Originally Posted by james

In 1991 the US defeated one of the largest armed forces in the entire world in less than 100 hours.

If by US you mean 34 Nations in a coalition, and by 100 hours you mean 40 days and 40 nights of aerial bombardment, then yes you would be correct.

Originally Posted by triple

In iraq the us military was held back by humanitarian reasons, we actually thought the population was glad to see us, and the whole "shock and awe" thing doesn't work when there are no military targets to bomb.

If the us military waged all out conventional warfare, they'd be unstoppable. In iraq we got bogged down as sitting ducks. The reason the surge worked as well as it did was because we were going on offense again. We're like the LA Lakers of military superpowers.

My point wasn't that the United States does not wield the most potent military force in all of history, my point was that it is now incapable of putting such force into action in a way that does not result in an insurgent war such as you can see in Iraq, you cannot bomb an entire people, and because of this a country such as Iran can never be successfully defeated purely by military means.

Sure, you can make the nation completely impotent in the international arena, but to do so comes with huge costs, both in monetary terms and in lives lost.

The Israeli/Palestine conflict is similar in that you have overwhelming military force (with the whole world watching over your every move) versus guerilla style tactics and smuggled munitions, the result is a stalemate and effectively endless conflict.

Originally Posted by orbital 123

When was the last time a situation like this came up with less than a year left in a Presidents term? It is a unique situation, and politically whether or not you believe it will happen, there is growing evidence that it will indeed happen.

You're a real history buff.

There has never been any type of major crisis happening in the last year of a Presidential term. Never. Especially not involving Iran.

Originally Posted by TseTse

You're a real history buff.

There has never been any type of major crisis happening in the last year of a Presidential term. Never. Especially not involving Iran.

I think it's safe to say that aside from being the OP, Orbital has nothing worthwhile to contribute to this discussion

Originally Posted by james

I'm actually opposing Stimpson?!!??!!

Yea I actually caught that when I read the replies better but was too lazy to edit my post

I think the correct strategy is not replacing a government - its far too longterm and costly. It also creates the insurgencies as we've seen.

The best situation is making the current government surrender under your terms. And to do that, you need to beat the **** out of them.

Originally Posted by triple

In iraq the us military was held back by humanitarian reasons, we actually thought the population was glad to see us, and the whole "shock and awe" thing doesn't work when there are no military targets to bomb.

If the us military waged all out conventional warfare, they'd be unstoppable. In iraq we got bogged down as sitting ducks. The reason the surge worked as well as it did was because we were going on offense again. We're like the LA Lakers of military superpowers.

You dont get it.

The reason the surge started working is because THE MILITARY COMMANDERS finally got to make decisions and the first decision they made was to stop pretending they can "win" through raw military force. They engaged the locals and worked with them ala early vietnam "winning hearts and minds" style. They turned the sunnis against al qaeda.

It has nothing to do with this Bush macho "going on offense" non-sense.

The Bush admin has entirely failed to "go on offense" against al qaeda on their own. It required basically removing all the people in charge of the war on terror and handing control back to the real generals to even BEGIN getting serious about al qaeda (who are in ****ing pakistan and afghanistan, btw, not iraq).

We weren't limited by "humanitarian" concerns. We were limited IN MISSION because we tried to accomplish political and social outcomes through military force... without a clear mission... without understanding a ****ing thing about Iraq or having a plan for stability. The surge was a break from this failed Bush policy, whereby the more humble military commanders stepped in and set much lesser, tangible goals regarding marginalizing al qaeda.

Ironically, the surge as a military initiative has won.

However, the surge as a political Bush policy didnt work. The political momentum happening currently in Iraq is being driven by forthcoming elections in Iraq AND THE GENERAL POPULATION'S COMMITMENT TO GET THE USA OUT OF IRAQ.

TseTse, you'll always see world events through your narrow-minded worldview, and thats fine. But don't expect the rest of us to take it all in as fact, mmk?

I know when you start talking in CAPS towards the end of the post, you're kind of raging out and all, but I just don't have the energy to deal with your bull****.

Originally Posted by triple

TseTse, you'll always see world events through your narrow-minded worldview, and thats fine. But don't expect the rest of us to take it all in as fact, mmk?

I know when you start talking in CAPS towards the end of the post, you're kind of raging out and all, but I just don't have the energy to deal with your bull****.

