THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I do. We'd certainly have a lot more money, a lot more people would still be alive, and there would not be significantly more terrorism than there is today, despite your fevered imagination and penchant for creating links where there really are none.Cycloptichorn

Not significantly more terrorism Question

If it's your civilian family member or members that are murdered by terrorists, you would perceive significantly more terrorism. If there were significantly more terrorism, then we'd have a lot less money and a lot more dead Americans, "despite your fevered imagination and penchant for creating links where there really are none."

0 Replies

so now we learn it was a suicide bomber that got the troops yesterday eating lunch. security ain't what it used to be, but then nothing much else is either.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Try looking at the big picture to see why we're so against this war, Ican:From www.dailykos.com

Quote:
Bush's War
by kos
Wed Dec 22nd, 2004 at 08:40:38 PST
Cycloptichorn

I do not understand how an intelligent person can believe that diatribe. The article assumes for its basic premise that Bush (using relatively polite words) is equivalent to "no damn good," but provides zero evidence to support its claim. The article makes assertion after assertion that is false on its face and/or is illogical and/or that for which it has only opinion for support.

For some, this kind of stuff is gospel dogma, believed with much religous passion despite its lack of any devotion to a higher intelligence and truth. Truth for such people is that which one finds published and not what one finds makes sense.

To think Bush wrong about this and that, is reasonable as long one has some evidence to support that contention. But to think Bush is "no damn good" without substantial evidence is stupid.

Bush said right from the git-go the afternoon of 9/11/2001, that we must replace those governments that intentionally harbor and invite terrorists into their countries. Bush said he suspected Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Iran (among others) had such governments. He chose to replace the governments of those two countries that he thought would require the least resources he thought available to do that, and accomplish the most good. Was/is he correct? That of course is legitimately debatable. Was he evilly motivated? That is not knowable. It's my guess that the evilly motivated are ones most prone to accuse others of being evilly motivated.

Finally, the claim that we and not the Iraqi insurgents are most responsible for the murder and maiming occurring in since the Iraqi governmnt was replaced, is flat out stupid if not sick. It's comparable to that sick mentallity that sympathizes with the claimd interests of victimizers and scorns the legitimate interests of victims. It's also part of the mentality of the envious who blame the crimes of those who are less accomplished on those who are more accomplished.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

so now we learn it was a suicide bomber that got the troops yesterday eating lunch. security ain't what it used to be, but then nothing much else is either.

Security is not what it used to be, and it never was .... Laughing

0 Replies

So what is it now, 20 months into the festivities, probably about time for Rummy to come up with a plan to close the barn door.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

So what is it now, 20 months into the festivities, probably about time for Rummy to come up with a plan to close the barn door.

Too soon! Some horses are still in there. Wait 'til they are all stolen, then lock that barn door.

0 Replies

panzade wrote:

What's the antonym of Francophile?

Frank O'Fobe.

But I am fond of our Frank.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

They probably would if they could. IMO There is nothing the French would like better than to see the US effort in Iraq turn into a dismal failure. They are not our friend and ally and have not been since the end of WW2

I think that's true, but I think it more likely that these French citizens were saved by ransom money being paid, in the same way as in the case of the two Italian women (aid workers?) a few weeks ago.

I think most or at least many of the kidnappers are not idealists, but gangs in it for the money...although sometimes victims (Americans and Brits, but also other nationalities) get passed on to the zealots.

0 Replies

Ican writes

Quote:

I do not understand how an intelligent person can believe that diatribe.

Visit the "Diversity of everything but thought" thread Ican, and you'll understand.

0 Replies

Apparently Bush the younger was no student of Reagan the godly. When Reagan found himself in a situation where the natives fought back (Lebanon) he left in a hurry and found himself another nation he could invade that could not fight back (Grenada).

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Try looking at the big picture to see why we're so against this war, Ican:From www.dailykos.com

Quote:
Bush's War
by kos
Wed Dec 22nd, 2004 at 08:40:38 PST
Cycloptichorn

I do not understand how an intelligent person can believe that diatribe. The article assumes for its basic premise that Bush (using relatively polite words) is equivalent to "no damn good," but provides zero evidence to support its claim. The article makes assertion after assertion that is false on its face and/or is illogical and/or that for which it has only opinion for support.

The evidence is all around you, some of it on this thread. George Bush need never fear, Ican, while there are people like you to stand and cheer while he marches the parade over the cliff.

Quote:

Finally, the claim that we and not the Iraqi insurgents are most responsible for the murder and maiming occurring in since the Iraqi governmnt was replaced, is flat out stupid if not sick.

It is a pity that they did not all smile and lay down their guns when the invaders arrived, as some predicted they might. Others thought it unlikely. Invasion tends to cause resentment and yes, insurgency.

0 Replies

I just posted the following remarks in another thread. In support of what McTag just wrote, I think I will post it here also.

Quote:

In the aftermath of yesterday's carnage, Rumsfeld once again said "...U.S.-led forces are winning the battle against the insurgents."

George Bush said, "I'm confident democracy will prevail in Iraq."

Ya know...I am beginning to understand why both these guys thought Iraqis were gonna strew flowers in front of our troops as they marched into Baghdad. They are completely divorced from reality...

...as are their adherents.

Folks...we are not winning this battle. Weare, in fact, losing it.

And as for Iraq...well, almost all the evidence point to the fact that it has almost no chance of surviving as a democracy. What Iraq needs is a strong, amoral, vicious, brook no dissent, strongman, dictator to keep it whole.

They'll strew flowers in front on our troops as they march into Baghdad!!!!!!!!

How will our country ever recover from the damage caused by this pathetic administration?

How will the world?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Ican writes

Quote:
I do not understand how an intelligent person can believe that diatribe.

Visit the "Diversity of everything but thought" thread Ican, and you'll understand.

Yep, that's a ripe one alright.

0 Replies

But McTag, a close look at the 'insurgency' reveals that it comes not from resentment of those who were invaded, but resentment from those who were in positions of power in the Hussein regime and, as a result, enjoyed prestige and many perks not available to the average Iraqi.

The worst mistake made, and freely admitted by President Bush, Rumsfeld, Franks, and others, was that after the initial invasion they disbanded Saddam's elite Republican Guard and sent them home. This was a serious tactical error as those are now the core of the Iraqi insurgency. If they had it to do over again they would definitely keep them intact while closely watched, and would have enlisted them as security for the rebuilding effort.

Having said that, most of the insurgents are not Iraqi at all but are maggots from hotbeds of terrorism around the world descending on Iraq as perhaps their last stand.

If we fold our tent and go home now, all the brave Americans, other members of the coalition, and the Iraqis who have fought a noble cause will have died in vain. Far better to set aside our objections to the war for a later post mortem, and throw our spirit and support behind the troops for a speedy and decisive victory that yields good things for everyone but the terrorists. That is absolutely the best way to mitigate the risk and bring the best good out of the chaos.

0 Replies

Well stated Foxy!

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

If we fold our tent and go home now, all the brave Americans, other members of the coalition, and the Iraqis who have fought a noble cause will have died in vain. Far better to set aside our objections to the war for a later post mortem, and throw our spirit and support behind the troops for a speedy and decisive victory that yields good things for everyone but the terrorists. That is absolutely the best way to mitigate the risk and bring the best good out of the chaos.

Yep...I remember when people were arguing this same way during the Vietnam situation.

Get behind the leaders...and we will prevail.

Fox...we ain't gonna prevail over there.

Our best bet...and I agree this is a horrible choice...is to cut our loses short and get out before lots more die and are maimed.

But whether we do or don't...Iraq is not going to be a democracy.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Our best bet...and I agree this is a horrible choice...is to cut our loses short and get out before lots more die and are maimed.

But whether we do or don't...Iraq is not going to be a democracy.

Just going to go ahead and condemn that whole part of the world, eh Frank? Thankfully, that view's about as popular as my desire to repeat our actions over and over (applying what we learn, of course :wink:) till we're all free.

0 Replies

The reality: if the Iraqis work towards any form of democracy, their leaders will be assassinated in short order. After a while, when they realize the loss is too great a sacrifice, even the Iraqis are gonna give up on democracy. The US occupation of Iraq is gonna get worse and worse and worse...

0 Replies

foxfyre said

Quote:

But McTag, a close look at the 'insurgency' reveals that it comes not from resentment of those who were invaded, but resentment from those who were in positions of power in the Hussein regime and, as a result, enjoyed prestige and many perks not available to the average Iraqi.

This passage indicates anything but a close look at the insurgency. What it does constitute is further evidence (as if any was needed) that foxfyre is quite content to claim the sky is green if the propaganda mill she's linked into tells her it's green.

The Bush administration has trotted out a string of 'descriptions' of the Iraqi insurgency, each designed to minimize or deny that the insurgency has become a manifestation of deep and broad sentiment against the American occupation (and against the style of it...torture, murder, cultural insensitivity, arrogance, deceit) by a growing percentage of Iraqi citizens. We heard "Bathist holdouts", then "a few dead enders", then "foreign trouble-makers", etc.

In the last thirty days, there have been 2,300 attacks - that's 80 per day.Link

Though Sunni insurgents may now be increasingly dangerous, Shiites have made up a significant portion of the insurgency to date, and they certainly aren't hoping for a Bathist/Saddam revival.

Quote:

The anti-U.S. momentum is evident in both the nation's urban centers and the palm-shrouded Sunni rural heartland, where resentment over military sweeps and the torturous pace of reconstruction is pervasive. Support for the insurgency ranges from quiet assent to participation in the fighting.

"We're talking about people who are the equivalent of the Minutemen," said Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert who served as an advisor for the U.S.-led occupation here. "They pick up their weapons and join the fight and then go back to their homes and farms. It makes it so fluid. And the media functions as the town crier, like the calls from the minaret."

LA Times

Quote:

"United States forces are confronting a broad-based Shiite uprising that goes well beyond supporters of one militant Islamic cleric who has been the focus of American counterinsurgency efforts, United States intelligence officials said Wednesday.
That assertion contradicts repeated statements by the Bush administration and American officials in Iraq. On Wednesday, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that they did not believe the United States was facing a broad-based Shiite insurgency. Administration officials have portrayed Moktada al-Sadr, a rebel Shiite cleric who is wanted by American forces, as the catalyst of the rising violence within the Shiite community of Iraq.

But intelligence officials now say that there is evidence that the insurgency goes beyond Mr. Sadr and his militia, and that a much larger number of Shiites have turned against the American-led occupation of Iraq, even if they are not all actively aiding the uprising."

from NY Times

0 Replies

Perhaps if Mr. Blatham was prone to read more carefully he would see that I did not say ALL the insurgents but rather the CORE of the insurgency. Without that CORE, it is highly unlikely there would be recruits to a non-existent core. Now he can dispute that with his very selective cut and paste if he wishes and if he can.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know