[quote]mstott25 wrote:
…
The Sunnis and Shiites lived in peace in Iraq before this war. … [/quote]
Do you seriously believe this? There is no point in discussing this with you when you don’t even know the basics.
[quote]mstott25 wrote:
The Sunnis and Shiites lived in peace in Iraq before this war.
[/quote]
Did you miss everything having to do with Iraq in the last 50 years?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Yeah, we get it, the US don’t do consistency. [/quote]
Better to be inconsistently right than consistently wrong.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
mstott25 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
The only reason he was able to keep his people down is because he regularly engaged in wholesale murder of various groups. The current Iraqi Army is trying to stop violence against the people while the old Iraqi Army promoted it.
I never said Saddam was an angel and I think we’re digressing here. I firmly believe, as does the current Bush administration, that the new Iraqi Army is not capable of keeping Iraq under control. I thought it was unfair of Bill O’Reilly to put such a burden on their shoulders especially because we are responsible for dismantling the military that was keeping peace in Iraq. Wherein lies your argument?
My argument is that we dismantled a brutal army run by the Sunni minority that only kept contol by brutalizing the Shia majority.
If we would have left that army in place things would likely be worse than they are now.
Did we leave the SS in charge of Nazi Germany? Should we have?[/quote]
I never thought of that Zap. I always thought we should have left the army in place. Very good observation!
[quote]mstott25 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
My argument is that we dismantled a brutal army run by the Sunni minority that only kept contol by brutalizing the Shia majority.
If we would have left that army in place things would likely be worse than they are now.
The Sunnis and Shiites lived in peace in Iraq before this war. What conditions are you contending would have worsened had we not intervened and saved Iraq from herself? What is worse than an all out civil war? This war was labeled as many things but a humanitarian mission to save Iraqis was not one.
Did we leave the SS in charge of Nazi Germany? Should we have?
If what you are implying is true and the United States has some sort of obligation to dismantle cruel armies throughout the world then we are way behind the power curve.
A more suitable question would be: Have we left the militaries of Sudan, North Korea, Burma, Zimbabwe, Uzbekistan, China, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, Libya, Somalia, Iran, and Equatorial Guinea in charge? Should we? [/quote]
Since the USA is not up to the task, the CFR is going to resolve this by eventually dissolving all national armies and creating a international police force.
Who was it, testifying before Congress: “You’re going to get one world government wether you like it or not.” ?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Why do you assume some sort of general obligation to rid the world of “cruel armies” merely because in the specific case of Iraq we wanted to rid Iraq of its “cruel army”?
This fallacy pops up over and over and over - we must bury it.[/quote]
It isn’t a fallacy, it’s a logical conundrum.
First, not many people believe that the Iraq war occurred because of the “cruel army” in place.
Second, claiming that the war happened in large part because Saddam was brutal while other more severe (current and active) brutalities are being ignored invites inspection.
Third, of course there is no general obligation, but if the US is acting upon a principle here, as is being suggested, why is that principle not actively used to make decisions elsewhere?
All of this invites the conclusion, which very many people make, that the US did not go to war due to this principle, and that some other vital factor must have been the primary reason.
This thought process will never be buried, though you may feel it should, because it is self-evident to so much of the population not sharing your viewpoint.
[quote]vroom wrote:
It isn’t a fallacy, it’s a logical conundrum.[/quote]
Actually, it is - it is the “if we can’t help all, then we can’t help one” fallacy.
Correct - no one does.
It invites inspection and can be dealt with in short order. There may be many “more severe” bad guys in the world, but each is involved in a unique set of circumstances that can’t be “held constant” in an attempt to compare the circumstances.
Is this a serious question?
Because of practical constraints? Because the US hopes for a “domino effect” in lieu of direct action? Because creating the fear of action is often more important than the action itself?
Not terribly complicated. You don’t have to think it will work that way or agree with the war to come to the conclusion that there is no inconsistency in the application of the principle itself.
