RE: Resolve (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Sinergy -> RE: Resolve (4/18/2007 10:33:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

The US Civil War was primarily an Economic War between Rich White Men, while the Iraqi Civil War is the continuation of a 1300 year old feud over whether or not Ali is the right man.

Are there parallels to be drawn?



I dont think his point was about Sunni and Shiites arguing over whether Ali was the right man at all.

I think his point was to prove that after the swine in Washington invaded and conquered the South, those scum Northern Carpetbaggers came in and inflicted their economic and social ideals on the indigenous population of the South, regardless of how the people who actually lived in the South wanted to live.

To follow the logic out to the conclusion I think he is making, after 100 years the South will have put aside their bitterness and dislike for those existing north of the Mason/Dixon line and we will all get along.

So after we conquer and assimilate our culture into Iraq for the next 100 years, they will all wear hip-huggers and listen to gangsta rap.

Sinergy

p.s.  I think trying to inflict US culture on other people is something only those blinded by hubris would consider a great idea, but that is just me and I could be wrong.



Vendaval -> RE: Resolve (4/18/2007 10:35:34 PM)

The deteriorating situation strengthens my own point of view
about the situation and the potential outcomes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

This wave of new amazingly brutal attacks in Iraq - public building, open markets, even a hospital - do they strengthen your resolve, or weaken it?
 



juliaoceania -> RE: Resolve (4/18/2007 10:35:43 PM)

I think what was done to the South was wrong, the institution of slavery collapsed in the New World, conquering them was not about slavery.



SusanofO -> RE: Resolve (4/18/2007 10:48:21 PM)

I agree with Merc (he has a point about  the allocation of their resources in response to our war effort, and its ossoble deterring of terrorist activity toward the US since 9/11, I have to say).

**To answer the Q, overall, it weakens my resolve, not because I am a coward, but simply because I think the problems run way too deep for our efforts to solve them, even within decades. 

If we leave, IMO, it will be even more obvious, to Iraquis and other nations (or hopefully should be, IMO) that ongoing decimation  has way more to do with the problems that Iraquis have with eachother, regardless of whether or not they have some with the US.

- Susan



FirmhandKY -> RE: Resolve (4/19/2007 1:23:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Which has bumpkis to do with my response to your comments about Gen Petraeus's appointment.


I was thinking the same thing about your bringing up the Civil War and Reconstruction.

Feel free to actually state your argument comparing and contrasting the Civil War and Reconstruction to the US Invasion and Occupation of Iraq.

Sinergy

p.s. Or was that simply some snide comment to try to prove you read a book about the Civil War in high school and I didnt?


You're funny, man, simply hilarious.  [:)]

Reconstruction?  We are talking Reconstruction now?  Damn, how the topic slips right away!  [sm=biggrin.gif]

What has Reconstruction got to do with the early part of the Civil War in the North, and the hiring and firing of generals, in comparison to the same during war in Iraq? 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

I think his point was to prove that after the swine in Washington invaded and conquered the South, those scum Northern Carpetbaggers came in and inflicted their economic and social ideals on the indigenous population of the South, regardless of how the people who actually lived in the South wanted to live.


And now making culturally insensitive comments about the South, 'cause you think it'll piss me off or  sump'thin?

Durn!  Yore pert near better'n that thar Comedy Channel!

Howsa bout cha "resolve" ta hang someswheres neer tha topic, thar, good buddy?  [:D]

FirmKY



MariaB -> RE: Resolve (4/19/2007 2:00:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

quote:

ORIGINAL: lostsoulskitten

Last I heard it was up to almost 200 dead in this latest bombing campaign.

Personally, I think we should never have gone into Iraq in the first place.  Getting out of there will be very difficult.  But given most of these tribes have been fighting and killing each other for hundreds of years, I do not see it getting any better.  Right now we are nothing more than a target and a police force.  Whether we stay or get out really is not going to improve the situation at this stage.  You cannot undo hundreds of years of fighting between factions in a few years or decades.



Not so, it's easy to get out.
"Here's the keys to your new country, enjoy."
Then you just leave.
(We) can't be doing the fighting for the Iraqi's freedom, THEY need to do it!
Washington keeps telling us that "we need another 6 months, year, two years" etc.
Just leave!
Why should it cost U.S. Taxpayers $500b?
Those big oil companies had better be planning on reimbursing the Taxpayers!


They cant just leave. Depleting the foreign armies in Iraq is a huge task and would take many weeks to get this huge man force out. Who do we leave till last? The more we pull out, the more vulnerable we leave the numbers as they reduce.



