Comments Posted By Drongo
Displaying 121 To 130 Of 246 Comments
OF GRASSY KNOLLS AND BLOOD FOR OIL
"OF GRASSY KNOLLS AND BLOOD FOR OIL"
I love the juxtaposition of a conspiracy theory and an obvious statement of geopolitical reality.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 20.06.2007 @ 10:04
HAWKS, DOVES...LET'S TALK TURKEY.
"You’re full of it, as usual."
Have I been terribly rude to you at some point leading to this sort of reply? Have I treated you with anything other than respect and courtesy. I assume that my mere presence here is sufficient to warrant such language.
"There is not one single advocate for military action against Iran who has issued any “rosy scenarios†or “optimistic outlooks.â€"
Expecting to attack Iran without having to eventually invade the country with ground troops is an "Optimistic outlook" and several people (serious people I imagine) have suggested that an Attack on Iran may free up latent democratic forces, hostile to the regime, who would rise up and overthrow the hated Mullahs. That's as "Rosy scenario" as you can get.
Do you think that such things are possible? I'll make it direct if you like.
1) Do you think that it is reasonable to expect to attack Iran without eventually having to engage in a ground invasion?
2) Do you think that there is any realistic chance that a democratic upswelling will depose the Mullahs after a US bombing raid?
Answer those two and show us that you, at least, don't go in for too much optimism in your assesment of risk vs reward.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 18.06.2007 @ 17:57
"There are so many troubling elements to both the Iranian regime and the thought of attacking it that what Klein sees as a kind of disingenuousness on the part of liberal hawks is nothing more than a realization that the consequences of both action and inaction against the Iranian regime could be enormous."
One of those consequences would be the gross betrayal of UK forces in Southern Iraq, who would likely bear the brunt of Iran's counter offensive by Shias around Basra.
It may be insufferably dull to say it, but if the US attacks Iran, it will, eventually, find itself needing to stage a ground invasion*. That is the reality of the situation. What with Russia and China involved so deeply with Iran, you could easily be triggering off a major war. Such a war could kill millions of people.
That is the possible consequence of going to war with Iran, and don't forget it. War with Iran is off the table unless you are willing to risk that. Rosy predictions and optimistic outlooks didn't work out last time, and they won't work out next time. That should be the lesson of Iraq.
*I won't bore you by fleshing that out.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 18.06.2007 @ 17:27
NETNUTS RIGHTEOUS FURY A LITTLE MISPLACED
"We have never had the right number of troops, the right equipment, or the right plan and our generals have gone along without objection until they retired."
That's not strictly true. Several generals objected to the initial Pentagon plan and called for many more troops to secure Iraq in the all important initial weeks after the invasion. These generals were sidelined, or pushed into retirement in favour of Rumsfelds small footprint invasion.
You get the generals you create. If you promote the yes men and fire the dissenters, sooner or later you get a bunch of yes men.
Not to mention the obvious (or at least it should be) fact that generals tend to get their position not because they are great leaders of men, but because they are good political players, and are good at playing the DoD budget game.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 18.06.2007 @ 08:25
"You are a ninny. Criticize is one thing. Insults and name calling is quite another."
Yes, I agree. Insulting people is simply childish and shouldn't be accepted in polite society. Criticism is, of course, acceptable.
An example of criticism : "You are incompetent, I don't trust you to report facts accurately"
An example of an insult : "You are a ninny"
I assume that I would be banned pretty quickly if I called you an idiot.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 16.06.2007 @ 02:33
"Or, if we are at war, we better get deadly serious about making sure that terrorists – whether they be legal residents or not – can’t use the Constitution as a shield to help them escape justice."
If I may briefly quote from a Man for All Seasons;
----------------------------------------
Roper : Now you give the Devil benefit of law!
More : Yes, what would you do? Cut a road through the law to get after the Devil?
R : Yes. I'd cut down every law in England to do that.
M : And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?
This country is planted with laws from coast to coast Man's laws, not God's, and if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the wind that would blow then?
R : Yes.
M : I give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake.
-------------------------------------
The constitution, and indeed the law, is a shield for everyone, devil or saint.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 12.06.2007 @ 10:58
THE RIGHT LESSONS TO LEARN FROM VIET NAM
"We won the Vietnam War."
No, the communists won the Vietnam war. This can be seen by the fact that they control all the territory.
Why pretend that war isn't as much about the political circumstances that it is fought in as the military force that can be brought to bear? Your country isn't good at long wars. Very few are, at least when they are wars in foreign countries. The population gets bored, politicians start to drift away from the lack of short term victories, they start to think of their long term futures as they watch public support drift away. If they didn't have to think of re-election things might be different, but that's not a good direction to go in, is it?
