|
|
Why we cannot win
By: Al Lorentz on: 21.09.2004 [22:03 ] (2393 reads)
|
(7039 bytes) [nc]
|
|
Temporary offline
by AlvaroFrota on 22.09.2004 [01:08 ]
|
|
|
Lets post a quote and a link to this page in every American soldier's blog and in every Iraqi blog we know! Lets invite they to discuss these ideas with us!
We have the truth in our hands. Lets do a big hole in the informational blocade!
Aquele abraço!
AF
|
by KJiL Guest on 22.09.2004 [01:18 ]
|
|
|
I would argue that we have achieved some significant goals in the Middle East already and have not yet started to lose (though I suspect we will eventually.)
Priority one: Iraq no longer exchanges it's oil for something the US doesn't have control of (namely the Euro.)
We've demonstrated our willingness to break international law and norms of acceptible western behaviour. Included in our demonstrations are the initial invasion, Abu-Ghraib, raizing Falluja, etc. The significance of this accomplishment should not be underestimated with respect to it's power to intimidate.
At any time we can abaondon the non oil producing regions of Iraq without a meaningfull 'loss' to our actual objectives. Assuming we control the populations within the regions of interest (via ethnic clensing, totalitarian means, or some combination thereof) we have won. Saddam and countless others have proven it is quite straightforward...it requires only the will to succeed. This will within our general population and soldiery can be bolstered by provoking ethnic and religious antagonism...another campaign which is right on track.
A true win would be to occupy/control the SW part if Iran and the N part of Saudi-Arabia as a contiguous region. This is not outside the realm of possibility. Saudi-Arabia is ripe for a revolution and the most likely outcome seems to me a situation where the US 'protects' the 'legitimate' leaders in a geographical area which also happens to contain most of their oil. Iran, should it retaliate in the manner it hints at against a bombardment of it's nuclear facilities, could easily see it's oil rich regions sheared from the rest of the country and another __demonstration)_ of certain of the US's capabilities and willingnesses (i.e., the use of tactical nukes which we must show off sooner or later.)
Could we pull it off? I dunno. I suspect that with conscription we could, at least for a time. The question in my mind is whether we can elect not to try it, and try it rather soon as time is not on our side. I think it was the Belgian PM who fairly recently said, to paraphrase, "The US is a wounded beast, and as such, is very dangerious."
(Let me add that as a simple citizen, I can easily afford 'not to try it'. I'de go about my life like my counterparts in all other parts of the world. There are a small minority of powerfull people who stand to lose greatly should the US continue on our current (downward) trajectory. It is them of which I speak as 'we', and it is legitimate to do so as it is also they who decide what 'we' should and shouldn't try.)
|
by predax Guest on 22.09.2004 [08:51 ]
|
|
|
.
|
by Lucifer Guest on 22.09.2004 [10:18 ]
|
|
|
It's a nice analysis of things happen in Iraq right now. However, i think that the premisse that the US is there to create some kind of orderly society and democracy is wrong, there was never any plan to do that. I agree with KjiL that this is not about building a working society in Iraq but a demonstration of power. As he put it, by "demonstrating our willingness to break (any) international law and (any) norms of acceptible western (and civillised) behavior. (....) The significance of this accomplishment should not be underestimated with respect to it's power to intimidate." Bingo!
Let's keep in mind that the goal of US foreign policy is to fight a 'neverending war wich could take a lot longer than than the cold war'. You cant do that with a strategie wich would allow you to defeat 'the enemy'. U cant fight a 'neverending war' by winning it.
As to the use of tactical nukes wich i agree again with KJiL, must be shown off sooner or later, as it is the last cornerstone off US defense doctrine wich isnt implemented in praxis so far, i'm still convinced that North Korea is the more likely target for that. The use of these weapons needs to be justified in some way and the easiest way to do that, in my opinion, is the argument that u have to 'protect' a couple million innocent civillians close to the DMZ from NK retaliation in case of war on Korean peninsula. If such a 'moral' argument wins the public contest of opinion, and i'm sure it would, the way is free to use such kind of weapons in other conflicts including Iran, not to speak of what kind of intimitating power that would have not just to Iran but also to the main strategic rival china.
|
by Guest on 22.09.2004 [15:47 ]
|
|
|
.
|
by KJIl Guest on 22.09.2004 [17:34 ]
|
|
|
Regarding the likely test-bed for tactical nukes, I have felt and continue to feel that N. Korea is an unlikely location.
