Just wondering

[Odin]

i agree completely with your assement of the current situation. i feel though that it's better to for the dutch boy to keep his finger in the hole than for the city to get swamped. so i will take the trade off of hemmoraging prestige and money and goodwill now to prevent WMD's going off in major cities near where i live in the future.

I acknowledge your point i just disagree that leaving Iraq is going to prevent or delay an attack in the future.

as for solutions, i am in favor of what some others have posted on other topics here. as in full conscription in terms of WWII levels. if we are at war, then we should start acting like it. yes, it would be extremely costly in terms of money, lives, and popular support. if there is an american patrol on every other intersection in every iraqi city, i think the suicide attacks will stop. i think it is near criminal negligence that our political leaders, once they realized that things were not going to plan, have still not yet come up with an effective plan B. i am shocked that after all this time, the taliban is being allowed to have a resurgence in afghanistan.

Thats certainly a viable solution. Moving to a full wartime economy would certainly make military operations much more effective, economically I think the U.S. can pull it off. The economy isnt that bad really, wages havent kept up with inflation and the housing market is off, but people are working.

The economy is correctable, so I think I agree with your solution of a full conscription, its certainly not a sexy option, but one that would work IMHO.

if george washington had lost the american revolution, he would have been hung as a traitor to his king. if abe lincoln had lost the american civil war, he most certainly would at the very least have been impeached. if bush can't figure out a way to get this going right, he needs to be held accountable and be replaced with someone who can.

Well yes I agree, but it dosent look like anyone is targeting Bush persay, but look around him his close friends are the focus (rumsfeld, rove, cheney, gonzalez). Basically it looks like the dems are trying to isolate him and limit his power, expiditing the lame duck portion of his final term. I agree he should be removed, heck I was screaming rumsfeld should have been fired years ago.

if congress doesn't have the wherewithal to remove bush, then remove congress, and get a new one in. whatever the heavy, extreme costs we pay for the war now, it will be far worse if we lose it . to me it is irrelevant now, whether the war was justified or not. i have no desire for my grandchildren to wear gas masks to school

its hard to argue with this sentiment, but there isnt a political will to move to conscription and the "surge" is bush's effort to do as much as he can without a draft. I am not convinced though that the loss of this war will translate into america being under threat immediately.

I suspect once we pull out the shia and sunni's will have at it for a while and while we might get pinched at the pump, as long as we are vigilant at home I dont think the extremists are going to have a boat load of time to muster attacks abroad, they will be engaged with the psudeo western governments we left behind.

[Whacker]

I acknowledge your point i just disagree that leaving Iraq is going to prevent or delay an attack in the future.

If anything, I think significantly reducing US presence and activity in the Middle East would reduce both actual and possible attacks in the future. One of the reasons Middle Easterners tend to be averse to America is because we meddle in other's affairs so much. I wouldn't say I'm isolationist, but it's time we stopped this kind of nonsense.

One of the key problems that is going on is that there is a different mindset and culture in the Middle East. Violence is perceived as an often viable and acceptable means to an end. Loyalties are more often based on tribal or religious aspects, more so than to a "nation" or concept of a nation. The US and other "western" nations going in and attempting to enforce western cultural ideals and values is pretty arrogant and, IMO, stupid, and bound to fail. Different does not equal bad or wrong.

Thats certainly a viable solution. Moving to a full wartime economy would certainly make military operations much more effective, economically I think the U.S. can pull it off. The economy isnt that bad really, wages havent kept up with inflation and the housing market is off, but people are working.

The economy is correctable, so I think I agree with your solution of a full conscription, its certainly not a sexy option, but one that would work IMHO.

I disagree completely, in fact I am violently opposed to conscription, and I think most of the rest of America would be as well. There's a reason the democrats won out big time in the latest round of elections, because it would seem that by and large the public is sick and tired of the Iraqi/Middle Eastern situation, and wants to see some closure very soon.

Well yes I agree, but it dosent look like anyone is targeting Bush persay, but look around him his close friends are the focus (rumsfeld, rove, cheney, gonzalez). Basically it looks like the dems are trying to isolate him and limit his power, expiditing the lame duck portion of his final term. I agree he should be removed, heck I was screaming rumsfeld should have been fired years ago.

