[Helmling]

I know, I know...what's left to say?

But I'm all torn up. What a mess we've made of things! Bush and his cronies mismanaged the post-war period and I can't see any other reason for their bungling than the blindness of greed to put our companies in position to reap the oil benefits, and yet...and yet!

They're right now to say that leaving would be a disaster. Powell and Bush Sr. were right that going into Badhdad means we own it.

And the sad thing is that the US military has finally--despite its inept commander in chief--started making progress, but I fear they'll have the rug pulled out from them because the American people have simply lost the will to invest any more blood or money or patience in this foolish endeavor.

Can we really blame the electorate for saying of the surge and whatever gains we might make now: "Too little, too late."

But dammit, we do wrong to leave these people with a mess we created.

Dammit.

[peeb]

The occupation is the mess we created. We need to end it. The continued presence of US troops in Iraq is the cause of the problem.

[besson3c]

There is nothing left that we can accomplish in there. We cannot "fix" this civil war.

[peeb]

Yep. The US lost, at horrendous cost to its own citizens, and those of the region. The best that it can do now is withdraw as quickly as possible and try to support regional or multi-national efforts to control damage and pick up the pieces.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Yep. The US lost, at horrendous cost to its own citizens, and those of the region. The best that it can do now is withdraw as quickly as possible and try to support regional or multi-national efforts to control damage and pick up the pieces.

I've been reading your posts and noticed something interesting. You seem to be suffering from an identity crisis. "The US lost", "its own citizens", "the best it can" do, etc... yet in your first post said; "this is the mess we created", "We need to end it", etc..."

I'm curious for the sake of knowing, are you American or are you not peeb?

If we leave Iraq now, we'll be back and it doesn't matter if the President is an (R) or a (D). Bush Sr. failed to adequately address Iraq and we went back. Clinton failed to adequately address Iraq and we're back. We've continued to return to Iraq through 3 Presidents. What would make anyone believe we'd not simply return to Iraq later? Our actions there have been bungled, but pulling out is not the solution. By pulling out, we'll leave Al Qaeda emboldened with fotter for new recruitment and a nice new plot of land from which to operate. Again, we'd return within two years. Unfortunately, we'll be returning to a stronger enemy and having to re-deploy our military to the region will cost us exponentially more lives to a more prepared enemy.

I find the status of our operations in Iraq extremely disturbing and in fact can see the imperialistic underpinnings of this action, but ask myself; "Is imperialism exclusive to the US?" If not, what then? I'd like to see us engage another surge, a much more visible and apparent surge with as many as we can muster; accomplish a few significant victories and begin pull-out within 12 months. Hey, I'm no military expert. That's just my .02.

[Helmling]

More disturbing:

Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com

When will we learn to stand by principle? This the-enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend crap is what created both Hussein's regime and Al Qaeda.

Yeah, we've got to get out...get out, shore up our military hemorrhaging, get off oil, and start looking to ourselves.

Dammit.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

We cannot "fix" this civil war.

Any objective and fact-based assessment of the situation in Iraq undoubtedly indicates that it is not a civil war. I realize that doesn't jive with the leftist agenda, but it's the truth.

80-90% of all suicide bombings in Iraq are performed by foreign fighters.

Additionally, one of the so-called civil war participants was completely made up. They hired an actor to front a fake, or "virtual" organization meant to convey the impression that the insurgents were Iraqi nationals. Another Al Qaeda prank so eagerly accepted as truth by the defeatists.

The Islamic State of Iraq is a front organization that masks the foreign influence and leadership within al-Qaida in Iraq in an attempt to put an Iraqi face on the leadership of al-Qaida in Iraq.

If it were a civil war, there would be no need to have to utilize foreigners for 80-90% of attacks, nor would there be the need to create a fake organization with an actor hired to play the part of the organization's leader.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

More disturbing:

Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com

When will we learn to stand by principle? This the-enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend crap is what created both Hussein's regime...

... which worked against Iran. Interestingly, Saddam's initial intentions for Iraq were very positive. He was viewed favorably by the Iraqi people. This notion that Saddam was a nothing 'til America came to prop him up is woefully mistaken. He was a military hero and had already attained power of his own accord through the Baath Party.

