[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by 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.

This is totally BS. The minute we leave, the massacre begins. Millions will die overnight.

I do have a problem with the Iraqi Parliament going on vacation. Heck our boys should go on vacation while they are on vacation. It won't take but a couple days and half of them are dead from killing each other that they'll change their mind.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

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

With all due respect, you've been confused out of the gate ironknee.

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

... but you still pay for them just as you're paying for our military. Whether you support them or not, they will likely be available when you need them as they are commissioned to serve you. The point is, you can debate how the civil apparatus is used without actively joining it just as you can debate how the military is used without joining it. The problem is (and the reason for my lengthy post) too many do not understand the purpose of the military and the relationship between the military and the nation it serves. This is why you'll rarely see a soldier make this "join if you support it then" nonsense argument.

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

Too often, this is the convenient argument from one who's never even considered joining the military. They can throw this argument up any time someone seems to support military action. You support fighting crime right? How come you're not on the police force? This is no bottom line ironknee, in fact it is little more than the "if you love it so much then marry it!" defense. It is a desperate and profoundly immature attempt at a counter argument. While serving in the military is arguably most noble, there are other ways to serve your country. I'm 36 years old with flat feet and herniated disk, but this does not mean I cannot support military action or speak my mind on such matters. Anyone who understands the relationship between the military and the nation it serves knows this.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally Posted by spacefreak 

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

Suicide bombings is the important qualifier there because they account for only a small percentage of the daily violence in Iraq. Truck bombings, shootings, revenge murders, kidnappings, sectarian death squads all cumulatively account for a lot more deaths in Iraq, in addition to the suicide attacks.

Iraq is in a civil conflict. External jihadi fighters are taking advantage of the security situation but only comprise about 3-4% of the overall 'insurgency'. Furthermore, ordinary Iraqis are not supportive of foreign fighters such as Al-Qaeda. In fact, places where Gen. Petraeus reports of successes are a result of the local tribal leaders collaborating with American forces against Al-Qaeda. The problem is, whilst the theory of the surge is a good one, there aren't enough American troops present to make it effective. When an area is secured and the Americans move on to deal with another, the jihadis return. And so the cycle continues.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

With all due respect, you've been confused out of the gate ironknee.


... but you still pay for them just as you're paying for our military. Whether you support them or not, they will likely be available when you need them as they are commissioned to serve you. The point is, you can debate how the civil apparatus is used without actively joining it just as you can debate how the military is used without joining it. The problem is (and the reason for my lengthy post) too many do not understand the purpose of the military and the relationship between the military and the nation it serves. This is why you'll rarely see a soldier make this "join if you support it then" nonsense argument.


Too often, this is the convenient argument from one who's never even considered joining the military. They can throw this argument up any time someone seems to support military action. You support fighting crime right? How come you're not on the police force? This is no bottom line ironknee, in fact it is little more than the "if you love it so much then marry it!" defense. It is a desperate and profoundly immature attempt at a counter argument. While serving in the military is arguably most noble, there are other ways to serve your country. I'm 36 years old with flat feet and herniated disk, but this does not mean I cannot support military action or speak my mind on such matters. Anyone who understands the relationship between the military and the nation it serves knows this.

oh please buddy...your posts are all very pro military no matter what our government does. do you secretly wish you could be in the military? do you own guns?

do you think what bush has done by invading iraq was a smart thing to do? do you admit that it's a mess? at all?

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

This is totally BS. The minute we leave, the massacre begins. Millions will die overnight.

This, from the people who brought you "We'll be welcomed by people throwing flowers" and "Saddam Bin Laden has weapons of mass destruction".

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

oh please buddy...your posts are all very pro military no matter what our government does. do you secretly wish you could be in the military? do you own guns?

First of all, I'm not your buddy. Second of all, I am pro-military. I'm also pro-oxygen, pro-water, and pro-food as these are all necessary to live. Are you anti-military?

do you think what bush has done by invading iraq was a smart thing to do? do you admit that it's a mess? at all?

Yes, I believe invading Iraq was a smart thing to do in principle. The problem is we're not always dealing with principled people. It's a mess, but war generally is. I believe our initial action was absolutely brilliant, damn near flawless, and the standard by which any military action should be gauged. What we've done since then has been a mess and the manner in which this war has been communicated to the American people by this Administration has been abysmal. Bush Sr. et al. called for and implemented action against Iraq, Clinton et. al called for and implemented action against Iraq, the global community called for action against Iraq and drafted 13 Resolutions over 12 years against Iraq finally threatening "serious consequences" for non-compliance. There's absolutely nothing to suggest the next President would not have had to deal with Iraq as well as the President after that. Iraq was also as much about Iran and the surrounding Middle East as it was Iraq. I believe we live on a volatile globe and that at times action is necessary.

