You build them, I wreck them, the Great Cycle turns. Shlemiel, shlmozzle.
You build them, I wreck them, the Great Cycle turns. Shlemiel, shlmozzle.
I see. And so your purpose here is…
Exactly! You can clean the shit out of the rug, but you can really ruin the finish and the wood by not using a coaster.
whoosh!
In exactly what fashion. He’s the Cinc. He gives the order, the troops go. The man in the street doesn’t go. In what phase of the conquest did the goodwill and support of the American people play a role? Did it power the tanks, fuel the rockets, take a bullet? What?
I don’t think we were mislead, and, apparently neither did the voters who reelected Bush after the fact no WMDs was established.
Two things. First off, “almost unanimous opposition?”
Countries tha actually participated in the invasion were:
US
UK
Italy
South Korea
Australia
Poland
Romania
Georgia
Denmark
El Salvador
Azerbaijan
Mongolia
Albania
Latvia
Lithuania
Czech Republic
Slovakia
Armenia
Bosnia
Estonia
Macedonia
Kazakhstan
Canada
Japan
Bulgaria
Ukraine
Nicaragua
Spain
Honduras
Norway
Dominican Republic
Phillipines
Thailand
Hungary
New Zealand
Portugal
Singapore
Netherlands
Moldova
Tonga
Iceland
That was the “coalition of the willing.” Countries that actually participitated in the invasion in some way, so it’s safe to say that they were not in opposition.
So hopefully that beats the shit out of the “almost unanimous international opposition” revisionist meme. It’s just not true.
Secondly, you say that it would not have been possible for us to invade without the support of the people. Ok.
The President gives the order. The troops go. They invade. At what point here do you feel that the support of the people is included?
I agree that it would have been tough to do by himself. Fortunately as the commander in chief he had the militar at his disposal to do it for him. He just had to give the order.
I don’t really see what’s so controversial about that.
Well, we can look at an impartial athority to see what the rationale was:
Note they cite the same speech I do. As to whether we could have done it without the WMD argument or not, that’s simply speculation. I can’t prove it one way or another, and I doubt you can either.
Fortunately that’s not what I said. They want to kill us. If we stop fighting they will kill us. If they stop fighting we have no desire to kill them. This isn’t tough.
The Nazis attacked other people and wanted to kill all the jews, right?
The terrorists attack people and want to kill all the jews, right?
They don’t want to coexist. They want to inflict their beleifs on us, kill the jews, and I guess we can convert or be killed to.
Do you really have a problem with painting militant fundamentalist Islamic terrorists as bad guys?
We didn’t put it there. Nobody in power today that I know of put it there. It got put there like 60 years ago by a bunch of other people who are all dead or in nursing homes.
I didn’t say we’re good because we want to maintain the status quo. I said we’re good because if they stop fighting we won’t kill them, but they’ll keep killing us (and a bunch of others besides) if we stop.
Big difference. Nothing about maintaining the status quo. In fact Bush is the first US President to push for a Palestinian state which is hardly maintaining the status quo.
Yeah. Regime change is the new strategy. As for the dozen wars ahead, maybe not. This one’s the pivot. The idea is that we will demonstrate that the tactic of hiding terrorists within a country and aiding them is no longer viable because that country will then suffer a regime change. It will become a deterrent.
Regardless of whether it works or not, a country that is harboring terrorists that are attacking is at war with us for all intents and purposes, so if we can’t deter them from aiding in attacks against us we might as well remove them.
I agree. They are different things.
That’s enough for me. He’s subsidizing suicide bombers by taking care of their families. From this we understand that he is their ally, helping them in their objectives. He might as well be training them, giving them bombs, a camp, or what have you. Money is certainly powerful aid and a powerful incentive.
No, but combine that with the financial aid and it kind of cements the argument that he is their ally and supporter. He’s declared himself on their side by doing this as well as declaring himself our enemy. To analogize, if I were to go around threatening you and paying people to attack you, you would probably do well to consider me your enemy and do something about it.
