Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "That [containment of Saddam] was a mission with no exit strategy.. At least in Iraq, there is an exit strategy, although with an open time frame."
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! LOL!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Re: "Or at a worst case scenario, we're required to take on Saudi Arabia. And believe me, if won't be hard to "motivate" American forces to go into that country to take on the Wahhabists, should the Saudis fail to do so themselves."
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! LOL!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
The population of Saudi Arabia is even less friendly to Americans than Iraq's. And with a population about the same size as Iraq's, an occupation of Saudie Arabia and Iraq at the same time is way, way, way, way, way out of the question.
We have enough troops to overthrow the Saudi government, but we do not have nearly enough to occupy the country and form the successor government. The result with Saudi Arabia would undoubtedly be an even more extreme Islamic Republic that would be aligned against us in far more severe ways than currently.
You're living in a fantasy world where American power is absolute.
Re: "It will be very easy for the Bush administration to refocus the American public's attention upon Saudi Arabia since we all pretty much suspect that members/agents of that government were directly involved in 9/11."
There is no way in hell that the American public, who largely believe that Bush either lied to them or was incompetent in the use of intelligence and badly wanted a war in Iraq, will accept another war.
What's worse, Saudi Arabia is much, much, much, much better armed than Iraq. Those aren't Russian trash that the Saudis fly around in.
I've not seen a case of a conservative person on SI who has become more divorced from reality than you. You're talking like a liberal.
Re: "So let me ask you Bilow... If it's proven that there was Saudi complicity in 9/11, and they fail to make sufficient "amends" for it, should Bush overthrow the Saudis?"
Sure, but that doesn't mean that we should have to occupy Saudi Arabia. And in the long run, the results would be worse than if we left Saudi Arabia alone. But as a general rule, I do believe in the principle of revenge.
But don't get too happy. Your definition of "proof" is so loose that you believe pretty much anything that is convenient for you. You ignore facts constantly and make up new ones whenever you want to. So don't jump to the conclusion that some obscure article in Debka is "proof" that the government of Saudi Arabia (as opposed to a few citizens of Saudi Arabia) planned or assisted with the WTC attacks.
Bush's mistake in Iraq was not so much in overthrowing Saddam Hussein, but instead in sticking around to occupy the hostile country. Soon enough more soldiers will have been killed in the occupation than in the invasion, but the occupation will not have achieved pacification. Then 2x as many soldiers will have been killed in the occupation but still no pacification. And the result in Iraq will probably be similar to the result in an attack on Saudi Arabia -- the country ends up being even more hostile to the US.
Re: "But it's a FACT that a country cannot sustain 30% unemployment and 1/2 of its population under 18, without generating extreme societal tensions."
I agree with you that "societal tensions" are a problem, but I think that societal tensions in Iraq are not a problem that the US military can solve. We can barely solve the "societal tensions" in the US, how the hell are we going to fix them in Iraq?
The purpose of the US military is to kill people and break things, not to reduce "extreme societal tensions". If the military was given the task of reducing societal tensions in Iraq we could have bombarded them with vodka.
Since Iraq's unemployment is now much higher than it was before the war, your argument falls flat on its face. Why don't you shut up about it until Iraq's economy is at least as strong as it was in 2002. Then you can come back and say "I told you so". But for now, a substantial amount of that societal unrest is being directed at US soldiers.
If you can name a date in the future when Iraq's unemployment will be well under 30% due to US actions, then name it. Give me a best case, worst case, and your expected case.
I say that it never happens under our occupation, just like the Palestinians are woefully underemployed under the Israeli occupation. You disagree with me, but the facts on the ground right now are in my favor. So tell me when you're going to be right.
The same arguments could be made about Israel's problem in Palestine. But Israeli occupations have made no progress in many decades. We don't have the stomach to hang around Iraq as long as the Israelis have hung around Israel, so we'll be leaving Iraq.
Re: "And even more evident is, that militants of all types use, and rely upon, young idealistic children for indoctrination into their ideology/theology, so that have sufficient manpower to carry out their agenda."
Our failing occupation of Iraq is generating much more "societal tension" for the militants to take advantage of. When I see the attacks on US soldiers start to decrease, then I'll guess that they do not have "sufficient manpower" to carry out their agenda.
Re: "So I don't give a S**T what your statistics say."
Those weren't "my" statistics, they were from the US government. They proved that the Arab / dictatorship countries are, by and large, growing faster than the US, UK and Israel. This is a fact.
I find it fascinating that you refuse to debate on the basis of facts, but instead insist on ignoring trends that are well established by our own government's statistics.
Re: "As this young adults move out of their parents house and seek their own lives, they will be searching for something that gives their lives meaning. ... So it will likely be religion.. and hatred for those they believe have oppressed them."
If we had simply left Iraq alone, your logic would have made sense. The Iraqis would have noticed that the ones who oppressed them were associated with Saddam Hussein and they would have eventually overthrown the dictator. (Just like the Iranians did to the Shaw.)
But instead we're running Iraq. That means that instead of Saddam's cohorts running the country, punishing criminals, but sometimes unfairly killing and torturing people, it's US soldiers that are running the country, punishing criminals, but sometimes shooting people unfairly. So instead of the Iraqis focusing their "societal tensions" on their own government, they focus them on our soldiers.
-- Carl |
