Undeclared Civil War In Iraq

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I made a comment in a recent thread about the left claiming that sanctions on Iraq were costing the lives of 500,000 Iraqis every year. The war in Iraq has cost, supposedly, if you want to go with the overstated figures, 100,000 Iraqi lives. That's in 2+ years. So would you trade that 100,000 for 1,000,000?

Many people are impressed by military power, not just "NASCAR dads" and the "religious right." Your generalization was ridiculous.

Yes, I forgot to include others, such as Studly McDumbass and Bimbo Airhead, my appologies. Being interested in military machines is one thing, acting like a pre-pubscent girl every time a bomb drops is another thing. If you don't want to take my word for it, feel free to browse the archives. You'd have to look into march-june 2003 when this was first separated from OT. It was a different place, it resembled a Cheerleader's Camp more than anything...

Anyway, this is exactly the kind of narrow minded, false dilemma, sentimenal BS that got people to support the invasion.

:sigh:: OK. I can play this tupid game.

Many of the same people who supported the invasion are now against it. Primarily it's the Studly McDumbass and Bimbo Airhead raised on MTV and who can't seem to concentrate on anything for longer than 15 seconds and figure that because their limit of concern has been exceeded, it's no longer worth it. So when you dis those people, remember that many of them are now on your side.

I would quote your president concerning fooling someone twice, but I don't want to sound like a dumbass 🙂

Too late for that.

 

[maluckey]

Have you never heard of the Mises Effect?

As in Ludvig von Mises?

Expound on this, and maybe I'll see the connection......

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Conjur,

I am clear that you believe it (the ME) to be an SEP (Somebody Elses Problem). What I am not clear as to why you tend to view the United States as reponsible for all bad in the ME. The history of the ME has been violent from the beginning of recorded history....

They (the ME) have had horribly oppressive regimes before the United States. It's a fact. The ME is/was/will be a mess until something gives, and one side shows to be far more horrible/(or better) than the other.

I think that the tide may have begun to turn in the case of Palestinians, especially after their last spate of stupidity. We can only hope that the tide will turn in the case of the Iraqi extemists finally doing something stupid, as in the case of the former Shining Path (I know, not the ME) , where the locals began policing/attacking them, not wanting to wait for "police" help that never materialized.

I'm starting to wonder if just letting them collapse into civial war wouldn't be the best strategy at this point. I don't see anything (certainly not the new constitution) that is going to slow let alone reverse the sectarian violence and hatred that has built and exploded into the mess we are seeing now. Instead of fighting in futility to push back, let's just let go and watch them fall on thier faces.

Sunni's and Shiia battle it out, we sit in the side (perferrably waaay back, its gonna be bad.) The radical Sunni militants (like OBL) can fight the Shiia extremists. They will be too busy fighting each other they won't have time to fight us. Let them kill and maim each other and build up so much animosity and exhaustion to violence in their societies they will eventually turn on the extremists themselves and look towards moderation and then (and only then,) peace.
We can then step back in (Bush now a pariah), offer solice and reconstruction assistance, and mourn together in one big sloppy, sad group hug.🙁

Really, its brilliant plan. Terribly bloody, but hey, I never wanted to start the F'ing war.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I made a comment in a recent thread about the left claiming that sanctions on Iraq were costing the lives of 500,000 Iraqis every year. The war in Iraq has cost, supposedly, if you want to go with the overstated figures, 100,000 Iraqi lives. That's in 2+ years. So would you trade that 100,000 for 1,000,000?

Many people are impressed by military power, not just "NASCAR dads" and the "religious right." Your generalization was ridiculous.

Yes, I forgot to include others, such as Studly McDumbass and Bimbo Airhead, my appologies. Being interested in military machines is one thing, acting like a pre-pubscent girl every time a bomb drops is another thing. If you don't want to take my word for it, feel free to browse the archives. You'd have to look into march-june 2003 when this was first separated from OT. It was a different place, it resembled a Cheerleader's Camp more than anything...

