Politics As Usual

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
But the idea that we would lay our defense in the hands of a group that has never seen a war worth fighting is appalling.

Who to the right of Ralph Nader (?) actually thinks this?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
That's at least two steps removed from the argument we're having. Club was saying that the UN didn't want to run Iraq, and I said he was on crack.

We have gone to war since Korea without the UN's say-so under both Democratic and Republican presidents. No one thinks the UN should have a veto power over our military.

That depends on what we mean by "run." The UN may have wanted to run the oil contracts and the like, but they certainly did not want to run, and had no capacity to run, the post-war security apparatus. Do you think the "insurgency" would have dropped their guns if the UN rather than the US had been running post war Iraq? Certainly not. So what would the UN have done, held a meeting about it?

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Thanks. Close enough for government work, right?

The gig is in the bag.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
That depends on what we mean by "run." The UN may have wanted to run the oil contracts and the like, but they certainly did not want to run, and had no capacity to run, the post-war security apparatus. Do you think the "insurgency" would have dropped their guns if the UN rather than the US had been running post war Iraq? Certainly not. So what would the UN have done, held a meeting about it?

There would have been member nations' troops there, under UN auspices, like any other UN peacekeeping operation. Why is this so hard to grasp?

If there had been shooting, the UN would have done whatever it does under its rules of engagement. People don't usually bother to shoot at the UN -- they save their bullets for their enemies. At least in theory, there would have been less reason for an Iraqi insurgency against the UN than against the US, and so there would have been less shooting. Whether this would have been true in practice is hard to say, although it is certainly true that the UN has more approval around the world than we do. Some of the Islamists might well have tried just as hard to kill UN troops.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
There would have been member nations' troops there, under UN auspices, like any other UN peacekeeping operation. Why is this so hard to grasp?

In essence, all of the people that are already there - but also 100 Frenchies, a few German techies and 2 45 year-old members of the Belgian militia.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

I guess some will deem this more collegiate hijinks.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=5223595

[Tyrone Slothrop]

from Kevin Drum:

Posted at Political Animal
THE VIEW FROM CENTCOM
....So what do former CENTCOM commanders think about the neocons and their war planning? Let's listen in:

• General Joseph Hoar, 1991-1994: "Paul Wolfowitz is a very bright guy, but he doesn't know anything about war-fighting, and I suspect he knows less about counterinsurgency operations....I think that the neo-conservatives had their day, by selling to the President the need for invasion of Iraq. I think it's now time for a clean sweep—and it has been for some time, in my judgment—to get rid of these people."
  
• General Anthony Zinni, 1997-2000: He believes the neocons, including Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of defense, have hijacked U.S. foreign policy: "In the lead-up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw, at minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility; at worst, lying, incompetence and corruption."
  
• General Tommy Franks, 2000-2003: Doug Feith is "the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth."

General Binford Peay III, CENTCOM commander from 1994-1997, seems to have maintained a studious silence about the conduct of the war, perhaps understandable since he's now the chairman of the board of a defense contractor that, among other things, provides ammunition for the Army's Stryker brigades.

Still, that's a pretty remarkable record, isn't it? Three of the past four CENTCOM commanders, the guys who probably understand the military requirements of a war in the Middle East better than any other humans on the planet, think the people who planned this war are completely incompetent. Quite an accomplishment.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=5223595

If true, this is notta so good. We struck a man's broken leg and told him to renounce his religion. But hey, we're still better than them --- we invented freedom.

Someone explain how this is the "ugly behavior of a few"? I don't know about you, but if I'm engaging in something that I believe is frowned upon by others, I tend to abstain from it in the presence of others, and shy away from photography. For example, the kitten stapling. I generally close my door for that. YMMV.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
There would have been member nations' troops there, under UN auspices, like any other UN peacekeeping operation. Why is this so hard to grasp?

If there had been shooting, the UN would have done whatever it does under its rules of engagement. People don't usually bother to shoot at the UN -- they save their bullets for their enemies. At least in theory, there would have been less reason for an Iraqi insurgency against the UN than against the US, and so there would have been less shooting. Whether this would have been true in practice is hard to say, although it is certainly true that the UN has more approval around the world than we do. Some of the Islamists might well have tried just as hard to kill UN troops.

