Political Crossfire Forums

[Etienne]

Chingu wrote: Chingu wrote: rhill230 wrote: Quote: what would you tell an i witness, say a soldier, who claims there is plenty of good happening in iraq?


What would you say if I told you that I just talked to someone who just got back from Iraq not two weeks ago and he said that the country is in total chaos right now?

We can play the "I talked to this guy game" all day.

I would ask him what part of Iraq he served in and I would alos ask him if he saw anything good going on.


but obviously - you haven't talked with anyone who served there reently - because anyoe who had would be able to tell you about some of the progress being made. Isn't difficult to see.

But, I( suppose there are a few who are serving inthe heat of the bad stuff who wouldn't see everything but the violence that they are dealing with.

the point being- you can't dismiss the good stuff.

Etienne wrote: The point being that three years after Bush declared the end of major combat operations in Iraq, we expect good things to be happening. We do not expect Iraq to be on the brink of civil war. We do not expect 3000+ Iraqis to die each month from ethnic violence.

Quote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6141978.stm

The ongoing unrest in Iraq has prompted international calls for Syria and Iran to work with Western powers in seeking an end to sectarian violence there.
The White House has indicated it will consider talking to both countries.

President George W Bush on Monday met members of an expert panel known as the Iraq Study Group, which has been re-evaluating US strategy in Iraq.

UK Prime Minister Tony Blair is also expected to call for Syria and Iran to co-operate in a speech later on Monday.

The UK Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett, has already said the two countries should be part of the solution instead of part of the problem.

The fact that the US and UK have considered involving Iran and Syria in helping Iraq stabilize should indicate to you that things are really *BEEP* up in Iraq right now.

The point is, no we didn't expect it and no one is suggesting that things are going swimmingly in IRaq. What we are suggesting is that the American people as well as the people all over the world are being presented with a biased and disingenuous view of the reality in Iraq when all that view describes is the sensational worst and none of the best. It doesn't even come close to showing the reality there. And the vast majority of people don't actually take the time to find out what is really going on - not even when it is thrust right in front of their faces as it has been here.

You really do not get it...

Major combat operations ended in May 2003. This was more than three years ago. By now, Iraq's infrastructure should be complete for the most part. Iraqis should have electricity, clean drinking water. Schools should have been buillt, roads should have been paved, shops should be open for business.

We should not have to be told about these things BECAUSE WE EXPECT THEM TO HAVE BEEN COMPLETED.

However, we also shouldn't be hearing about the bad things in Iraq...BECAUSE THE BAD THINGS IN IRAQ SHOULDN'T BE HAPPENING. We shouldn't be reading about 3000+ each month Iraqis killed due to ethnic violence. We shouldn't be reading about Iraq on the verge of a civil war.

But we are hearing about these bad things. And this should indicate to you that Iraq is going very badly.

If nothing, then explain why the US would consider involving Iran and Syria in stabilizing Iraq. We are fighting a war against terrorism, and Bush is considering seeking support from two countries that support terrorism.

Quote: Now, I challenge anyone here to go back throughout the history of humanity and find me a war where everything went well and no one died and guns were not fired and bombs didn't blow up and innocent pople didn't die. You won't find one. War is nasty terrrible and tragic. but, sometimes, it is a better alternative than what could be. That is the case here and now in Iraq.

Germany & Japan after WWII.

The war in Iraq ended in May 2003, after Bush declared the end to major combat operations. Remember the big banner that said "Mission Accomplished?"

Or do you think it is a really good idea to have civilian contractors rebuild schools in the middle of a war?

[Dookiestix]

The American wrote: Dookiestix wrote: The American wrote: Dookiestix wrote: Chingu wrote: Dookiestix wrote: It just doesn't matter how much cherry picking one wishes to do in some blind attempt to justify this war. The violence only escalates as the dynamic continues to change, and people are just getting slaughtered in the streets of Baghdad.

This shouldn't be about good news/bad news anymore.

This should be about the news that's necessary to get us the hell out.

I'm tired of excuses from those who continue to support this war.

Lumina wrote: One blessing for the Iraqis is that now they're developing an infrastructure they lacked. Schools are open. The free press flourishes.
I guess good news doesn't sell papers....
What infrastructure? The one the insurgency keeps blowing up? What free press? The one where papers are getting shut down because the editors are getting murdered by the insurgency?

This detachment from reality only excacerbates the problem.

I think what you are tired of, in all honesty, is the hardship of having to deal with a serious situation.

Getting the hell out, as you put it accomplishes what?

I've already educated you as to what that would accomplish but you seem unconcerned that we would face a far more dangerous world - a much bigger and more brutal fight - and far more death and meyhem if we fail here. Why does that not concern you? Is it because you are only interested in that one more day of peace in your own little world where you can goout to dinner and not get blown up and not have to think about serious global matters? Is one more sip of Chablis worth it?
One more ship of Chablis? WTF is wrong with you? :roll:

You've offered ZERO education in every regard. Those who felt as though they were "educating" others who were staunchly against this war from day and one and who called everything that's happening today have no place to even suggest that they are educators.

Bullsh!tters is a much more appropriate description. And you do that well.

I wonder.............

Do you think life would be just a piece of cake, if we packed our bags and came home? Would that solve or create more problems? Or would you even worry about it? Sure you would hear in the weeks to come of countless Iraqis being slaughtered as animals, but it would not matter? As our brave men would be home, and you would be eating cake and Chablis until it came your time to pay for your sinful way of life? (Catagorized by the extreme Radical Religious view holder?)

Maybe just don't think about it. Because your children and or grandchildren will be dealing with it on a more extreme level. Have you even thought of the consequences of returning without finishing the job? Someone will have to do it. Do we deal now, or wait until it gets worse? Put it off for the next generation.

:wink:
First of all, I can't stand Chablis. Perhaps in your next sad attempt at making a point about elitism, try using a better, more popular wine. Perhaps a Pinot Noir, or maybe even a Merlot.

Secondly, your black and white approach solves nothing. It's the yptical, rightwing knee-jerk reaction to those who are against this war and want our troops out as soon as humanly possible. The region is already destabilized no thanx to Bush, and the slaughter has only gotten worse while we are still there. In other words, we are ineffective in stopping this bloodshed. Republicans are leaving close to half a trillion dollars in appropriations bills and other messes for Democrats to deal with, so I would suspect that the GOP know something about leaving their problems for others to have to deal with, whether it be our children, our grandchildren, or the incoming Democratic majority. Hearing you lecture about this is quite humorous.

Oh, I'm also not a big fan of "cake." But you go right ahead and keep clinging to your worthless labels if it makes you feel better.

Black and white huh? Would you possibly mean right and wrong? Actually, straight to the point, that is my view. Color is not a priority. However, since color is a point for you, would you like to elaborate on the gray? What would be your reaction over the consequences of pulling out? Would you shoulder the responsibility of that decision, or would you blame others for your decision not to finish the job?
Oh, so now it's me who has to "shoulder the responsibility" of what would happen if we left?

That makes absolutely no sense. Have you shouldered the responsibility yet of backing this war yet? All those U.S. and Iraqi deaths?

Where's the responsibility and accountability in that?

The more the rightwingers spin this, the less sense they inevitably make. You are yet another case in point.

[sLiPpY]

Dookiestix wrote: The American wrote: Dookiestix wrote: The American wrote: Dookiestix wrote: Chingu wrote: Dookiestix wrote: It just doesn't matter how much cherry picking one wishes to do in some blind attempt to justify this war. The violence only escalates as the dynamic continues to change, and people are just getting slaughtered in the streets of Baghdad.

This shouldn't be about good news/bad news anymore.

This should be about the news that's necessary to get us the hell out.

I'm tired of excuses from those who continue to support this war.

Lumina wrote: One blessing for the Iraqis is that now they're developing an infrastructure they lacked. Schools are open. The free press flourishes.
I guess good news doesn't sell papers....
What infrastructure? The one the insurgency keeps blowing up? What free press? The one where papers are getting shut down because the editors are getting murdered by the insurgency?

This detachment from reality only excacerbates the problem.

I think what you are tired of, in all honesty, is the hardship of having to deal with a serious situation.

Getting the hell out, as you put it accomplishes what?

I've already educated you as to what that would accomplish but you seem unconcerned that we would face a far more dangerous world - a much bigger and more brutal fight - and far more death and meyhem if we fail here. Why does that not concern you? Is it because you are only interested in that one more day of peace in your own little world where you can goout to dinner and not get blown up and not have to think about serious global matters? Is one more sip of Chablis worth it?
One more ship of Chablis? WTF is wrong with you? :roll:

You've offered ZERO education in every regard. Those who felt as though they were "educating" others who were staunchly against this war from day and one and who called everything that's happening today have no place to even suggest that they are educators.