Anyway, this is exactly the kind of narrow minded, false dilemma, sentimenal BS that got people to support the invasion.

:sigh:: OK. I can play this tupid game.

Many of the same people who supported the invasion are now against it. Primarily it's the Studly McDumbass and Bimbo Airhead raised on MTV and who can't seem to concentrate on anything for longer than 15 seconds and figure that because their limit of concern has been exceeded, it's no longer worth it. So when you dis those people, remember that many of them are now on your side.

I don't want to name names, as the mods don't seem to like that, but have a look around this place: you'll realize its the exact opposite. Its the people who do have capacity for thought and the self confidence to admit mistakes, not the teen cheerleaders of the other side...

I would quote your president concerning fooling someone twice, but I don't want to sound like a dumbass 🙂

Too late for that.

I know, how's that old saying go? "Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level and beat you with experience"?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: maluckey

Have you never heard of the Mises Effect?

As in Ludvig von Mises?

Expound on this, and maybe I'll see the connection......

You know the essence of it:

Intervening in a situation that itself was the result of a prior intervention will often result in the opposite desired effect.

We're seeing that in droves nowadays.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I made a comment in a recent thread about the left claiming that sanctions on Iraq were costing the lives of 500,000 Iraqis every year. The war in Iraq has cost, supposedly, if you want to go with the overstated figures, 100,000 Iraqi lives. That's in 2+ years. So would you trade that 100,000 for 1,000,000?

Many people are impressed by military power, not just "NASCAR dads" and the "religious right." Your generalization was ridiculous.

Yes, I forgot to include others, such as Studly McDumbass and Bimbo Airhead, my appologies. Being interested in military machines is one thing, acting like a pre-pubscent girl every time a bomb drops is another thing. If you don't want to take my word for it, feel free to browse the archives. You'd have to look into march-june 2003 when this was first separated from OT. It was a different place, it resembled a Cheerleader's Camp more than anything...

Anyway, this is exactly the kind of narrow minded, false dilemma, sentimenal BS that got people to support the invasion.

:sigh:: OK. I can play this tupid game.

Many of the same people who supported the invasion are now against it. Primarily it's the Studly McDumbass and Bimbo Airhead raised on MTV and who can't seem to concentrate on anything for longer than 15 seconds and figure that because their limit of concern has been exceeded, it's no longer worth it. So when you dis those people, remember that many of them are now on your side.

I don't want to name names, as the mods don't seem to like that, but have a look around this place: you'll realize its the exact opposite. Its the people who do have capacity for thought and the self confidence to admit mistakes, not the teen cheerleaders of the other side...

First of all, this place is not representative of anything except for, well, this place.

Also, I find your statement odd because the anti-war crowd has a goodly number of teens and college kids in its ranks. In fact, the liberal anti-war stance appeals to a large number of college kids and the younger set with this idealistic vision of nirvana where the most profound thought is something along the Rodney King-ish line of "Why can't we all just get along?"

I would quote your president concerning fooling someone twice, but I don't want to sound like a dumbass 🙂

Too late for that.

I know, how's that old saying go? "Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level and beat you with experience"?

Thanks. I'll keep that in mind for your next reply. 😉

 

[SagaLore]

When Bush sent us into Afghanistan, he made a smart move. The nation - both political sides - were united. That country really has benefited from it.

When Bush sent us into Iraq, it was a bad move. Not because it didn't have moral justification, but because it wasn't strategic. They should have known these people couldn't get along without a brutal dictator breathing down their neck.

We should have segmented the country up into smaller countries when we had the chance. Then the new countries should have had more say into what governments they wanted. They could have created a loose Confederation of Iraqi States, but nothing powerful enough to be lead by a single ruler.

 

[Starbuck1975]

One would think that we would have learned that lesson from our experience in the Balkans.

