Gorbachev: Iraq

[Downthestretch55]

Though many will disagree with Gorbachev's statements, I found them to be of interest.
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/225995

[TheSpyder]

Not much to disagree with. There's no way to "win" this thing, we can only lose worse with each day.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by TheSpyder

Not much to disagree with. There's no way to "win" this thing, we can only lose worse with each day.

Spyder,
Thanks for taking the time to read his words. I don't disagree with him either, that's why I put it up.

[Storm Cadet]

I heard on one of the talk shows last night:

"You can win a political war, but you can't win a religious war"

They were talking about the problem in Palestine on how it has gone from political based differences to religious and it also relates to Iraqi right now!

We can't win...lets formulate a plan to get the heck out!

[Cannon Shell]

Mikhail Gorbachev served as the leader of the former Soviet Union from 1985 until its collapse in 1991.

Not exactly the guy we need advice from

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Storm Cadet

I heard on one of the talk shows last night:

"You can win a political war, but you can't win a religious war"

They were talking about the problem in Palestine on how it has gone from political based differences to religious and it also relates to Iraqi right now!

We can't win...lets formulate a plan to get the heck out!

Religion as it relates to the Middle East and radical Islam is just a political party in sheep's clothes

[Storm Cadet]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Mikhail Gorbachev served as the leader of the former Soviet Union from 1985 until its collapse in 1991.

Not exactly the guy we need advice from

As Paul Harvey says:

And now the REST of the story:

He was the last leader of the Soviet Union, serving from 1985 until its collapse in 1991. His attempts at reform helped end the Cold War, and also ended the political supremacy of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) and dissolved the Soviet Union. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1990.


Our boy GB2 (whom I voted for) is talking tough again to Russian leaders, has caused a huge split within the Republican Party and WILL NEVER win the Nobel Peace Prize.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Mikhail Gorbachev served as the leader of the former Soviet Union from 1985 until its collapse in 1991.

Not exactly the guy we need advice from

Cannon,
Did you read the article? If so, what exactly do you disagree with?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Cannon,
Did you read the article? If so, what exactly do you disagree with?

I read the article and he says some interesting things. However little can be solved in real life in a 6 paragraph statement. The truth about what has gone on and is going on in Iraq, Afganistan, and other foreign places is not and will not be known by people like us. We just see what is fed to us by the media and gov't both of whom have agendas. I understand that I have no direct knowledge of what is going on or why so I try to keep an open mind about it. As for the Nobel peace prize...after they started giving it to terrorists and Jimmy Carter it dropped in status below the Lady Byng trophy.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I read the article and he says some interesting things. However little can be solved in real life in a 6 paragraph statement. The truth about what has gone on and is going on in Iraq, Afganistan, and other foreign places is not and will not be known by people like us. We just see what is fed to us by the media and gov't both of whom have agendas. I understand that I have no direct knowledge of what is going on or why so I try to keep an open mind about it. As for the Nobel peace prize...after they started giving it to terrorists and Jimmy Carter it dropped in status below the Lady Byng trophy.

Good one,Cannon!

Think long and hard before trying to solve any problem militarily. Talk of all other peaceful means as exhausted is often baseless: An alternative is always available. If, however, a great power makes the mistake of entangling itself in an armed conflict, it shouldn't make things worse by arrogantly refusing to heed warnings of dire consequences.



I think we could have stabilized this country.

The cost in life would be enormous, and we would only resort to this in the most dire circumstances. How were Japan and Germany brought to their knees? Two countries that had very strong "religious" beliefs, that would have been horrible messes if approached in a diplomatic mode when decisions were critical. In the end, when things got very tough, we restorted to massive widespread destruction. Wipe the slate clean. We would not resort to all out massacre. This is an alternative that is not discussed by Gorbachev who is a diplomat.

Again, one lesson from this situation is not necessarily to try and stay out. Use diplomacy. The lesson could be, go in to win. And in hindsight we did not do what was necessary... 100,000 troops for a country this size? We needed to take our time planning, and go in with a half a million. Plan what we would do in every city, at every important oil facility, city power plant, and other imp. infrastructure. But we were not willing to make that commitment or be that patient. We wanted "partners" in this percieved noble quest, and our allies would have never agreed to an enormous commitment. We wanted to win quickly with some semblance of an international blessing.

If the 1/2 million troops had accomplished the above, we might be in sorry diplomatic shape with the rest of the world. Or it is possible, that Iran would not be a problem and other there would be new books written about Nation Building. There are a world of possibilites that are very hard to predict. People constantly look back after events have been played out... this was no win, or if we had only done it like this... and none of these are necessarily correct. This is not like predicting where the moon will be in 2 years... we know exactly where it will be, the rules are simple.

The whole premise Gorby makes is based upon assumptions of how a "war" is approached. The more total control scenario is not mentioned in the article at all, it would be considered a diplomatic nightmare by Gorbachev. Nonetheless it is was a possible solution.

