Lib, are you seriously saying that you know more about the situation in Iraq than the guy who is ACTUALLY IN IRAQ?
What about our glorious victory over the crack Cuban bulldozer drivers in the stunning military campaign Urgent Fury, where we made the world safer from the evil plotters in Grenada? Ah, how quickly we forget!
This thread was about one part of the situation. The link in my OP no longer works because the article was sent to the archives, but here’s a mirror for it.
[Marked Women
A rash of unpunished honor killings highlights the harrowing dangers females face in the new Iraq](MEDIA - V-Day)
madmonk28, I’d like to hear your take on stories like this. I appreciate your point of view.
No. Are you saying that Martian canals were formed by liquid carbon dioxide?
So you are saying the situation is worse than reported?
So if I’m for a peaceful resolution in Iraq I MUST be for Bush? How about I’m for less death, chaos, and destruction? For less U.S. casualties?
If I’m for Kerry must I hope that death and mayhem happens in a country halfway around the world?
Well, of course it is. Did you think reporters were omnipresent?
No, in case English isn’t your first language, I didn’t say that you should be for Bush, but that you should not oppose his peace-keeping policies and that, in fact, you should hope for him the best possible success, given your interference ideology. But it appears that you’re glad he failed.
Typical.
how is it hypocrisy to bash bush when you think he’s doing a horrible job of establishing peace? if you think someone else would do the job better, isn’t it the proper thing to do to try to see that he gets to do the job?
[bolding mine]
Do not put words in my mouth. I am not happy that people are dying in Iraq. I AM NOT happy that from what people have been saying in this thread it appears that the situation isn’t that great. I am for someone that might have a better plan than “stay the course” when people (both U.S. servicepeople and Iraqi innocents) are being killed daily.
Brutus:
The bombing of populations centers in Germany and Japan did not lead to a collapse of resistance. The Germans fought tooth and nail to the very streets of Berlin and the Soviets took huge casualties (and before that there was the Battle of the Bulge). And there’s no question that the Japanese would have outdone the Germans in that department had it not been for the atomic bombings (and I doubt you’re advocating that route). It’s widely agreed upon by military historians that the strategic bombing campaigns were largely ineffective given the death and destruction they caused (over Germany it was the sustained attacks on oil production and the transportation network that finally produced results).
What would have been a more reasonable option would have been to concentrate on Afghanistan as a showcase for US-led democracy and nation building. We used the stick, it was time to break out the carrot; instead we went with the “stick and another stick” approach. Then we dropped one of the sticks and the other stick isn’t big enough. Osama bin Laden wanted us to take out Saddam Hussein to open the door for an Islamic state in Iraq. In spite of everything else, Saddam was keeping a lid on Islamic terrorism (which was supposedly the #1 problem). Taking him out was like kicking the ball into our own goal.
After 9/11 there was considerable sympathy for the US in the Muslim world, but considerable anger and suspicion over the invasion of Afghanistan. We needed to assuage that, but instead we made it much, much worse. We needed more support from allies and the rest of the World, instead we alienated them. How can we fight a global war on terrorism without the Globe?
What to do now? Get rid of the guy responsible, for starters. We can at least partially exorcise the demon. If we show the rest of the World our good side (it’s around here somewhere) we can coax them back to supporting us. Kerry favors greater international cooperation and has a chance or gaining more support for Iraq. Our only hope lies in convincing them that’s it was just Bush, not the US as a whole.
Listening Bush supporters tick off excuses for having gone into Iraq while ignoring the real, Afghanistan-centered problem made me realize something: These people aren’t strategists, they’re salesmen.
Elementary, my dear Watson.
-
George W. Bush says things in Iraq are improving.
-
George W. Bush is a known habitual liar.
-
Ergo, things in Iraq are worsening. QED.
“Salesmen” is a euphemism for “liar,” y’know.
Lib, my friend, I would ask you to read this thread through again.
You advocate an interventionist plan.
Bush has an interventionist plan.
Therefore, you advocate Bush’s interventionist plan.
Spot the fallacy.
