(Iraq-Related) Am I the only one...

The BBQ Pit
281

I have no idea of what your linked post means.

You think I’m a Holocaust Denier?
You think I’m lonesome polecat?
You want me to read your links?
You’ve figured how to link to a post only?

The links in that post are so -not related- to what I’m talking about here that I’m truly puzzled. I can’t imagine why you think I believe we have not committed crimes in Iraq. I will say that I do not believe that Americans intentionally target known civilians. Where I do believe that the insurgents do.

So you think they (neocons) want to attack Syria, and Iran, and I believe they think that Syria, and Iran will fall if Iraq is democracy.

I don’t see that these are that far apart. I never said that they wouldn’t use the military if the non-military way failed. I just said that they believe that the rest of the Middle East will fall if Iraq falls. In addition, they wanted the bases, in Iraq. I never said that wasn’t so.

However, that said; think they wanted it to be easy. I think they wanted a single invasion against a “bad guy”, and let the rest fall like dominoes. Moreover, I don’t think that Bush knew any of this, and honestly believed that it was about Terrorists/WMD/Democracy.

I think you need to read through this very long thread prior to the war to see was naive, and who was not.

282

Don’t need a massive support, jackass. I’ve already shown that you lied. That’s it.

BTW, I have no wife thus am not beating said wife. My father has never beat his wife.

283

Glad we’ve cleared that up, then.

284

Well, no, quite the reverse. It’s not that might makes right, and I’m not counting the British Empire against you. I think, that in balance, the British Empire was a good thing, and I’m saying that, since there has to be a world leader, it’s good that it’s the US, because we’ll help the world more than hurt it.

285

Apologies. I meant to link the following post of mine directly below that one.

Most racional people stay away from making said accusations, as it’s rather insane to believe the Holocaust didn’t happen. OTOH:

He/she is not exactly a model of rationality, so no, I don’t think so at all. As I said, a simple mislink.

Of course not. I merely post them to amuse my friends and family.

Ouch! That’s what I call "putting someone in their place"! What cutting wit.

The cites directly address my original comments vis-a-vis your benign gullibility towards the actions of your Government – and not just the current one.

Ah yes, the old “collateral damage” canard. We were just discussing that in this thread. (I tremble in fear of your upcoming wrath if I’ve managed to mislink once again – no milk and cookies before bed?)

I don’t need to interpret for them, I just need to read what they propose. In fact, I already gave you what I find to be the most salient quote in the Mission Statement.

Right. But you just said the opposite in your prior paragraph.

I love the smell of consistency in the morning.

I don’t think for a minute that Bush is the clueless git some of you make him out to be. And if he was, what does that say about the majority of Americans that put him in office?

Pray tell, why would I need to do that? Powell’s Bushit session was debunked practically hours after his presentation.

If the point is that you weren’t a member of the Faith-based community then, congratulations. Questions is, why are you now?

TTFN.

286

Whether he is leading the pack himself or being taken advantage of by the some cabal is of little consequence, the results are the same, he’s fucking up our country.

287

Oh, right, you’re the one with the handful of cites backing him up, as well as an overwhelming army of supporters who agree with your definitions. That must be what gives you the balls to call me a liar - gotcha!

Whooooosh!

288

Unfortunately, no argument there.

I do, sincerely, wish you all the best for I have no intrinsic reason for wanting otherwise. My personal ties with your country are indelible. As in my American born and bred only child, who still resides there with his American Mom – however, I’ll be dammed if he’ll end-up being used as cannon-fodder. And at fifteen he is getting dangerously close to to the age of consent; to die for the flag that is.

In a pig’s eye.

289

I don’t know how we can still be arguing about right and wrong, good and evil after seeing 1) how long this war has been planned and 2) what percentage of civilian deaths are the responsibility of coalition forces as opposed to the insurgents.

I’m not condemning coalition troops or defending the insurgents. I just don’t find that much difference in the driving forces of some of the leaders involved on all sides.

290

Cutting through the side issues here, I think this argument comes down to a single question.

Would the immediate withdrawl of Coalition troops from Iraq result in a better or a worse situation for the people there?

My opinion is that it would result in a worse situation, much worse. It can be, and has been, argued the other way, and the arguments are not entirely without merit. But given the deep sectarian and political divisions in the country, it seems extremely likely that a very nasty civil war would be the immediate and long-lasting outcome, with all the loss of infrastructure, food, and medical treatment that that would entail. This is not a reflection on the Iraqis per se, but rather a recognition of the realities of the religious and political realities.

