0
   

Iraq through Iraqis' eyes

 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2004 07:50 am
McGentrix wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
Like I said...they are not looking for open-mindedness or objectivity...and in fact want the exact opposite...closemindedness and a lack of objectivity in favor of "we were justified"...and "it is working out just fine."

If you can't agree with that...and nobody with an open-mind and any degree of objectivity at all CAN...you might as well be whistling Dixie as arguing this stuff.


Frank, your opinion on open mindedness isn't held in very high regard.


Perhaps not by you? But why should I concern myself with that?


Quote:
Prior to our invasion of Iraq, the justifications were right.


No, McG...they were not. Only the blind would not see that they were not. Remember, an integral part of the justification had to do with the immanency of his use of the weapons…which he did not have.



Quote:
Saddam was believed to have WMD's and he was known to support terrorist groups. All the intelligence we had pointed to those conclusions.


No…all the intelligence we had did not point to those conclusions, McG. Some of the intelligence we had pointed in quite a different direction…but because these people wanted to invade Iraq no matter what...they simply discarded any intelligence that pointed in the other direction.




Quote:
We still know he had the WMD's, we just haven't found them yet.


I am sure you just said that to make me laugh…and I thank you for that. Whatever you do, do not bring up any shots from any grassy knolls. I've got a cold right now and too much laughter could start up a coughing spasm.


Quote:
Most believe they were secreted off to Syria who now is helping the insurrection with weapons and money.


Only by people who are desperate to justify this misadventure. But thanks for the second laugh. You are a card!



Quote:
These complaints that we were wrong because we haven't found any WMD's are immaterial. We are there now and it's our duty to see to it that Iraq becomes a free and stable country.


First of all, it is not immaterial except to someone who wants to excuse this misadventure. But while I agree we should try to straighten out the mess we have caused…there is absolutely no way it is our duty to see to it that Iraq becomes a free and stable country.




Quote:
I do not understand why many of you refuse to acknowledge that some good is resulting from our actions.


There are lots of things you don't understand McG…and most of that lack of understanding comes from stone-headedness on your part.

In any case, most of us have acknowledged that some good may result from our actions…but as I mentioned in the comments to which you took exception…people like you are not looking for that. You are looking for the same blind acceptance that you extend to this madness.


Quote:
Is it so hard to believe that what we are doing may actually result in something positive or does that conflict with your hatred of Bush so much that all you can do is whine and complain about the bad things.


What is hard for me to understand is why you cannot see that I am not saying that nothing good may result from what we are doing…but rather that I see much more harm coming from it than good.

Why are you unwilling to see what has been stated several times in this thread? Afraid the truth is going to hurt you?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2004 07:53 am
How do you judge "more harm than good"?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2004 07:56 am
McGentrix wrote:
How do you judge "more harm than good"?




Is that the best you could come up with?

You might just as well have said, "And so's yer ole man!"
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2004 08:03 am
No, seriously.

Is it a death count? Economically? Financially?

How is that you see more harm than good? What are you basing your decision on?

American lives?
Iraqi lives?

Tell me.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2004 08:15 am
More harm than good means exactly that, McG.

I expect that more harm than good will come from this.

In fact, in the short term, I see this thing as one of the prime examples of counter productivity....and I dare guess that in the long run it will be even worse.

The terrorism situation around the world seems to be worse; our standing in the world is worse; our standing among our friends is worse; our financial situation is worse; the plight of the Iraqis is worse; a horrible precedent has been set; there is a possibility that our military services will suffer another humiliating defeat because of this ill-advised misadventure....

...a whole bunch of things.

Go ahead…have at 'em. I always enjoy your rationalizations.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2004 08:19 am
Harm:

instability
destruction of infrastructure
no forseeable opportunity to leave the country
killing lots and lots of Iraqis
destroying what was left of US credibility
focusing on something that was not a threat
spending over 250 billion dollars
severe unemployment and poverty in Iraq
collective psychological damage to the psyche of the Iraqi population
inspiring Iraq's neighbors to quickly develop a nuclear weapon in order to avoid invasion
providing legitimacy to Osama bin Laden's complaints of US agression

Good:

elections
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2004 09:11 am
In response to--

DrewDad wrote:
Lash wrote:
...blizzard of insults...


Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, meet pot. Rolling Eyes


One person can't create a blizzard. Sheesh. But, BIG points on your originality!!! DAMN!!! I'm impressed.

1) Everyone who responded negatively to the posting of that article is liberal--

2) You can't post anything positive about the war without Liberal Blizzards.

3) No conservative you can find will see only one side of the war.

4) The overwhelming number of liberals, most notably here, will attack any positive opinions or news of Iraq.

Instead of trotting out another of your knee-jerk personal remarks about the poster--I dare you to bring evidence to refute any of my statements above.

(Am prepared to bring out the...Double Dog Dare...if the need presents.)
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2004 09:16 am
Lash wrote:
In response to--

DrewDad wrote:
Lash wrote:
...blizzard of insults...


Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, meet pot. Rolling Eyes


One person can't create a blizzard. Sheesh. But, BIG points on your originality!!! DAMN!!! I'm impressed.