Bullsh!tters is a much more appropriate description. And you do that well.

I wonder.............

Do you think life would be just a piece of cake, if we packed our bags and came home? Would that solve or create more problems? Or would you even worry about it? Sure you would hear in the weeks to come of countless Iraqis being slaughtered as animals, but it would not matter? As our brave men would be home, and you would be eating cake and Chablis until it came your time to pay for your sinful way of life? (Catagorized by the extreme Radical Religious view holder?)

Maybe just don't think about it. Because your children and or grandchildren will be dealing with it on a more extreme level. Have you even thought of the consequences of returning without finishing the job? Someone will have to do it. Do we deal now, or wait until it gets worse? Put it off for the next generation.

:wink:
First of all, I can't stand Chablis. Perhaps in your next sad attempt at making a point about elitism, try using a better, more popular wine. Perhaps a Pinot Noir, or maybe even a Merlot.

Secondly, your black and white approach solves nothing. It's the yptical, rightwing knee-jerk reaction to those who are against this war and want our troops out as soon as humanly possible. The region is already destabilized no thanx to Bush, and the slaughter has only gotten worse while we are still there. In other words, we are ineffective in stopping this bloodshed. Republicans are leaving close to half a trillion dollars in appropriations bills and other messes for Democrats to deal with, so I would suspect that the GOP know something about leaving their problems for others to have to deal with, whether it be our children, our grandchildren, or the incoming Democratic majority. Hearing you lecture about this is quite humorous.

Oh, I'm also not a big fan of "cake." But you go right ahead and keep clinging to your worthless labels if it makes you feel better.

Black and white huh? Would you possibly mean right and wrong? Actually, straight to the point, that is my view. Color is not a priority. However, since color is a point for you, would you like to elaborate on the gray? What would be your reaction over the consequences of pulling out? Would you shoulder the responsibility of that decision, or would you blame others for your decision not to finish the job?
Oh, so now it's me who has to "shoulder the responsibility" of what would happen if we left?

That makes absolutely no sense. Have you shouldered the responsibility yet of backing this war yet? All those U.S. and Iraqi deaths?

Where's the responsibility and accountability in that?

The more the rightwingers spin this, the less sense they inevitably make. You are yet another case in point.

What's amazing, is that the rightwingers are always wanting someone else to go out and do this or that for them. They're not willing to get off their duffs and do it themselves. i.e. Rangles draft bill failing to make it through Congress.

[Alizard]

Dookiestix wrote: [Oh, so now it's me who has to "shoulder the responsibility" of what would happen if we left?

That makes absolutely no sense. Have you shouldered the responsibility yet of backing this war yet? All those U.S. and Iraqi deaths?

Where's the responsibility and accountability in that?

The more the rightwingers spin this, the less sense they inevitably make. You are yet another case in point.

I love the "reasoning" coming from that direction......

1) We have totally screwed everything up, despite your loud objections not to do it.

2) We don't know how to fix it.

3) It is taking all the available US forces to keep civilian dead down to 4000 per month.

4) We are afraid if we reduce troop levels that number will go up and make it harder to lie about the number of civilian dead.

5) Regardless of all that..... if anybody does anything other than to continue to put every available US soldier on the street, we will then blame them for everything.

Hard to argue with logic like that.... :lol:

[Chingu]

Proton wrote: Quote: it is really difficult for someone like me to understand how, after all the discussion that goes on regarding the Iraq fight, the WOT and the state of the world, that views like yours are still around. It is as if 99% of reality is dismissed for the 1% that fits this simplistic and misguided view. It's unreal. It's disturbed.
That's not an answer. That something pretending to call itself the reality. (gives percentances as well!), plus simplistic or misguided, distubed a.k.a useless rhetoric.
Quote: Sanctions were not an American and American alone phenomenon. They were a world phenomenon placed on Iraq to punish Saaddam.
Oh, I am very much in favor of sanctions. Specifically, ones without aid, as this was added later.

The idea is after all, that, by the time Iraq went outside it's border, the word punishes Iraq by showing that it doesn't want to do anything with it. And yes, the idea is that if they starve because of their government, that's their problem which they can solve by arriving to a very simple conclusion.
Quote: Depleted Uranium ordinance is not responsible for any health conditions. Depleted Uranium poses no health risk moreso than anything else we encounter in our daily lives.
Why all those regulations in it's industrial handling then? http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part040/part040-0025.html

Added to that, the depleted Uranium used in projectiles, often contains traces (is contaminated) of Plutonium. That's a heavily chemically toxic element.

Either of those is minimally radioactive as well. They don't kill in distance. They kill by being inhaled dust, staying in the organism, and radiating continuesly the nearby cells. And it takes on cell, to start a cancer.
Quote: There was very, very little collatoral damage done through our bombing campaigns. That is a fact.
When someone drops a bomb, without knowing exactly what he is going to hit. It's the equivelant of someone dropping explosives in a populated area. There is no nice term legal term as "collateral damage", but there is second degree murder.
Quote: It isn't from Depleted Uranium ordinance - I can tell you that much.
I don't think you can. I understand that you are in the party all creationists seem to pop up, but I actually know my science.
Quote: It also has no baring on the issue at hand.
Some call those dirty bombs.
Quote: Quote: The raising of Falluja, Talafar, Qaem, and 8 more Iraqi towns Again - what's your point. Bad guys got killed. might have been a few civilian casualties
When all male population was blocked from evacuating the city, I very much doubt that. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,138376,00.html

(I have an evil humor in selecting my media sources as well eh?)
Quote: That is a non-credible number from a non-credible source. However, we do know a lot of Iraqis have died. many of them enemies. That's not a bad thing when evil enemy murderous thugs are killed in battle is it? Well, I mean - we'd all prefer no one had to die - but were it not for the evil sons-o-b*****s that might stand a chance.

And who's been killing the rest of them? How many of those were killed by Saddams' regime? How many were killed by Al Qeada? How many were killed by Saddam loyalists? how many were killed as a result of sectarian violence?

Tossing out unsubstantiated numbers like that serves no purpose because it means nothing. A lot of people have died in the UNited States in the last three years as well. What does that mean? HAve they died as a result of "An illegal war based on spins and lies?"

What is a legal war as opposed to an illegal one? What jurisdiction covers wars anyway? I'm not sure. What makes this - as opposed o any war ever "illegal?"

And then - I'll bet you can't explain to us all what lie(s) you're referring to. because so far - no one has ben able to put forth an example of one lie used in the process of our getting involved in this fight. Come-on - let us in on the huge secret? What lie(s) were there? We're all dying to know.

Actually - the idea that we were lied to was begun by partisan folks who hate Bush and manufactured a perspective that is entirely false. They fail to understand the simple definition of lie - or they are liars themselves in suggesting it - which, of course, is the truth of the matter.
All this, is a lot of bubbling, which does not address the small detail, that a lot of people are dead, from a war, even by collateral alone, which before they weren't. There security situation was better even.

And that happened after an invasion. A first attack. Not a response to say, Saddam re violating somebody's borders, but by Iraq just sitting there. The rock bottom of war morality.
Quote: What dismantling of Iraq? Oh, you mean the war? What's your point?
Water and electrical power plants are considered targets...
Quote: No - I am taking the reality road where I understand all of these things in context to reality not in some gloom and doom scenario where we were told we were loosing before the first boots hit the ground. I understand how wars work.
Or, you take the road where you pretend, and write to yourself that you take the "reality" road.

Huh, the entire Europe (and that includes the majority of the UK), that's half the western world. Canada, Australia as well, and half the US, which strangely includes the universities in terms of quality. Think that someone is so far out of touch with reality, it is damaging the whole structure, there, and ultimatly (by doing damage there), here. As far as war understanding goes, they are still there. Tons of generals (does this means that the pentagon has bad generals? lol) have said that much different tactics (like tons of troops) were needed, and have in a masterful diplomatic stroke managed to convert this:


Quote: A rare occurrence of a 5-country multinational fleet, during Operation Enduring Freedom in the Oman Sea.
Into being a bit of joke really.

I'm not sure I understood most of that. It appears to be some foreign language translated.

Anyway - regarding Depleted Uranium - there is 0% chance of any traces of Plutonium showing up in it - LMAO. You say you know your science - well, you've just poven otherwise. Where on Earth did you ever hear such nonsense?

Depleted Uranium is Uranium which has been depleted of it's radioactive isotopes and is no more radioactive than common dirt. The only threat it poses - which is minimal - is due to it being a heavy metal. Being a ehavy metal if it is ingested, it can cause long term health problems because it tends not to pass through the system but rather to reside there. However, I don't think most pople go around eating depleted Uranium or breathing it in.

