Why do most of the liberals view Iraq as a failure?

first, send the reporters home.

then, put another 30,000 troops in.


War over (we win) by summer 2008.

Bill, Bill. You say that you are for:

Quote:

enough eat, reasonable preventative medicine, and freedom of self determination....

and combating aids, and the such... but I'm not sure I believe you, as you vote for people (according to you) who are decidedly against such things both at home and abroad.

How do you square up support for the Republican party with their positions on issues such as AIDS (no support for African countries unless they don't teach condom use), preventative medicine (no universal health care) and feeding the needy (welfare cuts and low-income assistance cuts across the board).

As for the military issue, I don't disagree that we have the most powerful military on the planet.

I do disagree that we have the most intelligent people running it, that reasonable goals were set, that competence is utilized in managing the attempts to reach these goals. Doesn't matter how big a rifle you have if you don't know how to shoot it; or when to shoot it; or how to clean and maintain it. We're faced with all three of these problems currently.

O'Bill, all of the Iraquis who can leave Iraq have now left or are trying to leave. 1.5 million of the middle classes are in Jordan and Syria and elsewhere.
Life for them under "Saddam and his murderous sons" was at least bearable....it's not bearable now. It's not safe to go out. No civilised life is possible, and no improvement in the situation is discernable.

Add up the body count and the waste and the cost, and you're looking at a pretty good example of failure imo.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Bill, Bill. You say that you are for:

Quote:

enough eat, reasonable preventative medicine, and freedom of self determination....

and combating aids, and the such... but I'm not sure I believe you, as you vote for people (according to you) who are decidedly against such things both at home and abroad.

How do you square up support for the Republican party with their positions on issues such as AIDS (no support for African countries unless they don't teach condom use), preventative medicine (no universal health care) and feeding the needy (welfare cuts and low-income assistance cuts across the board).

I have yet to ever offer up a dollar of support for the Republican Party and have voted for one Republican Presidential candidate one time, and even that was a vote against his opponent. Abstinence teaching is ignorance, I don't support Universal Health Care- but would support state subsidized Health Insurance providing it was designed with minimal government intrusion, and Welfare Reform is a positive in my book. I like Tommy Thomson's "Wisconsin Works" and believe that hands up are far superior to handouts.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

As for the military issue, I don't disagree that we have the most powerful military on the planet.

Then have the decency to retract the moron comment; since the quote you took out of context was entirely about that.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I do disagree that we have the most intelligent people running it, that reasonable goals were set, that competence is utilized in managing the attempts to reach these goals. Doesn't matter how big a rifle you have if you don't know how to shoot it; or when to shoot it; or how to clean and maintain it. We're faced with all three of these problems currently.

I don't recall writing anything that is contradicted by any of that.

McTag wrote:

O'Bill, all of the Iraquis who can leave Iraq have now left or are trying to leave. 1.5 million of the middle classes are in Jordan and Syria and elsewhere.
Life for them under "Saddam and his murderous sons" was at least bearable....it's not bearable now. It's not safe to go out. No civilised life is possible, and no improvement in the situation is discernable.

Add up the body count and the waste and the cost, and you're looking at a pretty good example of failure imo.

Show me one conflict where lives were improved in the middle of the conflict, hello. The lives of the Average American weren't improved during the Civil War, either. Does it surprise you that Iraq's former "ruling class" is now somewhat fearful of the majority whose oppression they've been benefiting from all these years? If (when?) a full blown Civil War erupts and a predictable genocide takes place; who do you think will be hit the hardest? That those with means are leaving is a predictable matter of common sense... and is likely bolstered by talk of immediate pullout of U.S. forces.

Jeremiah wrote:

Why do most liberals view Iraq as a failure?

Is it because larger number of deaths inflicted on the Americans?

It could be something to do with the invasion being illegal, immoral, counter-productive and stupid, misbegotten in arrogance and hubris, and suffering from the effects of very poor planning and erroneous assumptions about the nature and scale of the problem.

Fair enough. I was under the impression that you were more of a Republican supporter than this.

I take back calling your position on the military moronic and apologize for doing so.

Yaknow, in a certain way, I would like to think that the fact we as a society and as a world don't accept the violent solutions of the past is a testament to improvement as a species - when folks like Chiso present it as weakness and failure. It gets my hackles up.

Cycloptichorn

As credible, but yet, not as useful as it once was.

And that's not because the military has changed in any negative way, but because we as a society have changed in a positive way.

Cycloptichorn

InfraBlue wrote:

Yeah, the terrorists also believe in the idea of "at any cost."

So did John F. Kennedy.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

Yeah, the terrorists also believe in the idea of "at any cost."

So did John F. Kennedy.

Kennedy was wrong. This morality reduces us to the level of the terrorists no matter how noble we hold our intentions to be. "Moral" ends do not justify "immoral" means. Immoral means to achieve moral ends is a contradiction and a hypocrisy.

How many innocents would the adherents of this morality be willing to slaughter to achieve their "moral" ends?

How many women and girls would you be willing to slaughter to achieve your ends in Iraq? Fifty percent or so?

Show me one conflict where lives were improved in the middle of the conflict, hello. The lives of the Average American weren't improved during the Civil War, either. Does it surprise you that Iraq's former "ruling class" is now somewhat fearful of the majority whose oppression they've been benefiting from all these years? If (when?) a full blown Civil War erupts and a predictable genocide takes place; who do you think will be hit the hardest? That those with means are leaving is a predictable matter of common sense... and is likely bolstered by talk of immediate pullout of U.S. forces.

I would have expected that improvement right after the "Mission Accomplished" statement, wouldn't you?

And I'm remembering that Mr Cheney famously declared we would be hailed as liberators.
If he was in charge of a five-and-dime store he would be long gone by now.

Incidentally Iraq or Mesopotamia, as it was then, was the cradle of civilization when most of the world was still living in caves.

anton wrote:

Incidentally Iraq or Mesopotamia, as it was then, was the cradle of civilization when most of the world was still living in caves.

Unfortunately, the rest of the world moved on while Iraq stayed where it was. Guess they can't get passed the golden days, even if it was a couple thousand years ago.

Show me one conflict where lives were improved in the middle of the conflict, hello. The lives of the Average American weren't improved during the Civil War, either. Does it surprise you that Iraq's former "ruling class" is now somewhat fearful of the majority whose oppression they've been benefiting from all these years? If (when?) a full blown Civil War erupts and a predictable genocide takes place; who do you think will be hit the hardest? That those with means are leaving is a predictable matter of common sense... and is likely bolstered by talk of immediate pullout of U.S. forces.

Show me one conflict where lives were improved in the middle of the conflict, hello.

The millions of former slaves who were liberated in the course of the American Civil War would, and not unreasonably, have said that their lives were improved in the course of the war.

And flannel-mouthed conservatives who spout pseudo-history and bromides while cheerleading for this disaster are at least morally responsible for helping to further the idiocy.

So just what constitutes the end of the war, in the "wisdom" of conservatives?

With whom are we at war?

The Iraqi people themselves?

Only about 25,000,000 more to kill, and we win ! ! !