We Won! Again!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
harris447 wrote:
Tank53 wrote:
I’m glad to see a posting like this. I’ve been overwhelmed lately for the desire to point out the obvious to many Americans.

You know, there was a countrys beginning long ago that started in similar ways. A country that had to fight for its freedom and losing lives the whole way. It started in war and has gone on to be one of the prideful reflections of that country. The USA still today sings songs of tribute to the men of old and past who lost their lives for the sake of us today. Still, even beyond the disagreements we all have, we are proud and lucky to have the freedom we do.

The idea today that the war in Iraq has been a waste and that we ought to pull out immediately is asinine and selfish. We glory every day in the freedom we often take for granted as Americans.

But yet we arent willing to give that gift to others. War has always been costly and it will be. The scars it leaves behind hurt. But I for one, am willing to give my life so some young Iraqi boy may taste the freedom I live my entire life. I doubt anyone in the USA would give their freedom up for anything in the world, if they knew what they were giving up. Yet to pull out or call Bush stupid, is foolish.

It just grinds my gears when people take their freedom for granted and are unwilling to give others the same.

Why do I not believe–even for one millisecond–that you’re willing to give your life for “some young Iraqi boy to taste freedom.”

Are you willing to give your life for a young Tibetan boy to taste freedom? How 'bout an African in a refugee camp whose family got slaughtered by the Janjaweed? North Korean?

You wanna be a hero? Join the marines. Stop talking tough on the computer.

Who “gives their lives?” Our servicemen risk their lives but they don’t throw them away.

If our military shouldn’t risk it for Iraqis, should they risk their lives for the French? Belgians? English?

Is it just OK to fight when it is white people?

If NJ was invaded should I help you fight back? After all I am in PA and it wouldn’t affect me.

If a stranger is being raped or murdered should I ignore it? Must it be a neighbor before I help? Perhaps a family member?

For a so called liberal you sure don’t seem to give 2 shits for humanity.

In case you forget we went to Iraq to take out Saddam Hussien. Mission accomplished. According to all the nay-sayers Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror, yet Iraq appears to be in the middle of the war on terror.

I don’t think those people that blow up car bombs and IEDs in the middle of marketplaces can be called anything else.

Like all wars things don’t go according to plan, yet we are winning.[/quote]

Iraq is in the middle of the “war on terror” because our occupation has created terrorists.

If NJ was invaded, and fell, then PA would be next. That represents, as the phrase goes, a “clear and present danger”. Whereas Iraq posed no danger to us whatsoever at any time.

If the mission was killing a bunch of American soldiers and Iraqi civillians and making Halliburton, et al. a shitload of money…well, yeah: mission accomplished.

22

So let me get this straight. A constitution that was written to exclude the minority Sunni (30% of population) in favor of the majority Shiites and Kurds (70% of population) won ratification. No shit! Does anyone else see something wrong with this picture? The majority got their way on a constitution that only accounts for the majority and this is a major victory? The logic makes no sense.

In addition, I remember that this constitution had specific language about Islam being the official religion of the country, women having little to no rights and the Sunni not even being acknowledged as Iraqi citizens. Congrads! We have been instrumental in creating a bigoted, sexist, Islamic theocracy! YEAH!!! American Democracy at its finest.

23

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
hedo wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
RJ, most people expected this war to be over in 2 hours, just like the movies.

You can add Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz to that movie watching crowd.

Not based on any public statements they made.

huh?

What ever happened to ‘Mission Accomplished’?

I guess that photo-op never happened?

[/quote]

Not even a good try Marm.

It was the end of major combat operations. Mechanized warfare vs. a simarly armed opponent. Even during that speech references were made to a long struggle.

Every major speech emphasizes the same time line. You can choose not to acknowledge it but it doesn’t make it true.

24

[quote]GymRat wrote:

I’m all for freedom of speech and I don’t care if you disagree with the war, scream it all you want to get your voice heard before we go in, but once that first boot hits the ground in enemy territory, shut your dam mouth because all you’re doing beyond that point is putting our troops in more danger.

[/quote]

I?m sorry gymrat, but that is a stupid way of seeing it.

If you think it through, it means that everything an administration had to do was to start a war so that everyone else who disagreed had to shut the fuck up or be “unpatriotic”.

:slight_smile:

25

Al, you may want to read it before you make those comments.

The majority voted on it. A tyranny of the minority such as the Baath party serves no purpose. Although Islam is the official religion the constitution they wrote and voted for also specifically protects freedom of religion.

Compared to the government it replaced and that it is surrounded by on all sides, it represents a huge leap forward in human rights.

Seriously, even a cursory read of the document, rather then someone elses opinion, should clear it up.

26

[quote]orion wrote:
GymRat wrote:

I’m all for freedom of speech and I don’t care if you disagree with the war, scream it all you want to get your voice heard before we go in, but once that first boot hits the ground in enemy territory, shut your dam mouth because all you’re doing beyond that point is putting our troops in more danger.

I?m sorry gymrat, but that is a stupid way of seeing it.

If you think it trough, it means that everything an administration had to do was to start a war so that everyone else who disagreed had to shut the fuck up or be “unpatriotic”.

:slight_smile:
[/quote]

No, what he is saying is that it is cool to disagree, but don’t do that if it weakens our troops; those who are putting it all on the line for this country. Right or wrong they are there doing their job. So we can disagree with the war, but we should still be supportive of those there fighting as it was not their decision to make.

27

[quote]hedo wrote:
Al, you may want to read it before you make those comments.

The majority voted on it. A tyranny of the minority such as the Baath party serves no purpose. Although religion is the official religion the constitution they wrote and voted for also specifically protects freedom of religion.

Compared to the government it replaced and that it is surrounded by on all sides, it represents a huge leap forward in human rights.

Seriously, even a cursory read of the document, rather then someone elses opinion, should clear it up.[/quote]

I did do a cursory read of it. I didn’t use someone else opinion. Your condesending tone is not appreciated.

What I could see is, given the volatility of that region, many of the things in it can be exploited later on. And it was clear that certain groups got excluded out of the document. Just because the majority voted for it, doesn’t mean it was right for everyone. There was no consensus, it was majority rules. If the majority is included and the minority excluded, is it right?

28

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
orion wrote:
GymRat wrote:

I’m all for freedom of speech and I don’t care if you disagree with the war, scream it all you want to get your voice heard before we go in, but once that first boot hits the ground in enemy territory, shut your dam mouth because all you’re doing beyond that point is putting our troops in more danger.

I?m sorry gymrat, but that is a stupid way of seeing it.

If you think it trough, it means that everything an administration had to do was to start a war so that everyone else who disagreed had to shut the fuck up or be “unpatriotic”.

:slight_smile:

No, what he is saying is that it is cool to disagree, but don’t do that if it weakens our troops; those who are putting it all on the line for this country. Right or wrong they are there doing their job. So we can disagree with the war, but we should still be supportive of those there fighting as it was not their decision to make.
[/quote]

How exactly does disagreeing with the war “weaken” our troops?

Secondly, the phrase “right or wrong” should instantly suggest that you’re on the wrong path. I will not support my country, right OR wrong. I will support it when it is right, and try to turn it TO the right when it is wrong, as it is now.

29

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
orion wrote:
GymRat wrote:

I’m all for freedom of speech and I don’t care if you disagree with the war, scream it all you want to get your voice heard before we go in, but once that first boot hits the ground in enemy territory, shut your dam mouth because all you’re doing beyond that point is putting our troops in more danger.

[/quote]

This statement contradicts itself. The people that are protesting the war surely care for the soldiers over there just not the reasons why they were sent. When I served, protestors didn’t bother me a bit. Part of what I was defending was their right to do so

30

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
orion wrote:
GymRat wrote:

So we can disagree with the war, but we should still be supportive of those there fighting as it was not their decision to make.
[/quote]

Agreed we should be supportive but belive it or not it was their decision to join our volunteer army. When I was in I didn’t agree with the policies that led to several operations but it was not my place to argue, as I volunteered for service.

31

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
hedo wrote:
Al, you may want to read it before you make those comments.

The majority voted on it. A tyranny of the minority such as the Baath party serves no purpose. Although religion is the official religion the constitution they wrote and voted for also specifically protects freedom of religion.

Compared to the government it replaced and that it is surrounded by on all sides, it represents a huge leap forward in human rights.

Seriously, even a cursory read of the document, rather then someone elses opinion, should clear it up.

I did do a cursory read of it. I didn’t use someone else opinion. Your condesending tone is not appreciated.

What I could see is, given the volatility of that region, many of the things in it can be exploited later on. And it was clear that certain groups got excluded out of the document. Just because the majority voted for it, doesn’t mean it was right for everyone. There was no consensus, it was majority rules. If the majority is included and the minority excluded, is it right?[/quote]

I feel what you are saying Al but I wonder when I look at our imperfect constitution and how it ended up leaving minorities like blacks, indians, and even women without the same rights. It has taken us a long time to get our shit together since that initial draft and has taken many amendments but as those groups are on a more even playing field now. Perhaps this Iraqi constitution, while certainly flawed and stacked in the majority’s favor, can be a stepping stone to rights that all the people over there may never have seen before.

32

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
hedo wrote:
Al, you may want to read it before you make those comments.

The majority voted on it. A tyranny of the minority such as the Baath party serves no purpose. Although religion is the official religion the constitution they wrote and voted for also specifically protects freedom of religion.

Compared to the government it replaced and that it is surrounded by on all sides, it represents a huge leap forward in human rights.

Seriously, even a cursory read of the document, rather then someone elses opinion, should clear it up.

I did do a cursory read of it. I didn’t use someone else opinion. Your condesending tone is not appreciated.

What I could see is, given the volatility of that region, many of the things in it can be exploited later on. And it was clear that certain groups got excluded out of the document. Just because the majority voted for it, doesn’t mean it was right for everyone. There was no consensus, it was majority rules. If the majority is included and the minority excluded, is it right?[/quote]

It wasn’t meant to be condesending and if you took it that way then you mistook my intention.

