You know you've been in Iraq too long when

Politics International Politics
21

Asking questions of you is drawing fire and throwing smokescreens? I suppose for someone like you who does not actually have a position, it might appear to be so. It does not change the fact that you cannot or will not answer even the most basic questions regarding your positions.

That is YOUR opinion to which you are fully entitled.

Okay. If YOU say so, I guess WE will have to accept that right? Please.

Must make each and every day a trying new experience for you. Why not take your advice and cease and desist posting? You clearly are not up to the intelligence to do so. As to Iraq, it was a problem before we invaded and terrorism was present throughout the Middle East. The issue is what to do about it. Clearly, not doing anything was working about as well as trying to do something but let’s see which method has the better results. After all, your do nothing policies have been in place since Suez. How has that worked out for you? But then I doubt you would actually have the historical understanding to be able to make a comment. But then I guess I would be guessing about others’ views again? :unamused:

22

When will we have it at the levels when Saddam was in power? Since when did killing 100,000 of the population seem like the best thing for them?

TC, I skipped through your post as soon as I saw the ‘air of superiority’ comment. You know why people make that kind of comment, right? :laughing:

For those who like it simple: 3,000 American soldiers have died for a cause that has since been proven to be false. That’s 3,000 too many.

I wouldn’t fight for such a cause, and evidently neither would you guys, as you’re all here bravely tapping away at your keyboards, stating how these deaths are worth it, when none of them are yours or of those you know. If you do have family or close friends who have died or been maimed in the invasion, I would be horrified to read that you think it was worth it, and I am sure, in fact, that you wouldn’t.

This was not a war that needed to be fought. We had no grounds for going in. 103,000 people are dead because of that blunder, and countless more maimed or badly injured. All that for what? To give the Iraqis a nicer police force? Are you serious? Elections? We have a bloody royal family! They never get elected; they just breed and take the throne. You have your own royal family in a way (unless you really think Bush Jr could have got where he is today without having Bush Sr as his daddy).

War is evil. So often we come out of it realising that we should not have gone in, and the price we paid was to high. Yet still some will state the opposite. Good for you, but it’s not an opinion I can respect. You call for intelligent arguments on these boards yet go in guns-a-blazing to countries where we have no business. Do you not spot the irony of your own comments?

You have tried defending the war here countless times and your arguments have never stood up; you instead try to lead people away from your weakness with lengthy posts that go off on tangents that only you seem to follow. I’m impressed, though, that you still have enough life in your arguments to accuse others of lacking intelligent thought.

Best of luck with your invasion; I hope we can all agree that we don’t want to see another thread in three years time lamenting 5,000 or 6,000 or 10,000 US deaths … but you are of course free to disagree with me.

Sean

23

And in a related story:

[quote]Peace groups rally after 3,000th soldier killed
By Bill Trott Mon Jan 1, 2:54 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. peace groups pledged on Sunday to start the new year with protests and vigils to mark the death of the 3,000th U.S. soldier in Iraq and to press their call for an end to the war.

“We must bear witness to this tragic milestone, even though many people are already beginning their celebrations of the new year,” the group United for Peace and Justice said on its Web site.

A soldier killed by a roadside bomb in Baghdad on Saturday became the 3,000th American to die in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, according to the Web site www.icasualties.org.

A group of U.S. veterans that sets up crosses on a Santa Monica, California, beach every Sunday to remember American soldiers killed in Iraq added candles to mark the 3,000 milestone.

“We decided to do a special candlelight vigil tonight, partially because it’s New Year’s Eve but also because we don’t want people to forget the cost of this war,” said Chuck Nixon, of the group Veterans for Peace. "Three thousand families have lost a son or daughter.

“Sometimes, people call this a protest. We don’t believe it’s a protest. We believe it’s a memorial honoring these soldiers.”

United for Peace and Justice, a coalition of more than 1,300 U.S. peace groups, urged demonstrators to wear black armbands or ribbons with the number 3,000 in white print and to phone radio stations and write letters to newspapers to call attention to the death toll.

The American Friends Service Committee put out a call for anti-war activists to rally across the country on New Year’s Day to mourn American and Iraqi casualties in the war. Group members in Dallas planned to ring a bell to mark the deaths in their demonstration in front of City Hall.


