Kind of. I don't see what else we can do at this point. It's already happening. We can either take a side, stay in between or back off and let them kill each other until they come to their senses, if ever. We've already done everything in our power and the situation gets worse every year. It's gone on almost as long as WWII already. People are getting killed every day, both sides are armed with the latest infantry weapons and plenty of explosives. Both sides are getting help from the outside and we haven't even stopped that. Allow me a metaphorical example. When you dig yourself into a hole it may seem safe but it limits your perception, it limits your mobility, and it limits your options. The solution is not to dig the hole deeper worsening those things and adding the danger of collapse. The solution is to get out of the hole. So when I say we need to back off, I'm not saying "cut and run". I'm saying we climb out of the hole and regain all of our strengths and options. It's full-blown already. They are killing more of each other than they are killing us. What more has to happen before you can perceive this to be a civil war? Part of our political failure in Vietnam was the nearsightedness that kept politicians seeing the fight as part of the worldwide struggle agianst Communism, instead of the civil war that it was. It took us 8 long years to learn that lesson. It should have already been obvious by this time in Iraq.
It's not a civil war yet Red. I have some co-workers that just came back from there, they were commisioning a power plant. from what they say it could go either way, and right now WE are keeping things sane. yes we did sack the country, good call. But you take it to the extreme, some of the things you stated are worst case scenario... kind of like the media wants you to see/hear. Should we be there? I dunno. Im kind of a hard liner myself, maybe even worse than salty. I am fastly losing what compassion I have for even the most innocent of people in this area of the country. Kind of like that movie or song bond was in Live and let DIE. but that's off subject. No it's not a war anymore, it's a "peace keeping" clean upo detail and they suck. We've had some luck nation building before, see japan... but with Muslims.... I have my doubts.. They are planning to help those people, really. and secure future trade ( oil ) with it's leaders.. Like we did years ago in Iran... the problem is ... is it worth it? we see how iran turned out. Not all nation building efforts work. I guess you just have to toss a coin and say is it worth it for the people back home to lose these kin folk.... few I might add, though I am not lessening any single ONE. ( remember my brother in law just got back from afgan, five of his fellow comrades did not make it back ) but not lessening any one lose, we are still having very few casualties. Do i think it's worth it? IMHO no but someone does. I am not following blindly, either. if it turns that WHOLE area into a democray.... democracy is supposed to be infectous right? if it does and it enlightens those people AWAY from the hatred they live with and we all live peaceful with free trade, then it will have been worth it. Do I personally think that will happen? No but it is a good goal, and I could be wrong. I sincerely HOPE our endeavors and lose of troops works out for the best. I can only hope , pray and vote.
Why do you think that, seriously? It meets the basic definition. What would it have to become to be a civil war? Salty will call you a liberal, saying things like that. :yelwink2: Me neither, amigo. One has to be a realist about things this important. There is not a democracy anywhere in the Arab world and the likelyhood that we can force one on this situation in Iraq just ain't altogether likely. Democracy must come from within, usually by revolution, but also by cooperating with a conqueror as in Japan. I just don't see it in these angry ragheads and I don't love them like the republicans do.
You need to listen and believe a guy much smarter than you and I who has heard all of this hippie, liberal drivel before: Don Rumsfeld.
Basically you summed up how I feel. Hearing Rumsfeld kick Hillary's A$$ last week in some bogus hearing pretty much summed it up to me. We can't erase what these people in Iraq have gone through and we can't go over there and expect in 4 years for them to be wearing Levi's and trading stocks. It takes time.........patience. It seems the soldiers are willing to keep working on it and I am too.
Don Rumsfeld is a very smart guy, but he is a very poor military strategist , as our generals have pointed out and the situation demonstrates. He is largely responsible for the mismanagement of the Iraq fiasco. History will paint him with a blacker brush than McNamara was painted. At least McNamara recognized his errors and admitted it.
Good column from Walter Williams. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2006/08/23/will_the_west_defend_itself
I'll take up for Don Rumsfeld here, I am\ unhappy about things in Iraq though. I think we didn't fight and hit them hard enough, whoever them is. The way I see it the Administration can't win because you can't have it both ways. 1) Certain people including me have said on this board that you have to go in with overwhelming force, troops, etc, I am one of those. You don't let up on the enemy whoever they are until they are demoralized and surrender. 2) Or you can do what Bush has done with the soft approach in Iraq so your critics can criticize you and say they could've done it smarter and better without saying what that is. The same people who complain when some innocent civilians are killed. 3)The question comes to mind, how do you know those civilians are so innocent? This is a new type of war when anyone, man, woman, pregnant woman and child could be a (WHD) weapon of human destruction. PS Jimmy Carter sure is running his mouth and from his track record he has a lot of room to talk doesn't he? The guy that simply couldn't free the hostages, what a loser! Those who are against this administration will attack Rumsfeld whether he admits he is right or wrong so it doesn't matter. How many years did it take for McNamara to admit he was wrong anyway? Just remember that you can't have it both ways even though some try!
Absolutely. This is the lesson of Vietnam and the lesson of the Powell Doctrine, which worked beautifully in The Gulf War. Bush did not learn the first lesson and ignored the second, even though Powell was there telling him he was fugging up. Wrong, wrong, wrong. If Bush can't or won't do #1, then he shouldn't invade at all. Rumsfeld ignored the Powell Doctrine, which states that we must use overwhelming force to achieve our goals quickly or we don't go in at all. And never go in without an exit strategy in place. This administration ignored this and went in with a too-small force, refused to augment it, and never had an exit strategy. Iraq was a major political and military blunder resulting in a fiasco that is snowballing into a disaster. "Staying the course" is a recipe for absolute failure considering the dreadful course that these bozos have set. In Vietnam the mantra was "Peace with Honor" and we ended up with neither.
I'm actually not disagreeing with you here. I was trying to point out that some of the same ones who want Rumsfeld's head are some of the same ones that would want it regardless for instance they would be upset if we killed civilians in these countries by bombing going after targets in these countries. Some people including myself think we should've had better a better strategy but not only that. I think we should've used overwhelming force but not everyones definition of overwhelming force is the same I bet. 1) My definition is similar to WW II. You bomb the enemy to soften the land then you invade with overwhelming troops, not a target here or there. I think the worst thing the USA ever invented were smart weapons. Why? How do you break the back bone and demoralize the enemy with smart weapons? You Can't? Look at the heavy bombing of the Germans and Europe during WW II and that in many cases didn't stop the war. This is one argument where you could use it for my position or against it however the war as we know it today will go on for eternity with the way we are fighting it. The enemy is mixed in amongst the civilians, we might hit a few of their buildings and kill a few of them but their roads are still open and they still have plenty of places to function to lead a full life. Restaurants, power, water, etc, you can't demoralize the enemy in this way, it won't work! My last point, we will be at war with Iran soon enough, they are responsible for many of the problems in the middle east including terrorism.