Plutonium, on the other hand, is an extremely radioactive man made element which is the result of nuclear fission. the only way plutonium can be produced is as a byproduct of a nuclear reaction from highly enriched Uranium - which is pretty much the opposite of depleted Uranium.

the only reason depleted uranium is used in ordinance is because of it's composition allowing the shells the strength to retain their inertial force and openetrate heavy armor.

depleted Uranium poses no significant health risk.

You are wrong - and if you were to be a gentleman about it - you'd admit as much like I do when I am wrong - which I actually have been once or twice.

[Chingu]

Suheil wrote: The American wrote: Suheil wrote: Chingu


Quote: the point, of course, being, that the modern world has no place for folks that kill innocent people intentionally for political purposes. We have no place for folks who want to assert an evil ideology of tyranny and oppression on everyone else at the point of a sword and will behead innocent civilians in order to terrorize others into complicity. They have not evolved to the level that much of the rest of the world has where we have found ways to live alongside one another without murdering each other.

The twilight zone

600,000 deaths of sanctions
The heavy use of DU, WP and Daises
The rise of cancer to 4 folds in southern Iraq
The raising of Falluja, Talafar, Qaem, and 8 more Iraqi towns
The death of 655,000 Iraqis as a consequence of an illegal war based on spins and lies
The dismantling of Iraq
Factionalism
Civil war

And still taking the highroad?
Flatlander

Suheil, your conclusions and statements are without merit, unless you provide a reference on how you arrived at these conclusions. You quote them as fact, as I dispute them. Give me reference and I will take it apart. Give me your facts. Or do expect for me to believe them at your say so?

Trig.

Quote: Suheil, your conclusions and statements are without merit, unless you provide a reference on how you arrived at these conclusions. You quote them as fact, as I dispute them. Give me reference and I will take it apart. Give me your facts. Or do expect for me to believe them at your say so?

Trig.

The twilight zone

600,000 deaths of sanctions (read UN report on sanctions)
The heavy use of DU, WP and Daises (read, see and weep

http://www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie/VISIE/extremedeformities.html

P.S. warning not fit for humans, only for those who think "s**t happens"!

http://www.robert-fisk.com/depleted_uranium_links.htm

The rise of cancer to 4 folds in southern Iraq
The raising of Falluja, Talafar, Qaem, and 8 more Iraqi towns

The death of 655,000 Iraqis as a consequence of an illegal war based on spins and lies

The dismantling of Iraq (the Lancet Report)

Factionalism (read about democracy farce)
Civil war (read major news networks)

And still taking the highroad?
Flatlander

I think you really ought to be bright enough to understand that you've lost this argument. Your numbers and ideas are all from non-credible sources and have no merit in truth.

[Chingu]

Dookiestix wrote: Chingu wrote: Dookiestix wrote: It just doesn't matter how much cherry picking one wishes to do in some blind attempt to justify this war. The violence only escalates as the dynamic continues to change, and people are just getting slaughtered in the streets of Baghdad.

This shouldn't be about good news/bad news anymore.

This should be about the news that's necessary to get us the hell out.

I'm tired of excuses from those who continue to support this war.

Lumina wrote: One blessing for the Iraqis is that now they're developing an infrastructure they lacked. Schools are open. The free press flourishes.
I guess good news doesn't sell papers....
What infrastructure? The one the insurgency keeps blowing up? What free press? The one where papers are getting shut down because the editors are getting murdered by the insurgency?

This detachment from reality only excacerbates the problem.

I think what you are tired of, in all honesty, is the hardship of having to deal with a serious situation.

Getting the hell out, as you put it accomplishes what?

I've already educated you as to what that would accomplish but you seem unconcerned that we would face a far more dangerous world - a much bigger and more brutal fight - and far more death and meyhem if we fail here. Why does that not concern you? Is it because you are only interested in that one more day of peace in your own little world where you can goout to dinner and not get blown up and not have to think about serious global matters? Is one more sip of Chablis worth it?
One more ship of Chablis? WTF is wrong with you? :roll:

You've offered ZERO education in every regard. Those who felt as though they were "educating" others who were staunchly against this war from day and one and who called everything that's happening today have no place to even suggest that they are educators.

Bullsh!tters is a much more appropriate description. And you do that well.

Well, no one called everything that's happened in Iraq. not a single soul. That's just an outright fib.

Furthermore, I offer quite a bit of insight into reality. some accept that others refuse to learn. That, of course, is up to you. No one can force anyone to understand reality - that's up to the individual. I can spell it out a thousand ways from Friday but I can't force you to accept it.

nothing has changed since day one as to the merits of our involvement in Iraq as per my view and my view - while arguable - is based on a realistic assessment of the geopolitical situation of which the United States and our national security - is a part.

And, I do not BS. never have and never will.

You may disagree with my viiews and my points but I ask repeatedly that people argue with honesty and preferrably context and a point.

If someone had called everything that has happened in riaq - which they haven't - that doesn't alter a single thing about what is going on and what we must do going forward and the consequences of any action or lack thereof that we may or may not take.

I will openly admit that I didn't forsee what is going on in Iraq right now. I was pretty convinced that order would be restored without so much a battle. I based that on some assumptions that have been proven inaccurate. one of those faulty assumptions was that Saddam's regime was a house of cards and that whjen toppled, the vast majority of his regimes players would break toward peace and stability rather than be loyalists. I hadn't anticipated that they would be as evil and thugish as they evidently are. I hadn't understood just how terrible the people who worked for Saddam's regime were or the extent to which even low level Saddamists were criminals and unreconcilable. I'll openly admit that. I also did not anticipate that Al Qeada would be bold enough to actually move into the country in substantial numbers. I knew there were Al Qeada there - but I believed that they would be defeated easily. Most of the initial Al Qeada were until bordering nations failed to stop them from infiltrating Iraq.

I did anticipate some sectarian violence - particularly Shiite reprisals for the years of Sunni tyranny - torture and oppression. I did not anticipate it lasting this long as I had believed that it would be put down more swiftly. So, the depth to which some of these anymosities go was misjudged by yours truly.

With that said though, nothing at all changes in the merits of our having gone in - or the need to accomplish the mission at hand. A failure to do so would be far worse than anything that can happen as long as we contain and eventually tamp out the majority of teh violence and allow Iraq enough time to organize and build it's forces, with our help - to bring about relative - acceptable levels of stability so that they can defend a sovereign Iraq against all enemies foreign and domestic.

[Chingu]

Etienne wrote: Chingu wrote: Chingu wrote: rhill230 wrote: Quote: what would you tell an i witness, say a soldier, who claims there is plenty of good happening in iraq?


What would you say if I told you that I just talked to someone who just got back from Iraq not two weeks ago and he said that the country is in total chaos right now?

We can play the "I talked to this guy game" all day.

I would ask him what part of Iraq he served in and I would alos ask him if he saw anything good going on.


but obviously - you haven't talked with anyone who served there reently - because anyoe who had would be able to tell you about some of the progress being made. Isn't difficult to see.

But, I( suppose there are a few who are serving inthe heat of the bad stuff who wouldn't see everything but the violence that they are dealing with.

the point being- you can't dismiss the good stuff.

Etienne wrote: The point being that three years after Bush declared the end of major combat operations in Iraq, we expect good things to be happening. We do not expect Iraq to be on the brink of civil war. We do not expect 3000+ Iraqis to die each month from ethnic violence.

Quote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6141978.stm

The ongoing unrest in Iraq has prompted international calls for Syria and Iran to work with Western powers in seeking an end to sectarian violence there.
The White House has indicated it will consider talking to both countries.

President George W Bush on Monday met members of an expert panel known as the Iraq Study Group, which has been re-evaluating US strategy in Iraq.

UK Prime Minister Tony Blair is also expected to call for Syria and Iran to co-operate in a speech later on Monday.

The UK Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett, has already said the two countries should be part of the solution instead of part of the problem.

The fact that the US and UK have considered involving Iran and Syria in helping Iraq stabilize should indicate to you that things are really *BEEP* up in Iraq right now.

The point is, no we didn't expect it and no one is suggesting that things are going swimmingly in IRaq. What we are suggesting is that the American people as well as the people all over the world are being presented with a biased and disingenuous view of the reality in Iraq when all that view describes is the sensational worst and none of the best. It doesn't even come close to showing the reality there. And the vast majority of people don't actually take the time to find out what is really going on - not even when it is thrust right in front of their faces as it has been here.

You really do not get it...

Major combat operations ended in May 2003. This was more than three years ago. By now, Iraq's infrastructure should be complete for the most part. Iraqis should have electricity, clean drinking water. Schools should have been buillt, roads should have been paved, shops should be open for business.

