Where is the freakin outrage from the media and the doves in this forum over the nearly 50 soldiers killed in Afghanistan since Gen. McCrystal asked for reinforcements two months ago? How about the outrage over Obama's dilatory "solemn" decision process over that request? I mean, it's "rush rush" over health care reform, but for our soldiers fighting for their lives, not so much.
I agree, Obama needs to provide more action. 1 troop increase wasn't enough there should probably be another. Too bad Bush sat on his thumbs for 7 years.
Quote from: Trogdor on October 27, 2009, 11:03:46 AM
I agree, Obama needs to provide more action. 1 troop increase wasn't enough there should probably be another. Too bad Bush sat on his thumbs for 7 years.
So the soldiers dying today, ten months after Bush is gone, is Bush's fault. Got it. Lemme guess, the victory in the Iraq war is because of Obama. Right?
At risk of being a peace nick, perhaps it is wise to step back and attempt to frame exactly what we are doing in Afghanistan. What constitutes success? What is our plan for getting there? What resources will benefit that plan?
Not everyone, even those in the know, are convinced that our current course of action has a shot at being successful. I don't know, I'm not familiar enough with the situation to speak intelligently. It appears that given our current course the military men say they need more troops - so the choice would be: send more troops or change our course of action.
At least one man very close to the situation thinks sending more troops is entirely the wrong approach:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/26/AR2009102603394.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009102603447
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/obama-defends-afghanistan-timetable/
"I won't risk your lives unless it is absolutely necessary,"
"And if it is necessary, we will back you up to the hilt."
"While no words can ease the ache in their hearts today, may they find some comfort in knowing this: like all those who give their lives in service to America, they were doing their duty and they were doing this nation proud."
"They were willing to risk their lives, in this case, to prevent Afghanistan from once again becoming a safe haven for Al Qaeda and its extremist allies."
"And while I will never hesitate to use force to protect the American people or our vital interests, I also promise you this — and this is very important as we consider our next steps in Afghanistan,"
"I will never rush the solemn decision of sending you into harm's way."
-----Gweed calls President Obama a liar in 3 - 2 - 1.......
Quote from: guido911 on October 27, 2009, 11:07:50 AM
So the soldiers dying today, ten months after Bush is gone, is Bush's fault. Got it. Lemme guess, the victory in the Iraq war is because of Obama. Right?
What Victory?
Quote from: Trogdor on October 27, 2009, 01:08:24 PM
What Victory?
silly!
This one, of course.
(http://whatisfovea.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/bush_mission_accomplished-jpg1.jpeg)
..oh, wait a minute...
Quote from: guido911 on October 27, 2009, 11:07:50 AM
So the soldiers dying today, ten months after Bush is gone, is Bush's fault. Got it. Lemme guess, the victory in the Iraq war is because of Obama. Right?
I apologize, you are right. The last 7 years have absolutely no effect on the last 10 months.
Quote from: Trogdor on October 27, 2009, 01:16:21 PM
I apologize, you are right. The last 7 years have absolutely no effect on the last 10 months.
Tell us, then, what
exactly did Bush do in his 7 years of running the war that resulted in THIS MONTH, 10 months out of office, being the deadliest for our soldiers?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091027/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan
According to the article, the second deadliest month was this past August.
Quote from: guido911 on October 27, 2009, 01:42:28 PM
Tell us, then, what exactly did Bush do in his 7 years of running the war that resulted in THIS MONTH, 10 months out of office, being the deadliest for our soldiers?
Short answer? We invaded.
Quote from: Trogdor on October 27, 2009, 01:08:24 PM
What Victory?
By any objective standard, the U.S. and the coalition have succeeded both politically and militarily in Iraq. Here's an article from Michael Yon wherein he argues the war is won, and I agree with his analysis:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/iraq_new_dawn_QFOkcq5Dwt1j0MCsO6exuM
Now, are there sporadic acts of violence still occurring? Yep. Just as there was in Germany with the Werewolf Guerrilla Resistance in the years after WWII ended.
Quote from: guido911 on October 27, 2009, 01:42:28 PM
Tell us, then, what exactly did Bush do in his 7 years of running the war that resulted in THIS MONTH, 10 months out of office, being the deadliest for our soldiers?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091027/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan
According to the article, the second deadliest month was this past August.
