THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

cicerone imposter wrote:

It's no longer a surprise, but ican can't seem to see the irony in the way our civilian leadership continues to push this failed war with soldiers who are put in harms way much longer than is known to be safe or sane, then treat them with disrespect after they come home with injuries.

Their primary goal to "win in Iraq" no matter what has been shown to be incompetence and mismanagement of humans seems not one bit to bother them. They prefer the "stay the course" scheme that has been tried before and failed than to look at saving lives and treasure. No sacrifice is too great when the ones making the decisions has nothing to lose. Just hundreds of Iraqis every week, and more than two American soldiers every day.

Don't act so dumb! We are at least as bothered (i.e., angry) as you are over the "incompetence and mismanagement of humans." We differ from you in that we understand, while you appear to not understand, what are the probable horrific consequences to Americans and the rest of humanity of a failure of America to succeed in Iraq.

So if you can bring yourself to engage in an honest discussion, then discuss what/why you think is the probable nature of the consequences to Americans and the rest of humanity of a failure of America to succeed in Iraq.

0 Replies

Quote:

Don't act so dumb! We are at least as bothered (i.e., angry) as you are over the "incompetence and mismanagement of humans."

Liar. You have not once called for any sort of repercussions due to the incompetence shown by the people YOU elected. You most certainly are not as bothered or angry as I am on this issue.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

ican just wants more of the same incompetence and mismanagement. That translate to more sacrificing from our troops and treasure for a no end game in site. "Success" is not possible in a country where they have a civil war, insurgency, and the government seen as a puppet of the Bush regime. Elections does not a democracy make. Saddam had elections too!

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

...
ADDENDUM

You folks appear to think the USA's inadequate performance WILL NOT be improved.

We folks who disagree with you think that USA's inadequate performance WILL be improved.

Why? Why? Why would you believe such a thing? Where has the evidence been shown that our performance will be improved?

Cycloptichorn

It apears to me that it is improving as we discuss this matter. The murder rate in Iraq appears to be decreasing.

But let's assume for the sake of argument that our performance is not improving, or at least is not improving in a way that can be sustained.

I say it will probably improve to the extent that is required based on historical evidence that when America has been screwing up, it has eventually straightened itself out, and stopped screwing itself up when the survival of its individual rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness were finally clearly understood by a majority of us to be at stake.

I admit that the present behavior of the current Democratic Party leadership, far more than the present behavior of the current Republican Party leadership, causes me considerable apprehension. These Democrats (allegedly "owned" by the Soros gang) can, if not changed, considerably handicap America in straightening itself out.

0 Replies

ican, Are you saying that the American People are all wrong, and only Bush and you are right? Talk about a BIG head. LOL

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Don't act so dumb! We are at least as bothered (i.e., angry) as you are over the "incompetence and mismanagement of humans."

Liar. You have not once called for any sort of repercussions due to the incompetence shown by the people YOU elected. You most certainly are not as bothered or angry as I am on this issue.

Cycloptichorn

What repercussions have you advocated other than losing in Iraq ASAP? Yes, I voted for Bush. As poor a leader as he obviously is, compared to the two losers -- Gore and Kerry -- the Democrats put up as alternatives, George Bush is a contemporary version of George Washington.

I am expert on how angry I am. You are not expert on how angry I am. All you want us to do is lose. I want us to win.

I am looking for those among us who can lead us to win. You are looking for those among us who can lead us to lose. Damn it to hell, that does in deed makes me angry, real angry! Mad

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

Don't act so dumb! We are at least as bothered (i.e., angry) as you are over the "incompetence and mismanagement of humans."

Liar. You have not once called for any sort of repercussions due to the incompetence shown by the people YOU elected. You most certainly are not as bothered or angry as I am on this issue.

Cycloptichorn
What repercussions have you advocated other than losing in Iraq ASAP? Yes, I voted for Bush. As poor a leader as he obviously is, compared to the two losers -- Gore and Kerry -- the Democrats put up as alternatives, George Bush is a contemporary version of George Washington.

I am expert on how angry I am. You are not expert on how angry I am. All you want us to do is lose. I want us to win.

I am looking for those among us who can lead us to win. You are looking for those among us who can lead us to lose. Damn it to hell, that does in deed makes me angry, real angry!

That is a false characterization of my position. I'm sure you are angry when you invent the argument you want to get angry against, and substitute it for people's actual arguments.

I have called for the removal of Bush and other incompetents from office, something you have never done. You state

Quote:

As poor a leader as he obviously is, compared to the two losers -- Gore and Kerry -- the Democrats put up as alternatives, George Bush is a contemporary version of George Washington.

But this is a ridiculous thing to say. You have no actual knowledge of how well or poorly they would do in the role of CIC; the only actual knowledge you have is how poor Bush has done.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

ican, Are you saying that the American People are all wrong, and only Bush and you are right? Talk about a BIG head. LOL

Cice, I am not saying anything of the kind. It's your head that appears to be oversized for the contents it encases.

Simply put, I'm saying we must win in Iraq. You're saying ... Hell I don't know what you're actually saying!

The pollsters have yet to ask a random sample of 1,000 adult American people: Do you FAVOR, OPPOSE, UNSURE America leaving Iraq before the Iraqi people are able to defend themselves without America's help?

Until the pollsters ask that question and its answered, neither of us knows what the American people think.

In the meantime, I'll assume the American people have more sense than you do.

0 Replies

i would think that the united states might be able to win in iraq , assuming sufficient soldiers/police , MONEY and whatever other resources are required are thrown into the breach .

from what i remember , during WW II almost the whole nation contributed to the war effort - and not only in the united states .

it seems to me that in this war relatively few people are asked to make a sacrifice while many(most ?) others go on living normal lives .
on top of it , those at the top of the pile - also called the rich by some - seem to be able to increase their riches while those coming back from the war wounded in body and spirit have a tough time of it .
is that really a good way to make citizens believe in a "just war" ?
hbg

ps. i have read a number of comments in newspapers etc that those responsible for the problems at walter reed hospital (and i understand those are not the only ones) have said that the problems weren't major , that they are being fixed etc ... what i find surprising is that they were allowed to happen in the first place .
it's bad enough when there are problems in a regular hospital , but in a veterans' hospital ???

i seem to recall that secretary rumsfeld when asked about some complaints by soldiers said (something like) : "soldiers are always grousing ... " and when questioned about insufficient body armour and similar problems his answer was along the lines of :"... well , that's what they have , would be nice if they had something better ... " .

surely , the president , as commander-in-chief , must have been aware of those problems ???
(i know that rumsfeld resigned eventually - but that was a long time later , was it not ) .

0 Replies

hbg, I don't know of any commercial enterprise that would tolerate such incompetence and mismanagement of anything for six years. Then, we have the likes of ican, the war apologists, who can't seem to see the facts thrown at us every day where our soldiers are getting killed at two-plus per day, and two billion dollars every week. They want to prolong this craziness, because they have some ignorant idea there can be success with 150,000 troops on the ground in a country with almost 25 million inhabitants...who in turn are migrating out of Iraq by the thousands.

The majority of Iraqis want us out of their country, and the majority of Americans want our troops to come home.

All those supporting this war are insane.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

...
I am looking for those among us who can lead us to win. You are looking for those among us who can lead us to lose. Damn it to hell, that does in deed makes me angry, real angry!

That is a false characterization of my position.

It is a correct characterization of your position. Do you not remember your answer to my question? I do!

Quote:

Do you favor America leaving Iraq before the Iraqis are able to defend themselves, without our help, against MMONM (i.e., Mass Murderers Of Non-Murders) in Iraq?
YES = Cyclo, Cice Imp?
NO = ican, ?
UNDECIDED = revel, ?

You answered YES, you favor our losing. You thereby revealed yourself, by implication, as a person who is looking for those among us who can lead us to lose.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...
I have called for the removal of Bush and other incompetents from office, something you have never done.

