RATIONALIZATION.
-
Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
-
Check Out IronMag Labs® KSM-66 Max - Recovery and Anabolic Growth Complex
Watching Bush Free-Fall
- Thread starter Big Smoothy
- Start date
RATIONALIZATION.
I know very little of the intricacies of espionage, but I do know that sometimes it is of advantage to "feed" info to someone in order to get more info out of them. This article about Iran getting info could only be half the story.
^ It also could be half the story in a bad-way.
It also could be the whole story.
No offense, guys but there is a hell of a lot of RATIONALIZATION going on here.
It also could be the whole story.
No offense, guys but there is a hell of a lot of RATIONALIZATION going on here.
Wether one was against or for the war, the situation has evolved and transformed from the original purpose, I believe.
The one thing that should have been learned in Vietnam was that the evolution of political institutions in the midst of a sustained guerrilla war is impossible.
The invasion of Iraq was not and never should have been thought of as an end in itself. Iraq's only importance was its geographic location:The United States needed it as a base of operations and a lever against the Saudis and others, but it had no interest -- or should have had no interest -- in the internal governance of Iraq.
The Bush administration created a new goal: the occupation and administration of Iraq by the United States, with most of the burden falling on the U.S. military. Over time, this evolved to a new mission: the creation of democracy in Iraq.
Under the best of circumstances, this is not something the United States has the resources to achieve. Iraq is a complex and multi-layered society with many competing interests. The creation of a viable democracy in the midst of a civil war, even if Iraqi society were amenable to copying American institutions, is an impossibility!
The United States' invasion of Iraq was not a great idea.
Its single virtue was that it was the best available idea among a series of even worse ideas.
However, the United States now cannot completely withdraw from Iraq. Handing over the government is a good idea but outright fleeing, no.
I condemned the initial invasion, but a complete withdrawal under pressure would be used by al Qaeda and radical Islamists as proof of their core belief: that the United States is inherently weak and, like the Soviet Union, ripe for defeat.
In the spring of 2003, the United States had no way to engage or defeat al Qaeda. The only way to achieve that was to force Saudi Arabia -- and lesser enabling countries of terrorism such as Iran and Syria -- to change their policies on al Qaeda and crack down on its financial and logistical systems. In order to do that, the United States needed two things. First, it had to demonstrate its will and competence in waging war -- something seriously doubted by many in the Islamic world and elsewhere. Second, it had to be in a position to threaten follow-on actions in the region.
Moreover, we understood that the invasion would generate hostility toward the United States within the Islamic world, but we felt this would be compensated by dramatic shifts in the behavior of governments in the region. All of this has happened.
Al Qaeda is trying to kill me. Countries such as Saudi Arabia permitted al Qaeda to flourish. The presence of a couple of U.S. armored divisions along the kingdom's northern border has been a very sobering thought. That pressure cannot be removed. Whatever chaos there is in Saudi Arabia, that is the key to breaking al Qaeda -- not Baghdad.
This war drew the U.S. Army into the type of warfare for which it is least suited....., urban guerrilla warfare where we can't help but kill innocent bystanders.
The United States must begin by recognizing that it cannot possibly pacify Iraq with the force available or, for that matter, with a larger military force. We can continue to patrol, we can continue to question people, we can continue to take casualties. However, it can never permanently defeat the guerrilla forces in the Sunni triangle using this strategy. It certainly cannot displace the power and authority of the Shiite leadership in the south. Urban warfare and counterinsurgency in the Iraqi environment cannot be successful.
This means the goal of reshaping Iraqi society is beyond the reach of the United States. Iraq is what it is.
If we go back to what seemed to be Bush's primary impetus for the war, which was to occupy Iraq in order to prosecute the war against al Qaeda. The United States has no national interest in the nature of Iraqi government or society. Except for not supporting al Qaeda, Iraq's government does not matter.
