Civil war in Iraq "Likely"

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: ccbadd

Uh ...... pretty sure it could have been prevented had we not invaded a country, that posed no danger to us whatsoever, in the first place. FTW.

You are so wise as to know this. Every Islamic country poses a threat to every non-Ilsamic contry by there own confession. "Convert or Kill" doctrine! Islamic people have never preached peaceful cohabitation. China is more friendly to other countries then any Islamic country. How many bombings has Christian, Buddist, even Aethist groups brought to bear on innocense without provocation?

What type of garbage is this ? There were no WMD's as the UN inspectors before they were rushed out told the world and us that Iraq was free of WMD's. Of course cowboys like yourself couldn't wait to start munching on freedom fries to watch the "awe and shock" show on Faux news and ignored it all.

Experts in the CIA, US Defense Department, etc.. basically laid out the dangers of removing Saddam and pitfalls of not having a force large enough to police the nation until so semblance of order could be restored. Basically you had the whole world including many experts in our own intelligence agencies telling you cowboys that invading Iraq was not a smart thing to do yet you all ignored this advise and "Stayed the course" right off that cliff. Geez talk about having the blinders on.

A large enough police force can still go in and should go in.

Basically what you are saying is we need another Saddam or Saddam like force.

No, basically that is what you are hearing, not what I am saying. We have police forces in this country and they are not like Saddam.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
I think once again I disagree with the Moonbeam's notion of creating a large enough police force and there by being able to rid the Iraqi society of mal-contents... and provide their soul's desire.

I say this because for one thing what IS their souls desire currently... not after a generation from now but today.? I say they desire to rid their land of not only the US imperialists but also each other because neither of the major factions deem the other fit to be alive. This won't change no matter how many troops we direct there. Well.... If we could send 10 million perhaps we could have one attached to every citizen and insure the peace but within reason we've not enough to do the job.

I opt of .... what was it Nixon call leaving Vietnam... some catchy phrase... yeah.. we need one of them for this occasion.

I believe that the soul of man is that in him created in the image of God and God does not want to kill his neighbor. It is the ego of these people, its fear of death and insignificance, its foundation and creation out of feelings of worthlessness that impels one to kill. I think it a madness we let loose when we took down Saddam that is now boiling up and that because of our responsibility for that we have to put down the monster we let loose on their world.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: LunarRay
I think once again I disagree with the Moonbeam's notion of creating a large enough police force and there by being able to rid the Iraqi society of mal-contents... and provide their soul's desire.

I say this because for one thing what IS their souls desire currently... not after a generation from now but today.? I say they desire to rid their land of not only the US imperialists but also each other because neither of the major factions deem the other fit to be alive. This won't change no matter how many troops we direct there. Well.... If we could send 10 million perhaps we could have one attached to every citizen and insure the peace but within reason we've not enough to do the job.

I opt of .... what was it Nixon call leaving Vietnam... some catchy phrase... yeah.. we need one of them for this occasion.

I believe that the soul of man is that in him created in the image of God and God does not want to kill his neighbor. It is the ego of these people, its fear of death and insignificance, its foundation and creation out of feelings of worthlessness that impels one to kill. I think it a madness we let loose when we took down Saddam that is now boiling up and that because of our responsibility for that we have to put down the monster we let loose on their world.

Well.... yes... OK.. I agree we have a responsibility as you stated. In this case, I think we've to evaluate the potential of our maximum effort in ridding the 'monster'.
If at the end of the day fewer people will die as the result of our leaving tomorrow than if we send our maximum effort to the event then I say leave. If to the contrary is a reasonable conclusion then I'd opt for that scenario.
I still see the violence occurring against us and themselves along with the influx of martyrs and other 'thrill' seekers to do the will of 'Allah'... an out of control mess is what I think happens if we increase our presence or escalate into a no win situation, Mr Nixon ( ).

 

[1EZduzit]

As I recall Nixon called it an "honorable withdrawal" and "peace with honor". I think most Americans believed we had the "high" moral ground in that war because we were convinced that the South Vietnamese didn't want to live under communist rule and "wanted" our help. Will a catch phrase work with the Iraqi quagmire? I doubt it because I don't think any of us believe we had the high moral ground to invade Iraq, Afghanistan yes, Iraq no.

It seems to me that the average Iraqi doesn't care who rules them? I doubt that's true, but with the whole religious fundamentalist thing going on over there I think at this point most of the Iraqis would rather play it safe then open their mouths. How can you fight that with a military?? I don't believe you can. The minute we leave it will be business as usual and everyone knows that so we jsut as well cut our losses and the sooner the better

I'm still wondering what is taking them so long to train the Iraqi Army and Police force?? Didn't Rummy say they had 100,000 trained BEFORE the last election. Of course Cheney says they're in their "last throes" too, so we obcviously can't believe anything the current administration tells us.

I think we're just wasting our men and money at this point. No matter what we do, as soon as we leave the fundamentalists will take over. They are just waiting in the wings, just biding their time while the radicals stir up unrest.

I love old sayings and the one that comes to mind here is "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink". Iraqis have a chance to be free, but it's up to them to grab the bull by the horns and fight for their freedom, not us.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
As I recall Nixon called it an "honorable withdrawal" and "peace with honor". I think most Americans believed we had the "high" moral ground in that war because we were convinced that the South Vietnamese didn't want to live under communist rule and "wanted" our help. Will a catch phrase work with the Iraqi quagmire? I doubt it because I don't think any of us believe we had the high moral ground to invade Iraq, Afghanistan yes, Iraq no.

