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

Fox, your evidence all points to a zogby poll given over a year ago. Old news, not relevant.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I think we're learning right now, Icann.

What are we learning right now: That few can terrify many; That few don't want democracy and will murder to stop many from getting it?

0 Replies

Well I was just curious if you would continue to repeat the pat Democrat party mantra once you read alternative evidence Cyclop. The reason you should look at both sides is to be (and appear) more informed. Believe me, I have looked at ALL the arguments from your side of the aisle and could competently debate from your point of view on Iraq. But after looking at both, I come down squarely on the side of a free, democratic, and progressive Iraq is in the best interest of the Iraqis, the Middle East, the United States, and the world.

0 Replies

No. We are learning that the people of Iraq, while the hated Saddam, don't like us any better and probably don't want us to have our thumb all over their new Gov't.

The reason that the terrorists and insurgents (two different groups, imo) in Iraq are so successful is that a significant segment of the Iraqi population supports their fight against what many Muslims see as American Imperialism.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

Well I was just curious if you would continue to repeat the pat Democrat party mantra once you read alternative evidence Cyclop. The reason you should look at both sides is to be (and appear) more informed. Believe me, I have looked at ALL the arguments from your side of the aisle and could competently debate from your point of view on Iraq. But after looking at both, I come down squarely on the side of a free, democratic, and progressive Iraq is in the best interest of the Iraqis, the Middle East, the United States, and the world.

It's not that I disagree with you. I think a free Iraq would be a good thing as well. However, I have serious doubts that this will happen anytime soon.

I think it was rather ludicrous to believe that we could roll in, depose Saddam, and just up and set up a new goverement there... imagine how well that would go over with you if YOU were an Iraqi system.

Sure, you're glad to have Saddam gone - but many Iraqis think the US is just as bad. How does this benefit the US from a foreign policy point of view?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

As an aside, I've been listening to interviews with the Columbian president who is the newest rising star on the international front. He is weary of Columbia being a magnet for druglords and thugs and is systematically hunting them down and tossing them out. He wants Columbia to become a beacon of a progressive free market that attracts investment capital instead of drug thugs.

Then I thought, if he throws all the drug kingpins out of Columbia, where do they go? I vote for Iraq. If all the worlds terrorists converge on Iraq, they make a a nice, compact, big target Smile

0 Replies

In America one's right to speak/write is secured. However, that doesn't make right what one speaks/writes.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn, is your recommendation that we cut and run? If not, what is your recommendation?

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I think it was rather ludicrous to believe that we could roll in, depose Saddam, and just up and set up a new goverement there...

If such were believed, it would be "rather ludicrous." Who said and/or believed that?

0 Replies

I just want the American public to grow up again I guess.
Exerpted:

Quote:

The current urban warfare in Iraq, bad as it is, does not compare with the disaster created by the last big German counterattack in the Battle of the Bulge in World War II. Yet nobody called that a quagmire or a sign that we were losing the war -- and in fact the Germans surrendered less than 6 months later.

It is hard to think of a war in which we did not confront terrible setbacks at some point, beginning with the American military defeats in the war for independence, the British setting fire to the White House during the War of 1812, numerous bloody disasters during the Civil War, and Pearl Harbor in World War II.

No one in World War II demanded that President Roosevelt present them with a timetable for the end of the war, much less for when our military occupation would end in Europe. Nor did anyone demand to know how much the war would cost in dollars and cents.

But the maturity to think beyond the moment has apparently become far more scarce today than it was in the days of the greatest generation. Will future historians call us the childish generation?

How much today's childishness will cost this country in the long run only the future will tell -- and it may tell in blood
--Thomas Sowell

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20040511.shtml

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I just want the American public to grow up again

Ditto! Clearly, there are too many Casandras among us. While a few more Polyannas would be appreciated, I would prefer a lot more Pragmatists.

0 Replies

Bah, Fox, to compare a guerilla war (and that's what this is, make no mistake about it) to the battle of the bulge is just ludicrous.

Large losses during conventional wartime (and a final push to the end, as well) are not the same thing as mounting civilian casualties during a guerilla war. At all. The two aren't even comprable.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

In many areas they were fighting door to door for years after the armistice Cyclop. But there are always some who won't consider evidence if it interferes with their adopted ideology.

0 Replies

Surely you are not serious. This isn't even a matter of my perceptions or ideology; conventional warfare and guerilla warfare are two different tacos.

If you can't understand the difference between fighting an expansionist, aggresive German army, and invading Iraq without provacation and then occupying the country for over 17 months, then how can we have a meaningful discussion?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cyc, you are over-reacting quite a bit.

0 Replies

It is not my intention to do so. I just don't like people telling me that I 'won't consider evidence if it interferes with their adopted ideology' when the things they are saying are ridiculous.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Well I keep giving you different evidence Cyclop and you keep dismissing it. So we're sort of at an impasse here aren't we? I base my opinions on what I have read coupled with observation and what those who were actually there tell me. That gives a person a fairly clear perspective. Do I get it right every time? No. But I have relatives who were in those door to door brigades. I trust that they weren't making it up.

Maybe you can explain how ferreting a scattered enemy out of hiding places, killing or rounding them up, getting booby trapped, shot at by snipers, and or ambushed differs from what is happening in Iraq?

0 Replies

Because that was all happening during a classical war against an aggressive expansionist nation that was operating on foreign soil.

Whereas in Iraq, WE are seen as the aggressive parties. We were not provoked into attacking. WE are the expansionist nation in the eyes of the people.

Don't think about it in terms of how WE are affected, but in terms of the Iraqi people. The US as an occupying force that entered the country without provocation is bound to cause massive upset amongst the civilian population.

They DON'T see us as saviors!!!! That is the important part. When the populace is in at least partial agreement with insurgent forces during a Guerrilla war, the situation is nearly unwinnable; either you have to massively violate human rights, or admit that you cannot control the situation.

Right now we've basically admitted that we can't control the situation in several areas of Iraq. This, more than any propoganda or opinion, is what is shaping events there right now.

Many of us predicted this before we went to war. Blair and Bush were shown that this was a probable outcome of the war, and they chose to go anyways. It's rather galling.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Surely you are not serious. This isn't even a matter of my perceptions or ideology; conventional warfare and guerilla warfare are two different tacos.

You missed Foxfyre's point. His point is that we made many many mistakes and had many many failures before we finally managed to win WWII (a war that was both conventional and guerilla in nature). But we didn't have to endure the distracting will sapping burden of verbal harassment by a lot of doom and gloom critics like we do now. And even after the surrenders of both the Nazis and Shintoists, we faced a continuation of guerilla war by their remnant forces until they were finally put down.

Yes, we are currently enduring the consequences of such mistakes and failures. That's tragic but not surprising considering the enormous complexity of the dangers the culture of life now face at the hands of the culture of death.

0 Replies

Your use of the term 'culture of life' to describe us and 'culture of death' to describe Iraq shows your inability to have a non-biased discussion about our actions there.

Your cultural bigotry robs validity from your arguments.

That nonwithstanding, there is a large difference, again, between losing battles in a classical war, and fighting guerrilla battles in a country YOU invaded in the first place! The difference is in the hearts and minds of the people, their support of the insurgents, and the insurgent's ability to paint you as the enemy of the people.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know