How 'bout Israel? Or Turkey?
How 'bout 'em?
What, are you Chumpsky now? You know damn well what I mean: Israel and Turkey extremely significant in the region Hint, hint: who is Iraq’s northeastern neighbor? Who besides us in the region has a kick-ass modern air force and a nuclear arsenal to boot? Your anti-Bush and anti-war invective is strangling your higher brain functions.
BTW, have you found Diego Garcia on your map yet?
If minty’s presuppositions comes to fruition, I have my doubts about Turkey. With their Kurdish problem, the last thing they want is a free Iraq that might give the Kurds an excuse to do something annoying. Israel is a totally different kind of ally and is not significant as far as the other nations in the area are concerned. Meaning they are just an extension of the US and a valid target no matter who does what.
:rolleyes:
Depends how you define “the region,” don’t it?
No need, I’m well aware of its location. Not sure what your point is, since you seem to be sniping at my assertion that Afghanistan was a proxy war, not an invasion. Why do you think I would consider it any different w/r/t Iraq?
Um, wasn’t your original point that any US war effort against Iraq would be doomed–doomed, I say!–if we don’t have any friends left in the region except Kuwait and Qatar? And wasn’t I tapping you on the shoulder, silently pointing at that portion of the map just northeast of the country we’re attacking? The graceful thing for you to do at this point would be to give yourself a great big :smack: dohh! forgot my geography!
My point is that you continue to mortally underestimate the capabilities of the US military. But don’t feel too bad–you’re hardly alone in that regard. Unlike Saddam, though, you’ll still be around this time next year to look back and give yourself another great big :smack: . Careful, don’t hurt yourself there.
BTW, I may be misreading you, but it seems like you’re saying “proxy war” as if that is a bad thing. Have you had a change of heart in the past year?
Vis-a-vis Iraq? Oh, I dunno . . . BTW, I wonder why this case isn’t being talked about more, in threads like these and in the media.
Umm, you forgot to add the following sentence where I justified that statement with a sentence started with “Meaning…”
I didn’t add it because I didn’t get your point. You sounded as if having an “extension” of our country in the region were some kind of liability.
Maybe not a liability, but probably not much of a help either. Isreal will not take action against Iraq in an overt way (except maybe in self defense) because it would give Iraq and anti-Isrealis an excuse to “rally the troops” to an age old, and well defined enemy. Any support we would have at the time by Arab nations could easily be turned against us if that were to happen.
Why do you think the US stayed the Isrealis after those 39 SCUDS were launched. Their involvement would complicate matters to an extreme. We would not need their military might. We have that. We would have to go through Jordan to invade Iraq from there. And launching Air from there would give Iraq every excuse to unload every missile it has into the country.
So I guess you could say they wouldnt be a liablity unless they tried to help or we let them.
No, Reilly, I’m quite aware of where Turkey and Israel are located. I do not really consider either to be in “the region” to which I was referring (the Gulf), any more than I would consider the United States to be in “the region” of Central America because it shares a border with one country that is in that region.
And politically speaking, of course, Israel and Turkey are light years away from every one of the Gulf nations.
By the way, I stand by everything I said in that 9/30/01 post you linked to, particularly this:
Bush the Younger seems rather to to have neglected assuring the highlighted portion of that text.
And for further clarification, I believed then and believe now that the proxy war (on the ground, that is) was exactly was called for to overthrow the Taliban. Bush’s mistake was to assume that the proxy war was capable of achieving all of America’s military goals, which it clearly was not. Hell, he hadn’t even managed to learn that after the disastrous non-asskicking at Tora Bora. When they tried the same Afghan-led assault on Khah-i-Shot (sp?) a few months later, our pseudo-allies turned pussy on us again, told al Qaeda we were coming again, and likely helped some of the bad guys escape again. The result was an organizational clusterfuck when our troops had to take over, and another non-asskicking of al Qaeda.
But your argument centered around whether military action would be feasible. If military action is feasible with the allies we have in or near region, then who cares whether the Gulf states are on board or not?
All the more reason to disregard them. We don’t need to tailor our actions to please a gaggle of of backwater despots.
Maybe because like most of us, President Bush doesn’t consider that to be the be all end all of the Afghanistan mission. And if the “really bad guys” have fled into the hills, how are we supposed to root them out and ensure they don’t regain power if we don’t have significant troops in that country?
Then what would you have had Bush do? I am really confused as to whether you’re arguing whether we did too much in Afghanistan or not enough. And sorry, I don’t think an “organizational clusterfuck” is equivalent to the disaster on the scale you (wished?) had occurred. The Taliban was ousted, OBL likely killed, others largely neutralized. What would your ideal outcome have been, minty green? If your answer is, “all of the above, except a couple of more leaders dead”, I’m afraid that I don’t see that being all that big of a difference.
Wrong. Military feasibility was only one of several reasons I provided why we won’t invade. That we’d piss off the rest of the (significant) countries in the (Gulf) region is an additional reason.
It wouldn’t have taken all that many at Tora Bora, probably just a couple thousand. Bush the Dumber, in his infinite wisdom, sent a mere handful of Special Forces guys to call in airstrikes and observe while our Afghan proxies let the really bad guys go.
Ever heard of the fallacy of the excluded middle? That’s a pretty good example of it. We did about right when it came to routing the Taliban army by providing specific assistance to the Afghan opposition. At the same time, we did far too little when we had al Qaeda forces surrounded. These are hardly mutually exclusive concepts, you know.
If you want to baselessly slander a fellow poster as secretly hoping for the deaths of American servicemen, at least have the balls to do it in the forum where the other poster can respond appropriately. As I cannot reply to such horseshit in this forum, I’m afraid I’ll have to leave it up to your imagination as to precisely which species of ill-mannered person I now believe you to be.
Poorly worded, Doghouse. It could be misinterpreted as a suggestion that Minty might be pleased to have American military actions fail. This has a number of nasty implications I am sure you will rush to deny. As well you should.
Ooops. Too late.
Contrast with:
Sounds to me like you were dwelling on the military aspect. But maybe I misunderstood what you were originally saying. Yeah. :rolleyes: That’s the ticket. In any event, you still haven’t supported your assertion that action against Iraq will be militarily unfeasible. If it’s not a lack of allies that’s bothering you, minty, then what is it? Don’t be shy, go ahead and tell us why you believe Iraq will be another “disaster”.
And once again, why should we care whether the “significant” countries in the Gulf are pissed off? If we’re confident that we can pull off a successful campaign and thereupon dominate a good portion of the Gulf from Iraq, then we can also be confident that the little potentates will be fast be whistling a different tune. They know what side their bread is buttered on.
So it was a mixed result and could have been executed better–a theme that I’m sure will be discussed in military colleges in years to come. What I don’t see is any support for the adjectives:[ul]
[li]disasterous[/li][li]colossal blunder[/li][li]an object of “regret for years to come” . . .[/li][li]. . . committed by a “bunch of goddamned fools”[/li][/ul]
Since no such disaster occurred, yet you keep pounding this imaginary point in order to attack Bush the Younger/Bush the Dumber (kind of tired invective at this point), I don’t think it’s so outrageous for me to interpret this as wishful thinking. No, you didn’t advocate that US servicemen be killed, and I didn’t necessarily accuse you of that either. But I do observe that you are unwilling to admit that Afghanistan was not the cataclysmic indictment of Bush that you pretend it is.
Very classy apology, Reilly.
I did not apologize, minty.