Firstly, N. Korea is a highly useful monster if one wishes to promote the 'star wars' boondoggle, and this has been the dream of right-wing administrations for a number of cycles.
Secondly, there is some utility in having your adversary (read China) live next door to an unstable lunatic, especially if the lunatic is locked and loaded.
Thirdly, and perhaps most important, there is simply no useful 'side-effect' in N. Korea. Nothing we want (i.e., oil.) We might damage their nuclear infrastructure but not on a perminent basis, and a ground war and occupation which would achieve that objective would be so costly as to be out of the question. Maybe we could cooperate with China to provide the boots on the ground, but I doubt it. S. Korea seems to be pinning their hopes on a peaceful re-unification which is quite understandable given their location.
N. Korea's only rational retaliatory measures against an overt attack would be to provide nuclear material and missle technology to parties who could and would use them against the US without fear of retribution (stateless entities.) Such use _could_ be usefull to our leadership, but it would be better to have more control over how and when that use occurs.
I propose that the Bush regime's policies toward N. Korea could hardly have been _less_ effective in goading them toward membership in the nuclear club. It's tempting to write off the Bush regime as incompetent idiots. I suspect that this is a giant mistake and one that they prefer that their detractors make.
Moving on to the demonstration of tactical nukes, I think there is some conditioning necessary before it is practical. A low-yield tactical nuke must be equated to a chemical or biological munition. This will allow us to 'fight fire with fire' should we be able to provoke first use in our desired target. Watch for it.
|
by Don Gaucho americanus Guest on 22.09.2004 [22:54 ]
|
|
|
Hey, I think I've been banned! Every time I try, I'm denied access to the website, I get a "403 - FORBIDEN" . I can only wonder why.
I guess the 'GODerators' do not consider me one of the faithful? :-P
Anyway, the quality of the site has been on decline since CENSORED, so it's a minor loss.
|
by 403 - Forbiden Guest on 23.09.2004 [00:44 ]
|
|
|
I usually see this error when the permissions on a file are such that the web server is not authorized to serve it. Programatically generated pages are also prone to similar failures under certain circumstances I would guess. I've not seen this error from this web site personally, and it would be difficult for the maintainers to distinguish you from anyone else (unless they use cookies.) I suspect you hit the server at a time when a mirror operation was taking place, or some other accident associated with maintanance. In general, this site provides extreamly poor performance (at least to me in the US) for whatever reason.
|
by Spies and Traitors will be Shot. Guest on 23.09.2004 [01:35 ]
|
|
|
"It might have even been possible to foist democracy on these people who seem to have no desire, understanding or respect for such an institution"
HAH! As if he can give democracy to anyone, he doesn't even have it in his own nation. The iraqies want democracy, but they don't want the American "democracy" where you can choose from puppet leader A or puppet leader B, both pro_US as kissers who will sell their own country for a bit of money. THe iraqies have seen the kind of "democracy" the US i talking about, the one that tortures and rapes prisoners and then excludes parts of the country which are violently apposed to the occupation. And they have also seen what kind of Democracy the US has brought to places like Chille and what they have tried to do in venezuela.
That kind of institution, no one in their right mind would have desire or respect for.
|
by Spies and Traitors will be Shot. Guest on 23.09.2004 [01:37 ]
|
|
|
" Rather the idea in guerilla warfare is to erode or destroy his base of support. "
So that is why the CIA bombs civilians and blames it on the resistance. Kidnaps every day iraqies then blames it on the resistance.
Nice try aseholes, but the Iraqies are smarter than you.
|
|
RSS feed for articles and news