We should not have to be told about these things BECAUSE WE EXPECT THEM TO HAVE BEEN COMPLETED.

However, we also shouldn't be hearing about the bad things in Iraq...BECAUSE THE BAD THINGS IN IRAQ SHOULDN'T BE HAPPENING. We shouldn't be reading about 3000+ each month Iraqis killed due to ethnic violence. We shouldn't be reading about Iraq on the verge of a civil war.

But we are hearing about these bad things. And this should indicate to you that Iraq is going very badly.

If nothing, then explain why the US would consider involving Iran and Syria in stabilizing Iraq. We are fighting a war against terrorism, and Bush is considering seeking support from two countries that support terrorism.

Quote: Now, I challenge anyone here to go back throughout the history of humanity and find me a war where everything went well and no one died and guns were not fired and bombs didn't blow up and innocent pople didn't die. You won't find one. War is nasty terrrible and tragic. but, sometimes, it is a better alternative than what could be. That is the case here and now in Iraq.

Germany & Japan after WWII.

The war in Iraq ended in May 2003, after Bush declared the end to major combat operations. Remember the big banner that said "Mission Accomplished?"

Or do you think it is a really good idea to have civilian contractors rebuild schools in the middle of a war?

Do you have any idea the size of the task you're talking about? yuou expect it to be completed? I sure as hell don't. I'm amazed every day at how much work HAS been accomplished consiodering the circumstances and the scale.

And, the reality is that there is bad and good going on in Iraq but we are only hearing about the bad. What that indicates to me is a lazy and complicit media with the socialist left that is all about peace at any cost - meaning they will sacrafice freedom, th future and whatever else they must in order to buy another day of peace.

What it indicates to me is that the left and the media - which has failed entirely in its job in Iraq - isn't worth spit because I know the truth and the media isn't reporting all of it - only the part that fits their obstructionist, appeasing, terrorist enabling and supporting, anti-American, pro-evil, fk fest of an agenda.

[Chingu]

Dookiestix wrote: The American wrote: Dookiestix wrote: The American wrote: Dookiestix wrote: Chingu wrote: Dookiestix wrote: It just doesn't matter how much cherry picking one wishes to do in some blind attempt to justify this war. The violence only escalates as the dynamic continues to change, and people are just getting slaughtered in the streets of Baghdad.

This shouldn't be about good news/bad news anymore.

This should be about the news that's necessary to get us the hell out.

I'm tired of excuses from those who continue to support this war.

Lumina wrote: One blessing for the Iraqis is that now they're developing an infrastructure they lacked. Schools are open. The free press flourishes.
I guess good news doesn't sell papers....
What infrastructure? The one the insurgency keeps blowing up? What free press? The one where papers are getting shut down because the editors are getting murdered by the insurgency?

This detachment from reality only excacerbates the problem.

I think what you are tired of, in all honesty, is the hardship of having to deal with a serious situation.

Getting the hell out, as you put it accomplishes what?

I've already educated you as to what that would accomplish but you seem unconcerned that we would face a far more dangerous world - a much bigger and more brutal fight - and far more death and meyhem if we fail here. Why does that not concern you? Is it because you are only interested in that one more day of peace in your own little world where you can goout to dinner and not get blown up and not have to think about serious global matters? Is one more sip of Chablis worth it?
One more ship of Chablis? WTF is wrong with you? :roll:

You've offered ZERO education in every regard. Those who felt as though they were "educating" others who were staunchly against this war from day and one and who called everything that's happening today have no place to even suggest that they are educators.

Bullsh!tters is a much more appropriate description. And you do that well.

I wonder.............

Do you think life would be just a piece of cake, if we packed our bags and came home? Would that solve or create more problems? Or would you even worry about it? Sure you would hear in the weeks to come of countless Iraqis being slaughtered as animals, but it would not matter? As our brave men would be home, and you would be eating cake and Chablis until it came your time to pay for your sinful way of life? (Catagorized by the extreme Radical Religious view holder?)

Maybe just don't think about it. Because your children and or grandchildren will be dealing with it on a more extreme level. Have you even thought of the consequences of returning without finishing the job? Someone will have to do it. Do we deal now, or wait until it gets worse? Put it off for the next generation.

:wink:
First of all, I can't stand Chablis. Perhaps in your next sad attempt at making a point about elitism, try using a better, more popular wine. Perhaps a Pinot Noir, or maybe even a Merlot.

Secondly, your black and white approach solves nothing. It's the yptical, rightwing knee-jerk reaction to those who are against this war and want our troops out as soon as humanly possible. The region is already destabilized no thanx to Bush, and the slaughter has only gotten worse while we are still there. In other words, we are ineffective in stopping this bloodshed. Republicans are leaving close to half a trillion dollars in appropriations bills and other messes for Democrats to deal with, so I would suspect that the GOP know something about leaving their problems for others to have to deal with, whether it be our children, our grandchildren, or the incoming Democratic majority. Hearing you lecture about this is quite humorous.

Oh, I'm also not a big fan of "cake." But you go right ahead and keep clinging to your worthless labels if it makes you feel better.

Black and white huh? Would you possibly mean right and wrong? Actually, straight to the point, that is my view. Color is not a priority. However, since color is a point for you, would you like to elaborate on the gray? What would be your reaction over the consequences of pulling out? Would you shoulder the responsibility of that decision, or would you blame others for your decision not to finish the job?
Oh, so now it's me who has to "shoulder the responsibility" of what would happen if we left?

That makes absolutely no sense. Have you shouldered the responsibility yet of backing this war yet? All those U.S. and Iraqi deaths?

Where's the responsibility and accountability in that?

The more the rightwingers spin this, the less sense they inevitably make. You are yet another case in point.

I will certainly shoulder the responsibility. I will stand up for it - stand in support of it and continue to do so until the mission - which is an honorable and noble one is successfully completed.

On the other hand, there are those with your view who still have not addressed the consequences of leaving were we to leave - which we aren't about to until the mission is completed successfully.

You keep on talking about it - but you don't even address what the reults of that decision would be. Why is that?

[Omega1]

Quote: And, the reality is that there is bad and good going on in Iraq but we are only hearing about the bad.

Fox News reports the same stuff.

[Dookiestix]

Chingu wrote: Dookiestix wrote: The American wrote: Dookiestix wrote: The American wrote: Dookiestix wrote: Chingu wrote: Dookiestix wrote: It just doesn't matter how much cherry picking one wishes to do in some blind attempt to justify this war. The violence only escalates as the dynamic continues to change, and people are just getting slaughtered in the streets of Baghdad.

This shouldn't be about good news/bad news anymore.

This should be about the news that's necessary to get us the hell out.

I'm tired of excuses from those who continue to support this war.

Lumina wrote: One blessing for the Iraqis is that now they're developing an infrastructure they lacked. Schools are open. The free press flourishes.
I guess good news doesn't sell papers....
What infrastructure? The one the insurgency keeps blowing up? What free press? The one where papers are getting shut down because the editors are getting murdered by the insurgency?

This detachment from reality only excacerbates the problem.

I think what you are tired of, in all honesty, is the hardship of having to deal with a serious situation.

Getting the hell out, as you put it accomplishes what?

I've already educated you as to what that would accomplish but you seem unconcerned that we would face a far more dangerous world - a much bigger and more brutal fight - and far more death and meyhem if we fail here. Why does that not concern you? Is it because you are only interested in that one more day of peace in your own little world where you can goout to dinner and not get blown up and not have to think about serious global matters? Is one more sip of Chablis worth it?
One more ship of Chablis? WTF is wrong with you? :roll:

You've offered ZERO education in every regard. Those who felt as though they were "educating" others who were staunchly against this war from day and one and who called everything that's happening today have no place to even suggest that they are educators.

Bullsh!tters is a much more appropriate description. And you do that well.

I wonder.............

Do you think life would be just a piece of cake, if we packed our bags and came home? Would that solve or create more problems? Or would you even worry about it? Sure you would hear in the weeks to come of countless Iraqis being slaughtered as animals, but it would not matter? As our brave men would be home, and you would be eating cake and Chablis until it came your time to pay for your sinful way of life? (Catagorized by the extreme Radical Religious view holder?)

Maybe just don't think about it. Because your children and or grandchildren will be dealing with it on a more extreme level. Have you even thought of the consequences of returning without finishing the job? Someone will have to do it. Do we deal now, or wait until it gets worse? Put it off for the next generation.

:wink:
First of all, I can't stand Chablis. Perhaps in your next sad attempt at making a point about elitism, try using a better, more popular wine. Perhaps a Pinot Noir, or maybe even a Merlot.

Secondly, your black and white approach solves nothing. It's the yptical, rightwing knee-jerk reaction to those who are against this war and want our troops out as soon as humanly possible. The region is already destabilized no thanx to Bush, and the slaughter has only gotten worse while we are still there. In other words, we are ineffective in stopping this bloodshed. Republicans are leaving close to half a trillion dollars in appropriations bills and other messes for Democrats to deal with, so I would suspect that the GOP know something about leaving their problems for others to have to deal with, whether it be our children, our grandchildren, or the incoming Democratic majority. Hearing you lecture about this is quite humorous.

Oh, I'm also not a big fan of "cake." But you go right ahead and keep clinging to your worthless labels if it makes you feel better.

Black and white huh? Would you possibly mean right and wrong? Actually, straight to the point, that is my view. Color is not a priority. However, since color is a point for you, would you like to elaborate on the gray? What would be your reaction over the consequences of pulling out? Would you shoulder the responsibility of that decision, or would you blame others for your decision not to finish the job?
Oh, so now it's me who has to "shoulder the responsibility" of what would happen if we left?

That makes absolutely no sense. Have you shouldered the responsibility yet of backing this war yet? All those U.S. and Iraqi deaths?

Where's the responsibility and accountability in that?

The more the rightwingers spin this, the less sense they inevitably make. You are yet another case in point.

I will certainly shoulder the responsibility. I will stand up for it - stand in support of it and continue to do so until the mission - which is an honorable and noble one is successfully completed.

On the other hand, there are those with your view who still have not addressed the consequences of leaving were we to leave - which we aren't about to until the mission is completed successfully.

You keep on talking about it - but you don't even address what the reults of that decision would be. Why is that?
Because I already have, and you refuse to listen.

You are still another case in point.

[Suheil]

Chingu wrote: Suheil wrote: The American wrote: Suheil wrote: Chingu


Quote: the point, of course, being, that the modern world has no place for folks that kill innocent people intentionally for political purposes. We have no place for folks who want to assert an evil ideology of tyranny and oppression on everyone else at the point of a sword and will behead innocent civilians in order to terrorize others into complicity. They have not evolved to the level that much of the rest of the world has where we have found ways to live alongside one another without murdering each other.

The twilight zone

600,000 deaths of sanctions
The heavy use of DU, WP and Daises
The rise of cancer to 4 folds in southern Iraq
The raising of Falluja, Talafar, Qaem, and 8 more Iraqi towns
The death of 655,000 Iraqis as a consequence of an illegal war based on spins and lies
The dismantling of Iraq
Factionalism
Civil war

And still taking the highroad?
Flatlander

Suheil, your conclusions and statements are without merit, unless you provide a reference on how you arrived at these conclusions. You quote them as fact, as I dispute them. Give me reference and I will take it apart. Give me your facts. Or do expect for me to believe them at your say so?

Trig.

Quote: Suheil, your conclusions and statements are without merit, unless you provide a reference on how you arrived at these conclusions. You quote them as fact, as I dispute them. Give me reference and I will take it apart. Give me your facts. Or do expect for me to believe them at your say so?

Trig.

The twilight zone

600,000 deaths of sanctions (read UN report on sanctions)
The heavy use of DU, WP and Daises (read, see and weep

http://www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie/VISIE/extremedeformities.html

P.S. warning not fit for humans, only for those who think "s**t happens"!

http://www.robert-fisk.com/depleted_uranium_links.htm

The rise of cancer to 4 folds in southern Iraq
The raising of Falluja, Talafar, Qaem, and 8 more Iraqi towns

The death of 655,000 Iraqis as a consequence of an illegal war based on spins and lies

The dismantling of Iraq (the Lancet Report)

Factionalism (read about democracy farce)
Civil war (read major news networks)

And still taking the highroad?
Flatlander

I think you really ought to be bright enough to understand that you've lost this argument. Your numbers and ideas are all from non-credible sources and have no merit in truth.

I already called you flatlander, a singularity that does not see the truth if it hits on the face. The UN, Lancet, studies on DU, photos of disfigured Iraqi children and common knowledge do not tilt the scale. The US had lost the plot and waiting for the undertaker. Get over it.

[Etienne]

Chingu wrote: Etienne wrote: Chingu wrote: Chingu wrote: rhill230 wrote: Quote: what would you tell an i witness, say a soldier, who claims there is plenty of good happening in iraq?


What would you say if I told you that I just talked to someone who just got back from Iraq not two weeks ago and he said that the country is in total chaos right now?

We can play the "I talked to this guy game" all day.

I would ask him what part of Iraq he served in and I would alos ask him if he saw anything good going on.


but obviously - you haven't talked with anyone who served there reently - because anyoe who had would be able to tell you about some of the progress being made. Isn't difficult to see.

But, I( suppose there are a few who are serving inthe heat of the bad stuff who wouldn't see everything but the violence that they are dealing with.

the point being- you can't dismiss the good stuff.

Etienne wrote: The point being that three years after Bush declared the end of major combat operations in Iraq, we expect good things to be happening. We do not expect Iraq to be on the brink of civil war. We do not expect 3000+ Iraqis to die each month from ethnic violence.

Quote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6141978.stm

The ongoing unrest in Iraq has prompted international calls for Syria and Iran to work with Western powers in seeking an end to sectarian violence there.
The White House has indicated it will consider talking to both countries.

President George W Bush on Monday met members of an expert panel known as the Iraq Study Group, which has been re-evaluating US strategy in Iraq.

UK Prime Minister Tony Blair is also expected to call for Syria and Iran to co-operate in a speech later on Monday.

The UK Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett, has already said the two countries should be part of the solution instead of part of the problem.

The fact that the US and UK have considered involving Iran and Syria in helping Iraq stabilize should indicate to you that things are really *BEEP* up in Iraq right now.

The point is, no we didn't expect it and no one is suggesting that things are going swimmingly in IRaq. What we are suggesting is that the American people as well as the people all over the world are being presented with a biased and disingenuous view of the reality in Iraq when all that view describes is the sensational worst and none of the best. It doesn't even come close to showing the reality there. And the vast majority of people don't actually take the time to find out what is really going on - not even when it is thrust right in front of their faces as it has been here.

You really do not get it...

Major combat operations ended in May 2003. This was more than three years ago. By now, Iraq's infrastructure should be complete for the most part. Iraqis should have electricity, clean drinking water. Schools should have been buillt, roads should have been paved, shops should be open for business.

We should not have to be told about these things BECAUSE WE EXPECT THEM TO HAVE BEEN COMPLETED.

However, we also shouldn't be hearing about the bad things in Iraq...BECAUSE THE BAD THINGS IN IRAQ SHOULDN'T BE HAPPENING. We shouldn't be reading about 3000+ each month Iraqis killed due to ethnic violence. We shouldn't be reading about Iraq on the verge of a civil war.

But we are hearing about these bad things. And this should indicate to you that Iraq is going very badly.

If nothing, then explain why the US would consider involving Iran and Syria in stabilizing Iraq. We are fighting a war against terrorism, and Bush is considering seeking support from two countries that support terrorism.

Quote: Now, I challenge anyone here to go back throughout the history of humanity and find me a war where everything went well and no one died and guns were not fired and bombs didn't blow up and innocent pople didn't die. You won't find one. War is nasty terrrible and tragic. but, sometimes, it is a better alternative than what could be. That is the case here and now in Iraq.

Germany & Japan after WWII.

The war in Iraq ended in May 2003, after Bush declared the end to major combat operations. Remember the big banner that said "Mission Accomplished?"

Or do you think it is a really good idea to have civilian contractors rebuild schools in the middle of a war?

Do you have any idea the size of the task you're talking about? yuou expect it to be completed? I sure as hell don't. I'm amazed every day at how much work HAS been accomplished consiodering the circumstances and the scale.

How does reconstruction in Iraq compare with post WWII reconstruction?

Again...major combat operations ended in May 2003, more than three years ago. Iraq's reconstruction should, for the most part, be completed by now.

Now the reason the reconstruction hasn't been completed is because of the protracted insurgency...which is the reality of what is happening in Iraq right now.

Quote: And, the reality is that there is bad and good going on in Iraq but we are only hearing about the bad. What that indicates to me is a lazy and complicit media with the socialist left that is all about peace at any cost - meaning they will sacrafice freedom, th future and whatever else they must in order to buy another day of peace.

I guess when you go into the kitchen and turn on the faucet, it is news to you when water comes out.

Well not to me. I expect water to come out of the faucet. However, it is news to me when water doesn't come out of the faucet. I then know there is a problem...one that needs fixing.

3000+ Iraqis killed each month due to ethnic violence indicates to me that there is a problem in Iraq...one that needs fixing.