Ok. I dismiss your argument that its dismissable.
There’s a whole bunch of non-iraqi terrorists fighting us in Iraq now. Al Zarqawi was like the head of Al Quaeda in Iraq. So, we clearly are fighting foreign insurgents
No. The Democrats have to be careful though because there is an alignment of their interests with our enemy. Valid criticism from a loyal opposition is not traitorous. The guys that exposed Abu Grahib were not traitors. People that make shit up or spew made up shit without bothering to verify its accuracy and without regard to the damage it does the nation as a whole are traitors.
Can’t seem to recall making that argument.
Nor that one. I think we should do what’s right. Falsifying accusations against our troops and disseminating them fuels hatred against us. It gives justification to our enemy. I don’t think that’s right. I doubt you do, either.
No. Your ignoring my actual argument here. For example, if you do know for a fact that we have tortured 1,000 iraqi civilians to death, you have the duty to do something about it. That’s patriotic. That’s right.
If you don’t know it for a fact, you don’t have the duty and it’s not patriotic and it’s not right, to act as if it were a fact. That would be wrong.
Because such accusations are so potentially damaging, and can be used against us, one has the positive duty to know and be able to demonstrate that they are true before one goes public with them and treats them as facts.
Making up things that make us look like bad guys and that can be used against us and disseminating those things as facts is unpatriotic, wrong, disloyal, slanderous, and, IMO treasonous.
To do so is to hurt us and to help the enemy by lying on their behalf.
Is that clear? It should be pretty simple. I don’t really understand the confusion.
I think exposing Abu Grahib was necessary and appropriate. It was true.
Falsifications are bad.
I really have no doubt about our fundamental military ability to subjugate the insurgency. It’s just a question of committing the necessary forces and staying to do the job with the tactics that will do the job.
I also have no doubt about our ability to stop civil war and aid the current elected government to the point where it can take over for itself.
It’s not that formidable a task when all is said and done. Well within the scope of our abilities.
It goes against my better judgement, but I find this so mesmerizing in train-wreck sort of way, I can’t help but ask: What troops levels would you imagine it would take to accomplish this goal? How much would it cost? How many more US soldiers and Iraqi civilians would you imagine might die pursuing it? How much blood and treasure are you willing to sacrifice on the altar of Iraqi Freedom? Caveat: “What ever it takes” is a cop out, so don’t even go there. I want numbers.
You can’t prove this to save your soul.
Good job.
Blah-blah-blah.
Like I said to Orbi, your critique of me personally is of no interest. Go criticize and fix everybody on your side of the argument and hold them to task and then come to talk to me, and then I will very carefully consider what you say.
Debating personalities is boring, useless and stupid. I’ve done so much namecalling and been the recipient of so much that it’s lost its meaning.
I figure if somebody applies their critique even-handedly to people who are on their side as well as the people who are against them than it is worth paying attention to, otherwise it’s just ad hominem bullshit.
Your opinion, and the opinions of others don’t really matter to me all that much. I’ve been popular here. I’ve been really popular here. I know how to do it. I know what forms to use, what things to say, how to behave.
I’ve also been the subject of a pile-on or two. I’ve been very unpopular.
There is an enormous peer pressure on this board, and enormous bullying. I say things that are unpopular and I get attacked. I say things that are popular and get lauded. Opinion is a lever seeking to push me in one direction or another.
I try to be true to myself and say what I think and I try to ignore the perception and opinion, the laudations and the attacks as best I can and not credit it much because it’s shallow both ways.
I can go hang out on a Conservative board and be popular and be lauded, or I can hang out here and not be.
Hanging out here is more challenging.
I don’t really worry what you or anybody else think in terms of my personality because I note that you (the generic you) tend to treat all vocal conservatives like shit, even the most intelligent and reasonable like Bricker get shit on constantly (and I hardly reach his caliber of patience and goodwill.) Humongous assholes on the left go unchecked or are lauded.
It’s the opposite on conservative type boards. I guess it’s human nature to be that way.