[color=red]“We’re not pretending to appropriately honor those who have died,” said organizer Bill Betzen. “It’s just impossible.”
[/color]
news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070101/ts_ … rotests_dc[/quote]

Also commented upon @ Little Green Footballs

24

Tread lightly. Some of us do, even if once removed.

Are you serious? Or is this emotion?

In short. The war may be misguided. The policy may be flawed. The execution could be incompetent. One can even accuse Bush and Bliar of playing fast and loose the the ‘facts’ (I do) or of ill gotten interests (one would also need to include the Russians and the French). These things we can debate. But there is no debate over the fact that the regime that was replaced was despotic, corrupt and adept at killing its own citizens in a systematic way. Full stop.

So - what was your stance on Bosnia? Non intervention?

25

So are a lot of people.

It is VERY easy to avoid war in this day and age. Acquiesce.

[quote]
So often we come out of it realising that we should not have gone in, and the price we paid was to high. Yet still some will state the opposite. Good for you, but it’s not an opinion I can respect.[/quote]

SD, there are far too many places where NO ONE goes in and the absolutely horrific happens. I don’t know how old you are or where you were in 1994, but I remember watching 1 million Rwandans get hacked to fucking pieces.

If you did not see Iraq, Syria and Iran as a powderkeg, then I don’t know what else to tell you bud.

I prefer a controlled fire than a brushfire. Although, both are very dangerous.

26

Tread lightly. Some of us do, even if once removed.[/quote]

Then I sympathise with you for your loss.

War is wrong for precisely the reason you mention above. That should never happen; if it’s necessary, it’s necessary, but I see nothing necessary about our intervention in Iraq that called for so many deaths.

If my comments offend you, I am sorry, but I stand by what I say: we should not have been there, losing lives for such a weak cause.

Are you serious? Or is this emotion?[/quote]

I am deadly serious. If one argument for going in is to give Iraq ‘free’ elections (could they vote for saddam?), then why are we not invading England and hanging their royal family? Briton’s have to pay money to these dictators or have their possessions taken from them or be put in jail. Furthermore, it is our own western way of thinking that dictates our form of democracy is best, but others don’t think so, hence the backlash from rebel fighters in Iraq.

But there is a debate. Iraq flourished under Saddam; it was Western intervention that brought the country to its knees. Whether he was as evil as he is made out to be is something I will never know because of the propagandist way I am told about him. That’s not to say he wasn’t evil, of course, though most of you are intelligent enough not to even try to twist that around.

And how do we define the criteria for overthrowing country leaders and hanging them until dead? Corruption? And who should be casting the first stone? How do you define despotic? And killing its own citizens (a good one, I agree, by the way)? Why choose those three? What about keeping millions of the population in poverty? What about huge budgets spent on defence measures that enrich the country leader but leave his poorer constituents to die when it rains? What about a leader who got into power thanks to his family’s riches and connections and debatable election practices? What about those? Are they serious enough, and, put forth in the right propagandist manner, should gain a ton of support from all parties.

To me it’s simple: why go after Saddam? Why not the Saudi royal family, who’s human rights record is appalling and who’s subjects committed the greatest act of terrorism the world has ever known? Why not America, with it’s increasing lack of freedoms for its own population and others, and who reserve the right to torture in the name of ‘freedom’?

That’s the problem: you can provide reasons why we did go into Iraq, but not why didn’t invade others, which, to me at least, stinks of ulterior motives for the former that are best left secret. Or do you disagree? It’s those ulterior motives I fear our soldiers are really dying for.

27

I think we’re agreeing here.

And if you think powderkegs are best dealt with with guns-a-blazing, I don’t know what to tell you my friend.

28

And then there is this to put things in perspective:

[quote]"[i]The Marine deaths reported Friday brought the number of U.S. military fatalities in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion to 2,996, icasualties.org said, with 816 of them occurring this year. Last year, 846 American service members died; in 2004, the figure was 848.

The number of U.S. wounded is also down this year — 5,676 compared with 5,947 in 2005 and 8,001 in 2004.[/i]"
LA Times[/quote]
Well we know that 4 more are added to that number, and it still comes at less than 2005.
Headline of article?- “Monthly U.S. toll in Iraq at 2-year high”

(We report - we decide.)