Now which should the media focus on...what we expect to be happening in Iraq (reconstruction), or what we do not expect to be happening (the protracted insurgency)?

Quote: What it indicates to me is that the left and the media - which has failed entirely in its job in Iraq - isn't worth spit because I know the truth and the media isn't reporting all of it - only the part that fits their obstructionist, appeasing, terrorist enabling and supporting, anti-American, pro-evil, fk fest of an agenda.

Bush is considering seeking support from Iran and Syria, two countries that support terrorism, and yet you still feel the need to attack the left and the media?

[Chingu]

Suheil wrote: Chingu wrote: Suheil wrote: The American wrote: Suheil wrote: Chingu


Quote: the point, of course, being, that the modern world has no place for folks that kill innocent people intentionally for political purposes. We have no place for folks who want to assert an evil ideology of tyranny and oppression on everyone else at the point of a sword and will behead innocent civilians in order to terrorize others into complicity. They have not evolved to the level that much of the rest of the world has where we have found ways to live alongside one another without murdering each other.

The twilight zone

600,000 deaths of sanctions
The heavy use of DU, WP and Daises
The rise of cancer to 4 folds in southern Iraq
The raising of Falluja, Talafar, Qaem, and 8 more Iraqi towns
The death of 655,000 Iraqis as a consequence of an illegal war based on spins and lies
The dismantling of Iraq
Factionalism
Civil war

And still taking the highroad?
Flatlander

Suheil, your conclusions and statements are without merit, unless you provide a reference on how you arrived at these conclusions. You quote them as fact, as I dispute them. Give me reference and I will take it apart. Give me your facts. Or do expect for me to believe them at your say so?

Trig.

Quote: Suheil, your conclusions and statements are without merit, unless you provide a reference on how you arrived at these conclusions. You quote them as fact, as I dispute them. Give me reference and I will take it apart. Give me your facts. Or do expect for me to believe them at your say so?

Trig.

The twilight zone

600,000 deaths of sanctions (read UN report on sanctions)
The heavy use of DU, WP and Daises (read, see and weep

http://www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie/VISIE/extremedeformities.html

P.S. warning not fit for humans, only for those who think "s**t happens"!

http://www.robert-fisk.com/depleted_uranium_links.htm

The rise of cancer to 4 folds in southern Iraq
The raising of Falluja, Talafar, Qaem, and 8 more Iraqi towns

The death of 655,000 Iraqis as a consequence of an illegal war based on spins and lies

The dismantling of Iraq (the Lancet Report)

Factionalism (read about democracy farce)
Civil war (read major news networks)

And still taking the highroad?
Flatlander

I think you really ought to be bright enough to understand that you've lost this argument. Your numbers and ideas are all from non-credible sources and have no merit in truth.

I already called you flatlander, a singularity that does not see the truth if it hits on the face. The UN, Lancet, studies on DU, photos of disfigured Iraqi children and common knowledge do not tilt the scale. The US had lost the plot and waiting for the undertaker. Get over it.

OK then, in the face of truth you still hide behind a lie. At least we know about your lack of character and therefor, need not even respond to you any longer.

[Chingu]

Etienne wrote: Chingu wrote: Etienne wrote: Chingu wrote: Chingu wrote: rhill230 wrote: Quote: what would you tell an i witness, say a soldier, who claims there is plenty of good happening in iraq?


What would you say if I told you that I just talked to someone who just got back from Iraq not two weeks ago and he said that the country is in total chaos right now?

We can play the "I talked to this guy game" all day.

I would ask him what part of Iraq he served in and I would alos ask him if he saw anything good going on.


but obviously - you haven't talked with anyone who served there reently - because anyoe who had would be able to tell you about some of the progress being made. Isn't difficult to see.

But, I( suppose there are a few who are serving inthe heat of the bad stuff who wouldn't see everything but the violence that they are dealing with.

the point being- you can't dismiss the good stuff.

Etienne wrote: The point being that three years after Bush declared the end of major combat operations in Iraq, we expect good things to be happening. We do not expect Iraq to be on the brink of civil war. We do not expect 3000+ Iraqis to die each month from ethnic violence.

Quote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6141978.stm

The ongoing unrest in Iraq has prompted international calls for Syria and Iran to work with Western powers in seeking an end to sectarian violence there.
The White House has indicated it will consider talking to both countries.

President George W Bush on Monday met members of an expert panel known as the Iraq Study Group, which has been re-evaluating US strategy in Iraq.

UK Prime Minister Tony Blair is also expected to call for Syria and Iran to co-operate in a speech later on Monday.

The UK Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett, has already said the two countries should be part of the solution instead of part of the problem.

The fact that the US and UK have considered involving Iran and Syria in helping Iraq stabilize should indicate to you that things are really *BEEP* up in Iraq right now.

The point is, no we didn't expect it and no one is suggesting that things are going swimmingly in IRaq. What we are suggesting is that the American people as well as the people all over the world are being presented with a biased and disingenuous view of the reality in Iraq when all that view describes is the sensational worst and none of the best. It doesn't even come close to showing the reality there. And the vast majority of people don't actually take the time to find out what is really going on - not even when it is thrust right in front of their faces as it has been here.

You really do not get it...

Major combat operations ended in May 2003. This was more than three years ago. By now, Iraq's infrastructure should be complete for the most part. Iraqis should have electricity, clean drinking water. Schools should have been buillt, roads should have been paved, shops should be open for business.

We should not have to be told about these things BECAUSE WE EXPECT THEM TO HAVE BEEN COMPLETED.

However, we also shouldn't be hearing about the bad things in Iraq...BECAUSE THE BAD THINGS IN IRAQ SHOULDN'T BE HAPPENING. We shouldn't be reading about 3000+ each month Iraqis killed due to ethnic violence. We shouldn't be reading about Iraq on the verge of a civil war.

But we are hearing about these bad things. And this should indicate to you that Iraq is going very badly.

If nothing, then explain why the US would consider involving Iran and Syria in stabilizing Iraq. We are fighting a war against terrorism, and Bush is considering seeking support from two countries that support terrorism.

Quote: Now, I challenge anyone here to go back throughout the history of humanity and find me a war where everything went well and no one died and guns were not fired and bombs didn't blow up and innocent pople didn't die. You won't find one. War is nasty terrrible and tragic. but, sometimes, it is a better alternative than what could be. That is the case here and now in Iraq.

Germany & Japan after WWII.

The war in Iraq ended in May 2003, after Bush declared the end to major combat operations. Remember the big banner that said "Mission Accomplished?"

Or do you think it is a really good idea to have civilian contractors rebuild schools in the middle of a war?

Do you have any idea the size of the task you're talking about? yuou expect it to be completed? I sure as hell don't. I'm amazed every day at how much work HAS been accomplished consiodering the circumstances and the scale.

How does reconstruction in Iraq compare with post WWII reconstruction?

Again...major combat operations ended in May 2003, more than three years ago. Iraq's reconstruction should, for the most part, be completed by now.

Now the reason the reconstruction hasn't been completed is because of the protracted insurgency...which is the reality of what is happening in Iraq right now.

Quote: And, the reality is that there is bad and good going on in Iraq but we are only hearing about the bad. What that indicates to me is a lazy and complicit media with the socialist left that is all about peace at any cost - meaning they will sacrafice freedom, th future and whatever else they must in order to buy another day of peace.

I guess when you go into the kitchen and turn on the faucet, it is news to you when water comes out.

Well not to me. I expect water to come out of the faucet. However, it is news to me when water doesn't come out of the faucet. I then know there is a problem...one that needs fixing.

3000+ Iraqis killed each month due to ethnic violence indicates to me that there is a problem in Iraq...one that needs fixing.

Now which should the media focus on...what we expect to be happening in Iraq (reconstruction), or what we do not expect to be happening (the protracted insurgency)?

Quote: What it indicates to me is that the left and the media - which has failed entirely in its job in Iraq - isn't worth spit because I know the truth and the media isn't reporting all of it - only the part that fits their obstructionist, appeasing, terrorist enabling and supporting, anti-American, pro-evil, fk fest of an agenda.

Bush is considering seeking support from Iran and Syria, two countries that support terrorism, and yet you still feel the need to attack the left and the media?

Let me try this one more time and then I will give up on you folks because it is worthless trying to provide a responsible perspective to people who aren't responsible.

War has bad things happen in it. People die in wars; that is nothing new. It has happened in all wars. It is happening in this war. Because people are dying doesn't mean that the war isn't worth it, lost, or even going in the wrong direction. And everything, war, life, every moment is fluid time. There are bad and good things happening in Iraq. We are only getting one side of the picture out of our irresponsible media. that is inexcusable. The left and the compicit media have an agenda against this war. They are doing their damnedest to omit the other side of the picture. The rhetoric from the media and the left is influencing by providing hope and moral support to the enemy. They depend on our loosing our will. That is a substantial reason why they continue to fight and not surrender. If they lost hope in that - they would become demoralized and possibly give up - but, the left hasn't even provided that opportunity because it is so eager to declare a loss for America, and the free world and capitulate to the desires of terrorists. Wonderful job guys.

The coalition military hasn't lost a single engagement. In fact, they have won every one in a very lopsided way. It is difficult work getting rid of people who are hiding behind civilians and planting bombs at night or blowing themselves up. But we are causing a lot more hardship for them than they are for anyone else.

Of course, we don't hear about our successes in killing and capturing them nearly as much as we should. We don't hear about the many interdictions/preventions we achieve.

And, regarding the sectarian violence, this is mostly being left to the Iraqis to deal with. Just today, Iraqi Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish leaders put out a joint statement calling for the end of sectarian violence. It is difficult work, but it can and will happen that the violence is rendered inconsequential to Iraqs over all stability - if only there were the will. But, rather than having strength and seeing this through, the left chooses to empower the enemy, demoralize and obstruct the coalition and, at every turn, to undermine the operation.

And, if we fail - If we fail to support the Iraqi leadership up to the point that they can deal with these problems, Iraq will surely fall into the hands of the violent Jihadists. Not the secular guys. The Jihadists / terrorists will run roughshod over them - exterminating everything and everyone that stands in their way - and Iraq will fall into a dark sesspool of fundamentalist radical islam - many more people will die and the entire region will spiral out of control as the terorist/jihadists supported by Iran work toward establishing the Caliphate and then - ultimately - coming after us all.

The left - folks like yourself and many others on this BBS - don't even deal with that consequence. It is unacceptable not to deal with that very, very possible potential consequence.

Also - if we fail here - the United States and the free world loose all credibility for many years to come for failing to live up to our word. We will fall back into the weakened state we were, post Vietnam, where the world at large considers the United States inept, a paper tiger and incapable of committing to a cause and seeing it through. The entire world including N. Korea, China, Russia will see the United States as a weakened entity and they will fill the void by forcing important issues - taking advantage of our weakenss and lack of will - and all of that can easily lead to the entire world spiraling into an unstable and fractious reality that then could easily lead to vast and prolific wars of terrifying proportions.

So if that's what you want - all you lefties - you might just get it. And you're doing everything in your power toward that end.

[Etienne]

Chingu wrote: Etienne wrote: Chingu wrote: Etienne wrote: Chingu wrote: Chingu wrote: rhill230 wrote: Quote: what would you tell an i witness, say a soldier, who claims there is plenty of good happening in iraq?


What would you say if I told you that I just talked to someone who just got back from Iraq not two weeks ago and he said that the country is in total chaos right now?

We can play the "I talked to this guy game" all day.

I would ask him what part of Iraq he served in and I would alos ask him if he saw anything good going on.


but obviously - you haven't talked with anyone who served there reently - because anyoe who had would be able to tell you about some of the progress being made. Isn't difficult to see.

But, I( suppose there are a few who are serving inthe heat of the bad stuff who wouldn't see everything but the violence that they are dealing with.

the point being- you can't dismiss the good stuff.

Etienne wrote: The point being that three years after Bush declared the end of major combat operations in Iraq, we expect good things to be happening. We do not expect Iraq to be on the brink of civil war. We do not expect 3000+ Iraqis to die each month from ethnic violence.

Quote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6141978.stm

The ongoing unrest in Iraq has prompted international calls for Syria and Iran to work with Western powers in seeking an end to sectarian violence there.
The White House has indicated it will consider talking to both countries.

President George W Bush on Monday met members of an expert panel known as the Iraq Study Group, which has been re-evaluating US strategy in Iraq.

UK Prime Minister Tony Blair is also expected to call for Syria and Iran to co-operate in a speech later on Monday.

The UK Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett, has already said the two countries should be part of the solution instead of part of the problem.

The fact that the US and UK have considered involving Iran and Syria in helping Iraq stabilize should indicate to you that things are really *BEEP* up in Iraq right now.

The point is, no we didn't expect it and no one is suggesting that things are going swimmingly in IRaq. What we are suggesting is that the American people as well as the people all over the world are being presented with a biased and disingenuous view of the reality in Iraq when all that view describes is the sensational worst and none of the best. It doesn't even come close to showing the reality there. And the vast majority of people don't actually take the time to find out what is really going on - not even when it is thrust right in front of their faces as it has been here.

You really do not get it...

Major combat operations ended in May 2003. This was more than three years ago. By now, Iraq's infrastructure should be complete for the most part. Iraqis should have electricity, clean drinking water. Schools should have been buillt, roads should have been paved, shops should be open for business.

We should not have to be told about these things BECAUSE WE EXPECT THEM TO HAVE BEEN COMPLETED.

However, we also shouldn't be hearing about the bad things in Iraq...BECAUSE THE BAD THINGS IN IRAQ SHOULDN'T BE HAPPENING. We shouldn't be reading about 3000+ each month Iraqis killed due to ethnic violence. We shouldn't be reading about Iraq on the verge of a civil war.

But we are hearing about these bad things. And this should indicate to you that Iraq is going very badly.

If nothing, then explain why the US would consider involving Iran and Syria in stabilizing Iraq. We are fighting a war against terrorism, and Bush is considering seeking support from two countries that support terrorism.

Quote: Now, I challenge anyone here to go back throughout the history of humanity and find me a war where everything went well and no one died and guns were not fired and bombs didn't blow up and innocent pople didn't die. You won't find one. War is nasty terrrible and tragic. but, sometimes, it is a better alternative than what could be. That is the case here and now in Iraq.

Germany & Japan after WWII.

The war in Iraq ended in May 2003, after Bush declared the end to major combat operations. Remember the big banner that said "Mission Accomplished?"

Or do you think it is a really good idea to have civilian contractors rebuild schools in the middle of a war?

Do you have any idea the size of the task you're talking about? yuou expect it to be completed? I sure as hell don't. I'm amazed every day at how much work HAS been accomplished consiodering the circumstances and the scale.

How does reconstruction in Iraq compare with post WWII reconstruction?

Again...major combat operations ended in May 2003, more than three years ago. Iraq's reconstruction should, for the most part, be completed by now.

Now the reason the reconstruction hasn't been completed is because of the protracted insurgency...which is the reality of what is happening in Iraq right now.

Quote: And, the reality is that there is bad and good going on in Iraq but we are only hearing about the bad. What that indicates to me is a lazy and complicit media with the socialist left that is all about peace at any cost - meaning they will sacrafice freedom, th future and whatever else they must in order to buy another day of peace.

I guess when you go into the kitchen and turn on the faucet, it is news to you when water comes out.

Well not to me. I expect water to come out of the faucet. However, it is news to me when water doesn't come out of the faucet. I then know there is a problem...one that needs fixing.

3000+ Iraqis killed each month due to ethnic violence indicates to me that there is a problem in Iraq...one that needs fixing.

Now which should the media focus on...what we expect to be happening in Iraq (reconstruction), or what we do not expect to be happening (the protracted insurgency)?

Quote: What it indicates to me is that the left and the media - which has failed entirely in its job in Iraq - isn't worth spit because I know the truth and the media isn't reporting all of it - only the part that fits their obstructionist, appeasing, terrorist enabling and supporting, anti-American, pro-evil, fk fest of an agenda.

Bush is considering seeking support from Iran and Syria, two countries that support terrorism, and yet you still feel the need to attack the left and the media?

Let me try this one more time and then I will give up on you folks because it is worthless trying to provide a responsible perspective to people who aren't responsible.

The Bush Administration has yet to accept responsibility for the mess that is now Iraq. However, rather than hold them responsible, you attack the left and the media.

This is not providing a responsible perspective. This is providing partisan rhetoric.

Quote: War has bad things happen in it. Poeple die in wars. that is nothing new. It's happened in all wars. It is happening in this war. Because people are dying doesn't mean that the war isn;t worh it, lost or even going in the wrong direction. And everything, war, life, every moment is fluid time. there are bad and good things happening in Iraq. We are only getting one side of the picture out of our irresponsible media. that is inexcusable. The left and the compicit media have an agenda against this war. They are doing their damnddest to omit the other side of the picture. The rhetoric from the media and the left is influencing and giving hope and moral support to the enemy. They depend on us loosing will. That is a substantial reason why they continue to fight and not surrender. If they lost hope in that - they would become demoralized and possibly give up - but the left hasn't even provided that opportunity because it is so eager to declare a loss for America, and the free world and capitulate to the desires of terrorists. Wonderful job guys.

