Bombings in Amman Show US Involvement in Iraq Is Correct
 

If you have kept up with the news, including that which I excerpted in this thread, then you know that there is a growing backlash against bombers/terrorists in the Islamic world. At least among educated thinking moslems as opposed to the street rabble egged on by uneducated radical mullahs.

This situation along with our involvement in Iraq, can appropriately be analyzed with a poker analogy, along with a comparison to the Cold War. How do you lose in poker? We all know that playing too loose, i.e. playing too many hands and going too far with them, is the major reason. And another reason is playing in games too big for one's bankroll.

Now look at how the Cold War was "won". We ratcheted up the arms race at the cost of huge deficit spending. The USSR responded in kind. But they were underbankrolled, and their already shaky economic system buckled under the financial pressure. We thus increased the stakes to a level where they were destined to go broke.

Now with our war on terrorism, which we have taken not just to Al-Queda's main base in Afghanistan, but also to Iraq, we have also increased the stakes and most importantly, induced our enemies to go too far with their hand. Now they have attacked Moslem civilians in both Jordan and Saudi Arabia, and prompted a backlash that will doom them, especially if their flow of financial backing is also imperilled, which seems likely. So our enemies will be forced to drop down in stakes and most likely won't be able to rebuild their roll, either financially or most importantly in good will in the Islamic world.

Our raise in Iraq was the correct poker strategy applied to real world military/political strategy.

The only question is whether we will be too weak tight sitting on the largest stack to stay at the table and gamble until our opponents are bust.

Re: Bombings in Amman Show US Involvement in Iraq Is Correct
 

"We ratcheted up the arms race at the cost of huge deficit spending. The USSR responded in kind."

First right of center person I've ever seen admit this.

Re: Bombings in Amman Show US Involvement in Iraq Is Correct
 

[ QUOTE ]
"We ratcheted up the arms race at the cost of huge deficit spending. The USSR responded in kind."

First right of center person I've ever seen admit this.

[/ QUOTE ]


Andy, I think you weren't paying much attention or just not looking in the right places. It wasn't only the left of center making the noises. Correctly or not, a lot of objection was raised. And ignored. It didn't "bleed," so it didn't "lead," in the mainstream media. (whatever the hell that means)

Re: Bombings in Amman Show US Involvement in Iraq Is Correct
 

dude, obviously there are terrorists in Jordan, we should probably invade to get those bastards out.

Re: Bombings in Amman Show US Involvement in Iraq Is Correct
 

Jordan is a US friendly state who is willing to act against them. Bad example.

Re: Bombings in Amman Show US Involvement in Iraq Is Correct
 

This is a logical analysis for what it is.

FWIW, I didn't believe that the Cold War needed to be fought nor do I believe that the War on Terror is in our best interest. We can't play police man forever. Iran will soon have nukes, North Korea already has them. One day, soon, nearly everyone will have them. In other words, eventually, we'll have no choice but to rest on our own nuclear deterrent so we might as well start now. Freedom and Capitalism don't need us. They will win, in the end, on their own merit. In fact, a logical argument can be quite convincingly be made that the best thing for spreading freedom and democracy is to just get out of the way and let it feed off itself. (I won't bother to do the logical analysis here.)

Re: Bombings in Amman Show US Involvement in Iraq Is Correct
 

[ QUOTE ]
nor do I believe that the War on Terror is in our best interest

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea. Forget about 9/11. Let the terrorists have safe havens from which to launch more attacks. Makes sense.

[ QUOTE ]
Freedom and Capitalism don't need us. They will win, in the end, on their own merit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea, the exact reason we should have stayed out of the european side of WWII. Freedom would have won out by itself. And dictatorships left alone never threaten their neighbors or abuse their own populace.

Great analysis.

Re: Bombings in Amman Show US Involvement in Iraq Is Correct
 

"Al-Queda's main base in Afghanistan, but also to Iraq"

Al-Queda had a base in Iraq before the war? Saddam Hussien was Bin Laden's most hated leader in the mideast. This is a false assertion that has been debunked numerous times. If anything the war in Iraq is going to destablize the region creating more terrorism.

