I told you so
POSTED BY: rue
UPDATED: Saturday, July 1, 2006 01:06
VIEWED: 11164
PAGE 8 of 15
"Mental illness" is relative, isn't it?
"Denying reality"--Reality is defined by political and religious beliefs. There is a God. There is no God. Both sides believe the other is denying reality.
"psychotic behaviour to the value of the lives of others"--Well, we're talking about war here. Both war and pacifism cost lives. Again, both sides believe the other is the merciless one who is willing to sacrifice the wrong lives.
"inability to think coherently... "--Whether someone makes sense is in the eye of the beholder as well, isn't it?
I myself am against the war, bitterly and passionately against the war. Yet I have close and dear friends who aren't far from Hero's position. I know them--they aren't mentally ill, anymore than I am.
The country is profoundly divided right now, and thanks to mass media harping on our differences, the chasm is growing ever deeper and wider. We are viciously attacking each other in an endless blame game.
In the end, what does that accomplish? Girls are still being raped in Thai and Indian brothels. Congolese are still being massacred and harvested for organs. Entire generations of Peruvians are still stunted because of inadequate nutrition. Street children in the USA are still being exploited. People worldwide are suffering and dying of cancer and countless diseases.
It is easier to point fingers and to lift them and DO something. The mom whose child is starving might think we are ALL mentally ill for believing our political and religious debates are worth a damn.
I liked the Serenity screenings. We DID something. We focused on what we had in common and DID something together. If we could have more of that, on a bigger scale as a country, that might be sane.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
we've lost over 2,500 soldiers in iraq and more than 10,000 have been injured. Is that the ends you're talking about? Making it easier for them to kill us over there so they don't have to come over here?
The idea is that you make the enemy come to you on ground of your own choosing. Rather then allowing these people to fight us or Isreal in piecemeal fashion in times and places of their own choosing, we have created this opportunity to for them to swarm into Iraq and die by the tens of thousands. Afganistan was a similar opportunity but was too remote to allow easy access for the enemy.
Every American casualty is unfortunate and tragic, such is the way with a society like ours that places such high value on individual life. But militarily speaking our casualty rates are extremely low given the scale of our undertaking. The most recent comparable episode when the Soviets invaded and occupied Chechnya has produced far more casualties in a far smaller scale conflict. Casualties are so remarkably low we could, if we chose, maintain our ability to continue to prosecute this conflict indefinately and without conscriptions practiced by the Soviets or by Americans in past conflicts.Quote:
So many of our soldiers are just kids for christ sakes. How can you ignore them in the rhetoric of saying that this is making us safer?
Wars are always fought by the young. It aint fair, but war aint about being fair. Its about killing the enemy.
Americans are unique in that we don't go out of our way to tussle with anybody. We never would have fought Iraq in 1991 or 2003 if Saddam hadn't beat the snot out of our little buddy in 1990. That said I think the neither of the wars was avoidable. The reason is that even had Saddam never invaded Kuwait in 1990, his nature was such that he would have eventually done something to cause the war. I think this is especially true of the later conflict. Saddam pushed and pushed until we had no choice but to respond...and who can fault the President for choosing to launch the attack on Iraq in 1998? After 2001, the US changed from a policy of containment to one of libertation. Saddam failed to change from his policy of provocation to one of aquiessance (like Libya did). Thus 2003 was inevitable.
Will you still be saying so after the number passes the 9/11 milestone?
Quote:
I'm not even going to try to appeal to your compassion for the 100,000 Iraqis who have died by our hands, because you sound like a person that doesn't recognize humanity where he doesn't have to.
I think its tragic that so many deaths have been caused entirely by Saddam Hussein's failure to surrender and leave the country and lately by the deliberate actions of terrorists making war upon our Iraqi allies.
Quote:
But the logic itself is astronomically flawed. We've only had one 9/11. How do you even know this has made us safer at home?
We know its working because we have only had one 9/11. The Iraqi conflict is one part of a strategy in the war on terror and the failure of the enemy to lauch followup attacks is proof that the strategy is working. By your logic the lack of a WW2 Japanese invasion of Hawaii has nothing to do with their military defeat and occupation. Or how can we prove that the levy is working just because the river hasn't flooded since they put the levy in. That guy only murdered once, how do we know that putting him in jail made us any safer?
