Bush baby, time to grow up.

Originally posted by Thequ1ck

I'm no strategist...but I am willing to
accept that we are in a war and we need to treat it as such.

Would a negotiated settlement be out of the question?

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
The Iraq war is perportedly about removing a dictator and establishing
a democracy. Anything short of that will be classed as a failure.

Our enemies aren't Muslims, they are the people that are standing
in the way of rebuilding Iraq. If they were Muslims, I would suggest
a retreat as the only way to win would be to kill all (or most) Muslims
worldw ...[text shortened]... t I am willing to
accept that we are in a war and we need to treat it as such.

A prescription for neverending war in the name of saving face. It should be obvious that the attempt to impose a government friendly to the West by force in Iraq is an utter failure. Your solution? Keep killing and getting killed. The war itself is what is fueling the rise in strength of the Islamic Fundamentalists; end the war (or at least Western participation in it) and you will take away their number one recruiting tool. You people are blind to think that the war can ever be won; there comes a time in every losing game to resign and the US' time to resign the game in Iraq is long past due.

Originally posted by no1marauder
A prescription for neverending war in the name of saving face. It should be obvious that the attempt to impose a government friendly to the West by force in Iraq is an utter failure. Your solution? Keep killing and getting killed. The war itself is what is fueling the rise in strength of the Islamic Fundamentalists; end the war (or at least Wes ...[text shortened]... me in every losing game to resign and the US' time to resign the game in Iraq is long past due.

Our mission in Iraq is clear.
We are helping Iraqis build a free nation.
We are advancing freedom in the broader Middle East.

We will leave when we have accomplished that mission, you can help, hinder or get out of the way. Simple as that.

Originally posted by xs
Our mission in Iraq is clear.
We are helping Iraqis build a free nation.
We are advancing freedom in the broader Middle East.

We will leave when we have accomplished that mission, you can help, hinder or get out of the way. Simple as that.

Just like in Vietnam.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Just like in Vietnam.

No1 for President !

A garantueed road to defeat !


Tell us how would YOU handle the War on Terror, ....... simply retreat and the conflict disappears as if by magic ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe

No1 for President !

A garantueed road to defeat !


Tell us how would YOU handle the War on Terror, .......

By not fighting it. If policies I have supported for most of my adult life had been implemented the WTC would still be standing. There is no reason for the US to prop up repressive governments in the Middle East; this gives absolutely no benefit to the vast majority of Americans. Absent US troops in Saudi Arabia 9/11 would have never happened.

Give me one reason why the US government should support with blood and treasure repressive regimes in the Middle East (I include Israel in that category)?

EDIT: What conflict? The holy war religious nuts on both sides want to fight? Already had the Crusades; if you're sooooooooooooo anxious for another one, grab a crossbow and get to the Middle East pronto.

Originally posted by no1marauder
By not fighting it. If policies I have supported for most of my adult life had been implemented the WTC would still be standing. There is no reason for the US to prop up repressive governments in the Middle East; this gives abso ...[text shortened]... or another one, grab a crossbow and get to the Middle East pronto.

No1: "By not fighting it"

Now THAT is what I call Maraudian logic .....

No1: "If policies I have supported for most of my adult life had been implemented the WTC would still be standing. There is no reason for the US to prop up repressive governments in the Middle East; this gives absolutely no benefit to the vast majority of Americans. Absent US troops in Saudi Arabia 9/11 would have never happened."

If the sky comes falling down we all will be wearing blue hats ...... in other words; this is all speculation. Not a single proposal in the field of foreign politics can ignore or dismiss the foreign policies of past administrations and the course of history by declaring that if "they" had listened to me this would never had happened."

Such an attitude can NEVER lead to reasonable and adequate foreign policy proposals ......

No1: " ..... this gives absolutely no benefit to the vast majority of Americans."

Is this the criterium you use to determine whether a foreign policy is adequate or not ?

No1: "EDIT: What conflict? The holy war religious nuts on both sides want to fight? Already had the Crusades; if you're sooooooooooooo anxious for another one, grab a crossbow and get to the Middle East pronto.

Such above statements are not very encouraging in keeping to take you seriously.

CONCLUSION: You do NOT have an adequate and serious alternative to Bush's foreign policy. If I am wrong please present it to me.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
No1: "By not fighting it"

Now THAT is what I call Maraudian logic .....

No1: "If policies I have supported for most of my adult life had been implemented the WTC would still be standing. There is no reason for the US to prop up re ...[text shortened]... sh's foreign policy. If I am wrong please present it to me.

No1: " ..... this gives absolutely no benefit to the vast majority of Americans."

Ivanhoe: Is this the criterium you use to determine whether a foreign policy is adequate or not ?


Of course, what criteria would you suggest? They are paying for it, ya know!

Originally posted by no1marauder
No1: " ..... this gives absolutely no benefit to the vast majority of Americans."

Ivanhoe: Is this the criterium you use to determine whether a foreign policy is adequate or not ?


Of course, what criteria would you suggest? They are paying for it, ya know!

Isn't it a wee bit "thin" ? .... not to mention that it is rather egotistical in the eyes of non-Americans, which is ironically one of the grievances of not only the extremist but also the moderate Muslims towards American foreign policy in general.


Reading your last post I assume you agree with my conclusion you do NOT have an adequate and serious alternative to Bush's foreign policy. If you do not agree, please present it to me.

Originally posted by ivanhoe

Isn't it a wee bit "thin" ?

I don't see how; a democratic government is supposed to serve the interests of the people. With the exception of invading fundamental rights in a Lockean democracy (which is forbidden), ALL policies of the government should be of SOME benefit to the majority. It is quite clear that US foreign policy for quite some time has been geared to benefit wealthy elites and not the interests of the American people. The people are suffering through higher taxes, the accumulation of debt, restrictions on their personal liberties and maybe getting themselves or their sons and/or their daughters killed because of the present policy. What benefit are they receiving?

EDIT: I have already presented my policy countless times in this forum and I don't give the tiniest s**t what you think of it.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I don't see how; a democratic government is supposed to serve the interests of the people. With the exception of invading fundamental rights in a Lockean democracy (which is forbidden), ALL policies of the government should be of SOME benefit to the majority. It is quite clear that US foreign policy for quite some time has been geared to benefit ...[text shortened]... my policy countless times in this forum and I don't give the tiniest s**t what you think of it.

No1: "EDIT: I have already presented my policy countless times in this forum and I don't give the tiniest s**t what you think of it."

End of discussion.

Originally posted by xs
Our mission in Iraq is clear.
We are helping Iraqis build a free nation.
We are advancing freedom in the broader Middle East.

We will leave when we have accomplished that mission, you can help, hinder or get out of the way. Simple as that.

Do you actually believe that? Iraq never asked for any help. Yes America sure are helping, helping themselves to a big fat paycheck. And yes Iraq will need to be built, but only because American bombs have destroyed it.

"Our mission is clear"? I though you guys were looking for weapons of mass distruction? Wasn't that your mission?? Not Iraqi freedom?? Correct me if i am wrong, but i believe the war was started due to a big fat lie? Please...

No1, I am beginning to see how frustrated you are about your own people, they are either ignorant, or so highly influenced by modern manipulative media that they just don’t use common sense when forming an opinion. In fact, I think they don’t even bother forming and opinion, they jut accept whatever they are told.

Sasquatch im glad you actually see's both sides of the story and have formed your own opinion. Even though we may disagree on things, you show a common sense approach.

And XS, i will get in the way, for every innocent Iraqi and every American/British/Australian soldiers death, i will get in the way of "Advancing Iraqi Freedom".

Originally posted by no1marauder
By not fighting it. If policies I have supported for most of my adult life had been implemented the WTC would still be standing. There is no reason for the US to prop up repressive governments in the Middle East; this gives abso ...[text shortened]... or another one, grab a crossbow and get to the Middle East pronto.

WHAT!?
The Saudis invited in the U.S. military shortly after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. Sooooooooo don't even go there, else I'll use your own arguments against you (i.e.Lebanon).
You would bow to some maniacs resentment of the presence of "infidel troops" on supposedly holy land. Blah.

The US should never submit American foreign policy goals to the vagaries of international public opinion, disgruntled psychopaths included.

Originally posted by xs
WHAT!?
The Saudis invited in the U.S. military shortly after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. [b]Sooooooooo don't even go there, else I'll use your own arguments against you (i.e.Lebanon).
You would bow to some maniacs resentment of the pr ...[text shortened]... f international public opinion, disgruntled psychopaths included. [/b]

The dictators of Saudi Arabia invited US troops into the kingdom under some US pressure. The US left those troops in Saudi Arabia knowing full well that it would cause a backlash against the US. The question isn't whether the US under international law could leave troops in SA (obviously they could), the question is: Why do so? Why continue to support the repressive Saudi government when it was obvious that it would put America at risk? What do the vast majority of Americans gain? Please answer that question. What exactly are these "foreign policy goals" you speak of and what makes them worth hundreds of thousands of lives? I'd like to see a cost to benefit analysis with you placing on the benefit side SOMETHING to outweigh the fearsome cost we are all paying to attempt to keep sheiks, sultans, emirs and other Western puppets in power in Muslim countries (you can also add in supporting Israel's illegal occupation and repression of the Palestinians).

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Isn't it [ the Maraudian view that US foreign policy should benefit Americans ] a wee bit "thin" ? .... not to mention that it is rather egotistical in the eyes of non-Americans, which is ironically one of the grievances of not only the extremist but also the moderate Muslims towards American foreign policy in general.

.

You state that a policy of non-interference in other countries would be regarded as egotistical; by implication, current US involvement is the epitome of selflessness. You're right in saying that the USA is perceived, rightly or wrongly as a nation that puts its own interests first, but that perception has not arisen from any policy of non-interference. Thank you for an excellent example of political double talk.