• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

John McCain admits hundreds of thousands dead in Iraq war

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,268
4
0
Originally posted by: Perry404
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=311_1207160690

Was/is it worth it?
My hypothesis is that McCain's estimate is fairly accurate.
So in order to save a few thousand American lives we have killed hundreds of thousands of ignorant world peoples that don't know shit from shinola.
We did not kill hundreds of thousands, other Iraqi, Arabs and Muslims killed hundreds of thousands of their own people.

Big difference.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Perry404
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=311_1207160690

Was/is it worth it?
My hypothesis is that McCain's estimate is fairly accurate.
So in order to save a few thousand American lives we have killed hundreds of thousands of ignorant world peoples that don't know shit from shinola.
We did not kill hundreds of thousands, other Iraqi, Arabs and Muslims killed hundreds of thousands of their own people.

Big difference.
Much like dropping a bunch of black kids of at a KKK rally, it wouldn't be the drivers fault.

At least the leaders of our country should have taken the time to understand the dynamics of the country, at least known that there were Shias and Kurds and Sunnis and what it all meant.

There is no evidence that the Administration made any estimation or provision regarding what happens after the war. Apparently it wasn't a concern.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,487
21,470
136
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: Craig234
It's pretty audacious for you to make the argument on the high ground of using facts. Your side is pretty allergic to them.

You do make the rare effort to at least provide one, your link, so let's give it its full due.

It points out that Al Queda recruitment and retention in Iraq is not going well.

Now, when you add the fact that Al Queda had no operational ability in Iraq before the war, that puts it in a different light; any operational capacity is an increase.

When you add in the more global perspective of how much the war has turned Middle-Eaastern opinion against the US and given Al Queda an outstanding political cause for use - not unlike the way 9/11 provided the Bush administration its power to stop being an unpopular, failed administration iwthout any theme the public was interested in, at least for a while - that sort of puts your fact in some context, showing that the fact supports the conclusion other than yours, that the war in Iras has helped Al Queda.
These are the type of posts I expect from you Craig, not that other shit.

I cant speak to AQ presence in Iraq before the war. If you have links as to what it is I would be interested but I would venture it wasnt nearly what it is in other countries. Which should solidify the point AQ is having problems. Most of the combatants they would have in Iraq would be recruits from elsewhere. If theres less terrorists in Iraq one can conclude theres less recruitment abroad, where the original terrorists came from.

Additionally Iraq is about AQ. Its about "terrorists". You can be a terrorist and not be in Al Queda. The majority of combatants in Iraq and not from Iraq. This conflict there is pulling in terrorists from around the globe to fight America in Iraq. And every day they are unsuccessful is one less day they spend planning offensive operations in America, is one less day they have breathing room for training and recruitment and is one less terrorist trying to strike the West in the West. When was the last terrorist attack outside of the middle east?

Now I wont argue that "its our own fault". But, we can hardly start placing blame now for 40 years of fucked up foreign policy. All we can do is deal with the cards we were dealt from previous hands. While we may have originally formed them, trained them and equipped them those days are long gone. They are now our enemy. To qoute the played out saying "We can fight them here or we can fight them there, but we WILL fight them". I would think the past 2 decades of terrorist attacks would show trying to ignore them wont stop them.
I assume you were trying to say that the majority of combatants in Iraq are not from Iraq. This is not accurate. The majority of the people we are fighting are Iraqis. As shown here.
 

LumbergTech

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2005
3,624
1
0
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
Well, let's see there...

1. It was a sovereign nation.
2. It was not a threat to us.
3. All evidence used to convince the public of the necessity to invade was shoddy, inaccurate, biased, and plain falsified.
4. We are not the world police.
5. Support for the action was only obtained via fear mongering.
6. The highjackers were all Saudi and 1 Jordanian and 1 Syian or something. Zero Iraqis.
7. Iraq was a secular nation, now it's a religious one, congratulations on moving an entire country back a century or 10.

Those are the moral arguments.