He didn't secure the country after we invaded. He failed to capture Bin Laden. He refused to send in enough troops to accomplish either goal. And by not accomplishing those goals, he let the Taliban fester until they had recovered. He allowed the drug trafficking to continue that largely funds the Taliban and Al Queda. Bush failed in every respect in Afghanistan because he only cared about Iraq. This many years later it may well be too late to salvage Afghanistan short of sending in a couple of hundred thousand more troops. Which isn't doable, because funny thing, Bush wrecked the economy too.
If you don't believe me that Bush didn't care about Bin Laden and Afghanistan, here's a direct quote on the subject:
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
Quote from: guido911 on October 27, 2009, 01:53:22 PM
By any objective standard, the U.S. and the coalition have succeeded both politically and militarily in Iraq. Here's an article from Michael Yon wherein he argues the war is won, and I agree with his analysis:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/iraq_new_dawn_QFOkcq5Dwt1j0MCsO6exuM
Now, are there sporadic acts of violence still occurring? Yep. Just as there was in Germany with the Werewolf Guerrilla Resistance in the years after WWII ended.
We have succeeded in installing a Shia dominated pro-Iranian government. Really stand up job there, way to go.
It's worse than if Saddam was still in power. We have tipped the balance of power in the middle east to Iran. An anti-Iranian regime in Iraq was always a positive strategic counter balance to Iranian hegemoney. This is why Bush's father didn't topple Saddam. He was smart enough to know that the power that would fill the vacuum left by the Baath party would likely be filled by Shia pro-Iranian forces. And that is exactly what has happened.
Israel, Egypt and the Saudi's are correctly terrified.
Quote from: Townsend on October 27, 2009, 01:51:31 PM
Short answer? We invaded.
Short Possibly dumbest answer? We invaded.
Fixed that for ya.
We went into a country that harbored those who attacked this country and killed 3,000 Americans. What were we supposed to do? You should thank God you were not around between 1939-1945. I don't think you could have handled it, especially the fact that Japan attacked us and in one battle (Iwo Jima) as part of our response we lost as many soldiers as the entire Iraq war.
Quote from: guido911 on October 27, 2009, 02:04:27 PM
[
We went into a country that harbored those who attacked this country and killed 3,000 Americans. What were we supposed to do? You should thank God you were not around between 1939-1945. I don't think you could have handled it, especially the fact that Japan attacked us and in one battle (Iwo Jima) as part of our response we lost as many soldiers as the entire Iraq war.
Woo...guido's gone to crazy town.
Quote from: Townsend on October 27, 2009, 02:07:14 PM
Woo...guido's gone to crazy town.
Just like I said; Beck-spooner. I think Ruf still thinks he's a Malkin-Boortz spooner, but at least they seem genuine. I honestly was able to stomach Lonesome Rhodes Beck when he was over on HLN. I don't know what it is about Fox News that changes a person. Money? Glamour? Not sure. But he sure has turned into a caricature of himself..wow, doesn't that remind you of someone right here on this forum??
;D
Quote from: swake on October 27, 2009, 02:00:24 PM
We have succeeded in installing a Shia dominated pro-Iranian government. Really stand up job there, way to go.
It's worse than if Saddam was still in power. We have tipped the balance of power in the middle east to Iran. An anti-Iranian regime in Iraq was always a positive strategic counter balance to Iranian hegemoney. This is why Bush's father didn't topple Saddam. He was smart enough to know that the power that would fill the vacuum left by the Baath party would likely be filled by Shia pro-Iranian forces. And that is exactly what has happened.
Israel, Egypt and the Saudi's are correctly terrified.
I have been wanting to have this debate for some time. I will respond in a little bit. (work issues)
Quote from: guido911 on October 27, 2009, 03:31:12 PM
I have been wanting to have this debate for some time. I will respond in a little bit. (work philosophical and personal issues)
Standing by....watching the wheels go round. Guido, find some of those rats who disappeared to help you out. FOTD does not believe in piling on. Where are those chicken sh*t posters?
Send in more troops or pull them all out. Worst of all is just sitting and looking indecisive about what to do.
Make a decision and make it happen.
Quote from: HazMatCFO on October 27, 2009, 09:52:31 PM
Send in more troops or pull them all out. Worst of all is just sitting and looking indecisive about what to do.