MariaB -> RE: Resolve (4/19/2007 2:02:00 AM)

There seems to be some confusion here. What has 9/11 got to do with us going into Iraq?



Sinergy -> RE: Resolve (4/19/2007 7:17:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB

There seems to be some confusion here. What has 9/11 got to do with us going into Iraq?


Im still wondering what the Civil War has to do with Iraq.

Just me, etc.

Sinergy

p.s.  Feel free to make your point, FirmhandKY.  My comments were actually sympathetic with the South.  I have never really read about anybody who likes having an invading force come in and tell them how to live.

p.p.s.  Heard this morning that the day after the President said that it was the Democrats who were trying to force the troops to stay in Iraq longer, his Secretary of Defense announced they are extending tours from 12 to 15 months.

p.p.p.s  The President did make the point that when the President makes a statement, (for example, it is not his administration trying to make the troops stay there longer) it is supposed to mean something.



Termyn8or -> RE: Resolve (4/19/2007 8:44:23 AM)

Resolve ? Now everybody can have a heart attack because I will be the one on topic.

Who's resolve ? The Palestinians ? The Iraqis ? Who else has been invaded ? This IS a worldwide forum.

Ever seen the proposed map of greater Israel ? To support this, for adequate defense there needs to be compliant governments in surrounding countries. So you can see the resolve. Their resolve is to make this happen.

My resolve goes in a different direction though. Every time something happens in Iraq my resolve strengthens to get our troops the fuck out of there. Fuck all the total asshole ideas on security, if all the soldiers in the 130 something military bases were here where they belong, there would be no problem.

Yes, it strengthens my resolve, but not how they think. It strengthens my resolve to get people elected who would really represent us. As far as taking and holding Iraq, I have no resolve whatsoever and never did. Facts are still facts and we should not be there, nor in Germany, Som.........130 countries later......

Fact of the matter is we are helping to prop up a worldwide regime. I have no resolve for that. Those military bases for 'security' are to keep the people from revolting and putting in true leaders that they want.

I have resolve, but not how they think.

T



Sinergy -> RE: Resolve (4/19/2007 9:41:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

Resolve ? Now everybody can have a heart attack because I will be the one on topic.

Who's resolve ? The Palestinians ? The Iraqis ? Who else has been invaded ? This IS a worldwide forum.

Ever seen the proposed map of greater Israel ? To support this, for adequate defense there needs to be compliant governments in surrounding countries. So you can see the resolve. Their resolve is to make this happen.

My resolve goes in a different direction though. Every time something happens in Iraq my resolve strengthens to get our troops the fuck out of there. Fuck all the total asshole ideas on security, if all the soldiers in the 130 something military bases were here where they belong, there would be no problem.

Yes, it strengthens my resolve, but not how they think. It strengthens my resolve to get people elected who would really represent us. As far as taking and holding Iraq, I have no resolve whatsoever and never did. Facts are still facts and we should not be there, nor in Germany, Som.........130 countries later......

Fact of the matter is we are helping to prop up a worldwide regime. I have no resolve for that. Those military bases for 'security' are to keep the people from revolting and putting in true leaders that they want.

I have resolve, but not how they think.

T


For all his many (and well studied) problems, Nixon was the first President of the United States who saw the Vietnam War as being an idiotic waste of time, effort, manpower, etc.  All the rest "resolved" to not be the first American President to lose a war.  Trash Nixon if you like, but he ended the Vietnam War, reopened relations with China, and oversaw a new approach to try to end the Cold War with the USSR.

I have asked before, why are none of the posters on here "resolve"d to stay in Iraq not over there in Iraq doing their part? 

It is easy to "resolve" to do something as long as you are not personally involved in getting it done.

Sinergy



NorthernGent -> RE: Resolve (4/19/2007 2:40:12 PM)

Facts:
 
  • Since the US army landed in Iraq, 2 million plus displaced civilians who have fled to other countries.
  • Since the US government sent the army in, thousands dead.
  • Some Americans think they have the answer, the self-righteous.
  • The US government have built the biggest embassy in the world in Iraq, the size of a small village.
  • US corporations are profiting from Iraq e.g. Bechtel, Exxon etc.
  • The US has appointed the Iraqi Prime Minister.
  • The US has a history of overthrowing governments and installing regimes friendly to US economic interests.
  • The US has in excess of 700 military bases around the world (in over 100 countries).