But it is the wrong conclusion - and there is no wrong in saying so to delegitimize sloppy thinking.
The US went to war for many reasons - but the principle of “taking out a bad guy in hopes of freeing the oppressed” is not at all undermined by the fact that the US hasn’t invaded all other countries that have similar problems.
Those that think the US went to war for some other reason are welcome to make that argument and support it - but the notion that “the US did not invade other countries with bad guys” is no such support, for the exact reason that there is no maxim in place that says “if you can’t as a practical matter liberate all peoples, you shouldn’t liberate any peoples.”
It shouldn’t be buried because I don’t like it - it should be buried because it is a wrong answer.
[quote]ChuckyT wrote:
mstott25 wrote:
The Sunnis and Shiites lived in peace in Iraq before this war.
Did you miss everything having to do with Iraq in the last 50 years?[/quote]
The last 50 years? Have you only been paying attention during the last two years?
Zap, ChuckyT, would you please help me help you? I stated that the Sunnis and Shiites lived in peace under Saddam Hussein. Now instead of either of you internet scholars deciding to perform even a cursory search to see if any facts would dispute this, each of you decided to insert more blanket assertions with no citation of sources, no facts to support your claims, and no common sense attached to your criticisms.
Under Saddam Hussein Sunnis and Shiites lived among each other. They could attend the same schools, live in the same neighborhoods, and even intermarry. What has happened since our occupation of Iraq is a civil war on a scale that was never, ever seen under Saddam’s rule.
Let me break down the argument for you:
The United States invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein was developing Weapons of Mass Destruction which posed a potential threat to the United States. Another concern was that Saddam Hussein was supporting terrorism and maybe even directly involved in the attacks of September 11.
That was the justification for the war in Iraq.
We now know, as the CIA, FBI, 9/11 Commission, and every other intelligence effort researching these claims has unequivocally stated, that NEITHER accusations were true. There were no WMD’s and there was no relationship between Saddam Hussein and terrorists.
The Prime Minister that we chose for Iraq is going to Syria and complaining about the US and making public statements to the US that we can leave Iraq whenever we feel like it.
Now I am arguing with you two about whether or not the Sunnis and Shiites were getting along better before the war in Iraq? When will you guys stop coming up with reasons to be in Iraq?
The latest arguments submitted to justify the war (as posted here) include:
- Dismantling a “cruel army”
- Stabilizing oil prices/insuring oil market stays in our favor
As previously stated, neither of these justify starting or continuing a war. If this was the criteria the US used to start wars then we’d have to send troops as quickly as possible to Venezuela, Uzbekistan, Iran, Sudan and Zimbabwe just to name a few.
You guys act so patriotic and supportive of your country and troops then why don’t you take the time to really consider if this is something our troops should be risking their lives for?
Considering that we have increased instability in Iraq, increased the amount of terrorists, increased anti-american sentiment throughout the whole world, and started a war to combat elements that DID NOT EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE maybe we should reconsider if it’s worth staying there in the first place rather than risking more American lives.
[quote]vroom wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Why do you assume some sort of general obligation to rid the world of “cruel armies” merely because in the specific case of Iraq we wanted to rid Iraq of its “cruel army”?
This fallacy pops up over and over and over - we must bury it.
It isn’t a fallacy, it’s a logical conundrum.
First, not many people believe that the Iraq war occurred because of the “cruel army” in place.
Second, claiming that the war happened in large part because Saddam was brutal while other more severe (current and active) brutalities are being ignored invites inspection…[/quote]
Who is more brutal than Saddam? He invaded 2 countries and did not follow the peace treaty after the first gulf war.
He murdered Shia and Kurd by the tens or even hundreds of thousands.
Brutal to both his countrymen and his neighbors. I cannot think of any sitting dictator that has even come close to the horrible stuff Saddam has brought upon the world.