Re: Bombings in Amman Show US Involvement in Iraq Is Correct
 

So the strategy is create a situation that will spread terror throughout the Middle East and get lots of Middle Easterners killed in order to get them onside? How humane. I'd love to hear Bush justfy it in those terms. Maybe you should become his speechwriter.

Re: Bombings in Amman Show US Involvement in Iraq Is Correct
 

"The only question is whether we will be too weak tight sitting on the largest stack to stay at the table and gamble until our opponents are bust. "

Should we go 'all in' Iran? Boy it sure is getting drafty in here.

Re: Bombings in Amman Show US Involvement in Iraq Is Correct
 

I didn't say they did. Saddam definitely didn't care about religion until his capture. But Saddam's dictorship and his willingness to develop and use WMD's and use them against his own people is the same as terrorism. If you don't think so then ask the Kurds and the Shi'a. And Al-Quaeda is there now which means we have to be since they are our enemies. And they have indeed overplayed their hand as I said above.

And we sure would hate to destabilize the middle east, island of stability that it has been the past 50 years.

Re: Bombings in Amman Show US Involvement in Iraq Is Correct
 

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't say they did. Saddam definitely didn't care about religion until his capture. But Saddam's dictorship and his willingness to develop and use WMD's and use them against his own people is the same as terrorism. If you don't think so then ask the Kurds and the Shi'a. And Al-Quaeda is there now which means we have to be since they are our enemies. And they have indeed overplayed their hand as I said above.

And we sure would hate to destabilize the middle east, island of stability that it has been the past 50 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

So we have the mandate to attack any country that uses force to stop rebellions?

Re: Bombings in Amman Show US Involvement in Iraq Is Correct
 

[ QUOTE ]
Should we go 'all in' Iran?

[/ QUOTE ]

If they keep supporting terrorism as with Hezbollah, and also developing nuclear weapons, then they can expect to have their bets raised. And having the big stack means they can't bust us but we can them.

Re: Bombings in Amman Show US Involvement in Iraq Is Correct
 

[ QUOTE ]
So we have the mandate to attack any country that uses force to stop rebellions?

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are saying Saddam's government was a legitimate one that had the right to opporess its own people right? Kinda like King George III?

Re: Bombings in Amman Show US Involvement in Iraq Is Correct
 

"
I didn't say they did. Saddam definitely didn't care about religion until his capture. But Saddam's dictorship and his willingness to develop and use WMD's and use them against his own people is the same as terrorism."


Another instance of broadening the definition of terrorism well past the point of meaninglessness.

Re: Bombings in Amman Show US Involvement in Iraq Is Correct
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So we have the mandate to attack any country that uses force to stop rebellions?

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are saying Saddam's government was a legitimate one that had the right to oppress its own people right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your boys Reagan and Bush Sn seemed to think so.

If you want to argue for intervention on humanitarian grounds go for it (and perhaps expalin why Iraq should have been the first/only country on the list). But arguing that Bush was correct to link Saddam to terrorism because he was an oppressive or even genocidal ruler is dumb. They're two different arguments.

Re: Bombings in Amman Show US Involvement in Iraq Is Correct
 

[ QUOTE ]
Another instance of broadening the definition of terrorism well past the point of meaninglessness.

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasn't meaningless to the Kurds and Shi'a when they had chems used on them. It wasn't meaningless to the Kuwaitis. But hey, if the gangbangers in your town are running wild and unchecked it's no skin off your back if they proliferate right? No way problems become bigger when you don't deal with them at the earliest opportunity right?

Re: Bombings in Amman Show US Involvement in Iraq Is Correct
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Another instance of broadening the definition of terrorism well past the point of meaninglessness.

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasn't meaningless to the Kurds and Shi'a when they had chems used on them. It wasn't meaningless to the Kuwaitis. But hey, if the gangbangers in your town are running wild and unchecked it's no skin off your back if they proliferate right? No way problems become bigger when you don't deal with them at the earliest opportunity right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Please stop with the weepy rhetorical dribbling.

So your defintion of terrorism is any form of violence you regard as illegitimate? It isn;t a question of whether it's right or wrong; of course what Saddam did was wrong (as, for instance, was the firebombing of Japan in WWII). But to call it terrorism just empties the word of its last vestiges of meaning. Try war crime/crime against humanity or something like that.

