History has a way of repeating itself. Remember the whole isolationalist thing was big before WW2. I think Israel can and will deal with Iran if they become aggressive.

Only history is going to prove if he was right. Problem with people is they expect everything right now, I think ousting Saddam and attacking the fanatics in their backyard is the right move. Amazing how fast everyone forgot about what happened on 9/11. If Bush was to cut and run like the spineless members of the left think he should, another attack on North American soil is guaranteed to happen.

What is popular isnt always what is right, and what is right is rarely popular. The popular movement in Europe was to appease Hitler, Churchill was the only leader of a European power that stood up and basically told the ***** to bring it on. It was one hell of a tough fight but they did win. Remember the **** strategy was to destroy the resolve of the British people so they would demand that the government stop fighting. Same thing the islamic terrorists are trying to do know. Thats what happened in Vietnam, the hippie retards (Hanoi Jane) got to the public and the government caved into their pressure. That proved to everyone who hates the US that public opinion was the way to win since they never could defeat the US in actual combat.

 

I disagree with your comment about the"hippie retards." Again, we tried to fight a war in which tactical decisons were made by politicians---not soldiers. Also, please keep in mind that many of the Vietnamese people didn't give a tinker's dam if they were communist or democratic or whatever. We could put half-million trrops in Vietnam and the results, sadly would have been the same. Read Swartzkopf's book, It Doesn't Take a Hero, or Powell's book, My American Journey. Even Kennedy knew that escalating the war in Vietnam was most likely fruitless.

Can you, 89 Lariet, guarandamntee that by attacking Iraq that we will never, ever, ever, be attacked again? I do not think so. Even members ofthe HSA believe that it isn't a matter of "if", it is a matter of "when."

One major concern for me is the attempt to instill a democratic government in part of the word where there has never, ever been one. This is not to say that it can't happen, but the vast majority of people do not understand what a democracy is, nor do they ever want to. They do not want to be democratic---for literally thousands of years, they have only understood one thing---the man with the biggest gun rules. Ask the British---they were there over 100 yers ago and figured it out; they left.

Yes, to leave now would create monumental problems---but I do not feel that we can ever leave---

TSC

 

As for Vietnam and our "pure" intentions---what about the CIA and the assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem, as well as his brother----and in Guatamala---the CIA connection with the United Fruit Company and their "revolution" in the country in 1954?

Our fear of the reds and the domino theory in SE Asia proved to be unfounded.

TSC

 

Guarantee it? No, but I believe that it lowers the chances of it. I think its better to take the fight to them than sit back and wait for the next one. The hippie comment is basically that those love everyone, and if we are nice so will they is total BS. The only fight north vietnam could win, and the only one that the terrorists can win is the PR battle. Thats what they aim to do. If they can hold out long enough then the defeatists left will eventually get their way again

 

89 Lariet---do you honestly feel that we have a strong chance to install an effective, strong, and consistent democratic government in Iraq? If so---what wouldbe your timetable and your benchmark for success?

TSC

 

89 Lariet---do you honestly feel that we have a strong chance to install an effective, strong, and consistent democratic government in Iraq? If so---what wouldbe your timetable and your benchmark for success?

TSC

 

sorry about the double post---i failed to see the time andthe 10:00 PM rule...

TSC

 

Yes, I do believe that US and its allies can do it.

Look at how far Afghanistan has come. Every change from absolute power to democracy takes time, and whether people want to accept it or not, lives.

Remember, your Revolution took years. How many uprisings did England see before democracy took power from the Crown? Germany had to be all but destroyed. Japan has done quite well after the power was taken from the emperor.

To set up arbitrary timelines, and benchmarks only undermine the military commanders. The situation in the field is always changing, they need to be able to adjust to the situation without being forced to focus on appeasing some politicians desire to see something else completed first.

 

Remember, though, the US revolution was led from within; our "founding fathers" literally risked their necks (remember Franklin's comment, "Well gentlemen, we should surely hang together on this, otherwise, we will all hang separately")---and we did have help from the French---the battle of Yorktown. Do the Iraqis have the same zeal for freedom as we had in the 1770's?

While setting up timelines may or may not be counterproductive, how do we motivate them to act with the necessary vitesse?

While speed is not of the essence, it should be noted that the Iraqi government now seems to purposefully dawdle. Crap or get off the pot, as one would say.

TSC

 

I do agree that the Iraqi government needs to step up, but dont forget they are still in their infancy. Threatening them with leaving would not give the message of co-operation that is needed. The biggest obstacle is showing the Iraqi people that they dont have to live in fear. Many are scared to stand up for democracy because they fear they will be killed by the extremeists. And right now in many cases that is right. Once the insurgents can be cut down a bit I think the public opininions of the Iraqi people will change. How many members of the Iraqi police and army have been killed in battle and murdered? They never seem to have any shortage of recruits.

Yes, the Revolution was started internally, and with some outside help. But my point was that it took time and a lot of lives to bring in democracy.

 

In my opinion "democracy" in Iraq will lead to one thing; the most populous group, the Shiites, assuming control after a bloody civil war. They will install their own government which will likely include a strong president and a joke of a legislature. Don't forget Saddam was "elected".

We can not assume that we can "plant the seeds of democracy" in a place such as Iraq and expect it to flourish. 1000s of years of culture will trump artificially created societal structures.

Freedom works here because it is, or was, an inherent part of our culture, it is in our blood.

To assume our way of life, which I believe is the best, can be forced upon people, and that they will accept it is not only arrogant it is foolish. We wanted a vote in "Palestine" and Hamas won....there's a shocker. The same will occur in Iraq.

We need to quit assuming we know what's best for everyone and just worry about what's best for us.

 

Destroying the Islamic radicals safe havens is in the West's best interest. Staying on the defensive will only lead to more attacks on our soil

 

Then I guess Iran is next, followed, by aww heck let's nuke the whole dang area.


(Hey how does this relate to Guilania and are our lives this pathetic that we will banter about this stuff late at night? )

 

Between doing my family's taxes on Turbo Tax and responding to this forum, by golly, I guess you are correct...

TSC

 

I say let Israel deal with Iran.

But, hell what else am I getting paid to? Work

When do these ever stay on topic for long anyways?