Skip navigation

Victory!

or Register to post new content in the forum

313 RepliesJump to last post

 

Comments

  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <blockquote> <br> <p>

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Dec 15, 2006 8:30 pm

Once again, I'll reiterate the complete lack of perspective that seems to permeate public opinion on Iraq. 

WWII ended August 1945, we're still in Europe and Japan.  Korea ended July 1953, we're still there.  Grenada, Panama, the Balkans, we're still there.

Make no mistake, Iraq was always a long term committment by which the U.S. (and the west) could project power in the region.  There happens to be a very valuable natural resource under those sands.  People need to get used to the fact that, Republican or Democrat, we will be operating in Iraq. 

Dec 15, 2006 8:37 pm

More to the point, we’ll have a close friend in the Middle East. It won’t

happen overnight, but give 20 or 30 years, Iraq will be a stable democracy

and perhaps our closest ally in the region.

Dec 15, 2006 8:49 pm

[quote=mranonymous2u]

"If I took a poll of the neighbors and we decided we don't like how you are running things in your home and that you are the biggest a-hole on the block, do you think we have a right to tell your wife to get rid of you?"

Pretty much what you described is what is known as a LAW. [/quote]

Well. what do you know, world opinion polls have the power of law. Good thing that wasn't true when Reagan was in office, that wall he talked about might still be in place.

Dec 15, 2006 9:07 pm

Mike,

I don't know if you think that disunderstanding people is a mark of wit, or if you really are as dumb as you sound.

Pretty much it doesn't make a difference to me either way, you're still not worth talking with.

Please know that unless I address you directly, I'm not interested in what you "think".

Mr. A

Dec 15, 2006 9:19 pm

[quote=mranonymous2u]

Mike,

I don't know if you think that disunderstanding people is a mark of wit, or if you really are as dumb as you sound.

Pretty much it doesn't make a difference to me either way, you're still not worth talking with.

Please know that unless I address you directly, I'm not interested in what you "think".

Mr. A

[/quote]

[quote=mranonymous2u]

"If I took a poll of the neighbors and we decided we don't like how you are running things in your home and that you are the biggest a-hole on the block, do you think we have a right to tell your wife to get rid of you?"<?:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O />

Pretty much what you described is what is known as a LAW. [/quote]

Dec 15, 2006 9:22 pm

"... but give 20 or 30 years, Iraq will be a stable democracy
and perhaps our closest ally in the region."

At our rate of spending there, "we" won't be anyone's ally. "We" will be living in a third world country in 20 or 30 years.

Mr. A 

Dec 15, 2006 9:42 pm

[quote=Pandale] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Make no mistake, <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Iraq was always a long term commitment [sic] by which the U.S. (and the west) could project power in the region.  [/quote]

You mean to say that the administration lied when they said we'd be in and out?

I can't believe that the pretzledent would lie to me, and that Dick Cheney seems like such an honest fellow.

For sure I knew that this was going to be a long term commitment and I said so many times at the time (which was, in my opinion, one really good reason not to rush into the commitment). I received the brickbats of "conservative Americans" for my trouble. Advisors who publicly averred what you are saying now were fired for saying so. I don't know what your position was then, but I agree with your assessment now.

The fact is that we are there. We could well have been "There" by turning Afghanistan into a US Army base and it would have been much better for all parties involved (especially when you consider that the world's biggest natural gas pocket is beneath the Caspian sea, this field will eventually fuel India and China, so being "protectorate" of that middle chunk of the pipeline would have been strategically smarter). 

Dec 15, 2006 9:48 pm

[quote=mranonymous2u]

"Who gives a flying f$#$ what the majority of the people in the world think " <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Yeah! I think I'm right and so do all my friends so who cares that billions of people are telling me I'm wrong. What do they know?

"If I took a poll of the neighbors and we decided we don't like how you are running things in your home and that you are the biggest a-hole on the block, do you think we have a right to tell your wife to get rid of you?"

Pretty much what you described is what is known as a LAW. There are laws against certain behaviors which the community has decided are assholian, thus, they forbid it, whether your wife likes it or not.

