JAD_333

Walking away is a bad habit. Pretty soon there's nothing left to walk away from.

I only have history books to go on, but didn't the Japanese high command believe it had no choice but to disable the US Pacific fleet after the US, Holland and GB cut off oil, rubber, etc. exports to Japan, which of course meant attacking Pearl?

Ray

Confed,

There would be too many areas to address and some even worse than Iraq.

Therefore, priorities have to be drawn up.

The engine that drives priorities is 'geodtrategic reasons'.

Now, the attention is veering to Africa. An African Command is being drawn up for the US military.

Strategic compulsions, Economics, Politics and Terrorism demands it.

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

Swift Sword

Hi Confed,

I doubt the United States would have walked away from China.

A US policy imperative for the forty years leading up to the war was to gain economic access to China. In this respect, the US and Japan were already on a collision course long before the ascent of Mount Niitaka.

Getting back to the topic at hand, if Mr. Bush was more politically astute, he would have signed that pig of a bill into law for in the long run it would thoroughly discredit his opposition while not generating too much impact on his war.

Perhaps this would have been a good opportunity to continue his tradition of statements that he would not enforce certain provisions of a law, essentially line item vetoing Ms. Pelosi's efforts.

Have a nice weekend,

William

__________________
Pharoh was pimp but now he is dead. What are you going to do today?

Confed999

I know they wouldn't. Know how? It was 68 years ago! But we certainly could have. There was no requirement for the US to fight any of those wars.

__________________
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

Tiger

The thread title is misleading.

That Dubya would veto is no surprise at all!

It is surprise that some thought it would be a surprise!

JAD_333

Title was supposed to convey 'yawn, no surprise'...

It is a surprise that some people didn't read it that way.

Garry

Hi Dale, it is not interesting for both of us to discuss how Iraq differs from G,J,K etc... Just to finish up my message -G and J attacked US, while K attacked US ally => US had to take on them. Saddams Iraq was far from that in 2003 - there were many more URGENT targets/enemies to take care of.

What is interesting to me is to discuss

WHEN will USA get out of Iraq? HOW? What will be with the world when they DO? What effect it will have on GLOBE?

This is interesting to hear and to learn!

dalem

Whenever we feel like it after the place is stable.

A silly question in my point of view.

The world will be better off with a stable, "non-rogue" Iraq.

Isn't that the same question as ABOVE?

-dale

Ray

Garry,


One can't say when the US will quit.

What is more important when will Iraq stabilise?

That also one can't say.

The known unknowns!

Garry

Hi Ray, something make me feel that USA will quite in a matter of couple of years. And this is not enough to stabilize the kind of a mess we have in Iraq.... Why do I think so? Because domestic support of the war is much lower after 4 years since invasion.

When Iraq will stabilize.... Ray, I observed news on many brutal civil wars. I want to discuss one in Tadjikistan and Chechnya. In Tadjikisstan the was Shia vs Suni fights and they came down when suny won..... Russian pressed on suny and they allowed some minor presence of Shia in the government.

In Chechnya..... war is still going on but on much smaller scale.... why? Local butcher Ramzan has suppressed all the resistance and now REBUILDS ruinned economy using ample financial support of the Kremlin. Do I like him? no.... do I see alternative to him?.... well there are alternatives.... but Kremlin bet on this guy.... Anyway... once few years passes and resistance disappear he would be replaced by softer ruller.

Dale, who are we? There are so many americans who think otherwise.... and share of those americans who want to quit is growing. I think that they are wrong.... they were wrong when they APPROVED this stupid invasion.... but quiting is much more stupid. Still, reality is.... Time is running out.... I don't see any solutions which stabilize Iraq FAST before your people vote to GET OUT.

Whey I see AROUND two-three years? Elections..... Do you think war lords will win? One year and a half for democrats to get into president's sit.... and one year to set a nice quit

As for world..... yes.... we all would be far better if USA has left a stabilized Iraq pumping oil to world markets instead of producing terrorism funded with oil. But this is not seems to be the case.... so question is WHAT particular bad cosequitives we would see once US leaves this mess

dalem

"We" is the Executive branch of the current administration, of course, and the people that voted them in. Opinions are irrelevant in leading and running the nation - that's what elections are for.

"Time is running out" for what, exactly? And who ever said anything about fast? It will be done when it's done. Don't panic.

Mere speculation. Meaningless.

You have it exactly backwards - Iraq the nation is neither supporting nor funding terrorism any longer, whereas before we barged in, it was.

-dale

Garry

Dale, this people would leave after elections in Nov 2008..... and both parties will go for elections with their plan for Iraq....

the polls which I read in news state that unless Iraq is stabilized by then majority may support the democrats who are considering how to get out.

I don't panic. I just see that time is running out and USA needs progess in the next couple of years or they would just QUIT

Seeing low probability that Iraq will stabilize in next couple of years.... I see that USA would most probably quit.... Once they do that terrorists may get good money from oil. The hanging Saddam was anything but the root of terrorism

Confed999

Don't know anything about roots and branches, but I do know Saddam was supporting terrorism.

dalem

I don't understand your point.

Ahh, polls.

What would you view as prgoress?

I never said he was a root. Maybe he was a branch. Or a twig. But now he's nothing.

-dale

Garry

Well.... lets leave this old dispute over the hanging dictator. If Bush wanted to link him to 9/11... so be.

Main issue is - the solution for Iraq is not found and news depict that situation is not getting better => if situation is not improved by mid 2008 white house would be taken by antiwar politicians..... they would get troops out.

There is probability that this will not happen - if situaton is stabilized by then. Do you believe in that?

I personally see no any viable approach which may get situation under control by then.... +25k troops and placing block posts/walls will not stop attacks and their rich news coverage.... => feeling that situation is not controlled at homeland (USA) => feeling to withdraw

I also pesonally like that USA stay there for much longer.... I don't expect that insurgents will retire the day US forces leave Iraq. They would most probably go to look for another job elsewhere