I own absolutely no guns. I don't hunt nor do I shoot for sport. I'm not a member of the NRA nor do I carry a card with an (R) on it. I wanted to be in the military when I was 18, but circumstances led me away from that decision. I have absolutely no regrets and I support action with a great deal of thought. I was not chest-pounding "shock and awe" and I was not on fire for death.

Do you really believe you posted a reasonable line of questions regarding this issue and was it as productive as you had hoped?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

First of all, I'm not your buddy.

Dear ebuddy,

Are you my buddy?

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Yes, I believe invading Iraq was a smart thing to do in principle.

People say hindsight is 20/20, but apparently not for everyone.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Dear ebuddy,

Are you my buddy?

I'm afraid I can't take the position you want on this.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

First of all, I'm not your buddy. Second of all, I am pro-military. I'm also pro-oxygen, pro-water, and pro-food as these are all necessary to live. Are you anti-military?

buddy reminds me of the dick van dyke show

well that explains it...oh and midwest....got ya

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Yes, I believe invading Iraq was a smart thing to do in principle. The problem is we're not always dealing with principled people. It's a mess, but war generally is. I believe our initial action was absolutely brilliant, damn near flawless, and the standard by which any military action should be gauged. What we've done since then has been a mess and the manner in which this war has been communicated to the American people by this Administration has been abysmal. Bush Sr. et al. called for and implemented action against Iraq, Clinton et. al called for and implemented action against Iraq, the global community called for action against Iraq and drafted 13 Resolutions over 12 years against Iraq finally threatening "serious consequences" for non-compliance. There's absolutely nothing to suggest the next President would not have had to deal with Iraq as well as the President after that. Iraq was also as much about Iran and the surrounding Middle East as it was Iraq. I believe we live on a volatile globe and that at times action is necessary.

I own absolutely no guns. I don't hunt nor do I shoot for sport. I'm not a member of the NRA nor do I carry a card with an (R) on it. I wanted to be in the military when I was 18, but circumstances led me away from that decision. I have absolutely no regrets and I support action with a great deal of thought. I was not chest-pounding "shock and awe" and I was not on fire for death.

Do you really believe you posted a reasonable line of questions regarding this issue and was it as productive as you had hoped?

what about osama?

[peeb]

Originally Posted by ebuddy
Yes, I believe invading Iraq was a smart thing to do in principle.

I guess that's all we need to know. Some people apparently never learn. If you keep on getting your fingers stuck in mousetraps, and never think it might not be a good idea to keep doing it, it's hard to see how there can be any real discussion.

[ebuddy]

I find it interesting that so many can be so comfortable and certain of their own personal world view that they'd;

- refer to you by something other than your handle
- insult your intellect
- insult your location
- chop posts, add straw-men, and respond as if they're talking to themselves
- claim you lack the big picture while drawing the equivalent of a stick person on construction paper with sidewalk chalk

It never ends. These are too often the same people who;

- call you homophobic while comparing homosexuals to wild animals
- call you xenophobic while insisting Iraqis are incapable of civility and rule of law
- call you intolerant while bashing your religion, location, and world view
- call you partisan while reciting every party-line talking point they can muster

To peeb, tie (though to a much lesser degree), and particularly ironknee; I honestly tried to remain civil with you guys, but I'm tired of the "if you're not for us, you're against us" simpleton mentality and destructive one-liners prevalent here. I can understand being passionate about a position and I can even understand a little stubbornness in holding your ground, but I'm absolutely confounded that those so convinced they're right have nothing else to offer. I've deemed you three the primary contributors to this type of non-productive, divisive rhetoric and actually feel like I've lost IQ points trying to talk to you. If you can't contribute to this discussion or respond to any of the numerous points I've raised without resorting to the above, please count me out. I'm not formally ignoring you because while I remain skeptical of your degree of introspect, I am a forgiving person.

tie; you don't have the lock on truth. You may well be right, but you may be wrong. It'd behoove you to at least consider the possibility that you could be wrong. If so, that would mean you lack not only foresight regarding this action, but hindsight as well. BTW, I'm also willing to accept this possibility.

peeb; you can't even get people who generally agree with your position to appreciate your posts. When you run into a point you can't address you simply ignore the point, throw around a few insults, get smacked down, then bail. This is getting old. It was nice to hear back from you most recently after trying to offer you an olive branch though I must admit I wasn't looking for chopped bites and more insults. If this is going to be your style for the long haul you're correct, there's no having a discussion with you.

ironknee; umm... yeah.