I'm a bit surprised that serious impeachment proceedings haven't started yet. The Bush administration has done more in the past 6 years to ruin, erode, and disregard it's own and other nation's citizen's rights than I can recall in many years, continuously allowed more corporate greed and illegal activity to go unpunished (and even encouraged it in my view), and got us bogged down in several conflicts that I don't think we should have even been involved in to begin with, not to mention the damage done to our global reputation which is at an all time low.

its hard to argue with this sentiment, but there isn't a political will to move to conscription and the "surge" is bush's effort to do as much as he can without a draft. I am not convinced though that the loss of this war will translate into america being under threat immediately.

Define "loss". I don't equate pulling out as a "loss", more of a win for us. Like I said before, freedom isn't free, if the Iraqi people want to have an honest democratic government, stability, and peace in the region, they will step up and do this. If they don't or are unwilling to do so, then sacrificing more of our soldiers is criminal. There's been what, 4 or 5 years now since the invasion and we captured Saddam? Sorry but I think that's more than enough time to construct a solid, working government and a viable, homegrown peacekeeping force. As to the constant factions squabbling and disagree, that's just tough and part of human nature. We have squabbling 'factions' here in the US and in other countries and we can accomplish it without killing each other.

I suspect once we pull out the shia and sunni's will have at it for a while and while we might get pinched at the pump, as long as we are vigilant at home I don't think the extremists are going to have a boat load of time to muster attacks abroad, they will be engaged with the pseudo western governments we left behind.

You're probably right, you're looking at centuries, if not millenia, of ancient prejudice and hatred based on religion. "Extremism" as I think is meant here, in terms of that originating in the middle east, has and will always be a problem. The point is that it's been on the rise more so lately because of what the US has been doing. In short, we've just given them an external target and a reason to divert their attention away from each other and Israel.

Sorry if it seems like I'm picking on you Odin, I'm not. You just have some good posts to build on.

[Odin]

If anything, I think significantly reducing US presence and activity in the Middle East would reduce both actual and possible attacks in the future. One of the reasons Middle Easterners tend to be averse to America is because we meddle in other's affairs so much. I wouldn't say I'm isolationist, but it's time we stopped this kind of nonsense.

I agree completely, I am fairly isolationist however I am leary of U.S. troops in any war unless its absolutely a necessity, and or a direct threat to the U.S. I personally believed that spec op forces, along with tactial air strikes, along with the power projection of our air force via carriers is sufficent to bring enemies to bare.

One of the key problems that is going on is that there is a different mindset and culture in the Middle East. Violence is perceived as an often viable and acceptable means to an end. Loyalties are more often based on tribal or religious aspects, more so than to a "nation" or concept of a nation. The US and other "western" nations going in and attempting to enforce western cultural ideals and values is pretty arrogant and, IMO, stupid, and bound to fail. Different does not equal bad or wrong.

I agree, but i must admit my knowledge of the mindset of the middle east is somewhat tainted by the shaping of the news I see. I have very limited access to those from the middle east and my instincts tell me that there choice to weave thier religion into all aspects of thier lives somewhat bares out your claim.

I disagree completely, in fact I am violently opposed to conscription, and I think most of the rest of America would be as well. There's a reason the democrats won out big time in the latest round of elections, because it would seem that by and large the public is sick and tired of the Iraqi/Middle Eastern situation, and wants to see some closure very soon.

I dont advocate it as a policy, but as a solution to the current situation? I think it would work. "boots on the ground" has been contested with the Iraq situation since day 1, on top of afghanistan and a potential conflict with Iran.... Conscription might be the only way forward if we continue down the path we are on with the middle east.

I know Mr Bush only has 2 more years to set policy, but a lot can happen in that time.

I'm a bit surprised that serious impeachment proceedings haven't started yet. The Bush administration has done more in the past 6 years to ruin, erode, and disregard it's own and other nation's citizen's rights than I can recall in many years, continuously allowed more corporate greed and illegal activity to go unpunished (and even encouraged it in my view), and got us bogged down in several conflicts that I don't think we should have even been involved in to begin with, not to mention the damage done to our global reputation which is at an all time low.

