0
   

Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread III

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jan, 2007 07:16 am
McTag wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
McTag wrote:
And I can't decide now whether I'm a terrorist euroweenie apologist or a wacko pansy terrorist-appeasing leftist.


Either would be appropriate.


Works for me. And somebody who called a member an 'arsehole' for posting a picture of an act of kindess is now complaining that the rhetoric here is "shrill". Smile


That's not fair. I carefully explained to you exactly why that term* is fully justified in McG's case.

(* the full term used is not reproduced here)


As I don't think it would EVER be justified calling somebody that for posting a photo showing an act of kindness, I think it is entirely fair. However, I don't think the word 'fair' is appropriate to describe angry, accusatory, judgmental, and sometimes hateful rhetoric re the US President, our military, or our efforts in Iraq and/or refusing to see it as anything other than "a powerful country beating up on an unpowerful country." The moment you exalt the terrorists to a reasonable position while you equate the efforts to thwart them as no different than targeting civilians, you abandon all credibility in being able to recognize what is 'fair'.

I do not presume to think that you are less entitled to your opinion than anybody else. There is plenty of room to question whether we should have invaded Iraq and to criticise the conduct of the war. But McG is also entitled to his point of view. From where I sit, I think one of you is far more balanced and far more fair in his point of view on the topic of Iraq than the other. And that one isn't you. I think your post damning McG for posting a photo of an act of kindness was over the top and you owe him an apology.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jan, 2007 09:12 am
The tragedy of this piece is that it was on Page A13 and not on Page 1 above the fold. Note what he says about the 'militias' near the bottom of the text.

Don't Give Up On Iraq Yet
By Tariq al-Hashimi
Wednesday, January 10, 2007; Page A13

During my recent visit to Washington I found a nation fatigued by news of a faraway battle that seemed to creep closer with each fallen soldier. I found an administration wearied by infighting among an Iraqi government that seems incapable of reaching simple agreements. The chaos and sectarian destruction plaguing my people are slowly becoming just statistics in passing headlines, as we become a nation whose people spend more time each day preparing for death than for life.

Many Americans unfortunately believe that Iraq can no longer be salvaged. Even some in the Bush administration see a civil war as inevitable.

First, both of our nations have invested too much to walk away now. If this battle is lost, the entire region could be destabilized.

Second, despite the chaos in my country, not all bridges of patriotism have been burned. Iraqis have ties to their beloved country, not only to their sects and ethnicities. Proof of this nationalism recently came from the most unlikely of venues.

During the Asian Games in Qatar last month, Iraq became quiet, if only for a few hours. Citizens united as brothers behind the national soccer team, which against all odds fought its way to the finals. The team didn't battle for a militia or a sect but for an idea -- the nation of Iraq. The players didn't win the medal but gained something far greater: They won us hope. From children on the streets to politicians to parents, we were all one, and we were all Iraqi. This tells me that all is not lost, that a deep-rooted sense of nationalism still lies within all Iraqis, and that it can and must be rekindled.

It is true that terrorism of an unparalleled nature rages in Iraq and that Iraqis are the ones killing each other on the basis of sectarian and ethnic identities. It is also true that reconstruction and economic development have ground to a halt because of the violence. And Iraqis are divided on such fundamental issues as reconciliation and how to bring about security.

Despite all the hardships, however, we Iraqis were able to raise the rudimentary pillars of our nascent democracy by writing a constitution, electing a parliament based on that constitution and granting a vote of confidence to a government through that elected parliament. It is not fair to look at Iraq as a collection of failures without identifying its successes. The birth of a new nation is not easy, but just as your nation has become a beacon for democracy, we hope that Iraq will one day do the same.

All is not lost! Eliminating regional influence is the only way to bring Iraqis back to their senses. Americans understandably find it difficult to support any strategy that prolongs the presence of your troops in Iraq. We do not want to stand in the way of your forces going home. But that decision should not be made under the pressure of car bombs and kidnappings. A precipitous withdrawal of forces would create a security vacuum in Iraq that our forces cannot yet handle -- and would therefore be filled by extremists. This does not serve the interests of Iraq or the United States.

If those soccer players taught us anything, it is that a proper strategy for eliminating sectarianism and fostering nationalism is key. Reconstituting the Iraqi Armed Services and then reforming, retraining and properly arming them must be a central component of this strategy. Another should be revising Iraq's constitution to give our central government effective powers but prevent any sort of dictatorship by the prime minister. The powers that the prime minister holds now must be revised to guarantee that all stakeholders can share in governing. Adherence to the rule of law is also central.

True reconciliation in line with what happened in South Africa and Ireland is needed for resolution of the conflict in Iraq, but that reconciliation must be free from regional stipulations. Economics is also key, as gainful employment keeps Iraqi youths away from the insurgents. All of this must be preceded by a coordinated effort to secure Baghdad, which has become a haven for militia and terrorist activity.