... and Al Qaeda.

which worked against the Soviet Union.

Yeah, we've got to get out...get out, shore up our military hemorrhaging, get off oil, and start looking to ourselves.

Dammit.

Dammit indeed. If we leave now, we'll be back. No doubt in my mind about it. There is no easy reason nor easy solution and any attempt to frame it in such a simplistic manner is disingenuous IMO. I believe this is being viewed as usual, in terms of left or right, not right or wrong.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Any objective and fact-based assessment of the situation in Iraq undoubtedly indicates that it is not a civil war. I realize that doesn't jive with the leftist agenda, but it's the truth.

80-90% of all suicide bombings in Iraq are performed by foreign fighters.

Additionally, one of the so-called civil war participants was completely made up. They hired an actor to front a fake, or "virtual" organization meant to convey the impression that the insurgents were Iraqi nationals. Another Al Qaeda prank so eagerly accepted as truth by the defeatists.



If it were a civil war, there would be no need to have to utilize foreigners for 80-90% of attacks, nor would there be the need to create a fake organization with an actor hired to play the part of the organization's leader.

You do know that there are Shia, Sunni, and Kurds outside of Iraq, right? Just checking...

[peeb]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You do know that there are Shia, Sunni, and Kurds outside of Iraq, right? Just checking...

That's a really important point, and emphasizes that one of the issues is that Iraq is product of colonialism - in many ways it may not be a very sustainable state at this point. To understand the 'civil war' you have to see it as a war that is taking place both in Iraq and beyond Iraq. Iraq's borders cut across ethnic groups, and regional powers have definite interests in the outcomes.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You do know that there are Shia, Sunni, and Kurds outside of Iraq, right? Just checking...

Then it's not a civil war. A civil war is fought between citizens of the same country. When one side is 80-90% foreigners, that pretty much kills your "Civil War" theory.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Then it's not a civil war. A civil war is fought between citizens of the same country. When one side is 80-90% foreigners, that pretty much kills your "Civil War" theory.

Semantics. The majority of the battling, at least as far as I'm aware, is happening on Iraqi soil. My point remains - there is nothing we as Americans can do to quell this generations old conflict.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Semantics. The majority of the battling, at least as far as I'm aware, is happening on Iraqi soil.

Iraq is the primary front for Al Qaeda, that's why the majority of the fight is being fough on Iraqi soil. The issue is not semantics - it's that many do not know the nature of the conflict. Al Qaeda is fighting to clear our forces out (via a propaganda-fueled US withdrawal) in order to establish a Taliban-like state. And we're fighting to help the Iraqis prevent this.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

My point remains - there is nothing we as Americans can do to quell this generations old conflict.

We can fight Al Qaeda and try to drive them out of the country so that Iraqis could work on it. That would be a start. We could also accurately depict the conflict as the US assiting Iraq in fighting Al Qaeda. Accurate depictions always help.

Speaking of the nature of the conflict, what do you think of this report from the Washington Times... ?

U.S. forces have brokered an agreement between Sunni and Shi'ite tribal leaders to join forces against al Qaeda and other extremists, extending a policy that has transformed the security situation in western Anbar province to this area north of the capital.

Seems like we did a little uniting. That can happen when there is a common enemy (Al Qaeda). If this were an actual "civil war", such agreements wouldn't even be considered.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by spacefreak;3437954Speaking of the nature of the conflict, what do you think of [url=http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070723/FOREIGN/107230051/1001

this report from the Washington Times[/url]... ?

To quote a song lyric some of you may be familiar with...

hopeful yet discontent.

It is refreshing to see positive press however. You can't have Iraqis fighting Iraqis without a civil war. With a population of over 27 million people, we wouldn't be haggling over whether or not they're in a full-blown civil war. It'd be a smidgen more apparent than it is and people should keep this in perspective here. It is still the overwhelming majority of Iraqis regardless of faction, that want peace and prosperity. We need to continue helping the Sunni and Shia against insurgents and against Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda wannabe's.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Iraq is the primary front for Al Qaeda, that's why the majority of the fight is being fough on Iraqi soil.

It is NOW, mainly because that's where the US forces are. They are a lightning rod for everyone who is angry about their global crusade.

