Bombings in Amman Show US Involvement in Iraq Is Correct

[BluffTHIS!]

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.

[andyfox]

"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 ]
"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)

[andyfox]

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.

[theweatherman]

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

[BluffTHIS!]

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

[coffeecrazy1]

[ 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.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ 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.

[jt1]

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.)

[BluffTHIS!]

[ 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.