"But hey, if the gangbangers in your town are running wild and unchecked it's no skin off your back if they proliferate right? No way problems become bigger when you don't deal with them at the earliest opportunity right? "

Are you drunk? I've no idea what you're talking about but I suspect it has nothing to do with the point I was making.

Re: Bombings in Amman Show US Involvement in Iraq Is Correct
 

[ QUOTE ]
But arguing that Bush was correct to link Saddam to terrorism because he was an oppressive or even genocidal ruler is dumb. They're two different arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oppressive dictatorships and terrorism spring from the same well of violence and hatred. And any dictator who has used chems on his own people wouldn't think twice about using them on other countries or providing them to terrorists with whom he shared common enemies.

Re: Bombings in Amman Show US Involvement in Iraq Is Correct
 

[ QUOTE ]
But to call it terrorism just empties the word of its last vestiges of meaning. Try war crime/crime against humanity or something like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

They're just different heads of the same hydra.

Re: Bombings in Amman Show US Involvement in Iraq Is Correct
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So we have the mandate to attack any country that uses force to stop rebellions?

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are saying Saddam's government was a legitimate one that had the right to opporess its own people right? Kinda like King George III?

[/ QUOTE ]

Like Russia, Kyrgistan, Columbia, China...I could go on, but I would have to do some research. Lots of governments repress their people in very harsh ways, often with our help. We assisted Turkey in the wholesale genocide of its Kurds, hundreds of villages were wiped off the map. Kurdish people in Turkey may not even use their own langauge.

Re: Bombings in Amman Show US Involvement in Iraq Is Correct
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But arguing that Bush was correct to link Saddam to terrorism because he was an oppressive or even genocidal ruler is dumb. They're two different arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oppressive dictatorships and terrorism spring from the same well of violence and hatred. And any dictator who has used chems on his own people wouldn't think twice about using them on other countries or providing them to terrorists with whom he shared common enemies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Saddam's #1 priority was self preservation. Why would he attack other countries? The governments of Saddam's neighbors did not even consider him a treat.

Re: Bombings in Amman Show US Involvement in Iraq Is Correct
 

"Oppressive dictatorships and terrorism spring from the same well of violence and hatred"

Lord save us... So they must be the same thing right?

"And any dictator who has used chems on his own people wouldn't think twice about using them on other countries or providing them to terrorists with whom he shared common enemies."

Is that so? What about the fact that other countries such as the US at the time didn't care about him using such weapons on his own people enough to even criticise him for it, but might have cared just slightly more if he'd used them on theirs or helped others do so? Ignoring the minor point that in 2003 he didn't actually have any. SHould we assume that because Uzbekistan is happy to torture its own people it may start kidnapping and torturing US citizens any day now? The logic is ridiculous.

Re: Bombings in Amman Show US Involvement in Iraq Is Correct
 

BluffThis!, first off your arguments are coherent. You are making much more sense than your detractors in this thread. But you don't give me the credit that I deserve. I will try again.

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

nor do I believe that the War on Terror is in our best interest


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yea. Forget about 9/11. Let the terrorists have safe havens from which to launch more attacks. Makes sense.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Freedom and Capitalism don't need us. They will win, in the end, on their own merit.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yea, the exact reason we should have stayed out of the european side of WWII. Freedom would have won out by itself. And dictatorships left alone never threaten their neighbors or abuse their own populace.

Great analysis.


[/ QUOTE ]

9/11 was a barbaric and adolescent act against the worlds most powerful empire. (Don't let the word empire get your panties in a way -- it's just a word) The Islamists resent our interference so they bombed us. Our national pride was threatened so we responded in kind. And now the score is in our favor. Good for us.

9/11 as well as any potential war with China (over Taiwan), North Korea, and past wars against North Vietnam and North Korea and the near nuclear winter the world barely avoided are all the result of American intereference.

Israel doesn't need our help nor did they deserve it. There is nor was any reason, selfish or selfless, for us to side with Israel. Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea can all fend for themselves especially if they sign their protection pacts with each other and perhaps the Phillipines and Indonesia and Australia. They don't need us and our involvement only puts you and I at risk. South Vietnam did not deserve our protection nor did it do them much good. The domino effect proved to be another paranoid nationalists delusion. And the Korean war did nothing but kill thousands of people.

