0
   

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

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2004 12:11 pm
Cyclop, please re-read the history behind the first invasion and then the second/current invasion. Expansionist? Please name one country in the last 100 years that the U.S. has invaded and appropriated as U.S. territory. Name one country in peacetime that has told us to get out that we didn't pack up and leave.
Did you miss the part where we asked the Iraqi government if they wished us to go or stay? And those in charge were unanimous in wanting us to stay?

Are you aware that it only those Iraqis with little or no contact with Americans and who get all their information from Al Jazeer or European press who are resentful of us? Do you understand that those who have received direct U.S. aid and/or are working side by side with us to make a free and democratic Iraq are appreciative of our effort? Don't you think most of the negativity is from negative propaganda with no basis in fact?

Did you listen at all to the Iraqi president when he spoke to the UN this past week?

Did you read any of those links I gave you regarding how the Iraqi people feel and what they think about all this?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2004 12:27 pm
Fox, you're missing the point completely.

Quote:
Cyclop, please re-read the history behind the first invasion and then the second/current invasion. Expansionist? Please name one country in the last 100 years that the U.S. has invaded and appropriated as U.S. territory. Name one country in peacetime that has told us to get out that we didn't pack up and leave.


Yeah, none of that matters.

I know that we aren't expansionist. YOU know that. But the average middle-eastern citizen isn't so sure. Why? Because there are people over there telling them that we are (can you say religious leaders?), and because we support the hell out of Israel (who they hate), and because we are setting up military bases in Iraq. These things make people somewhat worried.

Quote:
Did you miss the part where we asked the Iraqi government if they wished us to go or stay? And those in charge were unanimous in wanting us to stay?


Did you miss the part where we APPOINTED said government? They don't represent the Iraqi people, at all. The people 'in charge' were the ones we put in charge. So their asking us to stay really doesn't mean that much, now does it?

Quote:
Are you aware that it only those Iraqis with little or no contact with Americans and who get all their information from Al Jazeer or European press who are resentful of us?


How exactly do you know this? Are you in Iraq right now? No. BUT! Even if you are right, it still doesn't matter; as long as there are people who resentful, the insurgents will find support amongst a populace who can hide, feed, and arm them.

Quote:
Do you understand that those who have received direct U.S. aid and/or are working side by side with us to make a free and democratic Iraq are appreciative of our effort? Don't you think most of the negativity is from negative propaganda with no basis in fact?


No! I feel that there are a lot of reasons that the average Iraqi could be very angry with the US right now. There are a lot of reasons they could be happy with us right now as well. The choice is up to them, and while there are many who are happy with us, there are many who are not.

You seem to forget how many families out there have had kids killed by our bombs and missles, our rockets and bullets, in the last year. They don't give a GOD DAMN about how we are bringing 'liberty' to their country. All they see is the empty place at the dinner table that was full last year. You don't think THAT has anything to do with negative feelings? You think it's ALL bad press? Please, c'mon Fox, imagine if two of your kids were killed! Try putting yourself in Iraqi shoes for once before you blame Al Jazeera for Anti-US sentiment.

Quote:
Did you listen at all to the Iraqi president when he spoke to the UN this past week?

Did you read any of those links I gave you regarding how the Iraqi people feel and what they think about all this?


I read the transcript, but once again, an Iraqi president who was appointed by the US has no real legitimacy when it comes to praising the US.

I read the links. As I said above, there is probably a wide range of opinion about the US right now in Iraq. Most of those links are from a year ago; the situation is decidedly worse, now.

I will repeat myself. Anytime you are faced with a guerrilla war, with a civilian population which at least partially endorses the cause, then you are going to have SERIOUS problems controlling the region without resorting to human rights violations. Period. To expect Iraq to be any different is unrealistic.

That being said, many of us were predicting EXACTLY what has happened since before the war began - that we would roll the armies, but then get caught up in a guerrilla/civil war in a country that really doesn't like us at all, even if we did do them a 'favor.' All the while, OBL runs free, plotting and scheming to blow up more Americans... and we do nothing...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2004 01:45 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
...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.


You provide your opinion as evidence of how the Iraqis view us. While some Iraqis may view us the way you opine, the rest may recognize we were and are their rescuers as well as our own rescuers.

Removing Saddam was necessary to rescue Iraqis from Saddam's tyranny. Removing Saddam was also necessary to stop him from sheltering al Qaeda. Saddam was warned to stop sheltering al Qaeda (the people who pledged to "kill Americans whereever you find them") or else. Stopping Iraq from sheltering al Qaeda was an act of self-defense.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2004 01:47 pm
I have to keep working for a living in the real world here, Cyclop, but if you'll just read how the current interim president came to power in Iraq, you'll find that he was NOT the U.S. choice for that position. Appointed by the U.S.? No. Has he turned out to be a better choice than our pick? Probably. He seems to be up for the job.

