|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Apr 10th, 2007 05:03 PM | ||||
| Big Papa Goat |
Quote:
|
|||
| Apr 10th, 2007 04:10 PM | ||||
| mburbank |
Pol Pot didn't happen because we pulled out of Vietnam. Pol Pot happened becuase we demanded the Prince of Cambodia keep the viet kong out of Cambodia, something we knew full well he was had nowhere near the resources to do. We publicly accused him of collaboration, bombed his country even though congress forbid it, damaging his already weak economy, alientaing his fragile base of support and frightening potential allies away. We then legitamized the Khmer Rouge, and brought no pressure to bear to stop them until it was years too late. We never even indictaed we'd be unhappy if they overthrew the existing government, because we were in favor of regime change without ever spending any time thinking about what it might change in to. I think we 'lost' vietnam because you can't win someone elses civil war for them. You can only occupy and own their country, something we didn't have the stomach for then and don't now. I don't think Iraq and Vietnam are comprable beyond the mind set of the people from the Nixon Administration who are unblievably still with us. I think Iraqs tumble into chaos will have way more repercussions. The so called 'Domino effect' didn't happen and as I said, I think what happened in Cambodia was because of what we did to it before we left vietnam, not the fact that we went. Today Vietnam is a trading partner. Would our relationship with them be much better had we 'won', had we spent a few thousand more American lives and god knows how many Vietnamese? I think we'd still be there, still fighting a war of attrition. I think it isn't a tragedy to 'loose' a war we had no business getting in to. I don't think you can 'win' a war you had no business getting in to. But I'm glad you acknowledge there are things about the Nixon years worth concidering in looking at todays mess. Hence, I respect your contribution to the conversation and feel no need to re 'explain' it to you. That's how magnanimous I am. |
|||
| Apr 10th, 2007 03:22 PM | ||||
| Preechr |
I say we look, as suggested, back to the Nixon Administration, but at the politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle. The legislative and journalistic methods used to defund America's involvement in Vietnam formed the playbook for the political circus act we are witnessing in DC today regarding the war in Iraq and the larger WOT. It really is instructive to recall Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge horror, but in an effort to put a face on what nearly everyone with an opinion on the subject says would result were we to pull our troops out of Iraq. Disaster. That means a lot of people die and the whole region collapses into turmoil. Militarily, we lost Vietnam because we couldn't stabilize a real government in the South. That's proving to not be the case in Iraq, but that doesn't mean we can't lose this through other methods. Even if we had managed to establish the S Vietnam government, I doubt anything would have turned out different. Personally, I believe Bush & Co knew this would eventually be the path chosen by the Democrats, which is WHY they have been stubborn, recalcitrant and secretive from the get go. Yes, this is probably a replay of our experience in Vietnam from many perspectives, but maybe the hawks learned something new from the mistakes of the past, where it's obvious the Dems are simply performing a re-enactment of their glorious collective hippie youth. |
|||
| Apr 10th, 2007 03:19 PM | ||||
| mburbank |
Thank Gawd I have Alphabatard to tell me when my personal life is spiralling. Otherwise I might miss it. I can only assume your knowledge of my life comes as part of your general omnipotence. Now go read everything I told you to read otherwise I'm right and you're wrong. Kevin; what I would do. I'll preface by saying I think all we're left with it this point are seriously bad options. Least bad is the best one can do. I'm for withdrawl, as rapidly as possible. Not because I don't think it will reult in a bloodbath, but because I think our staying increases antagonsim on all sides, and if we don't intend to remain as a semi occupying power pretty much from now on, we only increase how big a bloodbath will be when we leave. I think they are in the midst of a predictable, highly complicated civil war and nothing we do can help. It's too late for anything we to be free from taint, we will never be trusted at this point, and there isn't going to be any gratitude. While we stay trapped in Bahgdad we can't even really try to do anything in Afghanistan and we are not credably prepare for anything else. I'm also for impeachment. Not because I hate W and I think there are strong legal grounds for it, though you already know I do. But becaue I see no chance at all that W will alter his course in any way and is going to leave a far worse mess than we have even now to the next President, who will change course significantly, even if not to my liking. I see no reason at all to wait until W shuffles out the door at the end of his term when I think there are strong legal grounds to begin trying to get him out now. But that's pie in the sky, unless one of the current investigations reveals something really eggregious with smoking gun type proof. I don't think that's out of the question, since W et al have been very arrogant about their messing around. The goal once withdrawn is to contain the chaos as much as possible. A Dayton accord style regional conference needs to be alled including neighboring