My opinion:
 
  • The US government has no intention of leaving. The whole intention was to destabilise the place, send it into chaos and provide an excuse for the gullible "they need us there to protect them" (bizarre as the slaughter began when the US army arrived).
  • The US are worried about a Shia alliance - Saudi, Iraq and Iran - strong enough to control the oil supply in the region. Thus, they want to maintain a presence in the region for the purpose of managing US economic interests.
  • The supporters and excusers have blood on their hands, those who oppose it can't do anymore than oppose it and lobby their local MPs or the American equivalent.
  • The invasion of Iraq is the coalition of the self-appointed righteous and the corporate greed crowd.

In terms of resolve:
 
  • Carnage in a wider sea of carnage. People will continue to die in numbers for as long as the US imperialists occupy Iraq.
  • Supporters and excusers, you're a disgrace.




Sinergy -> RE: Resolve (4/19/2007 4:07:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Facts:
 
  • Since the US army landed in Iraq, 2 million plus displaced civilians who have fled to other countries.
  • Since the US government sent the army in, thousands dead.
  • Some Americans think they have the answer, the self-righteous.
  • The US government have built the biggest embassy in the world in Iraq, the size of a small village.
  • US corporations are profiting from Iraq e.g. Bechtel, Exxon etc.
  • The US has appointed the Iraqi Prime Minister.
  • The US has a history of overthrowing governments and installing regimes friendly to US economic interests.
  • The US has in excess of 700 military bases around the world (in over 100 countries).

My opinion:
 
  • The US government has no intention of leaving. The whole intention was to destabilise the place, send it into chaos and provide an excuse for the gullible "they need us there to protect them" (bizarre as the slaughter began when the US army arrived).
  • The US are worried about a Shia alliance - Saudi, Iraq and Iran - strong enough to control the oil supply in the region. Thus, they want to maintain a presence in the region for the purpose of managing US economic interests.
  • The supporters and excusers have blood on their hands, those who oppose it can't do anymore than oppose it and lobby their local MPs or the American equivalent.
  • The invasion of Iraq is the coalition of the self-appointed righteous and the corporate greed crowd.

In terms of resolve:
 
  • Carnage in a wider sea of carnage. People will continue to die in numbers for as long as the US imperialists occupy Iraq.
  • Supporters and excusers, you're a disgrace.





Well put.

Sinergy

p.s.  As I pointed out, they are also cowards since they are not over there doing their part to support their cause.  It is easy to support something when one is not the one being called on to risk taking a bullet for one's beliefs.

p.p.s.  On a related note, the VA said that they do not allow volunteers to work with patients.



FirmhandKY -> RE: Resolve (4/19/2007 11:23:16 PM)

Sinergy,

Your and NG's observations and arguments are utter tripe, blind to the possibility that anyone could disagree with your stances for principled reasons.

The problem is that you aren't likely able to understand, and NG is simply lost in his moral outrage and ideology to consider that his moral point of view isn't (or shouldn't be) universal.

Which makes it extremely difficult to try to reason with either of you (as I've tried several times) - not to get you to agree - but to at least acknowledge that other valid points of view can exist and disagreements on the issue doesn't make someone evil. 

It also tends to prevent many from even trying to engage you in the first place, and eventually results in death of debate and a much more dangerous world.  Not for me, or others who can conceive of disagreement without bloodshed, but for people such as yourself and NG who will go through life in utter frustration because you will end up blindsided by people and events that you are incapable of (or unwilling) to understand.

FirmKY



meatcleaver -> RE: Resolve (4/19/2007 11:45:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

It also tends to prevent many from even trying to engage you in the first place, and eventually results in death of debate and a much more dangerous world.  Not for me, or others who can conceive of disagreement without bloodshed, but for people such as yourself and NG who will go through life in utter frustration because you will end up blindsided by people and events that you are incapable of (or unwilling) to understand.

FirmKY


No supporter of the Iraq debacle has ever given a coherent, rational or convincing argument as to why it was necessary or why it appeared to be necessary at the time to invade Iraq. Supporters of the Iraq invasion seem as much at a loss as antis as to why the invasion took place in the first place. Iraq was contained, it had a third rate military with obsolete equipement, just about everyone apart from those determined to invade didn't consider Iraq to have WMDs or be a danger. In fact the WMD issue was used by Blair in Britain because his legal advice was that invading Iraq on the sole reason of regime change was illegal. What is there to understand? 



NorthernGent -> RE: Resolve (4/20/2007 12:07:52 AM)

There's a pattern developing here, Firmhand, you're speaking for board members again.

I'm fully aware there are other points of view on this. I know what your opinion is, and the opinion of the US government and supporters. You've just had mine, take it or leave it.