[quote]pookie wrote:
rainjack wrote:
How can an op/ed piece be free of spin?
I said political spin. Don’t skip the big words.
The piece does not align itself politically with either parties. No mention of Dems, Reps or any other parties; the only mention of politics is to say how surreal and detached the discussions in Washington appear to be compared to the day-to-day life over there.
Explaining life to you gets to be tedious, you know.
Funny how the NYT will trot out the grunts when they have something to say that is anti-war - but never let the pro war soldiers utter a peep.
Funny how you refer to the anti-war ones as grunts, but to the pro-war ones as soldiers. As if, somehow, being concerned about the situation in Iraq, instead of a mindless cheerleader, somehow tainted their service.
I’m just saying.
[/quote]
Grunt hasn’t been an insulting term since the Vietnam era. Since then the infantry takes pride in the term.
GRUNT - “Term of affection used to denote that filthy, sweaty, dirt-encrusted, footsore, camouflage-painted, tired, sleepy beautiful little son of a bitch who has kept the wolf away from the door for over two hundred years.” -H.G. Duncan
[quote]hedo wrote:
pookie wrote:
rainjack wrote:
How can an op/ed piece be free of spin?
I said political spin. Don’t skip the big words.
The piece does not align itself politically with either parties. No mention of Dems, Reps or any other parties; the only mention of politics is to say how surreal and detached the discussions in Washington appear to be compared to the day-to-day life over there.
Explaining life to you gets to be tedious, you know.
Funny how the NYT will trot out the grunts when they have something to say that is anti-war - but never let the pro war soldiers utter a peep.
Funny how you refer to the anti-war ones as grunts, but to the pro-war ones as soldiers. As if, somehow, being concerned about the situation in Iraq, instead of a mindless cheerleader, somehow tainted their service.
I’m just saying.
Grunt hasn’t been an insulting term since the Vietnam era. Since then the infantry takes pride in the term.
GRUNT - “Term of affection used to denote that filthy, sweaty, dirt-encrusted, footsore, camouflage-painted, tired, sleepy beautiful little son of a bitch who has kept the wolf away from the door for over two hundred years.” -H.G. Duncan
[/quote]
Indeed. Which is why POG (People Other than Grunts) is a term of abuse. Grunt is more of a term of respect than “Soldier,” which the Army oddly insists on capitalizing these days.
[quote]mstott25 wrote:
ChuckyT wrote:
mstott25 wrote:
The Sunnis and Shiites lived in peace in Iraq before this war.
Did you miss everything having to do with Iraq in the last 50 years?
The last 50 years? Have you only been paying attention during the last two years?
Zap, ChuckyT, would you please help me help you? I stated that the Sunnis and Shiites lived in peace under Saddam Hussein. Now instead of either of you internet scholars deciding to perform even a cursory search to see if any facts would dispute this, each of you decided to insert more blanket assertions with no citation of sources, no facts to support your claims, and no common sense attached to your criticisms.
…
[/quote]
How many Kurds did Saddam’s Sunni led army kill? How many Shia?
You call living under his iron boot, rebellion and mass slaughter peace? Seriously?
[quote]mstott25 wrote:
ChuckyT wrote:
mstott25 wrote:
The Sunnis and Shiites lived in peace in Iraq before this war.
Did you miss everything having to do with Iraq in the last 50 years?
The last 50 years? Have you only been paying attention during the last two years?
Zap, ChuckyT, would you please help me help you? I stated that the Sunnis and Shiites lived in peace under Saddam Hussein. Now instead of either of you internet scholars deciding to perform even a cursory search to see if any facts would dispute this, each of you decided to insert more blanket assertions with no citation of sources, no facts to support your claims, and no common sense attached to your criticisms.
Under Saddam Hussein Sunnis and Shiites lived among each other. They could attend the same schools, live in the same neighborhoods, and even intermarry. What has happened since our occupation of Iraq is a civil war on a scale that was never, ever seen under Saddam’s rule.