Make a decision and make it happen.
What is the hurry? Be smart and tactile about this. It took 8 years of ill advised military expertise to get us here. It will take some lives and time to turn darkness to light.
HazMatty, you obviously know something about military strategy. Do you have insider knowledge about sitting and looking indecisive or is that just a subjective hypothesis?
Quote from: guido911 on October 27, 2009, 02:04:27 PM
We went into a country that harbored those who attacked this country and killed 3,000 Americans.
Gee, I thought bin Laden and his cronies were in Afghanistan, not Iraq.
Yep, "crazy town" seems apt.
Quote from: guido911 on October 27, 2009, 03:31:12 PM
I have been wanting to have ignoring this debate for some time.
Fixed that for you.
Hazmat, I think it's interesting that you read deliberation as a sign of weakness. Isn't that kind of self-limiting?
Guido, it's completely impossible to tell what you're arguing about anymore. Your posts are almost content-free at this point.
Quote from: we vs us on October 28, 2009, 06:39:02 AM
Hazmat, I think it's interesting that you read deliberation as a sign of weakness. Isn't that kind of self-limiting?
Guido, it's completely impossible to tell what you're arguing about anymore. Your posts are almost content-free at this point.
WTH are you talking about? Over 50 soldiers dead in one month and no outrage by the media or Obama folks like you was the point I made in my initial post in this thread. Does it bother you that I pointed out an obvious double standard on how our wars are being fought or is it "completely impossible" for you to figure that out?
Quote from: guido911 on October 28, 2009, 09:46:50 AM
WTH are you talking about? Over 50 soldiers dead in one month and no outrage by the media or Obama folks like you was the point I made in my initial post in this thread. Does it bother you that I pointed out an obvious double standard on how our wars are being fought or is it "completely impossible" for you to figure that out?
"Casualty clocks" don't seem to be as in vogue since the last administration left the WH.
Quote from: swake on October 27, 2009, 02:00:24 PM
We have succeeded in installing a Shia dominated pro-Iranian government. Really stand up job there, way to go.
It's worse than if Saddam was still in power. We have tipped the balance of power in the middle east to Iran. An anti-Iranian regime in Iraq was always a positive strategic counter balance to Iranian hegemoney. This is why Bush's father didn't topple Saddam. He was smart enough to know that the power that would fill the vacuum left by the Baath party would likely be filled by Shia pro-Iranian forces. And that is exactly what has happened.
Israel, Egypt and the Saudi's are correctly terrified.
The U.S. installed a Shia government? Funny, I thought the Iranian people had an election and they decided who would run the country. I mean, do you prefer elections where one candidate gets 100% of the vote. As for this government being worse, I guess you forgot about the rape rooms, Saddam's use of chemical weapons on his own people which killed thousands, his regime forcing husbands to watch their wives being raped or the torturing of prisoners, or one of his son's enjoyment in watching enemies fed feet first in a shredder, or any other of the number of human rights violations Saddam's regime committed (unsure if Saddam committed the most evil of abuse, waterboarding). We will not even get into his support of international terrorism, which I do not believe is occurring in Iraq currently. As a friendly reminder, here's a photo of what Saddam did to the Kurds, which to you is apparently better than what we have now:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chemical_weapon2.jpg)
As for Iraq being pro-Iranian, care to source that?
Quote from: Conan71 on October 28, 2009, 09:52:02 AM
"Casualty clocks" don't seem to be as in vogue since the last administration left the WH.
Thank you for getting the point! We also do not read about the demand for pics of flag-draped coffins.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on October 27, 2009, 10:50:59 PM
Gee, I thought bin Laden and his cronies were in Afghanistan, not Iraq.
Yep, "crazy town" seems apt.
Yep, you being a dumba$$ seems apt. I was referring to Afghanistan.
Quote from: swake on October 27, 2009, 01:55:43 PM
He didn't secure the country after we invaded. He failed to capture Bin Laden. He refused to send in enough troops to accomplish either goal. And by not accomplishing those goals, he let the Taliban fester until they had recovered. He allowed the drug trafficking to continue that largely funds the Taliban and Al Queda. Bush failed in every respect in Afghanistan because he only cared about Iraq. This many years later it may well be too late to salvage Afghanistan short of sending in a couple of hundred thousand more troops. Which isn't doable, because funny thing, Bush wrecked the economy too.