You can argue that the Cold War saved Western Europe and in turn helped solidify Democracy. But that is only until about the very early 60's when France and England developed their own Nukes and were completely rebuilt. After that time the Cold War was senseless nationalists paranoia that almost destroyed civilization as we know it.

I'm now going to lump the first 15 years of the Cold War with World War II. The war against the NAZI's is one of the very few examples in world history of Freedom vs Tyranny. Usually it's Tyranny vs less tyranny, or Tyrany vs Tyrany. (See the history of the Pacific before Japanese Imperialism. -- See the various third world struggles during the Cold War --See all Roman wars in the West and all Chineese wars in the East)

My point is that WWII and the first 15 years of the Cold War is an abnormality. However, even if we had stayed neutruel, Russia would have forced the Nazi's to retreat on the Eastern front and Hitler, himself, had all but given up on conquering England. Had the 3'rd reich lost WWII but remained intact, there would have been no cold war and eventually (after several decades if not centuries) the 3'rd reich would have collapsed (probably). My point is even using the most righteous war and arguably the only righteous war in history, American univolvement would not have been disastorous.

Please do respond. Force me to do my resarch as this off the top of my head and i didn't add a few relevant but unessential points. I'm welcome to changing my point of view if your facts and conclusions are valid. I'll let you know if they aren't.

Re: Bombings in Amman Show US Involvement in Iraq Is Correct
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why would he attack other countries? The governments of Saddam's neighbors did not even consider him a treat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gee I don't know. Why don't you ask Kuwait.

Re: Bombings in Amman Show US Involvement in Iraq Is Correct
 

I wasnt talking about '91, I was talking about '03. You know, after we murdered thousands of children with our disasterous sanctions.

Re: Bombings in Amman Show US Involvement in Iraq Is Correct
 

We have the right to determine who our friends are, including Israel. And it is reprehensible to justify 9/11 as a proper response by terrorists who now have started bombing moslems and who now have shown the Islamic world that terrorism is a danger to all.

And in WWII, although Germany might not have easily been able to defeat Russia even without fighting a second front, it's a sure thing Russia wouldn't have been able to invade Germany. Which means Germany would have developed nuclear weapons unhampered by us. Then they would have dealt with Russia and resumed their attack on Britain.

Re: Bombings in Amman Show US Involvement in Iraq Is Correct
 

[ QUOTE ]
And it is reprehensible to justify 9/11 as a proper response by terrorists who now have started bombing moslems and who now have shown the Islamic world that terrorism is a danger to all.


[/ QUOTE ]

I quote myself, "9/11 was a barbaric and adolescent act." In what way did I justify it?

[ QUOTE ]
Your claim about Germany and Russia and the bomb -- scroll up --


[/ QUOTE ]

The Manhattan project began after the letter from Einstein. Before Pearl Harbor, I don't think, we were even considering nuclear weapons. (i'm not sure about that) But if we were, certainly defeating Germany to prevent them from getting the bomb before us would have been the only smart thing to do. However, they had concluded that the bomb was impossible and (i think) we didn't start considering the possibility until after we had already declared war on Germany. My point is we could have pursued the bomb without fighting germany. Had the 3rd reich been left intact after loosing to Russia on the Eastern front, we would have had the bomb and could have protected England and ourselves with it. But I'm not debating our decision to enter the war against Germany. I'm simply saying that even if we distanced ourselves from the most righteous conflict in world history, the results would not have been disastorous for us -- let alone distancing ourselves from conflicts which aren't as righteous.

[ QUOTE ]
We have the right to determine who our friends are, including Israel.

[/ QUOTE ]

We also have the right to stay away from nations who will only ensnare us into further troulbe

Your response was inadequate. Try again, please.

Re: Bombings in Amman Show US Involvement in Iraq Is Correct
 

That's all you get cause WWII is off topic. And despite your caveat, you then went on and spouted the terrorists' rationale.

Re: Bombings in Amman Show US Involvement in Iraq Is Correct
 

[ QUOTE ]
dude, obviously there are terrorists in Jordan, we should probably invade to get those bastards out.

[/ QUOTE ]

For that matter, there are terrorists somewhere in this country. We should start our invasion right here, I guess. Of course, I think we already have, since the Patriot Act is an invasion in and of itself.