"Our best interests" We have long since ceded that moral construct. We gave away our right to care only about OUR best interests in <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Iraq. Our responsibility now is to make sure that the colossal [email protected]* that we caused doesn't wind up with the murdering of millions of Iraqi's in the power void that we would leave there.  

[/quote]

Your contention is that we should take the opinion of "the rest of the world" to determine who is the President of the United States and that we should take their ideas?  Since when does anyone outside of  our own country get to tell us how to forumulate foreign policy.  We might ask for ideas and consider their ideas but they don't get to call the shots.

Maybe it wasn't clear enough for you,  but my analogy was comparing your household to an independent country or entity.  There is no law that gives your neighbors (other countries, to spell it out) the right to dictate what activities you can do in your own house (country).  However, there is a remedy when the neighbors feel that you (your country) is being dangerous to the rest of the neighborhood, and it is drastic.  We are in the midst of doing it right now in Iraq...... WAR.  

Why do you think we gave away the right to care about our own best interests?  I don't recall signing a suicide pact.  I think it IS in our own best interests to win the war on terror, whether it is focused in Iraq or Dearborn, Michigan.  Some people in our own country don't have the forbearance (guts) and patience (attention deficit disorder on a national scale) to finish the job.  We need to ignore them as they are whiney, irresponsible, morally bankrupt cowards who only care about themselves and hide behind political correctness.

If we run away from Iraq and hand victory on a silver platter to the terrorists, we will have lost any claim... ever.... of credibility and will be responsible for the horrible deaths of millions of people in the middle east and elsewhere in the world.........again.

Dec 15, 2006 10:05 pm

[quote=mranonymous2u]

You mean to say that the administration lied when they said we'd be in and out?[/quote]

You're thinking of the Clinton administration which said we'd be out of Bosnia in a year (a decade ago). I'm pretty certain this administration has said all along this will be a long fight, and of course, they got grief for saying so.

That’s how I understood it at least, how about you, BL?

Dec 15, 2006 10:27 pm

Once again, I'll reiterate the complete lack of perspective that seems to permeate public opinion on Iraq. 

History will tell, for sure. In terms of how we make our living, a proactive policy and stable economic environment means the difference between eating beans or butter. No telling from this point in time who was "right". I saw Wall Street get bombed, and I see America saying, it's not okay to bomb Wall Street. If the implementation was poor, the learning will repay down the road. Bush ain't perfect. It's economics, and a lot of sacrifice by a few brave and willing Americans.

Dec 15, 2006 10:49 pm

"Your contention is that we should take the opinion of "the rest of the world" to determine who is the President of the United States and that we should take their ideas?"<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

No, my contention is that, we as Americans should not expect this president to come up with any better plans than the plans he gave the Presidential Medal of Freedom out to George Tennet, Paul Bremer and General Tommy Franks (ret) for.

"Since when does anyone outside of  our own country get to tell us how to forumulate [sic]foreign policy.  We might ask for ideas and consider their ideas but they don't get to call the shots."

You're getting yourself tied up in your own hyperbole. I didn't say they have a legal say in our matters, I'm saying that a majority of people on this planet (many of whom are favorably disposed to the <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />USA) think that he has set into motion actions that are globally disastrous.

Look, first of all there are such things as international laws. The problem with most of them is the lack of enforcement authority. But the rule of international law is an established precedent. If the international law were enforced, this administration would be in the Hague right now facing charges.

Secondly, it's not my fault if you used a poor analogy. What you described was essentially what a law is. I just pointed that out to you FYI. I didn't take the analogy seriously because all it did was show your lack of understanding.

"Why do you think we gave away the right to care about our own best interests?"

Because we put millions of people in the path of danger. If you tie someone down to the railroad tracks, and then walk away, you can't say "It was her own fault, that she couldn't squirm off the tracks before the train hit her." Culpability is a well established rule of law. If you cause some one to come to harm, you are as guilty as the perpetrator. Leaving those people now is murder. We, as a people are against murder, murdering and the murderers. Our only recourse at this juncture is to try our hardest to prevent this from happening.