It’s no challenge over there for me, and I don’t get anything out of an easy audience that favors me, and I take no pleasure in gangbanging a minority. So I’m here.
So, I don’t credit your attacks on my personality, your criticisms of my posting style and your asessments of my character at all. I see how you consistently try to beat up on your opposition. I see how you treat Shodan and others, and I dismiss it as a cheap shot from a bully. Empty rhetoric at an easy target in a safe environment. It’s cowardly and unbecoming.
That’s how I really feel.
Only if we do it and it works.
Like being welcomed by the populace, finding WMD’s and finishing up the mission within 6 months worked? With such a sterling record of failure, it’s hard to have any faith in the stay-the-course contingent’s predictive powers.
I think we can probably do it with what we got there if we don’t just yank them.
I don’t have them. That’s a whole thread there. You have to weigh the costs and risks of staying and making it work against the costs and risks of not and make a judgement.
I think the risk to reward was good when we went in and it’s still good now. I think the risks of backtracking or abandoning our endeavor are almost surely catastrophic and there isn’t an upside.
I know you wanted #s but millions died in WWII. I think millions died in the civil war. I think if we don’t stay and win this our enemies will grow stronger, more allies and potential allies will be lost and we will eventually be fighting WWIII, and dealing with nuclear holocaust in the middle east and nuclear bombs going off in the US.
So, I really do mean “whatever it takes.”
THey mean to kill us and wipe us out. I don’t think militant Islam recognizes our right to exist. They think it’s their holy duty to destroy us because our values or incompatible with and corrupt theirs.
They think God wants them to destroy us.
I don’t think your question makes much sense. It’s like asking “If somebody is trying to kill you how hard should you fight back?”
We are in a war against militant Islam. Iraq is the front of that war. We have to win it. Period.
The whole “harboring terrorists” crap souffle. Can’t prove a word of it. We’ve been all over this territory before. That dog won’t hunt, that dog is last week’s roadkill. I’m stunned that you seem willing to pretend that you don’t know this.
And while we’re at it…
That seems a bit stark, too jaggedly simplistic. I’m sure you regard the facts to be self-evident, but perhaps a bit of citation? Some evidence? Names, dates, places, that sort of thing. 'Cause I got this feeling that you’re edging up to start spouting crap about “treason”… And I gotta tell ya, pal, that really gets on my nerves.
Who falsified what charges, when? At what point, and by what evidence, were the charges refuted?
Don’t look now, but your militant Muslims at the front are slaughtering each other with a good deal more determination than they have focused on us. But, by all means, never ever let details get in the way of a good talking point.
I thought I did call it “treason.”
none dare call it treason.
I thought you asked a genuine question so I gave you a genuine answer. Calling it a “talking point” isn’t really a good response.
The militant muslims “slaughtering each other” is.
That environment is one of the things we are seeking to change. Saddam’s solution seemed to be try to subjugate dissenting factions mercilessly. We’re trying to teach them another way that lets them have a voice in their own government without having to kill each other.
It seems a laudable thing to do. I hope we can.
Neither was “what ever it takes.” I call it a draw.
Something tells me you were disappointed that Yugoslavia was partitioned, and we didn’t do whatever it took to make the Serbs and Croats to live together in democratic harmony.
Yeah. It seems likely the two states will be at each others throats in the future.
It might come to dividing the nation in Iraq.
Excuse me, didn’t mean to interrupt. You were about to provide proofs and citations for your charges of “falsifying accusations against our troops and disseminating them”. Then you were going to substantiate your charges that Saddam was harboring terrorists as a means to do harm to America. Please proceed.
**Scylla,**let’s assume we all agree that terrorism is a top threat to America’s existence and that the way to solve this is by using our military for nation building (I don’t, but for arguement’s sake…). Can you explain how invading Iraq helps? It was secular, with a decently educated populace, and contained. Also, AFAIK, their women actually had a pretty sweet deal considering they live in the ME.
It seems to me Iraq would be the last place to invade if you agree with the first two points.