Let me ask this little question... what if even after the new and brightly shining new Iraq plan, the Iraqis prove themselves completely hopeless in maintaining law and order and the Iraqi army is still a huge Shia death squad, then what???
Is the US now trapped like a Python that has to swallow its prey whole and can't back off as its teeth are only in one way?
Where to get the necessary troops for a 1 to 50 ratio as a bare minimum to occupy a country and keep lid on the resistance there as is the rule of thumb for urban style engagement. That would mean 700,000 to 1 million US troops.
A draft as 95% of Americans will be against the war by then will be impossible... I mean do that and Cali/Vermont declare secession and you have LA style riots in any city over 1 million people.
{topic moved from Current Energy News by Shannymara}
PeakOil is You
Failure is not an option???
First unread post • 16 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Failure is not an option???
by neocone » Thu 11 Jan 2007, 15:07:32
-
neocone - Lignite
- Posts: 311
- Joined: Sat 23 Sep 2006, 03:00:00
Re: Failure is not an option???
by dukey » Thu 11 Jan 2007, 15:20:54
The war has been a giant 'success', the big oil companies got their lucrative oil contracts. It was never about the people ..
-
dukey - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 2248
- Joined: Sun 20 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Re: Failure is not an option???
by Laughs_Last » Thu 11 Jan 2007, 15:29:23
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('neocone', 'T')hat would mean 700,000 to 1 million US troops.
Hey... there's 744,000 homeless people in the States. Problem solved, right? 744,000 Homeless People
- Laughs_Last
- Tar Sands
- Posts: 510
- Joined: Tue 26 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Re: Failure is not an option???
by Denny » Fri 12 Jan 2007, 00:08:30
I think te Bush goivernment has to get the people on its side on this. That being done, is even one million toomany to raise? Not really.
Look at WWII. In Europe alone the U.S. had about 3 million or more. IT had less than half today's population base to draw from. Even Canada had 700,000 there at a time when its population was about 13 million.
But, the key thing to this is that the public has to be onside, it is a democracy after all, and I think most Americas are not convinced that Iraq stands as a risk to America.
I don't see that Bush is doiug a very effective job of demonstrating this matter as being such a concern. He has to do more.
On the other hand, backing out now will be perceived by the world that the U.S.A. is just a paper tiger, as Mao Tse Tung used to claim. Perhaps this is one way Bush could improve public support, to show that the U.S. will be weakened on the world stage if backs away now.
He needs to increase public awareness that Iraq represents a risk similar to WWII in the public eye, he's got to catapult the propaganda.
Look at WWII. In Europe alone the U.S. had about 3 million or more. IT had less than half today's population base to draw from. Even Canada had 700,000 there at a time when its population was about 13 million.
But, the key thing to this is that the public has to be onside, it is a democracy after all, and I think most Americas are not convinced that Iraq stands as a risk to America.
I don't see that Bush is doiug a very effective job of demonstrating this matter as being such a concern. He has to do more.
On the other hand, backing out now will be perceived by the world that the U.S.A. is just a paper tiger, as Mao Tse Tung used to claim. Perhaps this is one way Bush could improve public support, to show that the U.S. will be weakened on the world stage if backs away now.
He needs to increase public awareness that Iraq represents a risk similar to WWII in the public eye, he's got to catapult the propaganda.
-
Denny - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1738
- Joined: Sat 10 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Canada
Re: Failure is not an option???
by Loki » Fri 12 Jan 2007, 01:20:10
Denny, it's about 3 years too late for that. Bush's ratings are in the 30s, and his Iraq policy is in the 20s. Bush is a lame duck loser---the great majority of Americans agree that going into Iraq was a major mistake. The leader of the Senate has said publicly that the Iraq War was the greatest mistake in the history of American foreign policy, bar none. We as a nation have given up on him and his illegal, immoral war of aggression. I personally consider that a good thing. I'd be pleased about how badly this Iraq adventure has turned out if not for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of American servicemen. It's a bloodbath quagmire, just as any clear headed person knew it would be 3 years ago. An unmitigated tragedy.
The best outcome we can hope for now is a serious reluctance among American politicians and voters to engage in any more foreign adventures for a few more decades (i.e., another "Vietnam syndrome"). I'm not sure that will happen, but I hope it will.
As for what will happen to Iraq, I predict the same thing that happened to Vietnam when we instituted a Vietnamization policy. Right now we're circa 1968. Pretty soon we'll be pulling out and leaving it to the Iraqi gov't, i.e., Vietnamization. Then the NVA, er, jihadists will take over. The "conservatives" will blame the newly elected Democratic president and the "liberal media." The American public will be spooked for a while, then after a while we'll regain our feet and start trying to push our weight around again. Or the Greater Depression will hit us first, and we won't have the wherewithal to play policeman of the world/biggest bully on the block anymore. Even though the latter scenario will personally hurt me and my family, I kind of hope it happens. I'm tired of our empire-building.
The best outcome we can hope for now is a serious reluctance among American politicians and voters to engage in any more foreign adventures for a few more decades (i.e., another "Vietnam syndrome"). I'm not sure that will happen, but I hope it will.
As for what will happen to Iraq, I predict the same thing that happened to Vietnam when we instituted a Vietnamization policy. Right now we're circa 1968. Pretty soon we'll be pulling out and leaving it to the Iraqi gov't, i.e., Vietnamization. Then the NVA, er, jihadists will take over. The "conservatives" will blame the newly elected Democratic president and the "liberal media." The American public will be spooked for a while, then after a while we'll regain our feet and start trying to push our weight around again. Or the Greater Depression will hit us first, and we won't have the wherewithal to play policeman of the world/biggest bully on the block anymore. Even though the latter scenario will personally hurt me and my family, I kind of hope it happens. I'm tired of our empire-building.
-
Loki - Expert
- Posts: 3509
- Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
- Location: Oregon
Re: Failure is not an option???
by Denny » Fri 12 Jan 2007, 01:33:02
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Loki', 'D')enny, it's about 3 years too late for that. Bush's ratings are in the 30s, and his Iraq policy is in the 20s.
Well, I think if Bush worked harder at it, and did more motivational speaking and came across as a knowledgeable, wise leader, he might get more people to believe. I think he comes across as a dumbfuck a lot of the time. I say that as a friend, not an enemy, though it may sound bad. Perhaps as Americans, as you see him so much, he's become familiar, but to the rest us in the world, he seems lame, and I don't mean as in lame duck, but lamebrain.
I saw the recent film, "An Inconvenient Truth" and its just amazing how much more coherent Gore comes across than Bush does at the best of times. And, at the worst of times, Bush seems more muddled on major issues than the Lisa Douglas character did on that old show Green Acres. So, I think Bush could do so much more to inspire people.
-
Denny - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1738
- Joined: Sat 10 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Canada
Re: Failure is not an option???
by Loki » Fri 12 Jan 2007, 01:36:56
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Denny', 'I') think he comes across as a dumbfuck a lot of the time. I say that as a friend, not an enemy, though it may sound bad. Perhaps as Americans, as you see him so much, he's become familiar, but to the rest us in the world, he seems lame, and I don't mean as in lame duck, but lamebrain.
No, we see the same thing. A half-baked moron who can barely speak his native language, much less run the most powerful empire in human history. That's one of the many reasons more than 2/3 of Americans think he's screwing the pooch.
He's an idiotic gray-haired frat boy who should be getting drunk on his daddy's yacht. Instead he's President of the USA. There's nothing he can say or do to make Americans support him or his plans for Iraq. He is completely incapable of turning the tide.
-
Loki - Expert
- Posts: 3509
- Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
- Location: Oregon
Re: Failure is not an option???
by Benzin » Fri 12 Jan 2007, 02:05:04
And yet there is no outrage from the average joe and Congress is powerless to stop him. That was some change of the guard back in November. But again, did we expect anything else? I find it sickening that I knew even before the last midterm election nothing would change. Screwed if we leave, screwed if we stay.
And looking at this from a PO perspective, this is all done just so we can continue unchecked consumption and business as usual?
And looking at this from a PO perspective, this is all done just so we can continue unchecked consumption and business as usual?
-
Benzin - Peat
- Posts: 123
- Joined: Tue 25 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
- Location: middle of somewhere
Re: Failure is not an option???
by caliginousface » Fri 12 Jan 2007, 02:54:40
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Benzin', '
')
And looking at this from a PO perspective, this is all done just so we can continue unchecked consumption and business as usual?
')
And looking at this from a PO perspective, this is all done just so we can continue unchecked consumption and business as usual?
Hell yeh! I mean come on man, who gives a fark?
-
caliginousface - Peat
- Posts: 94
- Joined: Sun 05 Mar 2006, 04:00:00
- Location: San Jose, CA