Iraq should then be encouraged to develop a Shiite-dominated government, the best guarantor against al Qaeda and the greatest incentive for the Iranians not to destabilize the situation. Also, a Shiite government right next to the Sunni run Saudi Arabia is probably a good counterbalance....(I have always thought Saudi Arabia is the worst of the lot but they have us by our balls because of the oil that supplies our jugular). The fate of the Sunnis will rest in the deal they can negotiate with the Shia and Kurds -- and, as they say, that is their problem.
Moreover, a victory in this war would not provide the United States with anything that is in its national interest. (Unless you are an ideologue who believes bringing American-style democracy to the world is a holy mission)
We must get out of Baghdad, Al Fallujah, An Najaf and the other sinkholes into which the administration's policies have thrown U.S. soldiers.But in the desert west and south of the Euphrates, (relatively deserted and still a presence noticed by the neighboring countries) the United States can carry out the real mission for which it came.
The one thing that should have been learned in Vietnam was that the evolution of political institutions in the midst of a sustained guerrilla war is impossible.
The invasion of Iraq was not and never should have been thought of as an end in itself. Iraq's only importance was its geographic location:The United States needed it as a base of operations and a lever against the Saudis and others, but it had no interest -- or should have had no interest -- in the internal governance of Iraq.
The Bush administration created a new goal: the occupation and administration of Iraq by the United States, with most of the burden falling on the U.S. military. Over time, this evolved to a new mission: the creation of democracy in Iraq.
Under the best of circumstances, this is not something the United States has the resources to achieve. Iraq is a complex and multi-layered society with many competing interests. The creation of a viable democracy in the midst of a civil war, even if Iraqi society were amenable to copying American institutions, is an impossibility!
The United States' invasion of Iraq was not a great idea.
Its single virtue was that it was the best available idea among a series of even worse ideas.
However, the United States now cannot completely withdraw from Iraq. Handing over the government is a good idea but outright fleeing, no.
I condemned the initial invasion, but a complete withdrawal under pressure would be used by al Qaeda and radical Islamists as proof of their core belief: that the United States is inherently weak and, like the Soviet Union, ripe for defeat.
In the spring of 2003, the United States had no way to engage or defeat al Qaeda. The only way to achieve that was to force Saudi Arabia -- and lesser enabling countries of terrorism such as Iran and Syria -- to change their policies on al Qaeda and crack down on its financial and logistical systems. In order to do that, the United States needed two things. First, it had to demonstrate its will and competence in waging war -- something seriously doubted by many in the Islamic world and elsewhere. Second, it had to be in a position to threaten follow-on actions in the region.
Moreover, we understood that the invasion would generate hostility toward the United States within the Islamic world, but we felt this would be compensated by dramatic shifts in the behavior of governments in the region. All of this has happened.
Al Qaeda is trying to kill me. Countries such as Saudi Arabia permitted al Qaeda to flourish. The presence of a couple of U.S. armored divisions along the kingdom's northern border has been a very sobering thought. That pressure cannot be removed. Whatever chaos there is in Saudi Arabia, that is the key to breaking al Qaeda -- not Baghdad.
This war drew the U.S. Army into the type of warfare for which it is least suited....., urban guerrilla warfare where we can't help but kill innocent bystanders.
The United States must begin by recognizing that it cannot possibly pacify Iraq with the force available or, for that matter, with a larger military force. We can continue to patrol, we can continue to question people, we can continue to take casualties. However, it can never permanently defeat the guerrilla forces in the Sunni triangle using this strategy. It certainly cannot displace the power and authority of the Shiite leadership in the south. Urban warfare and counterinsurgency in the Iraqi environment cannot be successful.
This means the goal of reshaping Iraqi society is beyond the reach of the United States. Iraq is what it is.
If we go back to what seemed to be Bush's primary impetus for the war, which was to occupy Iraq in order to prosecute the war against al Qaeda. The United States has no national interest in the nature of Iraqi government or society. Except for not supporting al Qaeda, Iraq's government does not matter.
