|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 4:36 am Post subject: |
 |
|
There have been rumors about increasing troop strength rather than reductions. It is eerily reminiscent of Nixon's 'Secret Plan' to end the war in Vietnam. It doesn't help that Kissinger has been involved...he was the last time. The Secret Plan lasted four more years and included Kissinger's October Surprise of "Peace is at hand" just before the election.
What was that Gore said a few days ago about Bush needing to disentangle his concern for his historical reputation from what is good for the country? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
canuckistan
Mod Team
Joined: 17 Jun 2003
Location: Training future GS competitors.....
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 5:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Octavius Hite wrote: |
Gopher, this does not sound like pulling out to me:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6184965.stm
| Quote: |
US President George W Bush is likely to boost troop levels in Iraq next year, an administration official has said.
Up to 25,000 more troops could be deployed to try to help end the violence, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. |
Although with an administration that says up is down, blue is green, right is wrong, so i guess pullinh out is the same as increasing the number of troops! |
It's like Alice in Wonderland. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 12:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Octavius Hite wrote: |
| Gopher, this does not sound like pulling out to me... |
You are right to question this, Octavius. But I think you are focusing too tightly on what has become a weak administration. I understand you strongly dislike W. Bush. Very well. I am tired of being in the position of defending someone I voted against both times.
Still, change is in the air. And we are looking to get out of Iraq. The Democrats are ascendant. They have Congress. They have the purse and much more. They are even asserting themselves in foreign policy again, meeting with MidEast leaders, etc.
We have a new, much more Realist SecDef at the Pentagon and all the new staff that comes with it. Bolton is leaving the UN.
Back to the issue: the Iraqi mess is exactly that: a mess. Complications within complications. And just because we got into it in a hurry and things have gone wrong, it does not follow that we need to "cut-and-run" in a hurry.
While I completely see and understand how those who want an immediate exit feel frustrated with this, we still need to go about this the best possible way. In the Marine Corps we call it "tactical withdrawal" to emphasize it is a planned, coordinated operation, starkly different than a disordered retreat (like Napoleon's Army after Russia). We still have allies and enemies in the MidEast. We do not want to leave our friends in an impossible situation -- including those indirectly or not-so-visibly involved, like Japan -- or our foes in an better position.
This may indeed require elevated troop levels at the moment. Do not be so quick to dismiss every single thing Washington says and does. Even someone like W. Bush is not always wrong, Octavius. And I do not think he is in a position to unilaterally determine U.S. foreign policy anymore anyway... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NAVFC
Joined: 10 May 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 4:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
all right, then what do you propose?
just ignoring them? that's done wonders.
Where and when has the US offered Iran any of what you just mentioned? |
You don't remember? It was part of the incentives package the US and EU offered to Iran.
It incluced light water nuke reactors, fuel, technical assistance, and economic incentives for the country such as helping it get membership to World Trade.
It was part of the carrot and stick offer. On one hand, they offered the aforementioned, on the other hand was referral to the UNSC. We've offered and discussed and negotiated.
It's time for action, at the very least a UNSC resolution forbidding nations to assisst in Iran's nuclear endeavors and restricting the shipment to Iran of nuclear items. This at least will slow down their program enough possibly to coax Iran into atleast a freeze while negotiations go on.If that does not work I beleive the US/Israel should prepare for a series of air raids against Iranian nuclear facilities. The kind of language that Iran speaks of, wiping people off maps, etc is Hitlerian language and shouldn;t be heeded lightly. This was the world's mistake at the time of hitler when they dismissed him as a cook after he wrote Mein Kompf.
The prospect of a Iranian bomb spooks me even more then Kim Jong Il having a nuke, as KJI isn't guided by a sense of extremism and religous zealotry like Mahmoud. People say "dont worry, even if Iran does get the bomb, MAD will keep them in check". I don't know if we can say that in this situation because even the Ayatollah once said "Who cares if Iran goes up in flames, so long as Islam spreads through the world?" and also has made comments on how Israel is a one bomb state meaning they could nuke Israel and wipe it out.
iran's claims of peaceful intent are also hard to buy, given the Ayatollah once made a statement also about how lying and cheating are just tools, it is to what end they are used that matters.
What I think, is as follows: Mahmoud Amahdinejad belongs to a sect of Islam that has a beleif somewhat different from others in some respects. His sect beleives that there is a 12th Imam, called the Madhi waiting to return to the world and rule the world with Islam, the catch is the world has to depent into a apocalyptic state before he returns. Mahmoud has openly said he beleives he is the one who will bring him back.
My theory is Mahmoud, armed with nukes, could launch against Israel and the US and bring about said apocalypse which in his mind would bring about the return of the 12th Imam.
Thats the worst case scenario. At the very least, a nuke armed Iran would change the status quo, allowing Iran to attack Israel convetionally with an Army knowing Israel would be deprived of it's nuclear monopoly status.
Or Iran could become increasingly belligerent with it's proxy terror groups, such as Hizbollah whch even now is in the process of trying to oust the democracticlly elected government in lebanon to install a hardline Islamic regime.
Iran just recently hit the 3000 centifuge mark. it only takes a chain of 1,500 to enrich Uranium to bomb grade. Once Iran gets enough fissile material it will be hard to stop them. In my opinion we have a 6 month window of time. If Iran is not stopped within 6 months, there program will reach the point where it will be almost impossible to stop it.
My suggestions, Refer to the UNSC and ban UN member states from providing nuclear assistance, try to coax Iran into a freeze atleast during negotiations, and if that fails, a military strike on the nuke facilities.
The price of said action would likely be high, but pale in comparison to the price of inaction.
Tlak talk talk..helps nothing.. As the people in Darfur are learning as well. while bearurats talk, they die. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
