In the very week that the U. S. Senate’s unanimously approved commander in Iraq, David Petraeus, and the Secretary of Defense, have pointed out that anti war efforts here in America give aid and comfort to our enemies in Iraq, Jane Fonda and John Kerry rush out to do just that.
John Kerry attacks America in foreign lands.
CBS/AP) Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry slammed the foreign policy of the Bush administration on Saturday, saying it has caused the United States to become "a sort of international pariah."
And in the very same week my friend, the hippie left over, classic liberal came by to visit my Greek and Roman History class. He was spoiling for a fight on the War in Iraq. As he was against the War in Vietnam, even so now – he is against the War in Iraq. He is indeed consistent, and has coined or borrowed all the catch phrases to attack the War and President Bush.
His arguments have pretty much come down to:
1. Bush lied - young men died. The lie was that Saddam had WMD’s when he didn’t.
2. If there is a War on Terror, we should be fighting it in Afghanistan. Osama Bin Laden, the guy who attacked us, is still at large, and Bush diverted forces from fighting Al Qaeda in order to “fix” his father’s, Bush one’s, failure.
3. The Iraqis are not willing to fight for themselves, why should we spend any more American blood for their freedom.
4. We are not winning so it’s time to quit before any more Americans die.
5. If we would just set the proper example, if we would become that “City on the Hill”, then “they” would want to be like us, our example would change the world.
To theses specific challenges he inevitably utilized these three fall back arguments of the neo-libs whenever he could throughout the discussion:
1. U.S. is behaving evilly in Iraq
2. Democracy is not for every one; the Iraqi people would rather have, and would be better off if they were ruled by a dictator.
3. The war is creating more terrorists than it is destroying or dissuading.
Because of our ages the discussion inevitably came round to the Vietnam War. For some reason my friend pointed out to my students that Ho Chi Min was a nationalist who had come to the U. S., Britain, even the Pope for help in getting the French out of Vietnam, and only when all else failed did he go to the USSR. One of the outspoken seniors in the class pointed out that what they had always been taught was as my friend had said.
I said that this was not true, that Ho was not a nationalist; all Ho wanted was to rule Vietnam the way Mao ruled China and Stalin ruled the USSR.
The bell came and the class left, with things thus, up in the air.
It was my feeling that my students were confused, that perhaps “the hippie” had won them over, or at least brought them down his path a little further. How could I deal with this danger, this irrationality, when teaching them to think rationally takes so much time?
It would be necessary both to show them the trap into which they had been lead, and to help them see how to get out of it. Before attempting any kind of point by point refutation of the “talking points” with which they had been assailed, it would be necessary to review and reveal the deceptions.
This would necessitate a quick bash of the Seven Logical Fallacies. The next time we met I provided them with a list of the Seven Common Logical Fallacies. I have friends and former students who are “trained” philosophers, who will of course recognize my simplistic approach. I invite any criticism of my “check list”. I garnered these not from philosophy class but from the LSAT study guide I worked through one summer at camp. In spite of their extremely rudimentary level they have proven very helpful in getting students to think critically about the things they hear – including the things they hear from me.
SEVEN COMMON LOGICAL FALLACIES
1. Wrong cause or causal link.
Iraq has oil, therefore American attacked Iraq for oil.
2. False Analogy – conclusion drawn from one situation is applied to another, not analogous.
The French sent troops to Vietnam to establish a colonial empire, therefore American troops in Vietnam were imperialist conquerors.
3. Weak Generalization – Basing a conclusion on too little data, a small sample to a very large generalization.
a. Guards at Abu Grab prison humiliated prisoners, therefore the American military tortures prisoners.
b. Cindy Sheehan, a mother whose son was killed in Iraq, thinks the war is unjustified, therefore all mothers whose children have been killed in Iraq thing the war is wrong.
4. Ambiguous Terms – Shift in a term’s meaning, same word used in different ways within the same argument.
It is better to be killed than be corrupted; therefore it is acceptable to kill to prevent corruption.
5. Irrelevant Evidence – Irrelevant consideration – example: appeals to popularity of a position to prove its value.
65% of those polled disapprove of the War in ___________, therefore the war is wrong.
6. Circular Argument (begging the question) – Conclusion to be proved also appears as a premise.
a. Nationalists fight against foreign powers; Ho fought against the U.S., therefore Ho was a nationalist.
b. Mothers pay a particular price when their children go to war; Condoleezza Rice is not a mother, so she is not paying any price in the surge to save Iraq.
7. Ad hominem – A personal attack, perhaps directed against the source of the claim.
So- and- so never served in the military, therefore he cannot question John Murtha’s patriotism.
I explained to my students that, like any game, argumentation, logic, and reasoning are better “played” when one understands the rules well enough to realize when cheating is going on. I also pointed out that the debate over the War in Iraq is indeed a deadly game, our very existence may well be at hazard.
Having reviewed the basics of logic, we pressed on to consider the claims of my hippie friend. We heard them all again out of the mouths of Hanoi Jane and her friends in Washington Saturday morning. (Her conscience, dipped in the blood of millions, Fonda seems set on killing millions more.)
Here in the Agora I can only present the edges of the discussion, but it is my hope that it will stir even more thought and help us get a record of the discussion for careful examination and consideration.
Here, in part, is how I answered the claims my friend put forward.
1. Bush lied – young men died. The lie was that Saddam had WMD.
Point first: there is much evidence, however discounted in the liberal media, that Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction. His own general, the one who would have been responsible for moving such weapons out of Iraq, said Saddam did and that he, the general, moved them to Syria. His claim has never been disproved.
Point second: Saddam did indeed have and use WMD against his own people, against Iran, and had a lot of it at the end of Gulf War I which he never accounted for.
Point three: The UN inspectors and the intelligence agencies of the World had evidence and believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
Pont four: It was not only President Bush but his advisors, ( for example - Collin Powell) and the leaders of the “loyal” opposition party, Kerry, Gore, Clinton, and on and on, that believed Saddam had weapons and called for their, and his destruction.
Pont five: Saddam had in place the know how, the money, and the will to develop nuclear weapons once he was able to end the U.N. inspections, and he was actively bribing the French, and Russians to gain their help in securing the chance to develop these weapons, if not actively developing them at the time of the liberation.
2. If there is a War on Terror, we should be fighting it in Afghanistan. Osama Bin Laden, the guy who attacked us is still at large, and Bush diverted forces from fighting Al Qaeda in order to “fix” his father’s, Bush one’s failure.
Point first: Saddam was involved in supporting terrorists. There is ample evidence that his people were meeting with Al Queda, he was supporting terrorist training in Iraq, and he was financing terrorist acts in Israel and against America.
Point second: The people we are now fighting in Iraq are terrorists.
Point three: We, with our NATO allies are fighting terrorists in Iraq.
Point four: Every reasonable indication is that Osama is already dead.
Point five: Terrorism was never confined to Afghanistan, and the liberation of Iraq has provided an opportunity to concentrate and destroy our enemies.
3. The Iraqis are not willing to fight for themselves, why should we spend any more American blood for their freedom.
Point first: The constitutional and freely elected government of Iraq is our ally in the war on terror. The people of Iraq braved almost unimaginable dangers and hardships just to set up their country, and now die by the thousands defending it.
Pont second: This claim, of lack of Iraqi commitment, is perhaps the biggest lie foisted by the left and their Media masters. I have even heard it from Bill O’Reilly. It is demonstrably not true. Far more Iraqi soldiers than American soldiers are dieing in this war, 14,000 Iraqi policemen have been killed in the last two years, yet brave and patriotic Iraqis continue to signup for these jobs in and effort to save their country.
Point three: The Iraqi army is growing every day, and taking on more and more responsibility, they are still lightly armed, and green, but they fight and die by the hundreds each week.
4. We are not winning, so it is time to quit.
Point first: When my hippie friend brought up this argument one of my students asked what if the folks who fought WWII had felt the same. The point she was making is that wars are often difficult, and those who give up first get beaten. Had we given up because the casualty levels were too high at Normandy, or at the Battle of the Bulge – the very thing Hitler wanted us to do, we would no doubt all be dead by now.
Point second: This is exactly what our enemies want; this was Osama’s plan from the beginning. Bill Clinton’s failure at Mogadishu and the Clinton administration’s weak and cowardly responses to Al Qaeda attacks throughout the world convinced Bin Laden that he could beat us in the first place. Wouldn’t it be painfully ironic if he was right?
Point three: It is impossible for the terrorists to defeat the U. S. military. The only way we can loose is if we give up and retreat.
To the fall back arguments:
1. U.S. is behaving evilly in Iraq.
Point first: The misbehavior of criminal individuals at Abu Grab and else where is not the behavior of the U. S. military. The criminals who humiliated men in prison or have murdered them in other places have been arrested, and punished by the United States for violation of the rules of war.
Point second: Have the terrorists been punished by their “leaders” for their crimes? Of course not, their conduct is all illegal, immoral, and evil; but how little they are condemned in the liberal press. Their murders and atrocities are almost counted as victories by the press in the West.
2. Democracy is not for every one; the Iraqi people would rather have, and would be better off, ruled by a dictator.
Point first: Democracy is more than majority rule, It is the rule of Law for the protection of all peoples. It is the Constitution and Bill of Rights, all the freedoms and privileges of free people.
Point second:: This claim of the neo-libs is in direct contradiction to the premise of the Declaration of Independence. The rights of Life, Liberty, and Property are wanted by all.
Point three: The Iraqi people wrote and voted on their own constitution. They courageously braved the terrorists and insurgents to bring about the foundation of a free government.
Point four: The Iraqi people are fighting for this freedom now – they are willing to pay the ultimate price for it.
One of the students commented that American’s revolution only took four years. I disagreed, the American Revolution did not end until 1865 at the earliest, and thousands and thousands of Americans killed each other to bring freedom to all Americans. 600,000 American soldiers killed each other in the Civil war and thousands of black Americans have been murdered in the century since as Americans have continued to fight among themselves to establish freedom and equality for all.
3. The war is creating more terrorists than it is destroying or dissuading.
Point first: There have been many terrorist attacks against America thwarted since 9/11, these attacks are only part of the great Jihad that Osama and his minions promised to wage against America. They declared this war, and fought all their victories before 9//11.
Point second: There is no way of knowing now many terrorists retreats would have bred. But that they would have killed many more Americans had we not fought, than they have since we decided to do so is certain. Their own threats and attempts prove this.
As to the Ho Chi Min was nationalist tripe. Ho’s goal was to become the Mao of
Vietnam. Like Mao he cared nothing for his people or their lives. He treated his own people far worse then the French ever did. He and the Communist murderers that rule Vietnam to this day, murdered their way into power and maintain their tyranny through the worst kind of terrorism.
As for Ho’s supposed overtures to the U. S. and other free nations, bunk – the same is often said of Castro. Even if either Castro or Ho actually did ask for U. S. help and were refused, that does not excuse their behavior toward the peoples of their countries. They mass murdered all their opposition, took away all civil and human rights, and forced the farce of communist economics on their impoverished and deprived peoples while they lived like kings in wealth and power. The excuse, that because the U. S. did not help them to villainy, what they did was the U. S’s fault, is illogical.
It would be so easy to be against “The War”. Who isn’t against war? But the peace of slavery or of the grave, the peace of Islamic “law and order” is not worth the price no matter how high. I am eager to be convinced otherwise, how easy it would be to join my hippie friend and the mobs that march in Washington D. C.
As the voices of the unreasoning threaten the cause of liberty, the voices of reason must be raised to counter them. The time has come for all good men to come to the aid of their country. If those whose lack of reason would destroy America are determined to speak out, then those who can reason must not remain silent.
109 comments:
Two quick points.
First, I would refer anyone to RFB's post a couple threads back about the Iraqi army and their sacrifice. I found it highly instructive from someone with a good first hand view of it.
Second, dealing with Ho Chi Minh and the western world. I agree that Ho's action i.e. communism can not be excused, in any way, lets lay that as the foundation.
That having been said. Everything I have been able to garner about the situation from history, reading etc. is that there was a lack of following through with promises on the part of the western world. This is important, not because it is where the blame lies for the atrocities of the communist machine in indochina, but because it is instructive in what can happen if we believe our actions do not affect the third world.
We can set the stage for evil men to take over small, weak countries. Our interference is decried by many, but I would rather we try and fail, and try again, then ignore dangerous volatile situations in developing countries, washing our hands of it, and hoping it turns out alright.
I see that decision as a stain on U.S. foreign policy, not because the Vietnam war is therefore the fault of the U.S., and communism in that area is our fault, but because I expect better from the country that I believe is the greatest in the world.
I rank that dishonorable action up there with encouraging the people of Hungary to rise up and throw off their Soviet oppressors, and then standing back as the tanks rolled into the cities and destroyed those revolutionaries that wanted freedom.
Though we must see them correctly, I believe these are important historical events to remember.
You need to be careful about where you get your information. Bush himself has admitted that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, we went to war on false pretenses. It was also pre-emptive and there is no evidence that Al-Quada was ever in Iraq. Most of the alleged hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and have all been released. You may need to do some more in depth research into what is actually going on. I think your information is flawed.
Anon...
As has been said here (and supported with numerous sources) on many occasions...
Bush cited UN resolution 1441 (as well as the previous 16 previous failed UN resolutions) as his justification for war. 1441 states clearly that it is Saddam's refusal to comply with UN inspections and his refusal to allow for unabated access to facilities AND his refusal to account for his WMDs that were previously inventoried. Bush cited Iraq's refusal to comply.
Bush did NOT cite Al Qaida and 9-11 as a reason...he cited Iraqs ties to global terrorism. That is undeniable.
Keep in mind that had Bush not acted we would be up to UN resolution 29, Saddam would STILL be in power and the world would still believe he was sitting on WMD stockpiles.
However...
It keeps getting forgotten...