Your conclusion tells the story:

but for people such as yourself and NG who will go through life in utter frustration because you will end up blindsided by people and events that you are incapable of (or unwilling) to understand.

So, you have the capacity to understand, others do not. That seems a very blanket statement to throw around - you understand everything and we understand nothing? It follows that you're capable of understanding what is needed in the Middle East and, ultimately, your superior understanding leads you to bestow upon yourself the right to kill people.

I think it's a fair call that if left to the likes of Sinergy, sections of the US wouldn't be paying in tax and blood to kill people thousands of miles away. On the other side of the coin, your way of thinking is leading to the deaths and displacement of a lot of people. You can post about who understands what til the cows come home, but you've already stated on another post that you believe it is necessary to kill and displace people because you want to reorder their society and ensure they are conducive to your interests. Now, on the basis of this, you and I understand that this means you think you can kill people because your ideas are "better" than theirs.



FirmhandKY -> RE: Resolve (4/20/2007 2:20:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

There's a pattern developing here, Firmhand, you're speaking for board members again.

I'm fully aware there are other points of view on this. I know what your opinion is, and the opinion of the US government and supporters. You've just had mine, take it or leave it.

Your conclusion tells the story:

but for people such as yourself and NG who will go through life in utter frustration because you will end up blindsided by people and events that you are incapable of (or unwilling) to understand.

So, you have the capacity to understand, others do not. That seems a very blanket statement to throw around - you understand everything and we understand nothing? It follows that you're capable of understanding what is needed in the Middle East and, ultimately, your superior understanding leads you to bestow upon yourself the right to kill people.

I think it's a fair call that if left to the likes of Sinergy, sections of the US wouldn't be paying in tax and blood to kill people thousands of miles away. On the other side of the coin, your way of thinking is leading to the deaths and displacement of a lot of people. You can post about who understands what til the cows come home, but you've already stated on another post that you believe it is necessary to kill and displace people because you want to reorder their society and ensure they are conducive to your interests. Now, on the basis of this, you and I understand that this means you think you can kill people because your ideas are "better" than theirs.


No, what you "are incapable of (or unwilling) to understand" is that people can disagree with you, and take actions that you find disagreeable, without them being the moral equal of a mind-numbed, blind, self-righteous, corrupt legion of robots.

And I speak for no one but myself.  Others may agree with me, but many do not have the patience or desire to engage your type of "thinking".

I take particular exception to these words of yours:

Some Americans think they have the answer, the self-righteous.

You seem mighty smug and self assured in your righteousness, it seems to me.

The whole intention was to destabilise the place, send it into chaos and provide an excuse for the gullible

Again, you make a smug and self-rightous claim that anyone who disagrees with you is "gullible".  No room for honest disagreement there, now is there?

 The supporters and excusers have blood on their hands,

Again "excusers".  Stopping at "supporters" would have shown signs of a mind open to the fact that people can honestly disagree with you.  Adding the "excusers" places a negative moral component on them, and again exposes your contempt for anyone who dares disagree with you.

The invasion of Iraq is the coalition of the self-appointed righteous ....

Again "righteous", in the sarcastic sense of "self-righteous". placing yourself firmly on the side of the angels, and everyone who has a counter opinion as evil and demonic.

Supporters and excusers, you're a disgrace.

Your summary sentence, again using a negative moral condemnation, along with the flat assertion that they are "a disgrace" for daring to disagree with you.

Now, you tell me - who here is really "self-righteous" and "disgraceful"?

 I find it funny/sad that so many people are like you.  You claim that "the fundies" are bad, that religion gives a false and unnecessary sense of righteousness that you find troubling and anti-social.  You claim to make decisions based on the "rational" and "logic" that "everyone can see".  You fight and struggle to disclaim any type of moral condemnation of those things that you propose.

Yet ... yet ... you are the exact thing that you preach and rail against.

Maybe that's why you know it so well?

I've argued many times with people such as you.  You can not, and will not countenance disagreement in any shape or form, although you will occasionally attempt to give the impression of "open-mindedness" and "fairness".  But it's all a ploy, a false front, a sham and an attempt at manipulation.

You will always come around to one of three options with anyone who disagrees with you:

1.  They are stupid,
2.  They are mentally unbalanced, or
3.  They are criminal (evil) and choose their position out of avarice, hatred or petty motives.

As I said .. there is no room for an honest discussion or disagreement with you.

Let me give you some examples of people that I disagree with here, that hold similar opinions about the war that you do - but who I respect because they aren't stuffed in a moral righteousness, and are willing to understand that good people can disagree for good reasons.

First is Mercnbeth.  He is against the war, and can explain his reasons quite well.  He has followed the logic of his position as far as acknowledging that he no longer "supports the troops", for that entails a measure of supporting the war.

I disagree with his opposition to the war, but have a high respect for the process he arrives at his conclusions, and acknowledge his right to disagree.

Utopian Ranger is another with whom I disagree, and about more than the war.  But, again - he has room in his head for understanding that not everyone will agree with him, yet that doesn't make them less than human or despicable.

caitlyn is another.  She started this thread because she is honestly looking for understanding.  She values input from people, and is smart enough to arrive at her own conclusions.

I disagree with her conclusions about the war - but I respect the hell out of her, and honor her decision.

Where do you fit in with people like this?

You don't. 

You twist and turn the meaning of every discussion I've had with you, to try to put me on the moral defensive, and yourself on some illusionary moral high ground.  You don't listen: you preach (and badly at that). 

And you deny it the entire time.  Self-deception or rhetorical technique, I don't know and will not speculate.  I only say what I see and experience.

You are an ideologue.  You are the spirit of Stalin who murdered and enslaved all who he had the slighest suspicion about.  You are an autocrat who must have everything his way.  You are the heart and soul of the unbalanced part of the Left that would use every institution, subterfuge and twisted method available to you to force others to kowtow to your morality.

No, I stand by my every word in my earlier post.  And add these.

You reveal yourself at every turn.

FirmKY



Sinergy -> RE: Resolve (4/20/2007 5:40:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Which makes it extremely difficult to try to reason with either of you (as I've tried several times) - not to get you to agree - but to at least acknowledge that other valid points of view can exist and disagreements on the issue doesn't make someone evil. 



Perhaps if you tried the approach of bringing some relevant information to the discussion you would have a better chance at engaging us in a reasoned debate.

The approach you use, to pick one example out of a hat, involves comparing the Civil War with Iraq.  You dont bother to provide any sort of relevant comparison, you just lamely opine that there was a musical chairs of generals picked by Lincoln to fight the war and state that the same sort of thing is happening here.  You dont say why musical chair generals is a bad thing.  You dont give specific examples of generals in the Civil War not allowed to finish out their jobs.  You dont bother to make a concrete comparison between a specific general in the Civil War and a specific general in Iraq.  You dont clarify how not removing a specific general from their position would have resulted in a different outcome in a specific situation.  Additionally, you dont examine and discard information relevant to the situation which would either agree with or disagree with your position.

But the statements you often make are not overly clear, and what you generally do when pressed is to either go on a personal attack, as you did here, or else provide vast reams of irrelevant data (as you did on the Antarctica ice mass loss thread), possibly hoping that the person will not have the time or the interest in reading it.

Neither of these two approaches qualifies as engaging in reasoned discussion.  While I suspect you dont care what I think, I find it tiresome to listen to those who pontificate irrelevant nonsense.  Additionally, I pick fights with people for a living; odds you will ever emotionally upset me by posting anything are so small as to escape detection by modern science. 

Bush has had how many DHS Czar / leader people?  Bush has had how many generals over in Iraq?  Bush has had how many civilian leaders of the reconstruction of Iraq?  Bush has asked for more troops, more money, more resolve, more whatever how many times?  The point that NG and I are making is that nothing Bush has done so far has actually accomplished anything to try to stabilize the country.  Yet he continues to spout this mindless drivel that we need to go along with him just a bit longer and he will succeed.  Unfortunately for him, his track record does not stand up to scrutiny;  He has not actually accomplished anything positive in his life or career, and every company or government he has been in charge of has seen a vast squandering of the surplus his predecessors left, become the poster child city for toxic pollutants by corporate scum, and either gone bankrupt or been bailed out by friends from Daddy's Rolodex.  I dont know about you, but I fear Bush and his manic desire to speed the world towards it's apocalypse.  Perhaps cockroaches, when they evolve for a few million years, will have a better chance of not killing themselves in their hubris and greed for power.

What Bush has done in Iraq has been to basically change the name of the person who kills, tortures, exploits, etc., the locals from Hussein to Bush.  As I have said before, as an American citizen I am frankly ashamed that these things are being done in my name and with my tax dollars.  I liked the US worldview from the 1950s and 1960s which had us as a white hatted cowboy riding in to town to save the day.  While I can list lots of examples as to why this was a silly viewpoint and not in keeping with how the rest of the world saw the US, I was happy, to pick an example out of a hat, that the United States and Canada were the first rescue workers on the ground to save people when Kobe was levelled by an earthquake.  This is the USA that makes me want to salute the flag.   The one that Bush is the poster child for makes me want to go live in New Zealand.

As I have also pointed out before, why are those of you true believers in the essential goodness and value of continuing the War in Iraq not putting your own personal safety on the line by going over there and doing what needs to be done to make it happen?  If you think I am calling somebody "evil" by suggesting that they go fight a war they passionately believe is a good thing, than you and I are simply going to have to disagree with the definition of the word "evil."  I will continue to find it simply fascinating that individuals are so willing to shed other people's blood, as long as they themselves are not inconvenienced.  As Erich Marie Remarque pointed out, wars are fought by the wrong people.  I can only hope that my words reach one of you True Believers In Bush types and you enlist today to put your money where your mouth is.

Maybe one of you will open a book and open your mind and realize that the insanity of the occupation of Iraq is a thousand times worse than the insanity of the occupation of Southeast Asia.

Perhaps at least one of you will stop and think about the fact that your True Believerism means more people's lives are cut short by death or TBI or whatever and they are brought home to fight another war against the Veterans Administration to get the benefits they thought their enlistment would provide for them.  But that is a different thread.

I love my country, but I am ashamed of the government that many of you elected to run the place.

Sinergy



NeedToUseYou -> RE: Resolve (4/20/2007 9:02:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

This wave of new amazingly brutal attacks in Iraq - public building, open markets, even a hospital - do they strengthen your resolve, or weaken it?
 
It doesn't matter what side of this issue you are on ... I'm more interest in how this influences your resolve towards you position.
 
Even if you feel this whole war in Iraq is nothing more than a way to destroy the other political party (I would stand in awe of anyone brave and honest enough to admit this), does it shake your feelings one way or the other?
 
I'm hoping we can stay off the "Bush lied, America sucks, who is a monkey", points of posting (possibly hopeless), and really focus on how these events shape and shake you.


Figured I'd quote the OP, since it seems it's broken down to the regular. Your uncivilized, and your a dictator, argument. LOL. I like watching that though it's funny.

Anyway, this question is hard to answer, because I honestly don't know what our actual "goal" is over there.

If the goal is just to draw fire from the U.S. to Iraq, well it makes some sense to stay. But don't we have afghanistan for that already? If the insurgents are coming just to fight the US, well they probably would go to afghanistan just as well. If not then they are legitimately there to free Iraq from us.

If the goal is to bring these people democracy, we should leave, they don't want it, or we aren't giving it to them. And I honestly don't see the difference between 100/ week over the span of a decade, and 100000 in mass murders, net result is the same. At least letting it explode well get it over with .

If the goal is to pillage the country resources to use it  as a future "gas tank" when oil is in short supply, call it an insurance policy 15 years out. Then we stay.

If the goal is to use Iraq as a hot bed for creating divisions in the middle east. Then we stay.

The above is from a government perspective not really about right or wrong.  So, I'm guessing that whichever goal above we are really fighting for will dictate whether we stay or go.


But my personal view, seeing that I'm unsure of what the true objective is, I'm only able to go off my gut. And my gut tells me this isn't about "helping" the Iraqis. It may be Iraq is being "used" to draw fire, or set up a centralized base of operations for the US purposes in the middle east. But that isn't exactly helping the Iraqis, is it?

The overall point here as I see it, the only reason to stay in Iraq are for self-serving itnerests. Whether that be US security(drawing fire), resource hi-jacking, creating chaos in the middle east. The only good possibility to stay in Iraq from an Iraqi viewpoint is to help stabilize it. But that just is not possible in the manner in which we are fighting, IMO. We seem to just fight with enough force to keep it from totally disintegrating, but not enough so, to put out all the fires.

So, to answer your question in short form. It brings me to the same conclusion I was already ascribed to. Which is we leave, because we are not "bringing" them democracy(It's questionable if they even want it), and the only other reasons , I can conceptualize I those that are self-serving interests only, such as we need to draw terrorist fire, or pillage the resources, or fragment the middle east. None of those are positions that help the Iraqi people.



FirmhandKY -> RE: Resolve (4/20/2007 12:08:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Which makes it extremely difficult to try to reason with either of you (as I've tried several times) - not to get you to agree - but to at least acknowledge that other valid points of view can exist and disagreements on the issue doesn't make someone evil. 


Perhaps if you tried the approach of bringing some relevant information to the discussion you would have a better chance at engaging us in a reasoned debate.


Please re-read the sentence that you quoted above.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

The approach you use, to pick one example out of a hat, involves comparing the Civil War with Iraq.  You dont bother to provide any sort of relevant comparison, you just lamely opine that there was a musical chairs of generals picked by Lincoln to fight the war and state that the same sort of thing is happening here.  You dont say why musical chair generals is a bad thing.  You dont give specific examples of generals in the Civil War not allowed to finish out their jobs.  You dont bother to make a concrete comparison between a specific general in the Civil War and a specific general in Iraq.  You dont clarify how not removing a specific general from their position would have resulted in a different outcome in a specific situation.  Additionally, you dont examine and discard information relevant to the situation which would either agree with or disagree with your position.


You are the one with difficulty in following any kind of logical argument.  The "Civil War" comments are prime examples.  My comment was that I believe that Petraeus can win this war, although I wasn't sure that earlier generals could have. 

You made the inference that no general has or can make a difference, and no new one or can or will, because Bush is the one picking them.  My response was to direct you to another example where a US Commander in Chief played musicial chairs with generals in a conflict, and eventually found the one that won the war.

Simple, but you go off on all kinds of unrelated tangets.  Reconstruction?  Smart aleck comments about the South? Why?  I dunno.  You just do that all the time. It's your style of discussion, I think, mixed in with a strong dose of egotism, an ability to miss the obvious and that smug attitude you carry around.  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

But the statements you often make are not overly clear, and what you generally do when pressed is to either go on a personal attack, as you did here, or else provide vast reams of irrelevant data (as you did on the Antarctica ice mass loss thread), possibly hoping that the person will not have the time or the interest in reading it.


Just because you can't understand it, does not make it irrelevant.  It just means that you don't understand it.

The "personal attack" ratio between you and me is about 1000 to 1 in your favor, I think.  You simply can't post without either a snide insult or rude remark, totally unrelated to the topic under discussion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

Neither of these two approaches qualifies as engaging in reasoned discussion.  While I suspect you dont care what I think, I find it tiresome to listen to those who pontificate irrelevant nonsense.  Additionally, I pick fights with people for a living; odds you will ever emotionally upset me by posting anything are so small as to escape detection by modern science. 


I too have a problem with pontificators and irrelevant nonsense.  But I at least attempt to engage people who qualify under both qualifier.

And I'm really tired of hearing about how you "pick fights with people for a living".  Maybe you need a new model for your behavior.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

Bush has had how many DHS Czar / leader people?  Bush has had how many generals over in Iraq?  Bush has had how many civilian leaders of the reconstruction of Iraq?  Bush has asked for more troops, more money, more resolve, more whatever how many times?  The point that NG and I are making is that nothing Bush has done so far has actually accomplished anything to try to stabilize the country.  Yet he continues to spout this mindless drivel that we need to go along with him just a bit longer and he will succeed.  Unfortunately for him, his track record does not stand up to scrutiny;  He has not actually accomplished anything positive in his life or career, and every company or government he has been in charge of has seen a vast squandering of the surplus his predecessors left, become the poster child city for toxic pollutants by corporate scum, and either gone bankrupt or been bailed out by friends from Daddy's Rolodex.  I dont know about you, but I fear Bush and his manic desire to speed the world towards it's apocalypse.  Perhaps cockroaches, when they evolve for a few million years, will have a better chance of not killing themselves in their hubris and greed for power.


Perfect example of illustrating my early comments about you and NG's point of view.  Anyone who doesn't think the way you do are utterly evil and unredemable.  As I said, you believe Bush to be:

1.  Stupid,
2.  Mentally unbalanced, and
3.  Criminal (evil) and chooses his position out of avarice, hatred or petty motives.

No room in your world view for disagreements of principle and intent.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

What Bush has done in Iraq has been to basically change the name of the person who kills, tortures, exploits, etc., the locals from Hussein to Bush.  As I have said before, as an American citizen I am frankly ashamed that these things are being done in my name and with my tax dollars.  I liked the US worldview from the 1950s and 1960s which had us as a white hatted cowboy riding in to town to save the day.  While I can list lots of examples as to why this was a silly viewpoint and not in keeping with how the rest of the world saw the US, I was happy, to pick an example out of a hat, that the United States and Canada were the first rescue workers on the ground to save people when Kobe was levelled by an earthquake.  This is the USA that makes me want to salute the flag.   The one that Bush is the poster child for makes me want to go live in New Zealand.

