Subject:
|
Re: Where's Larry and Hoppy when you need 'em???
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 6 Feb 2007 21:39:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3449 times
|
| |
|
|
I know you were writing to John, but...
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Thomas Stangl wrote:
> So you see no problem with spending a TRillion dollars per country for
> the war on terror? How long do you think the US can do this before a
> total collapse? Regardless of our rosy economy, if we insist on
> spending a TRillion dollars on Iraq alone, and keep threatening to march
> into other countries, we're done for.
Well, probably for a while longer. My thing is that we've taken on a
responsibility by mucking things up in Iraq. What we've done so far has be
pretty bad. What we'd be doing by bailing out would be even worse. I think the
war was pursued on false grounds -- Bushco clearly lied to us. But I'm enough
open-minded about it to consider that there might really be valid reasons to
have done it -- reasons that wouldn't pass public scrutiny for our group
shortsightedness. Maybe. Either way, we're there and we messed things up and
we have to do whatever it takes to help set things straight. If we're genuinely
incapable of pacifying Iraq, what kind of superpower are we? Whatever it ends
up costing -- that's what we owe.
> As for fighting on the front, Bush would still have my support IF he had
> stuck with just Afghanistan. There was a true terror front there
> (that's getting worse), and we had a valid reason to be there. We never
> really had a valid reason to be in Iraq.
I'm still assuming that Iran has been the real target all along. If we can
engineer a world where US troops are stationed in relative security in both
Afghanistan and Iraq, we are in a uniquely opportune position to exert influence
-- political or military on Iran. I'm totally open to arguments that this
strategy is either evil or overwrought. Totally. But if we assume that Iran
will be a real danger (or that peak oil is real) in the coming two decades this
might be a wise investment.
> > > Please answer these two questions, for the record:¬
> > > What would qualify as success in Iraq?¬
> >
> > The formation of a stable, democratic `[1`] state of Iraq.
>
> I don't see this ever happening, the Shiite/Sunnis will never agree
> enough to let it continue. I sure do hope I'm wrong, though.
Things change. Maybe full-scale westernization and pacification will take 100
years. Maybe a 'soft partition' will happen. Maybe one side will escalate to a
genocide while we pretend to wring our hands in dismay. One way or another
there will be peace eventually.
What I don't get is why they need to be democratic. Why didn't we just foment
regime change or even court Sadam if we just needed some bases and more regional
oversight. So maybe my entire set of assumptions is wrong. But I can't come up
with other reasons that make sense.
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
115 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