Short and direct wars are your forte. Small ones where the public are hardly involved work well. Ones where the people genuinely believe that they are in mortal, fight-for-your-life danger work. "Cabinet wars" just don't work so well in a liberal democracy. After the initial hype, people just didn't think that Vietman was worth it. The same has happened to Iraq. The same would happen for any war of choice. It happens to any liberal democracy that tries this stuff.
That's not a comment on the military, it is a comment on the populace and politicians who represent them. And it isn't a bad thing, because to change it you would have to control the population, propegandize them more or simply ignore their wishes, petulant and ignorant though they may be.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 12.06.2007 @ 03:51
"Option #1 sounds good to me."
Well, it sounds good to Mr.Bush as well, and look where basing your military strategy on fantasy has got us all so far.
"The Democrat position on this has been incoherent. Sometimes they say we should have listened to Shinseki and sent in a larger number of troops to obtain stability. At other times they make Rumsfeld’s argument for a light force so we’re not seen as an occupying power."
The Democracts are no more capable of producing a different result from those I offered above than the Republicans are. No-one was ever capable of achieving any end other than those above from the first moment. We are where we are because option #1 was the only one considered.
"Everyone agrees we need to leave."
You picked Option #1 which included permanent US bases to project forces in the region.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 9.06.2007 @ 07:14
"We must find a way through to a satisfactory ending to our involvement in Iraq. There is no alternative."
Well, it is time to look at what is an acceptable ending to involvement in Iraq then. Lets look at some possible outcomes and see which ones are acceptable;
1) Stable pro-US government which allows permanent US bases for power projection and which enables the oil law being promoted.
Pros : All war aims achieved.
Cons : Never going to happen. The oil law, stability, permanent bases and pro-US government are all pretty much mutually exclusive. You can't pass that oil law and be stable. You can't be Stable and have enduring bases, etc.
2) Pro-US government, permanent bases, oil law but constant insurgency.
Pros : Could be achieved with a bit of firm manipulation of the Green Zone.
Cons : Everlasting occupation. Would require the Democrats to sink themselves along with the Republicans and I doubt that they want that as, like all politicians, they think of thier prospects first. Green Zone government rendered even weaker. Iranian influence increases in government.
3) Break up of Iraq into regional confederacies.
Pro : Might tamp down some violence, will certainly give greater lattitude to negotiate with Kurds re bases and oil rights.
Cons : Everlasting insurgency from Sunni, Sadrists. Possible severe ethnic cleansing in Kurdish areas. Possible Turkish invasion of Kurdistan. Handing over Southern Iraq to Iran.
4) Total, immediate withdrawl of US forces.
Pro : No more Us troops get killed. Politicians can at least pretend they had nothing to do with it and keep their jobs. Forces an eventual conclusion to the conflict.
Cons : Probable ethnic cleansing. Iranian influence increased. Probably Turkish invasion of Kurdistan.
5) Replacement of Malaki Government with Sadr / Sunni / nationalist alliance.
Pros : Government stability, possible reconcilliation, holding Kurds in Iraq, Lowering of Iranian influence in South.
Cons : No US bases, no oil law, in fact, no real influence for US in Iraq. Government likely to be hardline Islamist in one form or another though it would be an ally rather than creature of Iran.
Pick any one apart from (1) and aim your actions towards it.
(Obviously you can't pick (1) because it is impossible, and you might as well hope that everyone wakes up and realises that it has been a bad dream)
To summarise;
You can pick from;
1) A dream world.
2) Permanent occupation.
3) Breakup.
4) Chaos.
5) Al-Sadr crowing.Unless you can come up with any other possible outcomes.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 8.06.2007 @ 05:18
"If you can come up with one engagement between insurgents and American forces where we were defeated, I’ll eat my monitor."
The one where they downed a chopper and then took out two rescue vehicles in one operation?
The one where they captured (and probably killed) your soldiers recently?
The one where they wandered into a US base dressed as US soldiers a few months ago and kidnapped and killed US troops?
Sure, they would lose big battles, but they've got an OK record for small guerrila actions.
If you regard the timescale for these battles as, broadly "The time between the first shot and when swarms of air support turn up" it'll make more sense.
Unless your case is that they don't hold ground against assult, in which case you're mistaking insurgents for the panzercorps.
As for Bush and his support, well, this is what it feels like to be on the other side of his ill conceived policies. You can see why they are a bad idea, but you don't have a hope of changing them and if you try he calls you a traitor. Get used to it.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 2.06.2007 @ 03:06