I personally dont care about our global reputation, being somewhat of an isolationist myself I can afford myself that view. The conflicts he has gotten us into are not illegal, by U.S. law, unless someone can prove he knowingly falsefied the intelligence reports. The only person who might be willing to go out on that limb is one Colin Powell, heard his name lately?

AS far as the other scandals, well technically the patriot act allows for so much ambaquity with its interpretation that i dont see it sticking to anyone. Mr Bush inst a genius by any stretch but the raping of the civil liberities under his rule, he has managed to cover his butt on.

Define "loss".

not achieving the stated goal, a stable self suffient Iraq that is able to defend itself from its neibhors (I dont have Mr Bushes quote, but its along those lines)

I don't equate pulling out as a "loss", more of a win for us. Like I said before, freedom isn't free, if the Iraqi people want to have an honest democratic government, stability, and peace in the region, they will step up and do this. If they don't or are unwilling to do so, then sacrificing more of our soldiers is criminal. There's been what, 4 or 5 years now since the invasion and we captured Saddam? Sorry but I think that's more than enough time to construct a solid, working government and a viable, homegrown peacekeeping force. As to the constant factions squabbling and disagree, that's just tough and part of human nature. We have squabbling 'factions' here in the US and in other countries and we can accomplish it without killing each other.

You sold me, perhaps "loss" isnt the best term for me to use, how about "accepting the reality of the situation and maximizing the benefits for ourselves first"?

The point is that it's been on the rise more so lately because of what the US has been doing. In short, we've just given them an external target and a reason to divert their attention away from each other and Israel.

Yet the targets for attacks in Iraq are more often along sunni/shia lines. Yes extremism has increased because of the U.S. involvement in Iraq, but its much more then that as well, its our devoted loyalty to Israel. All that aside the U.S. might be a target but clearly the sunni shia devide is bubbling to surface. So we pull out, will there be a long enough lull for extremist to export attacks to the U.S. ? Or will the sunni bombers and the shia death squads knock each other off first?

Sorry if it seems like I'm picking on you Odin, I'm not. You just have some good posts to build on.

I dont feel picked on, I rather enjoy a good conversation that has substance.

[Whacker]

I agree, but i must admit my knowledge of the mindset of the middle east is somewhat tainted by the shaping of the news I see. I have very limited access to those from the middle east and my instincts tell me that there choice to weave thier religion into all aspects of thier lives somewhat bares out your claim.

Same here, we're kind of limited to good ol' crappy Fox and CNN, unless we try to find other sources of information through the Intarwebs or the BBC (which I find can often be even-handed). I wasn't going to go as far as the last bit, but that's my perception as well, that in the Middle East Islam pervades almost all, and most people really do base their lifestyles and decisions heavily on what they have gathered from their religion. Right or wrong, I think this is one of the reasons that Islam has a rather bad rep. right now in the western world. I am not a prejudiced person, but I do sometimes find it hard to not view Islam as a 'violent' religion based on what I see and read. In general though, I can say for certain that it does reinforce my views on religion in general, and why I don't really respect it.

I dont advocate it as a policy, but as a solution to the current situation? I think it would work. "boots on the ground" has been contested with the Iraq situation since day 1, on top of afghanistan and a potential conflict with Iran.... Conscription might be the only way forward if we continue down the path we are on with the middle east.

Meh... I still say it would never work because of the sheer backlash from the American public. I guarantee you we'd never go for it, hell I'd even go out and riot if they tried that.

I know Mr Bush only has 2 more years to set policy, but a lot can happen in that time.

Yes, and this is exactly what scares me the most. He's already demonstrated a number of times that he's clearly in "I don't give a damn" mode. In short, he has nothing to lose really. The republican party is no doubt concerned, and I get the feeling they are going to try and wash their hands of him come election time, but Bush still doesn't really care. The only thing that's going to stop him is removing him from office, and I am not fond of the idea of "Headshot" Cheney in charge either.

I personally dont care about our global reputation, being somewhat of an isolationist myself I can afford myself that view. The conflicts he has gotten us into are not illegal, by U.S. law, unless someone can prove he knowingly falsefied the intelligence reports. The only person who might be willing to go out on that limb is one Colin Powell, heard his name lately?