THAT HE HAD them at one time is undeniable. What we STILL don't know is what happened to them.
Wouldn't it have been better for the world had the UN and world leaders throughout the 90's forced compliance then instead of giving him 8 years to hide, trade, sell, bury, move or whatever else it is he did with them? Of course...we cant go back and change the 90's and NO member of the media is ever going to bother pointing to the fact that Clinton and his secretary of state (Madeline Albright), secretary of defense (William Cohen), secretary of witchiness (Hillary Clinton), and his Vice President (Al Gore) ALL cited those same apparently now fictional WMDs throughout the 90's and well into 2002/2003.
Nor will the media (or other liberals) question how it is that all the dem party leader stalwarts ALL claimed knowledge of the existence of Iraq's WMDs and support for Clinton's actions in the 90's, only to turn a 180 and now deny the very existence of WMDs.
WAS Bill Clinton, the government under Clinton, all the UN inspectors, all the other world leaders and their intel agencies...were THEY all lying as well? Were Clinton's attacks against Iraq in the 90's all done illegally and under false pretenses as well?
And if everyone was right...if Saddam DID have those weapons in the 90's...where did they go? When did they transform from being real, documented, photographed, inventoried, and a very real threat to the security of the world, to non-existent false pretenses?
We just keep going back to this. Liberals argue that of COURSE he had WMDs because we sold them to him. Then they claim...WMDs??? WHAT WMDs???
UN reports balancing what we DID know (following the first gulf war) vs what the Iraqis admitted to pointed to "According to reports from the previous U.N. inspection agency, UNSCOM, Iraq produced 600 metric tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, VX and sarin, and nearly 25,000 rockets and 15,000 artillery shells, with chemical agents, that are still unaccounted for."
So again...whahapun? Where did they all go? Did Saddam just pour them out in the dessert? Did he trick, hide, delay, fool, and frustrate the UN inspection teams only to be secretly complying?
History teaches us that Saddam's government pursued and used WMDs since he took power. Now the media and libs would have us believe that suddenly and without accounting...they just vanished.
If for one second I believed these war protestors earnestly cared about troops and 'peace' and were just a bunch of bitter, angry liberals that want power and are using this as a tool...a means to an end...then they would just be foolish and naive.
Of COURSE we ALL want peace but their platform is that we should have PARTNERS in peace. But in order to HAVE peace you must have both parties that desire peace.
Is anyone REALLY stupid enough to believe that if we pull out if Iraq then we will suddenly have peace? Of course not. Those that are slaughtering innocent men women and children will continue to do so. Sure...our troops may be out of harms way for the moment, but is anyone stupid enough to believe that the terrorists DONT want to target the US?
That is the naive foolishness of the left stance. The only reason there is violence is because we are there. It is a prtest against Busha nd the Bush policies.
Really?
Hogwash. explain random acts of terrorism around the globe. Explain the terrorism conducted over the last 50 years or so. If we pull out they will continue. There will be no peace. Just as it was when we left VietNam...the tyrants and murderers will go unchecked.
But somewhere in their little compartmentalized minds, there will be this air of superiority...this Ghandi like feeling that we are morally superior because we arent fighting. THAT will work...right...
Hitler was stopped by peaceful protests. Communism was defeated by love ins. right...
But THAT isnt the intent of these latest batch of protesters. Look at the signs...look at the sponsors. Look at the organizers. Then...do a little research on the World Workers Party.
Have a little fun with it.
Anonymous, at what point did Iraq have "no weapons of mass destruction"? Was the entire thing a fraud? Were the weapons completely made up? Was Saddam desperately trying to trick the international community into believing he had these weapons, no matter how bad the consequences were for him? On the eve of war, why didn't he throw up his hands, call, "Ollie ollie oxen free," and reveal that he was only kidding?
Or maybe you mean that Iraq did have WMDs at one point, but destroyed them in accordance with the UN's wishes. If so, why try to make everybody believe they weren't destroying them? It's like going to the police and confessing to a crime you didn't commit.
And then you throw in the red herring that Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq. What in the world does that have to do with it? The war on terror is much more than a war on Al Qaeda. It's a war on the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah, Abu Sayyaf, the Tamil Tigers, the ETA, the Irish Nationalist splinter groups, the Animal Liberation Front, etc., etc., etc. And this was all crystal clear just a few years back!
Nobody who pays attention thought we were invading Iraq because bin Laden might be there. Saddam Hussein was another of the world's principal terrorists. And he is no more. I believe it's worth it.
http://www.unitedforpeace.org/downloads/National%20Member%20Groups.06.10.24.xls
You can usually tell an awful lot about people by the company they keep. This is the list of organizations that promote these 'peace' rallies.
Ever wonder why the media doesnt show the signs that despise America and capitalism? Ever wonder why they dont show the signs promoting as desirable such luminaries as Che Gueverra, Lenin, Mao, Castro, etc? All were present at these marches. So why do we only get the sanitized watered down version?
Anonymous;
What President Bush has said is that the U.S. has not found any evidence of the weapons of mass destruction he believed to be in Iraq; that DOES NOT mean that, “Bush himself has admitted that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.” If you can’t see the difference here, there is no hope for you – and never become a high school teacher - the type of word game you display here is the stock and trade of every cheater in the system. If you can’t recognize it you can’t deal with it. By the way I would recommend you don’t vote either.
Truth to Power;
Thank you for having the patience to explain these things to the anonymous – now we will see if he is misguided or misguiding.
Mindmechanic;
Over the weekend I had a chance to discuss this topic with three friends who read here at the Agora but have not, as yet, posted. As we discussed this frightening issue, it became clear to me that Osama WAS RIGHT ABOUT AMERICA. Americans cannot fight, not even in self defense, if there are any casualties. The only mistake, the only miscalculation in Osama’s (and when I say Osama I mean the entire Islamic Fascist movement he vocalized and personifies) plan was that he didn’t figure on George Bush. President Gorge Bush the Second has given us six years of life and freedom; for this I will be eternally grateful. It seems however that at last “Osama” will have his way. My selfish hope is that I will hold out long enough to see what the Islamic Radicals do to the peace marchers (a list of whom you provide so conveniently) before they catch me and mine fighting on in the hills. Do you remember that scene in Independence Day when the monsters vaporize the peaceniks who have come out to welcome them to earth? How bitter an irony?
Dan;
Your points are excellent. America has made many mistakes in the past; we should learn from them not repeat them in the present. My great fear is that this time not even a Ronald Reagan will be able to bring us back from the abyss.
Isn’t it interesting that Jimmy Carter, the great scavenger on and extoller of American failure, is still in the mix today?
Silver Lining...
I dont believe they are stupid. I believe they are diabolical. I believe they live a quest for power and that they believe George Bush usurped their power in 2000. I believe they have lived lives filled with hatred from that day forward. I believe they deliberately ignore the obvios, that they simply choose to not answer the questions when it relates to their liberal icons, and i believe they dont give a damn about the country.
In truth, i believe most of these people honestly believe that America is the great evil and capitalism is the cornerstone. I believe that THEY believe that we would be better of living a socialist paradise and I believe they ARE stupid enough (or deluded enough) to actually believe it would work. History and human nature be damned.
I guess another way to put it...
How many times has the anon here maintained the "Bush lied, troops died" mantra.
And how many times has it been pointed out that every intel agency in the world and every senior official and every democrat leader in the 90's said the exact same things.
How many times has it been pointed out that while the left has painted the picutre that it was about possession of WMDs the facts and UN resolutions state CLEARLY that it was Iraq's responsibility to comply and Iraq's refusal to comply that was the justification.
And how many times does the Iraq/Al Qaida/9-11 link lie pop up even here when in fcat all along it has been about Iraqs ties to global terrorism-a fact which goes ignored.
And in spite of the numerous times, the numerous sources, the numerous facts placed, it doesnt matter. every new topic, every new thread...the anon fires it up again...
No WMDs. Bush lied. No Alqaida link to Iraq.
Oh yes...SOMEONE is telling lies.
I received this with my e-mails this morning from a student 8 years ago.
_______________
It seems it has been ages since I've talked to you -- 2004 was the last time, if I'm not mistaken. I just wanted to drop you a line and let you know what I'm doing now. I command a company of 150 paratroopers. We're deeply entrenched in fighting the insurgency of Iraq. We've been in Bayji, Iraq since Aughust of last year. This city is about 20 miles north of Tirkit, and about 98% Sunni. Sectarian violence is not a problem here, but the alienated Ba'athists are a great cause of violence. I lost one man to a sniiper in October, and we've sustained eight other casualties over time. While the struggle is frustrating at times, it is also extremely rewarding. We just do our best to make this place better for the future.
I have to be honest, I never thought I would be part mayor, part police chief, part school administrator of a city of approximately 250,000 people. Speaking Arabic has opened more doors for me than I can mention. The problem over here is that we give so much help, but the Iraqis don't always seem as committed to their own country as we. Unfortunately, the will of Ameica will likely show as the will of the French in Algeria. That is a difficult reality to accept as an officer in the Army."
The e-mail finished with some personal comments about war and literature.
I offer this perspective as having value and as a BALANCE to the wild-eyed, blood thirsty, Jingoism that incessanctly occupies other Aroga posters!!!!
SL...
I dont mean to generalize or stereotype. i actually love talking to people like the man you describe. i would love to hear his explanations at why democrats are honest and truthful about Saddams WMDs and Bush is a liar. I'd love to hear why the left protests Bush's military actions but were silent in Serbia or the 8 times clinton launched attacks. Maybe he has a rational explanation and it isnt blatant hypocricy.
I am being sincere BTW.
I have on many occasions said that even though I totally disagree with people like Susan Sarandon, I still respect her, probably more than any of the liberal left. Susan Sarandon has been a consistent voice against war, even when it WAS a democrat engaging in that war. So I respect that and her for taking a principled stand. I just dont think it is very intelligent. Peace only works when both sides wish it. Peace doesnt happen when the opposing side wants to cut your head off because you dont agree with them.
Anon...
"I offer this perspective as having value and as a BALANCE to the wild-eyed, blood thirsty, Jingoism that incessanctly occupies other Aroga posters"
Hmmm...
I suppose I am one of those wild- eyed, blood thirsty, jingoistic posters. YOu offer that as having value. Awesome. As one of those W-E BT jingo's, I have said the exact same thing. I agree with your former students perspective that the Iraqis are the only ones that can ultimately win their peace and I have said so. Ialso agree that they and only they will win their freedom. I have said so. I have said that from my perspective, we should demand more, not of the Iraqi government but of the Iraqi people as partners in this effort.
However...I ALSO see that we are engaged against terrorists and they obligingly are lining up to battle our soldiers in Iraq. They are not free to attack this country. I believe abandoning the war on terror because it is tough to fight it will simply embolden them. I believe it will do precisely what our girl Hillary just said last week...that by leaving Iraq those terrorists in Iraq will establish a foothold there.
I believe those terrorists slaughter innocent men women and children as a means to a horrible end. I beleive they do it around the globe. I beleive they want to do it here. And I believe we ought to make that as near to impossible as is possible.
Thats just me I guess. Just another wild-eyed, blood thirsty, jingoistic radical.
The difference between me and those blood thirsty terrorists? I want to fight them and stop them. They want to rape, terroize and slaughter families of 7, 11, and 14 year old girls in front of their parents, then their parents, in their glorious cause of Allah.
If they stop, this all ends. If we stop, it escalates.
So pick your battle and by all means, pick your enemy.
Anonymous;
Thank you for joining our conversation here at the Agora. I am also please to se this actually experience counter the image of invading, conquering, blood thirsty jingoist soldiers often pushed upon our military by some of the flip-flopping posters here at the Agora.
I still hold out hope that the people of Iraq will not be consumed, as were the people of Algeria, by religious fanaticism. The difference between the motives of France and those of the American hero you quote may well prove the telling difference. If the people of Iraq are consumed by this terror, then none will be safe, and if they are it will be because they were deserted before they could reach the dreams all hold as human beings
Mindmechanic;
I cannot imagine that the anonymous poster of this officers comments is referring to you by his descriptions of bloodthirsty ect. There are those who would thus stigmatize our troops, you have never done so. Of course such a characterization is bogus, so do not be offended.
Lysis...
"I offer this perspective as having value and as a BALANCE to the wild-eyed, blood thirsty, Jingoism that incessanctly occupies other Aroga posters!!!!"
I could be wrong, but I figured it was down to me, you, and maybe Rumpole...
Mindmechanic;
I would ask for an examination of the comments of any of the three of us you list to produce a single comment that could be construed as “wild-eyed, bloodthirsty, [or] Jingoism”. Anonymous may be able to stretch the meaning of the letter he posts to fit whatever need he feels, but I would like him, or in this case you, to provide an example of any comment that would validate the opinion you seem to have come to regarding his meaning.
Silver Lining:
You are of course right about my hippie friend, but what is wonderful about him is that he can actually admit when he is wrong, and move on to find some other point of discussion. At the end of our last private conversation – the one in which I showed the comments I was going to post and attribute to him, he came around to the point were he agreed that the terrorists do not intend to stop attacking until they have it all, that his dream of “be nice to them and they will be nice to us” is only that, a dream; that the “ city on the hill” he loves only stirs anger in our enemies. In fact it is antithetical to their existence and only serves to alienate them.
When confronted with the truth, wise men probe and challenge it, but in the end they will not reject it.
Many who are against the war are those who have bought into the mantra without thought. As I have said from the first – it is so easy to want peace, but it is not wisdom to think that those who hate the truth will be satisfied by seeing it obtained by others. That they will give us peace just because we ask for it.
You are absolutely right; it is in the wisdom of many who do challenge the war that the only hope for success is to be found. The danger is that there are too many who will not see the truth until it is too late. It is in the service of this hope that I continue to push forward the truth, to be tested and tried and supported at last.