I also read it and specifically pointed to the sections you excluded in your argument regarding religion and Islam. It is the only constitution in the middle east that specifically guarantees freedom of religion. You stated that Islam is the state religion, as it is in most ME countries but didn’t mention this.

The majority is in power because they have more voters. The rights of the minority are protected but do not have enough votes to control the government. They do, for the first time, have civil rights. That’s democracy and what the Iraqi’s choose. To answer your question, yes that is right. Tyranny of the minority is a peculiar American thing expounded by the left since the 2000 elections. It doesn’t happen here and is rare in any democracy.

You may take that statement as condesending but you are drawing conclusions about the vote, majority rule and civil rights and claiming that the guarantees in their own constitution do not exist, when in fact they do. Where does it say that the Sunni’s are excluded and that you can only practice Islam? If I am wrong I stand corrected. I haven’t seen it but if I overlooked it please advise.

Again, the previous party in power was a facist dictatorship. If you don’t see a constitutional democracy as an improvement what would you suggest might be better for the Iraqi’s?

33

[quote]harris447 wrote:
…
Iraq is in the middle of the “war on terror” because our occupation has created terrorists.

…
[/quote]

This is incorrect. Our occupation of Iraq has given the terrorists an opportunity to fight our troops. We didn’t create anyone, we picked the battleground.

War is not like football. In war you do not want the homefield advantage.

34

[quote]If NJ was invaded, and fell, then PA would be next. That represents, as the phrase goes, a “clear and present danger”. Whereas Iraq posed no danger to us whatsoever at any time.
[/quote]

I wonder, did you feel the same about Afghanistan before 9/11?

35

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
harris447 wrote:
…
Iraq is in the middle of the “war on terror” because our occupation has created terrorists.

…

This is incorrect. Our occupation of Iraq has given the terrorists an opportunity to fight our troops. We didn’t create anyone, we picked the battleground.

War is not like football. In war you do not want the homefield advantage.[/quote]

Exactly.

36

[quote]GymRat wrote:
If NJ was invaded, and fell, then PA would be next. That represents, as the phrase goes, a “clear and present danger”. Whereas Iraq posed no danger to us whatsoever at any time.

I wonder, did you feel the same about Afghanistan before 9/11?[/quote]

The Afghanistan that was run by the Taliban? The one the US government did nothing about for years and years?

The Taliban that Bush invited to Texas to chat with?

That Afghanistan?

37

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
The problem is there are more American troops in Iraq than there are trained Iraqi troops in Iraq.

I’m not understanding why this is a problem. They had no military after the invasion. We’ve had more military than they have since 1990. Why is it a problem now?

If you take away the civil affairs units, and those that are supporting the repair of the infrastructure - i.e, non-combat troops the difference is not that big.

But even so - Iraq went from 0 trained units to a shitload of them remarkably fast. Not as fast as the MSM wanted it to be, but impressive to go from absolutley nothing to what they have now.

The thing that the Bush-haters/peaceniks really can’t stomach is the fact that we are achieving what we set out to achieve: A free and democratic Iraq.

[/quote]

I thought we set out to find weapons of mass destruction. Or find a link to Sept. 11. My mistake. The premises for war change quicker than the news can catch them I guess.

38

Their’s not to make reply,
Their’s not to reason why,
Their’s but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

A soldier’s job is to do what the commanders tell them, and to get the hell out safe. But to put them in harm’s way unnecessarily is the greatest crime a country can make.

And believe me, I want to see their goddamn constitution work. I want the Iraqis to take care of their own shit. I mean, now that we are there and embroiled in that hellhole, we can’t leave it to the dogs, or they will turn out far more extremist than is good for anyone.

However, as I said before, our own government has lied time and again about why we are there in the first place. If we get a “free and democratic” Iraq, then at least the last goal we set is accomplished. Because every other bullshit reason we were told was a lie.

At least some good will come from this idiot’s folly.

39

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I thought we set out to find weapons of mass destruction. Or find a link to Sept. 11. My mistake. The premises for war change quicker than the news can catch them I guess. [/quote]

And that’s all you want to believe - that I raq was about WMD’s.

It was part of the GWOT. Bush said so in his SOTU speech before hostilities commenced. He named Iraq, Iran, and N.Korea as the Axis of Evil.

Having selective memory doesn’t make your position right. But you guys do that all the time.

40

[quote]rainjack wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
I thought we set out to find weapons of mass destruction. Or find a link to Sept. 11. My mistake. The premises for war change quicker than the news can catch them I guess.

And that’s all you want to believe - that I raq was about WMD’s.

It was part of the GWOT. Bush said so in his SOTU speech before hostilities commenced. He named Iraq, Iran, and N.Korea as the Axis of Evil.

Having selective memory doesn’t make your position right. But you guys do that all the time.
[/quote]

You mean it is part of Paul Wolfowitz’s doctrine. I see exactly what’s there. As I said before, the creation of an American Empire where we attempt to eliminate all our enemies, both militarily and economically, is not a good thing.