0
   

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

 
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Dec, 2004 10:54 am
Revel
To put in simple terms we can't sh** and have someone else wipe our a**
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Dec, 2004 11:00 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
revel wrote:
If we leave, maybe other nations will be more willing to help, but even if they are not and a big civil war happens that people keep talking about, it is still better for them to work it out themselves however it turns out than to be manipulated by the Bush administration.
So in your opinion, a straight massacre of several million Iraqis, that would serve only to enslave the remaining Iraqis in radical Islamic extremism is still better than to be manipulated by the Bush administration into some form of self-determination. Shocked And this after feigning concern that people are dying in the streets? Rolling Eyes


Bill, readup pard.... these pople are not afraid to fight or die.... what they fear most is subjugation.

For your perusal
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Dec, 2004 11:03 am
Gelisgesti

Quote:
Bill, readup pard.... these pople are not afraid to fight or die.... what they fear most is subjugation.


That being so why than did they put up with Saddam for 30 years?
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Dec, 2004 11:32 am
Saddam had spies, secret police, all the machinery of a brutal state dictatorship.

The USA has got not enough men, little inside information, and are pinned in barracks or fortified camps when they are not actually fighting.

Saddam kept the lid on by brutality. The US can't even do that, they lost control early on and never got it back.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Dec, 2004 11:38 am
McTag
Poor planning and not enough boots on the ground. Thanks to field Marshall Rumsfeld and that great military brain Bush we lost the initiative. Something it will take much blood and treasure to regain. If that is even possible.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Dec, 2004 11:45 am
Gelisgesti wrote:
Bill, readup pard.... these pople are not afraid to fight or die.... what they fear most is subjugation.

For your perusal
Interesting refresher... thank you for that... but it doesn't make your statement anymore relevant. The Japanese weren't afraid to die, either. They were probably the most courageous combatants in history. If a soldier is afraid, does that make his cause less just? For that matter; does fear, or a lack thereof have any bearing on right or wrong whatsoever? Modern terrorists all seem to lack a fear of deathÂ… so what? Should we give them a pass because they're willing to fight to the death?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Dec, 2004 11:46 am
au is right; once we get involved, we don't have the luxury to skip and leave. That will only produce more tyrants who know they can count on the US to leave once it get too hot in the kitchen. It's not an option.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Dec, 2004 01:35 pm
Since this obviously isn't a topic anymore, neither here nor in the USA, I just want to interject that the Gitmo torture claims appear substantiated by FBI documents
Further Detainee Abuse Alleged
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Dec, 2004 01:45 pm
Walter Hinteler

And was approved, condoned and denied by the Bush administraton.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Dec, 2004 01:52 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Gelisgesti wrote:
Bill, readup pard.... these pople are not afraid to fight or die.... what they fear most is subjugation.

For your perusal
Interesting refresher... thank you for that... but it doesn't make your statement anymore relevant. The Japanese weren't afraid to die, either. They were probably the most courageous combatants in history. If a soldier is afraid, does that make his cause less just? For that matter; does fear, or a lack thereof have any bearing on right or wrong whatsoever? Modern terrorists all seem to lack a fear of deathÂ… so what? Should we give them a pass because they're willing to fight to the death?


My point was they have been under someone's thumb far longer than we have been a nation .... I think they will survive Bush's brand of democracy ..... still, the indescriminate killing that is denied by those that practice it is hard to witness.The harms done by a decade of sanctions were far more horrific than that practiced by any regime .... infant mortality alone quadrupled, not to mention the elderly.
The end of our occupation will come, if only when our suffering exceeds theirs. Why not sooner, than later?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Dec, 2004 02:05 pm
Gelisgesti wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Gelisgesti wrote:
Bill, readup pard.... these pople are not afraid to fight or die.... what they fear most is subjugation.

For your perusal
Interesting refresher... thank you for that... but it doesn't make your statement anymore relevant. The Japanese weren't afraid to die, either. They were probably the most courageous combatants in history. If a soldier is afraid, does that make his cause less just? For that matter; does fear, or a lack thereof have any bearing on right or wrong whatsoever? Modern terrorists all seem to lack a fear of deathÂ… so what? Should we give them a pass because they're willing to fight to the death?


My point was they have been under someone's thumb far longer than we have been a nation .... I think they will survive Bush's brand of democracy ..... still, the indescriminate killing that is denied by those that practice it is hard to witness.The harms done by a decade of sanctions were far more horrific than that practiced by any regime .... infant mortality alone quadrupled, not to mention the elderly.
I couldn't agree more that the sanctions against the people while funneling Billions to Saddam was just plain evil. Sanctions seldom touch the wrong-doers themselves. Clintonian/UN idiocy, in this case. How can you follow such an insightful observation with this utter nonsense?
Gelisgesti wrote:
The end of our occupation will come, if only when our suffering exceeds theirs. Why not sooner, than later?
Rolling Eyes The end of our occupation will come, or more accurately be realized, when the Majority of Iraqis are capable of subduing the minority, who oppose freedom, for themselves.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Dec, 2004 02:30 pm
Gelisgesti wrote:
James Hillman wrote:

A Terrible Love Of War
...... It is as if the nation were immune to its own culture, protected against it as against something freak, unnatural, a disease of decadence, a corrupting of what Americans REALLY live by and for, forward marching under the flag, against all enemies. Culture, which could possibly "leash" the violence of war with a love of equal strength is so blasted by America's ways of belief, that we can must conclude that religion is war's sinister grandfather..."

But not any religion, but rather, especially, MONOTHESTIC religion: especially the three: Islam, Judaism and Christianity, who myths, origins and even sacred geography are largely shared or related. Can this be only coincidence? Can anyone point to any wars which have occured or are likely to occur between POLYTHESTIC believers? Shintos against Hindus? Taosists against Buddhists? Animists of one sort against animists of another? I don't think so. James Hillman suggests that we ought to think hard about that is the case. I think he's right. Thanks for your wisdom, and your book, Mr. Hillman. Will Morgan Dcember 23, 2004


" ... monotheistic religion is war's sinister grandfather..." Question
If that's true, then perhaps polytheistic religion is war's sinister grandfather on its mother's side ... Confused

James Hillman wrote:
Can anyone point to any wars which have occured or are likely to occur between POLYTHESTIC believers?


Of course they can Exclamation POLYTHESTIC wars are too numerous to record them all here. For example, how about the wars between the Romans and Greeks, or among the Greeks, between the ancient Japanese and ancient Chinese, or among the ancient Chinese, or among the ancient Japanese ?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Dec, 2004 02:40 pm
McTag wrote:
It is in my view a mistake to encourage Ican by suggesting he is right about anything. Smile Merry Crhristmas, Ike.
You are absolutely correct, McTag ..... Whoops! There I go again! It seems I cannot be correct all the time, just most of the time. Oh well, McTag, Happy New Year! Laughing
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Dec, 2004 03:27 pm
PDiddie wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
But it is not the terrorists on whom we are imposing democracy. We are imposing democracy on the Iraqis. Strangely, the Iraqis, with the exception of their Baathist contingent, are welcoming democracy just like the Japanese and Germans did and do. So it isn't quite correct that we are imposing democracy on the Iraqis.


So which is it? You've set another land-speed record for self-contradiction.
You set a land-speed record for self-deception. I'll 'splain atcha!

We 1st hadta conquer the Japanese people and their gov'ment, and conquer the German people and their gov'ment. Then we hadta impose military occupation on 'em. Then we hadta impose democracy on 'em until they finally accepted it and took it over about 7 years later.

In the case of Iraq, we hadta remove the mass murdering Iraqi gov'ment. Next we hadta appoint a temporary Iraqi gov'm'nt to hold an election by the Iraqi people. Next we havta exterminate the mass murdering, removed Iraqi gov'ment and its allies. At the same time, we havta help the Iraqi people secure both their election and their elected from the mass murdering, removed Iraqi gov'ment and its allies. After the election is held we will learn whether we imposed democracy on the Iraqi people, or the Iraqi people imposed democracy on themselves, or the mass murdering, removed Iraqi gov'ment and its allies re-imposed tyranny on the Iraqi people.

PDiddie wrote:
Listen pal, Merry Christmas and all that, but take a break from the forum before you spontaneously combust from the cognitive dissonance. You're fast becoming the biggest, longest-running joke around here.
Laughing "Fast becoming," but not there yet, huh sport? Oh well, anything worth achieving is rarely achieved easily. :wink:
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Dec, 2004 03:33 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
revel wrote:
If we leave, maybe other nations will be more willing to help, but even if they are not and a big civil war happens that people keep talking about, it is still better for them to work it out themselves however it turns out than to be manipulated by the Bush administration.
So in your opinion, a straight massacre of several million Iraqis, that would serve only to enslave the remaining Iraqis in radical Islamic extremism is still better than to be manipulated by the Bush administration into some form of self-determination. Shocked And this after feigning concern that people are dying in the streets? Rolling Eyes


I believe that you are guilty of putting words into my post that I never typed.

We had a civil war and it was horrible and lot of lives were lost and destroyed. Yet if we didn't then we might not have ended slavery. The point is that we did it because it was our country. The Iraqi's should be able to do with their country what they want to without us manipulating the outcome.

Btw-how can you manipulate a nation into a self determination?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Dec, 2004 03:34 pm
The BIG difference between the surrender of Japan and Germany and their subsequent democracy to Iraq's "democracy" that isn't about to happen on January 31, 2005. Japan and Germany did not have any insuragency after their surrender of war. Wars against countries differ greatly from wars against terrorism.
******************************************
Chaos in Iraq
Last week things started sliding down into bloody chaos in Iraq, even moreso than had previously been the case. We're finally managing to make the Shiites and Sunnis of Iraq unite, only they're uniting to drive us out, and our response is doing nothing but radicalizing more and more of the Iraqi people. The Iraqi intifada has begun, and the U.S. is responding the same way the Israeli's have responded to the Palestinians, using overwhelming force to kill both insurgents and civilians alike, and creating more reasons for the survivors to take up arms against the occupiers.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Dec, 2004 03:50 pm
Sunday News Quiz
December 26, 2004
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

My wife constantly regales me about her favorite National
Public Radio show, "Wait Wait ...Don't Tell Me." The show
features three journalists who have to answer questions
about the week's news. Some of the news stories they are
quizzed about seem totally unbelievable, while others are
straightforward. Well, this is my last column for 2004, so
let's play a little "Wait Wait ... Don't Tell Me." I'll
give you 10 news stories from the past few weeks and you
tell me what they all have in common.

1. The report that Colin Powell told President Bush a few
weeks ago that we do not have enough troops in Iraq and
that we don't control the terrain. 2. The report that the
Pentagon's $10 billion-a-year effort to build an
antimissile shield, and have a basic ground-based version
in place by the end of this year, ran into difficulty two
weeks ago when the first test in almost two years failed
because the interceptor missile didn't take off. 3. The
report that the Bush-Republican budget for 2005 contained a
$100 million cut in federal funding to the National Science
Foundation. 4. The report that at a time when young
Americans are competing head to head with young Chinese,
Indians and Eastern Europeans more than ever, the Bush team
is trimming support for the Pell grant program, which helps
poor and working-class young Americans get a higher
education. (The change will save $300 million, while some
1.3 million students will receive smaller Pell grants.)

5. The report this month that children in Asian countries
once again surpassed U.S. fourth graders and eighth graders
in the latest Trends in International Mathematics and
Science Study. (U.S. eighth graders did improve their
scores from four years ago, but U.S. fourth graders
remained stagnant.) A week earlier, the Program for
International Student Assessment showed U.S. 15-year-olds
scoring below average compared with those in other
countries when asked to apply math skills to real-life
tasks, the A.P. reported. 6. The report this month that the
Bush administration has reduced America's contribution to
global food aid programs intended to help the world's
hungry feed themselves. (The Bush team said the cut was
necessary to keep our deficit under control!) 7. The report
that U.S. military spending this year is running at about
$450 billion.

Wait, wait, don't go way; there's more: 8. The report that
Donald Rumsfeld was confronted by troops in Iraq about the
fact that they did not have enough armor on their vehicles
and were having to scrounge for makeshift armor to protect
themselves. 9. The report that among President Bush's top
priorities in his second term is to simplify the tax code
and to make the sweeping tax cuts from his first term
permanent. (The cost to the Treasury for doing so, the A.P.
reported, would be over a trillion.) And finally: 10. The
report that the U.S. dollar continued to hover near record
lows against the euro.

So what is the common denominator of all these news
stories? Wait, wait, don't tell me. I want to tell you. The
common denominator is a country with a totally
contradictory and messed-up set of priorities.

We face two gigantic national challenges today: One is the
challenge to protect America in the wake of the new
terrorist threats, which has involved us in three huge
military commitments - Afghanistan, Iraq and missile
defense. And the other is the challenge to strengthen
American competitiveness in the wake of an expanding global
economy, where more and more good jobs require higher
levels of education, and those good jobs will increasingly
migrate to those countries with the brainpower to do them.
In the face of these two national challenges, we have an
administration committed to radical tax cuts, which, one
can already see, are starting to affect everything from the
number of troops we can deploy in Iraq to the number of
students we can properly educate at our universities. And
if we stay on this course, the trade-offs are only going to
get worse.

Something has to give. We can't protect America with the
grand strategy George Bush has embarked on and strengthen
our students with the skills they need and cut taxes, as if
we didn't have a care in the world.

If we were actually having a serious national debate, this
is what we would be discussing, but alas, 9/11 has been
deftly exploited to choke any debate. Which reminds me of
my wife's other favorite NPR radio show. It's called
"Whad'ya Know?" It always opens the same way. The announcer
shouts to the studio audience, "Whad'ya know?" And they
shout back. "Not Much. You?"


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/26/opinion/26friedman.html?ex=1105092607&ei=1&en=0917c15639971112
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Dec, 2004 03:57 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Japan and Germany did not have any insuragency after their surrender
Yes they did! Perhaps you are unaware of that insurgency in both Japan and in certain pacific islands, and in Germany because our news media at that time did not sympathize with the insurgents as they have done and are still doing to some extent with Iraqi insurgents.

For example, the crackpot claim that the Iraqi insurgents are merely patriots, supported by the Iraqi people, attempting to drive out their conquerors, while expressed by some of today's news media (and some here) was not expressed by our media after WWII. The WWII insurgents were exterminated much faster then. I wonder if the insurgent's lack of news media support back then contributed to the speed of their demise.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Dec, 2004 04:11 pm
Insurgents continued their terror campaign against Iraqi officials today. They gunned down Mohammed Abd al-Hussein, a member of a secular political party that has been strongly critical of Syria, in front of his house in Baghdad.

"We have lost today a hero killed by terrorists," said Mithal al-Alusi, the head of Mr. al-Hussein's party, the Democratic Party of Iraqi Nation. "After he took part in the strike in front of the Syrian Embassy in Baghdad, he received death threats, and now he is killed." Gunmen also killed an Iraqi police colonel in Baghdad today.

The head of Iraq's independent electoral commission, Abdul Hussein al-Hindawi, strongly criticized conversations initiated by the Bush administration with Iraqi leaders about giving some high-level government jobs to Sunni politicians if, as expected, the Sunnis do poorly in the Jan. 30 national ballot. "Everything will be clear by voting and only the boxes will decide, according to the law, without any intervention," Mr. al-Hindawi said.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Dec, 2004 04:23 pm
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 08/19/2025 at 05:24:54