1) Everyone who responded negatively to the posting of that article is liberal--

2) You can't post anything positive about the war without Liberal Blizzards.

3) No conservative you can find will see only one side of the war.

4) The overwhelming number of liberals, most notably here, will attack any positive opinions or news of Iraq.

Instead of trotting out another of your knee-jerk personal remarks about the poster--I dare you to bring evidence to refute any of my statements above.

(Am prepared to bring out the...Double Dog Dare...if the need presents.)


Cool

(I've always wanted to do that.)
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2004 09:18 am
Lash wrote:
In response to--

DrewDad wrote:
Lash wrote:
...blizzard of insults...


Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, meet pot. Rolling Eyes


One person can't create a blizzard. Sheesh. But, BIG points on your originality!!! DAMN!!! I'm impressed.

1) Everyone who responded negatively to the posting of that article is liberal--



Really????

How so?
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2004 09:22 am
Yeah, right.

You can call yourself a platypus, too, but try convincing someone else.

<This is Frank, trying to say he's not liberal.>
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2004 09:24 am
<I'm taking the dog to the groomer. Didn't want it confused with a retreat...>
:wink:
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2004 09:29 am
You don't see a difference between anti-Iraq war and 'liberal'? Is anti-Iraq war the very definition of liberal?

I never had much against this president until the run up to the war in Iraq -- it's been down hill from there. I don't think that makes me, or anyone else who knows a load of **** when they see it, 'liberal'. But if it did, fine by me. I don't see anything wrong with the word and I think it's absolutely ridiculous that it is being used as an insult now.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2004 09:30 am
actually and just because I kinda know frank I can say he is not much of a liberal. I, on the other hand....
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2004 09:46 am
Lash wrote:
Yeah, right.

You can call yourself a platypus, too, but try convincing someone else.

<This is Frank, trying to say he's not liberal.>



I most assuredly am not a liberal...and never have been.

In fact, I share some of the same concerns with liberal thinking that you probably have.

But listening to a conservative talk about the faults of liberalism is like listening to a wart hog talking about the ugliness of a water buffalo.

No...I am not a liberal!

But I guess to people like you...anyone who does not buy into the silly nonsense you swallow...has to be a liberal.

As FreeDuck said, one doesn't have to be a liberal to recognize a load of shyt. All you gotta do is be open-minded enough to sniff the air.

Thanks, Dys....(I think!) :wink:
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2004 10:30 am
But I guess to people like you...anyone who does not buy into the silly nonsense you swallow...has to be a liberal, says Frank.
---------
But, don't you think that the logical way to define liberal and conservative people is by the proponderance of their liberal or conservative views?

And, wouldn't you say that your views are overwhelmingly liberal?

I do espouse more than a few "individual rights" views that are considered liberal--and I don't mind that they are referred to as liberal...but I also hold several conservative views. Do you? I can't think of any; but do point them out if I'm mistaken.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2004 10:40 am
Lash wrote:
But I guess to people like you...anyone who does not buy into the silly nonsense you swallow...has to be a liberal, says Frank.
---------
But, don't you think that the logical way to define liberal and conservative people is by the proponderance of their liberal or conservative views?

And, wouldn't you say that your views are overwhelmingly liberal?

I do espouse more than a few "individual rights" views that are considered liberal--and I don't mind that they are referred to as liberal...but I also hold several conservative views. Do you? I can't think of any; but do point them out if I'm mistaken.


I would say that my position on issue like capital punishment and gun control are closer to what is (in my opinion, laughingly) called "conservative thought."

Perhaps you mistakenly consider me a liberal because I often show that I consider American conservatism to be one of the most vile, hypocritical, inappropriately smug and sanctimoneous political philosophies ever to pollute planet Earth.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2004 10:41 am
That could be it.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2004 10:42 am
Works for me. Smile

(And here I thought Frank was one of the few A2K liberals I didn't profoundly annoy. My mistake. Smile)
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2004 10:45 am
"Iraq through Iraqis' eyes"

Here was I coming in to bookmark a thread that would finally quote some " indigenous" Iraqi voices, rather than partisan American interpretations of what Iraqis can be said to really feel ...

... but alas, it's another US columnist.

Will I find some actual Iraqi voices of I browse through the 8 pages of posts now, or can I spare myself the effort?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2004 10:48 am
Seriously though, I have never believed that anybody was 100% anything. Being more libertarian (little 'L') than anything, it would follow that I hold numerous views that would probably be classified as liberal. But as I hold more conservative views than liberal views, I consider myself a conservative.

I think we all hold more view on one side or the other. I can't image anybody who was split 50-50 would have any convictions about anything.

In a posting from New Republic earlier in this thread (I think), the writer was specifically speaking to the pro-war liberals and I got the impression that the writer was one of them.

Pro-war is not a liberal/conservative thing. Most liberals were all for invasions of Bosnia and Haiti and Somalia not so long ago. It's being anti-conservative-initiated war that seems to be typical of most liberals.

I would be interested. Are there any A2K liberals out there who were pro-Iraq war?
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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 06/01/2024 at 01:39:14