The former Yugoslavia, like Iraq, was an arbitrarily created nation, consisting of numerous ethnic and religious factions that have a history of not getting along all that well...with an underlying tooth for a tooth, eye for an eye mentality, that has prevented these various groups from moving past injustices that date back centuries.

Tito, a puppet dictator of the Soviet Union, leveraged a police state totalitarian regime to play the factions against one another while consolidating his own power...with the support of the Soviet government, and even some Western aid, Tito was allowed to secure his power base...of course, once he died, and the Iron Curtain came down, there was nothing to stop these various factions from appealing to nationalism for dominance of the region.

Similarly, Saddam, at least initially, was a puppet dictator of the CIA and American intervention against Islamic fundamentalism in Iran...the lesser of two evils, Saddam was able to establish his power base largely from Western support...of course, after invading Kuwait, Saddam suddenly became a dangerous enemy to the world, and rightfully so.

Like Tito, there was to be no peaceful resolution to the end of Saddam's regime...that we removed him from power simply accelerated the process...Saddam did not have an heir apparent, and neither of his sons were overwhelmingly popular within Baathist circles or the Iraqi military hierarchy.

Saddam's removal from power, either through death by natural causes or otherwise, would have probably had the same effect on Iraqi society...Saddam was actually an anchor of Islamic secularism in the region, with wolves on his borders just waiting for the opportunity to put Iraq back into check.

I believe a Civil War in Iraq was inevitable...however, instead of being the catalyst for that Civil War, America could have found itself in the position of letting the factions beat the hell out of each other after the passing of Saddam (through natural causes or otherwise), and then like the Balkans, go in under the legitimacy of international community support and play clean-up.

 

[NeoV]

wow TLC, really this thread has been one of your weaker ones in quite a while, and that is saying something...

First, you actually had the gall to compare the friendship between the Saudi Royal family and the Bush family to the friendship between Clinton and the Saudi Royal family.......do I need to go into any detail at all to point out how utterly ridiculous that is?

Then we get this from TLC:

"There are two types of transition going on in Iraq right now:

1) From a totalitarian regime to a democratic one, i.e.-a political transition

2) From a soceity where power comes from fear and intimidation to one where power comes from the people, i.e.-a societal transition

The first transition is actually much easier than the second. It's why we see so much strife in Iraq and until the mindset is changed in those that harbor it that power does not derive from an iron fist we are going to continue to see that struggle. "

That last sentence actually sounds like something Moonbeam would say, only with much more basic grammar. Question for you TLC - do you think these 'transitions' were anticipated by the current administration? Should they have been?

There is more good stuff from TLC:

"If it takes 20 years, it's far better than it taking 100 years or more to happen on its own.

Of course, we seem to have some people who don't want to focus on the long term. All they can see is a myopic field of view that includes what happened yesterday and today, and only when it includes bad news. All else is filtered out and excluded."

Here's a quick quiz - name the administration person who said the following:

"in a matter of weeks, not months"
"the insurgency is in it's final throes"

TLC, I'll agree with you that a true turnover in Iraq of how things work could take a decade or two..but again, show me one shred of evidence that this administration saw this coming? Powell was the only one in the administration who had any sense of what might happen, and look where he is now. You simply cannot make statements like you are making and not be critical of the plan and execution this administration has put in place, yet you constantly defend it - you can't have both sides!

The last bit from TLC that caught my attention:

"Also, I find your statement odd because the anti-war crowd has a goodly number of teens and college kids in its ranks. In fact, the liberal anti-war stance appeals to a large number of college kids and the younger set with this idealistic vision of nirvana where the most profound thought is something along the Rodney King-ish line of "Why can't we all just get along?" "

Wow...just wow. Keep on believing in the dillusional world you apparently live in that the anti-war crowd is younger, less educated, and generally less intelligent than the people on your side of war. If that makes you feel more secure in where you stand on the war, so be it, but it's an ignorant and condescending statement - but it seems that most of your statements fall under one of those two categories anyway.