H
very well said
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
The idea is that you make the enemy come to you on ground of your own choosing. Rather then allowing these people to fight us or Isreal in piecemeal fashion in times and places of their own choosing, we have created this opportunity to for them to swarm into Iraq and die by the tens of thousands.
Except you continue to ignore the fact (and I've already posted it here once) that foreign fighters are amounting to less that 10% of the insurgency in Iraq. And the angrier you make the world, the happier people will be to choose other battlefields than that one. And, in case you hadn't noticed, Afghanistan is falling apart at the seams. When the puppet you put in power is saying you are doing a crappy job, it's a bad sign.
Quote:
But militarily speaking our casualty rates are extremely low given the scale of our undertaking. The most recent comparable episode when the Soviets invaded and occupied Chechnya has produced far more casualties in a far smaller scale conflict.
Militarily speaking the casualties have been enormous. They were extremely low in the actual shooting war, but they have continued to mount in the ensuing peace. And take Chechnya to its logical conclusion - the Russians have been dealing with terrorists and separatists there for years, with no potential end in sight. Do you WANT that for America? To be in a foreign country with no end in sight? And, in case you have forgotten, the separatists in Chechnya figured out rather quickly that they could blow shit up in other parts of the country for better effect - do you want the Iraqi insurgents to figure out the same? Idiot.
Quote:
Casualties are so remarkably low we could, if we chose, maintain our ability to continue to prosecute this conflict indefinately and without conscriptions practiced by the Soviets or by Americans in past conflicts.
Deaths are low. Injuries are high, and PTSD is reaching record numbers, including Vietnam vets having renewed trauma from watching footage, which has been happening lately. But hey, if you want to stay over there forever-just like Chechnya-I guess it'll all work out.
Quote:
Its about killing the enemy.
You can't even tell me who the enemy is. Which country's soldiers, exactly, are we fighting? Who, exactly, are we at war with? Give me a concrete name and place.
Quote:
Americans are unique in that we don't go out of our way to tussle with anybody.
Except this time. For no reason. And I saw you quoted resolutions up there in a post; earlier it was about WMD's, not it's about resolutions. But the US kicked out the inspectors before it could be discovered that Iraq had been compliant. By not finding any wmd's, it turns out Iraq WAS compliant with disarming under those resolutions. Sorry, but your reasons for war are evaporating faster than a sno-cone in August.
Quote:
After 2001, the US changed from a policy of containment to one of libertation. Saddam failed to change from his policy of provocation to one of aquiessance (like Libya did). Thus 2003 was inevitable.
Now it's liberation. It's gone from wmd's, to UN resolutions, to liberation in the space of a single thread. But "sit there while we drop these bomns and free the shit outta you" isn't working out real well, and we look foolish. People liberate themselves. And to hold that logic out to its inevitable lconclusion means that after we get done here, we have to go liberate oppressed people everywhere - next stop, 75 other countries!
Quote:
I think its tragic that so many deaths have been caused entirely by Saddam Hussein's failure to surrender and leave the country and lately by the deliberate actions of terrorists making war upon our Iraqi allies.
Dude, they caught Saddam well before most of those casualties occurred. The death rate counted by the Baghdad morgue, on average, in just that one city, has been over 1000 citizens a month since Bush declared Mission Accomplished. By declaring ourselves "liberators," we took respo
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
A well worn phrase with me, but really - that's another load.
Yes, let's incite many many more previously-moderate Muslims to become Islamists targeting the US. That makes a LOT of sense.
In upside-down crazy-world.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Oh, so the Iraq invasion was a "choice" and really didn't have anything to do with WMD? Or... did it? I don't know- you keep flip-flopping. Make up your mind- either stick with WMD or stick with the GWOT. You can't have both.
The idea is that you make the enemy come to you on ground of your own choosing.
But if Iraq was our chosen battelground for the GWOT it was a VERY poor choice. Aside from the the 6000+ mile supply line, crappy infrastructure and personnel- and equipment- eating desert conditions, our choice of potential allies in Iraq consists of (a) secular Sunnis who hate our guts (b)religious Shiites who hate our guts, and (c) toadies that everyone hates.
NICE CHOICE GEORGE!
Quote:Israel? Where in the Constitution does it say that The Prez is supposed to be protecting Israel? Oy! (smacks forehead) The Founding Fathers are spinning in their graves! Enough with the Israeli argument already!