8. Prior to the invasion, religious terrorists in Iraq had a shorter life expectancy than female fetuses in India. It is the destabilization that made Iraq a terrorist haven.
9. It costs us a lot of money and lives.
10. It is an obvious shiny object to divert our attention from the Bush administration's other dealings, which have been profoundly detrimental to the foundation of this country.
11. It's a way to hide a lot of money and has been used as such.
12. It cost Iraq a lot of lives.
13. It's an obvious excuse to maintain a permanent base of operations in a territory of the world that does not like us, but which we depend on.

Those are the more or less practical ones.
All evidence?? You mean the evidence that fooled the majority of the world, including America, United Kingdom, Australia, France etc etc etc. You think the entire world was fooled by Bushs lie that Saddam had WDM's?? He must be one hell of a liar....either that or most of the world had bad information. Most of which was due to Saddams burning desire to keep it that way. So much so in fact it gave grounds for military action, like it or not. As for moving the country back a century or 10....Hello McFly. Your talking about a religion that supports beating its women and stoning people. I dont think we're really setting them back one bit. But ulteimately Saddams unwillingness to meet the terms as laid out by Gulf War I gave us legitimate reasons to invade.

Now for the moral arguments, well done. At least you've highlighted some of the major shortcomings. There has been a lot of waste with Iraq, I wont deny it. But one key reasont o invade is to set up a base. As for a territory that does not like us, who doesnt like us? Saudia Arabia at least gives us lip service. Egypt is an ally, Israel is an ally. Oh, you mean the radical islamic states dont like us.....You mean, the same people who by and large want to see the West wiped off the map?
And there are your excuses for having hundreds of thousands die for a purely elective war.
not to mention that it conveniently ignores the events and information surrounding the run up the war..

bad information? they pretended like they had new information that required us to attack , even though they already wanted to attack and had been planning to do so for a very long time..it makes me sick that people will deny this..if you think the war is the right choice, fine, but dont be a goddamn liar.
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,079
186
106
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
So in order to save a few thousand American lives we have killed hundreds of thousands of ignorant world peoples that don't know shit from shinola.
Iraq chooses to have civil wars. - Therefore, the wore we is a stretch of responsibility.

It was a pressure cooker that the lid was being kept on by Saddam.

Are we responsible for all those killed by Japan because we were cutting of their access to Pacific islands?
Geeez Troll much? How does Japan come into play on this...

STAY ON TOPIC....


 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
While we bicker among ourselves, this thread is supposed to be about McCain and the answer he gave. If anything, I think
he some what answered the question semi honestly by conceding the numbers were in the hundreds of thousands, even though I can't subscribe to the belief the McCain estimate was even reasonably accurate instead of a still gross underestimation.

I remind you all, five short years ago, this nation invaded Iraq, and the poll numbers were 90% for. After reading this thread in some disgust, I wonder if this nation has learned a damn thing since?

We naively thought we would make things better, and instead made things much worse. If that does not shout to our collective stupidity and arrogance, we are truly brain dead and incapable of learning better. We need better voters and place the blame there.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
You can place all the blame you want, but you need to offer up a solution as well...otherwise you're just a whining little b1tch.

Long term: Short of invading Iraq, what is your plan to change the dynamics of the ME Leadership (both political and religious) to keep them from brainwashing their populous?

It is not the fault of a brainwashed 18 year old blowing himself up in a market...he didn't get that way by choice.

If you don't have a long term plan to address this, then your b1tching is just that, b1tching.

Chuck
 

sportage

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2008
9,454
1,456
126
McCain repeated this statement on Larry King.
And went on to answer other questions.
What hit me was he kept falling back to compare now to the Reagan era,
especially on the economy.

A major flaw in all McCains responses is that things are night and day compared to
the Reagan era.

You can not apply the same standards or "wait out" a better result.
McCain fails to realize the urgency of the situation at hand.
He just thinks everything will fix itself, like during the Reagan era.

This is not the Reagan era. Its more like pre 1929.

The fact McCain fails to see that is a major leadership flaw, MAJOR!
 

cliftonite

Diamond Member
Jul 15, 2001
6,873
44
91
Originally posted by: chucky2
You can place all the blame you want, but you need to offer up a solution as well...otherwise you're just a whining little b1tch.

Long term: Short of invading Iraq, what is your plan to change the dynamics of the ME Leadership (both political and religious) to keep them from brainwashing their populous?