We need a greater focus on the militias, which kill innocent civilians and defy the government with impunity. The Pentagon recently told Congress that the militias pose more of a danger to the security and stability of Iraq than do the terrorist groups operating there. Militias do not differ from other terrorist groups; therefore, the Iraqi government and the United States must classify militias as such and must treat and fight them in the same manner as other terrorists.

A comprehensive plan is needed to save Iraq from disaster. I hope that the administration has considered these critical issues and that the new strategy effectively addresses them.

The writer is vice president of the Republic of Iraq.
SOURCE: WASHINGTON POST
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jan, 2007 10:43 am
from foxfire's quote :
"First, both of our nations have invested too much to walk away now. "

looking back at what one has invested , rather than looking forward to what the 'future' cost is going to be , is a fairly common mistake made by individuals , businesses and governments alike .

gamblers often look at the money they have put into the slot machine and say :"now my number must be coming up ! " .
what they don't realize is that it doesn't matter how many times they feed the machine , their chances of winning will NOT increase - but try telling that to a gambler ...

businesses will sometimes say about a project that's going badly :
"... have invested too much to walk away now. "
what is often forgotten is that whatever has been spent on a project is "sunk cost" - the only thing that that matters is "future cost " .
if the "future cost" is too high better stop the project before any more money is spent .
there are plenty of examples of companies that had forgotten that rule - and many went down the tube .
it is somehow felt that abandoning a project "looks bad " , even though it would be the right thing to do to ensure the survival of the corporation .
often it is the pride of the chief-executive that comes into play because he wants "to leave his mark" .

as far as governments violating the rule , i'm sure you have your own examples of government projects going way over budget - and perhaps even then not achieving the goal .
governments , of course , have the advantage of unloading the costs on the taxpayer/citizen . at worst the representative will not be re-elected and will have to make do with a "consulting job " Crying or Very sad .

why , oh why , do people have to be so stubborn and refuse to see the truth ?
hbg Sad
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jan, 2007 10:55 am
hamburger wrote:
why , oh why , do people have to be so stubborn and refuse to see the truth ?
hbg Sad


Another common mistake, made in the past, is ignoring a growing threat, allowing the threat to fully materialize, making it more difficult to destroy the threat in the future, at a much greater cost.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jan, 2007 11:18 am
tico wrote ;
"Another common mistake, made in the past, is ignoring a growing threat, allowing the threat to fully materialize, making it more difficult to destroy the threat in the future, at a much greater cost. "

of course , if a future threat can be laid out and if it can be shown shown how to combat/eliminate it "succesfully" , that would be a good thing .

i am - unfortunately - old enough to remember how germany was going to win WW II and how the united states was going to win in vietnam .

i clearly remember how vietnam was seen as part of the 'red menace' that would over-run the world .
all the arguments/pleadings by many american diplomats warning against invading vietnam were disregarded - and we all kmow the cost incurred - the lives lost - for what ?

looking back now , i'm glad to see how germany can live in peace with its former enemies (most of the world) and how the united states can live in peace with vietnam (and praise the good relations that both countries have established over the last ten years ) .

strange how things look many , many years later .

for anyone interested in how the united states government sees u.s./vietnam relations now , have a look at the
...SPEECH OF U.S. AMBASSADOR TO VIETNAM...

what do you think of his speech ?
hbg
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jan, 2007 12:58 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
McTag wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
McTag wrote:
And I can't decide now whether I'm a terrorist euroweenie apologist or a wacko pansy terrorist-appeasing leftist.


Either would be appropriate.


Works for me. And somebody who called a member an 'arsehole' for posting a picture of an act of kindess is now complaining that the rhetoric here is "shrill". Smile


That's not fair. I carefully explained to you exactly why that term* is fully justified in McG's case.

(* the full term used is not reproduced here)


As I don't think it would EVER be justified calling somebody that for posting a photo showing an act of kindness, I think it is entirely fair. However, I don't think the word 'fair' is appropriate to describe angry, accusatory, judgmental, and sometimes hateful rhetoric re the US President, our military, or our efforts in Iraq and/or refusing to see it as anything other than "a powerful country beating up on an unpowerful country." The moment you exalt the terrorists to a reasonable position while you equate the efforts to thwart them as no different than targeting civilians, you abandon all credibility in being able to recognize what is 'fair'.

I do not presume to think that you are less entitled to your opinion than anybody else. There is plenty of room to question whether we should have invaded Iraq and to criticise the conduct of the war. But McG is also entitled to his point of view. From where I sit, I think one of you is far more balanced and far more fair in his point of view on the topic of Iraq than the other. And that one isn't you. I think your post damning McG for posting a photo of an act of kindness was over the top and you owe him an apology.