You are telling me that the French and the Germans would have sent significant troops? Not likely. I agree with Slave, it would have basically been the same troops are are currently there.

If you think that there would have been less shooting, you are just mistaken. Please reread the letter sent by al zawari (I know this is spelled wrong, but I'm too lazy to look it up). The insurgency has nothing to do with who the "occupiers" are and everything to do with not wanting anything resembling a democracy to be established in Iraq.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You are telling me that the French and the Germans would have sent significant troops? Not likely. I agree with Slave, it would have basically been the same troops are are currently there.

So the French and Germans were pushing for the UN to run things, but weren't willing to ante anything up for the privilege? I don't think so. Please find me a cite for that. You're back to the tried-and-true tactic of disparaging the French for being French. It's rhetorically effective, and not wholly unfair, but pretending at this point that we had to do things the way we did them because there was no alternative is a crock.

If you think that there would have been less shooting, you are just mistaken. Please reread the letter sent by al zawari (I know this is spelled wrong, but I'm too lazy to look it up). The insurgency has nothing to do with who the "occupiers" are and everything to do with not wanting anything resembling a democracy to be established in Iraq.

Who is opposed to the concept of democracy? The Kurds most of all, and they're not shooting at us. Sadr is using us as a foil to gain popular support. Granted, some of the terror is from Islamists who are opposed to anything Western, but that's certainly not the all of it. To the extent that the insurgents have popular support, I submit that it is because they are perceived to be resisting a foreign occupier. The UN would not have quite the same problems.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The insurgency has nothing to do with who the "occupiers" are and everything to do with not wanting anything resembling a democracy to be established in Iraq.

Please reconcile this with the oft-repeated refrain on these boards that THEY HATE US and bombed our capital and our largest city with airplanes filled with our people.

Or are you coming around to the view that Iraqi resistance bears no relationship to terrorism or American domestic security?

[SlaveNoMore]

Atticus Grinch
Someone explain how this is the "ugly behavior of a few"? I don't know about you, but if I'm engaging in something that I believe is frowned upon by others, I tend to abstain from it in the presence of others, and shy away from photography.

"Hey Guys, look at this goofy picture of me kicking a dune coon"

The more I think of it, none of this is really isn't that far off from that idiot posting about her prostitution on a public journal from a work computer.

Or those idiots you see at the ballgame calling their friends "look I'm on the Jumbotron"

It's this growing need for everyone to be a public face and to brag openly to anyone and everyone in earshot of their personal exploits.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Who to the right of Ralph Nader (?) actually thinks this?

Are you voting for a guy who you think is to the left of Ralph Nader?

What do you think he means by "internationalizing"? If it doesn't mean getting others to provide resources, it only means giving control of our's over to others.

Could you give a 1 sentence answer that describes what you think Kerry means by "internationalizing"?

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
So the French and Germans were pushing for the UN to run things, but weren't willing to ante anything up for the privilege? I don't think so. Please find me a cite for that.

Uhm, shouldn't the burden be on you to explain what they would have contributed?

I'll start you off. In the first Gulf War, the French gave us the French foreign legion. In other words, the French gave us a bunch of people who aren't French, and called it the French contribution.

Please fill in the blanks I'm drawing regarding the long subsequent history of France contributing to world peace.

He(sorry Club, I still want to see your answer too)llo

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
The more I think of it, none of this is really isn't that far off from that idiot posting about her prostitution on a public journal from a work computer.

Hmm, not that far off? I hope you didn't get the same boner reading about each of them. Besides, sounds like you've got some more thinking in order. That was one idiot. This is 1,600 pictures of the interior of a military facility, and a group of idiots, some of whom had careers they would have expected to lose if they believed what they were doing was wrong.

Or those idiots you see at the ballgame calling their friends "look I'm on the Jumbotron"

(1) Those guys are drunk; and (2) If you're doing something illegal, and you know it's illegal; you usually stop once you realize you're on the Jumbotron. At least, that's what I do.