MARK'S WORLD
I'll be blogging about my life, my opinions and the world as I see it.

A blog about News and Politics.
About motopoet


Gender:
male
Member Since:
March 14, 2006
Last Signed In:
November 20, 2008
Profile Views:
8063
Blog Views:
30599
View Profile
Send a Message
Send To A Friend
Sign Guestbook
Add as a Friend

Previous Posts
It's MY turn!
Oh, Marie
Poor Rob's Almanac
You can't open a door that is already open
Will the REAL will please stand?
Reality check
Life is for the living
I'll relent..Just a little
It could be worse!
Forward or Back? It's up to us!
Archives
June 06
July 06
August 06
September 06
October 06
November 06
December 06
January 07
February 07
March 07
April 07
May 07
June 07
July 07
August 07
September 07
October 07
November 07
December 07
January 08
February 08
March 08
April 08
May 08
June 08
July 08
August 08
September 08
October 08
November 08
December 08
Subscribe!
RSS 2.0 feed RSS 2.0
Add to My Yahoo
Add to My Google
Add to Bloglines
Add to My AOL

Share!


motopoet - > MARK'S WORLD -> Whatcha gonna do when dey come for you?
Whatcha gonna do when dey come for you?

Polls..Have you ever seen one? I don't mean the results, I mean the poll itself? I have. They go something like this..

Do you approve of the war in Iraq? Y or N

Do you approve of the way the president is handling the war in Iraq? Y or N

Do you think we should committ more troops to the war in Iraq? Y or N

End of poll.

HEY! Wait a minute! Where is the part that asks our opinion about the alternative? Where is the part that asks if we approve of the plans the other side has? The questions aren't there and here is why. The alternative is diplomacy and the radical insurgency are not interested in diplomacy and they have proven it hundreds of times since 1979, so there is no real alternative and every rational, non-Muslim in the world seems to understand this and I just don't understand why so many others DON'T get it.

So, if diplomacy, which has failed in Iran and Iraq for the last 25 years, isn't going to work, what is? What is the new plan? I would be very interested in hearing it. Hell, I amy even agree with it, but it has to exist for me to know! Like Dubya said in his debate with Kerry in 2004, "A litany of complaints is not a plan". I'll admit that the president isn't the orater Reagan was, but that was pretty astute observation. Dubya's numbers may be way low, but the actual numbers on the war are still about 50-50 when you look at all sides and not just the side the media want's you to see. I agree that things suck over there and the president has done a poor job of prosecuting this war, but the public has to share the blame for that. America has lost it's stomach for war. We(not me) are simply unwilling to do what it takes to defeat an enemy. If the public had been consulted and listened to like they are today on the things we do to win(interrogation techniques, mass bombing)we would all be spaeking German and goosestepping to publiuc rally's.

In the war on terror thousands of lives have been lost and thousands more will be lost, but we didn't start this crap. We didn't bomb the Khobar towers, the Marine Barracks, the Cole or take down the WTC(although the conspiracy theorists would have you belive we did), but at least Dubya tried to do something about it. You can't blame him for everything when you hogtie him and the military because you are squeamish about the realities of war. A war WE din't start. Even if we had never gone into Iraq, thousands of innocents and military would still be dead either at the hands of Saddam himself in Iraq and in Afghanistan and elswhere because the insurgents would have eventually came to where were fighting the radicals. They want to kill us wherever we are and that is not going to stop with diplomacy and UN sanctions. It's not about borders to them. It's about their hatred for us no matter where we are or what we are doing and the WTC proved that.

I sometimes think the president should just throw up his hands and let the chips fall where they may. Then everyone would see just how unprepared his detractors are to keep terrorism and despots at bay. Strongly worded diplomatic letters just aren't going to cut it with these madmen. It's one one thing to piss and moan about change, but it is another thing entirely to affect it. I am saddened and sorry to say that it will, most likely, take another attack by the REAL bad guys to wake the other half up...AGAIN!

Posted in these Groups:
Topics: war, Iraq, Iran, Politics, bush, polls
posted by motopoet on Saturday, February 3, 2007 at 08:08 PM
Report a Violation
Viewed 221 times
14 comments from 8 users

1

posted by anonymous on Feb 3, 2007 at 09:52 PM
Actually, I kinda like the idea of some of these liberal women being forced to wear a burka, and the men being allowed to stone them if they do not behave.  That is what is coming with Sharia law.  It would be funny to watch these Christian hating commies on the left being forced to bow down to Allah 5 times a day..
posted by TomW on Feb 4, 2007 at 12:20 AM
Moto, if you're interested in seeing a poll, here's one for you:  http://www.foxnews.com/proj...

As far as the alternative, the alternative includes using our intellegence agencies, working with allies and creating new allies, targeted military and Special Ops strikes, etc.

We tried it the way you suggest in Vietnam.  Half a million tropps in country and massive bombing campaigns.  Now we're trying Vietnam-lite with the same result.  Our win in WWII had as much to do with bombing campaigns as it did with our Turkish allies cutting off oil to the Axis powers.  We've tried the all brawn and no brain approach and all it brings us is death.  Also, when you are fighting state against state, it is a very different type of war.  That said, I think we could "win" the way you seem to think of a win if we followed the 20:1 ratios that are recommended by all counter insurgency experts.  In Iraq, that would mean about 1.2 million troops at a cost approaching 60 billion a month.

I guess the reason I'm confused is because I'm not sure what we win if we win.  My guess is that our very best cas escenario at this point is basically getting Iraq back to how it was before the war, as a stable, non-theocratic nation that has no ties to Al-Queda.
posted by motopoet on Feb 4, 2007 at 12:21 PM
I just don't believe this! I submitted a non agressive, well thought out reply to you, Tom, and again, it was whisked away into cyberspace. I am done. On to another subject.
posted by randomfactor on Feb 4, 2007 at 04:48 PM

Thank Xenu America has lost its "stomach" for war.  May we never be so easily fooled again.

.

Every successful plan in Iraq begins the same way:  with Shrub getting out of the way.  Until that happens, there is *NO* plan that has a chance.

.

Anny, *LOTS* of Bush's base, like you, like the terrorists better than their fellow Americans.    I still can't understand it, but it's a fact.

posted by antiextremism on Feb 5, 2007 at 11:51 AM

It's not about losing our stomachs for war, it's losing our stomachs for turning soldiers into cops.

No one can beat us in war, but this isn't our war, this is policing a civil war. Put our troops on the borders and don't let anything in or out, and let the Iraqis go through the pain of revolution. That's what we did, and the French only offered support, they didn't tell us how to do it.

posted by randomfactor on Feb 5, 2007 at 12:28 PM

Antiex, it's not even that, I don't think.  Our military will have to assume the "cop" role from time to time because there's nobody else.  We've got to be prepared for that role too--which is why it's criminal to send 'em in unarmored humvees.  Bush still talks about "winning" in Iraq, which his administration is slowly admitting is a civil war (or worse.)  You win a civil war by picking a side and helping them beat the others--as the French tried to do (diplomatically at least) in our little skirmish.  Of course, they were playing their own games in Mexico at the time and never really did anything that helped the South.

.

But for our leaders to lie our way into an impossible situation, that's what is being objected to.  

posted by ProgressivePete2 on Feb 5, 2007 at 01:13 PM
Not fair at all to compare this conflict with WW2. For one thing, we were the only country doing any invading. The reason most Americans can't/won't stomach war anymore is because of the reason behind it. Stopping an aggressive dictator from taking over Europe (and more) is one thing, stopping a non-aggressive (but brutal) dictator that we previously supported, funded and armed is a completely different reason for war, and one that is not as acceptable to the public.

anny, know what I think would be funnier? seeing all these bible thumping warmongering Christians forced to bow down to Allah 5 times a day, with the little church ladies forced to wear burkas, but of course that side of the political spectrum is quite a bit closer to the theocrats in the middle east so maybe they wouldn't mind all that much.
posted by randomfactor on Feb 5, 2007 at 01:14 PM
The 9/11 hijackers had a valid point, after all...according to the Christian right.
posted by TomW on Feb 5, 2007 at 02:44 PM
Moto, sorry I missed your response.  Word on the street is that they've got new comment blocker that only allows sarcasm and nastiness.  :) 
posted by antiextremism on Feb 5, 2007 at 04:55 PM

Did Moto get deleted on his own blog????

I've never seen anything nasty spill out of his keyboard, wassup wit dat?

posted by NancyII on Feb 5, 2007 at 05:02 PM

hehehe Tom.  Good one.

Anti..he didn't get deleted..he posted and it disappeared into thin air.    Prolly either forgot the hieroglyphics or didn't type them in right.  It's VERY frustrating and when it happens to me, I refuse to go back and rethink and retype a thoughtful blog.

posted by antiextremism on Feb 6, 2007 at 09:37 AM
Ah Haaaa. Yeah that sucks.
posted by mattloch on Feb 6, 2007 at 11:17 AM
Not interested in diplomacy since 1979 Moto? What finally got the hostages released from Iran? Was it our (failed) military rescue, or the (admittedly backdoor) negotiations between (candidate) Reagan and the Iranians? What was it that got Egypt and Israel to sign a peace treaty in 1979? Was it the war in 1973, or the Camp David negotiations in 1978-1979? Was it fighting that resulted in the Oslo Accords, or negotiations? Who was fueling the Iran-Iraq war(s) in the '80s: was it "Islamic radicals", or the United States? Who was it that convinced Saddam that invading Kuwait in 1990 was an acceptable option, "Islamic radicals", or the United States? Was it "Islamic radicals" that initially created Iraq in a purposefully unstable manner, or secular Europeans? Oh, and I'm still waiting to see what Iraq has to do with "the Khobar towers, the Marine Barracks, the Cole or tak(ing) down the WTC". Perhaps the US public no longer has the "stomach" for this "war" because it's not really a "war" against "terror" (how to you fight a "war" against a military tactic?) or "radical Islam" or al-Queda or anything else related to the overall "War on Terror". Iraq was "sold" to the US public as a quick fight, to be executed competently and followed through with a comprehensive plan for rebuilding the ravaged Iraqi civilian infrastructure and creating a stable political structure allowing self-determination. This "war" has been none of the above. This invasion and occupation was poorly planned, poorly executed, and that blame lies solely with the President, and his Administration. So go ahead and blame the American public for being gullible enough to believe the Administration, for going along with sickening abuses of power, for giving up their rights and their money for this now pointless "war". But you should be ashamed for blaming the people who never wanted to invade Iraq in the first place, or the public who now supports a withdrawal from this self-created bloodbath, for the war's failure.
posted by ProgressivePete2 on Feb 6, 2007 at 11:46 AM
Just don't blame me. I didn't vote for him (that I know of) either time, didn't believe any of the WMD stuff (especially that aluminum tube crock of ... ), and assumed he'd start a war after he got elected the first time. I was OK with going into Afghanistan, but he totally screwed that one up too. The formerly US supported Taliban that we spent money removing from power is now back, and apparently we're OK with it.
1

  (You need to be signed in to leave a comment)

BAKERSFIELD.COM HOT TOPICS:

Advertisement