[/quote]
This isn’t totally off-base. Yes, Iraq has been ruled by the Sunnis, and especially certain Sunni tribes, since it became a country. Yes, Saddam slaughtered Shiites and Kurds when they rose up against him. But the Iraqi Army was mostly Shiites, and even some of its top generals were (their most able armor general, for what that’s worth, among them). And there wasn’t civil war, or widespread ethnic cleansing, or murderous fighting even among co-religionists (see Basra, especially once the Brits leave).
If we take the middle estimate for Iraqi deaths since the invasion four years ago and the high end one for Saddam’s victims during 30 years of rule (not counting the war with Iran), the numbers aren’t too far apart. Obviously the vast majority of those dead since 2003 didn’t die by American hands. But that doesn’t absolve us of a great deal of responsibility for them.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
How many Kurds did Saddam’s Sunni led army kill? How many Shia?
You call living under his iron boot, rebellion and mass slaughter peace? Seriously?[/quote]
Mass slaughter? What are you talking about? Are you talking about the Kurds that Saddam killed in the 80’s with the weapons we supplied him? Is this the same slaughter that the Reagan Administration tried to pin on Iran initially until it was called into question? You know this occurred before the photograph of Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam’s hand, right? This is when Saddam was a dictator but he was our dictator and we didn’t care at all. So that’s one administration that didn’t take Saddam out for being a cruel dictator.
Or are you talking about when Saddam slaughtered the Shiites that rose up against him, a rebellion we supported by the way, after the initial Gulf War? We encouraged these shiites to rise up against Saddam and then we let them get slaughtered. Saddam did not tolerate insurrection. Do you know the penalty for firing one round off in the city of Baghdad under Saddam? It was six months of confinement. We encouraged Shiites to rise up against Saddam and we let them get slaughtered and we did not raise one finger against Saddam. That’s two administrations that did not take out Saddam for being a cruel dictator.
Do you honestly think Iraq was anywhere near the condition it is in today? Ruthless dictators are the norm for many parts of the world. I have many friends from Iraq, all of them have at least a master’s degree and nothing but good memories about growing up under Saddam’s “iron boot”. They would all disagree with you. When I first asked a professor what it was like in Iraq many years ago I too was inundated with the images and message of the western media. You know what my professor told me? She had never even seen any of the atrocities nor did she know where they were occurring. It’s like questioning the average kid from Manhattan about Skid Row, they don’t know what you’re talking about.
We could just as easily paint America as a horrible, racist, deplorable society if we would spend all of our time and efforts reporting on those aspects of our cities and rural areas.
The only problem is that nobody realizes that Iraq flourished under Saddam Hussein. If you think the fact that Saddam was a cruel dictator negates any of this then you have to realize that cruel ruthless dictators are everywhere. Christ look at Saudi Arabia! Look at Omar Al-Bashir from Sudan, look at Qaddafi in Libya. These guys have been far more brutal than Saddam especially recently.
All of this to say…still no good reasons why we should be in Iraq. Iraq is much worse off now than it was before our invasion.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Second, claiming that the war happened in large part because Saddam was brutal while other more severe (current and active) brutalities are being ignored invites inspection.
[/quote]
Did we go in because we feared Saddam had weapons of mass destruction or did we go in because Saddam was brutal. He was brutal in his war against Iran, but nothing was done, even after Iraq bombed a US warship.
The war has nothing to do with Saddam being brutal, but it doesn’t justify leaving a brutal army in place once the country falls.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Those that think the US went to war for some other reason are welcome to make that argument and support it - but the notion that “the US did not invade other countries with bad guys” is no such support, for the exact reason that there is no maxim in place that says “if you can’t as a practical matter liberate all peoples, you shouldn’t liberate any peoples.”
|
[/quote]
We did not go into Iraq because Saddam was a bad guy. We feared he had weapons of mass destruction and did not want them to fall into the hands of terrorists. Whether or not this proved to be true or false, whether this was a good idea or a bad idea in hindsight does not change the reasons we went in.