countries W refuse to speak to, and there can't be any linkage to other US policy goals. Nor should we accept linkage from them. It's in their best interests to control and contain, they don't need any carrots from us and I think faced with the choas engulfing the entire region, there will be strong motivation to come up with agreements. Do I think any of this will work? sadly, probably not. However, I'm certain staying the course plus surge won't work and I think a continued military preence their is counterproductive. I think we screwed this pooch beyond repair and we need to step back and let other people try to fix it. I also believe we should throughly research the entire history of this war and as a nation own up to our mistakes. Not because I hate America, but because I think ingrained American arrogance made this mess. It will be a long, long time before we regain credability, and we've seen we can't succesfully go it alone. Pulling out should be combined with closing Guantanamo, closing all secret prisons, restoring habeus corpus and passing anti torture laws with real, verifiabal teeth. All of these points can be disagreed with and argued. But I've made them before, they are out in the public domain argued by better minds than mine, and there is still a popular myth that complainers like me only have complaints and no suggestions. What people usually mean when they say that is, no suggestions they already agree with. Oh, and none of this is worth concidering 'cause I didn't start by saying that Jundullah has a speciffic ethnic identity and are an offshoot of Al-Quaeda. I think, failing to have made that point, there's no need to concider anything else I said. |
|||
| Apr 10th, 2007 02:32 PM | ||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
WWMBD? So Max, we've heard a lot about what we're doing wrong here, but I believe Preechr asked what your own alternatives might be. I think this is a relevant question, because you as a Bush critic are a small reflection of the national tone on the matter. So tell us, what would Max Burbank do? I feel like this question has come up before, and I suppose you need to initiate the discussion making a choice about how you feel about Islamic extremism and the funding of said groups who want to harm the West and Liberalism. But Max, assuming you actually believe in the War on Terror (maybe you don't, and maybe you could make a fair argument for that), what is it you would do to confront a radical Islamic regime that funds terrorism and pursues nuclear weaponry? If we don't try to disable the reigning regime internally by supporting rebel groups, what should we do? Bomb them? Ignore them? Do we open up appeasement talks with a regime that threatens the very right to existence of one of our democratic, liberal allies? What do we do? |
|||
| Apr 10th, 2007 02:21 PM | ||||
| Abcdxxxx |
jeez, good to know when your personal life is spiraling you can always come on the internet and micromanage a post, but is there a medication you can take to minimize all those conclusions you're drawing? i'm not sure one has to give an opposing viewpoint to have a discussion. i merely pointed out that the article was flawed and probably not the best reporting to draw assumptions off of without a better understanding of the conflict involved. Typical for you, max, you found an article that fits your agenda and that's enough for you. Whether i share in your assumptions is secondary to the integrity of the information contained in the article we're discusssing itself in regards to the Jundallah. Just because I view the story as something substantial beyond your own exploitive interest in it, doesn't automatically mean I'm challenging your irrational hatred for Bush and Co. |
|||
| Apr 10th, 2007 11:50 AM | ||||
| mburbank |
Okay, Alphabatunnel vision, because I'm a contrarian by nature I went and read up on the Jundullah. Does it change what nterest me about the article I posted. No. In fact, it makes me more curious and more irate. I agree, ABC (the news organization) could have and should have spent more time describing the group. If they had the article would have been even more alarming. I even agree that the term 'Pakistani tribal militant group' is a jourbalistically lazy and misleading way to describe them. I hope you are delerious with joy. Having fixated on that point, you seem to loose interest (or didn't have any to begin with) in the fact that the article says both US and Pakistani sources say we are working with Jundullah, which you point out is an off shoot of Al-Quaeda. To me, the fact that we might work with, in any capacity, an Al Quaeda group, gives lie to virtually every aspect of our pubic foreign policy AND it's highly reminiscent of the way we worked with the Khmer Rouge, a subject you ought to read about because Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld were involved, it was a gross and illegal abuse of US policy and it led to massive genocide. Do I think the ABC (the news affiliate, not the internet guy) article proved we are working with Jundullah? No. But i don't think they are making it up out of whole cloth either. Does the fact that they were shamefully lax in the description of the terrorist group we may be working with disqualifies every aspct of the article? Nope. Do I think the main area of interest of the article lies in the description of the origin and goals of the terrorist group we are allegedly working with. Strangely, even after 'fetching' for you, it does not. Now. Having done your bidding and returned with a response, which I generally would not deign to do since as I've said (and now demonstrated) I think your views are miopic, I assume you'll do me the courtesy of reading up on at very least the actions of current administration members back when they were just starting out. My feeling having read all that is they are still just as ignorant, vicous, dangerous and arrogant as they were back then. Since their previous track record lead to genocide, I think it's instructive. Feel free to disagree or be uninterested. I am able to accept that you are an individual with your own opinions and drives, capable of coming to conclusions you have every right to, even though you may not have read or thpought about each and every thing I have, even if I think they are relevant. |
