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?

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?
 

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?

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.

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!

quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB

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

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

• 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).

• 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.

• 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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

 The supporters and excusers have blood on their hands,

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

Supporters and excusers, you're a disgrace.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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?

“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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.