I think we are of similiar minds in terms of being "isolationist" to a point, but I do care about how we come off to the rest of the world. It's part of being a good neighbor/citizen to fellow mankind and think we could be doing much better to try and establish better relations with the rest of the world.

As for being "illegal", I agree that's a grey area. In terms of being "baseless", I have seen quite a bit of evidence that leads me to the conclusion that Iraq was a complete farce to begin with. It's a really long story, but suffice to say there never was any evidence at all of WMDs, and the supposed terrorist links were almost all nonexistant, the few that were were extremely tenuous and debatable at best. Afghanistan was a kneejerk reaction to 9/11.

AS far as the other scandals, well technically the patriot act allows for so much ambaquity with its interpretation that i dont see it sticking to anyone. Mr Bush inst a genius by any stretch but the raping of the civil liberities under his rule, he has managed to cover his butt on.

Agree. The true test will be to see what, if any headway we can make in the future on reversing this. This is a major issue for me in terms of how I vote.

not achieving the stated goal, a stable self suffient Iraq that is able to defend itself from its neibhors (I dont have Mr Bushes quote, but its along those lines)

Fair enough.

You sold me, perhaps "loss" isnt the best term for me to use, how about "accepting the reality of the situation and maximizing the benefits for ourselves first"?

I'm all for accepting the reality, but I do think "exploiting", for lack of a better term, the situation is morally wrong. Don't get me wrong, I do understand the real need for the oil, but don't think exploitation is the right way. If anything this means that we should look toward significantly bolstering research and efforts towards alternative fuel sources. Nuclear energy seems to be one of the better ways at this point, and there are reactor designs that can be built which, in theory, can never have a meltdown and are significantly safer by design.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble-bed_reactor

Hopefully ITER will end up providing a real, safe, clean form of energy down the road, if the politics and can ever be overcome.

Yet the targets for attacks in Iraq are more often along sunni/shia lines. Yes extremism has increased because of the U.S. involvement in Iraq, but its much more then that as well, its our devoted loyalty to Israel. All that aside the U.S. might be a target but clearly the sunni shia devide is bubbling to surface. So we pull out, will there be a long enough lull for extremist to export attacks to the U.S. ? Or will the sunni bombers and the shia death squads knock each other off first?

As cold hearted as this sounds, I think we should leave them to it and let them figure it out. If all they can do is kill each other over some 'matter of faith' that by nature can 'never be wrong', then so be it, I think the world will be a better place without those kinds of people.

In terms of Israel, I'm at a bit of a loss here. Truthfully I think we can draw a parallel in our relationship with that of China and N. Korea. Israel, if abandoned to it's own will, I think would more than happily go to war with all it's arab neighbors, and probably even use nuclear weapons. Can't say I'd blame them completely, after all it's to be somewhat expected with that kind of mindset when you're surrounded on all sides by people who want to kill you. In fact I'd even put my money on Israel winning too, not because of nukes, but because of sheer will to survive and military prowess.

In terms of the US "encouraging" or turning a blind eye to some of Israel's less than shining moments or activities, I think that is wrong. The bottom line is something needs to be done to keep them in check, because without that measure I'd hate to think what they'd end up doing without it.

I dont feel picked on, I rather enjoy a good conversation that has substance.

Same.

[Odin]

I am not a prejudiced person, but I do sometimes find it hard to not view Islam as a 'violent' religion based on what I see and read. In general though, I can say for certain that it does reinforce my views on religion in general, and why I don't really respect it.

I try not to be a prejiduce person, but i am far from perfect. Since I dont have a working knowledge of the middleast based on knowing someone or having traveled there I am forced to base my conclusions on the resources I have which are somewhat limiting.

that said i do think its fair to come to the conclusion that religion is a basis for a lot of thier decisions (which you astutely pointed out). I suspect that the moderation we have found in the west (religous moderation) might come eventually, in the scope of time, it wasnt long ago that the roles were reversed, that under the guise of religion western cultures committed many, many violent acts.