|||
| Apr 10th, 2007 11:31 AM | ||||
| mburbank |
I would say the main point that interests me is not their national origin, per se, but their methedology and our willingness to overlook it if they serve our needs. There in lies the relevance to the Nixon administration, which I 'explained' to you, so I don't understand why you haven't cknowledged it yet. You want to see ethnic origin as trumping kidnapping, murder, and our use of it in importance. It is of course your right to discount the entire article based on what you feel is a missues of the word Pakistani in referring to a group many of whose members were born in and are located in Pakistan. While I understand the merit of your speciffic point, I disagree with your miopic focus on it. Alphaboy, ( and I'd call you by your name, but like everything else about you, you don't share it)there is no discussion unless you can figure out that since the administration doesn't care about their ethnic origin, only that they can be useful as a delivery system for violence, it's really no where near as important to this particular discussion as is our relationship with them . If that sounds like an inconvenience to you, then you really are aiming to win the Alphaboy award of the year award. You seriously can't accept that people outside your head might be drawn to other things than what you immediately think of first, can you? And you really can't see how my demanding you read stuff I've read in the belief that you'd then think as I do isn't a serious demand, it's pointing out why you are insufferable and why 'arguing' with you is beyond pointless? Why debate with someone who honestly believes he has direct access to truth and has never shown the capacity for doubt? I'd much rather poke you. It would only be a waste of time if I was waiting for you to get it, but I know you can't. I've 'explained' it to you. That makes it true. It's frustrating that you are still arguing after it's been 'explained'. There is no discussion until you agree that I'm right and you are wrong. Once you hold only my opinions, then we can talk. |
|||
| Apr 10th, 2007 10:49 AM | ||||
| Abcdxxxx |
you posted a flawed article which misslabled the organization it was reporting on. i made the correction, and suggested you research the matter. Instead of doing that, you went on some diatribe about your distrust for me, and tried to write off the relevance of how we identify this dissident group. I again, suggested you do the research rather then take my word for it. What's your response? "Read a book about the Nixon administration." Max, there is no discussion unless you can figure out the importance of differentiation between a Persian, a Baluchi, or a Pakistani. If that sounds like an inconvenience to you, then you really are aiming to win the Geggy of the year award. |
|||
| Apr 10th, 2007 09:46 AM | ||||
| mburbank |
Alright, abc, I'll tell you what. How familiar are you with the Nixon administration, most speciffically the secret war in Cambodia? I think it has a great deal of bearing, as many of our foreign policy decision makers cut their teeth their and I think made a very ugly mess. I think you'd find the book "Sideshow" by William Shawcross enlightening and it might really inform your thought process on proxy wars and the way the current administration is gearing up to use them. Once you've read it (and I'd suggest reading a few books of the bibliography as well) and can demonstrate you underatand Shawcross's main thesis and can argue we are either doing the same thing again or are not, I think you need to concider that I've 'explained' it to you and simply take everything I have to say about the matter as given. When you've done that, I might feel motivated to cut into the time I take reading sources I find enlightening and start reading ones you find enlightening instead. I will understand if you don't want to give up your reading list for mine, because it's kind of an absurd request. But that's the big difference between you and I. You have the meglomaniacal emotional develpement of a three year old or a Donald Rumsfled, and you literally incapable of imagining a viewpoint that doesn't originate inside your own head. I know, I know, you think your relevant. Do me a favor and at very least look up what at very least Rumsfeld and Cheney were doing and thinking during the Nixon administration, and see if you don't find any useful information. But that's just for you to thnk about. I can't see your thoughts on the matter coming up to par with my 'explanation' of it until you've finished "Sideshow". |
|||
| Apr 10th, 2007 08:47 AM | ||||
| Geggy |
Quote:
I think the fact the US may be currently supporting foreign terrorists is too much for the americans to complement but "whatever". |
|||
| Apr 10th, 2007 02:01 AM | ||||
| Preechr | Yes, Max, fetch. | |||
| Apr 9th, 2007 06:55 PM | ||||
| Abcdxxxx | or you could just do the research yourself? | |||