If you don't believe me that Bush didn't care about Bin Laden and Afghanistan, here's a direct quote on the subject:
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
So the fact that Obama changed to rules of engagement restricting our soldiers in how they deal with the enemy and civilians (remember last month when several soldiers were ambushed and pinned down and when they called for artillery support none came because of these restrictions-we lost four Marines that day), or the nearly 50% reduction of fixed wing air strikes from last year, or Obama moronically trying to distinguish the Taliban from al Qaeda as the enemy (even though we are fighting the Taliban), or Obama waiting months to respond to his self-appointed general's request for soldiers or risk "mission failure", or Obama's incessant international apology tour, or Obama having only one conversation with his commanding general for two months, or Obama recognizing the corruptly-elected Iranian government had nothing to do with providing safe haven or emboldening the enemy has nothing to do with it.
Was the war fought well? No. But most are not. One point I was making is that since Obama took office, more American soldiers lives are being lost at a higher rate than at any time while Bush was president (which ended just 10 months ago). Are you and others honestly suggesting that this increase was a natural consequence of what did or did not happen in 2001-2002 or that the same would have occurred if Bush were still president? If so, then why did this increase occur in mid/late 2009? Why not this increase in December 2008 or even a surge in deaths on January 19, 2009?
As to your point about the poppy fields, I agree with you. But what are we doing now?
Quote from: guido911 on October 28, 2009, 10:07:59 AM
The U.S. installed a Shia government? Funny, I thought the Iranian people had an election and they decided who would run the country. I mean, do you prefer elections where one candidate gets 100% of the vote. As for this government being worse, I guess you forgot about the rape rooms, Saddam's use of chemical weapons on his own people which killed thousands, his regime forcing husbands to watch their wives being raped or the torturing of prisoners, or one of his son's enjoyment in watching enemies fed feet first in a shredder, or any other of the number of human rights violations Saddam's regime committed (unsure if Saddam committed the most evil of abuse, waterboarding). We will not even get into his support of international terrorism, which I do not believe is occurring in Iraq currently. As a friendly reminder, here's a photo of what Saddam did to the Kurds, which to you is apparently better than what we have now:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chemical_weapon2.jpg)
As for Iraq being pro-Iranian, care to source that?
Yeah, I can source that.
God, you are really just a talk radio parrot aren't you? You really think that the current Iraqi government is all tulips and rainbows? The Iraqi government's behavior is going to be muted so long as we are still here, but even so there have been reports of government run death squads that have killed thousands:
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=35167
And torture in Iraqi government prisons (and not just torture by Americans!):
http://www.layalina.tv/publications/review/PR_V.20/article8.html
And again, this is all going on while we are still there, and just what we know about.
Iraq's treatment of it's own citizens is not the part of the situation that is directly dangerous to the United States.
Nuri al-Maliki is running for reelection as a "law and order" coalition candidate. But that's not how he was elected. He and his Dawa party, which is a radical islamist Shia party in of itself, came to power as part of a coalition of Shia movements that included the largest political party in the country, the pro-Iranian Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, and Moqtada al-Sadr's political party.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/once-bitter-rivals-now-a-united-force-in-iraq-vote/article1331568/
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-tc-nw-iraq-politics-1001-100oct02,0,5891391.story
That's right, you remember al-Sadr don't you? How many American's has he killed? Thousands? He is probably responsible for most of the American deaths in Iraq. How many roadside bombs did his follower set? He is a very important part of the winning coalition government that we have been protecting and propping up, for years. And he is very much supported by the Iran government and may even in fact be in training in Iran to become the next Grand Ayatollah of Iraq. Now how scary is that?
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1897120,00.html
And before you say that al-Maliki has changed and sees the error of his ways, the only reason he has formed a new coalition to run as part of is because his masters in the pro-Iranian Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq and Moqtada al-Sadr's pro-Iranian political party said he couldn't be prime minister anymore.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1927371,00.html
Guido, you can say that everything in Iraq is great and the government is run by nice little pink American loving bunnies, but saying that doesn't make it true.
Quote from: swake on October 28, 2009, 11:24:02 AM
You really think that the current Iraqi government is all tulips and rainbows?