Rather then allowing these people to fight us or Isreal
Quote:Wow, we couldn't have picked better for them if we did it ourselves. Oh... what? We did?
in piecemeal fashion in times and places of their own choosing
Quote:You mean... the terrorist WEREN'T in Iraq BEFORE we invaded?
we have created this opportunity to for them to swarm into Iraq and die by the tens of thousands.
Quote:Oh yeah, and did I mention that George "chose" to fight in an area whose language and culture we don't understand, making it impossible for us to tell the foreign terrorist from the native insurgent?
Afganistan was a similar opportunity but was too remote to allow easy access for the enemy.
Quote:What does 2003 have to do with 1991? Isn't that a a slow response?
Americans are unique in that we don't go out of our way to tussle with anybody. We never would have fought Iraq in 1991 or 2003
Quote:Since when is Kuwait "our little buddy"?
if Saddam hadn't beat the snot out of our little buddy in 1990.
Quote:So we beat him to the punch in 2003 by invading before he had a chance to even think about invading someone someday.
That said I think the neither of the wars was avoidable. The reason is that even had Saddam never invaded Kuwait in 1990, his nature was such that he would have eventually done something to cause the war.
So to sum this all up- according to HERO:
The 2003 invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with WMD because it was a war of "choice".
Nor was it caused by the presence of terrorists in Iraq, because they weren't there until AFTER we invaded. (They "swarmed in" afterwards)
It was simply a "convenient" place to invade (language, supply, terrain, and internal political difficulties notwithstanding) in order to protect (a) Kuwait, (b) Israel or (c) the USA from some unspecified future attack from (x) Saddam or (y) terrorists.
Wow, Hero! You made even less sense today than before. I didn't think that was even possible.
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
And I've got a magic rock in my pocket that protects me from tigers, because I havent been attacked by one yet.
If you were suddenly through no fault of your own attacked by a tiger and the next day aquired said magic rock as part of your overall anti-tiger attack strategy which included seeking out the tigers in your neighborhood and eliminating them, imprisoning people who feed the tigers (thus coaxing them into your community) and tagging and montitoring locations and movement of wild tigers, then yes, your rock is truly a wonderous thing.
The problem is the liberals are big on magic rocks and little on all the rest. Tigers don't have civil rights. They belong in a zoo...in Cuba...
Quote:
We put him in jail (sanctions, a no-fly zone, inspections). While in solitary, he tries to keep his security blanket (the possibility that he may be armed...
In Ohio we generally don't let our prisoners be armed. If we find out they have or are making illegal weapons...we generally take unilateral action to disarm them, most often without seeking prior approval from civil authorities, outside jurisdictions, or the United Nations. But I'll pass your suggestions (that we ask them nicely to disarm and then take their word for it that they've complied) on to our jail, those fellas need a good laugh. They don't smile enough down there.
Edited to add: The jailors note that allowing prisoners to be armed might make them dangerous to the guards and to the outside community, they recomend against it. The ACLU piped in the denying prisoners weapons violates their 2nd Amendment rights and a lawsuit is now pending along with one seeking to prevent the City police officers from carrying weapons because they can be used to violate a person's constitutional right to free expression when demanding money from local banks.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Back to WMD again? Didn't you JUST say our invasion was part of the GWOT and that Iraq was a convenient location for fighting terrorists and/or protecting Israel?
If we find out they have or are making illegal weapons...we generally take unilateral action to disarm them, most often without seeking prior approval from civil authorities, outside jurisdictions, or the United Nations.
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Back to WMD again? Didn't you JUST say our invasion was part of the GWOT and that Iraq was a convenient location for fighting terrorists and/or protecting Israel?
I was talking about prisoners in jail, but now that you mention it properly disarmed and confined felons pose little additional threat of terrorism or pose a threat to Isreal. Perhaps we should have locked up Saddam after the Gulf War in '91...house arrest just didn't work very well.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
dbl post
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SignyM,
Thanks for your posts. I've been noticing the self-contradictions but didn't tally them up.
Another one is the US is in Iraq to free Iraqis and spread democracy b/c of the deep humanitarian concern the US has for Iraqis. Then in the next breath Iraq is just a 'convenient' staging ground for the US GWOT and Iraqis are expendable.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME