CSSHEGEWISCH wrote: It appears that several postings on this thread suggest that anything less than blind loyalty and obedience to the whims of the current inhabitant of the Executive Mansion constitutes treason. It should be pointed out that once you look beyond the Second World War, there was an appreciable amount of dissent to the wars in which the United States was involved. The outlawing of dissent is not a practice to be condoned in a democracy.The so-called "war on terrorism", as defined and practiced by the President of the United States and his supporters, is both eternal and unwinnable short of the mass extermination attempted in The Final Solution. Violent extremists of all stripes (IRA, ETA, Ku Klux Klan, Al Qaeda, etc.) have been around for a long time and will continue to exist as long as somebody has a complaint or grudge and is willing to act upon it. Terrorist acts are acts of intolerance and desparation, there isn't much that can be reasonably done to prevent them short of totalitarianism.Also keep in mind that, by definition, democracy is not a concept that can be imposed on people by somebody else. If the Iraqis prefer tribalism and authoritarian government of various sorts, there isn't too much that the United States or anybody else can do about it.
It appears that several postings on this thread suggest that anything less than blind loyalty and obedience to the whims of the current inhabitant of the Executive Mansion constitutes treason. It should be pointed out that once you look beyond the Second World War, there was an appreciable amount of dissent to the wars in which the United States was involved. The outlawing of dissent is not a practice to be condoned in a democracy.
The so-called "war on terrorism", as defined and practiced by the President of the United States and his supporters, is both eternal and unwinnable short of the mass extermination attempted in The Final Solution. Violent extremists of all stripes (IRA, ETA, Ku Klux Klan, Al Qaeda, etc.) have been around for a long time and will continue to exist as long as somebody has a complaint or grudge and is willing to act upon it. Terrorist acts are acts of intolerance and desparation, there isn't much that can be reasonably done to prevent them short of totalitarianism.
Also keep in mind that, by definition, democracy is not a concept that can be imposed on people by somebody else. If the Iraqis prefer tribalism and authoritarian government of various sorts, there isn't too much that the United States or anybody else can do about it.
I don't necessarily disagree with what you've said here, just that I don't believe that getting folks in line during a war effort necessarily means we're talking about "blind loyalty". Just keep the dissent within judicious parameters, not blared out over the world press for all the terrorists to read and become encouraged even more.
Nothing makes the day so perfect for a hate mongering terrorist than to wake up and read the "dissent" as reported by the New York Times, Washington Post, et al as he/she contemplates the possibilities of success or failure of his/her campaign of destruction. This war would have been over a long time ago if Bush had taken a harder stand on seditious acts. He was a fool to believe that certain Democrats would put their country ahead of their party.
You have to be able to understand how the terror networks manipulate the US press to their advantage. All terror acts are engaged in for the purpose of maximizing press coverage. In fact, if not for pro-terrorist news coverage, they'd have nothing with which to fight their doomed battles. It is the US news networks that have kept them alive and kicking. Otherwise, these guys are all dead enders.
BTW - if polls are to be believed, then a vast majority of Iraqis favor democracy.
CSSHEGEWISCH wrote:If the Iraqis are so big on democracy, why are they currently engaged in a civil war in which the armed forces of the United States are needlessly stuck in the middle of? After all, it's their country and we're just a bunch of damned foreigners to them.
That's the liberal press spin. It's not a civil war, it is a case of long standing vengence campaign between the three major groups there for control of the country, aided and abetted by Iran and Syria. No one is trying to break away to form a new country, which is what a civil war would be about.
I believe we are there because we have other business in the Persian Gulf that will eventually need to be addressed if certain threats remain poised. That doesn't mean I am in favor of nation building as opposed to a scorched earth policy of destruction and departure. The State Department and the CIA have a policy of not leaving a power vacuum after the initial military victory. I say perhaps we should just leave the vacuum in place and see what happens, and if we don't like the looks of that regime, we wipe them out again until they get it right. At least that way our soldiers are not left to babysit in an attempt to attain stability.
But of course that way is not politically correct for the more spineless members of NATO and the UN, so we have to choose between nation building or premature departure aka defeat aka Vietnam. Given those choices, I'll stick with a policy of victory, and you can stick with the policy of defeat.
FM I do not agree with your definition of civil war. SOOOO I went to Wikipedia and I do agree with their definition.
A civil war is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight against each other for the control of political power. Political scientists use two criteria: the warring groups must be from the same country and fighting for control of the political center,or to force a major change in policy. The second criterion is that at least 1,000 people must have been killed in total, with at least 100 from each side.[1]
Sure looks like Iraq is in civil war.
spokyone wrote: FM I do not agree with your definition of civil war. SOOOO I went to Wikipedia and I do agree with their definition.A civil war is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight against each other for the control of political power. Political scientists use two criteria: the warring groups must be from the same country and fighting for control of the political center, control over a separatist state or to force a major change in policy. The second criterion is that at least 1,000 people must have been killed in total, with at least 100 from each side.[1] Sure looks like Iraq is in civil war.
A civil war is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight against each other for the control of political power. Political scientists use two criteria: the warring groups must be from the same country and fighting for control of the political center, control over a separatist state or to force a major change in policy. The second criterion is that at least 1,000 people must have been killed in total, with at least 100 from each side.[1]
A few questions in this arena:
Where is the political center of Iraq? Baghdad? (Logical answer, right?) Well, the insurgent attacks at this point are aimed at civillians. The general idea behind it is to de-stabilize the government to the point where it can be overthrown and an Islamic state based on Sharia law can be declared. This will not happen as long as the US is present. The US is currently preventing a full civil war between the warring factions by being in the country. Certainly I wouldn't try to defend the claim that there is no civil war present, but rather I would state that if the US withrew you would see a real civil war - organized armies fighting each other at will. Foreign countries would chose sides (much as the French and the Brits did during our civil war) and each side would be in an all-out battle for supremacy.
If the argument is that the US should withdraw because the US is causing mass civilian casualties then I would suggest those who subscribe to this idea are fools. If the US withdrew now you would see more casualties then you ever thought possible. Iran, Syria, Saudia Arabia, Israel, and a few others would begin battle royale. The battle would be over who controls Iraq.
If the argument is that the US should withdraw because we are in a situation were the Iraqis are not willing to do what it takes to control their country, then your argument has merit. We cannot force democracy on a country. Iraq's history of constant tribal warfare cannot be overlooked. Saddam was a nutcase, but he did maintain control over the warring tribes by intimidation. It is in this arena that the current administration's weak policies have troubled me. We cannot commit to an indefinite war in Iraq. The clock is definitely ticking with regards to Iraqi self-governance, what ever form that may take.
Folks, can we stop being so
Getting back on topic, you can forget about doing that in Sacramento, CA. The main lines through the city don't have any alternatives to avoid any densely populated areas.
spokyone wrote: FM I do not agree with your definition of civil war. SOOOO I went to Wikipedia and I do agree with their definition.A civil war is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight against each other for the control of political power. Political scientists use two criteria: the warring groups must be from the same country and fighting for control of the political center,or to force a major change in policy. The second criterion is that at least 1,000 people must have been killed in total, with at least 100 from each side.[1]Sure looks like Iraq is in civil war.
Then by that same definition the "Civil War" (aka the War Between the States) was not a civil war, since that was a case of the Union trying to bring the Secessionists back into the fold. The Confederacy considered itself a separate nation after secession.
No problem - time to get back on topic.
SactoGuy188 wrote: Folks, can we stop being so Getting back on topic, you can forget about doing that in Sacramento, CA. The main lines through the city don't have any alternatives to avoid any densely populated areas.
That's probably true in most US cities - not enough practical space to construct a decent rail bypass.
Ergo, there's really no localized railroad reroute solution in preventing a possible terror attack on a chemical train passing through a city beyond normal precautionary measures. What can be done though is the idea of not letting a terror attack in one locale causing economic disruption elsewhere via a long term blockage of a vital transportation artery. That's why a rail network security plan should focus on dispersed redundancy, aka keeping alternative routes up and running for overflow from the disrupted segment. There's a lot of bottlenecks in our rail system nationwide that, if they are taken out of service for extended periods of time, could cause greater economic damage than the initial terror attack itself. Most of these are a creation of railroad consolidation that eliminated "redundant" lines which were a sufficient distance away:
Spokane WA - loss of Milwaukee line 20 miles south, loss of UP branch network east and south
Sandpoint ID - loss of GN line west of Newport WA, Milwaukee line via St. Maries
Pocatello ID - loss of Modoc line in CA/NV, loss of UP line from Twin Falls ID to Wells NV
Billings MT - loss of Milwaukee line through Roundup
Shelby MT - loss of Great Falls-Havre line, loss of GF-Helena line
There's probably more out there, I'm only familiar with northwest lines.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.