Second Chances

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by glatt

It's time to stop investing in a losing proposition. Cut our losses. Let bygones be bygones.

How do you suppose these would be bygones, though? I do not suppose our foes would do so, and can't imagine why you'd suppose it. Getting this war expeditiously lost would mean what, ten years down the road, or twenty? World War One set up World War Two, you know. These wars have been posited as a continent-wide European civil war in two phases, at bottom.

We're after stability enough to permit economic development there, in a place kept from economic development by states unconcerned with it, and in especial Iraq. We don't get that, we're in big and chronic trouble. So why do something to set up a greater and more ruinous war later on? Isn't it just plain stupid to seek a substitute for victory? Successful American foreign policy, especially dealing with countries so little connected with the wealth-producing powers of the global economy as the ones we're currently engaged in, calls for victory, particularly in the making of future grand alliances. If we don't get the victory now, we'll have to get one later -- and for those wringing their hands over the cost, what is the cost later?

I'm unimpressed with the "patriotism" of the dissent also. It is almost entirely based on the gut feeling that "America must lose, especially to non-democracies, because we're democratic and America. Whatever we do, we mustn't ever try and win a fight with a dictatorship, a band of thugs, or really anybody." As you know, I regard this sort of thinking as idiotic in a democrat, and superbly in one's overall interest if one is a fascist.

I also don't buy the idea that one can only use an identical ideology to defeat an ideology, nor that one is in danger of adopting a similar ideology to the one being fought against. Cases in point: the Cold War, World War Two, and the American Civil War, as well as the American Revolution, where George III's Britain failed to see it was engaged in an ideological struggle (not having fought one since about 1649) and never caught up.

How come nobody here but me is spelling "delusional" correctly? It has no connection etymologically with illusions.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Getting this war expeditiously lost would mean what, ten years down the road, or twenty? World War One set up World War Two, you know.

I don't have a crystal ball, but my best guess is that if we left Iraq, it would end up being very similar to the situation in Somalia. Lots of warlord type people fighting for dominance. Without the common enemy of the US military, they will turn on each other even more. There will be a resulting refugee crisis, and we must be prepared to help with that. It will be a bad situation, but not significantly worse than it is now. It's already bad today.

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by glatt

I don't have a crystal ball, but my best guess is that if we left Iraq, it would end up being very similar to the situation in Somalia. Lots of warlord type people fighting for dominance. Without the common enemy of the US military, they will turn on each other even more. There will be a resulting refugee crisis, and we must be prepared to help with that. It will be a bad situation, but not significantly worse than it is now. It's already bad today.

Oh, I think it will be much worse. Once the U.S. is gone all that oil power and revenue will be up for grabs. Who do think will end up with that? The fledgling Govt., the terrorists or someone else? If that falls under Al Qaeda, then they will have not only the ability, but also the resources to buy whatever they want. This scenario gets much worse when you consider the autrocities that will certainly escalate after our premature withdrawl also.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

How do you suppose these would be bygones, though? I do not suppose our foes would do so, and can't imagine why you'd suppose it. Getting this war expeditiously lost would mean what, ten years down the road, or twenty? World War One set up World War Two, you know. These wars have been posited as a continent-wide European civil war in two phases, at bottom.

Then it was posited wrongly. WW I & WW II in Europe were both wars between fascist states for the control of the rest of the world.

We're after stability enough to permit economic development there, in a place kept from economic development by states unconcerned with it, and in especial Iraq. We don't get that, we're in big and chronic trouble.

Why? Why would we be in big trouble there? The only reason to be in big trouble there is to be there, uninvited.

So why do something to set up a greater and more ruinous war later on? Isn't it just plain stupid to seek a substitute for victory? Successful American foreign policy, especially dealing with countries so little connected with the wealth-producing powers of the global economy as the ones we're currently engaged in, calls for victory, particularly in the making of future grand alliances. If we don't get the victory now, we'll have to get one later -- and for those wringing their hands over the cost, what is the cost later?

Only if you're so blind as to think we must conquer the whole world. That's neither a necessity not a reasonable goal. Do you really think the Arabs will ever be organized enough to be a threat to the west? Terrorists, maybe, but an organized threat? No way. And as we've seen, democracy does not guarantee no terrorists... we have plenty of them here, in Japan, England and everywhere else in the world. terrorists are just a half assed excuse for pushing your style of fascism.

I'm unimpressed with the "patriotism" of the dissent also. It is almost entirely based on the gut feeling that "America must lose, especially to non-democracies, because we're democratic and America. Whatever we do, we mustn't ever try and win a fight with a dictatorship, a band of thugs, or really anybody." As you know, I regard this sort of thinking as idiotic in a democrat, and superbly in one's overall interest if one is a fascist.

Of course your unimpressed, your military style blinders prevent you from seeing anything but, my country, right or wrong, my orders, right or wrong, my opinion, right or wrong. That fer me or agin me attitude, won't permit you to see any path except forcing everyone to fall in step. That's the exact same way Hitler, Stalin, Castro and Mao, felt. What we must not do is not, "not lose fights with dictators", but not start fights with dictators. If they start it, by all means destroy them, but no wars based on bullshit preemptive excuses.

I also don't buy the idea that one can only use an identical ideology to defeat an ideology, nor that one is in danger of adopting a similar ideology to the one being fought against. Cases in point: the Cold War, World War Two, and the American Civil War, as well as the American Revolution, where George III's Britain failed to see it was engaged in an ideological struggle (not having fought one since about 1649) and never caught up.

Now that's just silly. If the ideologies are the same, why fight?

How come nobody here but me is spelling "delusional" correctly? It has no connection etymologically with illusions.

Maybe it's because you're the only delusional one here... but that said, show me where I've spelled it wrong.