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Al Qaeda is fighting to clear our forces out (via a propaganda-fueled US withdrawal) in order to establish a Taliban-like state.

To simplify, there are really two wars going on - one is the one that has popular support, that's the attacks on the US aimed at driving them out of Iraq. The other, which is not supported by most Iraqis is the fight by Al Qaeda to destabilize Iraq, tie down US forces and demoralize the west. By continuing to stay, the US is encouraging this.

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

We can fight Al Qaeda and try to drive them out of the country so that Iraqis could work on it. That would be a start.

The trouble is that it is the presence of the US there that is giving the most recruiting support to Al Qaeda. Let's not forget that they went there because the US was there. It's not true that all of these folks are foreign, nor is it true that most people there see nationality as the primary sense of 'foreign'. The US is singularly failing to 'drive out Al Qaeda', in fact, the insurgency is strengthening - even the US NIR agrees.

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

We could also accurately depict the conflict as the US assiting Iraq in fighting Al Qaeda.

If people believed this, it would certainly be a propaganda win for the Bush Regime, but it simply isn't true. Most Iraqis want the US to leave.

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Seems like we did a little uniting. That can happen when there is a common enemy (Al Qaeda).

The only uniting that the US has done is to unite pretty much everyone who hates global imperialism.

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

If this were an actual "civil war", such agreements wouldn't even be considered.

That is not true at all. Agreements of convenience are common in civil wars.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You can't have Iraqis fighting Iraqis without a civil war.

On this note I completely disagree. We have Americans killing Americans every day.

That this occurs daily in gang-infested, U.S. urban neighborhoods does not mean that the U.S. is in the middle of a civil war.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by peeb 

It is NOW, mainly because that's where the US forces are. They are a lightning rod for everyone who is angry about their global crusade.

To simplify, there are really two wars going on - one is the one that has popular support, that's the attacks on the US aimed at driving them out of Iraq. The other, which is not supported by most Iraqis is the fight by Al Qaeda to destabilize Iraq, tie down US forces and demoralize the west.

The main reason we are still in Iraq with such high numbers of troops is because of Al Qaeda's global crusade. They want to impose a Taliban-esque state on Iraq, and the people or Iraq definitely don't want that. Millions of Iraqis have voted overwhelmingly on multiple occaisions that this is their preference.

You can come up with any poll results you want - it's election day that counts, not a poll of a thousand or two. What their government is - and it's come a very long way - their government is what millions of Iraqis voted for.

This trashes your argument that attacks against US forces is popularly supported. It's not. If it were, millions of Iraqis would be demonstrating all over the place to get us out of there.

Originally Posted by peeb 

The trouble is that it is the presence of the US there that is giving the most recruiting support to Al Qaeda. Let's not forget that they went there because the US was there.

In conjunction with Al Qaeda's propaganda and semi-supporters, this is true.

This is a key component to the post-war troubles of the U.S..

I don't know of anyone who, before the war, offered the scenario of 50,000 foreign trained and funded combatants funnelling into Iraq to create a Taliban-esque state. Yet that is what has happened over the past few years.

The fact of the matter is the situation right now. Bitching that Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and America are at fault does nothing to help resolve the situation.

Originally Posted by peeb 

It's not true that all of these folks are foreign, nor is it true that most people there see nationality as the primary sense of 'foreign'. The US is singularly failing to 'drive out Al Qaeda', in fact, the insurgency is strengthening - even the US NIR agrees.

50% of killed enemy fighters are Saudi, or at least over a recent time period. You'll find countless articles about Saudi fighters in Iraq.

U.S. generals have reported that the combatants are 80-90% foreign. Whose numbers are you trusting more than the military's statistics?

Originally Posted by peeb 

The only uniting that the US has done is to unite pretty much everyone who hates global imperialism.

It's united liberals with terrorists, with the terrorists using liberal-saturated media channels to deliver messages alongside U.S. Democrats.

Liberals have been baited by messages designed to appeal to them (as we all are). By routinely rationalizing the messages they've chosen to absorb, and then propagating those messages futher, their ultimate position is that they passionately want Al Qaeda to defeat the U.S..

[peeb]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

The main reason we are still in Iraq with such high numbers of troops is because of Al Qaeda's global crusade.

