0
   

How do you ask a man to be the last to die for a bully’s ego

 
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 05:48 am
gustavratzenhofer wrote:
For those who don't care to read the story, here is an excerpt, describing the Balad Air Base...

The base is sizeable enough to have its own "neighborhoods" including "KBR-land" (in honor of the Halliburton subsidiary that has done most of the base-construction work in Iraq); "CJSOTF" ("home to a special operations unit," the Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force, surrounded by "especially high walls," and so secretive that even the base Army public affairs chief has never been inside); and a junkyard for bombed out Army Humvees. There is as well a Subway, a Pizza Hut, a Popeye's, "an ersatz Starbucks," a 24-hour Burger King, two post exchanges where TVs, iPods, and the like can be purchased, four mess halls, a hospital, a strictly enforced on-base speed limit of 10 MPH, a huge airstrip, 250 aircraft (helicopters and predator drones included), air-traffic pile-ups of a sort you would see over Chicago's O'Hare airport, and "a miniature golf course, which mimics a battlefield with its baby sandbags, little Jersey barriers, strands of concertina wire and, down at the end of the course, what appears to be a tiny detainee cage."


I've mentioned these bases and the embassy on a few threads. To me, it shows that Bush never intended to leave Iraq at all, even if the fighting were over.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 06:09 am
Actually, the death would be for the president's goal of leaving Iraq with a stable, democratic government, rather than abandon it to be overrun by the insurgents, who would most likely replace the democratically elected government with some sort of religious dictatorship.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 06:34 am
In short, make of Iraq another Puerto Rico. Sure, that will work. Cool
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 07:15 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
Actually, the death would be for the president's goal of leaving Iraq with a stable, democratic government, rather than abandon it to be overrun by the insurgents, who would most likely replace the democratically elected government with some sort of religious dictatorship.


This shows a very naive ignorance of the situation in Iraq. Insurgents are either the former Ba'athists, who have lost everything in the loss of power, and therefore have nothing further to lose, they are the Sunnis; or, they are foreigners (most from immediately neighboring nations other than Iran) who have come for the opportunity to kill Americans. The latter are a small group by the account of all observers other than administration or administration-supporting pundits, who want to forward the false "better to fight them there" line of reasoning. That line of reasoning ignores that people can easily go there to kill Americans because we send our men and women into harm's way in the middle east. Other foreign observers have noted that there is little evidence that there is a large foreign contingent in Iraq. Speakers of Arabic have accents as surely as do speakers of English, or French, or of Spanish--and the local Iraqis can spot a foreigner as easily as we would spot an Englishman or an Australian at home.

The sectarian violence is only partly forwarded by insurgents. Sunnis who wish to kill Shi'ites can be and are likely to be the same insurgents who attack the green zone and American and British troops. But those who kill Sunnis--and this is the fastest-growing group, and has likely now become the majority group--are Shi'ite militia members, or members of the police or the Iraqi army, who are overwhelmingly Shi'ite (former Sunni members of the military are associated with the Ba'athist Arab Socialist Party, and are excluded from participation in the police and the army). As one cogent observer has put it, the torturers and murders don't dress up like the police or the army, they are the police or the army.

Iraqi police linked to death squads--The Times online (UK)

Iraqi police killed 14 year old boy for being homosexual--The Independent online (UK)

Iraqi police barred over killings--BBC

26 dead in Iraqi "revenge killings"--CNN

Conservatives can bury their heads in the sand without comfort, because they are not in the firing line. Iraqis are. A civil war has already broken out, and the employees of the Shi'ite-dominated Interior Ministry--the police--have taken their side in the conflict. If there were a religious dictatorship, it would be accomplished by replacing the democratically-elected government, it would be created by the democratically elected government.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 09:38 am
Joe Nation wrote:
There are about 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq right now.

But, to add to Gus's point about just how large a presence we intend to have there in the future, (had?) the WP reveals in its business pages a new census shows there are approximately 100,000 government contractors working in Iraq, not counting subcontractors.
12/05/06

BTW: Your Commander-in-Chief finally met with an actual, meaning not-hand-picked-by-us, Iraqi, the leader of Iraq's largest Shiite Muslim party, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim.

Haven't seen any news about how that went.

Joe(So, are you with us or agin' us?)Nation


Iraqi Shiite Leader Speaks Bluntly in Washington

Quote:
"The strikes [the insurgents] are getting from the multinational forces are not hard enough to put an end to their acts, but leave them to stand up again to resume their criminal acts," Hakim said in a speech at the United States Institute of Peace. "This means that there is something wrong in the policies taken to deal with that danger threatening the lives of Iraqis."

The only way to eliminate the danger of a civil war, he added, was through "decisive strikes" against insurgents once loyal to former leader Saddam Hussein. "Otherwise we'll continue to witness massacres . . . against innocent Iraqis."


Quote:
Bush and Hakim are unlikely allies in forging Iraq policy. Hakim's movement was founded during his two decades of exile in Iran, and its Badr Organization militia, formerly known as the Badr Brigade, is still widely believed to have close ties to Tehran. Hakim said yesterday that he supports the disbanding of militias, and said his own armed wing has been transformed for use in political activity. But some Sunnis allege that the Badr Organization was behind political assassinations that have contributed to sectarian violence.


Setanta, good post with good information, probably will be largely ignored or denied, but good nonetheless.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 09:43 am
Thanks, Revel--and i agree, it will likely be ignored or denied.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 11:09 am
So, McG - did you get anything to make you sit back, or you still on the edge of your chair?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 11:53 am
snood wrote:
So, McG - did you get anything to make you sit back, or you still on the edge of your chair?


