Obama just landed in Baghdad...

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

You call it beating a dead horse. I say you're beating the wrong horse.

Why isn't it obvious that Germany worked out BECAUSE we got the fighting over and done with before we rebuilt and that Iraq will NOT work because the fighting is still going on, thus whatever is being built is being built on an unstable foundation?

I've tried to make this point over and over that when the Nazis surrendered and that war was over, another one immediately followed. We called it a cold war because it was an arms standoff; but it was far from peaceful. There was a battle for Berlin (and the rest of Europe) where people were dying on a daily basis. This went on for decades. As time went on things got more peaceful. So is the case with Iraq; albeit more slowly things are improving in Iraq. But you even admit it's still unstable. Do we leave when it's still in this condition?

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

I've tried to make this point over and over that when the Nazis surrendered and that war was over, another one immediately followed. We called it a cold war because it was an arms standoff; but it was far from peaceful. There was a battle for Berlin (and the rest of Europe) where people were dying on a daily basis. This went on for decades. As time went on things got more peaceful. So is the case with Iraq; albeit more slowly things are improving in Iraq. But you even admit it's still unstable. Do we leave when it's still in this condition?

Oh, come on! What you are saying is, had we actually got on with it and fought the damn war and won it, we would have then had problems with Iran and Syria to deal with and that is entirely true. However, we would have been dealing with them from an Iraq that was subdued, unified and working towards common goals as West Germany was to East Germany.

We are now struggling with Iran and Syria and, to some extent, Saudi, without the advantage of at least having won the war right in front of our face.

To me, there is no better or clearer analogy than rebuilding the house while it is still on fire; everything you've done may have to be done again and the whole thing could go up again, in an instant. That is the entire argument for continuing the fiddling around we are doing there now. The best I can say is that the fire is out but all the embers are still smoldering, so we gotta keep an eye on that. However, whatever we have built IS built on those ashes.

Poor foundations don't get better over time.

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

Oh, come on! What you are saying is, had we actually got on with it and fought the damn war and won it, we would have then had problems with Iran and Syria to deal with and that is entirely true. However, we would have been dealing with them from an Iraq that was subdued, unified and working towards common goals as West Germany was to East Germany.

We are now struggling with Iran and Syria and, to some extent, Saudi, without the advantage of at least having won the war right in front of our face.

To me, there is no better or clearer analogy than rebuilding the house while it is still on fire; everything you've done may have to be done again and the whole thing could go up again, in an instant. That is the entire argument for continuing the fiddling around we are doing there now. The best I can say is that the fire is out but all the embers are still smoldering, so we gotta keep an eye on that. However, whatever we have built IS built on those ashes.

Poor foundations don't get better over time.

What I’m saying is, we are where we are. I am past the “we screwed the war up” bit. I agree that Iraq was a mistake to begin with; I agree that since we decided to go in, we (Bush) screwed it up. Bottom line is, we are here and have to deal with the circumstances with the reality of where our decisions would lead us 2, 3, 5, 10 years down the road. It seems we understood the consequences of bailing out of Germany before the Cold War was won. We leave, the Ruskies take over. You ever consider that THAT is why we still have a presence in Europe? WE know the threat is still there. We leave Iraq now and chaos will certainly escalate leaving the door wide open for Iran. We will be right back in there again cleaning up a far larger mess than we’ve seen up to this point.

This is more about keeping the fire from reigniting than rebuilding the house at this point. Do I believe we are using the right tactics to put the embers out and get on with the building? No! But you can’t tell me - poor foundation or not - that if we leave, that place wont break out in complete chaos. And we will have to go right back in again and clean it up.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

What I’m saying is, we are where we are. I am past the “we screwed the war up” bit. I agree that Iraq was a mistake to begin with; I don't think the mistake was in going; the mistake was in 'Vietnam'-ing the darn thing.I agree that since we decided to go in, we (Bush) screwed it up. Bottom line is, we are here and have to deal with the circumstances with the reality of where our decisions would lead us 2, 3, 5, 10 years down the road. It seems we understood the consequences of bailing out of Germany before the Cold War was won. We leave, the Ruskies take over. You ever consider that THAT is why we still have a presence in Europe? Of course and certainly. However, Iraq WAS a stable place. A mess, yes, but a stable mess. WE know the threat is still there. We leave Iraq now and chaos will certainly escalate leaving the door wide open for Iran. We will be right back in there again cleaning up a far larger mess than we’ve seen up to this point. I disagree with that proposition, that we'd ever need to go back. If you are of the mind that it was a mistake going in, don't you have to follow that into the future?

This is more about keeping the fire from reigniting than rebuilding the house at this point. Do I believe we are using the right tactics to put the embers out and get on with the building? No! But you can’t tell me - poor foundation or not - that if we leave, that place wont break out in complete chaos. And we will have to go right back in again and clean it up.

As long as we are there, jihadi's will have the ultimate argument against the Great Satan; our armies in their lands.

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

As long as we are there, jihadi's will have the ultimate argument against the Great Satan; our armies in their lands.

I figure as long as they keep putting despots and tyrants in power that threaten the stability of the globe, they are going to have to deal with countries like the US taking a hard stance against such threats. Perhaps it’s about damn time. Don’t you get a little fed up with appeasing to their demands rather than we demand they clean their act up? Isn't our argument equally valid to take action against these threats? Or are we just wrong, wrong, wrong in defending ourselves anymore Larry?

[PsyOps]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

I don't think the mistake was in going; the mistake was in 'Vietnam'-ing the darn thing

I totally agree. This was the press. That’s why they don’t belong no the battlefield. As long as they have an agenda all our war efforts (under the command of a GOP leader) will be Vietnam-ed.

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

Of course and certainly. However, Iraq WAS a stable place. A mess, yes, but a stable mess

A stable mess? Sort of an oxymoron don’t you think? I find nothing stable about a country that has to be contained through NFZ’s and dozens of UNRs and ongoing inspections to verify whether they still have WMD that could end up in the hands of terrorists. I find nothing stable about a country’s leader taking billions in bribes to build himself more palaces while his people starve. I find nothing stable about someone that was deemed by EVERYONE internationally to be a global threat.

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

I disagree with that proposition, that we'd ever need to go back. If you are of the mind that it was a mistake going in, don't you have to follow that into the future?

No. We made the mess, now we are obligated to clean it up. If I break the lamp in your living room – even though it was a mistake – I am still obligated to clean it up and buy you a new one.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

I figure as long as they keep putting despots and tyrants in power that threaten the stability of the globe, they are going to have to deal with countries like the US taking a hard stance against such threats. Perhaps it’s about damn time. Don’t you get a little fed up with appeasing to their demands rather than we demand they clean their act up? Isn't our argument equally valid to take action against these threats? Or are we just wrong, wrong, wrong in defending ourselves anymore Larry?

Look it, I supported 100% going in and getting it over with. Our founders warned of foreign entanglements and their wisdom over mine proved out and you can look at our involvement, time and time again, from WWI to WWII to Korea and Vietnam and now the Gulf and there is much argument that we, as Americans, made a mistake each and every time not listening to the wisdom of earlier ages.

I would argue W would have done fine had he gotten on with it and had realistic, attainable goals like his old man did. However, that is water under the bridge at this point.

At the end of the day, I think we are far better off having nothing to do with the Middle East. If they wanna sell us their oil, they will do it with us as the customer who will simply say 'screw you' if they don't treat us fairly. Our involvement over the years has us supporting monarchs and dictators and overthrowing free and fair elections. Something is terribly wrong about all this.

We declare their oil OUR national interest and use that excuse as the pretext for everything we do, all while NOT securing our own energy independence.

Hinton Helper was a proud Southerner who hated slavery because of the dependence it created in the South. It was the easy way out. Use cheap labor to buy stuff from the North. It made it difficult for industry to flourish in the South. They ended up losing everything. That is us today. Are we truly acting in our national interest in the Middle East?

I say no.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

I totally agree. This was the press. That’s why they don’t belong no the battlefield. As long as they have an agenda all our war efforts (under the command of a GOP leader) will be Vietnam-ed.

How many brigades did the media place in the way, zero? Bush had the initiative and lost it. You blame the media. I blame Bush. Everyone was all for this thing once we got going and it was Bush that is responsible for disbanding their army instead of putting them to work, supplying the opposition with broke men with nothing better to do. It is Bush that is responsible for the de Baathification program that gave all the movers and shakers a choice; lose everything or fight. It is Bush that is responsible for allowing Sadr and others to set up their own shops.

He committed those fatal errors when he, Bush, was master of the situation.

All the media did was report on the mess we made, the mess those decisions guaranteed.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

A stable mess? Sort of an oxymoron don’t you think? I find nothing stable about a country that has to be contained through NFZ’s and dozens of UNRs and ongoing inspections to verify whether they still have WMD that could end up in the hands of terrorists. I find nothing stable about a country’s leader taking billions in bribes to build himself more palaces while his people starve. I find nothing stable about someone that was deemed by EVERYONE internationally to be a global threat.

You know as well as I do that Blix was pretty much 100% correct. Bush simply used that 1-2% of doubt and uncertainty as a pretext. Saddam had a choice and come totally clean. He judged that that would be his doom. He needed some level of doubt as a deterrent against Iran. So, Bush pressed him and got what he wanted.

I would take Iraq, and the US, circa February 2003, over us and them today.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

No. We made the mess, now we are obligated to clean it up. If I break the lamp in your living room – even though it was a mistake – I am still obligated to clean it up and buy you a new one.

You can say that and it sounds nice. However, we CAN leave and we can do it within the next year. After six years, it's time for them to decide to work together or not.