Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

C M Edwards · 2005-06-16 14:28:46

No sense being overly bound by a line some Brit drew on a map in the last century. Use the cultural rifts to our advantage and give them what they want at the same time.

I don't trust this partitioning idea.

Problems include, but are not limited to:

In return for some help we got from them, we made assurances to Turkey that we wouldn't deliberately do this. As far as tactics on the ground go, that's a non-issue - we don't need the Turks anymore. But it would be harmful for our international negotiations in general, even so.

The Iraqis already have a new government, one which we have declared sovereign and has its own army. If we break our word to them as well, will we then need to conquer Iraq a second time? (Snubbing Turkey would be nothing compared to that.)

Then there's the Insurgency. Or, I should say, the various insurgencies. They seem to have devolved into a lot of infighting lately. Their motivations may be too diverse to simply "give them what they want", and attempts to do so might reunify the unsatisfied remnants. That's not dramatically different from the situation today, but don't expect partitioning to improve anything there.

Then, there's the people and the humanitarian catastrophe we'd be abandoning, the oil we'd never get, the boost a weak Iraq would give to Iran, the boost our retreat would give to Al Qaeda, etc, etc.

No, the opportunity to partition Iraq has come and gone. We've made too many promises, and gone too far down the road to reconstruction to simply change direction now.

My advice?

The Romans had it right. Age quod agis. If you're going to rebuild Iraq, rebuild Iraq.

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-16 17:17:04

The Romans had it right. Age quod agis. If you're going to rebuild Iraq, rebuild Iraq.

Which will require "getting Roman" in other capacities as well.

The old Cobra plan.

BWhite · 2005-06-17 05:38:05

The Romans had it right. Age quod agis. If you're going to rebuild Iraq, rebuild Iraq.
Which will require "getting Roman" in other capacities as well.
The old Cobra plan.

Can Americans become Roman? Or are we too fearful?

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-17 05:46:53

Can Americans become Roman? Or are we too fearful?

It will take some shifting of the mindset and a bit of endured hardship, but yes.

However realistically speaking, it won't happen with things as they are. It would be like trying to turn a sloth into a tiger.

And I feel compelled to bring your sig in.

A quote from Avi Schlaim, an Israeli historian:
<i>The issue isn't whether or not we are the same as the Nazis, the issue is whether we are different enough.</i>

Worthy point, particularly as it pertains to Israel.

For America? As a proud militaristic American fascist I can truly say yes, we are different enough.

Okay, the troll is heading back to his bridge.

clark · 2005-06-17 05:48:40

Offical count: Current dead, 1,713. Current wounded 12,762.

BWhite · 2005-06-17 07:17:46

We aren't as evil as Hitler!

Boo-rah!

Corn dogs and lemonade for all!

!

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-17 07:30:49

And the troll crawled under the bridge and found it occupied by another.

We aren't as evil as Hitler!
Boo-rah!

We're not even as evil as FDR. Pretty weak as far as evil goes.

BWhite · 2005-06-17 07:32:33

How 'bout 'dem Pistons!

Speaking of Boo-rah!

BWhite · 2005-06-17 08:41:18

Can Americans become Roman? Or are we too fearful?
It will take some shifting of the mindset and a bit of endured hardship, but yes.
However realistically speaking, it won't happen with things as they are. It would be like trying to turn a sloth into a tiger.

Saw this comment, elsewhere:

The lesson of Vietnam is that America doesn't have the stomach to be an imperial power, and shouldn't try.

Whatever theory may say about the Roman way, we US-ians aren't up to it. Therefore to try and fail is worse than not trying.

Palomar · 2005-06-17 09:00:25

We aren't as evil as Hitler!
Boo-rah!
Corn dogs and lemonade for all!
!

*So what's a few more keystrokes?

1. Who was hijacking all those Western domestic airplanes all throughout the 1970s and 1980s? Yes, the --1970s--; three decades ago. Murdering pilots, raping stewardesses, killing civilian passengers.

2. Who bombed the WTC?

3. Who bombed the U.S.S. Cole?

4. Who has expressed the desire to kill every U.S. citizen
(children and women included)? (Genocide).

5. Who attacked on 9/11?

6. On and on.

Sort of makes the Islamoterrorists look like Nazis, IMO. Unless, of course, we're supposed to placate their blood lust and stupid religious bigotry by constantly turning the other cheek and allowing them to butcher us into oblivion (which is what -they've- openly admitted they'd like to do and would do, given the opportunity).

We have and continue to treat them a heckuva lot better than they'd ever even remotely consider treating us.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-06-17 09:02:50

We aren't as evil as Hitler!
Boo-rah!
Corn dogs and lemonade for all!
!
*So what's a few more keystrokes?
1. Who was hijacking all those Western domestic airplanes all throughout the 1970s and 1980s? Yes, the --1970s--; three decades ago. Murdering pilots, raping stewardesses, killing civilian passengers.
2. Who bombed the WTC?
3. Who bombed the U.S.S. Cole?
4. Who has expressed the desire to kill every U.S. citizen
(children and women included)? (Genocide).
5. Who attacked on 9/11?
6. On and on.
Sort of makes the Islamoterrorists look like Nazis, IMO. Unless, of course, we're supposed to placate their blood lust and stupid religious bigotry by constantly turning the other cheek and allowing them to butcher us into oblivion (which is what -they've- openly admitted they'd like to do and would do, given the opportunity).
We have and continue to treat them a heckuva lot better than they'd ever even remotely consider treating us.
--Cindy

Answer? Saudi nut-jobs.

= = =

But since Bush and Prince Bandar are such good buddies lets give the American people Saddam's head as a substitute prize.

Edited By BWhite on 1119020684

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-17 09:23:28

Since this is peripherally political and follows in the pattern of light, off-topic tangents that has developed, this is as good a place for this silly little rant as anywhere. With a peppering of random links with just enough info to know what the hell I'm ranting about.

Each branch of the US military is getting new uniforms. All different of course, just for fun with logistics I suppose. Everyone just putting the relevant insignia on the same base uniform is just too simple, apparently.

The http://www.marcorsyscom.usmc.mil/sites/ … sp]Marines type makes sense. The pixelation is a little weird, but surprisingly it works.

The http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,1 … .html]Army design is also not too bad. In a "Starship Troopers" sort of way. Should transition well into the "Objective Force Warrior" Stormtrooper thing they've got coming in a few years.

As near as I can tell, thehttp://www.defensetech.org/archives/001155.html]Navy is planning to outfit their personnel with these blue cammies to either sneak up on enemy ships with their new "Jesus Force Sailor" or conveniently lose problem personell should they go overboard. Either that, or they so dread being mistaken for Marines that they're willing to don this silly looking getup.

In fairness, they try to excuse it with a plausible story, but it's nothing panzer grey uniforms wouldn't fix.

And then there's the http://federalvoice.dscc.dla.mil/federa … m.html]Air Force. I suppose on the off-chance that hostile forces infiltrate a US airfield filled with blue aircraft, it may help the wearer blend in with the baby-blue warbirds and grey asphalt. I can certainly understand the desire to want to go unnoticed in that uniform.

Congratulations if you didn't give up, we're approaching the point. So why am I ranting like a madman about this trivial nonsense? Because it is indicative of a trend in our military that needs to be addressed. The introduction of service-specific "camouflage" uniforms in colors and patterns that aid concealment in no Earthly environment is a sure sign of a military becoming ossified into a social institution rather than a war-fighting organization.

We are now by far the supreme power. Our technology lets us get away with being soft and sloppy. We don't lose military engagements because we're defeated, we just get sick of it and go home. Always "away games" so there's not all that much at stake most of the time.

The United States is now the proud owner of a very well equipped peacetime simulation of a superpower military. They go in to some distant corner of the world with all their flashy gizmos, blow some stuff up, people back home and commanders alike get used to it. Then when some real grunts-in-the-mud fighting starts, everyone but the grunts themselves freak out. Shit, people are getting killed! This is HARD!

The basics of war don't change much through the ages. Our military has to stop focusing on new weapons and doctrines as ways of fundamentally changing the face of war, our citizens have to stop looking at the military as a social institution with any purpose other than killing bad guys and the military itself needs practice.

That's the other factor, to keep a military from turning into a club where people can play with cool gadgets and parade around in fancy uniforms that military needs to fight regularly. For real, not just exercises. That keeps it focused on it's job instead of other things, like distinguishing one branch of service from another with spiffy new duds.

Anyone here familiar with the Sukhomlinov effect? It's an old Russian observation that in modern (last few centuries) conflicts the losing side is invaribaly the side with the flashiest uniforms. Fine tailoring and shiny medals do not a winning army make. Just something to consider as our sailors take to sea in blue hip-hop camo and our Battlestar Galactica army velcros up for action.

BWhite · 2005-06-17 09:27:56

Cobra, if Ikonboard had a ratings sytem you'd get a :up: from me.

We may disagree (somewhat) about when and where our military should be used but we don't disagree on how and why.

Palomar · 2005-06-17 09:44:00

We aren't as evil as Hitler!
Boo-rah!
Corn dogs and lemonade for all!
!
*So what's a few more keystrokes?
1. Who was hijacking all those Western domestic airplanes all throughout the 1970s and 1980s? Yes, the --1970s--; three decades ago. Murdering pilots, raping stewardesses, killing civilian passengers.
2. Who bombed the WTC?
3. Who bombed the U.S.S. Cole?
4. Who has expressed the desire to kill every U.S. citizen
(children and women included)? (Genocide).
5. Who attacked on 9/11?
6. On and on.
Sort of makes the Islamoterrorists look like Nazis, IMO. Unless, of course, we're supposed to placate their blood lust and stupid religious bigotry by constantly turning the other cheek and allowing them to butcher us into oblivion (which is what -they've- openly admitted they'd like to do and would do, given the opportunity).
We have and continue to treat them a heckuva lot better than they'd ever even remotely consider treating us.
--Cindy
Answer? Saudi nut-jobs.

*Yeah, it's just the Saudis doing these things. Riiiiiiight.

There are Islamoterrorists all over the Middle East, and not all are native to Saudi Arabia.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-06-17 09:53:06

The well funded nut-jobs and their leaders are Saudi, or Egyptian or Jordanian. The rest are cannon fodder.

Palomar · 2005-06-17 10:02:50

Anyone here familiar with the Sukhomlinov effect? It's an old Russian observation that in modern (last few centuries) conflicts the losing side is invaribaly the side with the flashiest uniforms. Fine tailoring and shiny medals do not a winning army make. Just something to consider as our sailors take to sea in blue hip-hop camo and our Battlestar Galactica army velcros up for action.

*Never heard of it before, but that's interesting.

The Nazis sure liked spiffy stuff, ceremonies and pomp.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-06-17 10:06:21

Anyone here familiar with the Sukhomlinov effect? It's an old Russian observation that in modern (last few centuries) conflicts the losing side is invaribaly the side with the flashiest uniforms. Fine tailoring and shiny medals do not a winning army make. Just something to consider as our sailors take to sea in blue hip-hop camo and our Battlestar Galactica army velcros up for action.
*Never heard of it before, but that's interesting.
The Nazis sure liked spiffy stuff, ceremonies and pomp.
--Cindy

If the shoe fits. . .

BWhite · 2005-06-17 10:16:41

clark needs to go back to SoCal since they are about to become an ihttp://www.guardian.co.uk/g8/story/0,13365,1508676,00.html]independent nation. :;):

Stephen Tindale, executive director of Greenpeace, said: "Blair says climate change is the gravest threat we face but it seems his friend in the White House refuses even to admit that our world is warming. It is like claiming al-Qaida never existed.
"The prime minister should press on regardless, working with independent US states like California that recognise the problem exists and that a solution must be found."

Palomar · 2005-06-17 10:19:41

Anyone here familiar with the Sukhomlinov effect? It's an old Russian observation that in modern (last few centuries) conflicts the losing side is invaribaly the side with the flashiest uniforms. Fine tailoring and shiny medals do not a winning army make. Just something to consider as our sailors take to sea in blue hip-hop camo and our Battlestar Galactica army velcros up for action.
*Never heard of it before, but that's interesting.
The Nazis sure liked spiffy stuff, ceremonies and pomp.
--Cindy
If the shoe fits. . .

*We're not comparable to Nazis, Bill.

Get a grip.

With the exception of Abu Ghraib (unforgiveable) and other isolated events (also unforgivable), tell me where the concentration camps are? The ovens? The Zyklon B? The railway transports? The hundreds of thousands of people -- innocent civilians -- being systematically and deliberately snuffed out of existence?

Actually what you're doing isn't so much insulting the U.S. as undermining and trivializing the atrocities (Holocaust) the Jews suffered under the Third Reich.

We are -not- perpetuating a Holocaust. I might not be politically super-savvy or as knowledgeable about history as some folks here...but I know enough to know you are wrong and are exaggerating.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-17 10:25:23

*Never heard of it before, but that's interesting.
The Nazis sure liked spiffy stuff, ceremonies and pomp.

Germans in general, even prior.

I always found it interesting that military academies the world over instruct their students in the tactics of a nation that lost two world wars.

It was once said during WWII, and I can't recall the exact quote, that German soldiers dressed like they were going on parade, British soldiers like they were going to a picnic and American soldiers like they were going to work.

If the shoe fits. . .

<checks boots, sees they need a shine> That reminds me, one good thing about the new US uniforms. No more polishing boots. That's one useless ritual out of the way.

We're not comparable to Nazis, Bill.
Get a grip.

That's a fashionable tactic of those of a Left of center persuasion. Anyone to the right is a Nazi.

I get it all the time.

Keep crying Nazi and one of these days the real thing might come along. . .

BWhite · 2005-06-17 10:37:21

Nah, you guys have it backwards. Bush=Nazi is a Rovian move - - which Cindy copied by saying the word Nazi first.

Nicely trolled, by the way. Like the pick & roll in basketball. :;):

See, we ALL know Bush is a long way from being a Nazi therefore in comparison he looks like Mother Teresa. Downplaying expectations is a Rove trademark.

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-17 10:52:11

See, we ALL know Bush is a long way from being a Nazi therefore in comparison he looks like Mother Teresa.

Which might explain why the Democrats have been acting like raving nutbags lately.

So one could say then that Rove is a master propagandist. Like Goebbels. :;):

clark · 2005-06-17 10:54:24

One could say it, if one were a conservative Nazi loving nut job.

In Socal, we laugh at people like you. Or elect them Govenator.

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-17 11:00:57

One could say it, if one were a conservative Nazi loving nut job.

Nazi loving conservative nutjob. In accordance with the propaganda approach pointed out by Bill, you're making me look even more reasonable.

Though I must say, National Socialist women are. . . oh, nevermind. :;):

In Socal, we laugh at people like you. Or elect them Govenator.

Which works out, as we laugh at the people in SoCal. It's like a mutual admiration thing. But without the admiration.

BWhite · 2005-06-17 11:20:58

More world turns upside down stuff:

WASHINGTON – The income gap between the rich and the rest of the US population has become so wide, and is growing so fast, that it might eventually threaten the stability of democratic capitalism itself.
Is that a liberal's talking point? Sure.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0614/p01s … ?s=itm]But guess who is saying it

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2005-06-16 14:28:46

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#102 2005-06-16 17:17:04

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#103 2005-06-17 05:38:05

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#104 2005-06-17 05:46:53

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#105 2005-06-17 05:48:40

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#106 2005-06-17 07:17:46

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#107 2005-06-17 07:30:49

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#108 2005-06-17 07:32:33

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#109 2005-06-17 08:41:18

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#110 2005-06-17 09:00:25

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#111 2005-06-17 09:02:50

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#112 2005-06-17 09:23:28

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#113 2005-06-17 09:27:56

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#114 2005-06-17 09:44:00

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#115 2005-06-17 09:53:06

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#116 2005-06-17 10:02:50

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#117 2005-06-17 10:06:21

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#118 2005-06-17 10:16:41

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#119 2005-06-17 10:19:41

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#120 2005-06-17 10:25:23

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#121 2005-06-17 10:37:21

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#122 2005-06-17 10:52:11

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#123 2005-06-17 10:54:24

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#124 2005-06-17 11:00:57

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#125 2005-06-17 11:20:58

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

Board footer