29

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]And then there is this to put things in perspective:

[quote]"[i]The Marine deaths reported Friday brought the number of U.S. military fatalities in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion to 2,996, icasualties.org said, with 816 of them occurring this year. Last year, 846 American service members died; in 2004, the figure was 848.

The number of U.S. wounded is also down this year — 5,676 compared with 5,947 in 2005 and 8,001 in 2004.[/i]"
LA Times[/quote]
Well we know that 4 more are added to that number, and it still comes at less than 2005.
Headline of article?- “Monthly U.S. toll in Iraq at 2-year high”

(We report - we decide.)[/quote]

How does that put things into perspective?

TC, deaths are never good, even when there are a few less than last year.

Please remember that these are not just numbers to be played with, but real lives. 816 deaths is not good.

30

OK, try this one.

How do you put out an oilwell fire?

Explosives.

[quote]
816 deaths is not good.[/quote]

NO one is saying it is. Like getting hung up on Saddam’s death, we seem to be hung up on the war and afterwar.

The geopolitical events that led to this started long long ago. Just take the time after the First Gulf War. It ended terribly with dickwaving on one side and digging in deeper on the other side. It was followed by UN sanctions, ignored, more sanctions, ignored; no fly zones, violated; weapons inspections, refused.

There were dozens and dozens of ways to diffuse this war long before it EVER began. Incredibly poor leadership on Saddam’s part, and the UN (but that’s my honest opinion) led to the recent conflict.

Maybe people have a 5 minute memory span, but I don’t. Diplomacy failed, repeatedly, for 12 years.

You wanna point fingers of balme for these deaths SD? Go to youtube. He’s there and he’s hung.

31

[quote]Elegua wrote:
Quote:
I wouldn’t fight for such a cause, and evidently neither would you guys, as you’re all here bravely tapping away at your keyboards, stating how these deaths are worth it, when none of them are yours or of those you know.

Tread lightly. Some of us do, even if once removed.

Then I sympathise with you for your loss.[/quote]

No one is dead yet - just serving. And were this to happen, spare your sympathy.

As for my tapping on the keyboard. I never forget that " (I) sleep peaceably in (my) bed at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on (my) behalf. "

Then instead of whinging in Taiwan, next time vote them out. The wonderful thing about democracy is that you get to government you deserve. We don’t invade the UK because even though on occasion Brazilian immigrants are shot by the metropolitan police, and the IRA have thier rights abused, by and large there is rule of law and justice. We don’t need to invade because if hold up your responsibility as a citizen and vote, then you could perform the revolution yourself. That is one of your obligations. Were you expecting this to be handed to you on a platter? Does the world owe you a living? Does it happen because everyone is nice? Anyway. I’m sure they would appreciate that you, comfortably ensconsed in a free society believe they should have no right to sufferage.

The excuse the democracy is not suited for all societies and culture is pure BS, and the excuse has come from just about every oppressive regime in existance. The natural rights of life, liberty, and estate apply to all. And, in answer to the point you are about to make, one needs more than just life to live.

I don’t think this requires much twisting. It’s really a non-debate. Though it seems that on occasion the obvious need to be restated. Iraq only ‘flourished’ before the Iran-Iraq war. A war that had less to do with the West and more to do with the regional aspirations of a medium sized dictator. But again, I don’t get how someone who supports ‘humane’ treatment as much as you do could ever call life under a dictator ‘flourishing’. But, don’t listen to me. Just ask anyone who lived in even the more moderate former Eastern Block countries.

[quote]And how do we define the criteria for overthrowing country leaders and hanging them until dead? Corruption? And who should be casting the first stone? How do you define despotic? And killing its own citizens (a good one, I agree, by the way)? Why choose those three?
[/quote]

Well, answer your own question? What does one do? Stand by and watch? Wait until we get something like a North Korea where there really is no option but to sit and watch unless we want to see S. Korea completely destroyed in the process? Is Iraq completely national interest free? No. But does that mean we should stand aside? You say yes. You say the iraqi’s should stay under Saddam’s boot-heel until either a) they get up enough gumption to solve it themselves (I believe they tried more than once, no?) b) a completely neutral country can invade c) Put them lower on the priority list because there are worse dictators

It seems to me that in many Western countries there are alternatives to invasion. The alternative remedies we’ve seen for the ills you describe have often been worse that the disease (they’ve been tried, haven’t they - no proletarian paradise yet I’m afraid).