Meh... I still say it would never work because of the sheer backlash from the American public. I guarantee you we'd never go for it, hell I'd even go out and riot if they tried that.

I agree there is no will for it, unless perhaps another attack on U.S. soil occurs. I dont think its going to happen but as you point out further

Yes, and this is exactly what scares me the most. He's already demonstrated a number of times that he's clearly in "I don't give a damn" mode.

How far will he go to save face? Particularly now that Iran has 3000 centerfuges up and running (I know that the concensus on this is that its folly, non the less thats what they are claiming). Drafts are very unpopular but is an act of the executive branch. This go back to the 13th amendment, which the supreme court said dosent prohibit manditory military service.

So technically, unless there is a constitutional amendment, the draft option is still on the table.

I think we are of similiar minds in terms of being "isolationist" to a point, but I do care about how we come off to the rest of the world. It's part of being a good neighbor/citizen to fellow mankind and think we could be doing much better to try and establish better relations with the rest of the world.

This is where you and I part ways to a degree. I find more and more the U.S. being in no win situations when it comes to being good neibhors (any muslim countries appear on al jazeera and thank us for the relief in Pakistan when they had earth quakes?).

We could do better at establishing relations but historically I think we have done our fair share of this, for our benefit and others as well, i think it is in our national intrest to step back from the internationl systems that were put in place to deal with a different world order that no longer exsists.

Afghanistan was a kneejerk reaction to 9/11.

We disagree on this point as well (my disagreement is mild). A knee jerk reaction to a country who was sponsoring the organization responsible for the attack?

I think we went easy on them to be blunt, and the disaster that has befallen us as a result of afghanistan is now we need to prop up masharif in pakistan to support an unfinished assult to begin with.

The lack of a knee jerk is why we still have a mess over there, and another one coming when musharif extends his military dictatorship this summer. We didnt react strongly enough in Afghanistan.

This is a major issue for me in terms of how I vote.

I suspect the dems will have at it for the next 2 years, no one is safe in the white house. Once the us attorney thing clears up, something else will pop up. Take solace in the fact that for the next 20-25 years being apart of the Bush administration will be a political liability.

I'm all for accepting the reality, but I do think "exploiting", for lack of a better term, the situation is morally wrong. Don't get me wrong, I do understand the real need for the oil, but don't think exploitation is the right way.

Yes its morally wrong, I wont contest that. My position is of course somewhat of an "armchair" general, so its perhaps not fair for me to suggest we take what we can and get out now. However the entire sub premises of the war, being the morality of exporting freedom, were a farce and I would much rather have prefferred to have had a war for the resources.

To me (a somewhat isolationist) if your going to go abroad the payoff has to be some form of gain (via treasure, or political gain) and as of today we have neither.

If anything this means that we should look toward significantly bolstering research and efforts towards alternative fuel sources. Nuclear energy seems to be one of the better ways at this point, and there are reactor designs that can be built which, in theory, can never have a meltdown and are significantly safer by design.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble-bed_reactor

Hopefully ITER will end up providing a real, safe, clean form of energy down the road, if the politics and bullshit can ever be overcome.

I agree

As cold hearted as this sounds, I think we should leave them to it and let them figure it out. If all they can do is kill each other over some 'matter of faith' that by nature can 'never be wrong', then so be it, I think the world will be a better place without those kinds of people.

Strongly agree !

In terms of Israel, I'm at a bit of a loss here. Truthfully I think we can draw a parallel in our relationship with that of China and N. Korea. Israel, if abandoned to it's own will, I think would more than happily go to war with all it's arab neighbors, and probably even use nuclear weapons. Can't say I'd blame them completely, after all it's to be somewhat expected with that kind of mindset when you're surrounded on all sides by people who want to kill you. In fact I'd even put my money on Israel winning too, not because of nukes, but because of sheer will to survive and military prowess.

Israel will fight to the death if it has too, what other choice does it have? What we should be doing is pressing them to to resolve the palestinan issue now. The political climate in Israel isnt pleasant and israeli governments fall rather often.

The time is right to make a deal now, and I suspect part of what Rice sold to the saudi's was " do your part" in the process with israel. Like it or not Israel is there to stay or be destroyed and destroy everyone with them.