You may fart loudly, but you carry a small stick. 
We win by "absorbing the invaders"? This sounds a lot like lieing back, closing your eyes and thinkng of England. Hell, Neville Chamberlin would be ashamed of that. Sorry, but I want the border policed and controlled. Clinton was just a glad handing "Good ol' Boy" who wanted to be loved? Fine and dandy but where's the beef? FDR and Truman rewrote the rules of the international order with far less leverage than Clinton had, but he squandered it by playing small when he could have played very, very big and gotten away with it. As for W, nice try attempting to divert attention to his domestic policy (and for the record he had a GOP controlled Congress for 6 not 2 years which is why he was able to reform social security 
).The fact is "democratizing" Iraq and Afghanistan were center pieces of the Bush Doctrine (you remember it even if Sarah can't ). Guess what, it doesn't work. Democracy and conservative Islam don't mix and its not worth the life of a single Marine to try to save people from themselves, I don't care how good your intentions are. You are going to lose every time if you go down that road. We see it in history and we see it in our own lives when we try to deal with addicts that we love. Somethings have to come from within rather than without. Otherwise you are wasting your time.
FQ13
Small stick ? OH ! You mean that log dragging along behind me.
I didn't say absorption was MY chosen strategy, I think we should borrow the plans for the Berlin Wall, I especially like that "Death Strip" idea. But you know Washington, "If you can't beat them, f-ck them."
As for BJ, there WAS no beef, if there had been any substance behind the image 2 things would have been different, 1) He would not have had the insecurity driven urge to be liked, 2) he would have been boffing better looking women.
Bringing "Democracy" to Iraq or Afghanistan is indeed a hopeless task, attempting to bring ORDER to the chaos of tribes, clans, factions, and Warlords that comprise Afghanistan is also on par with teaching a pig to sing. Iraq however is a different situation, while "Democracy" may be a ridiculous goal given the nature of their society, the basics of a stable Govt. were obviously not. The primary difference between the 2 is that Afghanistan has never in history had a strong Central Govt. where as Iraq was the birth place of the very idea back to the times before Sargon. Since WWII Iraq has become a relatively modern nation fairly well adjusted to the concept of the "national identity". ( even taking the Kurds into account ) Our problem with post Saddam Iraq stems from the fact that as in any other one party Govt, the only ones with the knowledge of HOW to govern are the "apparatchiks". Remove the one party, as we did in Iraq, and no one else has a clue what to do since they always had some one of higher rank to tell them what to do. Because of that we had to help them construct an entirely new administrative class. That we seem to have accomplished.
MBTV
Forum Index
Help
Calendar
Contact Info
Register as a member
