives voice to these big-money interests, not those of average Americans. Since legislators are also influenced by the media, they're torn between carrying out the will of their constituents, vs. the will of their big-money campaign contributors. Since the Bush administration is basically the leadership of the Republican Party, Republican Senators and Congressmen risk losing the financial support of the big Republican campaign contributors if they support the will of their constituents, instead of the will of the President. Democrats are not immune to big-money influence either. But Democrats don't vote in lock-step the way Republicans do, and are more likely to vote independent of the will of party leadership than Republicans are. Unfortunately, Democrats are still allowing Republicans and the media to set the agenda and determine "talking points" in the Iraq debate. The overwhelming majority of Americans' major concern about Iraq is getting out (which truly is supporting our troops), not whether we "win," not about "supporting the mission," not about "sending the wrong message to the enemy," not about "democracy" or "freedom" in Iraq, and not about the "chaos" that'll occur when we leave Iraq. Americans' major concern in Iraq is about "getting out." Period. The other points are minor compared to that. The Corporate media has tried to tell us otherwise, by substituting their own concerns for the real concerns of the American people. Unfortunately, Democratic legislators are paying too much attention to the special interest "concerns" promoted by media, and too little to those of their constituents. The "concerns" of the media are largely the same as those of the rich. They're "concerned" that their international travel and international vacations might be less safe. They're concerned that their international investments might be less safe, and that their oil company investments might be endangered if the Middle East becomes unstable. Poor babies. They might have to sell one of their Lexus SUVs. Maybe even 2 of them. They might not be able to travel to any country they want to without some danger. They might lose some money on their Halliburton, Bechtel, or Exxon stock. My heart just bleeds for them. It must be very difficult being rich and not being able to indulge themselves to the max because of turmoil in the Middle East. It must be even harder to be rich and not be able to continue getting even richer from investments in companies that are war profiteering. Maybe they'll just have to suck it up. -------- I don't want to hear any more from the media (or our representatives) about how they "support the troops." I want to hear about how they're going to "help the troops" by getting them out of Iraq. Our troops are dying for nothing. The best "support" for the troops is to get them out ASAP. Continuing to fund a losing effort, and perpetuating the continued killing and maiming of American soldiers is not "supporting" them. It's "abandoning" them. It's making them cannon fodder. It's sacrificing them for the ego of a demented President, and the profits of war contractors. Let's "support our troops" by getting them out ASAP. Keeping them alive is the best "support" we could possibly give them. And getting them out of Iraq is the best way to keep them alive.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Feb 24, 2007 23:04:44 GMT -6
Isn't this what the right were saying about Kerry?
"I was for the war before I was against it"
Jeez what a bunch of hypocrites.
|
|