Lysis:
Name one Agora posting that has NOW or EVER characterized American soldiers as "invading, conquering, blood thirsty and jingoistic. (a paranoid fiction Lysis imagines only to get his self-righteous "blood up")
I DO find at the Agora that there are some who have characterized LYSIS' ideas as "invading, conquering, blood thirsty and jingoistic" belligerence.
But, Lysis is NOT an American soldier . . . is he!!!!
Anonymous:
What?
ummmm...'what' squared...
To those who are interested in learning a little about Logical fallacies, please refer to #7 above, and consider the fact that Anonymous has already retreated to the Ad hominem attack. For instructional purposes I will point out that the ad hominem attack is evidence that the attacker, in this case Anonymous, has nothing real to argue.
In the case of this post I am maintaining that there is no truth in the accusations of the anti-war radicals. Twenty posts into the discussion anonymous has nothing left to post but irrelevant personal aspersions. Here we have incontrovertible evidence I have already won the argument.
Unfortunately, this anonymous may not prove to be a wise man. Once shown the truth a wise man, like my hippie friend, would accept it. I wager that, if the anonymous attacker above does return to the string at all, it will be to call more names.
Written by Lysis to an Anon poster, not myself.
"If you can't see the difference here, there is no hope for you. And never become a high school teacher -- the type of word game you display here is stock and trade of every cheater in the system. If you can't recognize it you can't deal with it. By the way, I would recommend you don't vote either."
For a second there I imagined I was in Lysis' classroom and he was disciplining a student for having the WRONG OPINIONS. (might well have been)
Stupid, unteachable, futureless, hopeless, disenfranchised CHEATER!!!!
That's why: Invading, conquering, blood-thirsty, jingoistic.
Your problem, Lysis, is that all truth loving people who disagree with your "SPIN" on Bush's non-existent WMDS DID VOTE.
I feel your pain!!!!
OK, another round of "The United States is going to hell," ballad, sung when neocons lose elections and have nothing constructive to offer but bitterness and recriminations!!!!
I will admit that Lysis' Ad hominem attack of Anon, posted earlier, WAS a particularly irresponsible and VICIOUS example.
However, Lysis need not avidly peruse others for examples of fallacies when he has so many egregious examples in his EVERY POST.
I wonder if "the hippie" acceded to Lysis in the way described -- I think the woodcutter, the monk and the vagabond of Roshomon should hear ALL versions and decide the TRUTH. I particularly would like the "hippie" to tell HIS version!!!!
Anonymous:
If you cannot see the difference between a relevant example and an ad hominem attack I have little hope for you. The Anonymouse I delta with above, (not you – wink, wink) had presented a direct piece of misinformation in an attempt to push it off as an argument. They had claimed, erroneously, that President Bush’s acknowledgement that the weapons of mass destruction we were looking for have not been found = him saying “that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction”. This in not true and therefore an excellent example of the type of word game that is the stock and trade of every cheating student. That anonymous was cheating in the argument and the evidence of his cheating is relevant to the argument. However the anonymous claim above that I am not a solider has nothing to do with the argument as to President Bush’s justifiable liberation of Iraq. Therefore the anonymous use of this comment is an “irrelevant attack directed against the source of the claim”. The KEY here is irrelevance.
Please continue to post your miscomprehensions and I will continue to correct you to the benefit and instruction of all.
Let me point out that no anonymous has yet dealt with a single one of the refutations I gave to my hippie friend’s anti-war claims.
I too would love to have him post his own arguments. It is even more fun debunking him in public.
Now let me instruct the Anonomy once again. Above he request:
“Lysis:
Name one Agora posting that has NOW or EVER characterized American soldiers as "invading, conquering, blood thirsty and jingoistic. (a paranoid fiction Lysis imagines only to get his self-righteous "blood up")”
Well, having had a call for evidence I will provide. Here is one of numerous attacks on our soldiers by “anonymous”:
"What's human sacrifice if not sending guys off to Iraq for no reason?" he said. "What is the deliberate torture of foreigners if not the immorality of Abu Grahib?"
This, one of many, was posted on “Apocalypto - A Movie Review” from Dec. 17, 2006.
Now, Anonomy, follow my example. Find real and explicit evidence to support your arguments, and bag the irrelevant personal attacks; they are a dastardly form of cheating.
It is indeed discouraging to have put my chin out there and plainly stated my positions on these very hard issues, challenging you all to come up with a single legitimate refutation, and all we get is arguments about arguing; so typical, so telling.
More anonymous attacks on U. S. law and order, not on the criminals but on our forces in general from the same thread:
"One of the greatest frustrations one feels while watching [Abu-Grahib], one of the deep emotions stirred by the art, is that emoted by the fact that the victims are so helpless. Bound about the neck, they cannot resist, and they have no real understanding of the horrible end that waits. They cannot even imagine the horror until it is before them until they are brought, [naked, bound, gagged, blindfolded], to the [dungeon] of the temple [of U.S. law and order in Baghdad]. They watch in shock as their friends are stretched across the [Palestinian Cross]."
“Anonymous said...
Answer: No. The thing we were talking about was the FACT that Mel Gibson made his movie to depict the "torturing and murderous Mayans" as the Americans sacrificing and torturing thousands in Iraq.”
“I am just sickened by the Haditha massacre. How many more? What are our soldiers doing to the Iraqis[?]”
I could go on, but what is the point, these attacks on our military were in a string that didn’t even center on the war. They are just the constant background static of the anonymous in debate.
I figure it makes sense to know who the particpants in the "Anti War" movement are...here are just a tiny few...
THE FREEDOM SOCIALIST PARTY IS a revolutionary, socialist feminist organization, dedicated to the replacement of capitalist rule by a genuine workers' democracy that will guarantee full economic, social, political, and legal equality to women, people of color, gays, and all who are exploited, oppressed, and repelled by the profit system and its offshoot – imperialism
The FCNL General Committee, or board of governors, determines the legislative policies and priorities of the organization. They also established a brief mission statement for the organization that provides a vision of the world we seek:
We seek a world free of war and the threat of war
We seek a society with equity and justice for all
We seek a community where every person's potential may be fulfilled
We seek an earth restored
Democratic Socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives.
50 years is Enough-We call for the immediate suspension of the policies and practices of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank Group which have caused widespread poverty, inequality, and suffering among the world’s peoples and damage to the world’s environment. Substantial responsibility for the unjust world economic system lies with those institutions and the World Trade Organization (WTO). We note that these institutions are anti-democratic, controlled by the G-7 governments, and that their policies have benefited international private sector financiers, transnational corporations, and corrupt officials and politicians.
We further call for the creation of a neutral and credible “Truth Commission,” composed of individuals with a demonstrated commitment to poverty eradication and the health of the world’s ecosystems, to investigate the actions and impacts of the IMF and the World Bank. The Truth Commission’s findings must be respected and acted on by the governments, institutional officials, and civil society organizations concerned with economic development and international financial policies.
We issue this call in the name of global justice, in solidarity with the peoples of the Global South and the former “Soviet bloc” countries of Eastern Europe and Central Asia who struggle for survival and dignity in the face of unjust, imperialistic economic policies. We stand in solidarity too with the millions in the countries of the Global North who have borne the burden of “globalization” policies that mirror those imposed on the Global South.
CCDS-Our members are activists in all the social movements of our country - of labor, civil rights, immigrant rights, women, peace, international solidarity, gay and lesbian rights, environment, youth and students, seniors, and religion. We have come together to help shape a clear cut alternative to the destructive, mean-spirited corporate drive for profit above all else. We seek constructive solutions to the problems of poverty and unemployment, racism, sexism, health, education, and housing.
The Communist Party USA is an organization of activists in labor and all the people's movements with three main political aims:
1. Defeating the right-wing agenda of the Bush Administration.
2. Winning a wide-ranging program of reforms that put the well being of the people before private profits.
3. Eventually replacing big business with labor and its allies as the dominant power so as to insure that the rights, economic security and expanding needs of the people become the overriding concern of society.
MM sez...
(sorry...dont know why the Google logon thing isnt working...)
Just so's everyone gets this is NOT about Iraq but is about muslim terrorists...
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21132708-661,00.html
Aussies called to jihadJustin Vallejo
January 29, 2007 12:00am
Article from: Font size: + -
Send this article: Print Email
AN extremist Islamic group has called on Australian Muslims to prepare for jihad against anyone standing in the way of an "Islamic superstate".
Radical clerics from the militant Hizb ut-Tahrir group converged on Sydney yesterday to deliver their message -- kill Muslims and non-Muslims who threaten the unification of the world's 57 Islamic countries under the one leader.
"If two people are united and a third person comes along and tries to incite disunity . . . kill him," Palestinian Sheik Issam Amera said.
"Muslims are not unique in doing so, as most nations kill those charged with treason.
"The establishment for Khilafah (Islamic superstate) is an Islamic duty. The evidence for the duty for establishing Khilafah is confirmed in the Koran."
The six-hour session of violent rhetoric came after NSW Police Minister John Watkins called for the meeting in Sydney yesterday to be banned.
Attorney-General Philip Ruddock rejected calls to ban the group and demanded more evidence.
"I think it's time that Mr Watkins puts up or shuts up in relation to Hizb ut-Tahrir. If he has evidence that he believes warrants its proscription he should make it available to the Commonwealth so it can be considered."
To be banned as a terrorist organisation, a group has to urge the use of force or violence.
Controversial Indonesian cleric Ismail Yusanto seemingly delivered the evidence, yesterday calling for all the sons and daughters of Islam to help build and defend sharia law -- the absolute form of Islam -- across the world and to prepare for the inevitable war against the Western powers.
"Sacrifice must be encouraged," he said.
"If the capital (of the new Islamic state) fell and was occupied by the invading forces, the rest (of the Khilafah) must be involved in an all-out war against the occupiers.
"Call for all military-aged Muslims to obtain military training and prepare for jihad.
"Call Muslims living outside of the boundary of the Khilafah to join the jihad.
"There is no victory and glory without hard work and sacrifice -- no pain, no gain."
The meeting was organised by the Australian arm of the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir.
It has been linked to the London bombings in 2005 and is banned in several European and Middle Eastern countries but Mr Ruddock has resisted calls to ban it here, saying it was being monitored.
Mindmechanic;
You will have to go on and accept the “New Blogger” deal with Google, give your self a new log in corresponding to you Google account, and reassert your password. This will get you back on line. At least I hope.
I find it interesting that the same anti-war protesters will keep a strict though often over estimated count of how many are dying in Iraq, claim that the price is too high, and then refuse to send in reinforcements. It sounds like "Our boys are needlessly in danger, and we wont send them help." It is obvious to me that these people want our soldiers to fail in Iraq, why else would they refuse to send them help?
I agree with Strategos and may I remind Lysis that you do not win an argument when your "opponent" becomes angry or attachs you. That could just mean you're rude. You win an argument when you convince your opponent that you are right.
Or better yet an argument is never really won unless both parties come to a realization of the truth.
Mind Mechanic,
Thanks for including me as part of the “wild-eyed, blood thirsty, Jingoism that incessanctly occupies other Aroga posters!!!!" If that is the label to be placed upon us for supporting our troops, I accept it gladly.
America was very wise to go to Iraq. America would be very foolish to leave until the job is done.
Anonymy,
There won’t be any specific addressing of your arguments in this post. The same arguments we are hearing now have been refuted over and over again. It all comes down to what Bin Laden suggested. Apparently he was right in that the American people do no have the will to fight.
I listened to a clip from Hanoi Jane on the radio today. I’m going by memory, and I’m going to paraphrase. In other words, this is my interpretation of what she said. She commented that she had been silent about this war as opposed to her outspoken opposition of Viet Nam because she was afraid to speak out. She claims that she can be silent no longer.
If I may, her silence had had nothing to do with fear (except to protect whatever rebuilt image she may have had of herself). She speaks now because she thinks the tide of opinion has turned in her favor.
Hanoi Jane was a traitor in Viet Nam, and she is a traitor now.
It amazes me that the left has taken the position of failure in order to gain political power.
I also heard two clips from Hilary today. The clips represented her pre-war position and her current position. Talk about a Kerry flip-flop! No one in the main stream media will call her on it though, as she needs to be protected in the event that Obama stumbles.
Our problem is that we have become a nation of Hawk-Eye Pierces. We have bought into the M*A*S*H mentality. Those who seek control are trying to convince us that all the evil in the world emanates from America. And, if you take note, all of this baloney comes from the political party that thinks it can take better care of you than you can take care of yourself.
I hope the electorate wakes up soon.
Strategos;
I also agree with you. The logic is elegant and supported by reason if not by statistics.
Brazilboy;
The truth can no more compromise with the lie than freedom can compromise with Islamic terrorism. Your words sound like the musings of the “you’ll be nice to us if we’ll be nice to you, won’t you?” crowd. Once again, I wish it could be so – it can’t.
To the “nuther” new anonymous:
Thank you for all the great details on the anti – war/ anti American groups ganging up on our country.
Rumpole...
Takes one to know one...
I too am more than a little tired of the same, tired, reheated, rehashed leftist rhetoric.
When confronted with the mountains of statements by the Clinton admin officials and other world leaders regarding Iraq and WMDs, the left (and anon collective) is silent. They dont even bother refuting their own hypocrisy anymore. When confronted w/ the actual UN resolution stating Iraq's responsibility for full compliance regarding WMDs...again...silence.
I appreciate the weekly topics. I have had lots of occasions to learn and am glad to have learned and gained insights from others here. But honestly...when it comes to debating the war in Iraq...it isnt angry rhetoric or name calling that wins the day...it is evidence...mountains...piles...sources of evidence. All the anon collective has is hate filled rhetoric. It isnt even intelligent debate. Like I said...it's boring.
I am the original anonymous poster, if I post again I'll sign up with google. This is the only other post I've sent since the original.