The stuff you keep saying is from the Democrat playbook designed to undermine a sitting president who actually wants us and the Iraqis to win as that will be good for the U.S., good for the Middle East, good for the Iraqis, and a severe blow against terrorism. The stuff you are saying is partial truth that creates a wrong conclusion, half truths designed to subterfuge any positive accomplishments, and flat out lies designed to bring down George Bush.

I don't presume to know what the Iraqi people think, believe, or want. I look to see what THEY say they think, believe, or want.

Now I've given you the links you refuse to look at. Until you read them and declare them all lies or accept that there may be some merit to my point of view, we don't really have anything else to talk about here. It's non productive for each of us to keep stating the same position.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2004 01:50 pm
My point is that it doesn't have to be more than 'some' in order for us to have massive problems. If only 20% of the society supported the rebels, then they still would have access to tons of food, water, and housing that they would need in order to operate. Mostly, they need a populace to be able to blend into - and they have one.

Quote:
Removing Saddam was also necessary to stop him from sheltering al Qaeda


This is an opinion, that I have told you many times, unsupported by facts; there is no conclusive evidence that Saddam was doing what you said, no matter how much you'd like to believe it.

Quote:
Stopping Iraq from sheltering al Qaeda was an act of self-defense.


The same bullsh*t that has been used to perpetrate injustice since the beginning of time, nothing more.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2004 01:57 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
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.


Your bigotry in interpreting my statement robs your arguments of validity.

I was not describing Iraq. I was describing the tvc (i.e., terrorist vermin culture).

My WSJ excerpt, previously posted today, explains further what I mean. Do you want me to repost it?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2004 02:02 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
...
Quote:
Removing Saddam was also necessary to stop him from sheltering al Qaeda


This is an opinion, that I have told you many times, unsupported by facts; there is no conclusive evidence that Saddam was doing what you said, no matter how much you'd like to believe it.


You continue to ignore the compelling evidence I have repeatedly posted.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2004 02:05 pm
This'll probably be it for me today (I have to work for a living as well.)

Quote:
I have to keep working for a living in the real world here, Cyclop, but if you'll just read how the current interim president came to power in Iraq, you'll find that he was NOT the U.S. choice for that position. Appointed by the U.S.? No. Has he turned out to be a better choice than our pick? Probably. He seems to be up for the job.


You mean, he's a better pick than the Iranian spy that we originally picked? Than the guy who was vetted by our leaders to be the pres, until it turned out he was the worst choice possible? And he's only PROBABLY better?

Don't kid yourself for a second, Fox. We picked this guy just like we picked the last one. Therefore; positive statements he makes about the US are worth nothing in a debate.

Quote:
The stuff you keep saying is from the Democrat playbook designed to undermine a sitting president who actually wants us and the Iraqis to win as that will be good for the U.S., good for the Middle East, good for the Iraqis, and a severe blow against terrorism. The stuff you are saying is partial truth that creates a wrong conclusion, half truths designed to subterfuge any positive accomplishments, and flat out lies designed to bring down George Bush.


Now, this is telling. You don't actually refute anything I say, you just refuse to believe it. This is a common republican tactic.

I Didn't read any Democratic playbook. It's not like I've been told to say anything. It's not my party that has 'talking points.' I think for myself, I don't need anyone TELLING me that Bush has f*cked up big time.

I know you don't have a lot of time right now. But later, when you do, SHOW me the half-truth in what I said. Try bringing some proof that's more recent than a year old. I don't think you can.

Quote:
I don't presume to know what the Iraqi people think, believe, or want. I look to see what THEY say they think, believe, or want.


I agree. As I've said before in this thread; I believe there are some Iraqi people who like the US, and some who don't. It doesn't take more than a small minority who do not in order to keep the insurgency alive and kicking, and there's just not much we can do about it without killing a ton of civilians - which will just make it worse!!!

Quote:
Now I've given you the links you refuse to look at.


What? I read your links!

Quote:
Until you read them and declare them all lies or accept that there may be some merit to my point of view, we don't really have anything else to talk about here. It's non productive for each of us to keep stating the same position.


I think there is merit to your point of view. I just think that it doesn't matter. As long as we are there, we will be opposed by a significant part of the population. The way to win Iraq is to make the population reject the terrorists and insurgents, but between Abu Ghraib, outsourced jobs to American contractors, and our inability to keep the water and power on we really haven't shown much to the Iraqi people. It isn't surprising to me in the least that they (at least some of them) are rejecting our presence. With violence.

Now; you completely dropped your point about Al Jazeera being the cause for ill feeling towards the US when I countered with examples. Do you concede the point?

Let me ask you again (though I know you don't like to think about it): How would you feel if two of your kids were dead because of America? Would it take Al Jazeera to make you feel bad? Me thinks not.