News flash...the war in Iraq ended in May 2003, more than three years ago. At least that was when Bush declared the end of major combat operations.

Quote: The coalition military hasn't lost a single engagement. In fact, they have won every one in a very lopsided way. It is difficult work getting rid of people who are hiding behind civilians and planting bombs at night or blowing themselves up. But we are causing a lot more hardship for them than they are for anyone else.

The very same could be said about Vietnam...and in the end we pulled out, and the North overran the South.

The same goes for the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

It is difficult, if not impossible, to win these types of conflicts.

Quote: Of course, we don't hear about our successes in killing them and captuiring them nearly as much as we should.

Sure we do.
We hear about them in Iraq.

We hear about them in Afghanistan.

Quote: And regarding the setarian violence, this is mostly being left to the IRaqis to deal with. Just today, Iraqi Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish leaders put out a joint statement calling for the end of sectarian violence. It is difficult work, but it can and will happen that the violence is rendered inept at causing any real strife - relative to Iraqi overall stability if only there were the will. But rather than having strength and seeing this through, the left chooses to empower the enemy, demoralize and obstruct the coalition and at every turn - to undermine the operation.

If the sectarian violence is being mostly left to the Iraqis, then why are we there?

Quote: And if we fail. If we fail to support the IRaqi leadership up to the point that they can deal with these problems, Iraq will surely fall into the hands of the violent Jihadists. Not the secular guys. The Jihadists / terrorists will run roughshod over them - exterminating everything and everyone that stands in their way - and Iraq will fall into a dark sesspool of fundamentalist radical islam - many more people will die and the entire region will spiral out of control as the terorist/jihadists supported by Iran work toward establishing he Caliphate and then - ultimately - coming after us all.

News flash...Jihadists are currently a part of Iraq's government.

This was the risk of having elections in Iraq. Shiites, making up 60% of Iraq's population, would most likely dominate Iraq's elections.

Quote: But the left - folks like yourself and many others on this BBS - don't even deal with that consequence. It is unacceptable not to deal with that very, very possible potential consequence.

People like me warned of the consequences BEFORE the invasion. But now that Iraq has turned into a mess, it is somehow our responsibility to clean it up.

Quote: Also - if we fail here - the United States and the free world loose all credibility for many years to come for failing to live up to our word. We will fall back into the weakened state we were post Vietnam where the world at large considers the United States inept, a paper tiger and incapable of committing to a cause and seeing it through. The entire world including N. Korea, China, Russia will see the United States as a weakened entity and they will fill the void by forcing important issues. taking advantage of our weakenss and lack of will -and all of that can easily lead to the entire world spiralling into an unstable and fractious reality that then could easily lead to vast and prolific wars of terrifying proportions.

News flash...the US has already lost credibility. We lost credibility when WMD failed to materialize in Iraq.

China is viewed more favorably than the US in many countries around the world.

Quote: So if that's what you want - all you lefties - you might just get it. And you're doing everything in your power toward that end.

No Chingu, it's not what we want. It is what we warned would happen.

[Trajan]

Etienne wrote:
No Chingu, it's not what we want. It is what we warned would happen. :clap:

And I wish we were wrong.

[Proton]

Quote: War has bad things happen in it. Poeple die in wars. that is nothing new. It's happened in all wars. It is happening in this war.
Except that this war wouldn't exist in Iraq, if it hadn't happened.
Quote: Also - if we fail here - the United States and the free world loose all credibility for many years to come for failing to live up to our word.
It has lost already. I don't know if you noticed, but neither Europe (and that includes Britain), neither Canada, neither Japan nor I believe Australia believe you "have" any credibility.

How are those secret camps (we can't have just warn porn for the soldier boys, got to have some for the james bond wannabes as well) going on Comrade? Abducted any westerner yet... I mean, again?

Until I see a neural imager, chaos theory based quantum computer predicting it, the problem with murder justified but non-existing timelines, is that they don't exist yet. We have no way of knowing the future when humans play in, someone can only respond to the present. Otherwise he is just someone who is killing, justifying himself that he is preventing some great evil in the future. But in the actual universe for any other third observer, he is just killing.

Japan and Germany are irrelevant examples. In those, the population did have the feeling that it was "his fault", the result of its rightwingers (in order to combat future threats. I mean, Hitler was actually always defending teh German people always) nationalists and anti-liberals running things around. Iraq doesn't have that. Before Al-Quida were some wackos, survivalist militia style, now they are the alternative if you want to resist, have revenge, be a patriot and not an invader appeaser. Iraq is not Japan after WWII, it's a Japan that has just been invaded when never leaving it's borders, because some Asians somewhere else did something.

[Nine_Enigmas]

Alizard wrote: Dookiestix wrote: [Oh, so now it's me who has to "shoulder the responsibility" of what would happen if we left?

That makes absolutely no sense. Have you shouldered the responsibility yet of backing this war yet? All those U.S. and Iraqi deaths?

Where's the responsibility and accountability in that?

The more the rightwingers spin this, the less sense they inevitably make. You are yet another case in point.

I love the "reasoning" coming from that direction......

1) We have totally screwed everything up, despite your loud objections not to do it.

2) We don't know how to fix it.

3) It is taking all the available US forces to keep civilian dead down to 4000 per month.

4) We are afraid if we reduce troop levels that number will go up and make it harder to lie about the number of civilian dead.

5) Regardless of all that..... if anybody does anything other than to continue to put every available US soldier on the street, we will then blame them for everything.

Hard to argue with logic like that.... :lol:

Well, it's hard for most authoritarians to argue with logic, period.

We will attempt to find ownership for them in a purely logical format.

Observe.

Predicate - we begin with two Sets, Set P (Pro-War), Set A (Anti-War). Also there exists a complex function member called I (Iraq War) with subset C, which I have "truncated" or more accurately ignored, because the scope of that function exceeds the universe of our discussion.

so let there be

I ∈ P

I ∉ A

That is to say an I exists on P, which does not exit on A

Continued:

Postulate 1:
I |= I{C} ==> C ∈ P, C ∉ A

Or, I necessitates a C on I, thus C is a member of P, but not on A. (Why is C not a member of A? Because no I can exist on A, thus not containing the member, it has no ownership of it's subsets.)

Or that is to say, the Consequences of the Iraq War are owned by the set of Pro-War, while the Consequences of the Iraq War are not owned by the set of Anti-War - the Anti-War doesn't own the Iraq War, thus neither can it own it's Consequences.

So now, let us say that Anti-War discontinue the Iraq War.

Logically speaking, nothing has changed: The set A still can't have any I, and thus no I{...}.

Surprisingly, and this is something I figured out as I was doing this. ~I{C} does not belong to P, some of this is no doubt due to the fact that we are actually dealing with the two different Is - the initiation and continuation - and that I truncated said function for the sake of brevity.

So who does the consequences of discontinuing I really belong to? No doubt, if you examine it even deeper, you will come to the conlusion that it is the unnamed third party in this equation - the Iraqi's themselves - that own the bulk of the results.

We own what we have done, but not what other people do or don't do because of our inaction.

[Timmytour]

Chingu wrote: On the other hand, there are those with your view who still have not addressed the consequences of leaving were we to leave - which we aren't about to until the mission is completed successfully.

You keep on talking about it - but you don't even address what the reults of that decision would be. Why is that?

These are fine words indeed from someone with their head stuck very firmly in the sand who won't contemplate the results of pursuing a flawed policy, let alone the consequences of persisting with it.

Sometimes it's more important to first address the consequences of what you are actually doing and recognise the need to try something different.

If the mission driving your policy is a basically pie-in-the sky one, then change the mission. If there is a solution that offers peace and stability, without the degree of democrcy that has been talked about, would Bush be right to pursue it in your eyes?

Any revised mission now cannot be what it was at the start. Too much damage has been done. For me the mission is to get Iraqis working by themselves to resolve their own problems with as much "diplomatic" help as they need.

One indisputable fact. If the US military withdrew now, then less US soldier would be killed in Iraq, in fact none. And that. in a revised mission, would be the initial success.

Having done that I think a lot of the tension would be taken out of the sectarian issue. America's like a teacher that can't control the classroom. The class will delight in misbehaving just to play up, but once that teacher's gone, it knows that's its excuses have gone and that it needs to knuckle down.

I believe things could get better, but anyway I don't believer that they will get any worse then they will should the US stay. And that to me means that at least US military lives and livelihoods would be spared.

It also means that the US Military is neve put in an awkward position regarding th potential of an Iraqi goverment, at the behest of Iran and Syria, requesting the US army go or even stay as it suits Iranian and Syrian agendas.