As for the mess in Iraq now, I don't know that anyone has a sure-fire solution - but clearly the current plan isn't working, wasn't well thought out, and continues to cost American lives and money. I would leave a base in Iraq, a large one, but I'd pretty much abandon the idea that our troops in some cities are really worth it.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: NeoV
wow TLC, really this thread has been one of your weaker ones in quite a while, and that is saying something...

First, you actually had the gall to compare the friendship between the Saudi Royal family and the Bush family to the friendship between Clinton and the Saudi Royal family.......do I need to go into any detail at all to point out how utterly ridiculous that is?

Actually, yes, you do. Everyone else has simply danced around that. Facts are that the relationship between Washington and SA is at its lowest levels in decades. But all you hear from the anti-war crowd is the superficial commentary about the Bush relationship with the Saudi royalty. It's more of the standard type of shallow commentary coming from the anti-war crew, as if it actually means anything.

Then we get this from TLC:

"There are two types of transition going on in Iraq right now:

1) From a totalitarian regime to a democratic one, i.e.-a political transition

2) From a soceity where power comes from fear and intimidation to one where power comes from the people, i.e.-a societal transition

The first transition is actually much easier than the second. It's why we see so much strife in Iraq and until the mindset is changed in those that harbor it that power does not derive from an iron fist we are going to continue to see that struggle. "

That last sentence actually sounds like something Moonbeam would say, only with much more basic grammar. Question for you TLC - do you think these 'transitions' were anticipated by the current administration? Should they have been?

Sometimes I really wonder about you people. Do you really think this administration, or any other for that matter, is going to stand up in public and pontificate about all the potential problems a war presents? I mean, seriously dude, get real. Their job is to put on a shiny, happy face and spin things so they shine. You and I both know that the majority of the public rarely wants to hear the hard truth, no matter how much they claim they want to hear it.

So yes, I'm sure they knew what the problems would be. The admin has plenty of analysts and experts on the ME that know far more than anyone in this forum and informed the admin of the problems to be encountered. Just because they don't appear in public and regurgitate everything those experts predict doesn't mean they were unaware. It merely means they were doing what every other government in the damn world does.

There is more good stuff from TLC:

"If it takes 20 years, it's far better than it taking 100 years or more to happen on its own.

Of course, we seem to have some people who don't want to focus on the long term. All they can see is a myopic field of view that includes what happened yesterday and today, and only when it includes bad news. All else is filtered out and excluded."

Here's a quick quiz - name the administration person who said the following:

"in a matter of weeks, not months"
"the insurgency is in it's final throes"

Wow. Well excuse me. I'll have to give Donald a call and chide him for making such an ignorant remark. And we know the anti-war crowd hasn't made wrong proclamations this entire time. :roll:

The anti-war crowd has this strange penchant for trying to make people personally responsible for what the admin does and says. Here's a clue for you. I have no control over them and neither does anyone else in here. I doubt Bush would give a crap what I say, particuarly after I inform him that I didn't vote for him because I think he's a snake.

TLC, I'll agree with you that a true turnover in Iraq of how things work could take a decade or two..but again, show me one shred of evidence that this administration saw this coming? Powell was the only one in the administration who had any sense of what might happen, and look where he is now. You simply cannot make statements like you are making and not be critical of the plan and execution this administration has put in place, yet you constantly defend it - you can't have both sides!

Again, you take the rotue that I must, for some unknown reason, apologize or make excuses for this administration. It's a patently faulty logic.

Also, you confuse my "defending this administration" with straightening out the false claims of the left/anti-war crowd. My goal is not to defend the admin, it's to stop this constant flow of poorly thought out memes, blatant mischaracterizations, overstatement, and revisionist history. You see, I want to see the left back in control, at least the moderate left. And they are not going to achieve that control with their current brand of shrillness and just plain wrong-headedness. I'd also like them to get over a past that cannot be changed and get with the program on Iraq. But they still fight their ridiculous litle fight, hoping for some small victory against Bush that they can cheer over and slap themselves on the back about at the cost of 25+ million people a half a world away. That is SOOO unliberal and unleft-like behavior that it makes me want to puke.