It is not the fault of a brainwashed 18 year old blowing himself up in a market...he didn't get that way by choice.

If you don't have a long term plan to address this, then your b1tching is just that, b1tching.

Chuck
Yes invading a country and starting a war that will lead to thousands of deaths is a wonderful way to change the dynamics of the ME :roll:
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
Originally posted by: cliftonite
Originally posted by: chucky2
You can place all the blame you want, but you need to offer up a solution as well...otherwise you're just a whining little b1tch.

Long term: Short of invading Iraq, what is your plan to change the dynamics of the ME Leadership (both political and religious) to keep them from brainwashing their populous?

It is not the fault of a brainwashed 18 year old blowing himself up in a market...he didn't get that way by choice.

If you don't have a long term plan to address this, then your b1tching is just that, b1tching.

Chuck
Yes invading a country and starting a war that will lead to thousands of deaths is a wonderful way to change the dynamics of the ME :roll:
Long term: Short of invading Iraq, what is your plan to change the dynamics of the ME Leadership (both political and religious) to keep them from brainwashing their populous?
 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,850
0
0
Originally posted by: chucky2
You can place all the blame you want, but you need to offer up a solution as well...otherwise you're just a whining little b1tch.

Long term: Short of invading Iraq, what is your plan to change the dynamics of the ME Leadership (both political and religious) to keep them from brainwashing their populous?

It is not the fault of a brainwashed 18 year old blowing himself up in a market...he didn't get that way by choice.

If you don't have a long term plan to address this, then your b1tching is just that, b1tching.

Chuck
Sometime I am amazed at the ignorance shown by some ppl on the Internet....tell me again which 18 year old who blew up themselves came from Iraq or which extremist who flew planes into the twin towers came from Iraq or was brainwashed by Saddam?

If you wanna solve the terrorist problem, Iraq is the last place you would go to. The first thing you should be doing is being an honest broker in the Israel/Palestinian conflict, and the second, takeout the greedy/undemocratic rule of Saudi royal that American government call friends.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
Originally posted by: chucky2
You can place all the blame you want, but you need to offer up a solution as well...otherwise you're just a whining little b1tch.

Long term: Short of invading Iraq, what is your plan to change the dynamics of the ME Leadership (both political and religious) to keep them from brainwashing their populous?

It is not the fault of a brainwashed 18 year old blowing himself up in a market...he didn't get that way by choice.

If you don't have a long term plan to address this, then your b1tching is just that, b1tching.

Chuck
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have to wonder about the mere assumption of this chucky2 post. He asks what my plan is to change the political dynamics of the mid-east when I am far more worried about changing the political dynamics of the United States.

GWB&co. brainwashed us is the inescapable conclusion. We must fix ourselves before we can fix anything else. And failed at that, we made a bad overall situation far worse. Its made it worse for them and worse for us.

And the lemon law plan is to bitch and tell the honest truth. I can not change the past, but the the future can be better if we honestly address the mistakes of the past.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
Originally posted by: Lemon law

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have to wonder about the mere assumption of this chucky2 post. He asks what my plan is to change the political dynamics of the mid-east when I am far more worried about changing the political dynamics of the United States.

GWB&co. brainwashed us is the inescapable conclusion. We must fix ourselves before we can fix anything else. And failed at that, we made a bad overall situation far worse. Its made it worse for them and worse for us.

And the lemon law plan is to bitch and tell the honest truth. I can not change the past, but the the future can be better if we honestly address the mistakes of the past.
Long term: Short of invading Iraq, what is your plan to change the dynamics of the ME Leadership (both political and religious) to keep them from brainwashing their populous?
 

cliftonite

Diamond Member
Jul 15, 2001
6,873
44
91
Originally posted by: chucky2
Originally posted by: cliftonite
Originally posted by: chucky2
You can place all the blame you want, but you need to offer up a solution as well...otherwise you're just a whining little b1tch.

Long term: Short of invading Iraq, what is your plan to change the dynamics of the ME Leadership (both political and religious) to keep them from brainwashing their populous?

It is not the fault of a brainwashed 18 year old blowing himself up in a market...he didn't get that way by choice.

If you don't have a long term plan to address this, then your b1tching is just that, b1tching.