[GenuineRisk]

Here's an interesting email posted on balloon-juice.com from someone working in the military. The "theater" he's referring, to, I'm willing to assume, is Iraq. I'll put the link below, too.

"Just had an interesting conversation with a fellow who just returned from the theater and I mentioned my theory about the Prez going nucular about the supplemental funding resolution and its pullout dates because he was going to pull a lot of troops out next summer (the same timeframe) and claim it was because of “success.” He busted out laughing saying “of course that’s why” and its openly spoken of by the troops and leadership in Iraq.

He said KBR (Halliburton) has already started closing things down, cutting back the nice to haves, and letting go all their non-American employees (mostly eastern European guys). Clearly they’ve gotten the word to scale things way back.

Our side needs to be prepared to counter the propaganda that will be driving this. I know it’s politics as usual, but the soldiers who die in the meantime are pawns and should not be forgotten in the calculation. The military leadership, while always biased to conservatism, is particular craven in its failure to speak the truth and in its collusion in this charade.

The soldiers are generally not stupid, but many still feel somehow that they are fighting for American freedoms. It’s that loyalty and patriotism that is tapped by the venal jerks on the neo-con right and exploited. I am not ashamed of the soldiers or my former career as an officer, just the generals and culture that have become hypocritical and duplicitous in the un-American and undemocratic times we find ourselves.

You can put an “X” on your calendar next summer when “success” miraculously happens in Iraq."

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8289

Anyone want to wager the neo-cons will try to time "success" so that it will be of maximum benefit to their side in the elections?

but many still feel somehow that they are fighting for American freedoms

The soldiers I have contact with do not feel this way. They get through the mess by having small defined missions that they still try and carry out, and most importantly of all, they fight for each other. There is a huge sense of brotherhood based on keeping your unit intact and alive... while attempting to accomplish a mission. They try and stay alive for EACH OTHER while carrying out some goal. I got the very strong feeling that they live for each other. An overwhelming sense of working together while staying alive.

My take from soldiers over there, and those that were over in Iraq and are now back here. Sample size of 4 people.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I read the article and he says some interesting things. However little can be solved in real life in a 6 paragraph statement. The truth about what has gone on and is going on in Iraq, Afganistan, and other foreign places is not and will not be known by people like us. We just see what is fed to us by the media and gov't both of whom have agendas. I understand that I have no direct knowledge of what is going on or why so I try to keep an open mind about it. As for the Nobel peace prize...after they started giving it to terrorists and Jimmy Carter it dropped in status below the Lady Byng trophy.

Cannon Shell,
I agree with your statement, "We just see what is fed to us by the media and gov't both of whom have agendas."
The mainstream media feeds us Anna Nicole, Brittany, Paris...on and on.
Can we agree that there's lots of distraction going on?
The current administration has fed us these statements:
It's a slam dunk!

We'll be greeted as liberators

We'll be in and out of there in six months

It will be a cake walk

Iraq is central to the war on terror

We can do it with 150,000 troops

Saddam Hussein had connections to Osama bin Laden

This war is about ridding Saddam of weapons of mass destruction

This war is about bringing freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people

This war is about defating al Queda

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!

BRING 'EM ON!!!!

This is a major turning point

That is a major turning point

The insurency is in it's final throes

We've turned a corner

When they stand up, we'll stand down

Absolutely we're winning

Freedom in Iraq is on the march

And let us not forget the First Fool's famous sixteen words:

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa

------

Hmmm. I wonder if there are any lies being said.


And Pgardn,
Gorbachov only cited "hindsight".when referencing the Soviet debacle in Afghanistan, and the consequences are quite well known.
He presented a way forward for the United States regarding current circumstances. Believe whatever you wish.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Cannon Shell,
I agree with your statement, "We just see what is fed to us by the media and gov't both of whom have agendas."
The mainstream media feeds us Anna Nicole, Brittany, Paris...on and on.
Can we agree that there's lots of distraction going on?
The current administration has fed us these statements:
It's a slam dunk!

We'll be greeted as liberators

We'll be in and out of there in six months

It will be a cake walk

Iraq is central to the war on terror

We can do it with 150,000 troops

Saddam Hussein had connections to Osama bin Laden

This war is about ridding Saddam of weapons of mass destruction

This war is about bringing freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people

This war is about defating al Queda

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!

BRING 'EM ON!!!!

This is a major turning point

That is a major turning point

The insurency is in it's final throes

We've turned a corner

When they stand up, we'll stand down

Absolutely we're winning

Freedom in Iraq is on the march

And let us not forget the First Fool's famous sixteen words:

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa

------

Hmmm. I wonder if there are any lies being said.


And Pgardn,
Gorbachov only cited "hindsight".when referencing the Soviet debacle in Afghanistan, and the consequences are quite well known.
He presented a way forward for the United States regarding current circumstances. Believe whatever you wish.

As I stated before, the situation is far more complex than the information that is released for public consumption. To reduce the situation to sound bytes by either source of information is silly. As a matter of fact, in my not so educated opinion about the whole deal, our insistence on knowing the "truth" publically probably causes as much damage as the enemy.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by pgardn

but many still feel somehow that they are fighting for American freedoms

The soldiers I have contact with do not feel this way. They get through the mess by having small defined missions that they still try and carry out, and most importantly of all, they fight for each other. There is a huge sense of brotherhood based on keeping your unit intact and alive... while attempting to accomplish a mission. They try and stay alive for EACH OTHER while carrying out some goal. I got the very strong feeling that they live for each other. An overwhelming sense of working together while staying alive.

My take from soldiers over there, and those that were over in Iraq and are now back here. Sample size of 4 people.

Pgardn,
Interesting that this thread took the direction of going towards soldiers' motivations. I did post grad research on this topic, and I sure hope Somerfrost chimes in.
So, what drives a soldier to participate in a charge against well positioned forces as so many did during the Civil War? Or so many to "go over the top" and venture into no-man's land during WWI? Or be the first to jump out when the amphibious landing hit the shore at Normandy in WW II? Or...
Gosh! I could go on and on.
There really is commonality, and it has little to do with "patriotism", thoughts of freedom, or most of the other BS that the populace is fed that they're fighting for. The motivation that they put their lives on the sacrificial altar of war has nothing, absolutely NOTHING to do with the reasons that are given by those that initate the battles in which they die.
The truth is that they feel loyalty to their comrades, their "brothers". The mission comes down to "I don't want to disappoint them, nor do I expect them to disappoint me."
Pgardn, you got it right, "They try to stay alive for each other while carrying out some goal."
Bottom line, the goal is mutual survival, and nothing more.
For further reading:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/...e_of_atrocity/

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

As I stated before, the situation is far more complex than the information that is released for public consumption. To reduce the situation to sound bytes by either source of information is silly. As a matter of fact, in my not so educated opinion about the whole deal, our insistence on knowing the "truth" publically probably causes as much damage as the enemy.

"Knowing the truth causes...damage"?????
I don't think so.
Jefferson stated that government "derives its just powers from the consent of the (informed) governed."
Withholding information, whether it's "embedding" reporters, or putting "plants" in amongst the questioners at press conferences, or not allowing the reporting of caskets coming in to Dover, or denying access to records under "freedom of information" makes a mockery of law and the populace's right to know (be informed).
Therein the "damage".

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

"Knowing the truth causes...damage"?????
I don't think so.
Jefferson stated that government "derives its just powers from the consent of the (informed) governed."
Withholding information, whether it's "embedding" reporters, or putting "plants" in amongst the questioners at press conferences, or not allowing the reporting of caskets coming in to Dover, or denying access to records under "freedom of information" makes a mockery of law and the populace's right to know (be informed).
Therein the "damage".

Damage my ass. You and me have not been directly damaged by anything that has occurred over there or said by anyone. There comes a time when our 'right to know' becomes the problem. Jeffersonian statements about modern problems ring hollow. The world is a much more complicated place these days. The fact that caskets were not allowed to be photograped and publicized does not hurt anyone except those who wish to exploit it. Those kinds of people used to be called traitors. Now they are hailed as activists.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Damage my ass. You and me have not been directly damaged by anything that has occurred over there or said by anyone. There comes a time when our 'right to know' becomes the problem. Jeffersonian statements about modern problems ring hollow. The world is a much more complicated place these days. The fact that caskets were not allowed to be photograped and publicized does not hurt anyone except those who wish to exploit it. Those kinds of people used to be called traitors. Now they are hailed as activists.

Sorry to disagree with you Cannon Shell,
I'm not a traitor.
Ignorance is damaging.
Information is liberating. That's why it was written into the Constitution as something called "freedom of the press".
Denying that fact denegrates something that many have shed blood to protect and sustain.
There's nothing "hollow" in that!

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Damage my ass. You and me have not been directly damaged by anything that has occurred over there or said by anyone. There comes a time when our 'right to know' becomes the problem. Jeffersonian statements about modern problems ring hollow. The world is a much more complicated place these days. The fact that caskets were not allowed to be photograped and publicized does not hurt anyone except those who wish to exploit it. Those kinds of people used to be called traitors. Now they are hailed as activists.

Cannon Shell,
Before you shoot your mouth off labeling peaople as "traitors", may I humbly suggest that you read this in its entirety. Please pay sepecial attention to the 2nd paragraph. I also think that the 4th, 5th, 7th, 9th and 10th apply.
You are quite free to disagree with me, though I consider myself to be a patriot.
If you claim to be one yourself, please take the time to read this link:
http://www.100megsfree2.com/srscherr...dependence.htm

The denial of the truths within this document demonstrate one of the following:
1) Ignorance
2) Neo-con "brain washing"
3) Sympathy with "terrorists that wish to deny these rights
4) Foolishness
5) Anti-American views (treason)

Take your pick.