US Go'vt: Drunk with Power?

[Thirdfain]

We've all felt the tug of power before in life. Be it something complex or real such as taking charge of a situation and directing people to get things done, and seeing your orders recieved and followed, or something as simple as playing some Command and Conquer and watching the little men fight and die for you, we've all been there before. It's a heady little sensation.

I'm tossing a theory out on the table. It's pretty clear to me that the Iraq war is part of a greater effort by the United States to establish ever-greater control of the world- not just of the Middle East. Though I don't think we are talking Cartoon Villian stormtroopers marching through London, Prague, and Seoul under the Stars and Stripes, I think it's pretty clear that the lads in Washington would like to see that Europe and Asia stay more or less in step with their party line.

These guys in the White House have the greatest military force ever created at their fingertips. They've proven that they can walk into a sovereign nation and just kick over all the old furniture, more or less at will, while the international community does nothing.

Are these guys drunk on this feeling of power? Are they thinking with their testicles as opposed to their heads?

Are the United States recent actions worldwide the children of cold calculation or hot-blooded jubilance?

[Noble Ire]

Are the United States recent actions worldwide the children of cold calculation or hot-blooded jubilance?

It seems to me that the actions taken by those in power now have beened calculated and planned for a long time, spurred by a mixture of political spite for more moderate political groups, revenge, and the desire to spread Fundamentalist as far and as quickly as possible.

[Lord Zentei]

Are the United States recent actions worldwide the children of cold calculation or hot-blooded jubilance?

It seems to me that the actions taken by those in power now have beened calculated and planned for a long time, spurred by a mixture of political spite for more moderate political groups, revenge, and the desire to spread Fundamentalist as far and as quickly as possible.

In the particular case of Iraq, if they had been planning properly, they would have recruited an adequate number of troops before entering that country. With the classic 50:1 formula for peacekeeping, that would have meant 500000 troops, three times what they actually used. I've seen estimates as low as 350000, but no lower than this.

So: hot blooded jubilance gets my vote.

[Noble Ire]

In the particular case of Iraq, if they had been planning properly, they would have recruited an adequate number of troops before entering that country. With the classic 50:1 formula for peacekeeping, that would have meant 500000 troops, three times what they actually used. I've seen estimates as low as 350000, but no lower than this.

So: hot blooded jubilance gets my vote.

Hey I said that they had brooded about it for a long time, not that they were particularly good at planning ahead.

[Lord Zentei]

In the particular case of Iraq, if they had been planning properly, they would have recruited an adequate number of troops before entering that country. With the classic 50:1 formula for peacekeeping, that would have meant 500000 troops, three times what they actually used. I've seen estimates as low as 350000, but no lower than this.

So: hot blooded jubilance gets my vote.

Hey I said that they had brooded about it for a long time, not that they were particularly good at planning ahead.

Apparently, the idea that removing Saddam from power might be neccesary was on the table since the Clinton white house. Unfortunately, the more sophisticated plans crafted by various millitary advisors of both administrations were ignored. The more radical republicans had of course long wanted to go after Saddam, but wanting something for a long time doesn't mean that you won't act as a hothead when given the chance to get it. "Cold calculation" doesn't describe what has been going on.

[Rogue 9]

Just to note, removing Saddam Hussein from power has been the policy of the United States since 1998. Bush was just more direct about it. That does not translate into careful planning, however; a more careful plan would have worked out better than this.

[Alliance SpecForceTrooper]

Well....you could plan from now until doomsday and all you accomplished will be flushed down the drain the moment a war actually begins. That does not, however, mean that there weren't lessons to be learned from Iraq. No war is perfect and no plan is perfect. It just remains to be seen whether or not Operation Iraqi Freedom results in a more stable Middle-East.

[Lord Zentei]

Well....you could plan from now until doomsday and all you accomplished will be flushed down the drain the moment a war actually begins. That does not, however, mean that there weren't lessons to be learned from Iraq. No war is perfect and no plan is perfect. It just remains to be seen whether or not Operation Iraqi Freedom results in a more stable Middle-East.

Hopefully, it will. A better planned operation would have had a better chance of so doing, obviously. For instance, such details as not using an undermanned force, providing adequate armour for the troops from the begining and keeping better transparency in prison and interrogation operations to avoid Abu Ghraib (avoiding some of the negative backlash) would have been smart, and frankly, elementary. Not giving the general population unrealistic expectations about "mission completed" and "we won't have any casualties" would probably have been better for morale at home would have helped too.

[HemlockGrey]

The White House is drunk on its own righteousness. That's why they never admit a mistake, that's why they push forward with every single initiative they have for better or worse, and that's why they never seriously entertain the notion that they can do better.

[Mopeyennuui]

The internal macinations were planned since watergate. What the hell you think they were doing with a bug in the DNC?

The problem is this, they lost their edge on the dems so had to deamonize, and demoialize the amercial voters. That said, thsi has been brewing for DECADES! Ever since the public saw through vietnam. Ever sense this has beed brewing.

[Rogue 9]

The internal macinations were planned since watergate.

At the time of the Watergate Hotel break-in, George W. Bush had precisely zero political career and was certainly not in on Nixon's bullshittery.

What the hell you think they were doing with a bug in the DNC?

Spying on the DNC.

The problem is this, they lost their edge on the dems so had to deamonize, and demoialize the amercial voters. That said, thsi has been brewing for DECADES! Ever since the public saw through vietnam. Ever sense this has beed brewing.

... Okay, assuming I translated that correctly, that wasn't quite how it went. Unless you have some reason for your idea that there's some conspiracy that's been running continuously and undetected for forty years, I'm going to have to doubt your claims.

[CaptainChewbacca]

The internal macinations were planned since watergate. What the hell you think they were doing with a bug in the DNC?

The problem is this, they lost their edge on the dems so had to deamonize, and demoialize the amercial voters. That said, thsi has been brewing for DECADES! Ever since the public saw through vietnam. Ever sense this has beed brewing.

Is it the tinfoil around your noggin what makes you a bad speller, or is it the meds?

[SPOOFE]

It's pretty clear to me that the Iraq war is part of a greater effort by the United States to establish ever-greater control of the world- not just of the Middle East.

Because the best way to control something is to voluntarily relinquish control, right? Right? Dumbass.

[HemlockGrey]

Because the best way to control something is to voluntarily relinquish control, right? Right? Dumbass.

Right, because it is obviously impossible to exert influence and control if your flag isn't fluttering over the capitol building.

[SPOOFE]

Right, because it is obviously impossible to exert influence and control if your flag isn't fluttering over the capitol building.

If you can quote where I said anything even closely resembling that mindless, drooling drivel you wrote right there, I'll give you a blowjob. Two, even.

[HemlockGrey]

If you can quote where I said anything even closely resembling that mindless, drooling drivel you wrote right there, I'll give you a blowjob. Two, even.

Well, let's see, you wrote that the US was not interested in controlling Iraq because we relinquished control over its government, thereby implying that direct administration is necessary for control. If I misintepreted your intent, please explain it to me and I will politely retract my comment. If not, I'll trade those blowjobs for some really good sandwiches.

If you honestly believe that the US has relinquished its control or influence over Iraq, then I am forced to wonder in what reality you live in.

[The Guid]

I can't help but think that those sandwiches are neccessary.

What I would mention is that despite the fact that G.W.Bush is a relative newcomer to the political scene in some sense people like Rumsfeld and Cheney seem to have been knocking around for a long time advocating quite extreme policies for such things as controlling the Middle East which included the removal of Saddam Hussein by force. It just wasn't until G. W. Bush and especially post September 11 that they had the political power to do such things.

[Surlethe]

I'm tossing a theory out on the table. It's pretty clear to me that the Iraq war is part of a greater effort by the United States to establish ever-greater control of the world- not just of the Middle East. Though I don't think we are talking Cartoon Villian stormtroopers marching through London, Prague, and Seoul under the Stars and Stripes, I think it's pretty clear that the lads in Washington would like to see that Europe and Asia stay more or less in step with their party line.

Of course they would. The lads in Europe would also like to see Asia and the U.S. in step with their party line. The same goes for Asia.

These guys in the White House have the greatest military force ever created at their fingertips. They've proven that they can walk into a sovereign nation and just kick over all the old furniture, more or less at will, while the international community does nothing.

Are these guys drunk on this feeling of power? Are they thinking with their testicles as opposed to their heads?

That's what it certainly seems like. Of course, the particular make up of this Administration is also partially the culprit: they have the fundie mindset, which means they never admit mistakes and are always correct.

Are the United States recent actions worldwide the children of cold calculation or hot-blooded jubilance?

Definitely hot-blooded jubilance. Cold-blooded calculation would have turnd out a whole lot better.

[Darth Wong]

The US government is not drunk with power; they recognize their own limitations (and like it or not, they are already stretching them in Iraq). The problem is that, like a bad chess player, they tend to formulate strategies based on the assumption that other countries (even their enemies) will play along with their plan, and they don't really know how to react when they don't.

Consider their cretinous assumption that they could walk into Iraq, destroy its government, army, and civil institutions, and then just happily sit back and watch as the country organizes and pacifies itself. This assumption flies in the face of all logic, but it is not surprising when you realize that you can model the Bush Administration's behaviour on the Bad Chess Player analogy.

[Chmee]

The ideological roots of what some call the 'Wolfowitz Doctrine' goes back to planning documents written by Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, William Kristol and others during the Bush I administration. The essence of Wolfowitz's assertion was that containment is an oudated Cold War doctrine, that America will be more secure in the future by proactively intervening with military force in nations capable of developing WMD threats or nations that pose a threat to American 'strategic interests', which can be somewhat broadly defined. It's basically a 'might can make right' philosophy, that says America is powerful enough and smart enough to consciously re-shape the world into a safer place for commerce and freedom through selective military intervention.

Wolfowitz's ideas were basically shitcanned in the Bush I administration, but revived in Bush II where he got a friendlier, or at least less experienced and less willing to call bullshit, audience.

Personally, I think it's a crock, for reasons that seem quite obvious at the moment. we can barely keep things under control in one Third World shithole and the 'security' benefits of throwing 1500 American kids (and counting) into a meatgrinder while crossing our fingers that the ultimate result isn't a fundie Jihadist government worse than the dictator we ousted are ... chimeric, at best.

A great program available online that goes into the history of this doctrine and how it came to the forefront in Bush II is Frontline's The War Behind Closed Doors, I heartily recommend a viewing.

[Knife]

The US government is not drunk with power; they recognize their own limitations (and like it or not, they are already stretching them in Iraq). The problem is that, like a bad chess player, they tend to formulate strategies based on the assumption that other countries (even their enemies) will play along with their plan, and they don't really know how to react when they don't.

I actually think that the Administration thought that parts of the Iraqi army would have actually fought. Perhaps the Red Guard or some such. They put a lot of effort into the 'attack' that ended up not needed and because of all the effort put into the attack plan, skimped over the 'follow up' plan.

Consider their cretinous assumption that they could walk into Iraq, destroy its government, army, and civil institutions, and then just happily sit back and watch as the country organizes and pacifies itself. This assumption flies in the face of all logic, but it is not surprising when you realize that you can model the Bush Administration's behaviour on the Bad Chess Player analogy.

Why I agree with you, the problem was made worse, when the Iraqi's seemed to plan on Guerilla warfare instead of the straight up fight the Admin was expecting.