| Apr 9th, 2007 06:08 PM | ||||
| mburbank |
Oh, so now you're an unimpeachable source? You've 'explained it to me', so I have to value your take over ABC news? See, I just thought you'd made statements. Listen, It's not that I hold television news in such high esteem. It's that I think your analysis of events is plagued by tunnel vision. In addition, If I felt moved enough to delve into ABC's website, I might even find descriptions of staff, previsious work and methodology that could lend a little credence to their reporting. Admittedly, only a little, but since you at every opportunity have refused to pony up even a shred of info on what gives you your near God like infallability, for now I'll take the ABC everybody knows over the abc known for posting at I-mockery. Forgive me. It's probably my blind, knee jerk hatred of you and not the fact that you're not an actual news outlet, but just some annonymous guy with a hard on for typing. Not that this means the ABC that people sometimes pay attention to is right and the abc poised lovingly over the reflecting pool isn't right. That could well be. I'm just not inclined to see you as a 'source'. Maybe if you were less shy about whatever professorial chairs you hold and all. Until then, I 'encourage' you to site, or quote sources. I'm not sure how the fact that they are a sub group of Al-Quaeda or that they are banned by Pakistan and Iraq impacts the article, or my point, which is that we are happy to work with 'evil doers' as long as the 'evil' they are 'doing' coincides with our interests. Somehow I missed the relevance of your 'explanation'. Now you type "Whatever", add some poorly concieved insult and insist as always that someone needs to 'look up' what you tell them to and that when they do they will automatically come to the same conclusions you did, because people hold opinions, but Pope abc reveals The Word. |
|||
| Apr 9th, 2007 05:41 PM | ||||
| Abcdxxxx |
oh now the mainstream media in an unimpeachable source? i've explained to you who this organization is.... like always, i encourage you to not just take my word for it, but to follow up and do the research yourself... ...but instead you just keep repeating the same lazy shit like the difference doesn't matter. THEY ARE A BALUCHI ORGANIZATION based out of Iran AND Pakistan. I guess it's your turn to Geggy it up around here. |
|||
| Apr 9th, 2007 04:35 PM | ||||
| mburbank |
Who are you asking? That's how ABC identified them. Not abcdxxxxx, ABC news. A Pakastani Tribal group. |
|||
| Apr 9th, 2007 03:55 PM | ||||
| Abcdxxxx | Why is Burbank still calling them a Pakistani organization? | |||
| Apr 9th, 2007 02:06 PM | ||||
| mburbank | Hey, I calls as I sees 'em, and sometimes I agree with 'em. | |||
| Apr 9th, 2007 12:30 PM | ||||
| Preechr |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
| Apr 9th, 2007 12:16 PM | ||||
| mburbank |
The 'option' Preech, isn't so much who we associatte, as hw much bullshit we slather on it. The cognitive dissonance created from on the one hand W's 'moral clarity' and a US policy VS. Good guys vs. Evil Doers and on the other the embrace of terrorist groups ( not to mention our own use of kindapping and torture) is bad for the national mental health. Also, our support of seriously bad actors and groups that lean toward terrorism hasn't worked out that well for us. I hope you won't think I'm being Geggy if I remind you that Bin Laden and Sadaam Hussein were people we backed when their agression was pointed in a direction we favored. If I were a betting man, I'd bet that down the road some future president will have to deal with the pakistani organization we're strengthening now. I agree that the article is light on speciffics. I'd like to see more investigative journalism. But certainly this doesn't strike anyone as outside the realm of things we do, does it? So: Cognitive dissonance, ill advised, failure to learn from the past. Those would be my objections. |
|||
| Apr 9th, 2007 11:32 AM | ||||
| KevinTheOmnivore | Geggy...focus! Your presence is needed in another thread. | |||
| Apr 9th, 2007 08:51 AM | ||||
| Geggy | I predict that in 5 to 10 years this Jundallah group will "turn against" the US just like osama and saddam "turned against" the us. | |||
| Apr 9th, 2007 04:50 AM | ||||
| derrida |
Quote:
|
|||
| Apr 8th, 2007 09:50 AM | ||||
| Abcdxxxx |
This article belongs in this thread rather then the Nancy Pelosi one. The only difference is how openly brazen these politicians (in this case a Democrat) are being. Democrat meets banned Muslim Brotherhood http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070407/..._brotherhood_3 Quote:
|
|||
| Apr 7th, 2007 12:23 PM | ||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Preech, I think you make a great point here. When pressured to elaborate on how they might wage a better war on terror, war critics and (mostly) Democrats argue that they would use "diplomacy" and every liberal's favorite military option, "special ops." If we try to support any kind of armed reform group in Iran, or on the Pakistani boarder, my guess is that we will find a lot of things about these groups that we don't like (aren't the war critics the ones who say you can't force Westernized ideals on other nations? Cultural relativity, people!). Ar we giving them money, or weapons? It was my understanding that we were only "advising" Jundullah, whatever that means. No, this isn't a pretty practice. But is it better than pulling a Wesley and bombing Tehran back 10 years from afar? I think so. |
|||
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | ||||
