Quote:
Originally posted by tabs
Shaun I wonder how U see me, I think I represent a more or less conservative view point, however I don't see myself as being an ideolog. I see myself as having some vision and stating what I see as the Reality of a situation. I don't see myself as going away with the next election. I also don't see the Right Wing disappearing either, if the WH becomes Blue with the next election U will hear one he11 of a howl come from that Right Wing eschlon.
Also the United States is committed in Iraq whether we like it or not, whether it is a Blue or Red President. The next President will just have to make up some excuse to the American People as to why we have to stay in there. U see that is HOW BAD of a mess GW and HIS CREW got America into. There is virtually NO WAY OUT, unless the USA is willing to RISK EVERYTHING. Think in terms of a World Wide Depression that would make your Grandpas Depression of the 30s look like high times. Now do U really want to risk that, or is your Porsche worth the blood of a few more American soldiers.
|
Ted, above all, even though we've only buffet'd twice, I see you as a friend. After that, a great and glorious eater.
But seriously, we've had good, articulate conversations and I know your perspective comes from the Right. But you aren't Far Right. And you aren't an Ideolog, maybe a romantic pragmatist. the right needs more like you.
I don't buy into the NO WAY OUT concept, and as you have seen, I'm on many sides of one fence on this issue. I can tell you that I find the "if we set a deadline, we signal to our enemies to just wait it out" a bankrupt argument. the fact is that it will take 3 to 6 months (3 if we leave heavy, cold war footprint gear like tanks for the Iraqi's...6 if we take it all back) to pull out of Iraq. I give our enemies exactly 30 days to figure out that we are leaving and then mount a furious campaign to take over the country. of course we would have to step back in to stop them since it's a fact that the Iraqi Army will never be up to the task. that's a sad fact. Perhaps it would be better to leave, let the country fall into ruin and then rain upon it a furious rage never before seen. tough to say.
The above scenario, the only probably one for years to come, is what led me to my new theory that we need 300,000+ troops in Iraq. Why? Well, first of all, from a diplomatic standpoint, Bush has significantly weakened the U.S. Proof? Condi Rice begging the Iranians to stop the inflow of trained insurgents, terrorists, IED's, etc. WTF is that all about. Iran is our enemy with nuclear capabilities and we are begging them to not destabilize Iraq?
So, we need XX,000 troops, heavy armor and helicopters flying 24/7 on the Iranian border, Syrian as well to help stabilize the country. I once believed that a diplomatic solution was the only one. But now I see that the combination of our failure in diplomacy, combined with Iraqi government caring more about lining their pockets while in office than building a democracy combined with our unique creation of an Entitlement State in Iraq, means that diplomacy is not going to work. Ever.
We need 200,000+ more active troops (yes, 300K troops means 500K total including support) to turn the country upside down and clean it up, all while winning hearts and minds by getting the electrical grid up and running for more than 3 hours a day, etc.
At the same time, we need to catch and destroy Bin Laden. Did you know that we give Pakistan $1B of taxpayer dollars ANNUALLY specifically to catch OBL? There's some good ROI, huh?
catching OBL and putting his head on a pike on the WH will show that when you kill 3,000 Americans, there's a price to pay...though I know the Right likes to say "we'll marginalize you" instead. NO! We've squandered huge opportunities for the U.S. to maintain and build respect in the world, and OBL is at the top of the list.
sort of rambly, sorry, but I wanted to sort of explain where I am coming from. Of course we are committed to Iraq, but not for the talking points the WH puts out.