The last bit from TLC that caught my attention:

"Also, I find your statement odd because the anti-war crowd has a goodly number of teens and college kids in its ranks. In fact, the liberal anti-war stance appeals to a large number of college kids and the younger set with this idealistic vision of nirvana where the most profound thought is something along the Rodney King-ish line of "Why can't we all just get along?" "

Wow...just wow. Keep on believing in the dillusional world you apparently live in that the anti-war crowd is younger, less educated, and generally less intelligent than the people on your side of war. If that makes you feel more secure in where you stand on the war, so be it, but it's an ignorant and condescending statement - but it seems that most of your statements fall under one of those two categories anyway.

I don't have to believe it's delusion. Look at the recent protest in D.C. It was primarily composed of young kids and hippy hanger oners from the 60 who can't seem to get over Vietnam, along with some socialists, communists, and just plain old kooks thrown into the mix. If you actually think those are the smart people in this country, well, in your own words "Wow...just wow."

As for the mess in Iraq now, I don't know that anyone has a sure-fire solution - but clearly the current plan isn't working, wasn't well thought out, and continues to cost American lives and money. I would leave a base in Iraq, a large one, but I'd pretty much abandon the idea that our troops in some cities are really worth it.

Well I imagine that's why you are not in a position to make any decisions that truly affect Iraq.

 

[conjur]

IRAQ: Anglican leadership in Iraq feared dead
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3040

The entire lay leadership team of the main Anglican church in Iraq is presumed to have been killed after they were attacked while returning from a conference in Jordan.

The team of five Iraqi-born Anglicans including the lay pastor and his deputy, should have returned two weeks ago from the conference.

Canon Andrew White, of the Foundation for Reconciliation in the Middle East, who is the clergyman in charge of the church, said: "Anglican leaders in Baghdad have been missing for two weeks and they are presumed dead."

Those missing include Maher Dakel, the lay pastor; his wife, Mona, who leads the women's section of the church; their son Yeheya; the church's pianist and music director, Firas Raad; the deputy lay pastor; and their driver, whose name has not been disclosed.

Canon White last heard news of the five on September 13, when he was told that they had been attacked the day before while returning from Jordan on the notoriously dangerous road between Ramadi and Fallujah.

"It is the most dangerous area in Iraq," he said. "One of two things must have happened. They either got kidnapped or they died. But we have had no ransom demand or anything."

He said other members of the church had been convinced they had been taken to hospital by the Americans, which was one reason they had not released the news for so long. But repeated checks with the US forces and the Pentagon had drawn a blank.

The loss brings to 12 the number of Iraqis that Canon White has lost in his reconciliation work in Iraq, although these are the first connected to the church. He did not think they were targeted because they were Anglicans.

"The fact is that attacks on people on that road happen all the time, particularly on people who appear to be richer or middle class."

Iraq, a desert paradise....for murderers.

 

[maluckey]

You know the essence of it:

Intervening in a situation that itself was the result of a prior intervention will often result in the opposite desired effect.

It surely appears this way....

One issue that I see is that in the ME, ALL situations are old, and nothing is TRULY new to them. If this is the case then "let-em burn" may have been the correct course to take, though containment should have been used to prevent spillover:disgust:

Perhaps it's like wildfire control....sometimes you set a fire to put out a fire, and sometimes you just let it burn.

 

[conjur]

Like the containment that was in place post-1991?

 

[maluckey]

No,

We never HAD containment to speak of......I remember Iraninan Hostages, Munich games, PLO, USS Cole, Khobai, Pan Am Lockerbie etc. ALL within my lifetime.

There never was containment, just people willing to look away and hope it would just be a bad dream. Once atention focused on it, it somehow appeared worse, though it is really just the same.

 

[conjur]

I was referring specifically to the containment of Iraq, post-1991 (which even Gen. Zinni said was working.)

Although, even then, the oil-for-food program showed how the countries involved still allowed corruption to occur (the U.S. actually being the majority benefactor of those profits.)

 

[maluckey]

Like I said, there was NO containment, merely a fresh coat of paint to hide the ugliness.........

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Like I said, there was NO containment, merely a fresh coat of paint to hide the ugliness.........

You can paint of a rust or mold spot.

However, the underlying problem is still there, growing but hidden.

 

[conjur]

Sunni leader and sons killed (by men in Iraqi Army uniforms)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/iraq_dc

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Gunmen in Iraqi army uniforms shot dead an aging Sunni tribal leader and three of his sons in their beds on Wednesday, relatives said, in the latest attack to highlight Iraq's deep sectarian rifts ahead of a December poll.

A Defense Ministry official denied Iraqi troops carried out the pre-dawn slayings in the Hurriya district of Baghdad and said the killers instead must have been terrorists in disguise.

"Iraqi army uniforms litter the streets and any terrorist can kill and tarnish our image, killing two birds with one stone," the official said.

The Hurriya attack follows the discovery last week of more than 170 malnourished and beaten prisoners, many of them Sunni Arabs, locked in a bunker belonging to the Shi'ite-dominated Interior Ministry. Together, the incidents have ratcheted up fears Iraq is heading for civil war.

An Interior Ministry official said 40 men wearing army uniforms had come to the victims' house in the night. Relatives said Kathim Sirheed Ali, the 70-year-old head of the Batta tribe, and his three sons were shot as they were sleeping.

One victim was holding his daughter. "The gunmen told the girl to move then shot the father," said a relative.

Television footage showed the men lying dead in their bedding with bullet casings littering the floor. Wailing women in black veils stood by the bodies.

Sunni Muslim leaders accuse the Interior Ministry of sanctioning death squads run by Shi'ite Muslim militias which attack Sunnis. The government denies the claims.

Thair Kathim Sirheed said soldiers had killed his father and three brothers, two of whom had worked as policemen.

"I am going to get rid of my police badge. From now on I will be a terrorist," said Sirheed.

With nerves already raw from a long and bloody insurgency, the attack highlighted the depth of sectarian divisions as Iraq prepares for parliamentary elections on December 15.

Iraq's Shi-ite and Kurdish-led government and its U.S. backers say they are determined to stage a secure and fair election but an upsurge in violence suggests Sunni and foreign insurgents are equally determined to disrupt the poll.

I love the Defense Minister's defense (reminds me of Baghdad Bob a bit): "Iraqi army uniforms litter the streets"

Yeah....but they're most likely riddled with bullet holes, torn, burnt, etc.

No wonder the training of the Iraqi security forces is taking so long. No telling how many of them are working on the "other side".

I mean, seriously, we train soldiers in 6 weeks' of boot camp. It's been 2 1/2 years in Iraq now...where's the progress?

 

[crownjules]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

I don't have to believe it's delusion. Look at the recent protest in D.C. It was primarily composed of young kids and hippy hanger oners from the 60 who can't seem to get over Vietnam, along with some socialists, communists, and just plain old kooks thrown into the mix. If you actually think those are the smart people in this country, well, in your own words "Wow...just wow."

Hrm. I looked at said pictures and I really don't see what you mean. Looked like pretty regular folk to me of a mix of all ages.

And all that's besides the point. First of all, that's probably what, a couple thousand protestors. Small sample size of probably only the most dedicated and those in the DC area. You can hardly base any sort of generalizations from that. Secondly, you couldn't base generalizations off of "looks" to begin with. Who the hell are you to pass judgement in calling these people stupid and/or ignorant?

Calling one side more/less stupid is a ridiculous notion. There are just as many crazy, stupid, ignorant people supporting the war as there are those against it.

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Maybe Saddam had it right...apparently the only thing these people understand is fear, intimidation and a police state.

Then again, it could be payback time...the dominant minority Sunni, who thrived under Saddam, are getting a taste of what they dished out after the Baathists took over Iraq.

THAT wasn't for the U.S. to decide. There are plenty of other screwed up areas of the World, why don't we start civil wars there too? Why did Bush select Iraq?

 

[pkme2]

Hi Cojur,

Quote:
No, it's far from clear that I feel the Middle East is an SEP. What I see is clear from your posts is that you're a bit of a racist or maybe just ignorant when it comes to the Middle East.

You're doing it again, putting down the opposition. If someone doesn't meet your criteria, you respond in the negative. You say a lot, so how about a single solution to any problem we all can implement.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Conjur,

I have a serious, non flaming question for you:

You are so obviously against the United States in Iraq; this is not in question. You obviously think that the Coalition efforts were in vain;that is not in question. You frequently state that they were better off under Saddam, so that isn't in question.

What is in question is that other than being "ANTI-" about it all, what would you do?? I don't mean you yourself, rather you, as "In-Charge". Would you re-install Saddam as you frequently intimate is a good idea? Would you pull-out? Would you cut and run? Would you wipe the ME clean and start over?

I for one am genuinely interested to hear what YOU want done in the region. First off, assume that you have to start here and now, not two years ago.

Let's hear it.

Seriously. It takes no skill to bitch all the time, and bitching all the time solves nothing.

 

[conjur]

You don't read very well do you, Frackal?


Anyway, the reason I bumped this thread is to add that bit of news I posted above.

 

[pkme2]

Quote by conjur: You don't read very well do you, Frackal?

Just words again, and no solution. I asked for only one. We're getting it up to here with the criticisms, maybe the other members are too.
I need to know what solution would you use? You stated many things, pick one.

 

[Polish3d]

I think its interesting that people with such claimed animosity towards religious irrationality in this country are willing to accept Bin Laden's viewpoints and give into them.

Bin Laden:

"Americans are infidels and I want them out of the holy land. (So I can work to increase fundamentalism ijn the country and government.)

Liberals:

"He wants us out? Why? Oh he thinks we are infidels. Oh ok, let's leave then and maybe he'll leave us alone."

Rather than:

"Bin Laden wants us out because of his extreme religious viewpoints? He says "Leave or I kill your citizens?" Well no, we are not going to abide someone like that or let him affect our policy."



Anyway, the idea of pulling out immediately and now is absurd. These people/liberals/whatever want this to happen regardless, but for it to happen there must be the accepted premise that Iraq is already beyond hope and there is no way we can succeed, which is why this point of view is continually pushed by these people.

(They may either genuinely believe it, have convinced themselves of it, for the most part. However I have seen some people on democraticunderground.com who actually say that Iraq must fail to sink Bush and the Republicans. I had one quote in my sig where a guy, referring to Iraqis said "They must die so that we can be free." - Meaning Iraq must collapse to sink Bush and Republicans.)

Because they know that if people recognize that Iraq does have a chance of succeeding as a reasonably open democracy, then not only will they have been wrong, but the logical conclusion from that acknowledgement is that we must stay to work for that goal.


This by the way, is one reason why people like this are accused of having a defeatist mentality. (Which I suspect they have in life in general as well.)

"Oh, Bin Laden wants us out?" "Well we better leave."

"Oh Iraqis can't become a democracy, we better leave."

(And what many forget🙂

"Oh, there's no WAY we can win in Afghanistan, look at what happened to the Soviets."


Sorry folks, but no one of any real sense wants to follow people with this type of "can't do" uber-pessimistic attitude.

Additionally, liberals of past eras had much more hope and optimism, and far more of a can-do, let's-do it vision based on confidence. I tend to think many here on this forum today, if born a century ago, would be isolationists, anarchists et al.

Basically people who are naturally pessimistic, and thus join and believe in/promote/create a similar idealogy.

Which is not one that attracts me or many others.