I NEVER said that or made such a claim. I was responding to your borderline insane assertion that life for the Iraqi people and the world was better under Saddam. Period. Since you started this debate with "[life in Iraq is] worse than if Saddam was still in power" and that the U.S. "succeeded in installing a Shia dominated pro-Iranian government" (the latter which remains unsourced, I gather because simply being Shia does not mean that you are the same holocaust deniers and funders/exporters of international terrorism as exists in Iran), and which now you have plainly abandoned in the face of my uncontroverted arguments, in particular the response to your stupid U.S. "installed" the Shia government, I should have expected you would go down the "talk radio parrot" road.
Quote from: guido911 on October 28, 2009, 01:01:02 PM
I was responding to your borderline insane assertion that life for the Iraqi people and the world was better under Saddam. Period.
I never said that "life was better" under Saddam, but, even if the average Iraqi hated Saddam, polls show that after 8 years of war, 100,000 civilian deaths, millions of injuries and a completely wrecked infrastructure that yeah, Iraqis believe it's even worse than it was under Saddam.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/about/
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/14282
And the world is dramatically less safe now. The Muslim world never liked the US much, but there was a good deal of sympathy for us after 9/11. Now there is not, mostly due to Iraq, and Obama has not changed that.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1300/many-muslim-nations-less-favorable-to-obama
The Iraq war was good for our enemies. Ql Queda used it as a world wide recruiting tool and Iran used the Iraq War to scare it's own population and clamp down on dissidents. Iran may have even taken part in tricking us into war (using Chalabi for instance, who is now part of the Sadr led faction and, according to Fox News, a spy for Iran):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3756650.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/may/25/usa.iraq10
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120535,00.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSLF559498
Quote from: guido911 on October 28, 2009, 01:01:02 PM
Since you started this debate with "[life in Iraq is] worse than if Saddam was still in power" and that the U.S. "succeeded in installing a Shia dominated pro-Iranian government" (the latter which remains unsourced
Who are you wanting for a source? I linked to six different and relevant news articles from five different reputable news agencies as sources. I have seven additional sources in this post.
Quote from: guido911 on October 28, 2009, 01:01:02 PM
, I gather because simply being Shia does not mean that you are the same holocaust deniers and funders/exporters of international terrorism as exists in Iran), and which now you have plainly abandoned in the face of my uncontroverted arguments, in particular the response to your stupid U.S. "installed" the Shia government,
I never said that all Shia were pro Iranian, but I have sourced that two main Shia groups are, specifically, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq and Moqtada al-Sadr's political party are in fact, pro-Iranian. And that the Dawa party has radical roots.
You have made almost no argument, your arugment seems to be "Saddam was a bad guy and anything that happened after him is good", well, he was a bad guy and that's a stupid argument.
you have sourced nothing, it may well be that your dictionary is also faulty because it seems that the meanings of words like "uncontroverted" and "source" escapes you.
Quote from: guido911 on October 28, 2009, 01:01:02 PM
I should have expected you would go down the "talk radio parrot" road.
I went there because it's the only rational location for you to come to these misguided beliefs.
Checkmate against guido. :D
Quote from: rwarn17588 on October 28, 2009, 07:45:05 PM
Checkmate against guido. :D
Still see you're wincing over my calling you out earlier. Sad.
Quote from: swake on October 28, 2009, 01:36:12 PM
I never said that "life was better" under Saddam, but, even if the average Iraqi hated Saddam, polls show that after 8 years of war, 100,000 civilian deaths, millions of injuries and a completely wrecked infrastructure that yeah, Iraqis believe it's even worse than it was under Saddam.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/about/
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/14282
And the world is dramatically less safe now. The Muslim world never liked the US much, but there was a good deal of sympathy for us after 9/11. Now there is not, mostly due to Iraq, and Obama has not changed that.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1300/many-muslim-nations-less-favorable-to-obama
The Iraq war was good for our enemies. Ql Queda used it as a world wide recruiting tool and Iran used the Iraq War to scare it's own population and clamp down on dissidents. Iran may have even taken part in tricking us into war (using Chalabi for instance, who is now part of the Sadr led faction and, according to Fox News, a spy for Iran):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3756650.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/may/25/usa.iraq10
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120535,00.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSLF559498
Who are you wanting for a source? I linked to six different and relevant news articles from five different reputable news agencies as sources. I have seven additional sources in this post.