Chuck
Yes invading a country and starting a war that will lead to thousands of deaths is a wonderful way to change the dynamics of the ME :roll:
Long term: Short of invading Iraq, what is your plan to change the dynamics of the ME Leadership (both political and religious) to keep them from brainwashing their populous?


It is not our job to change anything. Lasting change is achieved when people realize that it is needed and do something to bring about that change. Not through invading a random country in a region.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
Originally posted by: rchiu
Originally posted by: chucky2
You can place all the blame you want, but you need to offer up a solution as well...otherwise you're just a whining little b1tch.

Long term: Short of invading Iraq, what is your plan to change the dynamics of the ME Leadership (both political and religious) to keep them from brainwashing their populous?

It is not the fault of a brainwashed 18 year old blowing himself up in a market...he didn't get that way by choice.

If you don't have a long term plan to address this, then your b1tching is just that, b1tching.

Chuck
Sometime I am amazed at the ignorance shown by some ppl on the Internet....tell me again which 18 year old who blew up themselves came from Iraq or which extremist who flew planes into the twin towers came from Iraq or was brainwashed by Saddam?

If you wanna solve the terrorist problem, Iraq is the last place you would go to. The first thing you should be doing is being an honest broker in the Israel/Palestinian conflict,
I agree, that's a great start...the problem there is every POTUS tries it, and every POTUS fails. Each time it looks like something might happen, either the Israeli's or the Palestinians manage to F it up.

and the second, takeout the greedy/undemocratic rule of Saudi royal that American government call friends.[/quote]

This would be great as well...but how to accomplish that? First, the SA is SA, not Iraq...meaning the rest of the world wouldn't let us do to SA what they didn't give two sh1ts about for Iraq (OK, maybe 1.5 sh1ts...). Secondly, if (and how are you going to make that 'if' a reality again w/o force, like we just did to the Iraqi's?) we do that, then who steps in and fills the power vaccuum? Their country is much more homogenous than Iraq, so it's very probable they'll be electing a ruler that will have the will of the (brainwashed) people.

Again: To affect long term change in the ME, so as the people there do not continually get brainwashed by their political and religious Leadership, how will you accomplish that?

Chuck
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
Originally posted by: cliftonite
Originally posted by: chucky2
Originally posted by: cliftonite
Originally posted by: chucky2
You can place all the blame you want, but you need to offer up a solution as well...otherwise you're just a whining little b1tch.

Long term: Short of invading Iraq, what is your plan to change the dynamics of the ME Leadership (both political and religious) to keep them from brainwashing their populous?

It is not the fault of a brainwashed 18 year old blowing himself up in a market...he didn't get that way by choice.

If you don't have a long term plan to address this, then your b1tching is just that, b1tching.

Chuck
Yes invading a country and starting a war that will lead to thousands of deaths is a wonderful way to change the dynamics of the ME :roll:
Long term: Short of invading Iraq, what is your plan to change the dynamics of the ME Leadership (both political and religious) to keep them from brainwashing their populous?


It is not our job to change anything. Lasting change is achieved when people realize that it is needed and do something to bring about that change. Not through invading a random country in a region.
Random? :laugh: You think Iraq was a "random" country?

If they don't change, then more of our civilians die...it's that simple. First it was small scale losses, then it was 9/11, tomorrow who knows. You don't get whole towns celebrating jubilantly on 9/11 because just one or two people slightly dislike The West. That's a long term systemic problem that needs to be solved...and it's going to take real effort (measured in lives, dollars, and time) by someone. The longer we wait, the harder it will be to overcome.

Again: Long term: Short of invading Iraq, what is your plan to change the dynamics of the ME Leadership (both political and religious) to keep them from brainwashing their populous?

Chuck
 

cliftonite

Diamond Member
Jul 15, 2001
6,873
44
91

Random? :laugh: You think Iraq was a "random" country?

What were the reasons for us invading it? How many of the hijackers were from Iraq? How many times has Iraq attacked us?


If they don't change, then more of our civilians die...it's that simple. First it was small scale losses, then it was 9/11, tomorrow who knows. You don't get whole towns celebrating jubilantly on 9/11 because just one or two people slightly dislike The West. That's a long term systemic problem that needs to be solved...and it's going to take real effort (measured in lives, dollars, and time) by someone. The longer we wait, the harder it will be to overcome.