But that’s my opinion, and there is certainly room for argument. Unfortunately, this isn’t a lab, and we can’t test our proposed solutions in advance and then decide which to apply.

Nobody here on either side of the issue is advocating the wholesale slaughter of civilians or cheering the deaths of anyone, so will you all please settle down? I was bitterly opposed to our invasion, find it morally reprehensible at worst and unforgivably naive and incompetent at best. I am still furious with the US administration for its actions, and with the American people who re-elected these at-best disingenuous pieces of shit. (btw, I am an American) But whether or not we should have been there to begin with is not relevant to this issue. The situation is what it is.

MrDibble believes that the situation will be better for the Iraqis without coalition forces. Most of the rest of us believe otherwise. (World Eater apparently doesn’t care about the Iraqis, and simply wants to bring the US troops home, which would certainly be the best move for the US if *only * the US is considered). That’s the simple issue raised by the OP (although admittedly he phrased it quite badly, even offensively), and the issue that should be under discussion in this thread, so will some of you get a grip?

291

That’s not my single question. My single question is: Would the Iraqis as a whole prefer we leave or prefer we stay to “fix things”?

Because it doesn’t matter what our intentions are if the people of the country don’t want us there.

292

Despite what RedFury thinks of me I’m not defending any of the civilian deaths, but there is one point I must make. When one looks at the numbers in the IBC report, I think it must be pointed that of the civilian deaths caused by military, the vast majority of them we caused in the initial invasion, ~6600 of the ~9200 (pg 12) and have been trending down to 11 (not percent,11 people) when this report was published in March. This means 72% of all civilian deaths by coalition deaths occurred in the initial invasion. While civilian deaths due to the insurgency have been trending up in the same period to 981 for the month of February (I’m not including March because the data was incomplete)

I think it’s clear that the “Coalition” is not targeting civilians, while the insurgency is.

293

Reasonableness? Civility? Is this still the same thread? :slight_smile:

Oy!, I guess it’s one of those situations that has arguments to either side, and you have to choose which side to take. I guess I could sum up my feelings by saying I think the Coalition forces act as a nucleus for more unrest than I think they actually stop, so taking them out of the equation will make things less volatile. While I do see a civil war as the outcome in that situation, I see say ten years of occupation, followed by a worse civil war*, as a worse outcome. I don’t think the coalition is being very effective at bringing security to Iraq, so the negatives outway the positives, but that’s my opinion.

  • Because 10 more years of insurgency is going to increase the sectarian hatreds, I think.

jsgoddess, my feeling (and I must stress this is just my opinion) is that the Iraqis generally would like the occupation to end, and the ones who are most vocal about the opposite view, are those who stand to benefit most from American muscle backing them up, a small power elite rather than massive popular pro-American support. Because the streets really weren’t strewn with flowers. Only roadside bombs.

I’m pretty sure the Shia would like majority rule, and their leaders see Coalition support as a tool for that, but AFAIK, these are not democratically elected leaders, are they? The “spiritual leaders”, I mean, not the Interim Govt. Sure, Sadr may now be leaning pro-govt., but it wasn’t that long ago that he was in open rebellion, so I wouldn’t put him as a “fan of the occupation” either…

294

I think you should be more careful to distinguish the puppets from the puppeteers. That’s what I think ultimately derailed your position.

295

I am also of the opinion that they outweigh them… :smack:

296

Could you possibly expand a bit on this?

I know you’ve been hassled obout brevity before, but I’m seriously not trying to annoy you or anything, I’d just like some expansion.

297

In your third post to the thread, you wrote: “Why? No, really, who is holding a gun to your collective heads, that prevents you from leaving if you want to?”

The fact is that the soldiers there, who are the targets of the so-called insurgents, indeed find themselves with guns held to their heads. In combat, a soldier may be shot for insubordination or mutiny. You spoke of a collective head, as though such a thing actually existed. But it doesn’t. There are the leaders who send men off to war, and the men who fight the war. Few fighters in history have behaved, in general, more admiriably and with more character than US soldiers. Aim your ire at the men who send them into the booby traps.

298

LibThat was beautiful! That’s exactly what I’ve been trying to say, but I’m not as good at brevity.