Shout Box

Who's Online
1 registered (1 invisible), 4 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Page 5 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >
Topic Options
#26714 - 02/13/07 05:53 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: felix m]
quanto_the_mad Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/14/02
Posts: 2628
Loc: brooklyn
Quote:


cruise missles





Oh, you mean like Operation Infinite Reach? Republicans jumped all over Clinton for that. You think Bush would be dumb enough to do the same thing as Clinton and leave himself open to the Democratic backlash?
_________________________


Top
#26715 - 02/13/07 06:28 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: felix m]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
Friedman supported the Iraq invasion. But he had the courage to admit that he had gotten it very, very wrong. And I think he has been very evenhanded regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict. The Israelis offered an imperfect proposal at Camp David. Instead of offering a counterproposal, Arafat walked away. The negotiators said they were close to an agreement. But Arafat apparently thought he had more to gain by continued conflict than by compromise. Anyway, Friedman has been justifiably critical of both Arafat and Israeli hard-liners.

And yet you *know* the administration has a fully-developed plan for the invasion already

Invade? With what? We have approximately zero ground troops available.

The decision has already been made. Just like Iraq.

But again: what would the point of an attack be? What would be the goal? Much as many of us disagreed with the use of force in Iraq, there were at least some asserted objectives that were reasonably (OK, maybe unreasonably) related to military action: WMDs, ousting an oppressive dictator, providing an opening to remaking the Middle East.

What possible objective would be served by bombing Iran? We don't have the ground personnel to invade, and we can't take out the government by air attacks (or much of their supposed nuclear facilities which are underground). And unsuccessful military action would only weaken Bush and his associates' political power.

Attacking Iraq made some sense from certain points of view, even if those views turned out to be factually wrong and hopelessly optimistic. But I can't come up with even a ridiculous scenario where attacking Iran would make a modicum of sense. So it seems to me that the administration is just playing to its ever-shrinking base, maybe because they can't think of anything else to do.

Top
#26716 - 02/13/07 07:01 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: Daniel]
Julie Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 01/16/00
Posts: 2082
Loc: SoCal
Daniel, I'm in full agreement of you, especially on the "with what?" question. With what, exactly.

Those same goals for attacking Iraq apply to Iran ... in fact, it is (and was, in 2002) clear that Iran (and N. Korea) is a larger threat to us than Iraq.

What I'm saying is that sense and end-goals and reality have no place in the Neocon War Machine, just like a plan for post-war outcome in Iraq had no place in their war plans.

They have plans to invade, period end. Just like 5 years ago, we're only now catching onto what's likely already well-planned and even in motion. They see enemy and must attack ... it's really more primitive than you're giving them credit for.

Top
#26717 - 02/13/07 08:04 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: quanto_the_mad]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
Quote:

cruise missles




Oh, you mean like Operation Infinite Reach? Republicans jumped all over Clinton for that. You think Bush would be dumb enough to do the same thing as Clinton and leave himself open to the Democratic backlash?




Absolutely not. GW would much rather send troops.
No backlash there!

Quote:

it's really more primitive than you're giving them credit for.




What was gained?
1) Support in both public and legislative terms.
2) Support by the business community.
3) General economic prosperity for the country created by military spending.
4) Great economic prosperity for financial supporters and related monetary feedback to the Republican Party.
5) The supposed power and practical authority to rule by proclamation!
(Tell me that didn't go to GWs
head!)
6) "Revenge" for treats to his father.

Added: I am sure GW thought he was going to get more with an easy victory too, control of oil, instant glory...


Edited by mworking (02/13/07 08:18 PM)

Top
#26718 - 02/13/07 08:16 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: Julie]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
Those same goals for attacking Iraq apply to Iran ... in fact, it is (and was, in 2002) clear that Iran (and N. Korea) is a larger threat to us than Iraq.

But there's a big difference, even from the neocon viewpoint, between Iraq and Iran. Iraq was at least theoretically doable. Its military was not strong. It was ruled by a tyrant opposed by a substantial majority of the populace who wanted him ousted. Its population and land area was not so great that a modest occupying force could, with some cooperation from the public, could provide security (which turned out to be a very optimistic assumption with no backup plan). If you were looking for a place to start transforming the Middle East, Iraq would have been it.

But Iran clearly isn't it. It's far larger, far more populous, and an attack would likely arouse nationalist sentiments that would drive the public towards the present regime. So even from the neocon view, how does an attack make sense? What would be accomplished that would be in the US's interest?

There's a reason we haven't invaded North Korea: because it's simply not doable. An attack on North Korea would result in a huge and unstoppable assault on Seoul. That's an outcome we (and the South Koreans) are not willing to accept, hence we have no real military leverage. I think Iran is more similar to North Korea than Iraq: it's equally not doable, hence I don't think there are any real plans for an invasion, or even an attack. All the White House has is bluster, but I don't think it's fooling anyone.

They have plans to invade, period end.
And what could those plans possibly look like, given that we have no troops to invade with?

Top
#26719 - 02/13/07 08:26 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: Daniel]
felix m Offline
journeyman

Registered: 05/01/06
Posts: 63

Top
#26720 - 02/13/07 08:42 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: Daniel]
Julie Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 01/16/00
Posts: 2082
Loc: SoCal
Those same goals for attacking Iraq apply to Iran ... in fact, it is (and was, in 2002) clear that Iran (and N. Korea) is a larger threat to us than Iraq.

But there's a big difference, even from the neocon viewpoint, between Iraq and Iran. Iraq was at least theoretically doable.

Yes - Iraq was the low-hanging fruit. Go after that first, scare Iran by making a mess next door.

If you were looking for a place to start transforming the Middle East, Iraq would have been it.

.... the start, yes. But only the start.

So even from the neocon view, how does an attack make sense? What would be accomplished that would be in the US's interest?

That's the thing: the neocon Bush war machine isn't in it for the US's interests (how idealistic of you! ). They are in it for their own interests. There's plenty in it for them - in addition to those already cited, starting an invasion this year, would guaruntee them the 08 elections, since we can't change guard mid-war. It doesn't have to make sense for our country or our people, you silly Democrat. It just has to serve their purposes.

What could the plans look like, you keep asking? I have unlimited faith in the war machine's ability to propel itself. While I don't want to toss out straw men here, I believe the word draft has made it into the mass media in the last year.

Top
#26721 - 02/13/07 09:03 PM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: Julie]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
Go after that first, scare Iran by making a mess next door.

Well, we all see how well that worked out. Our intervention in Iraq, which took out their totalitarian enemy neighbor, was the best thing the Iranian government could have wished for. Scared? They should be thanking us!

They are in it for their own interests. There's plenty in it for them - in addition to those already cited, starting an invasion this year, would guaruntee them the 08 elections, since we can't change guard mid-war.

Seems to me we just did. Iraq was the major issue last November. Starting a war with Iran without a clear mission would seem to me to be an obvious way to lose in 2008.

And we can't invade if we have nothing to invade with. I'd think that would be self-evident, even to the most neo neocon. Our troops are a little busy at the moment. An attempt by the administration to institute a draft without public support for the war effort would be the best thing for the Democratic party. And even if they could institute a draft without congressional approval, it would take months to put into action, months to train draftees, months before they could be sent abroad. I'm admittedly no expert, but I don't see any real possibility of sending any troops anywhere by the end of the year.

So even from "their" interests, I don't see how they can be serious about a war with no clear mission, little public support, and no resources to commit to it. In my book, that all adds up to "no plan," at least for the next year or two.

Top
#26722 - 02/14/07 12:29 AM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: Daniel]
Mike Rawdon Offline

Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 11/29/99
Posts: 4269
Loc: Poughkeepsie
Reality check - the leading proponent of the draft is a New York democratic Congressman. That probably means at some point Hillary would go on record as supporting the draft*. Which would guarantee that the Dems would lose in "08.

* You heard it here first folks.

Top
#26723 - 02/14/07 01:05 AM Re: The wheels are in motion... [Re: Mike Rawdon]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
Reality check - the leading proponent of the draft is a New York democratic Congressman. That probably means at some point Hillary would go on record as supporting the draft*. Which would guarantee that the Dems would lose in "08.

Well, if Hillary had joined Congressman Rangel when he voted against the Iraq use of force resolution, she'd be in a much stronger position today!

Anyhoo, Mike, I assume your post is facetious since Rangel is proposing a draft as a political ploy (as he opposes the Iraq war), not that his proposal even as a political ploy stands a Sunni's chance in Sadr City of getting majority support even among Dems.

Top
Page 5 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >


Moderator:  webmaster 
Sponsored