Hey, thanx for reading guys.

[tie]

Hey ebuddy, I've been right since the beginning on this. I could be wrong, but I think it is much more likely that you are wrong. Tell me what your record has been.

About your complaints on posting style: This all started when it became official Republican policy to call all Democrats terrorists. I am still annoyed at it, and at all the brainless fools in this forum who parroted it.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

Hey ebuddy, I've been right since the beginning on this. I could be wrong, but I think it is much more likely that you are wrong. Tell me what your record has been.

My record has been pretty good to be honest tie. On points from the "fearsome clout of the Republican Guard", through "bloodbaths at the polling place", to "you wait 'til the Dems are in office". The problem is that too often the conversation degrades to whether or not Bush is like Hitler, orchestrated 9/11, "mission accomplished", and other nonsense that people believe is right regardless of any information to the contrary. I believed Iraq had WMDs and I was wrong. When you boil it down, the most damning evidence against me was simply the fact that WMDs hadn't been found. I had prestigious company from both sides of the aisle convincing me for years they were there.

About your complaints on posting style: This all started when it became official Republican policy to call all Democrats terrorists. I am still annoyed at it, and at all the brainless fools in this forum who parroted it.

I can definitely understand your frustration with this tie. I'm certain I've not called anyone a terrorist on this forum, but if that has been implied in any way from my posts- I apologize. I have no official Republican policy and politically I'm by definition a mess. I'm getting annoyed at similar vitriol and I'm glad we're at the same place.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It never ends. These are too often the same people who;

- call you homophobic while comparing homosexuals to wild animals
ironknee; umm... yeah.

Hey, thanx for reading guys.

are you saying you campare homosexuality to wild animals?

are you for real?

buddy is such a friendly name say it isn't so...

[BadKosh]

How about something Radical?? Split Iraq into 3 new countries? Run it through the UN, so they can have their bloody fingerprints on it too. They are also responsible through inaction.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

[The] UN, [is] also responsible through inaction.

That really isn't true - under the UN regime the Iraq situation was contained and stable. Bushes war of choice destabilized a problem that was fully boxed in.

[BadKosh]

CONTAINED??? How? They weren't following ANY UN resolutions. They were laughing at Blix & Company. They were violating the no-fly zones. So, tell me again about the UN's part in all this. Like WHY the UN did the cease fire in 1991. What was the set of agreed to terms?

The UN was too busy in the business of corruption, and theft, like that Oil for Food thing and all the other trash we have come to expect of the 3rd world club known as the UN.

[peeb]

Of course Iraq was contained. There was nothing it could do that would have regional repercussions. There were problems, for sure, but they were contained within Iraq's borders. The decision to go to war was a choice that the US made, there was no pressing need to do anything.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

CONTAINED??? How? They weren't following ANY UN resolutions. They were laughing at Blix & Company. They were violating the no-fly zones. So, tell me again about the UN's part in all this. Like WHY the UN did the cease fire in 1991. What was the set of agreed to terms?

The UN was too busy in the business of corruption, and theft, like that Oil for Food thing and all the other trash we have come to expect of the 3rd world club known as the UN.

The UN had nothing to do with the No-Fly zones. They were defined at the discretion of the US, UK and France. The UN basically called them illegal.

Oil smuggling, as bad as it was, benefited the US as well. Everybody was in on that, whether it was actual countries or multi-national corporations.

[peeb]

Right, the point is that Iraq was contained, and was not a threat.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

My record has been pretty good to be honest tie. ... I believed Iraq had WMDs and I was wrong.

Well, not so good then. But you were in good company.

I can definitely understand your frustration with this tie. I'm certain I've not called anyone a terrorist on this forum, but if that has been implied in any way from my posts- I apologize. I have no official Republican policy and politically I'm by definition a mess. I'm getting annoyed at similar vitriol and I'm glad we're at the same place.

There's no need for you to apologize, but I appreciate the thought.

[Taliesin]

Hey, Iraq's soccer-team won the Asia-cup, beating Australia, South-Korea and then Saudi-Arabia in the final game...

Taliesin

[vmarks]

And in Saudi Arabia, when the victorious Iraqi team came to a state dinner to celebrate them, what anthem did they play?

The Iraqi anthem of Saddam Hussein's Baathist state.

The team was quite offended, seeing as how they'd managed to win without having to be tortured by Uday and Qusay.

[peeb]

Out of interest, what anthem should they have played?

