Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Should Republicans be drafted first?  (Read 11714 times)

BoscoBreaux

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 789
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Should Republicans be drafted first?
« Reply #170 on: July 01, 2005, 05:12:54 PM »
The problem with the liberals is that you keep trying to fight the same windmill over and over again.  At this point it doesn't matter why we went to Iraq, what matters is getting the damn job done.  We have to be successful, we have no choice.  Does nobody on the liberal side understand this?  All I ever hear is quagmire this and quagmire that, but no solutions are ever given to the problem.  If you think something is wrong, great, come up with a solution because otherwise you just sound like a whiny female dog.

Your assumption may be true if such a war is capable of being won. We learned in Vietnam that is not so--you kill one, you create 3 more (a statement used by generals today, but coined by Vietnam era generals.) The Iraq war will continue until we leave, and not a day sooner.

But, Iraq is much worse than Vietnam.  In that instance, we did not CREATE communists; in Iraq, we are creating terrorists by our very presence. That is the point that "liberals" are trying to make. When we leave, the terroists leave--they have no targets. The fact that the vast majority of the "insurgents" are from Saudi Arabia and Syria confirms this--they will hit the road when we leave. While we are there, the new Iraqi regime will be seen as nothing more than extension of the US, and will be a target as well.  There is your solution.

Now, you may argue that when we kill all the terroists there will be peace. You cannot defeat a tactic; in fact, when you do so, you incite those to use the tactic. It's a no-brainer for most persons.

be10dwn

  • Guest
Re: Should Republicans be drafted first?
« Reply #171 on: July 01, 2005, 05:25:59 PM »
The problem with the liberals is that you keep trying to fight the same windmill over and over again.  At this point it doesn't matter why we went to Iraq, what matters is getting the damn job done.  We have to be successful, we have no choice.  Does nobody on the liberal side understand this?  All I ever hear is quagmire this and quagmire that, but no solutions are ever given to the problem.  If you think something is wrong, great, come up with a solution because otherwise you just sound like a whiny female dog.

Your assumption may be true if such a war is capable of being won. We learned in Vietnam that is not so--you kill one, you create 3 more (a statement used by generals today, but coined by Vietnam era generals.) The Iraq war will continue until we leave, and not a day sooner.

But, Iraq is much worse than Vietnam.  In that instance, we did not CREATE communists; in Iraq, we are creating terrorists by our very presence. That is the point that "liberals" are trying to make. When we leave, the terroists leave--they have no targets. The fact that the vast majority of the "insurgents" are from Saudi Arabia and Syria confirms this--they will hit the road when we leave. While we are there, the new Iraqi regime will be seen as nothing more than extension of the US, and will be a target as well.  There is your solution.

Now, you may argue that when we kill all the terroists there will be peace. You cannot defeat a tactic; in fact, when you do so, you incite those to use the tactic. It's a no-brainer for most persons.

So you think if we would leave Iraq tomorow, then those insurgents fighting now will say, Oh thank Allah, now I can go home?  Do you honestly think that will happen?  I don't want us to be there either, but we can't just leave and let it become even more of a haven for terrorists.  I think we need to stay just long enough to get the Iraq army up and running and then get the hell out of there.  That may take a year or ten, who knows, but I think that's the point we get out of there.  When they can defend themselves.

BoscoBreaux

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 789
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Should Republicans be drafted first?
« Reply #172 on: July 01, 2005, 05:32:49 PM »
Now, this isn’t a position I necssarily agree with, but to assume there are no valid reasons for the “liberal” position is dishonest.

Ultimately, staying in Iraq makes sense if 1) it serves a desirable purpose and 2) the purpose can be attained. Every week, the reasons for going into Iraq changes, and every week the justifications for staying changes. Generally, the reasons (articulated) by the President center on assuring “democracy” in Iraq and to stop terrorism.

Obviously, for all our efforts, the number of terrorists in Iraq has increased. So mission failure–and it will only get worse as time goes on. So, by going there to fight terrorism, we are creating terrorists. It’s a cycle, never-ending.
So, we should hold onto the notion of democracy in Iraq. Now, there is a laugh! Do we REALLY want Iraqis to vote in elections? Last I heard, Saddam Hussein would STILL win an election if he was allowed on the ballot. Further, the most popular replacements for him are fundamentalist Taliban-like leaders.

So, even the very purposes for which we are there will lead to an undesirable outcome. This alone makes fighting the war silly. The fact that it can’t be won only furthers this conclusion.

On top of all this, we need to consider whether the loss of life is worth it.

On top of that, we need to consider whether the hundreds of billions of dollars could be better spent (maybe in Afghanistan, or in actually deploying equipment to screen containers entering the US).

Now, ideology and theory is a great thing, but at a point, practical considerations have to be a factor. Oddly enough, Conservative though is purely theoretical in this context, and the “liberal” position is purely practical.