I guess the catch phrase is the door through which many Bush supporters will march cuz I can't believe they want this to continue either. I doubt there are any similarities betwixt Vietnam and anything else we've ventured into at least from the perspective that I see it all from. I do think folks hang onto a phrase that makes them feel good doing the most insane things.. tis why I suggested it. Leaving Iraq is smart but doing that is hard.

It seems to me that the average Iraqi doesn't care who rules them? I doubt that's true, but with the whole religious fundamentalist thing going on over there I think at this point most of the Iraqis would rather play it safe then open their mouths. How can you fight that with a military?? I don't believe you can. The minute we leave it will be business as usual and everyone knows that so we jsut as well cut our losses and the sooner the better

I see it as the oppressed being freed to use superior numbers to get back at the folks previously in power via SH. I think they care who is in charge and I think they will eventually win out...

I'm still wondering what is taking them so long to train the Iraqi Army and Police force?? Didn't Rummy say they had 100,000 trained BEFORE the last election. Of course Cheney says they're in their "last throes" too, so we obcviously can't believe anything the current administration tells us.

I think we're just wasting our men and money at this point. No matter what we do, as soon as we leave the fundamentalists will take over. They are just waiting in the wings, just biding their time while the radicals stir up unrest.

I love old sayings and the one that comes to mind here is "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink". Iraqis have a chance to be free, but it's up to them to grab the bull by the horns and fight for their freedom, not us.

Moonbeam would say.. "you can lead a horse to water, but a pencil must be lead"... perhaps he may.. We can't lead them nor defeat them. We can't placate them nor sate them. We can keep them alive at the expense of our own lives by taking a side or stay there and do so at the expense of our own lives taking no side but there are always sides, I think...

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
As I recall Nixon called it an "honorable withdrawal" and "peace with honor". I think most Americans believed we had the "high" moral ground in that war because we were convinced that the South Vietnamese didn't want to live under communist rule and "wanted" our help. Will a catch phrase work with the Iraqi quagmire? I doubt it because I don't think any of us believe we had the high moral ground to invade Iraq, Afghanistan yes, Iraq no.

I guess the catch phrase is the door through which many Bush supporters will march cuz I can't believe they want this to continue either. I doubt there are any similarities betwixt Vietnam and anything else we've ventured into at least from the perspective that I see it all from. I do think folks hang onto a phrase that makes them feel good doing the most insane things.. tis why I suggested it. Leaving Iraq is smart but doing that is hard.

It seems to me that the average Iraqi doesn't care who rules them? I doubt that's true, but with the whole religious fundamentalist thing going on over there I think at this point most of the Iraqis would rather play it safe then open their mouths. How can you fight that with a military?? I don't believe you can. The minute we leave it will be business as usual and everyone knows that so we jsut as well cut our losses and the sooner the better

I see it as the oppressed being freed to use superior numbers to get back at the folks previously in power via SH. I think they care who is in charge and I think they will eventually win out...

I'm still wondering what is taking them so long to train the Iraqi Army and Police force?? Didn't Rummy say they had 100,000 trained BEFORE the last election. Of course Cheney says they're in their "last throes" too, so we obcviously can't believe anything the current administration tells us.

I think we're just wasting our men and money at this point. No matter what we do, as soon as we leave the fundamentalists will take over. They are just waiting in the wings, just biding their time while the radicals stir up unrest.

I love old sayings and the one that comes to mind here is "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink". Iraqis have a chance to be free, but it's up to them to grab the bull by the horns and fight for their freedom, not us.

Moonbeam would say.. "you can lead a horse to water, but a pencil must be lead"... perhaps he may.. We can't lead them nor defeat them. We can't placate them nor sate them. We can keep them alive at the expense of our own lives by taking a side or stay there and do so at the expense of our own lives taking no side but there are always sides, I think...

We can teach them that we will die to give them life. Are we not our brother's keeper? Our problem is that we don't know what to do because we have no morals. Probably we will just walk away and say to ourselves, my what a bad idea that was. Pragmatism, of course, is not virtue but it is pragmatic.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
As I recall Nixon called it an "honorable withdrawal" and "peace with honor". I think most Americans believed we had the "high" moral ground in that war because we were convinced that the South Vietnamese didn't want to live under communist rule and "wanted" our help. Will a catch phrase work with the Iraqi quagmire? I doubt it because I don't think any of us believe we had the high moral ground to invade Iraq, Afghanistan yes, Iraq no.

I guess the catch phrase is the door through which many Bush supporters will march cuz I can't believe they want this to continue either. I doubt there are any similarities betwixt Vietnam and anything else we've ventured into at least from the perspective that I see it all from. I do think folks hang onto a phrase that makes them feel good doing the most insane things.. tis why I suggested it. Leaving Iraq is smart but doing that is hard.