Re: Bombings in Amman Show US Involvement in Iraq Is Correct
 

[ QUOTE ]
Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea can all fend for themselves especially if they sign their protection pacts with each other and perhaps the Phillipines and Indonesia and Australia.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not true. Taiwan might have some chance given that their armed forces are pretty much exclusively US-equipped, but it's a long-shot. You're probably right about Korea. Japan doesn't have much in the way of armed forces because we wrote their constitution so they couldn't. I'd say we have a bit of a moral obligation to help defend them.

[ QUOTE ]

And the Korean war did nothing but kill thousands of people.

[/ QUOTE ]

And keep S. Korea from falling under the power of a series of mad Communist dictators...

Re: Bombings in Amman Show US Involvement in Iraq Is Correct
 

[ QUOTE ]
For that matter, there are terrorists somewhere in this country. We should start our invasion right here, I guess. Of course, I think we already have, since the Patriot Act is an invasion in and of itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry you feel so inconvenienced by measures which even if imperfect and somewhat of a restriction of our liberties are designed to keep us safe. Meanwhile, our soldiers are dying in combat while you are suffering the ravages of the Patriot Act.

Re: Bombings in Amman Show US Involvement in Iraq Is Correct
 

[ QUOTE ]
That's all you get cause WWII is off topic. And despite your caveat, you then went on and spouted the terrorists' rationale.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong! 1) History is never off topic and 2) understanding your enemy is one of the fundamental principles to competition.

FACTS AND CONTEXT ARE PREREQUISITES FOR SUCCESS. I am sorry if that offends you.

But let me throw another angle at you. After Afghanistan , The War on Terror need not be fought militarily. We can continue to support Israel and honor our other Mutual Protection Pacts with South Korea and Taiwan while " increasing the stakes and most importantly, inducing our enemies to go too far with their hand. " How? By spending the 200 Billion already spent in strengthing the Democracies already in the region. Algeria, Morrocco, Turkey, Afghanistan, and I think Bhrain??. Imagine that those 5 countries are first world stable democracies and compare that scenario with the current model which would have the region at 6 third world struggling democracies.

Now think of how the moslems would think of us then and compare to how they think of us now. Our biggest allies are first world democratic nations, the envy of the entire region, and their neighbors are still poor and authoritarian. The terrorists are doing everything they can to destablize these prosperous and democratic countries including killing innocent moslems, " prompting a backlash that will doom them, especially if their flow of financial backing is also imperilled, which seems likely. So our enemies will be forced to drop down in stakes and most likely won't be able to rebuild their roll, either financially or most importantly in good will in the Islamic world."


Man I'm good!!! Now after 9/11 we had 5 choices. Of course, the choices weren't presented so coherently, because, our leaders, both Democratic and Republicans as well as the media, are generally dumber than intellectuals like me and many of us on this forum, possibly including you BluffThis!. The choices were,

1)Withdraw from the UN Security Council, gradually bringing our troops back home and annulling our mutual protection pacts.

2)Invade Iran after over throwing the Taliban in Afghanistan.

3) Invade Iraq after overthrowing the Taliban in Afghanistan.

4) Overthrow the Taliban and initiate the Marshal Plan in the 5 already mentioned Middle Eastern Countries.

5) Overthrow the Taliban in response to 9/11 and then initiate plan 1 on this list.

In a referendum, I'd have voted for plan 5 as option 1 followed by, in order, plan 1, plan 4, plan 3, & plan 2. Invading Iraq was the worst of all of our options.

But after having decided to invade Iraq, we could have, at least, planned for a persistent insurgency.

Re: Bombings in Amman Show US Involvement in Iraq Is Correct
 

Bobman, you make good points. I'd be happy to debate you via PM or another thread. But I don't want to hijack this thread.

Re: Bombings in Amman Show US Involvement in Iraq Is Correct
 

The most common conservative viewpoint was that the Soviet Union was bent on world domination and was outspending us in that pursuit. It was not unusual for some left of center to agree in that (JFK's missile gap, for example), but it was unusual for anybody right of center to do so. In fact, I can't think of anyone. Any names come to mind? (And then I'll let this go, so as not to hijack.)

Thanks.