Okay I submit, I apologise to McG for that terrible thing I called him. No doubt he will consider withdrawing the terrible array of things he called me.

"Fair and balanced" depends very much on where you sit, clearly. By the way, there will be a great drama-documentary on our TV screens this week to be entitled "The Trial of Tony Blair" and I'll bring you more on that later.
Not much chance yet of your networks carrying a similar piece on GWB I suppose, but we can live in hope.

I'm getting a bit tired of the overuse of the word "terrorists" to describe every person who has taken action against the US and allies.
It would be more useful to think of them as "Muslim Minutemen", I suggest.
There have always been fundamentalist nutters who are keen to slaughter any westerner they can get their hands on (Daniel Pearl, Achille Lauro outrage) but the difference is, since Bushco's invasion there are more of them now.

Iraq used to be secular, under Saddam. It's not now.
Iraq has voted fundamentalist, and will soon be nuclear.
Turkey, secular since Ataturk, struggles with its islamists. Trouble brewing there, flames fanned by the invasion.
Ditto ditto Lebanon and Gaza.

Yes, I still question the wisdom of George, and the balance of his supporters.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jan, 2007 01:10 pm
I endeavor to separate the terrorists from the insurgents. If you go back through my posts, you will notice that. I will not call them "Muslim Minutemen". Terrorists target civilians with car bombs and suicide bombings and IED's. Insurgents tend to target military and government officials. Neither do so in such a fashion that would be acceptable in civilized society.

I do not claim to be fair and balanced. I have a very conservative view of the world and the actions taking place. I do not wish to sympathize with either terrorist nor insurgent. I only want them to stop their activities and if they do not, I wish them an early death so life can go on for those that want to try to go on with their lives after living under the reign of Saddam for so long. They deserve a chance at peace and prosperity.

Quote:
Iraq used to be secular, under Saddam. It's not now.
Ira(n) has voted fundamentalist, and will soon be nuclear.
Turkey, secular since Ataturk, struggles with its islamists. Trouble brewing there, flames fanned by the invasion.
Ditto ditto Lebanon and Gaza.


All these places have one thing in common; Fundamental Islam. People teaching hate and war instead of peace and love. So long as they continue their actions, someone must stand up to them and tell them "NO!" If the US has to do that alone, I support that. We must counter the diet of hate they are being taught by showing them they have the power to stand up against the forces that want to enslave them and keep them in the 15th century.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jan, 2007 01:45 pm
Maybe the US should not tell them anything. Maybe they are fed up of the double standards which apply, with them (inhabitants of the Middle East) getting the shitty end of the stick.

George will tell me this started long before the USA got involved, and he is right: but it appears to me, what is happening now is counter-productive, and a new approach/ mindset will have to be found.

Maybe we could start with the USA stopping telling people things.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jan, 2007 01:53 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Terrorists target civilians with car bombs and suicide bombings and IED's. Insurgents tend to target military and government officials. Neither do so in such a fashion that would be acceptable in civilized society.


Good point.
0 Replies
 
MizunoMan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jan, 2007 02:18 pm
McTag wrote:
I'm getting a bit tired of the overuse of the word "terrorists" to describe every person who has taken action against the US and allies.
It would be more useful to think of them as "Muslim Minutemen", I suggest.


You have company.

Quote:
However, among those now willing to condone the bombers was Ali, spiritual leader of the Al-Madina Masjid mosque in Tunstall Road, Beeston, where the bombers had worshipped.

A week after the attack he had told newspapers that the perpetrators ought to be punished. But in a secretly taped conversation, he said: "What they [the bombers] did was good. They have warned that we are here, we Muslims. People have taken notice that we are here. They died so that people would take notice . . . big meetings and conferences make no change at all. With this, at least people's ears have pricked up."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2036538,00.html
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jan, 2007 02:22 pm
Posted earlier today, the words of the Vice President of the new Iraqi government:

Quote:
We need a greater focus on the militias, which kill innocent civilians and defy the government with impunity. The Pentagon recently told Congress that the militias pose more of a danger to the security and stability of Iraq than do the terrorist groups operating there. Militias do not differ from other terrorist groups; therefore, the Iraqi government and the United States must classify militias as such and must treat and fight them in the same manner as other terrorists.


Do you disagree with him?
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jan, 2007 02:27 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Posted earlier today, the words of the Vice President of the new Iraqi government:

Quote:
We need a greater focus on the militias, which kill innocent civilians and defy the government with impunity. The Pentagon recently told Congress that the militias pose more of a danger to the security and stability of Iraq than do the terrorist groups operating there. Militias do not differ from other terrorist groups; therefore, the Iraqi government and the United States must classify militias as such and must treat and fight them in the same manner as other terrorists.