It seems to me that the average Iraqi doesn't care who rules them? I doubt that's true, but with the whole religious fundamentalist thing going on over there I think at this point most of the Iraqis would rather play it safe then open their mouths. How can you fight that with a military?? I don't believe you can. The minute we leave it will be business as usual and everyone knows that so we jsut as well cut our losses and the sooner the better

I see it as the oppressed being freed to use superior numbers to get back at the folks previously in power via SH. I think they care who is in charge and I think they will eventually win out...

I'm still wondering what is taking them so long to train the Iraqi Army and Police force?? Didn't Rummy say they had 100,000 trained BEFORE the last election. Of course Cheney says they're in their "last throes" too, so we obcviously can't believe anything the current administration tells us.

I think we're just wasting our men and money at this point. No matter what we do, as soon as we leave the fundamentalists will take over. They are just waiting in the wings, just biding their time while the radicals stir up unrest.

I love old sayings and the one that comes to mind here is "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink". Iraqis have a chance to be free, but it's up to them to grab the bull by the horns and fight for their freedom, not us.

Moonbeam would say.. "you can lead a horse to water, but a pencil must be lead"... perhaps he may.. We can't lead them nor defeat them. We can't placate them nor sate them. We can keep them alive at the expense of our own lives by taking a side or stay there and do so at the expense of our own lives taking no side but there are always sides, I think...

We can teach them that we will die to give them life. Are we not our brother's keeper? Our problem is that we don't know what to do because we have no morals. Probably we will just walk away and say to ourselves, my what a bad idea that was. Pragmatism, of course, is not virtue but it is pragmatic.

You obviously have never met my brother.

I'm definitley pragmatic when it come to people's lives. I feel it's not a question of what I personally would be willing to do, but what am I willing to ask others to do? Would you send someone's son or husband into that situation?? Is it important enough that you would ask your own son to go there and risk his life? Maybe I'm just selfish, but I could never ask my son to do that, not with a clear conscience.

Sorry, but the way things are now I don't see it as being worth risking my son's life and therefore it's not worth risking other people's son's lives either.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
As I recall Nixon called it an "honorable withdrawal" and "peace with honor". I think most Americans believed we had the "high" moral ground in that war because we were convinced that the South Vietnamese didn't want to live under communist rule and "wanted" our help. Will a catch phrase work with the Iraqi quagmire? I doubt it because I don't think any of us believe we had the high moral ground to invade Iraq, Afghanistan yes, Iraq no.

I guess the catch phrase is the door through which many Bush supporters will march cuz I can't believe they want this to continue either. I doubt there are any similarities betwixt Vietnam and anything else we've ventured into at least from the perspective that I see it all from. I do think folks hang onto a phrase that makes them feel good doing the most insane things.. tis why I suggested it. Leaving Iraq is smart but doing that is hard.

It seems to me that the average Iraqi doesn't care who rules them? I doubt that's true, but with the whole religious fundamentalist thing going on over there I think at this point most of the Iraqis would rather play it safe then open their mouths. How can you fight that with a military?? I don't believe you can. The minute we leave it will be business as usual and everyone knows that so we jsut as well cut our losses and the sooner the better

I see it as the oppressed being freed to use superior numbers to get back at the folks previously in power via SH. I think they care who is in charge and I think they will eventually win out...

I'm still wondering what is taking them so long to train the Iraqi Army and Police force?? Didn't Rummy say they had 100,000 trained BEFORE the last election. Of course Cheney says they're in their "last throes" too, so we obcviously can't believe anything the current administration tells us.

I think we're just wasting our men and money at this point. No matter what we do, as soon as we leave the fundamentalists will take over. They are just waiting in the wings, just biding their time while the radicals stir up unrest.

I love old sayings and the one that comes to mind here is "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink". Iraqis have a chance to be free, but it's up to them to grab the bull by the horns and fight for their freedom, not us.

Moonbeam would say.. "you can lead a horse to water, but a pencil must be lead"... perhaps he may.. We can't lead them nor defeat them. We can't placate them nor sate them. We can keep them alive at the expense of our own lives by taking a side or stay there and do so at the expense of our own lives taking no side but there are always sides, I think...

We can teach them that we will die to give them life. Are we not our brother's keeper? Our problem is that we don't know what to do because we have no morals. Probably we will just walk away and say to ourselves, my what a bad idea that was. Pragmatism, of course, is not virtue but it is pragmatic.

Yes.. the leading of the pencil.. we are the sharpeners.. and we are commanded to love our neighbor as we love ourself. Or as you might comment... hate our neighbor as we hate ourself... So in your words is to be found iron... we are to love but we don't act in that manner. The greatest gift one can give is to lay down their life for another... I guess it don't much matter if the 'other' is aware or not of that gift... it is in the giving not the receiving that the challenge is met....
That we are as we are will be found what will be. Easy to predict as you know. Some would say.. "I won't ask another's son to go to Iraq if I wouldn't ask my own son to go." and I'd say that is for him to decide and for the some to decide if they will go to Iraq... "I'm too old.. the Army won't accept me" will come the response or "I've done my time it is another's time to go".. OK.. but I think all should be first person ... meaning.. "I'd go but for being able to go" and if that were the case then your position would be sustained... we'd be there in the numbers needed....
It won't happen.. cuz of the opening thesis.. we hate some of our neighbors like we hate some of ourselves...

 

[LunarRay]

1EZduzit,

You obviously have never met my brother.

I'm definitley pragmatic when it come to people's lives. I feel it's not a question of what I personally would be willing to do, but what am I willing to ask others to do? Would you send someone's son or husband into that situation?? Is it important enough that you would ask your own son to go there and risk his life? Maybe I'm just selfish, but I could never ask my son to do that, not with a clear conscience.

Sorry, but the way things are now I don't see it as being worth risking my son's life and therefore it's not worth risking other people's son's lives either.

No.. it is a question about what you would do and all the other 'Yous' in this Country.. each is a unit unto itself (after the age of majority). It only becomes what you'd ask your neighbor to do if you had authority over them... You don't have authority over folks who have reached majority age. Which means to me.. that your basis of deciding an issue individually is not based on the Nation's best interest or as Moonbeam may say 'What is right to do' but, rather, based on how doing that affects your feelings and the guilt. I say there is a greater guide in all of this and that is ... again as moonbeam has said.... Do what is right regardless and let the effort in that be our justification and the result our legacy...

EDIT:.... I still think the smart move is to leave... cuz I have no such perfection in my thinking as regards outside my border... I've defined my neighborhood as 51 sovereign - sorta - states...

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
1EZduzit,

You obviously have never met my brother.

I'm definitley pragmatic when it come to people's lives. I feel it's not a question of what I personally would be willing to do, but what am I willing to ask others to do? Would you send someone's son or husband into that situation?? Is it important enough that you would ask your own son to go there and risk his life? Maybe I'm just selfish, but I could never ask my son to do that, not with a clear conscience.

Sorry, but the way things are now I don't see it as being worth risking my son's life and therefore it's not worth risking other people's son's lives either.

No.. it is a question about what you would do and all the other 'Yous' in this Country.. each is a unit unto itself (after the age of majority). It only becomes what you'd ask your neighbor to do if you had authority over them... You don't have authority over folks who have reached majority age. Which means to me.. that your basis of deciding an issue individually is not based on the Nation's best interest or as Moonbeam may say 'What is right to do' but, rather, based on how doing that affects your feelings and the guilt. I say there is a greater guide in all of this and that is ... again as moonbeam has said.... Do what is right regardless and let the effort in that be our justification and the result our legacy...

EDIT:.... I still think the smart move is to leave... cuz I have no such perfection in my thinking as regards outside my border... I've defined my neighborhood as 51 sovereign - sorta - states...

I never said I would (or wouldn't) send anybody to Iraq. I said that I couldn't ask them to go. It is still their choice. Of course if we had a draft, then they wouldn't have that choice and then my opinons and wishes on the subject would be just as important/revelant as anybody else's. Those opinions come with all their "baggage" also.

My Dad wanted to run down and enlist right after the Japs bombed Pearl Harbor. My Grandfather took him aside and told him that he didn't care if he ever listened to him again, but to wait a couple of months before he joined. He did, but he had 2 friends (that he was going to join up with) who went down and enlisted right away.

They both were in the Bataan Death march and spent the war as POW's. Was my grandfather just acting out of his indivdual feelings and not thinking about the countries best interests or was he just giving what he belived to be good advice?

 

[LunarRay]

1EZduzit,

I never said I would (or wouldn't) send anybody to Iraq. I said that I couldn't ask them to go. It is still their choice. Of course if we had a draft, then they wouldn't have that choice and then my opinons and wishes on the subject would be just as important/revelant as anybody else's. Those opinions come with all their "baggage" also.

My Dad wanted to run down and enlist right after the Japs bombed Pearl Harbor. My Grandfather took him aside and told him that he didn't care if he ever listened to him again, but to wait a couple of months before he joined. He did, but he had 2 friends (that he was going to join up with) who went down and enlisted right away.

They both were in the Bataan Death march and spent the war as POW's. Was my grandfather just acting out of his indivdual feelings and not thinking about the countries best interests or was he just giving what he belived to be good advice?

"Ask them to go" presumes you have the basis to make that 'request', as i read it. Having a draft or not is still not the issue (imo). What is is your vote to elect the folks who, in our stead, make the decisions regarding this or any other issue. Moonbeam says we should 'stay the course' cuz it is right morally. He infers, I believe, that there is corrupt thinking in being aggressors in Iraq transformed into peace keepers that have failed on the tangential issue to the underlying Agenda.. the Agenda failed and so to the collateral issues used to justify being there... Moonbeam is clever... He calls those who would leave hypocrites with their own words... heheheh it really is quite good debate tactic.. What he really thinks is shrouded in the point that he is making.. on this issue.. As I see it, anyhow..

The circumstance regarding your grandfather's advice sounds a bit pre-cognitive.. or foreboding..
What I know is much less than I think I know if I know anything at all... What I feel, therefore, is that there are courses of action that should be taken in Iraq tomorrow. I view Iraq as sovereign as we are. Let them put Iraq to the status quo ante it enjoyed before we 'broke' it. Return it to as close an Iraq as we can get it.. and be done with it.. and be done with all the excursions that deny the folks living in the US as citizens their life liberty and all that good stuff...
The US is my country.. and I'm not my cousin's keeper... My brother is an American.... (if I had one) Our foreign policy should be in conjunction with all the other nations on the planet.. we should refrain from intervention unilaterally or with our sheep friend in England..