He is right though, you're just a simple minded buffoon

Originally Posted by triple

that's sort of what negotiating and diplomacy is all about.

diplomacy is called diplomacy because you're basically negotiating instead of waging war. If diplomacy fails, what then? You either puss out or you don't.

Look at north korea - diplomacy instead of war. In that case, it worked. In iraq's case, it didn't.

negotiations between sovereign countries have no force behind them if there is not the threat of action, either. Especially when dealing with nukes. This is world ending ****, you better believe the west would use military means in dealing with it.

Look at North Korea?

Bush diplomacy entirely failed, Triple.

He basically tried to do it "his way" and we ended up having another rogue nation with nukes. A nation that had previously been contained by SUCCESSFUL diplomacy by Bush Sr and Clinton.

All this macho cowboy **** by Bush made **** worse and he ended up backing down and handing North Korea even better concessions than they have BEFORE Bush ****ed **** up. Here are the cliffs:

1. Bush Sr figured out that N Korea could be best kept in a cage

2. Clinton came in and followed through on Bush Sr's approach to N Korea

3. Clinton finalized a deal that effectively bought them off with energy and food aid, including a promise to fund a massive joint south & north civilian energy program

(at the time, North Korea was so poor and experiencing a famine so severe that 12-15% of the population STARVED TO DEATH in the mid-1990s)

4. Bush Jr came in and ****ed it up, quietly pulling the plug on that aid, calling them part of the "axis of evil" in his public addresses and generally threatening N Korea. We broke the deal and couldnt even be honest about that, pretending that North Korea broke it. We even pretended that they were a front in the "war on terror," declaring them a state sponsor of terror. Bush's approach was to cowboy them into a corner and force them into complying with our will.

5. North Korea was backed into a corner and used their only recourse: build nukes and bark loudly.

6. Bush seemed to think that ignoring direct private pleas from Kim was a good idea, instead insisting on 5-way regional talks through diplomats and including NK's enemy: japan. Yes, there have been whistleblowers who've stated that Kim directly reached out to Bush at the start, but Bush ignored him. This caused a stalemate for years whereby North Korea ended up producing real nuclear weapons.

7. Bush eventually backs down and engages in a containment policy like that of Clinton and his father, but in the end North Korea has nukes, gets bigger concessions than before and the IAEA has been again weakened by the Bush admin.

Originally Posted by triple

TseTse, you'll always see world events through your narrow-minded worldview, and thats fine.

And when confronted with points you cant address reasonably, you will always get personal and dodge those points.

The funniest part is i am saying what many conservatives are saying, and eventually you'll be saying the same ****ing thing that they are saying... pretending you meant this all along.

Originally Posted by triple

I think the correct strategy is not replacing a government - its far too longterm and costly. It also creates the insurgencies as we've seen.

The best situation is making the current government surrender under your terms. And to do that, you need to beat the **** out of them.

Quoted for history.

You're basically admitting (whether you realize it or not) that the invasion was wrong and that Bush's policy failed.

WMD? not a justification for invasion & occupation.
Regime change? not a justification for invasion & occupation.

What's left? our only justification for being in iraq is basically that we ****ed up and need to make sure it doesnt get worse (i.e. to fight al qaeda who came there because of us)

I treat policy and military tactics separately. Policy is telling people what to do, tactics is figuring out how to do it.

Justification (see: 20/20 hindsight) is a whole other territory and ill defer to you on that one. Frankly, its too late in the game to care and say I told you so. America needs to be concentrated on how to make the best of a bad situation, not what this means for politicians. Who cares about them?

I think bush had the right policy and mccain had the right tactics.

Obama supported neither, and if he had it his way, he wouldn't be able to go on this little international jaunt of his because it'd be too dangerous and ****ed up.

Anyways... back to the topic.

3. As a high-risk step to derail the accommodations Washington and Tehran are on the way to reaching in their secret talks on a wide range of issues, with the exception of the nuclear controversy, as revealed by DEBKA-Net-Weekly and DEBKAfile. Israel fears being abandoned and left out in the cold on all its fronts against Iran by these accommodations.

Tehran may well seize on the Israeli disclosure as a pretext to ditch the nuclear negotiations on all levels, unless all six powers offer guarantees against their pursuit of military initiatives.

