Political Rant: Iraq revisited
Its been a while since I've posted and unfortunately things in Iraq are just as bad as the last time I posted a political rant. However, instead of rehashing the same old same old I was struck by what one user on fark.com said and thought it was very interesting and something that hadn't been said before:
User KIA (from Virginia) had this to say "This war is absolutely different because our entire strategy going in was to remove the existing government - you know, the people who can start a war and end a war by surrender. Germany, Japan, every nation previously fought had a capital and a governing structure which was left with enough authority to surrender when they were beaten. Our plan precluded that type of result in Iraq. This is why it was absolutely crucial to either a) have enough boots on the ground to completely subjugate and pacify and entire nation of some 25 million or b) to have a darn good replacement of power plan so that someone effective stepped into the void to take control and keep things under wrap. WE HAD NEITHER. The generals who argued for more troops were fired or forced to resign in disgrace. Turns out they were right. Oops. However, there is no way this administration can claim that it had no idea of this problem without admitting that they were 1) ignoring competent advice from military leaders of many years experience or 2) just not thinking a major war and invasion through. Either is, at a minimum, gross derelection of duty."
I found that interesting. Its also interesting to note that while Bush touts Democracy as something common to all free and peace loving nations. This being said by a nation with an overflowing criminal justice system that pre-emptively attacked another country. Oh the irony.
There are some significant issues we need to address before we can hold ourselves up as poster children of the wonders of democracies.
The Republic of Cascadia is looking very good again.
So here's a question for you all, who do you think is the most promising 2008 Dem candidate?
Hillary Clinton
Barak Obama
Russ Feingold
John Kerry (again)
Or Other?
User KIA (from Virginia) had this to say "This war is absolutely different because our entire strategy going in was to remove the existing government - you know, the people who can start a war and end a war by surrender. Germany, Japan, every nation previously fought had a capital and a governing structure which was left with enough authority to surrender when they were beaten. Our plan precluded that type of result in Iraq. This is why it was absolutely crucial to either a) have enough boots on the ground to completely subjugate and pacify and entire nation of some 25 million or b) to have a darn good replacement of power plan so that someone effective stepped into the void to take control and keep things under wrap. WE HAD NEITHER. The generals who argued for more troops were fired or forced to resign in disgrace. Turns out they were right. Oops. However, there is no way this administration can claim that it had no idea of this problem without admitting that they were 1) ignoring competent advice from military leaders of many years experience or 2) just not thinking a major war and invasion through. Either is, at a minimum, gross derelection of duty."
I found that interesting. Its also interesting to note that while Bush touts Democracy as something common to all free and peace loving nations. This being said by a nation with an overflowing criminal justice system that pre-emptively attacked another country. Oh the irony.
There are some significant issues we need to address before we can hold ourselves up as poster children of the wonders of democracies.
The Republic of Cascadia is looking very good again.
So here's a question for you all, who do you think is the most promising 2008 Dem candidate?
Hillary Clinton
Barak Obama
Russ Feingold
John Kerry (again)
Or Other?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home