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
1EZduzit,

I never said I would (or wouldn't) send anybody to Iraq. I said that I couldn't ask them to go. It is still their choice. Of course if we had a draft, then they wouldn't have that choice and then my opinons and wishes on the subject would be just as important/revelant as anybody else's. Those opinions come with all their "baggage" also.

My Dad wanted to run down and enlist right after the Japs bombed Pearl Harbor. My Grandfather took him aside and told him that he didn't care if he ever listened to him again, but to wait a couple of months before he joined. He did, but he had 2 friends (that he was going to join up with) who went down and enlisted right away.

They both were in the Bataan Death march and spent the war as POW's. Was my grandfather just acting out of his indivdual feelings and not thinking about the countries best interests or was he just giving what he belived to be good advice?

"Ask them to go" presumes you have the basis to make that 'request', as i read it. Having a draft or not is still not the issue (imo). What is is your vote to elect the folks who, in our stead, make the decisions regarding this or any other issue. Moonbeam says we should 'stay the course' cuz it is right morally. He infers, I believe, that there is corrupt thinking in being aggressors in Iraq transformed into peace keepers that have failed on the tangential issue to the underlying Agenda.. the Agenda failed and so to the collateral issues used to justify being there... Moonbeam is clever... He calls those who would leave hypocrites with their own words... heheheh it really is quite good debate tactic.. What he really thinks is shrouded in the point that he is making.. on this issue.. As I see it, anyhow..

The circumstance regarding your grandfather's advice sounds a bit pre-cognitive.. or foreboding..
What I know is much less than I think I know if I know anything at all... What I feel, therefore, is that there are courses of action that should be taken in Iraq tomorrow. I view Iraq as sovereign as we are. Let them put Iraq to the status quo ante it enjoyed before we 'broke' it. Return it to as close an Iraq as we can get it.. and be done with it.. and be done with all the excursions that deny the folks living in the US as citizens their life liberty and all that good stuff...
The US is my country.. and I'm not my cousin's keeper... My brother is an American.... (if I had one) Our foreign policy should be in conjunction with all the other nations on the planet.. we should refrain from intervention unilaterally or with our sheep friend in England..

A man does not stand by and let two children beat each other to death with baseball bats at a championship little league game, nor would it be sheepish for another man, his friend, say, step in to help him. The important point is, have you started the fight yourself and are therefore morally obliged to end it, can you end it because you have the strength to, should force be used to stop violence?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: LunarRay
1EZduzit,

I never said I would (or wouldn't) send anybody to Iraq. I said that I couldn't ask them to go. It is still their choice. Of course if we had a draft, then they wouldn't have that choice and then my opinons and wishes on the subject would be just as important/revelant as anybody else's. Those opinions come with all their "baggage" also.

My Dad wanted to run down and enlist right after the Japs bombed Pearl Harbor. My Grandfather took him aside and told him that he didn't care if he ever listened to him again, but to wait a couple of months before he joined. He did, but he had 2 friends (that he was going to join up with) who went down and enlisted right away.

They both were in the Bataan Death march and spent the war as POW's. Was my grandfather just acting out of his indivdual feelings and not thinking about the countries best interests or was he just giving what he belived to be good advice?

"Ask them to go" presumes you have the basis to make that 'request', as i read it. Having a draft or not is still not the issue (imo). What is is your vote to elect the folks who, in our stead, make the decisions regarding this or any other issue. Moonbeam says we should 'stay the course' cuz it is right morally. He infers, I believe, that there is corrupt thinking in being aggressors in Iraq transformed into peace keepers that have failed on the tangential issue to the underlying Agenda.. the Agenda failed and so to the collateral issues used to justify being there... Moonbeam is clever... He calls those who would leave hypocrites with their own words... heheheh it really is quite good debate tactic.. What he really thinks is shrouded in the point that he is making.. on this issue.. As I see it, anyhow..

The circumstance regarding your grandfather's advice sounds a bit pre-cognitive.. or foreboding..
What I know is much less than I think I know if I know anything at all... What I feel, therefore, is that there are courses of action that should be taken in Iraq tomorrow. I view Iraq as sovereign as we are. Let them put Iraq to the status quo ante it enjoyed before we 'broke' it. Return it to as close an Iraq as we can get it.. and be done with it.. and be done with all the excursions that deny the folks living in the US as citizens their life liberty and all that good stuff...
The US is my country.. and I'm not my cousin's keeper... My brother is an American.... (if I had one) Our foreign policy should be in conjunction with all the other nations on the planet.. we should refrain from intervention unilaterally or with our sheep friend in England..

A man does not stand by and let two children beat each other to death with baseball bats at a championship little league game, nor would it be sheepish for another man, his friend, say, step in to help him. The important point is, have you started the fight yourself and are therefore morally obliged to end it, can you end it because you have the strength to, should force be used to stop violence?

Hmmmm... Morally right seems to somewhat stem from both nature... our societal nurture and nurture from our Religious beliefs.. Human kind are unique by God's creation or simply evolved to become unique. Either way...

The scope of our influence is defined by 'sovereignty' both on the ball field and elsewhere. If two adults swing bats at each other are the fans to jump on the field and stop them or cheer for their home team's angered player... is it children only or all of humanity that we should intervene upon?

Violence is normal in the Chimp and the Human.... abnormal has become accepted as normal... Jesus said to the folks wanting to destroy the Romans that he was not here for that.... are we?
We can protect with force our right to be free... but don't see that right extending beyond our borders... If preemptive action is warranted ok.. but not like Bush's WMD lies..

The brother I am empowered to 'keep' is the American GI.. baking in Iraq... I want him home and I want the Iraqi to be what Iraqi are.. .. Their oil is theirs and their culture is too... 9/11 would not have occurred had we not forced our vacillation on the people of the Middle East... April Gillespie started SH's venture into Kuwait... I think and it still ain't over.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: ccbadd

Uh ...... pretty sure it could have been prevented had we not invaded a country, that posed no danger to us whatsoever, in the first place. FTW.

You are so wise as to know this. Every Islamic country poses a threat to every non-Ilsamic contry by there own confession. "Convert or Kill" doctrine! Islamic people have never preached peaceful cohabitation. China is more friendly to other countries then any Islamic country. How many bombings has Christian, Buddist, even Aethist groups brought to bear on innocense without provocation?

What type of garbage is this ? There were no WMD's as the UN inspectors before they were rushed out told the world and us that Iraq was free of WMD's. Of course cowboys like yourself couldn't wait to start munching on freedom fries to watch the "awe and shock" show on Faux news and ignored it all.

Experts in the CIA, US Defense Department, etc.. basically laid out the dangers of removing Saddam and pitfalls of not having a force large enough to police the nation until so semblance of order could be restored. Basically you had the whole world including many experts in our own intelligence agencies telling you cowboys that invading Iraq was not a smart thing to do yet you all ignored this advise and "Stayed the course" right off that cliff. Geez talk about having the blinders on.

A large enough police force can still go in and should go in.

Basically what you are saying is we need another Saddam or Saddam like force.

No, basically that is what you are hearing, not what I am saying. We have police forces in this country and they are not like Saddam.

I am certain there are many people living in inner cities that would disagree with your perception. Two examples, Amadou Diallo and Abner Louima. You might consider these isolated iincidences but police brutality, for some Americans, is a fact of life, not only in inner cites but along the nation's highways as well.

Another example, NJ State Troopers James Kenna and John Hogan were involved in a 1999 shooting that highlighted racial profiling here. There are many more examples across the country -- and more occur daily.

There are certainly violent criminals who can't be handled with kid gloves but this nation has a history of considering entire races as criminals. Take a look at our prison population, the largest in the world. Take a look at the demographics of that population.

In some ways we're little different than Saddam. We just happen to have the biggest guns so we can use ridiculous excuses to attack nations like Iraq on false pretences then come up with ridiculous excuses to cover our lies.

We're no better than Saddam and in some ways we're worse. At least Saddam made no pretence to excuse his actions.

 

[BBond]

Ever see the BBC's four month investigation of torture in American prisons?

Torture Inc. Americas Brutal Prisons

 

[Moonbeam]

BBond, My last contact with the police was when they pushed my car off the freeway after it blew a timing belt whereupon they called me a tow truck. I had no idea how close I came to winding up in a maximum security cell. Thanks for straightening me out on that.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
BBond, My last contact with the police was when they pushed my car off the freeway after it blew a timing belt whereupon they called me a tow truck. I had no idea how close I came to winding up in a maximum security cell. Thanks for straightening me out on that.

Let me get this right....

Moonbeam was in Iraq.. while a civil war was ongoing.. he blew a timing belt and the Police of Baghdad pushed his car over with the other bombed out vehicles and then called a tow truck .... have I got this correct??? The Government was going to deny you due process cuz that ain't America there in Iraq but you escaped to Iran or walked... and are now in a much better posture...

Is that it??

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
BBond, My last contact with the police was when they pushed my car off the freeway after it blew a timing belt whereupon they called me a tow truck. I had no idea how close I came to winding up in a maximum security cell. Thanks for straightening me out on that.

Let me get this right....

Moonbeam was in Iraq.. while a civil war was ongoing.. he blew a timing belt and the Police of Baghdad pushed his car over with the other bombed out vehicles and then called a tow truck .... have I got this correct??? The Government was going to deny you due process cuz that ain't America there in Iraq but you escaped to Iran or walked... and are now in a much better posture...

Is that it??

Yes, I think you've accurately recapitulated the logic in BBond's post. I eat sleep and post in Omar's tent for fear of police arrest. Somewhere out there Saddam Hussein rides a Harley.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
BBond, My last contact with the police was when they pushed my car off the freeway after it blew a timing belt whereupon they called me a tow truck. I had no idea how close I came to winding up in a maximum security cell. Thanks for straightening me out on that.

Let me get this right....

Moonbeam was in Iraq.. while a civil war was ongoing.. he blew a timing belt and the Police of Baghdad pushed his car over with the other bombed out vehicles and then called a tow truck .... have I got this correct??? The Government was going to deny you due process cuz that ain't America there in Iraq but you escaped to Iran or walked... and are now in a much better posture...

Is that it??

Yes, I think you've accurately recapitulated the logic in BBond's post. I eat sleep and post in Omar's tent for fear of police arrest. Somewhere out there Saddam Hussein rides a Harley.

Good thing you didn't reach for your wallet or they might have shot you 41 times.

Or maybe you aren't the right color for target practice.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

We're no better than Saddam and in some ways we're worse. At least Saddam made no pretence to excuse his actions.

That's a complete load of bullshiat

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

We're no better than Saddam and in some ways we're worse. At least Saddam made no pretence to excuse his actions.

That's a complete load of bullshiat

No, it is just extreme. We are far from perfect and we pretend to be much better than we are, but regardless, we are far superior to Hussein even on a bad day. You don't have to either go nuts over it and claim we are Satin incarnate and you don't have to go into denial. You do need, I think, to keep your feet on the ground and have some perspective.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

"Ask them to go" presumes you have the basis to make that 'request', as i read it. Having a draft or not is still not the issue (imo). What is is your vote to elect the folks who, in our stead, make the decisions regarding this or any other issue. Moonbeam says we should 'stay the course' cuz it is right morally. He infers, I believe, that there is corrupt thinking in being aggressors in Iraq transformed into peace keepers that have failed on the tangential issue to the underlying Agenda.. the Agenda failed and so to the collateral issues used to justify being there... Moonbeam is clever... He calls those who would leave hypocrites with their own words... heheheh it really is quite good debate tactic.. What he really thinks is shrouded in the point that he is making.. on this issue.. As I see it, anyhow..

Don't you think that anybody who supports continuing this war is in effect, "asking them to go"? Somebody has to do the dirty work. I've said from the begining that it is not our responsibility to bring freedom to Iraq. That was just a justification the Bush people/supporters came up with after failing to find any WMD's.

Morally speaking, Moonbeam is right, we broke it and we should fix it, but can we? What can we do differently then what we have been doing that will enable us to "fix it"? You suggested earlier that we could send someone over to watch each and every one of them. LOL, I can't "ask" my fellow ciitzens to put themselves in harms way to do something that I think is doomed to fail. We've given it our best shot and we need to tell the Iraqi's to get ready to get pushed out of the nest.

Bush is an idiot, he never should have went into Iraq unless he positively knew for sure that they had WMD's and where to find them. According to what they were saying pre-invasion, Iraq was on the verge of having nukes and the rockets to put them on. So we invade them and find NADA, nothing. Is it any wonder so many Iraqi's see us as occupiers and not liberators? We lost the support of the Iraqi people right out of the gate and I think the longer we stay there the worse we will make things.

I've come to the conclusion that the best thing to do is to stand back and let them fight it out amongest themselves. They are having a power struggle and it is an internal matter. Our occupation/presence is only inflaming the situation. Bush Sr. knew that and that is why he didn't topple Saddam the first time we were over there. We might have ended up with someone worse..... and we still might.

The circumstance regarding your grandfather's advice sounds a bit pre-cognitive.. or foreboding..

I'm not sure what you mean? My grandfather was wise enough to know that we were just going to throw out as many bodies as we could to slow them down. When my father was shiiped out for the invasion of Guadal Canal he likes to impress upon people the importance of having a strong defese by telling people that "It makes you look at your hole card twice when your going to war with a WWI rifle and a WWI helment.

What I know is much less than I think I know if I know anything at all... What I feel, therefore, is that there are courses of action that should be taken in Iraq tomorrow. I view Iraq as sovereign as we are. Let them put Iraq to the status quo ante it enjoyed before we 'broke' it. Return it to as close an Iraq as we can get it.. and be done with it.. and be done with all the excursions that deny the folks living in the US as citizens their life liberty and all that good stuff...
The US is my country.. and I'm not my cousin's keeper... My brother is an American.... (if I had one) Our foreign policy should be in conjunction with all the other nations on the planet.. we should refrain from intervention unilaterally or with our sheep friend in England..

We need to give them the best shot we can to achieve the goal of getting Iraq back to it's status quo or better. We have been over there long enough that they should have an army, police force and goverment in place that can give them that shot. There is no sense in wasting any more American lives over there.

 

[LunarRay]

Once upon a time Iraq was our friend. Ruled by the same person and his minority presence amongst the majority and other factions that were 'kept in line' via the same means that we overlooked and maybe even supported and later proclaimed as being a human rights denial of the worst kind.
We send out Ms April Gillespie there to give SH the green light regarding Kuwait. (not clear but reasonable to assume, I think)
We invade Iraq when it invades Kuwait.
We don't take him out at that point but rather negotiate a 'peace plan' maybe cuz we knew he had the WMD we sent him but interestingly didn't use against the combined forces assembled to liberate Kuwait and destroy his military and infrastructure.
Not sure how many Iraqi died in that event but must have been quite alot.
Anyhow, SH continues his control over Iraq in the same manner as before.
Baby Bush invades Iraq to eliminate WMD that will be used in 45 days against someone. Then it becomes remove SH or OBL or both cuz SH supported OBL in the 9/11 issue and revisit the human rights denials.. that changed a few times.
We take the minority party out of power and create a democracy so that the majority people can elect a government. We know they will be over joyed and embrace the minority that once denied them life.
Now everyone is killing each other and us.

Who has done the greater evil?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: LunarRay

"Ask them to go" presumes you have the basis to make that 'request', as i read it. Having a draft or not is still not the issue (imo). What is is your vote to elect the folks who, in our stead, make the decisions regarding this or any other issue. Moonbeam says we should 'stay the course' cuz it is right morally. He infers, I believe, that there is corrupt thinking in being aggressors in Iraq transformed into peace keepers that have failed on the tangential issue to the underlying Agenda.. the Agenda failed and so to the collateral issues used to justify being there... Moonbeam is clever... He calls those who would leave hypocrites with their own words... heheheh it really is quite good debate tactic.. What he really thinks is shrouded in the point that he is making.. on this issue.. As I see it, anyhow..

Don't you think that anybody who supports continuing this war is in effect, "asking them to go"? Somebody has to do the dirty work. I've said from the begining that it is not our responsibility to bring freedom to Iraq. That was just a justification the Bush people/supporters came up with after failing to find any WMD's.

Yep, I agree. I don't see the indictments coming from the House nor Hague and think there are many who violated the UN treaty at the very least.

Morally speaking, Moonbeam is right, we broke it and we should fix it, but can we? What can we do differently then what we have been doing that will enable us to "fix it"? You suggested earlier that we could send someone over to watch each and every one of them. LOL, I can't "ask" my fellow ciitzens to put themselves in harms way to do something that I think is doomed to fail. We've given it our best shot and we need to tell the Iraqi's to get ready to get pushed out of the nest.

Yep, we broke it but like Humpty Dumpty not even ALL the king's horsemen can put him together again... So like the fractured and fragile dish on the wall Iraq will devolve or evolve depending on what they decide to do.. them and the Iranian and other folks biting at the bit to have a say.

Bush is an idiot, he never should have went into Iraq unless he positively knew for sure that they had WMD's and where to find them. According to what they were saying pre-invasion, Iraq was on the verge of having nukes and the rockets to put them on. So we invade them and find NADA, nothing. Is it any wonder so many Iraqi's see us as occupiers and not liberators? We lost the support of the Iraqi people right out of the gate and I think the longer we stay there the worse we will make things.

Yep, it was WMD and the launch systems and the exigent circumstance of 45 days till they WILL be used. If that was true then I await SH's miracle departure from jail and re appearance in many places at the same time thus proving his diety.

I've come to the conclusion that the best thing to do is to stand back and let them fight it out amongest themselves. They are having a power struggle and it is an internal matter. Our occupation/presence is only inflaming the situation. Bush Sr. knew that and that is why he didn't topple Saddam the first time we were over there. We might have ended up with someone worse..... and we still might.

Yep!

The circumstance regarding your grandfather's advice sounds a bit pre-cognitive.. or foreboding..

I'm not sure what you mean? My grandfather was wise enough to know that we were just going to throw out as many bodies as we could to slow them down. When my father was shiiped out for the invasion of Guadal Canal he likes to impress upon people the importance of having a strong defese by telling people that "It makes you look at your hole card twice when your going to war with a WWI rifle and a WWI helment.

I mean that you point out that the Baatan death march and the fate that befell those that went sooner than later sounded like Grandfather knew but ok.. logic is there that the first wave would suffer greater damage. My father was a submariner in that war. He went in at the beginning or January of '42 and 'lucked' out as compared to some others, I suppose. War is not fun. People die! The first to die are the Marines usually and they are a special kind of people imo.

What I know is much less than I think I know if I know anything at all... What I feel, therefore, is that there are courses of action that should be taken in Iraq tomorrow. I view Iraq as sovereign as we are. Let them put Iraq to the status quo ante it enjoyed before we 'broke' it. Return it to as close an Iraq as we can get it.. and be done with it.. and be done with all the excursions that deny the folks living in the US as citizens their life liberty and all that good stuff...
The US is my country.. and I'm not my cousin's keeper... My brother is an American.... (if I had one) Our foreign policy should be in conjunction with all the other nations on the planet.. we should refrain from intervention unilaterally or with our sheep friend in England..

We need to give them the best shot we can to achieve the goal of getting Iraq back to it's status quo or better. We have been over there long enough that they should have an army, police force and goverment in place that can give them that shot. There is no sense in wasting any more American lives over there.

I see your points and Moonbeam's points and the other points made in this thread and but for the belief that we can't do what is needed to be done I say we should decide an exit strategy now..
As an aside, we worry more about wounded Iraqi than the care our Vets get when they return. I'm not sure but think this fact alone would sway me to ending our Iraqi excursion.

 

[1EZduzit]

I don't know about the Kuwait issue. I never really looked into it very far and what I did hear about it seemed pretty shaky. I personally find it very hard to believe that this country encouraged SH to invade Kuwait. Just because we turned a blind eye to some things he did doesn't mean we wanted him to invade Kuwait?? We could have invaded Iraq after liberating Kuwait and deposed SH, but choose not to. I fail to see any collusion between us and SH in regards to the invasion of Kuwait, but I really have looked into it very far either, like I never looked into the supposed missle that hit the Pentagon.

After WWII we set up this whole scenario to create unrest in the area because we wanted their oil. Divided they fall, so to speak. Heck, we even set up a Jewish nation right in the middle of them.

The Kings and Princes and Shieks all gladly went for it because it made them all filthy rich. Then enter jealousy, the few had it so well while the many had it so bad. The Shah of Iran was dethroned. It was the decadent west that was to blame, their religious leaders told them. Can you say Ayatolla Kohmenia? I think the rich oil sheiks of the middle east are the ones bankrolling the insurgents, at least in the beginning, to keep the attention of the people off of them and on the evil, decandent, western infidels.