Hail to the Chief :: Free Realms

Quote Reply

#52 Jan 15 2008 at 3:17 PM Rating: Excellent

Jophiel

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

paulsol the Righteous wrote:

I'm pretty sure that that is not a very good definition of 'democracy'

Are you saying that the government was not democratically elected? Or that it is not legitimate? The ability of the government to currently defend itself is in no way a sign of whether or not it's a democracy.

Quote:

apologise, to the victims in a way that leaves no doubt as to your contrition, and when the smoke settles, do what you do best. That is, offer re-construction and technical assistance to the people who end up in charge.

I'm sure that'll come as a real satisfaction to those killed during the "smoke".

Quote:

Its the same as what would have happened if Sadaam had died in a plane crash ffs.

Not remotely.

Quote:

You keep on supporting the methods( and by extension the people who are using these methods) that got you all into this mess if you like. I will continue to think that repeating the same **** day after day is the height of stupidity.

I've written enough criticisms of how the war has been prosecuted to dwarf your gripes tenfold. Regardless, I don't believe that the answer is to pick up and leave tomorrow. Nor am I convinced by "staying and trying to rebuild is immoral and foolish! What we need to do is let them totally obliterate any remaining infrastructure and government they have and then try to help! That's the moral path!"

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#53 Jan 15 2008 at 3:21 PM Rating: Decent

Smasharoo

Lunatic

30,086 posts

I've written enough criticisms of how the war has been prosecuted to dwarf your gripes tenfold. Regardless, I don't believe that the answer is to pick up and leave tomorrow. Nor am I convinced by "staying and trying to rebuild is immoral and foolish! What we need to do is let them totally obliterate any remaining infrastructure and government they have and then try to help! That's the moral path!"

There is no moral path. There's just the "protect our legitimate interests at the lowest cost" path. That's all there ever is.

This whole "we go to far to fight evil" thing is something people should get over at about age 9.

Not to imply you're making that argument, just taking any excuse to show how practical I am. I'm cold, like ice, ohhh paradise! Choppin broccoli!!

____________________________

Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#54 Jan 15 2008 at 3:45 PM Rating: Decent

paulsol

View User Forum

Sage

4,158 posts

Quote:

I don't believe that the answer is to pick up and leave tomorrow. Nor am I convinced by "staying and trying to rebuild is immoral and foolish! What we need to do is let them totally obliterate any remaining infrastructure and government they have and then try to help! That's the moral path!"

I know.

You've already said on page 1 that you would increase US personnel, increase re-arming and training and increase the length of occupation. Wether you want to do it for the love of the Iraqis or the hope that it would lead to a glorious conclusion for the US, I don't know, but I have already said why I don't think that will work. After all it hasn't shown much hope of working in the last 1760 days, why do you think it will start showing progress now.

In the same way that the US (and willing helpers) should never have invaded in the first place (certainly not for the bullsh1t reasons that they did), the occupation forces should be immediatly withdrawn. The invasion was illegal and idiotic. the occupation is also illegal and idiotic. It serves no purpose other than to prolong the conflict and to allow people on both sides of the political spectrum to either feel that they are doing something to help, or to continue with the gung-ho US is Best attitude.

Smash said it ..

Quote:

There is no moral path. There's just the "protect our legitimate interests at the lowest cost" path. That's all there ever is.

____________________________

"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#55 Jan 15 2008 at 4:03 PM Rating: Excellent

Jophiel

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

paulsol the Righteous wrote:

You've already said on page 1 that you would increase US personnel, increase re-arming and training and increase the length of occupation.

Actually, I said that increasing personnel would probably be impractical and I'd look to decrease personnel by about 75% over the next 32 months. In my estimation, we either need the fill the region with so many US troops that we essentially force a peace via martial law or else set an actual time for withdrawl and do what we can up to that date to ensure that the Iraqi forces can keep the peace after we leave. Since the first isn't an option, I went for the second.

Quote:

After all it hasn't shown much hope of working in the last 1760 days, why do you think it will start showing progress now.

Lack of accountability, mainly. A rejection of any dates, any real benchmarks, etc. The Iraqi government failed to meet any of the 2007 benchmarks after the surge* and it just went past virtually unnoticed and certainly not called to public notice by our administration.

Quote:

In the same way that the US (and willing helpers) should never have invaded in the first place (certainly not for the bullsh1t reasons that they did), the occupation forces should be immediatly withdrawn.

Agreed that they shouldn't have. Furthermore, the administration made tremendous blunders in how they ran the war and what they did afterwards. None of which is relevant to what would happen upon an immediate withdrawl.

*A day or two ago they finally passed some "Re-Baathification" legislation which touches upon one of the seven benchmarks.

Edited, Jan 15th 2008 6:04pm by Jophiel

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#56 Jan 15 2008 at 4:51 PM Rating: Decent

Debalic

Prodigal Son

20,643 posts

paulsol the Righteous wrote:

Wich, other than the De-Baathification bit, is pretty much where they were at before the invasion. The US wasnt worried about the well-being of the iraqis then. Why are you so worried about them now? They are all grown ups over there. Let them decide what they are going to do with their country. If they want to fight it out, better they do it with old rusty stuff than in a coupla years time when they are armed to the teeth with state of the art US supplied weapons. When they finish fighting, they will need help. That is the time to offer assistance, especially with their oil resources. When they want help, let them ask for it. At least then you wont be sending thousands of young people out there to be shot at and bombed. The people then will be welcomed as guests.

They are?

____________________________

publiusvarus wrote:

we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#57 Jan 15 2008 at 5:17 PM Rating: Excellent

Jophiel

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

This thread is pissing me off because every time I see the title, I'm reminded of the movie My Fellow Americans where the one guy is singing "Hail to the chief, he's the chief so he needs hail-ing..."

Smiley: mad

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#58 Jan 15 2008 at 5:23 PM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1592764438671

903 posts

Jophiel wrote:

Lack of accountability, mainly. A rejection of any dates, any real benchmarks, etc. The Iraqi government failed to meet any of the 2007 benchmarks after the surge* and it just went past virtually unnoticed and certainly not called to public notice by our administration.

I don't see anything drastically different or more accountable with your plan:

Quote:

Assuming that we don't, and I don't care to start a draft, I would spend one year concentrating on training the Iraqi military. Not just cranking out numbers but also training Iraqi commanders who could help continue training. Afterwards, I would begin a phased withdrawl to about 25% of our current numbers, based in a few key locations, tasked with continuing training and providing military support when needed. Particularly in equipment-specific areas such as air support and heavy armor where Iraq just doesn't own the machinery. The idea would be to more or less force the Iraqi government to pick up the slack but not to throw them to the wolves.

The only date you set is spending "one year concentrating on training the military". So, what happens on 1/15/09? Do you keep going, but just without concentrating on the military? What are the dates of your phased withdrawal? Does it start on 1/15/09? Is it dependent on benchmarks, where if the military isn't trained to a suitable state you extend that initial one year? If they're not dependent on benchmarks, exactly what is the date when we'd be reduced to 25%?

By what date do these 25% leave? That's still 40,000 troops. Do we keep a permanent military base in Iraq?

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#59 Jan 15 2008 at 5:24 PM Rating: Decent

Smasharoo

Lunatic

30,086 posts

Do we keep a permanent military base in Iraq?

More than one, I should think.

____________________________

Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#60 Jan 15 2008 at 5:31 PM Rating: Excellent

Jophiel

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

It occurs to me that I'm not president so I don't need to defend my imaginary policy decisions. Smiley: laugh

I had intended an 18mth withdrawl after the year but apparently didn't say so. So it goes. I've already used way more than my 100 words.

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#61 Jan 15 2008 at 6:07 PM Rating: Excellent

Kaolian

View User Forum

Leet Haxör

29,919 posts

Jophiel wrote:

This thread is pissing me off because every time I see the title, I'm reminded of the movie My Fellow Americans where the one guy is singing "Hail to the chief, he's the chief so he needs hail-ing..."

Smiley: mad

My work here is done!

____________________________

Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#62 Jan 15 2008 at 6:09 PM Rating: Decent

Nexa

Nexa

12,065 posts

I keep thinking this thread says "Hail to the Chef"...probably because I'm hungry.

Nexa

____________________________

â€œIt has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
â€• Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#63 Jan 17 2008 at 6:13 AM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1646612214229

View User Forum

Scholar

16,127 posts

Smasharoo wrote:

Do we keep a permanent military base in Iraq?

More than one, I should think.

In all fairness that's what we did with Germany, Japan, and more recent, South Korea. Of course, the militarily strategic aspect of Iraq does have it's shining points. Between Iran and Syria. Not saying it should be justification of war, but it isn't hard to see it's importance.

▲ Page top

Hail to the ChiefFollow