I tend to agree with the "revelations" in the link orbital gave, and this last point is pretty significant. I DO think Israel fears being abandoned by the Bush admin, left in a much more dangerous middle east than when Bush arrived. The arabs feel the same way, i suspect, having seen no significant commitment from Bush pertaining palestinian talks, seeing Bush abandon Lebanon and seeing Bush **** up in Iraq and with Iran. The arabs must be pissed as **** seeing Iran rise in influence and gaining nuclear power.

However, the question is about this point of Tehran "seizing" the pretext to ditch nuclear negotiations. I don't think they can ditch negotiations and they certainly are running out of stall tactics. Bush is making it pretty ****ing clear that Iran can't just endure the tensions until somebody new comes to the White House.

Even the UK's Gordon Brown has issued a warning to Iran.

Ive read rumors about how Iranian insiders don't approve of Ahmadinejad's approach and that they want to take the offer from the European Union. I think he's going to likely cave in somehow, and if the Bush admin is smart... we oughta allow Iran to save a little face. Part of the deal oughta be to setup diplomatic relations and an embassy in Tehran.

We can be enemies without being belligerent ****s.

Having a line of communication with the USA Government shouldnt be treated like a privilege.

I don't think anyone is against base line communication between assorted diplomats, when the time is right, but you got the left talking about presidential talks, secretary of state visits. The guy wholesale supports international terrorism, murdering jews, all that good stuff. This is not a person you dignify with a presidential sit down. Obama won't even go on fox news, but iran, oh sure no problem!

Originally Posted by triple

I don't think anyone is against base line communication between assorted diplomats, when the time is right, but you got the left talking about presidential talks, secretary of state visits. The guy wholesale supports international terrorism, murdering jews, all that good stuff. This is not a person you dignify with a presidential sit down. Obama won't even go on fox news, but iran, oh sure no problem!

All you can do is babble about "the left."

Meanwhile, your hero Bush is handing over massive concessions to rogue nations that gained nuclear power under his watch. There was very relevant and successful diplomacy going on behind the scenes with Iran in which they:

1. offered to recognize israel
2. offered to come clean with their nuclera program and halt it
3. offered to assist in iraq, as they had been in aftghanistan

Bush blew them off, called them "axis of evil" and basically ****ed up all diplomacy. Just like North Korea, he inflamed the situation and started a wider struggle which could dramatically harm the USA's global power. Mccain has yet to articulate a clear vision of the situation that's independent of Bush's policy.

You're so busy arguing against strawmen and defending Bush's failures, that you don't realize you're effectively saying nothing. Obama is not talking about personally going over to Iran to talk with the Ayatollah without major concessions or leverage. That's a bull**** twisting of his argument and position for the sake of petty radio host blabbering and campaign attacks. Obama is basically properly saying that the Bush admin kills viable diplomacy and then pretends that talking to us is a privilege. That's a failed neocon policy.

Try something a bit more substantial than repeating Rush's blog-style babble.

Uh, tsetse, north korea announced it had nukes in what, 02?

Bush was president from when, jan 01?

You think they went from drawing board to test in 12 months? Who's the idiot?

Anyways, they're demolishing their nuclear plants now. Bush's diplomacy worked, but you wouldn't know that because you don't read the news.

Originally Posted by triple

Uh, tsetse, north korea announced it had nukes in what, 02?

Bush was president from when, jan 01?

You think they went from drawing board to test in 12 months? Who's the idiot?

Anyways, they're demolishing their nuclear plants now. Bush's diplomacy worked, but you wouldn't know that because you don't read the news.

how about 2006.

Originally Posted by triple

Uh, tsetse, north korea announced it had nukes in what, 02?

Bush was president from when, jan 01?

You think they went from drawing board to test in 12 months? Who's the idiot?

Anyways, they're demolishing their nuclear plants now. Bush's diplomacy worked, but you wouldn't know that because you don't read the news.

Go learn about the facts, triple.

These silly attacks on me just show you dont know what the **** you are talking about and would rather dodge the issues than to address them. What i said above about North Korea is entirely accurate and your claiming Bush diplomacy worked is ****ing pathetic.

But yea, keep saying i dont read the news.

Cuz obviously the Bush admin has taught you that repeating lies makes them true...

edit:

incoming triple spamming some crap he finds on the web and doesn't understand...

Obama is not talking about personally going over to Iran to talk with the Ayatollah without major concessions or leverage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSFSUbMWenU

"would you meet with iran, cuba, north korea, etc WITHOUT PRECONDITIONS?"

"i would"

sounds like the video says otherwise