Text 43683, 187 rader
Skriven 2006-12-04 23:37:00 av BOB KLAHN (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av ROY WITT
Ärende: JFK on Hitler
=====================

 RW>>>>>>> The US won that war within six months of it's beginning.

 MvdV>>>>>> Dream on...

 RW>>>>> I see. So Hussien is still running the country, his troops
 RW>>>>> are holding off the US Marines who haven't been able to
 RW>>>>> take Bahgdad. Nor has Hussien been found in his 'spider
 RW>>>>> hole' or put on trial for his life. In fact, he's not being
 RW>>>>> held in prison and probably won't be hanged by the neck
 RW>>>>> until he's dead after he wins his appeal...all of those
 RW>>>>> people with black thumbs didn't vote and there's not a
 RW>>>>> Constitution that allows any Iraqi to become part of their
 RW>>>>> own government. Yeup, it sounds like a dream alright.

 bk>>>>  So, you are saying it's all over?

 RW>>> That war, yes. The ensuing engagement is another matter.

 bk>>  Ah, the traditional splitting of the hair.

 RW> I never did that, what's it like?

 What you just did. Our people went over there and fought a war.
 Our people are still fighting over there, and being killed more
 often than in the period you consider the war. The ensuing
 engagement is part of the same war, whether you want to admit it
 or not.

 bk>>>> Good, we can pull out troops out now.

 RW>>> So, you'd cut and run and leave a fledgling democracy to
 RW>>> the wolves. Figures.

 bk>>  What fledgling democracy?

 RW> Answer the question first.

 Can't answer what I would do about a non-existant entity. And
 before I can answer I need more info, first, the answer to the
 question under Point A: below. Then I need the answers to Points
 B C and D.

 See, if you can show me that there is a real likelyhood of
 getting a functioning and decent democracy in Iraq, then I'll
 support just about anything necessary to achieve it.

 If not:

 How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?

 bk>>  Show me one.

 bk>>  Long ago I was posting my position, that democracy is the only
 bk>>  legitimate form of govt, on echos dominated by right wingers.
 bk>>  They continually attacked that statement on the basis that you
 bk>>  can't force democracy on anyone. That and that some cultures are
 bk>>  not suited for democracy. I have stood behind my statment
 bk>>  consistently.

 RW> They're correct in that you can't force democracy on
 RW> anyone, nor are some cultures suited for it. The Iraqi'

 You are wrong on the second part. As to the first, it's an
 absurd objection, as it's saying you can't make people make
 their own decisions. Well, you can, even if that decision is to
 elect a dictator.

 What you can't do is force another nation to make decisions we
 like democratically.

 All cultures can accept democracy with a reasonable amount of
 effort. Islam is well suited to democracy, in spite of the
 claims by the Islamic dictators that it is not. Even the Prophet
 says it's bad to have a king. A king by any other name is just
 as bad. And Surrah 2, 256 says there is no compulsion in
 religion. Which implies free choice, which is the essence of
 democracy.

 RW> accepted a democracy by voting for their present leaders
 RW> and the countries Constitution.

 Which is a step toward democracy, but, since the US set the
 rules and determined the process and choices, it's just a baby
 step, not a real democracy. When they get to vote us out of
 their country it's a real democracy.

 And as long as the elected government doesn't really run the
 country, the country is not a democracy, regardless of
 democratic processes.

 RW> However, there are factions
 RW> (a minority) within the country who don't wish the country
 RW> to be a democracy and this is why the fighting continues.

 Is it a minority? Seems every report I hear says about 70% wants
 us out. So, where is the democracy when they can't even say who
 gets to rule their country?

 RW> There are also factions outside of the country who don't
 RW> want to see a free Iraq and they're also participating in
 RW> the fighting, trying to make it a lopsided war. Our
 RW> presence checks that imbalance.

 Or does it? I've heard interviews were the insurgents say when
 the US leaves they will get rid of the outsiders, if they have
 to fight them to do it. Who knows which way it will go? And, if
 we know other countries are encouraging the insurgents, then
 punish those countries, not Iraqis.

 bk>>  In Iraq I seen no real possibility that we will acomplish that
 bk>>  goal.

 RW> It's already been done.

 Not in any real world sense. Just as a formality.

 bk>>  Also, please note that I do not advocate any pull out, I merely
 bk>>  say we can do it based on your previous comments. I never
 bk>>  believed we had won the war. It's still going on.

 RW> This is a different war, as I pointed out above. The war we
 RW> won put Saddam Hussien and his thugs out of business, which
 RW> was part of the goal.

 Only part of the goal, as you say. The rest of the alleged goal
 is not yet accomplished, nor has the base to accomplish it been
 established. Until then, it's the same war.

 Point A:

 bk>>  Oh, and I also would like the chance to question the Joint
 bk>>  Chiefs of Staff, under oath. The question being, how many men
 bk>>  will it take to bring down the insurgency within a rational time
 bk>>  period? The pentagon said we needed over 300,000 before the
 bk>>  invasion. The figure I read, from Tommy Franks, was 380,000.
 bk>>  Rumsfeld thought we could do it with less than 100,000.

 RW> You're mixing apples and oranges. It took less than 100k to
 RW> unseat SH and his thugs. The recent insurgency isn't part
 RW> of the 2003 war.

 Before the invasion the administration was told by the pentagon
 that it would take three times that many and more to control the
 country. Rumsfeld rejected that. Turned out it was right. Yes,
 the insurgency is part of that same war. It was planned that way
 by Saddam and his generals.

 bk>>  So, I would ask, will it take anywhere near that number to bring
 bk>>  an end to the insurgency? If so, where will you get those men?
 bk>>  Will it take a reinstitution of the draft? Will the country put
 bk>>  up with that?

 Point B:

 bk>>  Are you willing to commit to 300,000 men in Iraq if that's what
 bk>>  it takes?

 Point C:

 bk>>  Are you willing to accept a draft, universal military service,
 bk>>  if that's what it takes?

 Point D:

 bk>>  Are you willing to accept tax increases to pay for it?

 bk>>  Don't bother telling me it won't be that way, that's BS. Neither
 bk>>  you nor I know if it will. I am asking, if that's what it takes,
 bk>>  are you willing to accept it?

 bk>>  If not, then pull out now. Why leave our men there to fight and
 bk>>  bleed and die in a war you are not willing to commit to doing
 bk>>  what is necessary to win?

 bk>>  Or do we negotiate the price of victory? Do we negotiate with
 bk>>  the lives of our service men and women?

 bk>>  Those are the questions I need an answer to.


BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake? John Kerry
 * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)