Iraq should then be encouraged to develop a Shiite-dominated government, the best guarantor against al Qaeda and the greatest incentive for the Iranians not to destabilize the situation. Also, a Shiite government right next to the Sunni run Saudi Arabia is probably a good counterbalance....(I have always thought Saudi Arabia is the worst of the lot but they have us by our balls because of the oil that supplies our jugular). The fate of the Sunnis will rest in the deal they can negotiate with the Shia and Kurds -- and, as they say, that is their problem.
Moreover, a victory in this war would not provide the United States with anything that is in its national interest. (Unless you are an ideologue who believes bringing American-style democracy to the world is a holy mission)
We must get out of Baghdad, Al Fallujah, An Najaf and the other sinkholes into which the administration's policies have thrown U.S. soldiers.But in the desert west and south of the Euphrates, (relatively deserted and still a presence noticed by the neighboring countries) the United States can carry out the real mission for which it came.
You are misinformed. The objective regime change. Step one was the elimination of Saddam Hussein and his repressive government, which went faster and easier than anyone suspected. Step two is the security of Iraq and reconstruction (ongoing and more difficult than many expected, especially since it's happening during an election year). Step 3, turning the government back over to the Iraqi people, begins on June 30th.
How will the Iraqis do and when will the US be able to leave? Only time will tell, but judging from the development of previously US occupied post-war Germany, Japan and South Korea, brighter days are ahead for Iraq.
The term "rationalization" is a psychological term.
Austinite,
Do you support a Shiite theocracy that is anti-western and harbor Al-qaeda terrorists?
This very likely could be, where Iraq is headed.
Bandaid,
I like the dimension of your analysis on the matter. We share similar insights but draw different conclusions and motives.
Our overall objective is to stabilize the region. We have always had the desire to institute Democracy in that region as a means of stabilizing and presenting a counter force to the insanity of Islamic fanaticism. Left unchecked it will most certainly result in the destruction of all of civilized society. We need free trade and resources. From a perspective of natural law the people of the Arabia at large need peace and justice, the ability to evolve beyond tribal superstition and ignorance, and to join the rest of humanity. They need to contribute to activities that they can garner a feeling of self worth and self respect and in turn receive world respect. The problem of hubris and ???Arab pride??? is core to much of the problems over there. If they can join a free humanity they will eventually take pride in the fact that they share a common humanity with the rest of the planet and can make a contribution that will be respected again for the first time in about 900 years.
The future of that region and perhaps the planet will ultimately depend on the courage of the Arabian people and their desire and will to embrace freedom. If they perceive it as a threat to their identity or their hubris makes it impossible to accept a universal ideal only because it is offered from a culture that is not their own then they will prove unworthy to evolve as a people. If that happens they and the world at large will have to suffer many years of internal slaughter and chaos and they will cease to be even marginally relevant to the planet. If they fail to evolve they eventually will become socially diluted and scattered to the winds and displaced.
This is an exciting crossroads in human and societal evolution. What happens in the next few years, one way or the other, will prove or condemn the possibilities of all of humanity.
OD
I like the dimension of your analysis on the matter. We share similar insights but draw different conclusions and motives.
Our overall objective is to stabilize the region. We have always had the desire to institute Democracy in that region as a means of stabilizing and presenting a counter force to the insanity of Islamic fanaticism. Left unchecked it will most certainly result in the destruction of all of civilized society. We need free trade and resources. From a perspective of natural law the people of the Arabia at large need peace and justice, the ability to evolve beyond tribal superstition and ignorance, and to join the rest of humanity. They need to contribute to activities that they can garner a feeling of self worth and self respect and in turn receive world respect. The problem of hubris and ???Arab pride??? is core to much of the problems over there. If they can join a free humanity they will eventually take pride in the fact that they share a common humanity with the rest of the planet and can make a contribution that will be respected again for the first time in about 900 years.
