Al Qaeda: Attacks on Western nations in works

[Vic]

irishScott:

Well then we agree (for the most part). I never said we should pull out right away, nor would I support such a policy. But what we need to do is stop being the aggressor and put the burden back on the Iraqi people. We need to make it so that AQ becomes the aggressor, the "bad guy," and we look like the righteous party seeking peace and order.
And I think you're not seeing Obama's policy on Iran quite right. You say we shouldn't talk with Iran, but Iran is all talk too. And if we attack them, we have nothing to "win" there either, but a lot to lose. So why do it? Let Ahmedinajab shoot his mouth off... like a little barking dog, it's all he has. And the only reason he can get away with it is because, to the people in the ME, we appear to be (are) aggressive. Once again, were we to gain the appearance of the righteous party, his own culture would frown upon his saber-rattling and he would have to stop.
That's how these people think. It's a very image-conscious culture. They fight for the check at restaurants and then make a show that they are the ones doing the paying, while insisting that everyone get yet one more round on them.
So as long we're escalating things, they'll escalate right back, even knowing that they'll lose, lest they lose face. And in doing so, they actually "win" by appearing noble in their own eyes.
Ah... I could go on. The point is that theirs is a subtle culture, and we're not going to get ahead in the ME so long as we're the typical blundering overtly-aggressive Americans.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: Dari
What would you have proposed that we do in Vietnam? BTW, unless you're willing to put your life on the line for your pride, don't ask others to do the same. Be realistic and fold when you can't win.

It has nothing to do with pride.

You can't compare Vietnam and Iraq. Too many reaons to list here.

Realistically, I think we can win. Just takes a shift in strategy.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: irishScott
...
Realistically, I think we can win. Just takes a shift in strategy.

What exactly does a win look like in this context?

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Dari
What would you have proposed that we do in Vietnam? BTW, unless you're willing to put your life on the line for your pride, don't ask others to do the same. Be realistic and fold when you can't win.

It has nothing to do with pride.

You can't compare Vietnam and Iraq. Too many reaons to list here.

Realistically, I think we can win. Just takes a shift in strategy.

And why don't you want to compare the two? They are both wars in a hostile neighborhood against an enemy that is indistinguishable from the enemy. Come on, don't give me excuses. Are you admitting that you would've cut an run in Vietnam like we did?

And what exactly would you do differently in Iraq?

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: Vic
irishScott:

Well then we agree (for the most part). I never said we should pull out right away, nor would I support such a policy. But what we need to do is stop being the aggressor and put the burden back on the Iraqi people. We need to make it so that AQ becomes the aggressor, the "bad guy," and we look like the righteous party seeking peace and order.
And I think you're not seeing Obama's policy on Iran quite right. You say we shouldn't talk with Iran, but Iran is all talk too. And if we attack them, we have nothing to "win" there either, but a lot to lose. So why do it? Let Ahmedinajab shoot his mouth off... like a little barking dog, it's all he has. And the only reason he can get away with it is because, to the people in the ME, we appear to be (are) aggressive. Once again, were we to gain the appearance of the righteous party, his own culture would frown upon his saber-rattling and he would have to stop.
That's how these people think. It's a very image-conscious culture. They fight for the check at restaurants and then make a show that they are the ones doing the paying, while insisting that everyone get yet one more round on them.
So as long we're escalating things, they'll escalate right back, even knowing that they'll lose, lest they lose face. And in doing so, they actually "win" by appearing noble in their own eyes.
Ah... I could go on. The point is that theirs is a subtle culture, and we're not going to get ahead in the ME so long as we're the typical blundering overtly-aggressive Americans.

Agreed, but if Iran gets a working warhead in a few years, a few surgical Raptor strikes would be in order IMO. Iran may not use it, but they could give it to someone who would. Just as our "bad guy" image didn't materialize overnight, it's not going to go away quickly either. There are plenty of terrorist organizations who would love to get their hands on a nuke, and I'm sure there are sympathizers in the Iranian government. Even a small-scale warhead could easily dwarf the 9/11 attacks in terms of damage. Not a gurantee, but definitely a threat.

In the meantime, I fail to see how diplomacy will do anything but cause headaches and potentially slow down Iran. I'd think a show of force (ala Israel flying over Syria) combined with tough diplomacy would be best in the meantime IMO. It would at least give a strong image.

Then again, Israel would probably figure it out and take care of the situation before we could even get a hint. Much more their concern than ours.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Dari
What would you have proposed that we do in Vietnam? BTW, unless you're willing to put your life on the line for your pride, don't ask others to do the same. Be realistic and fold when you can't win.

It has nothing to do with pride.

You can't compare Vietnam and Iraq. Too many reaons to list here.

Realistically, I think we can win. Just takes a shift in strategy.

And why don't you want to compare the two? They are both wars in a hostile neighborhood against an enemy that is indistinguishable from the enemy. Come on, don't give me excuses. Are you admitting that you would've cut an run in Vietnam like we did?

And what exactly would you do differently in Iraq?

Well, to start off:

1. We were suffering extremely heavy casualties in Vietnam, and losing many engagements. Basically a war of attrition. Not so in Iraq.

2. The Iraqi (and foreign) insurgents are not one force, with no overall supply or command.

3. Desert/Urban warfare vs Jungle warfare

4. Draft vs no draft

5. Asian culture vs Arabic culture

6. Communist vs Terrorists

The list goes on.

I haven't studied Vietnam extensivly enough to judge what I would or wouldn't have done.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: irishScott
...
Realistically, I think we can win. Just takes a shift in strategy.

What exactly does a win look like in this context?

A stable Iraqi government, or at least the reduction of violence to minimal levels.