|
Post by ltfred on Apr 4, 2009 18:01:42 GMT -5
Seems the Sunnis who we paid not to hurt us to make the surge look successful aren't completely mollified by the cash and guns. "Iraqi and US troops have clashed for a second straight day in Baghdad with so-called Awakening Council fighters opposed to the arrest of a local militia leader." "American troops assisting Iraqi forces on Sunday ordered Sahwa members to surrender their weapons or face reprisals, while Iraqi soldiers blocked access to the area and made several arrests." "...four people were killed...More than 20 people have also been wounded." english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/03/200932917620568226.htmlSo, who really believed that giving a whole bunch of weapons to people who have opposing long-term goals to us was a good long-term solution to unrest in the country? Wasn't that The Man Called Patreus (TMCP)?
|
|
|
Post by Paradox on Apr 5, 2009 8:27:38 GMT -5
Isn't the exact same mistake we made with Bin Laden back during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? And when we put Saddam in power in the first place? Was the Bush administration really that bad a pattern recondition?
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Apr 5, 2009 13:14:00 GMT -5
Obviouslly.
Ironbite-then again if it's not in 3 primary colors Bush paid no attention to it.
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Apr 5, 2009 16:25:58 GMT -5
This specific instance was the fault of the Bush administration. But they're far from the only US leadership incapable of noting the stupidity of such things: the US has intervened in Latin America for 160 years, and more than once we have installed a dictator only to have to remove him a few years down the line... and replace him with another dictator. Indeed, occasionally the very troops in place to support "our man" from his opponents have been used to remove him.
We should all just agree that when it comes to foreign policy, the US, broadly speaking, has no fucking idea what it's doing. Maybe - hopefully - Obama and his krew will be able to put together something decent on the external front. But in 2012 or 2016 or 2020, some jerk will get elected who'll smash it all up.
|
|
D'Coke
Full Member
In the service of the Church of Darwinian Materialism
Posts: 106
|
Post by D'Coke on Apr 5, 2009 19:23:00 GMT -5
The argument for this was that you cannot win a war like this without the support of the populous. Which makes sense to me. Seems like a 'damned if you do' situation.
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Apr 5, 2009 19:29:43 GMT -5
Hey, you never know.... Scary, ain't it?
|
|
|
Post by Paradox on Apr 5, 2009 19:43:45 GMT -5
Scary? That would be awesome!
|
|
D'Coke
Full Member
In the service of the Church of Darwinian Materialism
Posts: 106
|
Post by D'Coke on Apr 5, 2009 20:33:54 GMT -5
Why would that be awesome? She's a bimbo. I say this as a devoted fan of her hotness.
|
|
|
Post by Paradox on Apr 5, 2009 20:41:40 GMT -5
Because we would beat her so badly it wouldn't be funny.
|
|
D'Coke
Full Member
In the service of the Church of Darwinian Materialism
Posts: 106
|
Post by D'Coke on Apr 5, 2009 21:37:49 GMT -5
Maybe that would be funny. And I could see her on TV more again.
|
|
|
Post by Distind on Apr 5, 2009 21:51:00 GMT -5
We should all just agree that when it comes to foreign policy, the US, broadly speaking, has no fucking idea what it's doing. Maybe - hopefully - Obama and his krew will be able to put together something decent on the external front. But in 2012 or 2016 or 2020, some jerk will get elected who'll smash it all up. Honestly, look at the structure of our government. The thing is trying to run in every direction at once, with the major forces behind it changing every four years. One of the reasons or democracy has stayed around is because it never gets all that far from where it started so we don't wind up with a large number of extremists willing to do what it takes to over throw the country. Of course it's going to be skitzo the entire government is, which is sadly why it works moderately well. Ideally we'd have the most qualified working their way up and a rather consistent basis of decisions on what's best for the country in the long run, however people prefer what ever makes today look good and the politician who promises it. Shortsighted, in effective, wasteful, destructive and generally moderate simply because none of them get the time to run that far with their ideas. Really about the best way to sum up our form of government as I can tell, but it also keeps extremist idiots from running the country completely into the ground before we can put someone competent back into office.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Apr 6, 2009 4:02:35 GMT -5
but it also keeps extremist idiots from running the country completely into the ground before we can put someone competent back into office. I don't think that that is entirely true. Take health care. Not having publicly funded health care is an extreme position. It's also an unchallenged position, in the public polity. Take support for Israel. Uniform, lock-step support for that state's policies is an extremist position. It's required for a run for congress, presidency or a high-up public service job. Staying in Iraq is another example. Screwing the third world with bullshit colonial free-trade policies we force them to enact would probably be another. And the list goes on and on. It's difficult to so anything extremely outside the acceptable frame of debate of Washington and the media. That frame of debate rarely has any relations to the pbulic's actual views on anything.
|
|
|
Post by booley on Apr 6, 2009 5:44:08 GMT -5
What? You mean the US gov's policy of pushing it's goals by arming thugs who will probably turn on us if given a chance has somehow backfired?!?!?!?!
But how can this be?
|
|
|
Post by Distind on Apr 6, 2009 5:58:41 GMT -5
Not having publicly funded health care is an extreme position. Really? I must have missed a memo. As far as I was aware this was a progressive idea that just hasn't caught on all that much here, given the psychoticly capitalist portions of our society.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Apr 6, 2009 7:36:54 GMT -5
Not having publicly funded health care is an extreme position. Really? I must have missed a memo. As far as I was aware this was a progressive idea that just hasn't caught on all that much here, given the psychoticly capitalist portions of our society. 82% of Americans want public health insurance, like Canada's. A view (the best system is the one you have right now) held by less than 18% (given that there are other alternatives) of a given population is best described as a 'fringe' or extremist belief. It's a belief that has caught on, just it would be too unprofitable to be enacted.
|
|