The future of that region and perhaps the planet will ultimately depend on the courage of the Arabian people and their desire and will to embrace freedom. If they perceive it as a threat to their identity or their hubris makes it impossible to accept a universal ideal only because it is offered from a culture that is not their own then they will prove unworthy to evolve as a people. If that happens they and the world at large will have to suffer many years of internal slaughter and chaos and they will cease to be even marginally relevant to the planet. If they fail to evolve they eventually will become socially diluted and scattered to the winds and displaced.
This is an exciting crossroads in human and societal evolution. What happens in the next few years, one way or the other, will prove or condemn the possibilities of all of humanity.
OD
No. That is a possibility that you obviously are hoping for, so that Bush will have failed. I wouldn't support a communist government and that is a possibility too. There is obviously no guarantee what type of government will be elected, but indications are that it will be pro-US and pro-democracy. They are already going in that direction with women allowed to participate in the government for the first time in decades. Does that bother you?
I agree that this is a great opportunity to advance the cause of freedom, but I disagree on the impact if our goals are not met. I think it will have been worth the effort, and that we will continue to strive for peace.
Not at all - I think our ideals in respect to women, especially given the country's more restrictive religious background were a major step at encouraging full participation, even if they only guaranteed 25% of parliamentary seats to a gender that likely makes up at least half of the population.
Then again, it's only been 84 years since we gave our own women the right to vote....and I believe their Congressional numbers in our country have never exceeded about 12%.
We must constantly be reminded that the U.S. government has NEVER, and will NEVER advocate democracy in the middle east.
That is why the U.S. government support Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.
Free and fair, democratic elections would lead to fanatical extremist governments in Egypt, as well as a Wahhabi government in Saudi Arabia.
OD, you are definately more optimistic than I. Democracy would be the ideal government institution that would possibly stabilize the region. However, it just won't happen, at least not in our lifetime. However, I think the idea of having women comprise a fixed percentage in the parliament would hopefully be a insurance policy against the establishment of fanatical theocracies since theocracies are traditionally antifemale.
As I stated previously, we did our job by punishing Saddam's rejection of UN resolutions, we sent a message to AlQueda, we are an uncomfortable presence near the countries who continue to enable terrorism, but imposing our ideal government structure in a region not quite ready reeks of American Imperialism to some, and it will drain our economy into destitution.
As I stated previously, we did our job by punishing Saddam's rejection of UN resolutions, we sent a message to AlQueda, we are an uncomfortable presence near the countries who continue to enable terrorism, but imposing our ideal government structure in a region not quite ready reeks of American Imperialism to some, and it will drain our economy into destitution.
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2003
- Messages
- 1,360
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
i dont see dush winning, as dull of a candidate that John Kerry is, dush is in pile of shit right now with the economy/war/gas prices/prisoner scandals etc...... etc .........
hey big you stole my signature line!
OD
OD
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2003
- Messages
- 1,360
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
NO WAY !!! haha i had that for a atleast a week now, thats funny!
i study some latin in college, that quote came from one of my text books !
Yes way. I had it as my original signature when i first joined a year ago...
OD
OD
Can I be the first to colonize the moon? I don't want to live here anymore.