[Buckaroo]

I hear that the soldiers are cleaning up over there.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Out of interest, what anthem should they have played?

The new Iraqi national anthem which has been in place since the fall of Hussein.
After the fall of Sadam Hussein government in 2004, the new administration changed the anthem to one used in Iraq 1958-1965.

It is called Mawtani, or "My homeland"


You'd think if you were hosting the Iraqi National Soccer team, and you knew that there was a completely new government, you might look that up.


Meanwhile, I have to issue my own correction: It was Dubai, UAE that hosted the team and got it so abysmally wrong - not Saudi Arabia.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070801/...h5Z_F7tFkE1vAI

[ironknee]

didn't they also redesigned the iraqi flag?

why show the old flag?

[peeb]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

After the fall of Sadam Hussein government in 2004, the new administration changed the anthem to one used in Iraq 1958-1965.

Bremer's administration?

[vmarks]

No, the Iraqi Parliament.
You know, the elected government.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

No, the Iraqi Parliament.
You know, the elected government.

Was it the 'elected govt' that did that, or Bremer?

[vmarks]

It was the interim government, under Sheikh Ghazi Mashal Ajil al-Yawer, and the interim prime minister Iyad Allawi.

Not under Bremer.

[Warren Pease]

I wonder what kind of a progress report we'll get for the effectiveness of the surge, from Iraq's second biggest cheerleader:

Despite Bush's repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government.

And though Petraeus and Crocker will present their recommendations on Capitol Hill, legislation passed by Congress leaves it to the president to decide how to interpret the report's data.

Top general may propose pullbacks - Los Angeles Times

[spacefreak]

You post this as if it is surprising or controversial, when to an intelligent mind it only seems logical.

Ever notice that when these reports are made, there are thousand-page publications of the reports available instantly? Generals running battlefields can't be bogged down preparing these comprehensive reports. So the paper-pushers in D.C. compile the reports.

There wil be strong influence from Petraeus, as it is his reponsibility to provide and assess data from the battlefield. But he ain't spending weeks screwing around in M.S. Word, and he shouldn't be.

[Kevin]

It feels a little shilly out today.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

oh please buddy...your posts are all very pro military no matter what our government does. do you secretly wish you could be in the military? do you own guns?

do you think what bush has done by invading iraq was a smart thing to do? do you admit that it's a mess? at all?

Was this supposed to be on topic? Or did you mean to make this post just an ad-hominem attack on ebuddy?

[BadKosh]

When has their EVER BEEN a 'clean war" ????

[Kevin]

People live in fantasy worlds. Were we live on a planet that war sometimes isn't needed. Or that everyone throws flowers at each other or something.

Just like taxes, war sucks, but is a part of life.

[Sörnäinen]

A remark from the side coming from a "newbie" in this forum who doesn´t know all the rules yet....


.... is it possible that the trouble in Iraq has something to do with the fact that it was EASY to win the war, but it is not so easy to win the PEACE?

Maybe it´s just a question of effort. The US troops could win the war with remarkable few soldiers, but to bring peace to the country, it would probably need much more effort than that and a good concept.

If you compare the situation to Germany after WW2 - the country was really destroyed, and the combined effort of the allied winners to rebuild it and educate the people in a democratic way was the key to a long-term success.

Maybe that´s the point? Simply not enough effort and not enough money and not enough soldiers and other armed forces in Iraq?

[Kevin]

The "War" has already been won. But you are right, it's keeping the PEACE that is hard.

Esp when there are people down there running around trying to make sure PEACE isn't happening. They don't want peace. They want violence and power. They don't want the people to have a choice, but have a choice made for them. No elections, but a dictator.

So lets just all pull out so that can happen, and have all the work we've done so far be for not. All the lives lost be for no reason. Because that's the sensible thing to do. Plus it might make Bush/the "other side" look bad.

And in the end, that is what is most important. Making sure whatever Bush does, looks bad. Surely not the people of Iraq. Them brown people can suffer it out themselves. Lets take care of our own.

Yereehaw

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Sörnäinen 

If you compare the situation to Germany after WW2 - the country was really destroyed, and the combined effort of the allied winners to rebuild it and educate the people in a democratic way was the key to a long-term success. ?

THere were insurgents in Germany and Japan as well. In my opinion, the big difference is in the communications capabilities. A few skumbags with computers, mobile phones, and GPS can organize, recruit, propagandize, coordinate, and run an entire insurgent operation. Back in the 40s and 50s, such an effort would have been impossible.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

When has their EVER BEEN a 'clean war" ????

They get cleaned and polished by the historians and moviemakers.