Anyway, there is no evidence of the weapons of mass destruction that we were told was the reason we went to Iraq in the first place. People like to say that Saddam sent them to Syria, but who knows? The fact of the matter is that they were not in Iraq when we invaded. Therefore, we went to war on false pretenses. End of story. Bush and Colin Powell and various other high officials admit to this fact. The following is just one link to a news article about Powell talking about the lack of WMD's.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/14/60II/main577975.shtml
Bringing democracy and "freedom" to a country is not a good reason to invade and take over a country. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been murdered. Our troops are dying and for what? And what is our exit strategy? When do we call the invasion of Iraq a success? When we eliminate the threat of WMD's?-- that has already been done.
People have been citing communist parties and other groups as supporting the protesters. I would like to point out that the Bush administration has done more to damage our freedoms and the constitution than anybody at this point -- and all in the name of fighting the "dangerous terrorists". I am refering to the Patriot Act, the Military Comission Act of 2006, the creation of Homeland Security, the power the president now has to open anybody's mail without a warrant, wiretapping without warrants, thinning the line for posse comitatus, the requirement for all states to issue the Real ID card or national ID card by 2008, and the list goes on.
These should be our main concerns. The separation of powers continues to be diminished. Bush should have never been given the power to declare war-- that is supposed to be done by Congress only.
Our own freedom is at stake here. Fighting against the war is one way to try to protect our freedoms here. I hope it is not too late.
Anon...
"Anyway, there is no evidence of the weapons of mass destruction that we were told was the reason we went to Iraq in the first place."
two things wrong with this statement.
1-We were told that 1 of the 3 main reasons for going into Iraq was to enforce UN resolution 1441. Bush stated that VERY clearly. 1441 cited Iraqs responsibility to account for its missing weapons.
How could 1441 cite 'missing' weapons? because the UNSCOM1 team photographed and inventoried them following the first Gulf War.
The UN inspection teams very existence was to find them and destroy them. Saddam and his government regularly hid the weapons, moved the weapons, or just plain denied the inspectors access. Thats a historical fact.
Do you argue that?
1441 was passed because the UN was tired of it and insisted on compliance. the problem is, the UN had nto the guts to stand behind 1441 or any of the previous 16 UN resolutions it passed. Funny thing...Saddam wasnt cowed by resolutions. Imagine that.
Problem 2-There was PLENTY of evidence of Saddams WMDs. Aside from the inventories following the first gulf war, aside from the fact that he used chemical weapons numerous times (20 times in a 10 year span according to none other than Al Gore), the fact is that ALL the world's intel agencies had 'evidence' of the programs. Bill Clinton had 'evidence' of their existence and he cited them as his reasons for attack. Throughout the 90's democrats lined up at the microphone in support of their democrat president, his military action against Iraq, and Iraqs WMDs.
So...
When did the weapons go from being certain, justifiable, and valid under a democrat president to suddenly mysteriously non-existent?
That we dont know what may or may not have happened to them is PRECISELY the problem. That Iraq refused to account for them is precisely the reason (or at least 1 of the reasons) why we attacked.
Bush did NOT lie. He cited Iraqs refusal to comply with UN resolution 1441.
That is plain and simply the facts.
Bringing democracy and "freedom" to a country is not a good reason to invade and take over a country. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been murdered. Our troops are dying and for what? And what is our exit strategy? When do we call the invasion of Iraq a success?
lets change this just a touch...
Bringing democracy and "freedom" to a country is not a good reason to invade and take over a country. Hundreds of thousands of Germans have been murdered. Our troops are dying and for what? And what is our exit strategy? When do we call the invasion of Germany a success?
The mission was to oust Saddam. The war against Iraq ended in 2003. Mission accomplished.
What we are doing now is IDENTICAL to what was done in Germany post WW2. There was no "exit strategy." Thats a contrived term made up by the democrats top score political points. We havent 'exited' Germany for that matter...we are still there. We havent 'exited' Serbia...we are still there.
We leave Iraq when the mission is done. Why is that so difficult for you to see? When the Iraqi government and military forces are trained and capable, we are finished. That has been the plan since day one.
We are talking about rebuilding an entire government infrastructure. It took us 15 years in Germany...would you call that a failure or a success?
Along with helping the Iraqis sustain themselves we have an ongoing battle against terrorists. They are Muslim extremists who have announced their intention. You HONESTLY believe it is a good idea to just check out?
Seriously???
Anon...
"I am refering to the Patriot Act, the Military Comission Act of 2006, the creation of Homeland Security, the power the president now has to open anybody's mail without a warrant, wiretapping without warrants, thinning the line for posse comitatus, the requirement for all states to issue the Real ID card or national ID card by 2008, and the list goes on."
OK...fine. I am a BIG fan of personal liberties. Just one little thing...
KNOWING that we have terrorists operating in America and have had for 15 years or so. Knowing there are people that are daily planning the murder of Americans.
just curious...what would YOU do to combat terrorism?
None of the other anon ever seems to have anything when it comes to actual answers, solutions, or counteroffers. All they do is complain and moan...
so...
Whats yours? How do you combat terrorists that have been in country since the Clinton administration? How do you combat terrorists that use cell phones to plan, to transfer funds, to coordinate?
And what rights of yours have been violated? Just curious...
To mind mechanic
Concerning UN 1441 and previous administrations that claimed Saddam had WMDs. I guess they were all wrong, and we found that out when we could never find them. Maybe there were some previously, but there were none in Iraq when we invaded.
To mind mechanic comparing Iraq to Germany:
Who was Saddam invading? Saddam was no sweetheart, but he was also no real threat to us as a country. Why don't we invade North Korea? They seem to be much more of a threat to us shooting weapons into the Pacific Ocean than Saddam ever was. Hitler had taken over most of Europe when we finally decided to enter the war, and we could see he was a real threat. There is no comparison here.
to mindmechanic Concerning our Rights and combating terrorists:
We have a system already in place to combat terrorists. Why must we give up our rights and liberties to do so? There is no reason why the police or FBI cannot wiretap or investigate terrorists under the previous laws. All they have to do is get a warrant. This protects everybody.
Why are you willing to give up your rights? Why do you trust the government with so much power? There is a reason for the separation of powers. There is a reason for obtaining warrants. It is to protect the innocent and keep a concentration of power from taking over any one area of government. It is to protect us.
If there is not enough evidence to investigate someone, then it shouldn't be done. Read and investigate the laws I refered to. Lots of my and our rights have been taken away. We are not as free as we think.
So, it is okay to invade a country to protect another peoples freedom and democracy (i.e. invade Germany to protect France, or Great Britain), but not okay to invade Iraq to protect the people of Iraq?
Hitler didn't invade the U.S. In fact he was a wonderful trading partner, many U.S. companies made tons of money by trading with his government. So, why fight with him?
Anon...
"Concerning UN 1441 and previous administrations that claimed Saddam had WMDs. I guess they were all wrong, and we found that out when we could never find them. Maybe there were some previously, but there were none in Iraq when we invaded."
OK...again...2 things...
IF they were ALL wrong then Bush did something none of them had the guts to do(17 times)...force compliance with the UN resolution.
BUT...it doesnt even logically follow. Saddam pursued chemical weapons since he took power. He used them on numerous occasions. Following the gulf war they inspected and inventoried his stockpiles. The UN inspection teams were there for a REASON. They wanted to go BACK for a reason. They knew he had unaccounted for weapons...weapons that are STILL unaccounted for.
Anon...
"Who was Saddam invading? Saddam was no sweetheart, but he was also no real threat to us as a country. Why don't we invade North Korea? They seem to be much more of a threat to us shooting weapons into the Pacific Ocean than Saddam ever was."
Saddam invaded Kuwait. As a condition of his surrender he was forced to comply with certain UN resolutions. He failed to do so.
In addition, Saddam slaughtered 1.5 to 2.5 million Iraqis. He wiped out entire villages. He was an every day threat to the Kurds in Northern Iraq and WOULD have continued to be had we not been a constant presence there. Id say that is a fair threat.
Finally, he sponsored terrorists. He paid for suicide bombers. He housed terrorists. He allowed terrorist training camps in his country.
Again...I'd say thats a pretty fair threat.
But THAT isnt even the point. The point is that what we are doing TODAY is identical to what was done following WW2. Agree with the war or disagree...makes no difference...the war was fought. Now...do you pull completely out ALA WW1 and then go back and do it again later, or do you work with the citizens and help them establish a government that WORKS.
Germany is the model. And it isnt easy...but it HAS to be done.
And IMAGINE how much more effective we would be...how much more powerful he message to the Iraqi people, government, and yes the terrorists if this country was UNITED.
Anon...regarding the previous laws...
Ummmm...didnt work...did it. The FBI knew about ALL the 9-11 terrorists but were unable to act. The terrorists communicated (and still do) on a regular basis with their sponsors in the middle east. But they never had enough to get warrants for wire taps. They never had enough to detain. All they could do is TALK about it.
You have a pretty clear picture of what the US terror fighting network was like pre 9-11. And we have a pretty clear picture as to the results.
You ask why I am so willing to give up my rights and I say, answer the original question. Dont give me vague generalities,...which of YOUR RIGHTS have been denied?
Me? You know...if I make a phone call from my house to a nation that is known to sponsor terrorists it wont bother me even a little bit if they monitor that conversation.
If I send money to other countries or entities in other countries or RECEIVE it from banks that are known to launder money for known terrorist organizations, it wont bother me even a little bit.
There has been NO reduction of freedom of speech...the mantra of the left. Funniest thing I see on a regular basis is this leftist icons collecting 6 figure speaking fees and then standing in front of their crowds spewing hatred about the president and then stating their right to free speech has been infringed.
Its a little bit funny...the left has pretty much joined the ranks of the extreme right...black helicopters...UN trooops operating on American soil...American concentration camps...Oh my!
Tell me again which of YOUR rights have been violated.
Anon...
"I guess they were all wrong, and we found that out when we could never find them."
Hey...dont take this as a Kumbaiya moment...but in my rush to respond to the negative, I completely blew by this from discussion perspective...
That is as close as I have seen anyone posting as an anon to...concession isnt the right word but something along those lines-not giving in but accepting that there might be another explanation..that maybe wasnt a diabolical liar but could just have been as wrong as all the rest.
In a way I agree...in Iraq there was what we knew, what we didnt know, what we knew we knew, what we DIDNT know we knew, and what we didnt know we didnt know.
All 1441 said was that it was Iraq's responsibility to make sure that we knew it all. And they had that responsibility because they attacked a sovereign nation, performed horrible attrocities there, and then scorched the earth on their retreat.
This is taken from Wikipedia, for what it is worth. However...before anyone immediately discounts it, each fact is either source cited, or specifically states it is not supported. So...you dont believe the 'fact' check the actual source document.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
The United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) was set up after the 1990 invasion of Kuwait to inspect Iraqi weapons facilities. It was headed headed first by Rolf Ekéus and later by Richard Butler. During several visits to Iraq by UNSCOM, weapons inspectors interviewed British-educated Iraqi biologist Rihab Rashid Taha. According to a 1999 report from the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, the normally mild-mannered Taha exploded into violent rages whenever UNSCOM questioned her about al-Hakam, shouting, screaming and, on one occasion, smashing a chair, while insisting that al-Hakam was a chicken-feed plant.[28] "There were a few things that were peculiar about this animal-feed production plant," Charles Duelfer, UNSCOM's deputy executive chairman, later told reporters, "beginning with the extensive air defenses surrounding it." The facility was destroyed by UNSCOM in 1996.[29]
In 1995, UNSCOM's principal weapons inspector, Dr. Rod Barton from Australia, showed Taha documents obtained by UNSCOM that showed the Iraqi government had just purchased 10 tons of growth medium from a British company called Oxoid. Growth media is a mixture of sugars, proteins and minerals that provides nutrients for microorganisms to grow. It can be used in hospitals and microbiology/molecular biology research laboratories. In hospitals, swabs from patients are placed in dishes containing growth medium for diagnostic purposes. Iraq's hospital consumption of growth medium was just 200 kg a year; yet in 1988, Iraq imported 39 tons of it. Shown this evidence by UNSCOM, Taha admitted to the inspectors that she had grown 19,000 litres of botulism toxin;[30] 8,000 litres of anthrax; 2,000 litres of aflatoxins, which can cause liver failure; Clostridium perfringens, a bacteria that can cause gas gangrene; and ricin, a castor-bean derivative which can kill by impeding circulation. She also admitted conducting research into cholera, salmonella, foot and mouth disease, and camel pox, a disease that uses the same growth techniques as smallpox, but which is safer for researchers to work with. It was because of the discovery of Taha's work with camel pox that the U.S. and British intelligence services feared Saddam Hussein may have been planning to weaponize the smallpox virus. Iraq had a smallpox outbreak in 1971 and the Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation and Arms Control Center (WINPAC) believed the Iraqi government retained contaminated material.[18]
UNSCOM also learned that, in August 1990, after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, Taha's team was ordered to set up a program to weaponize the biological agents. By January 1991, a team of 100 scientists and support staff had filled 157 bombs and 16 missile warheads with botulin toxin, and 50 bombs and five missile warheads with anthrax. In an interview with the BBC, Taha denied the Iraqi government had weaponized the bacteria. "We never intended to use it," she told journalist Jane Corbin of the BBC's Panorama program. "We never wanted to cause harm or damage to anybody." However, UNSCOM found the munitions dumped in a river near al-Hakam. UNSCOM also discovered that Taha's team had conducted inhalation experiments on donkeys from England and on beagles from Germany. The inspectors seized photographs showing beagles having convulsions inside sealed containers.[citation needed]
The inspectors feared that Taha's team had experimented on human beings. During one inspection, they discovered two primate-sized inhalation chambers, one measuring 5 cubic metres, though there was no evidence the Iraqis had used large primates in their experiments. According to former weapons inspector Scott Ritter in his 1999 book Endgame: Solving the Iraq Crisis, UNSCOM learned that, between July 1 and August 15, 1995, 50 prisoners from the Abu Ghraib prison were transferred to a military post in al-Haditha, in the northwest of Iraq.[citation needed] Iraqi opposition groups say that scientists sprayed the prisoners with anthrax, though no evidence was produced to support these allegations. During one experiment, the inspectors were told, 12 prisoners were tied to posts while shells loaded with anthrax were blown up nearby. Ritter's team demanded to see documents from Abu Ghraib prison showing a prisoner count. Ritter writes that they discovered the records for July and August 1995 were missing. Asked to explain the missing documents, the Iraqi government charged that Ritter was working for the CIA and refused UNSCOM access to certain sites like Baath Party headquarters.[31] Although Ekéus has said that he resisted attempts at such espionage, many allegations have since been made against the agency commission under Butler, charges which Butler has denied [4][5].
In August 1998, Ritter resigned his position as UN weapons inspector and sharply criticized the Clinton administration and the U.N. Security Council for not being vigorous enough about insisting that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction be destroyed. Ritter also accused U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan of assisting Iraqi efforts at impeding UNSCOM's work. "Iraq is not disarming," Ritter said on August 27, 1998, and in a second statement, "Iraq retains the capability to launch a chemical strike." In 1998 the UNSCOM weapons inspectors were withdrawn from Iraq. They were not expelled from the country by Iraq as has often been reported (and as George W. Bush alleged in his infamous "axis of evil" speech))[citation needed] . Rather, according to Butler himself in his book Saddam Defiant, it was U.S. Ambassador Peter Burleigh, acting on instructions from Washington, who suggested Butler pull his team from Iraq in order to protect them from the forthcoming U.S. and British airstrikes which eventually took place from from December 16-December 19, 1998.
[edit] Between the Inspections: 1998-2002
Scott Ritter later accused some UNSCOM personnel of spying.[32] On August 31, 1998, Ritter said: "Iraq still has proscribed weapons capability. There needs to be a careful distinction here. Iraq today is challenging the special commission to come up with a weapon and say where is the weapon in Iraq, and yet part of their efforts to conceal their capabilities, I believe, have been to disassemble weapons into various components and to hide these components throughout Iraq. I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measure the months, reconstitute chemical biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program."[33]
In June, 1999, Ritter responded to an interviewer, saying: "When you ask the question, 'Does Iraq possess militarily viable biological or chemical weapons?' the answer is no! It is a resounding NO. Can Iraq produce today chemical weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Can Iraq produce biological weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Ballistic missiles? No! It is 'no' across the board. So from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq has been disarmed. Iraq today possesses no meaningful weapons of mass destruction capability."[34]
In 2002, Ritter stated that, as of 1998, 90–95% of Iraq's nuclear, biological, and chemical capabilities, and long-range ballistic missiles capable of delivering such weapons, had been verified as destroyed. Technical 100% verification was not possible, said Ritter, not because Iraq still had any hidden weapons, but because Iraq had preemptively destroyed some stockpiles and claimed they had never existed. Many people were surprised by Ritter's "bizarre turnaround" in his view of Iraq during a period when no inspections were made.[35] In 2000, Ritter produced a film that portrayed Iraq as fully disarmed. The film was funded by an Iraqi-American businessman who had received Oil-for-Food coupons from Saddam Hussein that he sold for $400,000.[36][37] During the 2002–2003 build-up to war Ritter criticized the Bush administration and maintained that it had provided no credible evidence that Iraq had reconstituted a significant WMD capability. In an interview with Time in September 2002 Ritter said there were attempts to use UNSCOM for spying on Iraq.[38]
UNSCOM encountered various difficulties and a lack of cooperation by the Iraqi government. In 1998, UNSCOM was withdrawn at the request of the United States before Operation Desert Fox. Despite this, UNSCOM's own estimate was that 90-95% of Iraqi WMDs had been successfully destroyed before its 1998 withdrawal. After that Iraq remained without any outside weapons inspectors for four years. During this time speculations arose that Iraq had actively resumed its WMD programmes. In particular, various figures in the George W. Bush administration as well as Congress went so far as to express concern about nuclear weapons.
There is dispute about whether Iraq still had WMD programs after 1998 and whether its cooperation with the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) was complete. Chief weapons inspector Hans Blix said in January 2003 that "access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect" and Iraq had "cooperated rather well" in that regard, although "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance of the disarmament."[39] On March 7, in an address to the Security Council, Hans Blix stated: "Against this background, the question is now asked whether Iraq has cooperated "immediately, unconditionally and actively" with UNMOVIC, as is required under paragraph 9 of resolution 1441 (2002)..... while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as "active", or even "proactive", these initiatives 3-4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute "immediate" cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance." Some US officials understood this contradictory statement as a declaration of noncompliance.
There were no weapon inspections in Iraq for nearly four years after the U.N. departed from Iraq in 1998, and Iraq asserted that they would never be invited back.[40] In addition, Saddam had issued a secret order that Iraq did not have to abide by any U.N. Resolution since in his view the U.S. had broken international law.[41]
In 2001 Saddam stated that "we are not at all seeking to build up weapons or look for the most harmful weapons . . . however, we will never hesitate to possess the weapons to defend Iraq and the Arab nation".[42] The International Institute for Strategic Studies in Britain published in September 2002 a review of Iraq's military capability, and concluded that Iraq could assemble nuclear weapons within months if fissile material from foreign sources were obtained.[43] However, it concluded that without such foreign sources, it would take years at a bare minimum. The numbers were viewed as overly optimistic by many critics (such as the Federation of American Scientists and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists).
Anonymous says:
Bringing democracy and "freedom" to a country is not a good reason to invade and take over a country. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been murdered. Our troops are dying and for what? And what is our exit strategy? When do we call the invasion of Iraq a success? When we eliminate the threat of WMD's?-- that has already been done. Answer:
He is wrong on 3 points:
1. Freedom is good on its own, and the United States did not take over a country. The United States removed an unjust despot – which is by definition not legitimate government and facilitated the democratic creation of a constitution and a legitimate government for some 25 millions of human beings who have the natural right to such a government.
2. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have not been murdered, though tens of thousands have. Those murders are evil; they are not the doing of the United States or the constitutionally established and legitimate government of Iraq. Consider that thousands of Americans are murdered every year – that does not legitimize a call to abandon constitutionally legitimized government in this country.
3. We have eliminated the threat of WMD but we will not have prevented their use against us until we have established the stability of our Iraqi allies so they can insure that those who would and could develop them are blocked.
Anonymous says:
the Bush administration has done more to damage our freedoms and the constitution than anybody at this point -- and all in the name of fighting the "dangerous terrorists". I am refering to the Patriot Act, the Military Comission Act of 2006, the creation of Homeland Security, the power the president now has to open anybody's mail without a warrant, wiretapping without warrants, thinning the line for posse comitatus, the requirement for all states to issue the Real ID card or national ID card by 2008, and the list goes on.
He is wrong:
The Bush administration has always acted fully with in the Constitution and under the rule of law. The checks and balances of our government are always fully in tact. The Congress has authorized the Patriot Act, and the Military Commissions, and the Homeland Security department, the supreme courts and the surveillance courts have authorized actions taken against terrorist telephone traffic and communications. Warrants are issued and the laws obeyed, to say otherwise is to be dishonest.
Anonymous says:
Bush should have never been given the power to declare war-- that is supposed to be done by Congress only.
He is misleading in this statement:
The congress authorized the president to act, the senators and congressmen who are carping and claiming they do not support the war voted overwhelmingly to support it. If they would support it now it would be over all the sooner.
Anonymous says:
We have a system already in place to combat terrorists. Why must we give up our rights and liberties to do so? There is no reason why the police or FBI cannot wiretap or investigate terrorists under the previous laws. All they have to do is get a warrant. This protects everybody.
His position is faulty in that it was the very “fire walls” and restrictions on the FBI that he now extols that led to 9/11. The FBI still needs warrants to wire tap non terrorist communications and procures warrants even for terrorist communications. The difference is that they are now working more closely with other agencies in the War on Terror, and have helped to maintain our safety for near six years.
Dan;
You are right about the liberation of Europe from Germany; the same applies to the Asia and the Pacific from Japan, Eastern Europe from USSR and South Korea for the North. The one place we failed was in Vietnam, and millions have died and millions more suffer today because we turned that war over to a committee more interested in pleasing the media, and the misled masses than in securing freedom for human beings or safety for America.
The failure in Vietnam very nearly lead to the world wide proliferation of Communist despotism. While Carter fiddled the world burned. We are eternally in debt to Ronald Reagan.
While Clinton was in the white house the terrorists multiplied and grew in power and struck at America with seeming impunity. Again I reiterate – the only thing Osama and his fanatics did not calculate into their plan for world domination was Gorge W. Bush. We are eternally in his debt as well, whether his successors sell us out our not.
Mindmechanic;
Sorry you were bored, but you did seem to get in the mood.
As for quotes from WIkipedia; they express the views of the latest poster not the researched or verified facts. Posting them without criticism or screening seems of little value when compared to the weight of your usual arguments.
Anonymous says:
Bringing democracy and "freedom" to a country is not a good reason to invade and take over a country. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been murdered. Our troops are dying and for what? And what is our exit strategy? When do we call the invasion of Iraq a success? When we eliminate the threat of WMD's?-- that has already been done. Answer:
He is wrong on 3 points:
1. Freedom is good on its own, and the United States did not take over a country. The United States removed an unjust despot – which is by definition not legitimate government and facilitated the democratic creation of a constitution and a legitimate government for some 25 millions of human beings who have the natural right to such a government.
2. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have not been murdered, though tens of thousands have. Those murders are evil; they are not the doing of the United States or the constitutionally established and legitimate government of Iraq. Consider that thousands of Americans are murdered every year – that does not legitimize a call to abandon constitutionally legitimized government in this country.
3. We have eliminated the threat of WMD but we will not have prevented their use against us until we have established the stability of our Iraqi allies so they can insure that those who would and could develop them are blocked.
Anonymous says:
the Bush administration has done more to damage our freedoms and the constitution than anybody at this point -- and all in the name of fighting the "dangerous terrorists". I am refering to the Patriot Act, the Military Comission Act of 2006, the creation of Homeland Security, the power the president now has to open anybody's mail without a warrant, wiretapping without warrants, thinning the line for posse comitatus, the requirement for all states to issue the Real ID card or national ID card by 2008, and the list goes on.
He is wrong:
The Bush administration has always acted fully with in the Constitution and under the rule of law. The checks and balances of our government are always fully in tact. The Congress has authorized the Patriot Act, and the Military Commissions, and the Homeland Security department, the supreme courts and the surveillance courts have authorized actions taken against terrorist telephone traffic and communications. Warrants are issued and the laws obeyed, to say otherwise is to be dishonest.
Anonymous says:
Bush should have never been given the power to declare war-- that is supposed to be done by Congress only.
He is misleading in this statement:
The congress authorized the president to act, the senators and congressmen who are carping and claiming they do not support the war voted overwhelmingly to support it. If they would support it now it would be over all the sooner.
Anonymous says:
We have a system already in place to combat terrorists. Why must we give up our rights and liberties to do so? There is no reason why the police or FBI cannot wiretap or investigate terrorists under the previous laws. All they have to do is get a warrant. This protects everybody.
His position is faulty in that it was the very “fire walls” and restrictions on the FBI that he now extols that led to 9/11. The FBI still needs warrants to wire tap non terrorist communications and procures warrants even for terrorist communications. The difference is that they are now working more closely with other agencies in the War on Terror, and have helped to maintain our safety for near six years.
Dan;
You are right about the liberation of Europe from Germany; the same applies to the Asia and the Pacific from Japan, Eastern Europe from USSR and South Korea for the North. The one place we failed was in Vietnam, and millions have died and millions more suffer today because we turned that war over to a committee more interested in pleasing the media, and the misled masses than in securing freedom for human beings or safety for America.
The failure in Vietnam very nearly lead to the world wide proliferation of Communist despotism. While Carter fiddled the world burned. We are eternally in debt to Ronald Reagan.
While Clinton was in the white house the terrorists multiplied and grew in power and struck at America with seeming impunity. Again I reiterate – the only thing Osama and his fanatics did not calculate into their plan for world domination was Gorge W. Bush. We are eternally in his debt as well, whether his successors sell us out our not.
Mindmechanic;
Sorry you were bored, but you did seem to get in the mood.
As for quotes from WIkipedia; they express the views of the latest poster not the researched or verified facts. Posting them without criticism or screening seems of little value when compared to the weight of your usual arguments.
Lysis...
"As for quotes from WIkipedia; they express the views of the latest poster not the researched or verified facts. Posting them without criticism or screening seems of little value when compared to the weight of your usual arguments."
generally, I agree, except that in this case I posted the link to the actual page and the page has each point cited and sourced. Dont buy the wikipedia argument! Look at the source documents (I did on many of them).
Wikipedia is no different then here. I make some off the top of my head comment...take it as opinion or with a grain...or both. But if I want it to have authority I better cite my sources.
Lysis when I commented I was not refering to the war in Iraq I was refering to the comment you made when you claimed the Anony's anger was a sighn that you've won the argument. I maintain however that an argument (or battle) can only be won when both sides come to a realization of the truth. In the case of Iraq I agree with you we are right when they realize that then we will all have come to a realization of the truth.
Brazilboy:
You win.
I see two main reasons for fighting this terrible war in Iraq.
First is self interest, the U. S. will only be spared the terrorists wrath if we can defeat them. They are not interested in compromise – not in compromises we can accept.
The other reason to fight a war is compassion. I am amazed at the “compassionate liberals” who are willing to write off the lives of millions because they are not Americans. I think rather, they are willing to writ off their lives because they do not vote in America.
To use a Tolkien reference; which elves were worthy of their greatness? The ones who fled Middle Earth because they could, or those who stayed and died to see the Dark Lord destroyed.
I am sorry so many of you are unwilling to read the actual documents and wording of the Patriot Act and Military Comission Act of 2006 as well as so many of the other unconstitutional laws that have been passed by the Bush administration. It may surprise you that I am not a liberal, I am more of a constitutionalist/libertarian. These laws go against the constitution. It's pretty convenient that our government failed to protect us on 9/11, so that they can persuade us to give them even more power to "protect" us in the future. I hope you will look into that scenario with more of an open mind than what I've seen here. I am amazed at the justifications you all have come up with to support Bush and his war on terror. I fear there is no hope for you. I don't take back anything I said. I know I'm right. I have looked at both sides with an open mind, and I know what I see. I told you and you choose to see otherwise. Good luck!
Anon...
Come now...
I am not 'more' of a constitutional libertarian...I was an ACTUAL libertarian for four years...right up until I realized they were no less partisan than were the reps or dems.
You imply you have actually read the Patriot Act, yet cant point to a single liberty you have lost. Hmmm...could it be that you have simply run out of rhetoric?
You have examined the justification for war and found it lacking. Thats fine...I respect people with a difference of opinion. The problem is...regarding WMDs you are first simply wrong regarding what was actually said, then accept that, well...maybe EVERYONE was wrong. You ignore the fact that 1441 demanded Saddam give full compliance. Saddams INACTION was justification under 1441.
See...I dont think you WANT to get it.
You dont address terrorism as justification for war.
You dont address genocide as justification for war...even though it has been accepted as Clintons one and only reason for going to war.
And lastly...when asked what YOUR options would be...
well...you simply join the ranks of the anon.
That sound is the sound of silence...interrupted by the occasional cricket chirping.
Oh...and while you are brushing up on the Patriot Act...all thousand or so provisions, make sure you read the US Code. thats IS after all what is referenced in the patriot act. Thats IS what is modified by the Patriot Act. The Cornell Law site is a pretty good place to start with the US Code. Unless of course you have read and studied THAT voluminous document.
Then...when you have finished...
...make sure you brush up on the Rico Statutes. Since you are so worried about the feds use of the Patriot Act to combat terrorists, you will probably be outraged at the use of similar statutes in place since the 70's to combat organized crime in America.
The Patriot Act that the Bush Administration passed?!?!?!? For being a constitutionalist, you seem to have forgotten which branch of government is responsible for passing legislation. I don't blame you for this though, that seems to be a common thread in our nation right now including among the Legislative Branch. Second Anonymous is right. Being a Constitutionalist or Liberatarian or both does not make you more or less partisan. It simply means you've subscribed to a different party.
Lysis:
"The U.S. will only be spared the terrorists wrath if we can defeat them."
"The other reason for war is to fight a war of compassion."
____________________
This last Lysis' justification for war in Iraq is like something from "1984" -- Ministry of Truth, which fabricates lies, Ministry of Peace, which creates war, Ministry of Plenty which ensures starvation -- NOW Lysis' ministry of "compassion" which KILLS WITH KINDNESS!!!! Yes, the features of Big Brother's face are becomming more and more distinct . . . .
The "Bush" mission in Iraq is NOT TO DEFEAT TERRORISTS -- read the fine print. The United States is in Iraq to HELP,HELP,HELP "the newly formed Iraqi government" achieve "stabilization" and achieve victory over those who are in OPPOSITION to stabilization -- Sometimes Shiite, sometimes Sunni, sometimess Ba'athist, sometimes Iranian Shiite sympathizer, sometimes opportunists from some ersatz politico/religious partisanship.
If a VICTORY is to be had in Iraq it will be the VICTORY of STABILIZATION between warring factions that want power -- realistically, that COULD only mean that one sectarian side prevailed against the others!!!!
Stabilization in a Democratic IRAQ does NOT necessarily mean that Islamo/Fascists will be eliminated -- it is possible in a Democracy to still VOTE for and CARRY OUT an Islamo/fascist anti-American jihad --70% of Iraqis oppose the presence of the United States in their country!!!!
To the Anonymous who recommends we read the Patriot act:
First, A Quiet Listener is right; the Patriot act was passed by healthy margins both times supported by both parties in the Congress.
Secondly the Act has been upheld by the Supreme Court; it sounds like it’s constitutional to me.
Flaccid;
Someone is being a bit Orwellian here – YOU.
Was it compassionate to save the Jews of Europe from the Nazis?
Was it compassionate to safe the world from Hitler?
Was it compassionate to save the people of China and South East Asia from the Japanese?
Was it compassionate to save the people of South Korea from the Communists who are still murdering their brothers in the North as fast as they can?
Was it compassionate to send 20,000 marines to Somalia to feed the starving?
Was it compassionate to save the people of Kuwait from the mass murderer Saddam?
Was it compassionate for the U.S. to enter an open-ended commitment in the former Yugoslavia to prevent sectarian and ethnic murders?
The answer to all above is YES.
In all these cases the precious blood and treasure of the people of the United States has been spent in trying to bring the stability that justice and peace need in order to survive.
In every case VICTORY was needed.
There are plenty of incidents where America has failed to obtain victory, most notably the conquest and brutalization of Tibet, the conquest and rape of South Vietnam, the killing fields of Cambodia, the end of reason in Iran, the mass murders in Rwanda. Without victory there is only endless death and suffering.
Your numbers on Iraqi attitude toward an American presence in their country are specious at best. The vast majority of Iraqis braved murderers to vote into existence a Constitutional Republic, they want that government to survive, and they need our help.
All we must do is take a quick tore through history to see the fate you and the other cut-and-runners would call down on millions. And as I said – this time more than most - our own interests demand we have victory. In spite of you limp protestations the Islamic fascists will kill you as well as me on the day they devourer our freedom.
By the way; the establishment of stability in Iraq is as important a step toward defeating Terrorists as the Liberation of France was key to the defeat of Nazi Germany.
With the chance that I may be told I am being pompous about my legal knowledge, I will ask the anonymous who speaks of the Patriot Act, and other legislation.
Please point to one section of the patriot act that is not constitutional.
You don't even have to write it out and explain, just reference the number, section etc.
Of course an explanation would be helpful.
You say you have 'showed' us and we refuse to see. But so far you have only claimed unconstitutionality as a blanket charge for two very large and expansive bills.
Kind of a broad based attack. Pretend we are all idiots (some of the anonomy already believe that, so it shouldn't be new), and explain what part of the aforementioned legislation is unconstitutional, for extra points, explain why they are.
The defeat of Nazis', Japanese', and Communist' regimes was the GOAL of U.S. and Allied forces --
Saving the Jews of Europe was NOT a goal but a consequence of the victory. Hell, most of those European Jews became Soviet Communist Jews that our compassion did NOTHING to prevent!!!!
In EVERY case the United States went to war to defeat the forces that were attacking it, not seeking to be "compassionate" to whomever. Many oppressed countries and peoples worked TOGETHER with the United States and benefited from the defeat of tryranny, but we were NOT in the fight to be "compassionate" and would soon have abandoned them if 70% had believed us oppressors.
I explained HOW stabilization and Democracy will NOT eliminate sectarian Islamo/fascist hatred directed at the United States.
Why not respond to arguments that are presented? -- 70% was announced THIS MONTH.
Strange thing about Democracy -- Americans and even Iraqis can change their minds, votes, and consensus from election to election -- in 2005, Republicans held majorities in the House and Senate, but in 2006 all of THAT changed . . . didn't it????
Yes sir! Millions of Americans voted to "cut and run" from the FAILED FOREIGN policies of THOSE incompetent legislators and administration -- one more election to go.
Once again, your only fall back is word games. 70% of Iraqis wanting the U. S. to leave Iraq does not mean 70% believe the U. S. forces are not oppressors, nor does it mean they want to be ruled by terrorists. I would argue that near 100% of Americans, including our great President and me, want American troops out of Iraq, but we want victory over Islamic terrorism more.
As for Democracies voting poorly, your point is well taken, Americans did vote in the very politicians who will destroy their freedom from within given the chance, but like Iraq, America has a constitution and the cut-and-run fools will not be able to destroy America as long as George Bush is President.
I would point out that Democrats have held a majority before – much to the determent of America – and when the harm the do becomes apparent they will be removed.
My final point on this is the small majority the Democrats hold in the House, and the tinny majority they hold in the Senate were not entirely voted because the voters want to cut and run. Many lies were told by an anti American neo-lib media. We might not be able to over come the lies – but we can try. We can do our best to stave off the day when our freedoms and our lives are taken.
Remember that more Americans have voted for George Bush for president than any other person in history. Flop that statistic around Flaccid.
"The defeat of Nazis', Japanese', and Communist' regimes was the GOAL of U.S. and Allied forces "
Why were we in Europe fighting someone who was not responsible for pearl harbor (9-11), who had not attacked us, and posed no immediate threat to our country.
Why did we not have all of our manpower, and forces in the Pacific (afghanistan), trying to crush the Japanese (find Osama bin Laden), instead of suffering defeat after defeat on our Western Front?
Could it be that we needed to fight not only Japan (Al-Qaeda), but all of the axis powers (terrorists), in order to win that war? And even though Hitler and Germany had not attacked us (Saddam and Iraq), we could see the ties to democracy and freedom. We could see the impending threat a madman who could not be reasoned with on an international scale posed to our country?
I still ask that you put forth what portions of your legislation rantings you feel to be unconstitutional (and I have studied them, contrary to your assumption a few posts back), just curious as to what you see as unconstitutional within.
One of the things I love about the agora is how the thread always goes into this chaotic match of slamming heads back and forth. It usually happens around the 60ish mark. It sort of reminds me of a skit by Monty Python called park days. It all starts when a tennis ball is thrown and explodes the eyes of someone, then a chain reaction is started and the picnic party turns into one bloody mess. I'm laughing just thinking about it.
And Dan, "With the chance that I may be told I am being pompous about my legal knowledge . . ." For you to say "chance" I think there has to be a risk the result won't happen.
And the good thing about hippies, they are always willing to give up. Hey look they gave up their core values and now ride luxury cars.
And now for something completely diffrent. . .
Ah the war in Iraq and how it relates to everything in the universe.
First I'd like to state that regardless for the reasoning, and whether it was right or wrong, and how it lead to entering Iraq does little to add clarity to the current set of issues in Iraq. I think this is a topic for debate that would be more productive for futre incursions of our forigen policy decisions, especialy those regarding intel gathering and realizing that politics is politics when it comes to making whirlwind decisions, left and right a like. This might be a productice debate in the topic of international relations and how they effect the current situation, but such debate has been sparse and especially sparse on the agora. Since I do like to add some content; in "Foriegn Policy" Jan/Feb 2007 issue not one of the heads of state that submited entries questioned the legitimacy of the US to enter Iraq. Granted the authors were the likes of Tony Blair and a government offical from Sinapore and some others that escape my memory. I think also that all the articles that placed any space for the issue were written by nations from the collition of the willing so there probably is a small sense of bais.
Another point that I don't agree with is the constant comparision to this war and WW2. First when we entered the war we didn't even know that Hitler was doing the buisness of genocide. It wasn't till the end that we saw first hand what evil was. Secondly the issues relating to WW2 differ vastly from the current conflict. For instance when Germany did surrender it still had the vast majority of its infastructure in tact, or one that could be easly rebuilt. Additionally the German army had a set tactical dorctrine which was supported by the vast majority of the German infastructure. In WW2 there was a draft. One thing that is identifiable though with WW2 and this war and almost all wars the US has been involved in is that there were mixed motivations that lead to involvement in the war.
Another thing that constantly amazes me is that people truelly don't have a sense of the nature of the mechanics of war. I think the media and history teachers tend not to focus on the nitty gritty of war, the diffrent kinds of war because it requires to much work. If you take a simple look at the current conflict you can easly identify and predictably so identify it as an asymetrical conflict. Historically asymetrical conflicts have taken 9 plus years to handle effectively. Now realizing how the Bathist took power in the first place one should have realized no matter how quickly the invasion was established we would end up in an asymetrical conflict. In fact every person that I have talked to that has graduated from the Naval Stratigic Career Acadamy has stated that they expected this to be a 15ish year project from day one. I think there is a great deal of being undereducated when we talk about military actions. For instance in Afghanistan even I could have told you the Taliban would have a resurgance after they made a moutain retreat. They did it to the Soviets and every other invading force. But I digress.
Now comes the issue that I think people don't really exmaine and take to heart, what are the impacts and consequences of our departure pending on the time of such event? Now there are a lot of reasonable arguements for an eailier withdrawl form Iraq. I have heard none of them on the agora. One would be taking a containment policy much like the cold war, but hey nobody wants to talk about that as an alternative, or eventuality. I tend to disagree but to make a meaningful disscusion on the issue would take to much space. And as such my mere saying I disagree is a hollow statement at best.
One of the sure consequences of an early departure would be the systematic ethnic cleansing of all Suni in Iraq. It is a simple formula. We can look to the Sudan for an exmaple of what it would look like. The Shia have all the resources and infastructure tied up and basickly the Suni would be in a terrible position. The problem for the Suni would be exasterbated if foriegn powers continued to fuel support for a new Shia regime.
Another problem is that economic development in the Middle East (not only Iraq) would be retarded for a least another generation. Iraq is a critical area for Middle East commerce, just by its geographic location and ethinic make up. Now much of this is our own doing as well. No country can bounce back from over a decade of sanctions in a couple of years. I think people forget that Iraq has many of it's infastructure problems because it was economicly suppressed for 10 plus years. This has made me take a long look at my current views of economic sanctions, but I really can't state how my views will be changed.
The next big thing will be that global oil markets will be put in a state of control to pending political goals instead of economic forces. Granted the current system is that way now but this would even futher exastrbate the problem. This would probably have only a marginal effect on the US but the countries that would be most effected are the up and coming developing nations.
There are also plenty of consequences that are under question as to their probability but I think the three factors mentioned is enough to talk about. With out a meaninful resolution as to where we stand on the implications of the three factors mentioned I think it is pointless to say what one's stance is on the war. I have already asked myself on where I stand on the three consquences, and have adjusted my actions accordingly. I also try to keep my conclusions to a minimum on the way the consquences effect my value scheme as I think this is a journey we all need to take with the least amount of outside imput possible.
Oh one last thing that is related, the whole Israel issue. I have concluded that the vast majority and especially myself have no clue as to which way is the best way to address the issue on matters that we control. I would love to see/hear what the people of this forum have to say about possilbe actions that would effectuate a solution, or just more information regarding the nature of the problem would be great to.
Oh and I think Dan Simspon is really really good looking.
Realfruitbeverage:
The wife just read your post over my shoulder, her comment, “It looks like ______ really grew up!” Imagine, all those years studying debate, philosophy, and Law, and it took some real world experience to give you insight into History teachers and Monty Python.
Not that I would disagree with “she who is my wife” but my question to you is, where’s the beef? We all recognize the questions you outline. What we continue to struggle for is some answers, as you put it, effectual solutions.
Beyond the fifteen year long slog – rather shorter than the generations’ long conflict President Bush warned us of in the days after 9/11; is there really any other honest answer? Surrender I guess.
I heard of a report today of a Muslim Imam who claims “We” will have Europe in fifteen years, and the world by 2050. Short of another Genghis Khan sweeping in off the Steps to rescue the West, what hope have we?
RFB, you have proven your willingness to fight, are there enough other Americans willing to fight for pluralism, individuality, and freedom – or had we better start learning to read Arabic?
Yesterday I heard a man say that if he heard his neighbor screaming for help as she was being raped and murdered he would feel it his obligation to do nothing. “Who was he,” he asked, “to judge?” The radio commentator called him an appeaser, and he replied that his proudest moment would have been to attend the Munich conference. In the next breath he claimed that Neville Chamberlain was the greatest hero of the twentieth century.
By the way, although the death camps were hush hush until after their liberation, the mass murders in Poland, Russia, and China and the daily murder that rained down on the people of Great Britain were very well know to Americans. Perhaps there were some who would not fight, but surely you know of the Atlantic Charter, and Roosevelt’s commitment to stop Hitler long before Pearl Harbor. American sailors were dying in the Atlantic before the bombs of Dec. 7.
I know you have listed many differences between WWII and the War on Terror – interesting how similarities just keep popping up.
As a history teacher who has done his share of Monty Python skits, I am forced to think of a copy of Thucydides I have that is subtitled, “The War that Never Ends.”
As for Dan’s beauty, now you are dragging us back into last week’s arguments!
RFB...
I appreciate your comments and I understand why you dont like the comparison of Iraq to Germany. Each war is different and our response is different.
Unfortunately, there are those that DO make comparisons and do so for political gain. So, as long as the comparison is made of Iraq to VietNam, I feel that militarily and especially in regard to our commitment to post war Germany, the Iraq-Germany is FAR more appropriate.
Hitler was a dictator. When Germany was defeated, the country of Germany was divided. Post-war, the Government of East Germany was implanted as a communist ruled dictatorship while the government of West Germany was established as a republic...a representative democracy. Throughout Germany there still pockets of nazi's that resisted and resented the Americana nd British involvement in Germany. It took 4 years for the west to establish a constitution. It took 10 full years for the country to gain independent sovereignty. Throughtout that time there were incidents of terrorist attacks including resistance actions by groups like the RAB. Certainly not on the same scale as what occurs today in Iraq, but then, things CANT be identically compared.
Long and short of it, in Germanay AND Iraq, we completely dismantled a government and we imposed rules that would allow for the people of both countries to establish a democracy over a dictatorship. In both countries it was a difficult transition because in both countries the people had lived for so long under brutal dictatorships. I both countries there was personal conflict for support of brutal dictatorships, even if that support was 'earned' at the end of the barrel of a gun. In both countries the people had to reconcile their countries treatment of others. And in both countries there were forces that wished for and actively pursued the destabilization of a growing democracy.
It is lost on us today that following WW2 it took a long term commitment (we are still there) to help democracy grow into a lasting and powerful force. In Germany, our continued presence and commitment to the people there resulted in the eventual overthrow of communist East Germany and the unification of Germany as a democracy.
So...what will be the fate in Iraq?
Regarding Israel...
Israel is the ultimate red herring. The people that target Israel only do so to rally support amongst the unwashed, uneducated, easily swayed masses in Iraq (sorry...a little gentle poke at Joe Biden there...).
Whenever the Imams need support they invoke the name of Israel. Whenever Saddam needed to find support he invoked the name of Israel. The plight of the Palestinians is often thumped as a cause celebre, but the great majority of Arabs could care less about the Palestinians.
I grant that my experience is limited only to contact with civilians, military, and political folks in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, Oman, and Bahrain, but in all of those places I have learned a few things. One, power is everything. If you have no authority to make decisions or deals, you have no value to them. Two, status is everything. Your position in life and importance to them is dependent on their image of you. Three...there is a WORLD of difference between wealthy Arabs and poor Arabs. Support for groups like the Red Crescent Society (their red cross) is done as an act of public acknowledgment...look how much I give because I care about the little people. The reality is that most that are in positions of power could care less about the poor. It is an act of self aggrandizement. That attitude extends to the people of most of the poor countries of Africa and it definitely extends to the Palestinians. The reality is that they are seen as losers, as dirt poor, as having nothing and therefore worthy of nothing. They would not be welcome in any Arab country except perhaps as servants
(and they shouldn't feel bad about that I suppose because thats how they view all non-wealthy Arabs including the US-we are all TCNs to them...).
So, why is Israel always the whipping boy? Easy...because it is a cheap pop...a way to drum up support on their way to achieving their ultimate goal which is Muslim and Sharia law global dominion...something they see as not only their right but their destiny.
It is no different than being a politician or musician and going into a town and saying, "you know...Ive been to a lot of towns in my travels, but there is something special about coming back to (insert name here) city" followed by wild applause.
Hitler used nationalism to whip people into a frenzy. The Imams use Israel. no difference.
I always try to use the substitution model...you destroy Israel...wipe them off the map...now...is there peace? Of course not. Take away Muslim extremists...now...is there peace?
Oh...a final OBTW...
There ARE comparisons to Iraq and VietNam. In VietNam we had two democrats that played stupid games that did nothing and got us entrenched in VietNam. In Iraq we had a democrat president who watched for 8 years and refused to force compliance of resolutions.
In VietNam Nixon was elected to fix the mess left by the democrats. In Iraq, Bush fixed the mess left by Clinton.
In VietNam, our troops won every military battle, yet were hampered by politics to finish the war. In Iraq, our troops won the war in mere months, yet the cleanup action is hampered by restrictions.
In VietNam, the liberal elites and the media ensured public opinion became so swayed that the nation and the world turned against the war. In Iraq, the same thing is happening.
In VietNam, publicly, the left claimed their love and support of the military and wanted only what was best for them. They used them for political gain. The reality is they hate and despise the military and do everything they can to gut the military. In Iraq, no difference.
In VietNam, public opinion swayed by the media and the left eventually forced a hasty withdrawal from VietNam and millions died in the aftermath. In Iraq?
More politics...
Interesting how quickly the left sways. George Bush is against it, they are for it. George Bush is for it, they are against it...
"We don't have enough troops in Iraq," Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, said in 2005.
In 2004, he told NBC's Tim Russert some things he believes "very deeply."
"Number one, we cannot fail," Mr. Kerry said. "I've said that many times. And if it requires more troops in order to create the stability that eliminates the chaos, that can provide the groundwork for other countries, that's what we have to do."
Many Republicans who voted for the war now plan to support a no-confidence resolution, including Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, who in the past had warned that the war would be a long, tough slog and that Americans should "speak with one voice."
Guess who is running for president...
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. has for years advocated increasing the number of troops on the ground in Iraq. But after Mr. Bush offered his proposal to do that earlier this month, the Delaware Democrat drafted a resolution rejecting the idea as not "in the national interest."
In June 2005, he said, "There's not enough force on the ground now to mount a real counterinsurgency."
"They're going to need a surge of forces," he said in another interview.
By last week, Mr. Biden had reversed his war strategy.
"The president and others who support the surge have it exactly backwards," he told reporters.
Harry Reid-"If it is for a surge -- that is, two or three months and it's part of a program to get us out of there as indicated by this time next year -- then sure I'll go along with it," said the Nevada Democrat who voted for the war in 2002. "If the commanders on the ground said this was just for a short period of time, we'll go along with that."
After Mr. Bush laid out his plan to increase troops, the Democratic leader flatly rejected it.
"The surge is a bad idea," Mr. Reid said on CNN's "Late Edition."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070131-121249-1084r.htm
None of these positions can be too surprising...after all...how many democrats spoke publicly of Iraqs WMD program during the Clinton years only to deny their existence during the Bush years? How many democrats first supported and voted for the war before they voted against it. How many viewed material and intel reports under Clinton only to later claim they were fooled by Bush.
It is tragic and disgusting that they will so cavalierly play with the lives of Americans all in their quest for political gain. And make no mistake...THAT is what this is all about.
Remember, that more Americans have voted for George Bush for President than any other person in history. -Lysis
Certainly!!!!
Also, more Americans have NOT voted for George Bush for President than any other person in history.
Also, more Americans voted for Al Gore OVER Gerorge W. Bush for President than any other person in history.
Also, George Wallace received more votes for President than Abraham Lincoln.
SOOOOOOOO?????
It is embarrassing that this is the kind of specious, facile statistic on which Lysis hangs his credibility.
Just one thing for RFB.
America, and the world, knew about the genocide happening under the Nazi regime. Now, the normal man on the street did not, that is true. If they had, I would hope, that the cries for entry into the war would have happened earlier.
Many Jews, and sympathetic individuals risked life and limb to get the proof of such death camps and systematic killings out to the western world. England, and the U.S. governments had this info, had the proof. The problem was, there was a lot of latent bigotry. Before borders were sealed Jews had tried to emmigrate, we put limits on the emmigration, and turned away thousands, many of whom ended up in those death camps.
It is easy to say we did not know, and like I said, the average citizen did not. But THAT is not a stain that will be so easily wiped away from those in power who had that knowledge.
Flaccid;
Isn’t it funny Flaccid, that every body else got how stupid it was to hang YOUR arguments on voting statistics long ago. You have made my point exactly. November’s elections is a big SOOOOOOOOOO??????
You are the one who was claiming silly things like: “Yes sir! Millions of Americans voted to "cut and run" from the FAILED FOREIGN policies of THOSE incompetent legislators and administration -- one more election to go.”
To all other posters in the Agora, I swear I am not posting as Anonymous just to provide a stupid butt head to shoot down; Flaccid actually comes up with these things himself. He leaps into the traps that no rabbit would fall into.
Flaccid you have shouted my point from the roof tops. I guess I should thank you.
Dan:
Perhaps your criticism of past inaction is the best call to action now. Wouldn’t it be foolish to save millions for the horrors of Nazism and Communism just to see them murdered by the Jihadies?
exactly
Unfortunately, a selfish, solipsistic isolationism is the natural state of America. Pearl Harbor overcome that. A lot of us thought 9/11 had done the same.
No,
I do not believe that Lysis has been posting as Anon.
However, I am often convinced that a bored 13 year old often posts as Lysis -- you know, the age group and type who still finds "Butthead" insults so hilarious.
November 8-9, 2006!!!!
Be very sure Lysis was NOT laughing then. Given his failing faculties fantasize it happened "long ago" -- he still doesn't realize that the BALONEY he had for lunch, then serves up at the Agora everyday, was age-dated long before that!!!!
Even a wannabe historian should have a much greater sense of CRUCIALLY important Current Events than SOOOOO?????.
Kind of off the record . . .
Would Dan be insulted if others, besides Lysis and RFB, called him "beauthead".
Just wanted to know how far to take things!!!!
Truth to Power;
Exactly!!!!!
Flaccid;
Concerning your own facial response and your dig at Dan; I don’t thing Dan would be offended – it is after all the truth that hurts.
My comment about Dan follows other's observations that he was "good looking" -- Dan certainly fights his own battles and can take offense if he wants, however, "beauthead" was written within the spirit of previous humorous assides and intended no Ad hominem.
If I had used the juvenile term "butthead" to discribe Dan, however, then I would INDEED have been guilty of BOTH Ad hominem and a pathetic diversion and inability to respond to his arguments!!!!
NIE news bulletin!!!!
Just released: "Although al Qaeda activities in Iraq remain a problem, they have been SURPASSED by Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence as the PRIMARY source of conflict and the most IMMEDIATE, IMMEDIATE,IMMEDIATE threat to U.S. goals."
Now, let's hear from the "man with a plan" MM, Dan and Lysis about how
the United States is going to resolve the Iraqi-on-Iraqi fundamentalist sectarian violence -- you know, understanding that it is NOW the "most IMMEDIATE threat to U.S. goals.
Also, let's admit that NOTHING in World War 2 is/was analogous or relevant, and THAT discussion is a diversion to understanding the real problem in Iraq -- Iraqi' propensity to want to kill each other rather than Al Qaeda Islamo/fascist "terrorists"!!!!
Anon...
ever heard the term "cherry picker"? I suppose you never use the VietNam analogy to describe Iraq...that must be one of the other anonymy.
I dont accept for a second that this is nothing like WW2. In both wars we completely ousted a despotic government. Following both wars hard work and commtiment was needed to help the people of those countries establish democracy and provide for a lasting peace. In Germany it took 15 years. But anyone that studies history HAS to admit that the time and money spent in Germany as well as the sacrifice was well worth the cost. Germany is a thriving democracy with a thriving economy and does not represent a threat to the world. The difference between germany post WW1 and post WW2 is night and day.
but fine...you want to stop the comparisons? Then stop MAKING them.