BoscoBreaux

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 789
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Should Republicans be drafted first?
« Reply #173 on: July 01, 2005, 05:50:09 PM »

So you think if we would leave Iraq tomorow, then those insurgents fighting now will say, Oh thank Allah, now I can go home?  Do you honestly think that will happen?  I don't want us to be there either, but we can't just leave and let it become even more of a haven for terrorists.  I think we need to stay just long enough to get the Iraq army up and running and then get the hell out of there.  That may take a year or ten, who knows, but I think that's the point we get out of there.  When they can defend themselves.

You can’t kill an American if an American is in your presence. That is why the “terrorists” have come to Iraq. If they were just interested in instilling a fundamentalist regime in the Middle East, they would make Saudi Arabia their target. (In fact, that is why many suggest the real “winners” in this whole Iraq affair are the Saudis. The Saudis LOVE the fact that all of their terrorists–those most critical of the current monarchy–have left. Why do you think Saudi Arabia opened its borders to Iraq, but FOR THOSE ONLY GOING FROM SAUDI ARABIA TO IRAQ???) Ask yourself why did Osama Bin Laden change his mind about the US? (Remember, he praised Allah for the US's help in its efforts against the USSR. IN fact, Osama prayed for Allah to bless the US every day, until not that long ago. Why did he change--THE US DIDN'T LEAVE AFTER THE GULF WAR!
No presence in the Middle East, no 9/11.

Who will defend whom? You misdefine democracy.

 A regime in a democratic society represents everyone, in theory. But even in the United States, does the Bush Admin. represent all Americans? Heck, half of the country absolutely loathes Bush. Moreover, the rest of the world does. So, roughly half of the country voted for him (and half of those who did held their nose when doing so). Let’s not misrepresent what democracy means–it just means that the regime is subject to the people, but only once every 2 4 and 6 years–not in every decision it makes.  And, majority agreement is not necessary.

What’s the point? Well, a relatively powerful minority (Fundamentalist Muslims) can take control (de facto) of a government even though they aren’t supported by the vast majority of citizens. Right now, Osama Bin Laden would beat George Bush in an election in Iraq. Now, that is scary, but it is instructive.

Iraq will NEVER yield a leader who will be acceptable to the US from a security perspective. Take a look over at Iran–elections there yielded a terrorist just this week! The ONLY places in the Middle East with significant numbers of muslims that doesn’t have a “terrorist” regime are not even democracies! That is why Saddam Hussein, for all of his evilness, was a “safer bet” than the current situation, or its future. After all, that is the reason why we supported him financially for so long–anything is better than a fundamentalist regime (like that in Iran).

So, we will wait until the Iraqi’s are able to defend themselves? Well, what happens when a fundamentalist leader takes over (which will happen eventually)? Those same soldiers will defend that regime, and when the US later invades to “free” the people again, we will call them “terrorists.”  It is a vicious, and predictable, cycle.

be10dwn

  • Guest
Re: Should Republicans be drafted first?
« Reply #174 on: July 01, 2005, 06:37:18 PM »
Well, in the immortal words Ron Burgundy, let's agree to disagree  ;) It's Friday and time to drink some beer. Cheers

EASTWEST

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: Should Republicans be drafted first?
« Reply #175 on: July 01, 2005, 07:10:41 PM »
Those of us on this board are supposedly the cream of the intellectual crop, and yet after reading the board i get the sense that many of us are so stuck in our own world views that we cant accept another rational theory. For instance, many believe the war was never purely motivated as an attack on terrorism. It was greatly grounded in a school of thought based on the belief that some form of democratic rule in the arab world will help to alleviate the region's violent problems and stimulate some form of populist movement in the region. For nearly five decades we have neglected to involve ourselves in the ailing region because it is not an easy fix. Maybe involving ourselves there now will help to diffuse an increasingly scary situation and save more lives in the long run. Many political theorists have written extensively on the subject...most recently it has been Wolfowit. Also, its ridiculous for me to see people claiming the side of servicemen on both sides. They are people with diverse opinions just like us. Bush may have lied, misled, or even been a war mongerer; but at least lets give him credit for taking a stand for what he believes to be correct and genuinely tries to affect change.

Finally, do not pigeonhole me as someone blinded by the right like some others on the board have been treated. I did not believe we should have gone to war there, nor do i now. There are many merits to the other side, and if your going to argue against them educate yourself. We have enough Michael moore's and people blinded by their own ideologies. Why is the left always so ready to get involved in places(Africa for instance), and yet when the U.S. gets involved they bail from their humanity for all views.

be10dwn

  • Guest
Re: Should Republicans be drafted first?
« Reply #176 on: July 01, 2005, 07:15:59 PM »
Those of us on this board are supposedly the cream of the intellectual crop, and yet after reading the board i get the sense that many of us are so stuck in our own world views that we cant accept another rational theory. For instance, many believe the war was never purely motivated as an attack on terrorism. It was greatly grounded in a school of thought based on the belief that some form of democratic rule in the arab world will help to alleviate the region's violent problems and stimulate some form of populist movement in the region. For nearly five decades we have neglected to involve ourselves in the ailing region because it is not an easy fix. Maybe involving ourselves there now will help to diffuse an increasingly scary situation and save more lives in the long run. Many political theorists have written extensively on the subject...most recently it has been Wolfowit. Also, its ridiculous for me to see people claiming the side of servicemen on both sides. They are people with diverse opinions just like us. Bush may have lied, misled, or even been a war mongerer; but at least lets give him credit for taking a stand for what he believes to be correct and genuinely tries to affect change.

Finally, do not pigeonhole me as someone blinded by the right like some others on the board have been treated. I did not believe we should have gone to war there, nor do i now. There are many merits to the other side, and if your going to argue against them educate yourself. We have enough Michael moore's and people blinded by their own ideologies. Why is the left always so ready to get involved in places(Africa for instance), and yet when the U.S. gets involved they bail from their humanity for all views.
180 Well said, I have been trying to form these words for the past two days, but just couldn't! LOL

BoscoBreaux

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 789
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Should Republicans be drafted first?
« Reply #177 on: July 01, 2005, 09:15:19 PM »
Many political theorists have written extensively on the subject...most recently it has been Wolfowit. Also, its ridiculous for me to see people claiming the side of servicemen on both sides. They are people with diverse opinions just like us. Bush may have lied, misled, or even been a war mongerer; but at least lets give him credit for taking a stand for what he believes to be correct and genuinely tries to affect change.

Finally, do not pigeonhole me as someone blinded by the right like some others on the board have been treated. I did not believe we should have gone to war there, nor do i now. There are many merits to the other side, and if your going to argue against them educate yourself. We have enough Michael moore's and people blinded by their own ideologies. Why is the left always so ready to get involved in places(Africa for instance), and yet when the U.S. gets involved they bail from their humanity for all views.

Might you be referring to Paul Wolfowitz, Dept. Sec. of Defense? I wouldn't call him a political theorist, but one of his ideas would qualify as theory. Wolfowitz is the architect of NeoConservativism, and has always been particularly Hawkish. Back during the first Bush Administration, Wolfowitz came up with this theory on how to settle the problems we had in Iraq and the Middle East. His opinion was to basically go to war, defeat the regimes there, and then all of the citizens, happy with our efforts, will greet us "with flowers and open arms." Of course, we now know this is false. But you want to know something? Even George HW Bush and his cabinent though his theory was nuts. Exit Senior Bush, 8 years of Clinton, and Wolfowitz and Rice. Powell, a reasonable man, though they were nuts back in 1991, and still thinks they are nuts. Exit Powell, enter Rice. See a trend?

You stated an opinion: Bush deserves "credit for taking a stand for what he believes to be correct and genuinely tries to affect change. " Is this true? Does he REALLY believe it, or are this the argument he uses to justify a selfish agenda?  Everyone has opinions, and your opinion is based on nothing more than the application of facts to your worldview. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them an extremist. (Although I'd agree that most persons--maybe 90% of Americans--are moderates, not even liberal or conservative, much less Left-Wing or Right-wing)

And I was struck by your last comment. Certainly, there is hypocrisy on both ends of the spectrum. (Why does the Right want to do business with China, but you can't even visit Cuba? Why is it we can spend hundreds of billiions freeing the poor, starving women and children in Iraq, but want to cut medicaid funding?)

Hegel

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 148
    • View Profile
Re: Should Republicans be drafted first?
« Reply #178 on: July 02, 2005, 12:44:00 PM »
BTW he's not "my" president, he is OUR president.  I didn't vote for him much like I assume you didn't either.  I am a proud libertarian but that doesn't matter to you suposedly open minded people.  Anyone who doesn't agree with you 100% is a cook nutjob religious fanatic.  ALL I said was we are there now and yes, we DO have to succeed.  If we don't, what do you think this world will be like?  You may be able to say I told you so then, but let's see at what cost.  You are supposed to be the "enlightened" ones, yet liberals are more closed minded than anyone I've ever known.  At least I'm willing to see both sides of the argument and say yes, we shouldn't have gone to war,but we're there now, let's get this thing done and done correctly.

Well, you sound like a Republican, as do many Libertarians.  As a libertarian, why do you espouse going into Iraq in the first place?  Wouldn't a libertarian rather the Iraqui people figure it out for themselves, instead of their archenemy, the USA, making the decisions for them?

Your use of words like "HAVE TO" and "MUST" does not indicate looking at both sides of the issue.  We've been there for three years now.  We've gotten rid of Hussein.  We've installed a parliament and trained a few troops.  Now, it's up to the Iraqui's, as it was before Bush decided to "save the day".  Freedom comes at a price.  Let them pay the price, if they truly want it.  Why should we pay the price for them?


elemnopee

  • Guest
Re: Should Republicans be drafted first?
« Reply #179 on: July 02, 2005, 12:46:11 PM »
I love how Wolfowitz is cited as a "political theorist," try "political hack"