As I have also pointed out before, why are those of you true believers in the essential goodness and value of continuing the War in Iraq not putting your own personal safety on the line by going over there and doing what needs to be done to make it happen?  If you think I am calling somebody "evil" by suggesting that they go fight a war they passionately believe is a good thing, than you and I are simply going to have to disagree with the definition of the word "evil."  I will continue to find it simply fascinating that individuals are so willing to shed other people's blood, as long as they themselves are not inconvenienced.  As Erich Marie Remarque pointed out, wars are fought by the wrong people.  I can only hope that my words reach one of you True Believers In Bush types and you enlist today to put your money where your mouth is.


As I have also pointed out before, why are those of you true believers in the essential goodness and value of continuing the War in Iraq not putting your own personal safety on the line by going over there and doing what needs to be done to make it happen?

Chickenhawk:

“Chicken hawk” isn’t an argument. It is a slur — a dishonest and incoherent slur. It is dishonest because those who invoke it don’t really mean what they imply — that only those with combat experience have the moral authority or the necessary understanding to advocate military force.

...

The cry of “chicken hawk” is dishonest for another reason: It is never aimed at those who oppose military action. But there is no difference, in terms of the background and judgment required, between deciding to go to war and deciding not to. If only those who served in uniform during wartime have the moral standing and experience to back a war, then only they have the moral standing and experience to oppose a war. Those who mock the views of “chicken hawks” ought to be just as dismissive of “chicken doves.”

Other points:
The term is an ad hominem, since labeling someone a chickenhawk does not actually address the argument for the use of military force; it is instead only name-calling that attempts to stifle actual debate.

There is a double standard in using the term. Only conservative Republicans who support the war in Iraq are being referred to as chickenhawks even though the term can also be applied to liberal Democrats like Bill Clinton who avoided the Vietnam draft and, yet, as President, ordered troops to Somalia and the former Yugoslavia.

Extending the "chickenhawk" approach into other American political debates would mean that, for example, only police officers (and ex-police officers) could advocate that policemen fight crime.

I think that a "True Believer" is what describes you:

mass movements that appeal to the frustrated; people who are dissatisfied with their current state, but are capable of a strong belief in the future and to people who want to escape a flawed self by creating an imaginary self and joining a compact collective whole to escape themselves. Some categories of such people are the poor, the misfits, the creative thwarted in their endeavors, the inordinately selfish, the ambitious facing unlimited opportunities, minorities, the bored, and sinners.

You are one who has utter certainty in your beliefs.  You are one who manages to make any who oppose you into some kind of moral cripple, taking only those facts and opinions that agree with your opinion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

Maybe one of you will open a book and open your mind and realize that the insanity of the occupation of Iraq is a thousand times worse than the insanity of the occupation of Southeast Asia.


uh huh.  Not based on facts, but only on emotion.  I'd really like to see your sources on this one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

Perhaps at least one of you will stop and think about the fact that your True Believerism means more people's lives are cut short by death or TBI or whatever and they are brought home to fight another war against the Veterans Administration to get the benefits they thought their enlistment would provide for them.  But that is a different thread.

I love my country, but I am ashamed of the government that many of you elected to run the place.


makes me want to go live in New Zealand.

Then I respectfully suggest you apply for your visa.

Returning to topic ...

It is people such as yourself, that make my "resolve" even stronger in this issue.

FirmKY



topcat -> RE: Resolve (4/20/2007 12:29:31 PM)

Dear Caitlyn-
 
It's a good question, and I have noticed that, as recently as last weekend my family is finally agreeing on this:
 
We must get out.
 
My family is an odd demographic, really- Between my Father (Viet Nam), my brother (Desert Storm), and the uncle (WWII) and myself (Beirut,'83)who were in the same room last week. We all served in the USMC. My brother is a knee jerk Neocon, my Dad is Labor all the way, I am a neofacsist, and my uncle is a reformed republicain voting D lately. We have lost four relations under arms since 9/11/01, and currently have six on active duty. We normally have to eat with a bell on table, like the parliment. when the bell is wrung, conversation (aka ranting and raving) stops.
 
We didn't ring the bell once last week.
 
While we differed on how to get out, and what to do after ( I favor immediate withdrawal, and brutal bombing to contain and surpress any notions of adventureism that arise afterwards), we all agreed, we must get out.
 
It is notable, to my mind, that the best military minds of our times will not pick up the reins as War Czar.
 
As to your Captain, when men live day to day under threat of fire, the notion of being able to even reach out and say that you are OK is foreign, the gulf of experiance becomes so vast that to communicate beyond it seems impossible. Give him time, and you will hear.
 
Stay warm,
Lawrence



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
6.054688E-02