"I think it IS in our own best interests to win the war on terror, whether it is focused in Iraq or Dearborn, Michigan."

Don't even... keep the jingoistic sloganeering for someone who doesn't know any better.

" Some people in our own country don't have the forbearance (guts) and patience (attention deficit disorder on a national scale) to finish the job. "

Honeybunch, I'm not advocating leaving Iraq. I'm just saying that expecting  George "Who Ever Would'a Thought That?" Bush's administration to lead us to any sort of victory anywhere is insanity.

Has this administration done ANYTHING that was right? They've taken 9/11 and made it into a punchline! You want to see terror? Watch the story of The Blitz on PBS! You didn't hear the Brits whining for six years over that! Politicians invoking 9/11 makes me cringe now!

This administration is completely inept.

"we will have lost any claim... ever.... of credibility and will be responsible for the horrible deaths of millions of people in the middle east and elsewhere in the world.........again."

So why are you so sure we're disagreeing?

I'm just saying that Bush needs to be fired! At least he needs to be relieved of this duty (Commander in Chief of American forces in Iraq).

Mr. A

Dec 15, 2006 10:53 pm

[quote=mranonymous2u]

"… but give 20 or 30 years, Iraq will be a

stable democracy and perhaps our closest ally in the region."



At our rate of spending there, “we” won’t be anyone’s ally. “We” will be

living in a third world country in 20 or 30 years.



Mr. A

[/quote]



Dissenters claimed the same thing about the Marshall Plan. They were

wrong then, just as you are wrong now.
Dec 15, 2006 10:57 pm

The difference is that the Marshall plan was a rebuilding effort, and this is a destruction effort.

The difference is that George Marshall and Harry Truman were at the top of that plan and they didn't make their presidential cabinet out of war profiteers.

Please. Please! PLEASE. Just please. THINK!

Mr. A

Dec 15, 2006 11:25 pm

[quote=mranonymous2u]

The difference is that the Marshall plan was a rebuilding effort, and this is a destruction effort.

[/quote]

Yeah, that's how the people with the purple fingers thought about it....

Dec 15, 2006 11:27 pm

The object of the exercise is to rebuild Iraq. There’s no other reason for us

to be there.



As to Marshall and Truman, they were both particularly vilified in their time.

(Truman, as you may recall, couldn’t even get re-elected to his second term.)

The Truman cabinet had it’s share of resignations and controversy.



This reminds me of the old joke:

Q: What’s the difference between a politician and a statesman?



A: Statesmen are all dead.



What we need are more statesmen.

Dec 15, 2006 11:30 pm

[quote=mranonymous2u] Politicians invoking 9/11 makes me cringe now! [/quote]

My guess is it only makes you cringe when some of them do it....

[quote=mranonymous2u]I'm just saying that Bush needs to be fired! At least he needs to be relieved of this duty (Commander in Chief of American forces in Iraq).

[/quote]

I suggest you write your elected representitives and get them started on that right now.....

Hey, maybe we could get him replaced with Kerry, Carter, Clinton (H) or the Democrat Congressman that will be the head of the Intel committee and can't tell Shiite from shinola....

Dec 15, 2006 11:32 pm

[quote=mranonymous2u] If the international law were enforced, this administration would be in the Hague right now facing charges. [/quote]

Would this be under real law, or your polls? Either way, your tinfoil hat needs adjusting...

Dec 16, 2006 12:46 am

"Would this be under real law, or your polls? Either way, your tinfoil hat

needs adjusting…"



Now that’s funny…I don’t care who you are!

Dec 16, 2006 2:12 am

"The object of the exercise is to rebuild Iraq. There's no other reason for us to be there."

As patently ridiculous as this statement is in the face of the reality in Iraq, I'll go along for the sake of the discussion.

Yes, let's rebuild Iraq. But before we can do that we have to find a way to stop having between 400-1,000 acts of violence per DAY.