BTW: I don’t really support they war - but your over-emotional post was just too much.

32

OK, try this one.

How do you put out an oilwell fire?

Explosives.[/quote]

So now you’re saying that Iraq, Syria and Iran are an oilwell fire? Erm … OK.

[quote=“jdsmith”]The geopolitical events that led to this started long long ago. Just take the time after the First Gulf War. It ended terribly with dickwaving on one side and digging in deeper on the other side. It was followed by UN sanctions, ignored, more sanctions, ignored; no fly zones, violated; weapons inspections, refused.

There were dozens and dozens of ways to diffuse this war long before it EVER began. Incredibly poor leadership on Saddam’s part, and the UN (but that’s my honest opinion) led to the recent conflict.[/quote]

Are you saying that ignoring the requests of the UN was grounds for invasion, jd?

Glass

Houses

Stones

33

Nope, but I think the UN’s flacidness allowed other countries to step up and do what they felt needed to be done, because the NEXT set of sanctions…well, with all the money in oil vouchers that Saddam was handing out to the Anans, they wouldn’t have amounted to much.

Like I said, diplomacy had failed. And in this day when diplomacy fails, you up shit crick.

[quote]
So now you’re saying that Iraq, Syria and Iran are an oilwell fire? Erm … OK. [/quote]
Yeah, that or a bakesale at Walmart that runs out of sugar cookies.

34

Not invade, then? And how can a Brit vote Bush out? I wish I knew!

All? Or all who want it? Big difference. You don’t understand their culture because you’re not part of it, and vice versa. They seem to want to defend their own standards for living, but you’re saying we should force them to accept ours?

Read my post again and you will know.

Could I also ask the Iraqis who don’t want us there and who feel life was far better under Saddam?

Or invade, destroy, kill, and maim? Is that the only choice? We are supposed to have intelligent leaders. They should be able to foresee the disaster of invading and instead employ other means to put out ‘oilwell fires’.

[quote]
Wait until we get something like a North Korea where there really is no option but to sit and watch unless we want to see S. Korea completely destroyed in the process? Is Iraq completely national interest free? No. But does that mean we should stand aside? You say yes.[/quote]

No, I say think of something other than ‘war or stand aside’.

Given the limited choices, can I have (c) please? But I’d really prefer we looked at other methods to pursue.

Too much? Overly emotional?

I see. Great argument. :unamused:

35

[quote]Elegua wrote:
… instead of whinging in Taiwan, next time vote them out. The wonderful thing about democracy is that you get to government you deserve.

Not invade, then? And how can a Brit vote Bush out? I wish I knew![/quote]

Follow your own advice and clean your own house first, eh?

[quote]Quote:
The excuse the democracy is not suited for all societies and culture is pure BS, and the excuse has come from just about every oppressive regime in existance. The natural rights of life, liberty, and estate apply to all.

All? Or all who want it? Big difference. You don’t understand their culture because you’re not part of it, and vice versa. They seem to want to defend their own standards for living, but you’re saying we should force them to accept ours? [/quote]

So rights of life, liberty, and estate only apply to the liberal elite or the West? Essentially what you are saying is that we should permit groups of influence or force their opinion on the rest of society. That is what the Saudi Royal family does, yet you condemn them. But you say, ah! The US is forcing thier will on the Iraqi’s, they wanted none of this - but the reality is that we are forcing them to give people a choice.

[quote]Quote:
I don’t think this requires much twisting. It’s really a non-debate. Though it seems that on occasion the obvious need to be restated. Iraq only ‘flourished’ before the Iran-Iraq war. A war that had less to do with the West and more to do with the regional aspirations of a medium sized dictator. But again, I don’t get how someone who supports ‘humane’ treatment as much as you do could ever call life under a dictator ‘flourishing’.