I refuse to believe in this baseless fearmongering. 9/11 was cause by failures in our intelligence sytems. Improvements to this have supposedly (according to leadership) prevented many atttacks since.

When you have made up your mind that invading Iraq is the only solution then there is nothing anyone else can offer you. What PROOF do you have that you can make people change by FORCE? And if a 100 years from now if nothing changes what will your solution be then? Eradicate everyone in that region?
 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,850
0
0
Originally posted by: chucky2
Originally posted by: rchiu
Originally posted by: chucky2
You can place all the blame you want, but you need to offer up a solution as well...otherwise you're just a whining little b1tch.

Long term: Short of invading Iraq, what is your plan to change the dynamics of the ME Leadership (both political and religious) to keep them from brainwashing their populous?

It is not the fault of a brainwashed 18 year old blowing himself up in a market...he didn't get that way by choice.

If you don't have a long term plan to address this, then your b1tching is just that, b1tching.

Chuck
Sometime I am amazed at the ignorance shown by some ppl on the Internet....tell me again which 18 year old who blew up themselves came from Iraq or which extremist who flew planes into the twin towers came from Iraq or was brainwashed by Saddam?

If you wanna solve the terrorist problem, Iraq is the last place you would go to. The first thing you should be doing is being an honest broker in the Israel/Palestinian conflict,
I agree, that's a great start...the problem there is every POTUS tries it, and every POTUS fails. Each time it looks like something might happen, either the Israeli's or the Palestinians manage to F it up.

and the second, takeout the greedy/undemocratic rule of Saudi royal that American government call friends.

This would be great as well...but how to accomplish that? First, the SA is SA, not Iraq...meaning the rest of the world wouldn't let us do to SA what they didn't give two sh1ts about for Iraq (OK, maybe 1.5 sh1ts...). Secondly, if (and how are you going to make that 'if' a reality again w/o force, like we just did to the Iraqi's?) we do that, then who steps in and fills the power vaccuum? Their country is much more homogenous than Iraq, so it's very probable they'll be electing a ruler that will have the will of the (brainwashed) people.

Again: To affect long term change in the ME, so as the people there do not continually get brainwashed by their political and religious Leadership, how will you accomplish that?

Chuck
So what if we tried and failed? Keep freaking try and stop favoring certain side, the key is being an honest and fair broker in resolving the conflict. The problem is not that we cannot solve the ME problem, the problem is we have been perceived , and I don't blame the perception, that America being anti-islam in the whole deal.

And just because we haven't been successful in Palestine and SA, why the hell do we go and invade Iraq that has nothing to do with the whole thing. The only thing it accomplished is proving the perception that America is anti-islam correct and got more Muslim blood on American hand, and it solved nothing.

To your question, we don't need to help solve the problem with Islam and ME politic. We need to be seen as a honest broker in helping ME to solve their problem, and not favoring certain side. Go through the UN to broker fair and impartial peace solution, stop supply money and weapon to Israel that's killing many Palestinians. Stop the backdoor deals, business and political deals, with SA royalties in the interest of oil. Keep trying to solve the conflicts in ME and try to bring peace and prosperity there, not put American business and political interest first. The last thing you should be doing is stop attacking the source of the problem and go else where to make the problem worse.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,487
21,470
136
Originally posted by: chucky2

Random? :laugh: You think Iraq was a "random" country?

If they don't change, then more of our civilians die...it's that simple. First it was small scale losses, then it was 9/11, tomorrow who knows. You don't get whole towns celebrating jubilantly on 9/11 because just one or two people slightly dislike The West. That's a long term systemic problem that needs to be solved...and it's going to take real effort (measured in lives, dollars, and time) by someone. The longer we wait, the harder it will be to overcome.

Again: Long term: Short of invading Iraq, what is your plan to change the dynamics of the ME Leadership (both political and religious) to keep them from brainwashing their populous?