No, not misinformed, just guilty of repeating the liberal mantra you hear on CNN. Yes, served proudly. We need the Air Guard too. With his privilege, he could have easily avoided service altogether, and he certainly didn't have to choose to fly fighter jets. Give him his props. He served.curiousity said:
Well, we'll see what they lead to in Iraq in Jan 2005. We hope for democracy, but the bottom line is does it support US interests. Saddam Hussein did not, in fact he was a threat to them.Mr_Snafu said:
Uh....actually, the Prez himself has admitted his decision to join the National Guard was "political." Very few National Guardsmen were ever sent to Vietnam - less than 4000 served there over a ten year period of that war. For those Americans who were facing the probability of a military draft at the time, the National Guard was considered the safest branch of the military for enlistment if you wanted to avoid being sent to the war zone. Now maybe the Spectator tells you that he served proudly, but there is still a matter of some missing and unaccounted for months of his service tenure and a rather embarassing embellishment of his military record that appeared on the official Department of State biographical documents for four years.austinite said:
You're ignoring the fact that he did not HAVE to serve at all, and he certainly did not have to choose the difficult task of training to fly jets. Face it, he followed in his Pops footsteps as a reserve pilot. I challenge you to find a reference that verifes that only 4000 served in the Guard over ten years. That is a false statement.kbm8795 said:
austinite said:
Well, inasmuch as I'm not your paid research assistant, that challenge means very little, since I gather your idea of verifiable information is something quoted in The Spectator or broadcast on CBN News.
But one simple response would be to cite Lt. Col. Michael Doubler's history of the National Guard - a series published a couple of years ago in the National Guard Association of the United States magazine. Doubler explains how then President Johnson was reluctant to mobilize Army and Air Guard units during the Vietnam War, fearing public backlash and a perception around the world that the war was escalating. Those units that were mobilized in 1968 were primarily assigned supply and medical duty, although one engineering unit was involved directly in combat operations.
Doubler writes:
"In the end, Johnson fought the war primarily with active forces and draftees. Largely denied the opportunity to serve in Vietnam, many individual Guardsmen volunteered. About 2,000 Army Guard volunteers fought in Vietnam, half of them officers. In all, they provided distinguished service, and 23 were killed.
Loopholes in the draft laws had a profound affect on the National Guard. Numerous educational and professional deferments permitted young men to evade the draft. Anyone entering the Guard could avoid the draft but had to serve for six years. As the war dragged on, young men increasingly sought Guard service. By the end of the war, many Americans considered the Guard a haven for draft dodgers."
Johnson mobilized over 13,000 National Guard troops following the North Korean Pueblo incident and the Tet offensive in Vietnam in 1968.
"Though the brigades never deployed, 4,000 Guardsmen from their ranks volunteered for Vietnam. Thirty-one combat-support and combat-service support units served on various Army posts for extended active duty.
Eight Army Guard units went to Southeast Asia. Alabama???s 650th Medical Detachment was the first unit to reach Vietnam. The only Army Guard ground-maneuver unit sent to Vietnam was Indiana???s Company D (Ranger), 151st Infantry. On Dec. 12th, 1969, the last mobilized Army Guardsman returned home. In all, more than 9,000 Army Guard soldiers served in Vietnam."
The last Army Guard departure occured several years before the end of the War and before then-President Nixon's Vietnamization program started to take effect. The 9000 number reflects a variety of support service assignments - not combat operations or even assignments near the combat zones. Mobilization didn't also necessarily mean deployment. At the height of the American military operation in South Vietnam, nearly 500,000 soldiers were deployed there and about 4000 National Guard troops served in related combat and support positions.
"Air National Guard units began flying supply missions to Vietnam in 1965 and participated in the 1968 callup. In total, 9,343 Air Guardsmen were mobilized for Vietnam. Eleven squadrons entered active duty, including one aeromedical airservice group and two tactical fighter groups." This activation included relocation to South Korea to counter the North Korean takeover of the Pueblo and a rise in tensions there. While most Air Guardsmen who VOLUNTEERED for Vietnam were assigned supply transportation, some did engage in combat missions - five were killed. In the Air Guard, 85% of those who went to Vietnam were VOLUNTEERS.
If Dubya had meant to follow his father's footsteps, he could have volunteered for assignment to Vietnam at the time President Johnson mobilized the National Guard and took volunteers for that location in 1968, requesting to be assigned to the tactical fighter groups that eventually saw some action there. He has stated that he didn't volunteer for Vietnam for "political" reasons.
