[OT] Iraq

(Hopefully, those who don't want political discussions in this group are usi
ng a
filter to avoid notes with this subject.)

As someone with strong personal views (I think previously expressed in this
group) about Viet Nam, Iraq, and war in general, it is hard for me to write 
this
not in a "non-confrontational" manner.  However, let me try.

I did NOT watch all of the recent  Bush or Petraeus "stuff", however, it is 
my
understanding that both of them talked about sufficient time and resources t
o
meet our (US) goals in Iraq.  What I *missed* was a clear statement of what 
our
current goals ARE in Iraq.  (I think that many if not most people "pro" and
"con" agree that they have changed over the years).

These are probably more my "inferences" than what has been clearly stated, b
ut I
*think* that the following MAY be what they are:

1) "Victory" rather than "Defeat"  (this may be a non-goal, but simply a
statement that we want all of the following)

2) To have (leave) Iraq as a country that does not promote "state sponsored
terrorism"

3) To have (leave) Iraq as a country without "ethnic cleansing" or "suppress
ion
of minorities"

4) To have (leave) Iraq as a country (possibly divided, possibly with a  fed
eral
government, possibly something else) that can maintain its own peace and
security.

5) To have (leave) Iraq as country that is NOT a "safe haven" for terrorists
.

* * * *

Ignoring all the "unstated" (and negative or positive) goals that may or may
 not
also be there (i.e. US oil needs, "model" for democracy in the middle east,
whatever).  Can anyone tell me if these are our "stated" goals - or if not -
what they are (and where they are/were stated in all the recent discussions?

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com

"SkippyPB" <swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
> You ask what happened in Vietnam?  Yes, there was some massive
> bloodshed among the Vietnamese in the south and the north.  Had we
> never interfered in their affairs, that would never have happened. And
> what was the stated goal of our involvement in Vietnam?  It was to
> prevent southeast Asia from turning communist.  The domino theory, as
> it was known then, stated that if Vietnam fell, Laos, Cambodia and,
> more importantly, Thailand would fall as well and Chinese Communists
> would have a foothold on all of Southeast Asia.  As we know now, it
> didn't happen.  Nothing even close to that happened.

Looks to me that our policy of containing the Communists *did* work,
just not in the short term we would have hoped. :-) Have you stopped
to consider what the world situation would be now, if we *had not* done
it? Not saying we should have gone into Vietnam. But nobody is smart
enough to know for certain what would have happened had we not done
so. There is a vast difference between knowing something didn't work as
planned, and knowing it would have been better if we hadn't done it. :-)
--
Judson McClendon      judmc@sunvaley0.com (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems     http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:5le00nF7s978U1@mid.individual.net...
>

<snip>
> Cynics might argue that "turning the desert sand to glass" would have
> destroyed the oil extraction facilities, but I'd like to think it was
> simple humanity that triumphed.
>

Don't neutron bombs kill the people and leave the infrastructure intact?

<snip>

"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
 news:K5SdnQwcB6ThS2zbnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@co
mcast.com...
<snip>
> I've said this before in here, but one of my biggest frustrations with
> this current administration (for whom I voted twice, and would do again
> given the "other" choice on the ballot) is that it isn't *using* its
> resources to educate the American people.  What Robert said about an
> unchallenged opinion "winning" is exactly what's going on in our country
> right now.
>

I have never voted "for" anyone for president, I have always voted "against"
the one I disliked the most.

"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:uWzIi.75215$1o1.11249@fe12.news.easynews.com...
> (Hopefully, those who don't want political discussions in this group are
> using a filter to avoid notes with this subject.)
>
> As someone with strong personal views (I think previously expressed in
> this group) about Viet Nam, Iraq, and war in general, it is hard for me to
> write this not in a "non-confrontational" manner.  However, let me try.
>
> I did NOT watch all of the recent  Bush or Petraeus "stuff", however, it
> is my understanding that both of them talked about sufficient time and
> resources to meet our (US) goals in Iraq.  What I *missed* was a clear
> statement of what our current goals ARE in Iraq.  (I think that many if
> not most people "pro" and "con" agree that they have changed over the
> years).
>
> These are probably more my "inferences" than what has been clearly stated,
> but I *think* that the following MAY be what they are:
>
> 1) "Victory" rather than "Defeat"  (this may be a non-goal, but simply a
> statement that we want all of the following)
>
> 2) To have (leave) Iraq as a country that does not promote "state
> sponsored terrorism"
>
> 3) To have (leave) Iraq as a country without "ethnic cleansing" or
> "suppression of minorities"
>
> 4) To have (leave) Iraq as a country (possibly divided, possibly with a
> federal government, possibly something else) that can maintain its own
> peace and security.
>
> 5) To have (leave) Iraq as country that is NOT a "safe haven" for
> terrorists.
>
>      * * * *
>
> Ignoring all the "unstated" (and negative or positive) goals that may or
> may not also be there (i.e. US oil needs, "model" for democracy in the
> middle east, whatever).  Can anyone tell me if these are our "stated"
> goals - or if not - what they are (and where they are/were stated in all
> the recent discussions?
>
> --
> Bill Klein
> wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
>

I thought that before we went into Iraq our leaders said they were not going
to engage in "nation building".

> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
>  news:K5SdnQwcB6ThS2zbnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@co
mcast.com...
> <snip> 


Be honest: do you trust any government, anywhere, at any time, to "educate"
its people rather than propagandize them?  How can a government (an
organization of people) with a stance to defend/promote possibly be
objective?  Can you see a government of any stripe having the honesty and
courage to lay out the problem with all the pro's and con's and then state
why it's taking such and such a course?  I have no faith in any of them.
There are certain outstanding individuals who are trustworthy in this sense
(Canadians will include Tommy Douglas in this group) but there has never
been a government that has been.

Bear in mind, too, that since the beginning of the Iraq invasion, every
original stated reason has been abandoned.  ESPECIALLY "weapons of mass
destruction".

On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 07:46:10 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 13:17:10 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
><dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
> 
>
>I believe am closer to this belief than most (at least with the people
>I discuss this kind of thing).   But it is a truism that when my child
>gets hurt, it is a tragedy, when the kid across town dies, it is
>almost as bad, but when a population across the world starve to death,
>we don't shed a tear.

Did you know that 25,000 people starve to death every day?

Charles Hottel wrote:
> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
>  news:K5SdnQwcB6ThS2zbnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@co
mcast.com...
> <snip> 
>
> I have never voted "for" anyone for president, I have always voted "agains
t"
> the one I disliked the most.

My first presidential vote was in 1992 - I started out 0-2.  (I think it
might have been different had Gramm gotten the (R) nomination in 1996,
but...  you know, woulda coulda shoulda...)  Then, in 2000, Bush sounded
really good (and heaven forbid the other guy got in).  In 2004, he still
hadn't really done what he said he was going to do, but the other guy
was way worse.  If he ran again, my vote would be against the (D).
Thank goodness for the 22nd Amendment - maybe there'll be someone I can
vote "for" again.  (I'm leaning right now, but it's too early to declare...)

--
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~     / \/ _ o     ~          Live from Albuquerque, NM!          ~
~     _ /\   |     ~                                              ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Business E-mail  ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below            ~
~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com                ~
~ Tech Blog        ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog     ~
~ Personal E-mail  ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address            ~
~ Personal Blog    ~ http://daniel.summershome.org                ~
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ !O M--
V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e h---- r+++ z++++

"Who is more irrational?  A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine

SkippyPB wrote:
>
> But the job is done.  The stated goal was to bring down Saddam and
> bring democracy to Iraq.  Both have happened.

But can that democracy remain if they do not have trained military and
police force?  Training those groups is a large part of our mission over
there now.  I personally know 3 people who are deployed to Iraq - one of
them is there for a year, going from place to place training the
military units on his job.

> It is as clear as the
> nose on most peoples' faces that a military solution in Iraq is not
> now possible.

Of course - when all they hear are the Democrats saying that, after a
while they begin to believe it.  It's called the Big Lie - repeat
something enough, and people start to believe it.  With this
administration not enunciating the problems clearly (as evidenced by
Bill's question later in the thread), why would most people think otherwise?

> Not today, not tomorrow, not 50 years from now which is
> how long we'll be there if current policies prevail.  There must be a
> political solution and that can't be driven by the US.  Only Iraq's
> leaders can drive that car.

Tell that to the Democrats (and some liberal Republicans) - *they're*
the ones demanding timetables of the Iraqi government.  The military is
there to help the process, and give them guidance.  But, the legislation
is theirs, the voting is theirs, and the enforcement is theirs.

> You ask what happened in Vietnam?  Yes, there was some massive
> bloodshed among the Vietnamese in the south and the north.  Had we
> never interfered in their affairs, that would never have happened.

You don't think there would have been bloodshed when the North took over
the South?  There's bloodshed in China and Cuba *today* when we're not
there.

> And
> what was the stated goal of our involvement in Vietnam?  It was to
> prevent southeast Asia from turning communist.  The domino theory, as
> it was known then, stated that if Vietnam fell, Laos, Cambodia and,
> more importantly, Thailand would fall as well and Chinese Communists
> would have a foothold on all of Southeast Asia.  As we know now, it
> didn't happen.  Nothing even close to that happened.

Had they been unchallenged, and not forced to spend all the resources
they did in taking over Vietnam, that very well could have happened.
Even though Vietnam is considered an American military defeat, we held
our ground long enough to slow them down.