We have created the conditions for this activity, and provided the cause to rally around. We are there because we created the conditions for the catastrophe. We need to remove the oxygen for the recruiting effort by pulling out.

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

You can come up with any poll results you want - it's election day that counts, not a poll of a thousand or two. What their government is - and it's come a very long way - their government is what millions of Iraqis voted for.

It's barely the government of the Green Zone at this point.

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

This trashes your argument that attacks against US forces is popularly supported. It's not. If it were, millions of Iraqis would be demonstrating all over the place to get us out of there.

I doubt that they would be 'demonstrating', because it's so dangerous to be in the streets. If you can't see the popular support for a US pullout in Iraq then there's not much point in continuing to engage with you on this.

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

I don't know of anyone who, before the war, offered the scenario of 50,000 foreign trained and funded combatants funnelling into Iraq to create a Taliban-esque state. Yet that is what has happened over the past few years.

That's what comes of ill-informed and ill-thought out foreign policy. Plenty of people warned that the war was ill-advised. Not perhaps in the specific, but in general terms, they certainly did.

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

The fact of the matter is the situation right now. Bitching that Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and America are at fault does nothing to help resolve the situation.

Recognizing that they are culpable for the atrocious mess the US has made and that they are incapable of extricating the US from it is the first step to dealing with the situation.

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

50% of killed enemy fighters are Saudi, or at least over a recent time period. You'll find countless articles about Saudi fighters in Iraq.

I agree - so why is Saudi Arabia our ally? Oh, I forgot. Oil. The fact is that our Middle East strategy is hopeless. I totally agree with you that we need to deal with Saudi Arabia, but we won't do it by raising hell in Iraq.

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

It's united liberals with terrorists, with the terrorists using liberal-saturated media channels to deliver messages alongside U.S. Democrats.

Ah yes, those Gorram Liberals and their friends the terrorists. Please.

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Liberals have been baited by messages designed to appeal to them (as we all are). By routinely rationalizing the messages they've chosen to absorb, and then propagating those messages futher, their ultimate position is that they passionately want Al Qaeda to defeat the U.S..

Well, you've lost any shred of credibility you had with that one. Let's face it, it's the neocons who are defeating the US. Pulling out of a quagmire and adopting a rational middle east policy might just save the US.

[tie]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Any objective and fact-based assessment of the situation in Iraq undoubtedly indicates that it is not a civil war.

But you wouldn't know anything about fact-based assessments of Iraq. You've always lived in fantasyland.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

This trashes your argument that attacks against US forces is popularly supported. It's not. If it were, millions of Iraqis would be demonstrating all over the place to get us out of there.

This is a critical point. In a country of over 27 million people, we wouldn't be haggling over whether or not there's a full-blown civil war. Still, our problem seems to be that we don't have enough Iraqis taking up the fight in this "civil war".

[tie]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

The fact of the matter is the situation right now. Bitching that Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and America are at fault does nothing to help resolve the situation.

Nonsense. If you don't identify the problems, then you'll never find the solution. You'll just "stay the course" forever deeper and deeper.

Have you ever been right on anything about Iraq? Just curious. You seem to be wrong over and over again, and yet you continue posting in these threads. Now you are saying that there is nothing to be learned from our mistakes. Well, certainly you haven't learned anything. Keep looking for those WMDs, spacefreak.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by tie 

Nonsense. If you don't identify the problems, then you'll never find the solution. You'll just "stay the course" forever deeper and deeper.

Wrong. If the roof is leaking, go up there and fix it. Whining about the realtor who sold you the house 6 years ago does nothing to fix the problem.

Originally Posted by tie 

Have you ever been right on anything about Iraq? Just curious. You seem to be wrong over and over again, and yet you continue posting in these threads.

Please post some links to posts where I was wrong. Thanks.

Now you are saying that there is nothing to be learned from our mistakes.

What I said was blaming Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, America does nothing to help the current situation in Iraq. Big difference. Combat-wise, we've learned tons of lessons. Many are being applied successfully in the "Surge". Read some articles about our new tactics... it's impressive.

Keep looking for those WMDs, spacefreak.

Will do. I'd love to let Gore, the Clintons, GWB, and the rest of the officials of the world from the last 15-years off the hook for insisting that Saddam had WMDs.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Wrong. If the roof is leaking, go up there and fix it. Whining about the realtor who sold you the house 6 years ago does nothing to fix the problem.

Unless the realtor is a Democrat, right?

I mean, how else can you explain the several members in here that like to bitch about Bill Clinton?

[peeb]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Wrong. If the roof is leaking, go up there and fix it. Whining about the realtor who sold you the house 6 years ago does nothing to fix the problem.

WTF? How about 'if the roof was never leaking, until you went up there and put a hose pipe on it, take the hose-pipe off the roof, and stop pumping water up onto it'.

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

What I said was blaming Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, America does nothing to help the current situation in Iraq.

As Obama said "getting a bus out of a ditch is more difficult than driving it in, but the first thing you have to do, is fire the driver."

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Combat-wise, we've learned tons of lessons.

But not the main one, which is "we shouldn't even be there'.

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

Will do. I'd love to let Gore, the Clintons, GWB, and the rest of the officials of the world from the last 15-years off the hook for insisting that Saddam had WMDs.

Well for sure let's hold them accountable - let's pull out those Presidential orders they issued sending American troops to their deaths in Iraq for no good reason. Oh, right. They didn't sign any.

[ironknee]

it's all just sad

isn't it? i mean for the last holdouts who still think this was a wise thing to do....i wonder what would be the one thing that would snap them out of this? a draft?

[peeb]

A smack upside the head?

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

50% of killed enemy fighters are Saudi, or at least over a recent time period. You'll find countless articles about Saudi fighters in Iraq.

U.S. generals have reported that the combatants are 80-90% foreign. Whose numbers are you trusting more than the military's statistics?

saudi arabia has been trying to undermine the iraqi gov't for a while. iraq is the new buffer zone between the region's super-powers; iran and saudi arabia, based largely on the sunni/shia divide.

though, speaking of statistics, this article claims that those 50% only number 30-40 a month, which doesn't seem like enough to be fueling all the continued violence there.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/wo...t/27saudi.html

Now, Bush administration officials are voicing increasing anger at what they say has been Saudi Arabia’s counterproductive role in the Iraq war. They say that beyond regarding Mr. Maliki as an Iranian agent, the Saudis have offered financial support to Sunni groups in Iraq. Of an estimated 60 to 80 foreign fighters who enter Iraq each month, American military and intelligence officials say that nearly half are coming from Saudi Arabia and that the Saudis have not done enough to stem the flow.

the other 50%, from iran and syria, seem to be making the majority of the press recently.

e.g. BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iran 'training Iraqi mortar men'

we could count on the saudi's to help in the '90's but not anymore. i'm not sure why we extend any courtesy to them anymore. them and pakistan.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by black bear theory 

we could count on the saudi's to help in the '90's but not anymore. i'm not sure why we extend any courtesy to them anymore.

Erm? Oil?

[tie]

As U.S. Rebuilds, Iraq Won’t Act on Finished Work

A good article on the Bush's stay-the-course policy on Iraq reconstruction. If a policy is failing, don't change anything but throw more money at it. It will fail more dramatically. (And anybody who suggests changing it is a terrorist.)

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

As U.S. Rebuilds, Iraq Won’t Act on Finished Work

A good article on the Bush's stay-the-course policy on Iraq reconstruction. If a policy is failing, don't change anything but throw more money at it. It will fail more dramatically. (And anybody who suggests changing it is a terrorist.)

Iraq reconstruction was the "change the course" policy. The "stay the course" policy was the 12 years of failed economic sanctions, multiple UN Resolutions, and occasional bombings that required us to continue acting against Iraq through three presidencies.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Iraq reconstruction was the "change the course" policy. The "stay the course" policy was the 12 years of failed economic sanctions, multiple UN Resolutions, and occasional bombings that required us to continue acting against Iraq through three presidencies.

just...wow

[tie]

ebuddy, that is just delusional. Wake up.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

ebuddy, that is just delusional. Wake up.

Regardless of whether or not you support action in Iraq, it was in fact a "change in course". That said, to assume we can just pull out now and not need to return within the next two years could be called delusional or it could simply be construed as an idea different than mine.

Keep reciting those bumper stickers though, you've got ironknee cymbal-clapping with you. I'm curious about something else while we're at it; how many of those calling for a draft are actually eligible to be called to service?

[tie]

ebuddy, it is you guys who repeat the bumper stickers. Saying them over and over apparently drowns out the truth. And your "change the course" versus "stay the course" post was another of these bumper stickers.

The previous policy was much more successful than the current one. It protected US national security, whereas the current policy weakens it. It was many times cheaper. And for the Iraqis it was comparable.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Regardless of whether or not you support action in Iraq, it was in fact a "change in course". That said, to assume we can just pull out now and not need to return within the next two years could be called delusional or it could simply be construed as an idea different than mine.

Keep reciting those bumper stickers though, you've got ironknee cymbal-clapping with you. I'm curious about something else while we're at it; how many of those calling for a draft are actually eligible to be called to service?

is this the new fox/rush defence now?

the change of course was invading iraq. it's amazing that there are still people in the bunker supporting jr.

[spacefreak]

Here's a nice update from some liberals who were recently there.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/op...=1&oref=slogin

VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.

None of this surprises me, other than the fact that these guys admitted positive events in Iraq. Lots more in the article.

[besson3c]

Do you have any qualms with any aspect of the manner in which this administration has waged this invasion spacefreak?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

is this the new fox/rush defence now?

Because you disagree with me, it has to be a fox/rush defence now? Is everything left/right with you or do you have any common sense at all?

the change of course was invading iraq. it's amazing that there are still people in the bunker supporting jr.

Yeah, most of them, but then "jr." is the CIC. It's quite possible they know a little something you don't.

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Do you have any qualms with any aspect of the manner in which this administration has waged this invasion spacefreak?

The manner in which the outgoing administration waged it's war does not concern what it will do in it's closing days.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob 

The manner in which the outgoing administration waged it's war does not concern what it will do in it's closing days.

"look to the future" is a fine argument, but one can often predict the future by taking into account the past. This is why we study history.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Because you disagree with me, it has to be a fox/rush defence now? Is everything left/right with you or do you have any common sense at all?

Keep reciting those bumper stickers though, you've got ironknee cymbal-clapping with you.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Yeah, most of them, but then "jr." is the CIC. It's quite possible they know a little something you don't.

this one escapes me...what? are you in the cic? is that why you know?

also...

I'm curious about something else while we're at it; how many of those calling for a draft are actually eligible to be called to service?

the question should be, how many who support the war are eligible to fight in iraq?

cause i'm not supporting sending troops there to fight/die

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

this one escapes me...what? are you in the cic? is that why you know?

also...

Commander in Chief. That would be the President of the US. No I am not in the President of the US. Now that you know what the CIC is, let's discuss the difference between civilians and soldiers and the purpose of those soldiers. You and I comprise the nation. The military exists to serve the nation. We are not all willing nor able to fight. Some of us will serve here at home, others will serve overseas, some will express their views in a responsible manner through civil disagreement, others will use slander and divisive rhetoric for their hand-cymbal clapping ilk. You do not need to serve overseas in uniform to express your opinions of war. A draft does not always take into account whether or not those called upon are willing and able to serve. Those not willing or able to fight may oppose or support action in accordance with their rights as protected by the military.

the question should be, how many who support the war are eligible to fight in iraq?

cause i'm not supporting sending troops there to fight/die

I'm guessing you support your local firemen right? Why not join? Police force? ATF? Airplane pilots? Taxi cab drivers? I suspect you're none of these things yet you support them right? Should you have no say on any of the above because you're not willing to serve?

The ones who volunteered for service and re-upped are willing to. You have to ask what it is they are willing to fight and die for. We don't "send" them in the traditional sense. Regardless of what you think the question "should" be, my point was that I often wonder how many who would otherwise be eligible for a draft are calling for one. Would you ever "send" troops to fight/die?

[peeb]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

the question should be, how many who support the war are eligible to fight in iraq?

You're right - the problem is a culture of impunity amongst the chickenhawks - a class of people who are willing and able to commit other people's sons and daughters to die for their own personal gain, without ever counting the cost for everyone else.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by peeb 

You're right - the problem is a culture of impunity amongst the chickenhawks - a class of people who are willing and able to commit other people's sons and daughters to die for their own personal gain, without ever counting the cost for everyone else.