[quote]mstott25 wrote:
ChuckyT wrote:
mstott25 wrote:
The Sunnis and Shiites lived in peace in Iraq before this war.
Did you miss everything having to do with Iraq in the last 50 years?
The last 50 years? Have you only been paying attention during the last two years?
Zap, ChuckyT, would you please help me help you? I stated that the Sunnis and Shiites lived in peace under Saddam Hussein. Now instead of either of you internet scholars deciding to perform even a cursory search to see if any facts would dispute this, each of you decided to insert more blanket assertions with no citation of sources, no facts to support your claims, and no common sense attached to your criticisms. [/quote]
Hey, genius, have you missed the thousands and thousands of corpses dug up in mass graves since the invasion? Type in “Iraq mass graves”, I don’t feel like fucking doing everything for you. THAT’S Saddam’s peace – utter subjugation and murder.
I’ll give you an example. One of my good friends from college is a 1st generation Chaldean. Two uncles and about half of his immediate cousins were dragged off in the middle of the night by Saddam’s thugs and never heard from again. What was Abu Ghraib used for before the infamous dipshits from the last couple of years?
That is the peace you’re saying was great. As many people have died in the current chaos, we’re nowhere near the death rate under Saddam’s “government”.
Again, the first part was mostly theoretically true. In reality, Sunnis were placed overwhelmingly in positions of power. University, government jobs, pork, bribery, secret police, army staff, army officer corps, police, you name it. They did this at the direct expense of the Shia majority for a very long time.
Various Sunni sects want nothing to do with relinquishing this power. Some know full well that terrorizing the Shia and Kurds for so long is not going to come back in a great way – witness much of the sectarian strife in the last 4 years. Or did you really think it was about religion? When was the last death squad that went out based on theological differences?
Again, you’re saying that government based on murdering everyone that didn’t agree with you was a great thing. You don’t know a fucking thing about Iraq under Saddam apparently, or you’ve never met anyone who lived there.
[quote] Let me break down the argument for you:
The United States invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein was developing Weapons of Mass Destruction which posed a potential threat to the United States. Another concern was that Saddam Hussein was supporting terrorism and maybe even directly involved in the attacks of September 11.
That was the justification for the war in Iraq.
We now know, as the CIA, FBI, 9/11 Commission, and every other intelligence effort researching these claims has unequivocally stated, that NEITHER accusations were true. There were no WMD’s and there was no relationship between Saddam Hussein and terrorists. [/quote]
Here, let me help you out. I don’t give a shit about any of that. I believed we should have invaded Iraq the minute they broke the terms of the ceasefire from the First Gulf War.
All the rest of the other bullshit, WMD’s and Saddam being a bad guy and all the rest of that was just buttering up all the morons who forgot what happened in the previous decade, when our foreign policy consisted of sticking our fingers in our ears and saying LALALALALA.
So “faulty intelligence, WMDs, misleading by the President, war for oil, Halliburton” and whatever else the fruitcake saying of the day is (I can’t keep up), you can stick directly in your ass as far as I’m concerned.
The Prime Minister WE chose for Iraq? Are you now going to say that you’re an Iraqi voter? Or that the US stacked the ballot?
They were getting along the same as now, except the Shia and Kurds have guns and the war is happening in the streets instead of the basement of the local secret police HQ. Apparently as long as it’s quiet that doesn’t bother you though. I’m sure you were a fan of US foreign policy in the 1990’s as well.
[quote] The latest arguments submitted to justify the war (as posted here) include:
- Dismantling a “cruel army”
- Stabilizing oil prices/insuring oil market stays in our favor
As previously stated, neither of these justify starting or continuing a war. If this was the criteria the US used to start wars then we’d have to send troops as quickly as possible to Venezuela, Uzbekistan, Iran, Sudan and Zimbabwe just to name a few. [/quote]
I’m not going to bother dismembering your logical fallacy. And I don’t really care about any of those other justifications, although if you really paid any attention to current events all of those were mentioned by just about everyone in the 12 year “rush to war”.
I have. The implication that I want Americans to die in Iraq is shitty. I want us to win and leave as soon as we possibly can.
Sure, genius, you make all kinds of great arguments against going to war in the first place. Welcome to 2003. Now what? Leave? Let Al Qaida in Iraq run the place? Awesome plan!
[quote]mstott25 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
How many Kurds did Saddam’s Sunni led army kill? How many Shia?
You call living under his iron boot, rebellion and mass slaughter peace? Seriously?
Mass slaughter? What are you talking about? Are you talking about the Kurds that Saddam killed in the 80’s with the weapons we supplied him? Is this the same slaughter that the Reagan Administration tried to pin on Iran initially until it was called into question?
You know this occurred before the photograph of Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam’s hand, right? This is when Saddam was a dictator but he was our dictator and we didn’t care at all. So that’s one administration that didn’t take Saddam out for being a cruel dictator. [/quote]
Way to miss everything that was going on in the region. Why would we side with Saddam? Who were we siding with him against?
Also, the number is in the hundreds of thousands that Saddam tortured and murdered. Marsh Arabs (genocide), Kurds (genocide and ethnic cleansing), Christians/Chaldeans, Jews, etc. Why do you think that there are thousands and thousands of Iraqi immigrants from the last thirty years in the USA?
[quote]Or are you talking about when Saddam slaughtered the Shiites that rose up against him, a rebellion we supported by the way, after the initial Gulf War? We encouraged these shiites to rise up against Saddam and then we let them get slaughtered. Saddam did not tolerate insurrection.
Do you know the penalty for firing one round off in the city of Baghdad under Saddam? It was six months of confinement. We encouraged Shiites to rise up against Saddam and we let them get slaughtered and we did not raise one finger against Saddam. That’s two administrations that did not take out Saddam for being a cruel dictator. [/quote]
What was going on domestically? Why wouldn’t Bush I challenge Saddam at this point? He was wrong but why did he decide the way he did? Do you even know?
[quote]Do you honestly think Iraq was anywhere near the condition it is in today? Ruthless dictators are the norm for many parts of the world. I have many friends from Iraq, all of them have at least a master’s degree and nothing but good memories about growing up under Saddam’s “iron boot”. They would all disagree with you.
When I first asked a professor what it was like in Iraq many years ago I too was inundated with the images and message of the western media. You know what my professor told me? She had never even seen any of the atrocities nor did she know where they were occurring. It’s like questioning the average kid from Manhattan about Skid Row, they don’t know what you’re talking about. [/quote]
That’s funny. Every single Iraqi American I know (and I know more than a few, given that I live right next to the largest concentration of them outside of the Middle East) had horror stories about Saddam. Do you remember tens of thousands of them dancing in the streets in the US when Saddam was overthrown? I do. It was my street.
Raping of their women, murdering of their relatives, torture, extortion… The huge decline in the standard of living since Saddam took over and ran the country into the ground.
How the country used to be a center for learning and education before Saddam, and how under Saddam most of the country didn’t have ELECTRICITY (except for Sunni neighborhoods in Baghdad). So I would question the fuck out of your pal’s characterization of Iraq, if you’re not just making it up, which sounds more likely.
When was the last time that President Bush murdered a quarter million political opponents in cold blood, or forced natives of one region to be forcefully relocated, or destroyed an entire ecosystem simply to get back at a particular culture, or persecuted a religion, or started a suicidal war with a neighbor… So no, you’re completely wrong.
We call this a pattern.
Iraq declined in just about every measure of quality of life that you can imagine from it’s high point in the pre-Saddam 1950s.
Again, I’m sure we should just leave and things would be great, right genius?