Last night there was a show about The Blitz. This was when the Nazi's were bombing London (40,000 people died over the 5 months of bombings) and the one survivor in what was essentially treated as a throwaway line said,  "They tried to bomb us into submission, but they couldn't because when they bombed us we were like OY!" People don't give up when there are foreign interests trying to wrest control of their country.

How many times did the Alsace-Lorraine pass back and forth between Germany and France? It got to the point where the people weren't even sure what nationality they were.

Why do you think the Machiavelli wrote the pamphlet The Prince which is seen as the "bible" of politics? The fact was that he wrote it trying to placate the conquering Prince so that he would not kill him (which he did anyway) and the pamphlet is about how to control the conquered (essentially, you act like Saddam).

Why do you think we didn't prevail in Viet Nam? (Not because we didn't stay as the President said, which pisses in the eye of every Viet Nam Vet, that the draft dodging frat boy said that if we tried harder we'd have won in Viet Nam!)

Why are we The United States? Why is India, India? Why is South Africa integrated? Why is the Union Of Soviet Socialist Republics a map makers' wet dream? Because it is nigh on impossible to sit on top of an indigenous population. That's why there are genocides. Come on, use your brain! Learn from history!

The only way to make this stop is to prove to the Iraqi people that the militaries' mission is to restore peace to this country.

Now ask yourself what it would take you to believe this if you were an Iraqi. The USA supported Saddam and provided him with the means to gas his own people. The United States supplied arms to both sides in a war with Iran that killed millions of men on both sides. The United States supported the dictator of Iran for years as he slaughtered hundreds of thousands of his own people. The United States gave Saddam a tacit approval to invade Kuwait and then changed their mind and invaded. The United States promised protection for all of the troops of Iraqi front liners and then sent them home, shut down their country with sanctions and turned their backs as Saddam's Republican Guard extracted vengeance on those that deserted. The United States invaded their country with a blitzkrieg that they called "Shock and Awe" killing thousands of Iraqi citizens as "collateral damage". The United States then let looters run the streets and destroy what little business was left for them. The United States had no post war plan that allowed for criminal enterprises to spring up like mushrooms in a cow pasture after a rain, the solution for getting water to the population was to let them sell it to each other, that way there'd be a profit driven distribution system. The United States, that can't even train the police and keep them from getting blown up by the score.

We'll leave it there... But the question remains, what would it take YOU to trust the Americans if YOU were an Iraqi? I don't think there is ANY way that they are going to trust Bush. Or any plan that he puts forth. If you don't have trust you won't have an end to the agitation. As a result you will not be in a rebuilding mode.

Now put on top of this the fact that we are not the only one's who have our eye on the prize. Whoever is sitting in the throne when the music stops gets all of the money that falls to the ground. This administration has literally LOST literally 10s of Billions of dollars in US Currency in Iraq. Lost, don't know where it is. Not lost, wasted. And extra special, you run the oil! For a prize like that, very smart men will pay very many dollars for a very long time to win.

Remember how the French helped us out in the Revolution? Thomas Jefferson said "Always expect every nation to act in it's own self interest."

This is the richest contest of ALL TIME. Ironically, the longer it goes on the richer the pot gets. If this were any other country doing what we are doing, we'd be pushing our man so hard our hands would be coming through his chest! Don't think for a second that Germany isn't pushing their man forward. Japan has a favorite in the race. Sweden has made contacts. China would LOVE to have exclusive rights to all that oil.

As to Harry Truman not winning, don't forget that he became President 83 days into Roosevelt's 4th term. Then he won his re-election. By the time he came up for re re election, the Dems had had the White House for 20 straight years, people were ready for a change. Even though the 21st amendment gave him the right to run, and he did run in the New Hampshire primary, when he lost that, he pulled out of the race.

Comparing the Marshall plan to this mess at this juncture is ridiculous.

Mr.A

Dec 16, 2006 2:52 am

The statement is valid and stands, your rambling PolySci 101 protestations

notwithstanding.



Why do you liberals think that inane, verbose commentary on unrelated

topics gives your position added credibility?