Read my post again and you will know.[/quote]

No. I read it carefully. I read it again and all I see is the reasoning that since Saddam was able to raise the standard of living (flourish), then all else should be forgiven. The US and the West condemned for the sanctions (this ironically is the ‘other’ solution). Isreal should be condemned for bombing the nuclear reactor. (Thoughtfully provided by the peaceful French). By this logic the gov. in China should be applauded for its record on all counts. So what if an Eloi gets gakked every once in a while? No one needs an intellectual. Not when they stand in the way of progress. But again, this is what the Saudi Royal family have done in Saudi. Why are they not OK, but is Saddam OK? If I’m a dictator I’ll make sure that I get invaded so I can pick up some legitimacy.

No, all I see is a contradictory argument

[quote]Quote:
Well, answer your own question? What does one do? Stand by and watch?

Or invade, destroy, kill, and maim? Is that the only choice? We are supposed to have intelligent leaders. They should be able to foresee the disaster of invading and instead employ other means to put out ‘oilwell fires’[/quote]

Ooh! I forgot about that one. Saddam the ecologist. Were not other options tried for 10+ years?

What is C then? Sanctions?

[quote]Too much? Overly emotional?

I see. Great argument. [/quote]

Sure. If truthiness is your thing. :laughing:

Ironically you debate like Fred :smiley:

36

No point arguing this; I think I agree with you there.

[quote=“Elegua”]No. I read it carefully. I read it again and all I see is the reasoning that since Saddam was able to raise the standard of living (flourish), then all else should be forgiven. The US and the West condemned for the sanctions (this ironically is the ‘other’ solution). Israel should be condemned for bombing the nuclear reactor. (Thoughtfully provided by the peaceful French). By this logic the gov. in China should be applauded for its record on all counts. So what if an Eloi gets gakked every once in a while? No one needs an intellectual. Not when they stand in the way of progress. But again, this is what the Saudi Royal family have done in Saudi. Why are they not OK, but is Saddam OK? If I’m a dictator I’ll make sure that I get invaded so I can pick up some legitimacy.

No, all I see is a contradictory argument[/quote]

:unamused: Here, I’ll bolden it for you: [quote=“Stray Dog”]But there is a debate. Iraq flourished under Saddam; it was Western intervention that brought the country to its knees. Whether he was as evil as he is made out to be is something I will never know because of the propagandist way I am told about him. That’s not to say he wasn’t evil, of course, though most of you are intelligent enough not to even try to twist that around.[/quote]

[quote=“elegua”]
Well, answer your own question? What does one do? Stand by and watch?[/quote]

… Nope, you’ve lost me. …

I vote for people to come up with these other options for me. But seeing as I didn’t vote for this one, and seeing as he only presents two options, I’ll have to suggest something. How about dialogue? Intelligent dialogue. Certainly more tricky considering those who would be expected to engage in it on our behalf, but for sure a better option than hundreds of thousands of dead and maimed.

[quote=“Stray Dog”]Too much? Overly emotional?

I see. Great argument. [/quote]

Care to outline the bits you found ‘overly emotional’? I’m genuinly interested in what you perceive to be as such.

That comment was below the belt and you know it.

37

Given that the British government was and is a full part of the effort to remove Saddam and bring democracy to Iraq, why don’t you just do a bit of voting in your own country to get out of the effort.

Iraq did not flourish under Saddam. During the first 10 years of his reign he pretty much nationalized everything and redistributed the wealth. This kind of “prosperity” is seen frequently in Latin America but then what happens. Wham. The economy stops and everyone loses their jobs while inflation soars. This is also what happened in Iraq and it might be one of the main reasons why he chose to invade Iran in 1979. Distract the domestic population. A quick oil grab. A quick and easy war. A glorious victory.

38

A: Sanctions and blockades and daily bombings.

Exactly.

39

A: Sanctions and blockades and daily bombings.[/quote]

Didn’t you actually read Fred’s post? Sadam officially came to power in 1979, though he had been the power behind the throne for a few years previously.

The sanctions, bombings and blockades didn’t start until after his invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

You do the math.

With a reasonably well educated population, plenty of land and oil wealth Saddam had the opportunity to make Iraq the centerpiece of the Middle East. Instead he led it into paranoid terror and disastrous foreign wars.

40

[quote=“Stray Dog”]

Exactly.[/quote]

There, you’ve got a point :wink: