Subject:
|
Re: Not the right way to exit?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 21 Jul 2004 18:44:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
887 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Laswell wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks wrote:
> > We should either conquer them or get the hell out.
>
> We'd lose any remaining credibility if we just annexed them into the US (not to
> mention the added drawback of being permanently stuck with them until either we
> or they are all dead, which is really a greater cost than the oil is worth),
Oh, yeah, I don't think we should annex them. But if we're going to hang out we
need to stop hemorrhaging. The way to do that is to break their will to resist.
> The trick is that our victory or loss here is going to ultimately be decided
> by what happens after we're gone. If Iraq can sustain itself as a democracy
> without US troops standing around to enforce it, it's a victory.
Sure, that would be a wild, stunning and amazing victory. Fat chance.
> If things start spiralling downward soon after we leave, and they end up
> under the subjugative control of one or more warlords/radical clerics,
> it's a loss.
I dunno. It depends on what our goals were for going in. Win and loss can only
really be measured against goals and I don't believe they have been made public.
Though I agree that, even if I think this outcome is basically inevitable, it is
bad for Iraq, the US and the world. But it might be that the new post-war
warlordized Iraq will not be capable of maintaining the standing army that
Saddam could. If our goal was to decimate the nation's ability to do that, then
this could still be a win.
> And if it looks like we were forced to retreat by terrorists and/or
> insurgents, it's also a loss.
Again, it all depends on goals. What I don't understand is why you all want to
grant those people (terrorists and insurgents) so much power over us. If they
make a demand, we have to do the opposite just to look tough? That's crazy. We
should utterly and completely ignore their demands and just do what's best.
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Not the right way to exit?
|
| (...) We'd lose any remaining credibility if we just annexed them into the US (not to mention the added drawback of being permanently stuck with them until either we or they are all dead, which is really a greater cost than the oil is worth), and we (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
56 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
