Insurgents in control

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Indeed... which strongly points to civil war, which we would not like to be our legacy in Iraq.

well... only if something bad emerges the winner.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by rah
Some people just take way too much joy out of any negative thing.

Why is this negative?

[Ming]

Originally posted by Agathon


That's rich coming from you. You never, ever post anything of substance... ever.... I can't recall you ever coming up with anything resembling an argument.

See ya in 48 hours.. you should follow mod warnings in the future.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Indeed... which strongly points to civil war, which we would not like to be our legacy in Iraq.

Well a very wise man once said: "You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes you get what you need."

[Sava]

isn't that from a Jet song?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It's only natural that the rest of the peoples of the world feel joy at an American defeat. Not merely because we are the top dog, which means everyone wants to see us taken down a peg or two, but also because it is in their best interests that the hegemon be defeated. All other countries will be freer to act when Rome is afraid to use its power.

What replaced Pax Romanum?

My only wish is that those who yearn for the decline could be left alone to feel the effects. Unfortunately, that's not how it's gonna work.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Sava
no way, republicans like dans (more specifically known as chicken-hawks) want others to fight their wars

Says a guy who won't pony up enough to simply serve on a jury.

What a guy!

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by alva

Bin Laden and Co. are right, I fear; the West is weak and doesn't have the stomach for even a slightly difficult fight.

Also known as "civilised".

If that is the price we must pay for world peace, then so be it.

You aren't gonna get it, despite the best intentions.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by notyoueither


You aren't gonna get it, despite the best intentions.

They will in the short term and at the speed military forces can become obsolete these days that is probably the best they can hope for.

Why are you so convinced that if the western countries slack off they will surely find themselves in a war? Are there really any large countries left with governments that imagine they would have anything tangible to gain from such a war?

When Pax Romana crapped out there weren't any nukes to scare leaders into accepting the status quo.

[notyoueither]

And when many small men have nukes and the status quo goes away?

[notyoueither]

And what, prey tell, out of the last 3,000 years of human history leads you to believe that human beings and their leaders are naturally inclined to live in harmony?

Kumbaya?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by notyoueither
And when many small men have nukes and the status quo goes away?

I think containing nuke proliferation is the one goal whose pay off would be large enough to pay for the US's enormous military.
However, nothing the US is seriously considering doing is going to put a dent in nuke proliferation but all of the recent campaigns have probably inadvertently resulted in an acceleration of efforts to obtain nukes by those closest to obtaining them.

Better to do nothing at all than follow the current course.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by notyoueither
And what, prey tell, out of the last 3,000 years of human history leads you to believe that human beings and their leaders are naturally inclined to live in harmony?

Kumbaya?

The Canadian-US border for one and the entire EU for another

But seriously, I think it's the nuclear deterent that keeps conflicts from going global. Also, note that it took hundreds of years after the globe was first circumnavigated for a truly global war to occur.

I simply don't think the record of the last 3000 years suggests that world wars are a natural outcome when peace is not maintained by a global hegemon.

As to regional wars between neighbors, I don't think that is the U.S's problem. I think we should limit all our military adventures to working in concert with alliances like NATO and opt out of all alliances which aren't powerful enough to credibly deter any attack even without us.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
in the January election Kurds and Shiites voted en masse without a gun being held to their heads.

Yeah, but according to Sy Hersh, it seems to have been a sham election.

Also, according to Hersh, the insurgents are saving themselves for a nationwide "Tet" offensive.

[notyoueither]

The EU? Heh. They have a small problem on their hands. It's called Russia.

I am quite sure the next 50 years will see the US opt out of many alliances. The possibilities for a return to isolation are quite real.

Woo be they who realise too late that the benevolent hegemon was not a bad thing to have to keep the neighbours in line.