Do you disagree with him?


I agree with him, and I believe the extra troops rumoured to be being sent will be used specifically for that purpose, to engage the private militias and disarm/destroy them.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jan, 2007 03:03 pm
Quote:
What are the various militia groups in Iraq?
They vary, experts say. There are a growing number of small, homegrown, paramilitary-style brigades being formed by local tribes, religious leaders, and political parties. Many have taken up arms against Iraq's Sunni insurgents since the February 2006 bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra. Larger, more established militias, such as the Badr Brigade and the peshmerga, are tied to Iraq's leading political parties, organized along sectarian lines, and in existence to enforce order in their respective regions.

How many militias are in Iraq?
Estimates vary, but U.S. military and intelligence officials say there are at least twenty-three militias in operation, according to the Washington Post. They range in capability and effectiveness, and the majority of them are Shiite. Many are offshoots of larger organizations like the Mahdi Army that have grown more radicalized in recent months. Whereas in 2004 and 2005, these militia groups primarily targeted ex-Baathists, rival militia groups, or U.S. troops, now they target everyday Iraqis based on their ethno-religious sect. Some of them have names like Iraqiya Hezbollah and draw inspiration from the Lebanon-based militia group.

Why can't the Iraqi government dismantle these militias?
Some experts say the militias provide vital security in places rife with sectarian violence and therefore many officials in the Shiite-led government tacitly support them. Others say that Shiites, who make up the majority of Iraq's population, are in favor of militias because, like Hezbollah in Lebanon, they act as protectors and providers of basic services. "It's a myth to say the militias are bad for Iraq," says Abbas Kadhim, assistant professor of Islamic studies at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. "They are the only ones providing anything meaningful for Iraqis. The problem [for Iraqis] is choosing between anarchy and a militia that protects you for a price."

What is the official U.S. policy on militias?
Although American forces have fought alongside Iraqi militias and commando units in the past, officially the U.S. government opposes the presence of unsanctioned militias. At various times, U.S. officials have encouraged the interior ministry to retrain and recruit militia members into the police forces to help fight the Sunni-led insurgency, according to Matthew Sherman, a former adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority. In 2004, there was a plan by the U.S. military to capture or kill Sadr before the militia leader reached a truce and promised to join the political process.
source: Council on Foreign Relations
0 Replies
 
MizunoMan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jan, 2007 03:04 pm
Brit bags first Muslim Minuteman - celebrates with cigar
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jan, 2007 03:04 pm
McTag wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Posted earlier today, the words of the Vice President of the new Iraqi government:

Quote:
We need a greater focus on the militias, which kill innocent civilians and defy the government with impunity. The Pentagon recently told Congress that the militias pose more of a danger to the security and stability of Iraq than do the terrorist groups operating there. Militias do not differ from other terrorist groups; therefore, the Iraqi government and the United States must classify militias as such and must treat and fight them in the same manner as other terrorists.


Do you disagree with him?


I agree with him, and I believe the extra troops rumoured to be being sent will be used specifically for that purpose, to engage the private militias and disarm/destroy them.


You honestly believe that the troops we are sending are going to be used against Shiite milita groups, McT?

I've heard quite a bit about going after Sunni insurgents, but nothing about our plans to take our Al Sadr, who is at least as much of the problem.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
MizunoMan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jan, 2007 03:09 pm
Brit bags first Muslim Minuteman - celebrates with cigar



Fixed it.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jan, 2007 03:59 pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html

Great article on how Bush's speech tonight represents a change in Tactics, not a change in Strategy.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jan, 2007 04:54 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html

Great article on how Bush's speech tonight represents a change in Tactics, not a change in Strategy.

Cycloptichorn


Brings to mind lines from the Scottish Play:

I am in blood
Stepp'd in so far that, should I wade no more,
Returning were as tedious as go o'er.


But actually, and this is a repetition of a long-stated opinion of mine and not a policy reversal, we have got to bring peace to the country and cannot withdraw, having come to this point: so the only policy which will work is the application of more force.

Which of course means more troops on the ground, and more deaths on each side.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jan, 2007 05:09 pm


It's a big problem, "the enemy within". In the recent air raids on Somalia, British nationals have been identified as acting with the muslim militia there, as well as passport holders from several other countries.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Jan, 2007 07:44 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
... I think your post damning McG for posting a photo of an act of kindness was over the top and you owe him an apology.


I KNOW that your post was spot on, McTag and I support your condemnation of those who have no concern for people other than their own.

They don't do body counts because they don't give a rat's ass and a body count may well tug at the heartstrings of those who are fair and possess at least a scintilla of compassion.

As for the 'bush aftermath supporters' group, Snood was right.
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 © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/11/2025 at 11:37:43