I did call elsewhere for Powell's and Fitzgerald's removal from office because I knew who I wanted to replace them. I have called elsewhere for the removal of plenty of Republicans and Democrat's from Congress because I knew who I wanted to replace them. I have not called for Bush's and Cheney's removal from office because their terms have not yet expired.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

... You state

Quote:
As poor a leader as he obviously is, compared to the two losers -- Gore and Kerry -- the Democrats put up as alternatives, George Bush is a contemporary version of George Washington.

But this is a ridiculous thing to say. You have no actual knowledge of how well or poorly they would do in the role of CIC; the only actual knowledge you have is how poor Bush has done.

Cycloptichorn

I have knowledge of what Gore, Kerry and Bush said and did before they ran for president. I have knowledge of what Gore, Kerry, and Bush said and did when they ran for president. I have knowledge of what Gore, Kerry and Bush said and did since they ran for president. I think all that together is sufficient to justify my judgment about Gore's and Kerry's competence relative to Bush's.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

hbg, I don't know of any commercial enterprise that would tolerate such incompetence and mismanagement of anything for six years. Then, we have the likes of ican, the war apologists, who can't seem to see the facts thrown at us every day where our soldiers are getting killed at two-plus per day, and two billion dollars every week. They want to prolong this craziness, because they have some ignorant idea there can be success with 150,000 troops on the ground in a country with almost 25 million inhabitants...who in turn are migrating out of Iraq by the thousands.

Again you wrongly describe my position. I have the idea we can win by employing the strategy and tactics that won for us in Central America in the last century. It appears that we are slowly moving toward that strategy and tactics.

The majority of Iraqis want us out of their country, and the majority of Americans want our troops to come home.

Of course, the majority of Iraqis want us out of their country. They want us out when they are able to protect themselves without our help. If they wanted us out now, all they would have to do is convince their government to ask us to leave now.

Of course, a majority of Americans want our troops home. They want them home as soon as the Iraqis no longer need our help to protect themselves; they want us to do a better and faster job of getting the Iraqis to that condition.

All those supporting this war are insane.

All those who want our troops to leave Iraq before the Iraqis can defend themselves without our help are rotters.

0 Replies

Quote:

You answered YES, you favor our losing. You thereby revealed yourself, by implication, as a person who is looking for those among us who can lead us to lose.

You're wrong. I answered 'yes' to the question of 'should we leave before the Iraqis can defend themselves.' I don't consider that to be a loss.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

i would think that the united states might be able to win in iraq , assuming sufficient soldiers/police , MONEY and whatever other resources are required are thrown into the breach .

from what i remember , during WW II almost the whole nation contributed to the war effort - and not only in the united states .

...

Excellent! We can win if we all invest enough to win. What you remember is correct. My family, like almost all other families, were there and did that. Unfortunately, many families had to sacrifice far more than my family.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

You answered YES, you favor our losing. You thereby revealed yourself, by implication, as a person who is looking for those among us who can lead us to lose.

You're wrong. I answered 'yes' to the question of 'should we leave before the Iraqis can defend themselves.' I don't consider that to be a loss.

Cycloptichorn

I'm right, you're wrong. I consider your answer to be a self-evident choice to lose. That you consider it otherwise is testimony to the huge magnitude of your self-deception.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

You answered YES, you favor our losing. You thereby revealed yourself, by implication, as a person who is looking for those among us who can lead us to lose.

You're wrong. I answered 'yes' to the question of 'should we leave before the Iraqis can defend themselves.' I don't consider that to be a loss.

Cycloptichorn

I'm right, you're wrong. I consider your answer to be a self-evident choice to lose. That you consider it otherwise is testimony to the huge magnitude of your self-deception.

Sorry, but you aren't right.

If there's someone who is deceiving themselves here, Ican, it's been you - for years - about the fundamental nature of why we attacked Iraq. You've bought the lame excuses hook line and sinker. So don't lecture me on self-deception.

The evidence that will confirm this will continue to be revealed at a greater pace as this year progresses. Despite your protests and accusations, the fortunes of the anti-war Dems will Wax, and that of war supporters such as yourself will Wane. This follows the general pattern of the last year or so.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

ican wrote :

Quote:

Of course, the majority of Iraqis want us out of their country. They want us out when they are able to protect themselves without our help.

there are indeed many iraqis that want the united states to stay , but during their stay they also want the united states to repair all the damage that has been done to their infrastructure !

(if you read "prince of the marshes" you can hear the frustration of both the iraquis and the early administrators to get the ball rolling .. and keep it rolling . when they had one school repaired , two more were blown up).
hbg

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

You answered YES, you favor our losing. You thereby revealed yourself, by implication, as a person who is looking for those among us who can lead us to lose.

You're wrong. I answered 'yes' to the question of 'should we leave before the Iraqis can defend themselves.' I don't consider that to be a loss.

Cycloptichorn

I'm right, you're wrong. I consider your answer to be a self-evident choice to lose. That you consider it otherwise is testimony to the huge magnitude of your self-deception.

Sorry, but you aren't right.

If there's someone who is deceiving themselves here, Ican, it's been you - for years - about the fundamental nature of why we attacked Iraq. You've bought the lame excuses hook line and sinker. So don't lecture me on self-deception.

The evidence that will confirm this will continue to be revealed at a greater pace as this year progresses. Despite your protests and accusations, the fortunes of the anti-war Dems will Wax, and that of war supporters such as yourself will Wane. This follows the general pattern of the last year or so.

Cycloptichorn

Oh yes I am right! You want us to take that action which would constitute our losing!

I posted repeatedly the two reasons that I think justified our invasion of Iraq. These two reasons have since been verified repeatedly. If you ask me nicely, I shall post again the evidence to show that the two reasons presented below with boldfaced whereases are valid and sufficient.

Joint Resolution of Congress, September 14, 2001 authorization for use of force
emphasis added
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, orharbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Congress's Joint Resolution, Oct. 16, 2002
Public Law 107-243 107th Congress Joint Resolution Oct. 16, 2002 (H.J. Res. 114) To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Congress wrote:

...
[10th]Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

[11th]Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
...

All told there were 23 reasons given for invading Iraq. But 10 were subsequently shown to be false. That left 13 reasons subsequently shown to be true.

0 Replies

Yeah yeah save you're breath.

Quote:

Oh yes I am right! You want us to take that action which would constitute our losing!

You're wrong, because you don't understand what 'winning' and 'losing' in Iraq mean. I know that you have your own personal definitions of the two terms, but they - much like most things you post - have little relation to reality.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Yeah yeah save you're breath.

Quote:

Oh yes I am right! You want us to take that action which would constitute our losing!

You're wrong, because you don't understand what 'winning' and 'losing' in Iraq mean. I know that you have your own personal definitions of the two terms, but they - much like most things you post - have little relation to reality.

Cycloptichorn

What is your definition of winning?

These are all mine. Pick the one you prefer.

Quote:

http://209.161.33.50/dictionary
Main Entry: 1win
Pronunciation: \ˈwin\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): won \ˈwən\; win·ning
Etymology: Middle English winnen, from Old English winnan to struggle; akin to Old High German winnan to struggle and probably to Latin venus sexual desire, charm, Sanskrit vanas desire, vanoti he strives for
Date: before 12th century
transitive verb
1 a: to get possession of by effort or fortune b: to obtain by work : earn <striving>
2 a: to gain in or as if in battle or contest <won> b: to be the victor in <won>
3 a: to make friendly or favorable to oneself or to one's cause — often used with over <won> b: to induce to accept oneself in marriage <was>
4 a: to obtain (as ore, coal, or clay) by mining b: to prepare (as a vein or bed) for regular mining c: to recover (as metal) from ore
5: to reach by expenditure of effort
intransitive verb
1: to gain the victory in a contest : succeed
2: to succeed in arriving at a place or a state

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know