[quote]ChuckyT wrote:
That’s funny. Every single Iraqi American I know (and I know more than a few, given that I live right next to the largest concentration of them outside of the Middle East) had horror stories about Saddam. Do you remember tens of thousands of them dancing in the streets in the US when Saddam was overthrown? I do. It was my street.
[/quote]
So you’re from Dearborn Michigan…big fucking deal. I’m sure you do know plenty of people that hated Saddam just like I have met plenty of people that loved Iraq under Saddam. I’m not crusading for the sainthood of Saddam, I’m pointing out that Iraq was better before we occupied it. Ask all your dancing neighbors about that.
Look - you want to sit here and argue with me that Iraq is better now than it was under Saddam? Are you saying that Iraq is going to turn out better eventually? We’ve had four years - when do you expect to see some progress?
I know you’re not a big fan of facts and reality but what about this UN report?
http://newstandardnews.net/content/?items=1816
Or maybe this report
or what about this one?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/24/iraq/main2036338.shtml
Go ahead and keep preaching that Iraq is better now since we occupied it but if you don’t mind I’ll be paying more attention to the facts and studies being released that indicate otherwise.
[quote]
Again, I’m sure we should just leave and things would be great, right genius?[/quote]
I don’t know, can you think of any other country that we left and things turned out just fine? Like maybe Vietnam? Maybe we should get enough troops over there so that we have a 1:1 ratio of troops to Iraqi citizens and we can monitor them all day long and tell them what to eat and how to act and how to have a government. That’s a much better idea.
[quote]ChuckyT wrote:
Hey, genius, have you missed the thousands and thousands of corpses dug up in mass graves since the invasion? Type in “Iraq mass graves”, I don’t feel like fucking doing everything for you. THAT’S Saddam’s peace – utter subjugation and murder.
[/quote]
Hey genius do you realize that the amount of Iraqis that have been killed since 2003 would fill up nearly 6x the amount of mass graves we’ve discovered?
Wow - guess what the same type of prisons exist in Saudi Arabia - should we invade them next?
Are you sure about this? The report from Johns Hopkins university said that 655,000 Iraqis had been killed since the 2003 invasion. So what is your fucking point? Who are you arguing against? Are you contending that Iraq is now safer, that people are living in more peace than before the 2003 invasion? Bullshit.
Buddy you don’t know who the fuck you’re talking to. I’ve been to Iraq, I’m about to go back. I’ve lived among the people, I’ve trained with Arabs and I’ve trained Arabs. I earned my degree in Middle Eastern Studies from the Defense Language Institute at the Presidio of Monterey, CA - I speak Arabic fluently - so who the fuck are you and what the fuck do you know about being in Iraq?
Of course you don’t give a shit about any of that. Why should you pay attention to any reports pertaining to our efforts in Iraq? Why would anybody care what every major intelligence agency in our country has discovered in regards to the mess we’ve gotten ourselves into in Iraq? How am I supposed to take you seriously when you keep insisting that you don’t care about the facts?
Sorry dumbfuck, I don’t have the luxury of sticking it up my ass. I’m one of the guys who is embarking on a mission to liberate a country that doesn’t want to be liberated. So excuse me if I pay attention to what the studies are reporting.
Hey chuck - al maliki wasn’t elected, he was appointed.
of course you won’t.
I know, I know. You don’t care about anything the committees and intelligence agencies are reporting. You don’t care about facts and research and reports. You are dedicated to our occupation of Iraq no matter what anybody else says because you have arab neighbors.
I never meant to imply you wanted Americans to die. I meant to imply that you felt the death of more American soldiers in Iraq is justified. That’s where we differ.
as opposed to the awesome plan we have in place now? psssst - guess what? We’ll be exiting Iraq anyways. That place is a mess and it ain’t getting any better. You just seem to think that we should keep letting our soldiers die before we finally pull out - I have more common sense than that.