I completely understand your point peeb, but I have absolutely nothing to gain personally that you don't also. While not in immediate danger as our respected soldiers are, I'm not exempt from the negative impacts of either failed policy or action and neither are you. We are one in the same. The good news is neither one of us are committing any other people's sons and daughter to die. This is good news because you and I may be right or we may be wrong. If you believe action is ever necessary, you no doubt have a great deal of respect for those who have to make those decisions. I may be wrong for ideologically "committing" them to fight and die in action there or you may be wrong for ideologically "damning" them to fight and die here. Both consequences have a cost. We no doubt disagree on this premise, but it is wise to acknowledge that both sides of the debate exist and it's not always the result of partisanship, hawkishness, stupidity, or naivete.

[besson3c]

I appreciate your posting and sensibilities ebuddy. Sometimes you slip and come across as a little too emotionally committed to your party, a little too partisan, a little too irrational, but there are many times where you are able to put together a reasoned and thoughtful analysis and argument. You also try, which is more than what seems to be apparent at times on both sides (with no specific finger pointing).

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I appreciate your posting and sensibilities ebuddy. Sometimes you slip and come across as a little too emotionally committed to your party, a little too partisan, a little too irrational, but there are many times where you are able to put together a reasoned and thoughtful analysis and argument.

I'll usually try to address posters in the same manner as they address me or others to try and establish some rapport. I often forget that people may express themselves "openly", but not appreciate similar treatment in return. It leads to severe disconnects that only detract from the subject matter. Personally, I consider myself emotionally committed to battling irrational behavior and statements, but being too connected to any argument can lead down a dangerous road.

You also try, which is more than what seems to be apparent at times on both sides (with no specific finger pointing).

Well thank you sir.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'll usually try to address posters in the same manner as they address me or others to try and establish some rapport. I often forget that people may express themselves "openly", but not appreciate similar treatment in return. It leads to severe disconnects that only detract from the subject matter. Personally, I consider myself emotionally committed to battling irrational behavior and statements, but being too connected to any argument can lead down a dangerous road.

However you want to analyze it, I'm just not a fan of Bush cheerleaders. I haven't been in this country and politically active for much of a Democratic leadership, but I'd be the same there as well. Politicians are our bitches, we don't owe them ****. Being a cheerleader and/or a partisan is just dumb, IMHO.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Being a cheerleader and/or a partisan is just dumb, IMHO.

I couldn't agree more.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Commander in Chief. That would be the President of the US. No I am not in the President of the US. Now that you know what the CIC is, let's discuss the difference between civilians and soldiers and the purpose of those soldiers. You and I comprise the nation. The military exists to serve the nation. We are not all willing nor able to fight. Some of us will serve here at home, others will serve overseas, some will express their views in a responsible manner through civil disagreement, others will use slander and divisive rhetoric for their hand-cymbal clapping ilk. You do not need to serve overseas in uniform to express your opinions of war. A draft does not always take into account whether or not those called upon are willing and able to serve. Those not willing or able to fight may oppose or support action in accordance with their rights as protected by the military.

that's a lot of words. some serve here and some serve overseas, and some are not serving, right?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm guessing you support your local firemen right? Why not join? Police force? ATF? Airplane pilots? Taxi cab drivers? I suspect you're none of these things yet you support them right? Should you have no say on any of the above because you're not willing to serve?

i don't support pilots...or taxi cab drivers...i pay for their services and if the cops step out of line i don't support them

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The ones who volunteered for service and re-upped are willing to. You have to ask what it is they are willing to fight and die for. We don't "send" them in the traditional sense. Regardless of what you think the question "should" be, my point was that I often wonder how many who would otherwise be eligible for a draft are calling for one. Would you ever "send" troops to fight/die?

listen buddy, bottom line: since you seem to support this war, are you willing to back it up and join the army?

[shinji]

I don't support the war and never have, but I don't think everyone who supports it should join the army. I'm pro-choice, doesn't mean I want to become an OB/GYN and perform abortions to back it up. But it would affect the candidate I vote for- same with the war for some people.