I never said that all Shia were pro Iranian, but I have sourced that two main Shia groups are, specifically, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq and Moqtada al-Sadr's political party are in fact, pro-Iranian. And that the Dawa party has radical roots.
You have made almost no argument, your arugment seems to be "Saddam was a bad guy and anything that happened after him is good", well, he was a bad guy and that's a stupid argument.
you have sourced nothing, it may well be that your dictionary is also faulty because it seems that the meanings of words like "uncontroverted" and "source" escapes you.
I went there because it's the only rational location for you to come to these misguided beliefs.
First, you are correct, you did not say life was better under Saddam; you said this: "It's worse than if Saddam was still in power." Wow, big difference, but I will concede the point.
Second, this is what you posted about the current regime: "We have succeeded in installing a Shia dominated pro-Iranian government."
As I pointed out, and which you refuse to address, is that this government was ELECTED by the Iraqi people. The U.S. didn't "install" any government as you stated, that whole democracy, right to vote thing that did not exist while Saddam was in charge, took care of that.
As for your "Shia dominated pro-Iranian government, I read your sources and not one of them stands for the proposition that the Iraqi government is in any way "pro-Iranian" as you allege. Indeed, one source noted the following:
"Both al-Maliki and his rivals in SIIC are seeking to portray their movements as nationalist and not defined by the sectarian politics that previously dragged Iraq to the brink of collapse."
A non-sectarian approach? Sure sounds like Iraq is well on its way to becoming the theocracy that is Iran. Your same article goes on:
"Al-Maliki, who became prime minister in 2006, has seen his political fortunes soar in the past two years. His decision to challenge the militia of a former backer, Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, for control of the southern port of Basra in March 2008 reinvented him as a defender of the law and allowed him to take credit for security gains in Baghdad."
Not quite sure how a split in two Shia factions helps your case, but it does not matter. In fact, I do not see how any of this answers my posit: The U.S. won the Iraq war. Have we achieved both militarily and politically the objectives spelled out prior to the invasion? I argue yes. My question to you, do you think the U.S. lost the Iraq war?
Now, were there problems with the execution of the war and the handling of its aftermath? Sure. But that's war. I read the Angus-Reid poll of Iraqi people and there feeling that life was better under Saddam. The article citing the poll was dated January 3, 2007, nearly three years ago, when sectarian violence was raging in Iraq, and before the surge. I am curious what polling data would show today. Here is a poll from earlier this year which reflects an improvement in how the Iraqi's generally feel.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7942974.stm#hash
As for my not sourcing any fact, you cannot be serious. Are you sincerely suggesting that you never heard of the thousands killed by Saddam's chemical weapons attack, or his rape rooms, or any of the other examples of cruelty he wreaked on his own people? Here are some:
Re: The Kurds: http://ibnlive.in.com/news/obituary-saddam-a-symbol-of-cruelty/29826-2.html
Re: Torture and cruelty: http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/153317.php (warning: Graphic images)
Furthermore, I do not recall ever being accused of not sourcing facts I set out (I could be wrong). But in some cases, hoisting one on their own petard is just as effective an argument strategy. Your turn.
Quote from: guido911 on October 28, 2009, 07:49:29 PM
Still see you're wincing over my calling you out earlier. Sad.
Uhhh, no. :D
Are we arguing over semantics now, not to be a dick . . . just trying to follow the argument while skimming.
It seems you both agree:
1) Most Iraqis polled in 2006 said things were better under Saddam
2) The current government of Iraq is Shia dominated
3) Elements of the government and other powerful forces are pro-Iranian.
4) The Kurds are essentially in the same limbo they were under Saddam (after the U.S. began enforcing the no-fly zone)
5) At least as many people have been killed in the invasion/occupation/insurgency as were killed by Saddam
- - -
I understand the Iraqi's sentiment. It would suck unimaginably to live in fear of being blown up, kid napped, or otherwise pressured into craziness. Under Saddam at least you knew the rules: what he says goes; if you followed them you were generally left alone. When the poll was taken there were several factions that might kill you for being a member of any other.
