View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 9:53 am Post subject: Assume a U.S. Withdrawal... |
|
|
deleted
Last edited by Gopher on Thu Nov 01, 2007 3:42 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Imbroglio

Joined: 23 Jan 2003 Location: Behind the wheel of a large automobile
|
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 10:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
Assume the next president is a Democrat |
Do us a favor, stop smoking crack at work when you should be preparing for your classes! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
The Bobster

Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 11:13 am Post subject: Re: Assume a U.S. Withdrawal... |
|
|
Gopher wrote: |
Given the withdrawal from Vietnam was pretty harmful to the United States, leading to a so-called Vietnam Syndrome that wasn't overcome until the Gulf War, what consequences might such a withdrawal have on the United States, especially considering the circumstances of the war in the first place? |
I don't see a lot that was harmful about the "Vietnam Syndrome." It led us to slake our bloodlust on small conflicts that we could win quickly, like Grenada and Panama and Kuwait and Somalia and Haiti. And if there is no other way for America than this, berst it is that way rather than what we are doing now.
American presidents seem to need wars to make themselves feel important, and if that is the case, best to keep them small, and thereby allow our young men to grow old and become middle-aged and fat, and only entering the military by choice rather than to appease the desire of some well-born politico to win another election - because I do think God prefers fat and stupid middle-aged Dads for America over having them come home young and wrapped up in bags and being a source of tears of tears for their mothers.
And if we need to go out and kill some brown people once in a while, best it be done in the space of a few weeks or months rather than years or decades. (Oh, and sorry to break it to you about the brown people, but we haven't found a way to bomb any white folk except for Bosnia since the fall of Berlin, and somehow we managed to hit the Chinese Embassy that time as well ... funny how things work out.)
The Powell Doctrine was the best route for the US, and that man's great tragedy is that he was roped into the Iraq quagmire that he helped to avoid in the first Gulf War by advocating we only fight wars we know we can win quickly.
We learned something important in Vietnam, and we survived it. We tried to learn it about a century ago in the Phillipines, but we forgot it in the meantime.
The Soviets could have looked at Vietnam and learned it as well, but they didn't, they got caught in Afghanistan and they were not as strong as we were and so their union did not survive - it was held together by sealing tape and the barbed wire of a continent-wide gulag ... sadly, we seem to be heading in that direction all too quickly recently, or did you notice?.
I'm sorry, I forgot your original question, gopher .... Were you asking what the consequences could be if we don't learn the lessons of history and got out of Iraq as soon as possible, like yesterday?
No, actually, you weren't asking that, but that's what I'm asking, anyway. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Your question is only about the domestic consequences, right?
I think the situation is very different this time around. The decade of the 60's started out with the country united. The divisions started with the War and were intensified by the social revolutions that came along at the same time. (Sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll and women's lib). The decade of the '00's (sounds funny, doesn't it?) started out with the country already divided, with one short period of unity in year after 9/11. On top of that, the liberals have been stuck with the reputation of being unpatriotic since Vietnam. To make matters worse, Rove demonstrated last week that patriotism = belligerence in the real definition of the word: the willingness to go to war. So the lines have been drawn for 30 years and the Right is harboring a grudge from the days of Vietnam. I think the results this time will be much different.
Tuesday night, Bush will speak to the nation. Everyone expects him to ask for time and patience. The happy talk from Cheyney will stop. The public will listen. They did when LBJ and Nixon asked in their day. The American public wants to believe its leaders, same as everyone else. So unless Bush chokes on another pretzel and falls off the podium, he will get some breathing space. About a year, or until some big disaster strikes in Iraq, whichever comes first.
The crunch comes next summer, with the off-year elections coming in November. Bush will have to be able to show significant progress by then, or the doo-doo will hit the fan.
So let's say it's now summer '06. There are demonstrations in the streets. There are Congressional hearings on various scandals in the administration's administration of the War. Republicans are way down in the polls, the same as now or even lower because of another thousand or so dead soldiers. Pressure to withdraw has hit a peak. What will happen?
Bush will declare an emergency: terrorists abroad and subversion within. The National Guard will be nationalized and called out to keep peace in the streets--the governors will be neutralized and disarmed. There will be a purge of Congress. Senators and Representatives will be dragged from their beds and jailed in Gitmo, or just disappeared. Voter registration rolls will be purged and only patriots will be allowed to vote for patriot candidates in November.
Remember, you read it here first. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 6:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ya-ta: Are you talking about a coup?
My question wasn't limited to foreign or domestic spheres. Just hypothesizing what might the consequences be should Washington be forced to withdraw from the region.
The consequences in the Mid-East, particularly Iraq, perhaps in Saudi, would likely be severe, for example.
Last edited by Gopher on Sun Jun 18, 2006 2:49 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In a word, yes. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Wangja

Joined: 17 May 2004 Location: Seoul, Yongsan
|
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nah, i reckon he means coup consolidation.  |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Mr. Literal

Joined: 03 Jul 2003 Location: Third rock from the Sun.
|
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 7:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
So unless Bush chokes on another pretzel and falls off the podium... |
One could only hope. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Wangja

Joined: 17 May 2004 Location: Seoul, Yongsan
|
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mr. Literal wrote: |
Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
So unless Bush chokes on another pretzel and falls off the podium... |
One could only hope. |
Maybe, but in this case is it not better not to stick with the performer and not bring on the organ-grinder? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2005 7:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Note: I did say 'choke', not die. But if he did then here is the order of succession:
The Vice President Richard Cheney
Speaker of the House John Dennis Hastert
President pro tempore of the Senate1 Ted Stevens
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of the Treasury John Snow
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
Secretary of the Interior Gale A. Norton
Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns
Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez2
Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao3
Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson
Secretary of Transportation Norman Yoshio Mineta
Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman
Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings
Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson
Secretary of Homeland Security4 Michael Chertoff
NOTE: An official cannot succeed to the Presidency unless that person meets the Constitutional requirements.
1. The president pro tempore presides over the Senate when the vice president is absent. By tradition the position is held by the senior member of the majority party.
2. Carlos Gutierrez was born in Cuba and is ineligible.
3. Elaine Chao was born in Taiwan and is ineligible.
4. May move to number 8 on the list pending legislation.
I don't know a thing about Stevens of Alaska or most of the others on the list. The ones I do know, I don't like and don't think would be any improvement. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 8:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
gopher,
I don't know how old you are so I don't know if you were around for the last US withdrawal. It tore the country apart. A couple of years ago I read some article that mentioned the country hasn't been so divided since the run-up to the Civil War. That comment really hit me. I've been thinking about it ever since. I've been out of the country for a decade so I was struck a few weeks ago when one of my former students said the atmosphere in her office was flat-out hostile during the campaign last year.
The right wing seems to believe that the Constitution is dispensable. They've shown twice in recent weeks that they don't believe in separation of powers (Terri Schiavo) or Senate rules (nuclear option). I can only conclude that they will do anything to hold onto power. There is some suspicion that they played around with computer voting results.
I am far more concerned with what will happen here than what the consequences of withdrawal would be in Iraq. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 11:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[deleted]
Last edited by Gopher on Sun Jun 18, 2006 3:15 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Imbroglio

Joined: 23 Jan 2003 Location: Behind the wheel of a large automobile
|
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 1:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Bush: "We Will Stay in the Fight Until the Fight is Won"
 |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 3:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
[deleted]
Last edited by Gopher on Sun Jun 18, 2006 3:13 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
desultude

Joined: 15 Jan 2003 Location: Dangling my toes in the Persian Gulf
|
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 3:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wangja wrote: |
Nah, i reckon he means coup consolidation.  |
Exactly.  |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|