I certainly hope that you are not characterising me so, given that I have explicitly stated that I sincerely wish that Iraq gets better just a few posts before yours.
Well, you may question the veracity of madmonk’s interpretation but my purpose (after the I-told-you-so I nevertheless feel entitled to) is to attempt to establish that the invasion of Iraq, without UN sanction or any debate about what the exact plan for intervention was, was a mistake.
But surely the current statisticas are an accurate reflection of the level of violence? You are surely not suggesting that there are unreported explosions in New York?
I would suggest that it is you who is mischaracterising Bush’s opponents here. I certainly do not want to see another unsanctioned, shambollically planned intervention in the future. I will advocate whatever is necessary to sort out this mess (which, incidentally, I think involves accepting that some cities are under Sharia law outwith Allied control rather than killing thousands in trying to bring them under control), but I believe that a vitally important step in preventing future messes is and admission that this mess was a mistake.
I contend that the Iraqi people were statistically better off in the years 1999-2001 than in the years 2002-2004. I hope that, overall, we might be able to show that they were statistically better off in the years 2002-2012 than they reasonable would have been had Saddam stayed in power.
You may note that I did not mention ‘bombing’ exclusively.
Even if the bombers were dropping rubber duckies, and did not one bit of damage to their targets (which is hardly the case according to the Bombing Survey), the bombing campaign drew off millions of Germans to the AAA crews and infrastructure, not to mention the thousands of 88s that would have no doubt found gainful employment cracking open tanks.
Regardless, I am not talking about getting the B-17s out of mothballs; I am talking about using whatever force is neccesary to kill the yahoos opposed to us. If they are using a mosque as a base, then guess what should get taken out? My point can be best illustrated by what happened a few weeks back: A complete Marine regiment was primed and ready to go in and take out Al Sadr and anybody else that looked cock-eyed at them. At the last moment, they were pulled back and (yet another) ‘negotiated’ settlement (that lasted all of days) was reached with Al Sadr. Screw that, let the military do its job.
Instead, we get this PR-driven action that the US forces are cornering themselves into. Abu Ghraib is treated like Dachau Redux, and that smacks of weakness. Obviously various elements over there don’t respect anything but overwhelming stregnth, so let’s give it to them.
Sure. Must be smiles of anguish on their faces, huh? Regardless, if this is ‘considerable sympathy’, then we can do without it.
Well, France and Germany declared that they won’t send troops, even if Kerry is elected, so what will the practical gain of ‘greater international cooperation’ be?
You advocate the destruction of the shrine of Mohammed’s grandson, the third holiest site in the Mulsim world after Mecca and Medina?
You are correct. I stand down. My apologies to all.
If they are allowing it to be used as a safe base to operate from, yep. Given the way Islamic (Palestinian, to be exact) gunmen treated the church in Bethlehem, and given the utter ludicrousness of granting the enemy a convenient safe-haven in easy reach, I am not very impressed with the need to treat their armed-to-the-teeth ‘holy’ places with any sort of respect.
That was very big of you, Lib. Would that all here, myself included, could be so honest with ourselves and others.
And fear not, I did appreciate your point, ultimately. I simply feel that these dirty, messy, complicated situations like Iraq are extremely difficult to accomodate into a consistent Big Picture worldview - we must simply do our best.
Then you dig yourself to their level of barbarism, and unite the entire Muslim world against your psychopathy.
My worst fear is that people like you gain important positions in the White House.
…Oh shit.
Hold yer horses Brutus! We have to be very very careful not to insult the delicate sentiments of Moslems and their gazillion holy lands, holy buildings, holy places, holy cities, holy countries, holy months, holy beards, holy clothes, holy traditions, holy paperclips and holy what-have-you-nots, even when it’s harmful to ourselves because you know the same Moslems have always been so very careful not to infringe upon the religion of other faiths that they even invented a special word for it: Dhimmis. Just think: pogrom of Jews, destruction of Buddhist ancient sculptures, Yom Kippur War, Spanish bombs set to correspond with the Easter rush and not least the cowardly destruction of the holiest of holy within the capitalist faith: The World Trade Centre.