Chuck
Very strange that you admit to the Middle East's hatred of America, and then decide that blowing them up, invading them, and occupying them will somehow make this better. A novel approach to be sure.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
I have to give chucky2 the award for persistence with endless repeating of---Again: To affect long term change in the ME, so as the people there do not continually get brainwashed by their political and religious Leadership, how will you accomplish that?

When Cliftonite has already given a very good answer---It is not our job to change anything. Lasting change is achieved when people realize that it is needed and do something to bring about that change. Not through invading a random country in a region.

Then there is that other factor of smarts and competence. Yes there may be a problem we can see with others and wish we could change. But as they say, a job worth doing is worth doing right. GWB tried to half ass it and blew it. By that metric we lost on the day Rummy fired Shinseki, we had enough people to win a war but not enough people or a plan to
to run an occupation. Now its so screwed up its almost impossible to fix.

And as we play doctor USA, we forget the Hippocratic oath which starts with first do no harm. And if we want to look at the roots of 911, Al-Quida, and the Taliban, look no further than Ronald Reagan who used Afghanistan as a tool to tweak the nose of the Russian bear. And then abandoned Afghanistan as a no longer needed tool. Fifteen years later it came back to bite us. As we sow, so shall we reap.

Or maybe the the following analogy might fit better. A strong man buys a cart and a donkey to make his labors easier. So he puts his goods in the cart, harnesses the donkey to the cart, and then treats the donkey with total contempt. Stubborn Donkey that its is, it rebels and refuses to move. But strong man is strong enough to pick up the donkey, the cart, and the goods and move it somewhere. Thereby making his labors far harder. Its just the difference between stupid and smart.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
Originally posted by: cliftonite

Random? :laugh: You think Iraq was a "random" country?

What were the reasons for us invading it?
After Iraq ignored 14 UN resolutions (they were supposed to ignore 0 after GW1), we went in under WMD pretenses. There were other reasons, but, this was the main one.

How many of the hijackers were from Iraq?
0. How many were radical Islamists?

How many times has Iraq attacked us?
0.


If they don't change, then more of our civilians die...it's that simple. First it was small scale losses, then it was 9/11, tomorrow who knows. You don't get whole towns celebrating jubilantly on 9/11 because just one or two people slightly dislike The West. That's a long term systemic problem that needs to be solved...and it's going to take real effort (measured in lives, dollars, and time) by someone. The longer we wait, the harder it will be to overcome.
I refuse to believe in this baseless fearmongering. 9/11 was cause by failures in our intelligence sytems. Improvements to this have supposedly (according to leadership) prevented many atttacks since.
Yes, we did have many failures in our intelligence agencies. But even if we had zero intelligence agencies, you'd still need people brainwashed enough to carry out a 9/11. How do these people get brainwashed? Who brainwashes them? How long does it take? How do whole towns (that literally celebrate with glee on 9/11) get the perception The West is so evil? How do all those people get so brainwashed?

You can't just beef up the CIA and NSA and call the problem - for us - solved. Being on the defensive works in the 1950's, not in today's world. Letting radical groups grow in influence and power doesn't help us long term, it only hurts.

When you have made up your mind that invading Iraq is the only solution then there is nothing anyone else can offer you.
I'm open to other solutions - realistic ones that realistically will cause that region to join the rest of the world in this century or at least the last half of the past one - which is why I asked for them in this thread. So far we've got broker Israel/Palestinian peace, which I fully agree would be a great thing for us to pull off, and kick out the SA political Leadership...which is what we just did in Iraq, so, I don't view that as a real solution from the "other side" as that's what you all are arguing against we just did in Iraq.

What PROOF do you have that you can make people change by FORCE?
None, other than I truly believe that if people are shown the real US, and we are genuine in helping them, they will respond. People understand being helped, just as they understand being intimidated. There are many many Iraqi's that understand this, it's just unfortunate there are many there that don't care, they want to war....and so war is what the whole populous gets... :(

And if a 100 years from now if nothing changes what will your solution be then? Eradicate everyone in that region?
If in 100 years nothing has changed then it won't matter...we'll have long failed by then and will be gone. If that occurrs, then it's in gods (whichever one you believe in) hands...flip a coin and guess on the outcomes, any guess is as good as the other.

Chuck
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
Originally posted by: rchiu

So what if we tried and failed? Keep freaking try and stop favoring certain side, the key is being an honest and fair broker in resolving the conflict. The problem is not that we cannot solve the ME problem, the problem is we have been perceived , and I don't blame the perception, that America being anti-islam in the whole deal.
Yes, we should obviously keep trying. The problem is neither side wants to give...we can - and will - keep trying, but that doesn't mean anything meaningful is going to happen. Personally I think we should just go total hands off on the Israel/Palestine issue (and that means totally absolving ourselves with Israel) and let come of that what may. We would probably get as much respect for not being perceived as backing Israel as we would get if we brokered a deal between the two parties.

And just because we haven't been successful in Palestine and SA, why the hell do we go and invade Iraq that has nothing to do with the whole thing.
There were these 14 (when there were supposed to have been 0 after GW1) UN resolutions...

The only thing it accomplished is proving the perception that America is anti-islam correct and got more Muslim blood on American hand, and it solved nothing.
And yet America, if it really is anti-Muslim (I'd say we're mainly Muslim wary), we sure show strange ways of being so. Instead of just leveling civilian populous', we go out of our way at Risk to our own not to harm civilians. Instead of taking all the oil and F'ing over the people, we stay and attempt to rebuild their country...at further loss of life to our people. That's a really funny way of being anti-Muslim.

To your question, we don't need to help solve the problem with Islam and ME politic. We need to be seen as a honest broker in helping ME to solve their problem, and not favoring certain side. Go through the UN to broker fair and impartial peace solution, stop supply money and weapon to Israel that's killing many Palestinians. Stop the backdoor deals, business and political deals, with SA royalties in the interest of oil. Keep trying to solve the conflicts in ME and try to bring peace and prosperity there, not put American business and political interest first. The last thing you should be doing is stop attacking the source of the problem and go else where to make the problem worse.
I agree with all that (except the UN is sorta the last place we should be doing anything...that failed working group is useless as far as actually accomplishing anything). Except you still need to actually be able to carry out the peace deal (every POTUS has tried), you cannot deal with Saddam (who is still there if we did it that way) which means you need to have the SA Leadership in good graces to act as Staging to keep Saddam in check, you cannot deal with Iran as they have shown their true goals (creating conflict in Iraq and pursuing nuke). Which again leaves us with trying to affect long term change in the ME.

All your ideas in great, I don't dispute them really all that much, however it's like saying to win this street race I just need to go down to the store and buy a IHRA dragster. While that would certainly do it, the improbability of it is just so staggering, it's not going to help for this street race....yet you need to race and you need to win. So what are you going to run? We can indeed run with a Toyota Tercel, however the Camaro SS that is radical Islam/brainwashing is going to beat us for sure. It's a bad analogy I know, but hopefully you see my point.

Realistic and Achievable solutions need to occur for long term ME change.

Chuck
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
Originally posted by: Lemon law
I have to give chucky2 the award for persistence with endless repeating of---Again: To affect long term change in the ME, so as the people there do not continually get brainwashed by their political and religious Leadership, how will you accomplish that?

When Cliftonite has already given a very good answer---It is not our job to change anything. Lasting change is achieved when people realize that it is needed and do something to bring about that change. Not through invading a random country in a region.
See my responses to him.

Then there is that other factor of smarts and competence. Yes there may be a problem we can see with others and wish we could change. But as they say, a job worth doing is worth doing right. GWB tried to half ass it and blew it. By that metric we lost on the day Rummy fired Shinseki, we had enough people to win a war but not enough people or a plan to
to run an occupation. Now its so screwed up its almost impossible to fix.
Yep, The Admin has half @ssed and blown a lot of it so far...the Iraqi's themselves through mistrust and pettiness, and foreign forces out to cause instability, didn't do too bad a job of it either. You'll get no argument from me that we should have went in with at least 2x more troops (and yet, if that is what was truly asked for, it wouldn't have been given, which we all know), and there should have been a huge aid package waiting offshore (which was totally doable and quite possibly the biggest "miss" of the entire Iraq war).

And as we play doctor USA, we forget the Hippocratic oath which starts with first do no harm. And if we want to look at the roots of 911, Al-Quida, and the Taliban, look no further than Ronald Reagan who used Afghanistan as a tool to tweak the nose of the Russian bear. And then abandoned Afghanistan as a no longer needed tool. Fifteen years later it came back to bite us. As we sow, so shall we reap.
But wait LL, we shouldn't be in these countries, Right? So if we left Afghanistan after helping them kick out the USSR, that wouldn't be abandoning them, right? That'd be doing exactly what you'd want us to do? Which way do you want it again, because, you can't have it both.

Or maybe the the following analogy might fit better. A strong man buys a cart and a donkey to make his labors easier. So he puts his goods in the cart, harnesses the donkey to the cart, and then treats the donkey with total contempt. Stubborn Donkey that its is, it rebels and refuses to move. But strong man is strong enough to pick up the donkey, the cart, and the goods and move it somewhere. Thereby making his labors far harder. Its just the difference between stupid and smart.
That analogy was worse than mine. How about this one: A man mistreats some dogs early in his life. He then moves, but dogs raised in the same environment as the few he mistreated come to where he lives, and rips his kids apart. The man then goes back to the area he mistreated the original dogs, and tries to get rid of the bad dogs so the mass amount of good ones there don't turn bad...which if he can do, not only protects him and his extended family, but benefits all the good dogs as well. He can't always tell which are good and which are bad, and unfortunately a very small few of the good ones he hurts. The bad dogs in their frenzy that he's there attack not only him, but many of the good dogs as well.

Then from afar, while the man is trying to still get rid of the bads dogs, his extended family bemoans his treatment of dogs at every opportunity. They wail and beat the ground at his name, cursing him and slamming his efforts, all the while having 0 real way themselves to deal with the bad dogs other than to ignore them in the hopes that none will come for them, which isn't reality but hey, it makes them feel better.

So, you feel better right LL? Oh, and, again:

Long term: Short of invading Iraq, what is your plan to change the dynamics of the ME Leadership (both political and religious) to keep them from brainwashing their populous?

Chuck

P.S. No offense to Muslims meant by the dog reference...just got back from seeing the new Lab puppy in the family...
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
345
126
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: Craig234
not unlike the way 9/11 provided the Bush administration its power to stop being an unpopular, failed administration
i like how you declare the bush admin as failed and unpopular 7 months into it.
I recall the history. He'd lost the popular vote, and the nation was wary of him, and had no idea what his agenda was really about that would be more than tax cuts for the wealthy.

He pittered and pattered a little, there was the thing with the military plane and crew in the incident with China, but the feeling was largely 'this guy is weak and a one termer'.

Until 9/11.

fact is he hovered in approval in the mid 50s for those 7 months, which is slightly better than his approval rating on the first tuesday after the first monday in november, 2000. i'd like to see the disapproval and no opinion charts for other presidents as well, but all i've got is for bush.[/quote]

The charts I see show his disapproval rating skyrocketing from the day he was elected at 25% to 40% on 9/11, with a corresponding drop in the 'undecided'.

In other words, pretty much every 'undecided' person who formed an opinion, formed a negative opinion, and it was a lot of people. That's a crashing and burning presidency.

The approvers remained flat - 55% the first day and on 9/11.

Here is a link for the dats.

Here is a chart that clearly shows the overall story of the approval during his presidency.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
Chuchy2 just does not get it with---P.S. No offense to Muslims meant by the dog reference...just got back from seeing the new Lab puppy in the family...

At last something we can agree on. Labs are great dogs and I have had some in the past and have one now. And the only problem I ever had with labs is that they die of old age too soon. You on the other hand are not a great human being. You talk about regime change for others, but are blind to the fact that we are outnumbered 20 to 1. And very soon, if we do not change our arrogant tune, the rest of the world and for the safety of the rest of the world will be talking about regime change for us. We have gone from being a moral force in the world to moral degenerates in less than a decade. And from a gentle giant to a rabit dog that must be quarantined to save the rest of the world. Time will swiftly take care of GWB&co, you will still be the sickness within.

Sorry, we can not say we are Mr. Fix it, we just don't have the track record anymore. Now we must fix ourselves and the place to start has to be with you and other arrogant people who think you can fix things by force. You may think you are competent, but that kind of thinking seldom if ever make anything better.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY