Sincere question

Post #180,844 by ben_tilly 10/25/04 12:24:53 PM Reply	Sincere question You don't think that Iraq would blow anyways under Bush? If so then we have opposing understandings of geopolitics. Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #180,947 by JayMehaffey 10/25/04 7:51:56 PM Reply	It's going to be ugly no matter what It's going to be ugly in Iraq no matter what. But leaving the soldiers hanging in a situation where they can neither leave nor advance but are consigned to mill around until an Iraqi insurgent gets lucky is the worst possible case. Either put enough forces in Iraq to win or get out. Of course, the first will probably require a draft, and the second will be politically unpaltiable until the public is soundly against the war. It is likely to either canidate will fail this challenge, but a deadlock right now might insure it. Jay
Post #180,957 by ben_tilly 10/25/04 8:47:52 PM Reply	Define "win" I maintain that our continued presence will continue to aggravate and inflame the local populace. The more troops we add, the worse this inflaming will be. Our only realistic options are to leave or to create our own totalitarian state. I've often said in the past, "kill everyone". That would work, but I no longer believe that it would be necessary. I think that we could potentially establish and maintain control like Saddam Hussein did (and whoever follows us undoubtably will). Given these options, I'd hope that our country would prefer leaving... Cheers, Ben I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #180,976 by Ashton 10/26/04 1:23:44 AM Reply	The ignominy of it all Even scarier - a 1-2 combo. Agree - virtually anything we do next shall not be judged 'beneficent or? malevolent' by most occupants possessed of any local power; that's irrelevant: our presence alone creates new robot-bombers in training, faster than we could kill them [kill first; ID afterwards, like Vietnam]. 1) The Curtiss LeMay "blow 'em away" contingent lives; it lives in the same reptile brain as has held for 30 years: we could have 'won' in Vietnam by "untying the hands.." ever the code for: nuke the slopes. And today: nuke anyone who isn't "for us" therefore is against us. 2) That no one within the One Party with Two Right Wings dares say publically that, there is NO winning scenario whatsoever, in Iraq explains the absurd dance of this campaign - which pretends that Something will save our ass. Combine 1 and 2 with the neoconman agenda and Bush's imperviousness to other than Fundie Revelations-based fantasies. Toss in his neurologically attenuated human qualities and it takes little angst to believe that This Admin will use nukes with the least trepidation of any regime in history (USSR included). After all, with Gawd Directing: what matter if a mere physical world full of arrant sinners be trashed? Ignominy - wouldn't that be: going out via a plot so improbable as not to rate even B-movie status? X years ago, you couldn't script a disaster flick with the plot we're voting on. (Yeah, they said that about It Can't Happen Here, too - that nutter, Sinclair Lewis!) Ashton Just visiting; honest! - I'm not a member of that species down there!

Welcome to IWETHEY!