Until tommorrow, cheers to you all!

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2004 02:06 pm
P.s.

You continue to ignore the compelling evidence I have repeatedly posted. <--- Icann

Your evidence isn't compelling to anyone but you. This should be a sign to you that your argument is weak - even the other conservatives don't agree with you...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2004 02:15 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
even the other conservatives don't agree with you...


True is true regardless of who agrees or disagrees.

By the way, unless it's merely your opinion, please identify and quote some of the other conservatives who don't agree with me?
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2004 03:20 pm
"Pentagon Iraq strategy 'failing'
(Full story here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3702676.stm )

Pentagon Iraq strategy 'failing'
By Nick Childs
BBC's Pentagon correspondent

A key element of the current US strategy in Iraq, the training of Iraqi forces, is still proceeding too slowly, a new report by a US think-tank says.
Iraqis will not be able to take over the most demanding security roles until late 2005-06, the Center for Strategic and International Studies' report says.

The report was published by a respected military analyst, Anthony Cordesman.

Many experts have said that the Pentagon does not have an effective strategy to deal with the insurgency.

Even Bush administration officials regularly concede these days that the violence in Iraq has increased and that it could, and may even be likely, to get worse still as the planned election there gets closer............"




And - "Is the media helping hostage takers???"

(Full story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3702574.stm )

"Is the media helping the hostage takers?

By Peter Preston
Former editor of the Guardian


The taking of hostages, such as Ken Bigley in Iraq, has prompted debate on the media's role and responsibilities in covering such events.

Does publicity help or hinder their plight? Was Margaret Thatcher right to decry the 'oxygen of publicity'?

The dilemma is beginning to haunt editors everywhere. How do you deal with this wave of hostage taking from Russia to Iraq?

How do you cover something where, time and again, your coverage is part of the reason why the hostages were taken in the first place?

Perhaps the media has been a little slow off the mark here, blinded by a certain arrogance.

We couldn't believe that Chechen revolutionaries or Al-Qaeda terrorists with beards and kaftans could be sophisticated spin doctors, too - let alone that it was us they were spinning.

But that is the truth of it. The Chechens who stormed that school in Beslan and shot their own videos inside it expected to see TV cameras poking 24 hours a day from surrounding buildings............."
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2004 03:22 pm
And - as a sidenote - Tony Blair is to enter hospital for treatment for a heart condition - but says he will stand for a full third term...
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2004 03:28 pm
Two quick questions.

1. Does anyone have a real shot at defeating Tony Blair?

2. Do Aussies get to vote in that election?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2004 03:44 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:


2. Do Aussies get to vote in that election?


What election?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2004 03:47 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:


1. Does anyone have a real shot at defeating Tony Blair?


And you mean exactly what by this? (It's a party congress in Brighton)
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2004 03:58 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Two quick questions.

1. Does anyone have a real shot at defeating Tony Blair?

2. Do Aussies get to vote in that election?


1. Dunno - but he is pretty unpopular right now - and there is mounting pressure - including from within his own party - to get Britain out of Iraq.

2. No. But we don't care as much - Britain no longer rules the waves, or anything much else.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2004 04:07 pm
dlowan wrote:
1. Dunno - but he is pretty unpopular right now - and there is mounting pressure - including from within his own party - to get Britain out of Iraq.


Well, he isn't that popular as he was ... within New Labour.
But as far as I know by personal talks from normal Labour members up to MP's/Minister - well, I really doubt that someone seriously would like to bring him down.
However, going with a lie in the war makes more than only waves.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2004 04:07 pm
I have a vague recollection of reading that Aussies voted to keep paying dues to the Queen and don't really understand what they get out of it. I thought they might get to vote for a party of the House of Commons for instance? Sorry, if I sound ignorant on the subject, that's just because I am. Embarrassed

As for my first question:
A. Do you think the Labor Party win again?
B. Is it likely that someone other than Blair will lead it?
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2004 05:11 pm
What it is............


Quote:
.
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
In The Service Of The Queen
Here is an e-mail I recieved from my B.C.:

CBFTW,
Yours is a voice that many have heard. We have not simply heard what you have said; we have, and continue to, listen to what you are saying. Far too often we simply carry on an inner dialogue when someone else speaks tore hearse what we will say when they finish. This war on terrorism will be with us for some time, so I offer an open letter to the generation I will pass this burden on to.