> You say, "if we fail this time" like we are actually winning
> something.  Sorry, we've already lost.

How can you say that?  What have we lost?  Saddam is out of power, there
is a democratically elected legislature, they're making huge strides,
and we're training them.  The rape rooms are closed; the insurgents are
nearly gone; the rule of law has replaced dictatorial fiat.

What exactly have we lost again?

> Socialists in the Democratic Party?  Where do you get this stuff and
> how do you know they've always "hated" whose success and other stuff?
> Just what are you talking about?

Where in our Constitution does it say that health care is a *right*?
Where does it authorize the Federal government to run something like the
Department of Education?  Where is it written that it is the
responsibility of the Federal government to bail out businesses who
don't handle their books correctly, just because they provide a service
that may have values to some Americans?  Where are we authorized to pay
farmers *not* to grow things?

All this social engineering legislation, welfare, government health
care, is *all* socialistic.  The Federal government should be about
defense, infrastructure, limited guidance to states, and a
representative of our nation to the rest of the world.  Past that, it's
overstepped its Constitutional charter and into socialism.

And if someone sees our success, and want to enact every piece of
legislation they can to ensure it never happens again, what am I
supposed to infer about their motives?  They don't think it's *fair*
that some people can afford health insurance and others can't.  They
don't think it's *fair* that some people drive giant vehicles while
others drive smaller ones.  And, they don't think it's *fair* that
America has been, since the early 90's, the lone superpower in this
world.  They want us to give up our strength so it'll be more fair to
other countries.  Sounds like hating our success to me...

> Well I'm glad the military has relaxed some of its restrictions on
> what you can and cannot say and to whom.

Well, they're not all gone.  Basically, as long as I'm clear that what
I'm saying is my opinion, and not necessarily that of the Air Force, I'm
within regs.

> But to even talk about
> dropping a nuke on anything is just a ,  thing and indicative of
> the post cold war mind set.  That's really not where society needs to
> go.

Talk to Iran!  We're aging ours out, they're building new ones!

> Please.  RPG's where not what GWB was going after.  They were probably
> left over from the ones we sold to Saddam back in the 80's anyway.

True...

> The Al Qaeda that is currently in Iraq was formed there after the US
> invaded and none of the hijackers trained in Iraq.  Read the 9/11
> commissions report.

The 9/11 commission's report is not gospel - they got some things wrong.
They had an agenda.

--
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~     / \/ _ o     ~          Live from Albuquerque, NM!          ~
~     _ /\   |     ~                                              ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Business E-mail  ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below            ~
~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com                ~
~ Tech Blog        ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog     ~
~ Personal E-mail  ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address            ~
~ Personal Blog    ~ http://daniel.summershome.org                ~
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ !O M--
V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e h---- r+++ z++++

"Who is more irrational?  A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine

William M. Klein wrote:
> (Hopefully, those who don't want political discussions in this group are u
sing a
> filter to avoid notes with this subject.)

At least this thread has the [OT] on it!  :)

> I did NOT watch all of the recent  Bush or Petraeus "stuff", however, it i
s my
> understanding that both of them talked about sufficient time and resources
 to
> meet our (US) goals in Iraq.  What I *missed* was a clear statement of wha
t our
> current goals ARE in Iraq.  (I think that many if not most people "pro" an
d
> "con" agree that they have changed over the years).

True.

> These are probably more my "inferences" than what has been clearly stated,
 but I
> *think* that the following MAY be what they are:
>
> 1) "Victory" rather than "Defeat"  (this may be a non-goal, but simply a
> statement that we want all of the following)
>
> 2) To have (leave) Iraq as a country that does not promote "state sponsore
d
> terrorism"
>
> 3) To have (leave) Iraq as a country without "ethnic cleansing" or "suppre
ssion
> of minorities"
>
> 4) To have (leave) Iraq as a country (possibly divided, possibly with a  f
ederal
> government, possibly something else) that can maintain its own peace and
> security.
>
> 5) To have (leave) Iraq as country that is NOT a "safe haven" for terrorists.[/col
or]

I believe you're right.  This link below has a summary of Petraeus's
report, as well as some other reports that have come out lately.  I
didn't click the links exhaustively, but it looked like there are some
good source documents linked from the story.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/...toryId=14288514

(Of course, the headline of the story says that the "goals" are being
met, but that's the only time that word appears in the whole story!)

--
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~     / \/ _ o     ~          Live from Albuquerque, NM!          ~
~     _ /\   |     ~                                              ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Business E-mail  ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below            ~
~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com                ~
~ Tech Blog        ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog     ~
~ Personal E-mail  ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address            ~
~ Personal Blog    ~ http://daniel.summershome.org                ~
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ !O M--
V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e h---- r+++ z++++

"Who is more irrational?  A man who believes in a God he doesn't see,
or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine