OCCOM BILLQuote:Use some of that ordinary common sense to figure out; that only those willing to shoot guns or set off bombs are standing in the way of progress.
Revel: It is not logical to say that only those that are actually doing the shooting and the bombing are the ones standing in the way of progress. If those that are actually carrying out the insurgent acts were not getting support then they could't carry out thier insurgent actions very long before someone either turns them in or stops aiding them by hiding them and so forth. If they were against the insurgents they would fight them by helping us and they are not doing that.
revel wrote:Revel, that's NOT logical. 5% is WAY more than necessary to cause the havoc that's happening there now. That is probably a high estimate. The vast majority of Iraqis just want to live their lives in peace... just like the vast majority of every population. Expecting people to fight, simply because they favor our brand of peace is unrealistic. Nor will they fight for the insurgents (who punish those who refuse to help them in the most despicable ways, btw). Your premise is absurd. Those who argue with words are welcome to oppose our presence. Until they pick up a gun, they are no threat to progress. While attempting to show 5% or so to be a majority, you'll probably want to avoid words like logical.OCCOM BILLQuote:Use some of that ordinary common sense to figure out; that only those willing to shoot guns or set off bombs are standing in the way of progress.
Revel: It is not logical to say that only those that are actually doing the shooting and the bombing are the ones standing in the way of progress. If those that are actually carrying out the insurgent acts were not getting support then they could't carry out thier insurgent actions very long before someone either turns them in or stops aiding them by hiding them and so forth. If they were against the insurgents they would fight them by helping us and they are not doing that.
As I said earlier...Bla, bla bla bla, bla bla, bla...
No wonder they don't see the similarities with Vietnam.
They are selectively blind to reality and are absolutely unable to fathom what Santayana meant when he wrote, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
McTag wrote:Frank Apisa wrote:
We asked them to do it on their own a while back.
We asked them to rise up against Saddam...throw him out...and build a democracy.
Now we cannot trust them to do it because we have destroyed their country.
Frank, I cannot argue with you as well!And I agree with part of your last post.
The point I would make to this bit is, we asked them to rise up against Saddam before, and they did rise up, and the expected help was not forthcoming, and thousands of the rebels were executed by Saddam's men.
What a bizarre thing for people who don't want freedom and democracy to do in the first place, eh? Who here doubts the silent majority was secretly pulling for that change? It is utter moral bankruptcy to allow yourself to be convinced that a majority of people anywhere wouldn't prefer the freedom of self-determination if given an option. As Ican stated earlier, that's a form of bigotry. To assume that Iraqis neither want self-determination, nor are capable of dealing with it, is as absurd as it is obscene. This bigotry is the foundation of Frank's objection. Frank states "Iraq needs a strongman to run it.", as if Saddam was the better solution, because "The factions there have about as much chance of getting along well enough to run a country as the Israelis and Palestinians do."
This is akin to those who said the North and South in this country would never agree on the slavery issue, so its best to pretend it doesn't exist and allow the injustice to continue. Certainly less Yankee blood would have been shed if we simply continued to ignore it. Even in this land of the free, we once feared that the cost of fighting those who would oppose freedom for all, outweighed the potential good of doing so. To hell with the human rights of the few, for the benefit of the many, right? The prospect of failure once loomed so heavily that in 1836 Congress actually passed a resolution (Gag Rule) that automatically postponed action on all petitions relating to slavery (freedom) without even hearing them. It took 8 years for that order to be lifted.
It turns out; the doom-criers were not entirely incorrect. It took the bloodiest fight in American history to finally grant freedom to ALL of her citizens. And, when the fight was finally over, the fight was hardly over. Nearly 150 years later there remains pockets of resistance that continue to fight to this day. Where the country was once split down the middle, with brother fighting brother, today we would stand together as one against the enemies of freedom. At least, that is, if it's American freedom at stake. Who gives a sh!t about Iraq?
Frank Apisa wrote:As I said earlier...Bla, bla bla bla, bla bla, bla...
No wonder they don't see the similarities with Vietnam.
They are selectively blind to reality and are absolutely unable to fathom what Santayana meant when he wrote, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
There's better comparisons available Frank.
Iraq will compare to Vietnam better than other wars only if we give up... and I don't think we will.
Yep, that 5% is a real bad lot, Gelisgesti. What truth do you imagine you've disputed, btw? Your post does nothing, NOTHING, to dispute a single thing I've written.
Quote:Nor will they fight for the insurgents (who punish those who refuse to help them in the most despicable ways, btw). Your premise is absurd. Those who argue with words are welcome to oppose our presence. Until they pick up a gun, they are no threat to progress. While attempting to show 5% or so to be a majority, you'll probably want to avoid words like logical.
You have it ass backwards ... The insurgents, aka Iraqis, don't 'punish those who refuse to help them' .... they punish those that help the occupiers.
5% ???? 5% of what? How does the math work out here?
Not trying to dispute anything, just clarify and understand :wink:
5% of the Iraqi population, I think is considered by most, on both sides, a fair estimation. Are you being deliberately obtuse?Gelisgesti wrote:I guess you missed the footage of death squads shooting in the back; Iraqi men, women and children who attempted to flee. I guess you missed every news story about human shields being left with bullet holes in their heads once they were no longer needed. Your denial, along with the preceding defense of this fiendish behavior is disgusting.Quote:Nor will they fight for the insurgents (who punish those who refuse to help them in the most despicable ways, btw). Your premise is absurd. Those who argue with words are welcome to oppose our presence. Until they pick up a gun, they are no threat to progress. While attempting to show 5% or so to be a majority, you'll probably want to avoid words like logical.
You have it ass backwards ... The insurgents, aka Iraqis, don't 'punish those who refuse to help them' .... they punish those that help the occupiers.
Gelisgesti wrote:5% ???? 5% of what? How does the math work out here?
Not trying to dispute anything, just clarify and understand :wink:
Ican, I am laughing... but I'll give Gel the benefit of the doubt before ascribing such an idiotic position to him. :wink:
Inappropriate reaction D.T.O.M.. The 'state required reaction' is
Please consult your 'citiziens book on protocol' chapter seven.verse twelve.
Brother cental now increasing surveillance of citizen 13.2.35.7.35 to 22 hrs/diem with accompanying documentation and profile. Increasing daily tax assesment 2.5 euro dollars.
Long live King George
Good day D.T.O.M..