I believe that we are making progress in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Despite the ravings of pundits and uninformed ambulance chasers, this fight doesn't' hinge on oil or payback. It isn't about religion or race. And it damn sure is not about any innate desire to rule the world. These people will succeed or fail on their own merits. The task is daunting. You can release a person from bondage. You can remove a tyrant from power. You can create the conditions for liberty. But, you cannot simply grant or proclaim freedom. Freedom without honest action is a whisper in a storm just as change withoutvision and purpose is the illusion of progress. For ages these people wereliterally beaten to the point of submission by oppression, censure, murder,torture, and rape - regardless of age or gender. I have asked myself whythey let it happen. The only answer I can fathom is that evil flourished because good people refused to pay the price required to oppose it. Sure, it's easy now to pontificate and blame the poor and down trodden for theircollective indifference, but forgive my sarcasm - I think we owe them morethan a couple of days to realize that their hopes and dreams have a chanceto grow and one day flourish. No amount of rhetoric and no pressing agendawill change the fact that time is required to help heal these people andthat ancient grievances require redress. Make no mistake: I'm no crusader -I do what I do because I am a professional soldier. For me it's been simple:protect the innocent, punish the deserving, accomplish my mission and bringmy men home, period. As Sting said "Poets, Priests, and Politicians havewords to thank for their positions." For a soldier it is black and white:deeds not words. If you need words to better illustrate, the Latin mottos oftwo Infantry Regiments I have served in will suffice: "Sua Sponte" and "NeDesit Virtus": Of their own accord and Let Valor not fail. Or in true cowboy fashion: Saddle your own horse, cull your own herd, and bury yourown dead.

The threat we face is like nothing we've seen before. I've been in the streets with this enemy, fought him face to face, and have been lucky enough to kill him and come out alive. I have seen what he is capable of doing and the zeal with which he will do it. This threat won't fit neatly into "the box" or be governed by any paradigm. It is a cancer within our collectivebody as the human race. We are all threatened by this evil, and evil it is. This enemy has twisted and distorted things both sacred and profane to guideas well as justify its means and its stated end. Nothing is beyond the realm of the possible when it comes to the depths to which it will sink, the horror it is willing to commit, or the suffering it is willing to inflict. This enemy has no concept of mercy nor does it recognize combatants. Innocence is not a factor. You need only look at the headlines of the day to confirm that children, teachers, and doctors are murdered everyday by these villains. What makes them evil? I submit that it is not the act that earns them the epithet of evil - it is the intent to commit and the pride theydraw from the act. These animals revel in the post act announcements that they are responsible. They feel vindicated by the proclamations that they perpetrated these horrors in the name of God and that having committed the seacts some how elevates them. Make no mistake, this enemy is formidable but by no means invincible. To defeat this cancer requires the one thing thatcivilized people all over the world possess in absolute abundance - The will. The will to be free can only be surrendered by the person that has it - it cannot be murdered, raped, tortured, or stolen. It's not about being a martyr or a saint, it's about being a decent human being. And, the unvarnished truth is that the killing and the horror will continue until those with the will to endure prevail.

I am a simple soldier, proud to serve, but my days in the service of the Queen are drawing to a close. Soon all of the cold war junkies will also begone and you my friends and your band of X generation anti-heroes will have the reigns. Like it or not, you are now the fulcrum upon which the balance beam rests. I will tell you that the outlook is damn good. I am absolutely humbled every day to have the rare privilege to march among the young menand women who chose to give soldiering a try. None finer have ever serve dunder the colors.

Beware the onslaught of false prophets who preach the one size fits allsolution. Look beneath the facade of their self proclaimed patriotism, peelback the shield of their dogma, and you are likely to find a charlatanmalcontent who was passed over for some accolade he feels he richly deservedor a flim-flam artist who knows a chance to make a buck when he sees it.They don't have the will to endure. The will to be free comes at a heavy price. For some it is more than they can bear. Divorce, estrangement, financial burdens, health problems, depression, and even suicide are very real costs. Sacrifice is rarely recognized for what it truly is because theprice of recognition is guilt. Parades, giving medals, issuing promotions,and rousing speeches are simply the thin veneer that masks the desperateneed of those who are kept free by our endeavors for absolution from thisguilt. Adam Duritz wrote in the song Mrs. Potter's Lullaby that "the priceof a memory is the memory of the sorrow it brings."

I submit that it is our love of freedom, the embrace of our wives or sweethearts, the love of our children or family, and the earned respect ofour brothers in arms that cast the walls that make the will to endure afortress that can never be taken. I will be proud to stand the watch untilmy time is at an end, but soon you will mount the ramparts and stand thewatch alone.In closing, I leave you with the words of Marcus Aurelius "Think of yourself as dead. You have lived your life. Now, take what's left and live it properly. What doesn't transmit light creates its own darkness."

Respectfully,
"Knute Lombatton"

posted by CBFTW at 7:37 PM 106 comments


SOURCE
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Sep, 2004 06:29 pm
Gelisgesti wrote:
What it is............


Quote:
.
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
In The Service Of The Queen
Here is an e-mail I recieved from my B.C.:

CBFTW,


How do you, Gelis, interpret these words of insight and wisdom?
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 0.08 seconds on 07/21/2025 at 08:59:23