Hmmm... actually, I sort of stopped paying attention. Reading back through it, I would say that the really important information hasn't really leapt out at me.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 11:58 am
Well, that's not really that suprising. You probably haven't noticed that Iraq is a chaotic mess that is unwinnable militarily by the US, either.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 12:07 pm
snood wrote:
Well, that's not really that suprising. You probably haven't noticed that Iraq is a chaotic mess that is unwinnable militarily by the US, either.


Nonsense. It may be chaotic, I agree with that, but unwinnable militarily? Hardly. We just have to change our goals and methods and it suddenly becomes very winnable. We'll just have to repopulate it some day is all.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 12:19 pm
I'm still waiting for someone.... ANYONE to tell me at the end of this what we will have won.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 03:02 pm
Ask Brandon.
He's not always good at explaining victory, but excellent at claiming it.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 04:30 pm
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
I'm still waiting for someone.... ANYONE to tell me at the end of this what we will have won.


What do we have for our winner today, Jack?

Bob, it's A BRAND NEW CAR ! ! !


(cue applause)
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Dec, 2006 05:12 pm
McGentrix wrote:
snood wrote:
Well, that's not really that suprising. You probably haven't noticed that Iraq is a chaotic mess that is unwinnable militarily by the US, either.


Nonsense. It may be chaotic, I agree with that, but unwinnable militarily? Hardly. We just have to change our goals and methods and it suddenly becomes very winnable. We'll just have to repopulate it some day is all.


So, in other words, McG, if at first you don't succeed, just redefine success, right?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2006 06:40 am
McGentrix wrote:
snood wrote:
Well, that's not really that suprising. You probably haven't noticed that Iraq is a chaotic mess that is unwinnable militarily by the US, either.


Nonsense. It may be chaotic, I agree with that, but unwinnable militarily? Hardly. We just have to change our goals and methods and it suddenly becomes very winnable. We'll just have to repopulate it some day is all.


Aside from the echoes of Rumfeld/Cheney/Roe political speak, the last sentence is just disgustingly callous of the all the lives lost in Iraq since we have invaded it.

Is it as though they are so easily expendable and replaced in your mind? Do their lives not matter because they are not Americans? Never mind for the moment who is actually killing them, but to just utter the sentence so blasé "We'll just have to repopulate it some day is all" is just repulsive
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2006 06:47 am
From the Vietnam era: In order to liberate it, it was necessary to destroy it.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2006 08:28 am
revel wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
snood wrote:
Well, that's not really that suprising. You probably haven't noticed that Iraq is a chaotic mess that is unwinnable militarily by the US, either.


Nonsense. It may be chaotic, I agree with that, but unwinnable militarily? Hardly. We just have to change our goals and methods and it suddenly becomes very winnable. We'll just have to repopulate it some day is all.


Aside from the echoes of Rumfeld/Cheney/Roe political speak, the last sentence is just disgustingly callous of the all the lives lost in Iraq since we have invaded it.

Is it as though they are so easily expendable and replaced in your mind? Do their lives not matter because they are not Americans? Never mind for the moment who is actually killing them, but to just utter the sentence so blasé "We'll just have to repopulate it some day is all" is just repulsive


Awwww.... too bad.

Read what I said. I said the war is winnable militarily. To do that would mean an unacceptable death count, but it would be winnable. I didn't advocate doing so, I didn't suggest we should do so and I know we won't do so so please step off your high horse and get a bucket and puke out your repulsion.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2006 09:44 am
McGentrix wrote:
Read what I said. I said the war is winnable militarily. To do that would mean an unacceptable death count, but it would be winnable. I didn't advocate doing so, I didn't suggest we should do so and I know we won't do so so


Right, McGentrix, but then the statement itself is not worth a lot. It's like stating that the Cold War was winnable militarily, but someone would have had to repopulate the world afterwards. And a strategy that would lead to a result like that would probably have been defined as an utter failure by most people, including you.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2006 09:53 am
The notion that Iraq is "militarily 'winnable'" combined with an off-hand remark that we would then be obliged to "repopulate" the country obviously implies that "winning" would involve the extermination of a large segment of the population. According to the CIA, the pre-war population of Iraq was 26,000,000. Of those, just over 5,000,000 were Sunnis, just over 5,000,000 were Kurds (of many, various confessions) and the balance, more than 15,000,000, were Shi'ites. One wonders who McG thinks should be exterminated. The concerted, intentional extermination of any significant proportion of the Iraqi population is something which it is unlikely will go unnoticed. Even the attempt would create far more problems than it would solve. Our "allies" in the region already believe that we have dangerously destabilized the region, and have done great harm while doing no good.

The contention that Iraq is "militarily winnable" is an absurdity.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2006 08:13 pm
McGentrix wrote:
revel wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
snood wrote:
Well, that's not really that suprising. You probably haven't noticed that Iraq is a chaotic mess that is unwinnable militarily by the US, either.


Nonsense. It may be chaotic, I agree with that, but unwinnable militarily? Hardly. We just have to change our goals and methods and it suddenly becomes very winnable. We'll just have to repopulate it some day is all.


Aside from the echoes of Rumfeld/Cheney/Roe political speak, the last sentence is just disgustingly callous of the all the lives lost in Iraq since we have invaded it.

Is it as though they are so easily expendable and replaced in your mind? Do their lives not matter because they are not Americans? Never mind for the moment who is actually killing them, but to just utter the sentence so blasé "We'll just have to repopulate it some day is all" is just repulsive


Awwww.... too bad.

Read what I said. I said the war is winnable militarily. To do that would mean an unacceptable death count, but it would be winnable. I didn't advocate doing so, I didn't suggest we should do so and I know we won't do so so please step off your high horse and get a bucket and puke out your repulsion.


It's the two little words, "is all" that was repulsive when talking about a huge loss of life.
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 0.03 seconds on 12/28/2024 at 10:11:39