In the long run, Allah willing, the idiots are killed off/pressured to quit and a normal society can develop. It seems to have gotten much better after those polls were taken in November of 2006. I would be very interested in seeing more up-to-date polling information on what the Iraqi's think of their own situation. The below graph from the reference bodycount website seems to confirm that things have improved:
(http://www.iraqbodycount.org/graphs/timeline.php)
My brief search yielded no more current data. But I wouldn't be surprised if many, many more Iraqis have changed their mind now. At least, I hope so.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on October 29, 2009, 11:47:19 AM
Are we arguing over semantics now, not to be a dick . . . just trying to follow the argument while skimming.
It seems you both agree:
1) Most Iraqis polled in 2006 said things were better under Saddam
2) The current government of Iraq is Shia dominated
3) Elements of the government and other powerful forces are pro-Iranian.
4) The Kurds are essentially in the same limbo they were under Saddam (after the U.S. began enforcing the no-fly zone)
5) At least as many people have been killed in the invasion/occupation/insurgency as were killed by Saddam
- - -
I understand the Iraqi's sentiment. It would suck unimaginably to live in fear of being blown up, kid napped, or otherwise pressured into craziness. Under Saddam at least you knew the rules: what he says goes; if you followed them you were generally left alone. When the poll was taken there were several factions that might kill you for being a member of any other.
In the long run, Allah willing, the idiots are killed off/pressured to quit and a normal society can develop. It seems to have gotten much better after those polls were taken in November of 2006. I would be very interested in seeing more up-to-date polling information on what the Iraqi's think of their own situation. The below graph from the reference bodycount website seems to confirm that things have improved:
(http://www.iraqbodycount.org/graphs/timeline.php)
My brief search yielded no more current data. But I wouldn't be surprised if many, many more Iraqis have changed their mind now. At least, I hope so.
Quit being a dick! :)
All I really want to know is if my position that the U.S. achieved its military and political objectives and thus won the war is agreed with. This other stuff is just noise, which I readily concede I participated in.
Richard Cranium
Quote from: Conan71 on October 29, 2009, 01:11:58 PM
Richard Cranium
Is that who you will be on Saturday Nite?
Quote from: FOTD on October 29, 2009, 01:31:39 PM
Is that who you will be on Saturday Nite?
Hah, funny you should ask that. I actually did that about 18-20 years ago, fashioned a body condom out of a kitchen trash bag and wore a name tag proclaiming me as such.
You going to be at Peter and Joe's big suarez?
Quote from: guido911 on October 29, 2009, 12:48:00 PM
All I really want to know is if my position that the U.S. achieved its military and political objectives and thus won the war is agreed with. This other stuff is just noise, which I readily concede I participated in.
We achieved our a resounding military victory, but we planned very poorly for the ensuing occupation and transition stage. In fact, it appears we really didn't plan for it all. For which I am extremely disappointed as I believe much of the trouble could have been avoided with a few simple steps (keep the army in place [like Germany and Japan], enough troops to occupy the areas required, grant autonomy by region as the situation allows [pull out of areas one at a time], create jobs and security [and the people will take care of anything that messes with that]).
Per the political objective. I'm less clear. We ousted Saddam, which was a prime directive. But the ultimate selling points were to get the WMDs and help the war on terror - I'm not sure we achieved those.
In an academic sense, it pointed up the paradox of fielding the most powerful army in human history: the warmaking is so simple (all things considered), you might make the mistake of thinking that the aftermath would be simple, too.
Quote from: guido911 on October 28, 2009, 08:45:17 PM
As I pointed out, and which you refuse to address, is that this government was ELECTED by the Iraqi people.
Everybody knew EXACTLY how the vote was going to go. So yes, we knew which group we were going to get in power. Surprise, it is the vast majority!
Quote from: cannon_fodder on October 29, 2009, 02:22:32 PM
I believe much of the trouble could have been avoided with a few simple steps (keep the army in place [like Germany and Japan], enough troops to occupy the areas required, grant autonomy by region as the situation allows [pull out of areas one at a time], create jobs and security [and the people will take care of anything that messes with that]).
Unfortunately, that's not politically correct.
Quote from: Red Arrow on October 29, 2009, 06:45:53 PM
Unfortunately, that's not politically correct.
Kinda like re-instituting a draft when we are waging war against two countries....
And agreeing to pay taxes to support the war we are waging against two countries, rather than make the Bush tax cuts permanent....
Lots of political incorrectness to go around....
I felt a draft once, about 1972. It lasted until 1976.