I like how you put that BTW...man with a plan. because that pretty clearly states it. Right or wrong, agree or disagree, there are at least those that have 'plans' as opposed to those that just winge and whine and decry any and everything. I would dearly love it if YOU or any democrat actually some day had something even remotely resembling a 'plan.' But I wont be holding my breath.
Now...as for the comments...
Are you just plain that stupid? That is a real and honest question...not an attack. seriously...are you deliberately ignorant or are you just plain stupid?
1-You admit that there is AlQaida presence, even if it is reduced.
2-You ignore the presence of other terrorist influences.
3-You simply ignore the fact that the Iraqi on Iraqi violence is being conducted by MUSLIM EXTREMISTS attacking innocent and unarmed men, women, and children and that makes them TERRORISTS. That they are Iraqi's committing acts of terrorism is insignificant to you?
The enemy is MUSLIM EXTREMISM. How many times have you seen me post anything about AlQaida being the source of terror in the world? You'll have a hard time finding anything on that. However it will be VERY EASY for you to find examples of me citing muslim extremists as the cause. Why? Because it is the TRUTH. Even if they are homegrown muslim extremists...THOSE are the Iraqis killing other Iraqis.
Your dependence on silly word games is an embarassment to you. Timothy McKie was NOT Al Qaida but he WAS a terrorist. Ted Kazinski was NOT Al Qaida but he WAS a terrorists. Iraqis that slaughter unarmed and innocent men women and children may or may not be Al Qaida but they ARE extremist muslim terrorists.
As for my 'plan'...like I say...you are either deliberately ignorant or just plain stupid. How many times do 'I' have to say that MY plan is NOT the same as what is going on...that MY plan would place responsibility quick, fast, and in a hurry on the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people?
I would make daily announcements and broadcasts citing muslim terrorism and the shame and embarrasment they are. I would do everything in my power to beg, cajole, and if necessary shame ALL muslims but in Iraq specifically to get them to stand up and take responsibiltiy for their own security. I would point to the numerous cases (just as I have done here, with newspaper sources) citing the cases of muslim terrorists raping and slaugtering children. I would scream it from the rooftops and use every medium available to get the world to wake up to the spread of these animals and their violence.
but thats not the plan we have. What we have is a plan to increase troops and aggressively pursue those Iraqis killing Iraqis. And as I pointed out just yesterday...until GWB agreed with them, there is a LONG LIST of democrats that were saying the exact same same thing. And as far os opitons go...well...since no one on the left seems to be able to provide ANYTHING other than cowardice and surrender, well...I'll stick with the one we have.
I have only heard ONE democrat saying we must do whatever it takes to win the war against terror. The fact is virtually all refuse to engage the war on terror because that would mean they would have to actually DO SOMETHING.
The only democrat that dares to recognize that the war on terror is too great to play politics is the man the left thought was such a valuable democrat that he could be vice president and because of his principled stand on that ONE issue, the left kicked him out of the party.
I dont have to say anything at all about democrats and leftists...their own words and actions condemn them for who and what they are.
Which tells us two things about them and about you.
1-This has nothing to do with right and wrong...it is about politics...plain and simple.
and
2-Like you, no democrat has clue one on what to do in Iraq or how to fight terrorism, globally or domestice. Not one. because the only one that DID is no longer a democrat.
MM
With due respect!
The paramount and deep-seated RELIGIOUS divisions in the Middle East is what makes analogies to WWII and even Viet Nam so worthless.
You and others want to argue that secular military solutions for peace and Democracy will trump thousands of years of accumulated sectarian prejudices and hatred, by force.
But, increasingly, what we see is that our noble ambitions of peace and Democracy are paid "lip service" as a means to CONTINUING what seems to be the ONLY goal these peoples understand -- DEATH TO ALL INFIDELS!!!!
How can a nation that is seen as a spokesman for Christianity EVER be regarded as anything more than a "clever deceiver" and usurper of GOD'S WILL????
I never called anyone a butthead, I simply said:
“To all other posters in the Agora, I swear I am not posting as Anonymous just to provide a stupid butt head to shoot down; Flaccid actually comes up with these things himself. He leaps into the traps that no rabbit would fall into.”
You have managed to provide your points to shoot down. As Mindmechanic has just demonstrated on the, don’t talk about WWII nonsense.
Any truth we can find in our past to inform our present is valuable. That is what makes us different form animals, and a head different that a butt.
Anonymous:
Who sees what nation as a spokesman for Christianity? Surely you are not talking about the United States. From its inception the U. S. has been a pluralistic state. The ideas that motivate this nation are older than any denomination or religious order or origination; they are the unalienable and self-evident truths that are coeternal with the mind of any “true” God that exists. Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Atheists and all other people of any faith are equal before the law and can claim the right to live, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
MM,
I would make daily announcements and broadcasts citing muslim terrorism...
I think the general response to that would be,
"You're blaming the victim! The US caused the chaos in Iraq and now we are diverting responsibility for it from our own actions to the Iraqi people."
I don't think we can stop Iraqi on Iraqi violence. I could be wrong, but I think (as MM has pointed out, and as I have said before) that violence won't end until Iraqi's as a people stand up against it.
What we can do is try to provide the environment that the government can survive in, and the people can survive in, to let that happen.
Is it the best scenario, no, but I see much worse consequences from leaving Iraq, then from staying.
And, I believe MM's comparison to the amount of time it took in Germany to be germaine. These things cannot happen quickly.
Dan;
Indeed, we have become a society that demands instant gratification on all levels; something that must be considered in fighting a fanatic enemy who thinks in terms of eternities
Anon...
I'll take you back to my original post in response to RFB...
"I appreciate your comments and I understand why you dont like the comparison of Iraq to Germany. Each war is different and our response is different."
"Unfortunately, there are those that DO make comparisons and do so for political gain. So, as long as the comparison is made of Iraq to VietNam, I feel that militarily and especially in regard to our commitment to post war Germany, the Iraq-Germany is FAR more appropriate."
So you see...I said pretty much what you said...I dont like the comparisons...but since people will continue to paint Iraq as VietNam, then there is room for fair comparison.
I have also said the muslim culture is unlike any other. Thye idea of Muslim Brotherhood is real...no matter how much I hate my brother, I hate you more. I get that.
I have had the forutne thoguh to spend nearly a year in Saudi Arabia, the same in Turkey, 6 monthis in UAE, 4 in Kuwait, and several months in other areas. The "Death To All Infidels" crowd is definitely the loudest but only because they are violent and aggressive and it makes for great press. There are many others in the region (and I would dare say the majority) that dont agree with them and want peace.
IF they stand up for peace (which means they may have to FIGHT for peace...I know...a weird concept)
then they may just win their peace. If they dont, they wont and we wont be successful. that has ALWAYS been my stated position here. All we can provide for them is an opprotunity for peace. THEY have to win it.
That DOESNT mean our presence there does not provide us a very selfish and self serving interest. As long as Muslim hate groups continue their emphasis there, we win. As long as their focus is on dodging bombs, we win. As long as they are relegated to funding terror campaigns from caves, we win. Eventually...we stick it out...we endure, and we win.
If we quit...we lose. Plain and simple. No if's, no ands, no butts.
Cameron...
"I think the general response to that would be,
"You're blaming the victim! The US caused the chaos in Iraq and now we are diverting responsibility for it from our own actions to the Iraqi people"
1-I think you are right which is why I would then point out how idiotic their comments were in the face of the history of muslim terrorists and
2-I would point to the rape slaughter of women and children in Tibet and ask how we caused that. i would point to the slaughter of innocents in Africa at the hands of these animals and ask how they justify that. I would rub their noses in it and then harder and then harder again. Every time they continued with their lame excuses Id point THAT out. Eventually...HOPEFULLY...the muslims of the world that claim their faith as a religion of peace would get the message as to just what kind of animals are out there perverting their religion of peace.
At least...thats what I would do...
regarding comparisons...
History IS a great teacher.
We left following WW1. WW2 cost literally hundreds of millions of lives.
We stayed following WW2. We helped rebuild both Japan and Germany. We stood by democracy in Germany and over time, communism of the east fell.
In Korea, we called it a draw. We stayed there at a cost of countless billions, but the democracy of South Korea has thrived while communism to the north has caused the starvation deaths of millions.
In VietNam, we left, and millions died in the aftermath.
In Serbia, we are STILL THERE (ahem, liberals) and it is still costing up billions. but there have been actual rumblings of peace, even though the serbs, christions and croats have hated each other for thousands of years.
In the first Gulf War, we left. We had to go back
Now, we have ousted a government and helped a people elect their own representation. If we leave, Iraq will be a hellish firestorm and it will affect the world. If we stay...who knows?
I have this belief that if this country were to unite for the greater good there is literally nothing we cant accomplish. I dont have much hope that will happen because too many are willing to sell out the country in the name of political power.
"However, I am convinced that a bored 13 year old often posts as Lysis -- you know, the age group and type who still finds "Butthead" insults so hilarious"
"I never called anyone a butthead."
-Lysis
I concur that you did NOT call ANYONE a Butthead -- however, you DID called SOMEONE a Butthead!!!!
NOOOOOO, I never thought it was meeee!!!!
We can do ALL of the "head AND butt", "head IN butt", "butt ugly", "here is my end, here is my butt" variations, butt NOTHING can compare to being "taken down" by Lysis' awesome "butthead" epithet -- hurled like Achilles shaft into the quaking heart of an opponent!!!!
-----------------
Which description is most apt in its depiction of Lysis' dazzling rhetoric?
"Oh, Mr. Kurtz, the horror, the horror."
or
"I'm melting, melting! What a world, what a world."
Yes Lysis,
Just say United States in Baghdad and EVERY Iraqi will immediately think, PLURALISM and (un)? INALIENABLE TRUTHS rather than CHRISTIAN!?!?!?!?
You ARE out of touch, AREN'T you????
Flaccid;
We should do our best to expose the lies of the neo-libs and the terrorists and give the people of Iraq the truth.
Are you championing a lie just because people believe it? How out of touch can you get?
There is no question that the people of Iraq want pluralism, inalienable rights, and the truth. The challenge is giving these precious birthrights of all humans to the people of the world over the screaming hysterics of the power grabbers in radical Islam and American politics.
The hand-wringers who point to the internal strife in Iraq as evidence that U.S. policy is wrong must value stability above all else.
Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence was always a problem. Under Saddam it was severely one-sided. But I guess the trains ran on time.
truth...
"Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence was always a problem. Under Saddam it was severely one-sided. But I guess the trains ran on time"
I chuckle every time I see this arguement.
Germany had a lot less violence and internal strife when Hitler was in power.
Iraq was sure a lot less violent under Hussein...of course, the fact that their prisons were populated by their soccer team that failed to advance in the world cup so Uday Hussein had them jailed and their feet smashed...well...you have to break a few omelletes to make a few eggs...right? The fact that the Hussein Guard raped, pillaged and murdered with impunity was apparently fine because there was no one fighting back. But all in the neame of discipline and order.
We had a lot less violence and bloodshed in America when England was still ruling the country. look how many lives were lost gaining independence. What a waste!
The sad fact is that there are those that actually believe it.
MM:
"If we quit we lose" and "cut and run" and all the other neocon panaceas you post are the kind of MINDLESSLY simplistic foreign policy solutions that surely WEAKEN this country -- posting your mantras at the Agora for the fortieth time does not make them MORE true, any more than covering your car in these bumper-stickers will protect the paint job!!!!
Please STOP with your POUTING that the United States is weak and/or cowardly, and or corrupt, and or evil, and or STUPID (MM's favorite, perhaps only, epithet) PESSIIMISM every time favored political hacks lose an election --it is the worst kind of defeatism and merely encourages the enemy -- Islamo-fascist terrorists, NOT Democrats, you ______!!!! (please complete with your favorite insult de jour!!!!
MM:
Quit making up stupid arguments to attack -- even a labotomized skinhead wouldn't make that argument -- even TTP!!!!
Anon...
Once again...you light up my life.
"posting your mantras at the Agora for the fortieth time does not make them MORE true"
You mean like your oft defeated "Bush lied", "war for oil", "profits for Haliburton", "no WMD" arguements that you trot out as
answer to ANY discussion?
Pouting? Moi? Never. I would NEVER say the US is weak or cowardly. I HAVE said (repeatedly) that there are those that choose cowardice as their only answer. And until you can actually bring something productive to the table OTHER than cut and run, that includes you.
The "Iraq is more violent than it was under Saddam" argument is being made by the left...not me.
PESSIIMISM? Tell me Anon...just what from the left gives optimism? Where is their plan for combating terror? For Social Security reform? For ANYTHING?
The ONLY thing we can count on liberals to do is to raise taxes. We can count on them to spew hate-speech and divide the country on racial and class lines. But actually bring something to the table resembling a solution? nah...
But then...since I have stated my position on BOTH parties numerous times, it is highly unlikely another will matter to you. That I DO NOT walk lock step with conservatives is again lost on you.
But the reality is...your entire ranging, rambling, senseless post is a pretty clear indicator that you are still upset about SOMETHING?
How is dad, BTW?
Mindmechanic;
It seems Flaccid is at the end of his rope. He is playing the victim again. When he can’t win the argument he usually resorts to whining. Our only comfort is that it is usually his last gasp.
I was wondering if it was Flaccid or Child. I still cant tell them apart. The argument seemed like Child, but the anger was definitely Flaccid.
Hopefully he isnt totally at the end of his rope. I have about 15 sources lined up regarding the lefts "Iraq was better off under Saddam" argument including some gems from Ted Kennedy. You can always trust ABC, MSNBC, and CNN for a good ol liberal slant...
Post a Comment