Wesley Bruce wrote:
I can agree with all of what you've said below. I'm assuming that if
'we' pull out there will be no US or Aussy air power involved. the Iraqi
air force is in pieces so Syria and Iran would back oposite sides and
throw their air power into the picture. Hope fully your right and things
will be less lethal but I can't see how a poorly planned pull out would
help. Edmund Storms wrote:
I agree, a poorly planned pullout would not be good. The same argument
was applied to the Vietnam situation. However, we do not have control
of the situation. We have not been able to arrange things to provide us
with a good time to pullout, although we have defined the conditions
needed. This was also true of Vietnam. I predict the situation will
develop exactly like it did in Vietnam. The leaders will assume they
can win, allow more people to die, and then pullout with their tail
between their legs when the insurgents find their stride. Meanwhile,
the US will suffer a serious depression that will shift popular support
away from the war and present policies.
Regards,
Ed
Wesley Bruce wrote:
I value the truth but I also know that if we pull out now about 5
million people will die in the bloodiest civil war in middle east
history. It would quickly involve Syria, Iran, Jordan and might spill
over into turkey and Saudi Arabia. We needed to take out Saddam
regardless of his success or failures in making weapons of mass
destruction. Justice not fear should have led us to act ages ago. War
is an imperfect tool and a dangerous one but some times no other
option remains.
OK, I'll bite, how do you know that the civil war, which I agree will
happen, will have this effect? Consider these possibilities. We
eventually have to pull out, if for no other reason than we run out of
volunteer troops. No informed person believes that all of the internal
problems will be resolved by that time. Hatreds built up over
generations will remain, the infrastructure will still be a mess, and
unemployment will be high. In other words, the people will still be
pissed off with each other and with us. Yes, there will be a bloodbath
within the country, which I might add, will be our fault. What we have
done will be resented by people in that area for generations. However,
why would Syria, Iran or the other countries get involved except in a
minor way, such as giving aid to one side or the other. These
countries have no self interest in getting bombed by the US. A general
war would have to be fought without aircraft, because the US can shoot
down anything in the air. On the other hand, the longer we stay, the
more of our people die, the more we spend, the more terrorists are
trained, and the greater will be their wish to get even. As for
Saddam, we supported him for many years and gave him the tools to
control and kill his own people. Only when he threatened "our" oil
did we decide he was "bad". Were do you find justice in our history
there?
If we want a better tool than War then we must work harder to find
such tools. I think the World Federalists
<http://www.wfm.org/index.php/base/main> might have a clue but in the
final analysis if any population like the "Sunni Triangle" decide it
can't handle its neighbours having a fare share or objects to having
to work for a living; if any one decides he has the dieing need to
kill to force his beliefs on others then, yes, war is all they can
expect in any world any one can imagine. Name one real or fictional
society that has faced such terrorism and not had to step in Armed?
Such terrorism has been practiced throughout history, and especially
in Europe. Only when it happened here did we attack a country that
had nothing to do with the event. The issue is not responding to
terrorism, but how this can best be done. Bush has chosen the worst
possible approach, but one that gets support from the uninformed.
Regards,
Ed
- Re: Off topic but important Edmund Storms
-
