All you righties can toast to the Iraq War success. Oh...no you can't.
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Saturday, March 28, 2026 18:21
VIEWED: 7463
PAGE 4 of 8
Quote:This is how I feel: human beings tend to specialize. And guys in that area of the world have specialized in getting beat down and taking revenge. Parlamentry proceedure is a strange animal to them. A stable government just isn't gonna happen until there is more general agreement amongst the populations...and this will only come after a civil war. A guy in Iraq said that this was something that had to burn itself out, and I think I agree. Unfortunately.
Originally posted by Causal:
The best we can really hope for is to leave Iraq in the hands of a stable government so that at least they'll be denied one sanctuary (not that it matters, there are plenty of other places they can go).
So--not such a rosy outlook, regardless of how the Iraq war shakes out, because basically: damage done.
But your take in that post was probably the most realistic I've seen in these parts, Caus.
Propaganda-spewing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It was, I just type real slow....
Originally posted by Causal:
I'm just bummed that no one has commented on my analysis of the ultimate effect of this war (that being: training the next generation of terrorists) in my post above. Guess it wasn't as interesting as I though!
I agree with your analysis, but I think we have a chance to turn it around some if we maintain a 'helpful' presence during their inevitable civil war, as I stated in a post above. We can't keep doing their job for them, they have to run their country.
10 wpm Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Thus making more children parentless.
Originally posted by chrisisall:
... and all others would be obliterated.
Just messing with you Chris.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well put, A.
Originally posted by antimason:
if indeed there was a "war on terror", the pretext to the war in Iraq, then we would be out changing the hearts and minds of people, to lead by example and prove them otherwise... instead we are fighting a potentially never ending, literal war, with insurmountable casualties, to achieve some vague sense of security that 'democracy' will solve everything.
That's how I feel Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well I say kill them all and let God sort them out.We all got hosed on Iraq intel.From this point forward if you harbor terrorist that have attacked us you get bombed back into the stone age .And then maybe they will get it Sadam didnt seem to have much of a problem controlling the peeps.Because he used extreme measures on them .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
i guess as history records, the danger of accepting a political catch phrase like "war on terror", is that it attempts to make a distinction between criminal behavior, and crimes against the 'state', which allows them to then justify bipassing constitutional safe guards in the name of unforseen circumstances. between all the establishment rhetoric and media propoganda, the point seemed to be lost that we are in an ethical/moral conflict, if anything.. and not something requiring the immobilization of an entire military force, and a neverending 'war'. it should be obvious to most people by now that there are alternative underlying motives, which ARE likely being fullfilled successfully.. and that is their global government agenda
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
...your take in that post was probably the most realistic I've seen in these parts, Caus.
Thanks for saying.Quote:
Parlamentry proceedure is a strange animal to them. A stable government just isn't gonna happen until there is more general agreement amongst the populations.
Actually, I've been thinking (dangerous, I know). I've heard statements like, "Arabs just can't do democracy," and they always leave me vaguely offended because it smacks of a certain racist sentiment. My response to that was always, "Well, people said the same thing about Japan." But now I'm coming around on the democracy in the Middle East thing.
I'm taking a Western Civ course, and we're currently studying the French revolution. So I read your post and it hits me: one of the conditions that allowed the French revolution to happen at all was about 100 years of intellectual ferment around the ideas of freedom and government and the role of the people in the legitimacy of the state. By the time of the revolution it had gathered so much momentum that when Louis XVI made moves that looked like disregard for the will of the people, all hell broke loose. Same deal with the American revolution: it was predicated on Rousseau's social contract theory (as well as Locke's and Hobbes' visions of government) and other enlightenment thinking. In both cases, the stage for revolution and the implementation of democratic government was set by the spread of Enlightenment ideas into virtually every corner of society such that people not only wanted a change, but felt that change was not only right but rational.
Looking at the contemporary Middle East, however, you've got to admit that there is no such foundation of thinking on which to build. Democracy is a foreign concept there not because of anything inherent to being Arab or Muslim, but because they just don't have the foundation of ideas that would really let democratic change take root and grow. They've got other categories of thought coming from other sources than the categories and sources that provide the intellectual foundation for western-style democracy. So the democracy-building effort going into the Middle East is practically doomed (from my perspective) because they're trying to build the house before they get the foundation laid. And that just won't work.
________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But if we are debating the relative goodness of the American effort- that is the topic, right ? - the number of casualties matters. It matters if it's 6,600 or 66,000 as you claim, or 660,000 as the Lancet writes. To try to erase the topic by claiming, as you have done several time, that "... all the numbers ar bogus" is the disinformation tactic.
As to your contribution, besides FUD and derailing the discussion, If you have something of substance to contribute, I'd be surprised.
Okay. Just to wind you up a bit more, I posit that a great proportion of the casualties in Iraq are not primarily attributable to the invasion/liberation/what have you. The various Baathists, Jihadists, Sunni insurgents, Shi'a death squads, etc. which have been killing most of the people since the end of the military campaign, and sabotaging the infrastructure which causes many more deaths, don't have to do so. They have free will. They could stop any time they wanted.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Just to wind you up a bit more, I posit that a great proportion of the casualties in Iraq are not primarily attributable to the invasion/liberation/what have you. The various Baathists, Jihadists, Sunni insurgents, Shi'a death squads, etc. which have been killing most of the people since the end of the military campaign, and sabotaging the infrastructure which causes many more deaths, don't have to do so. They have free will. They could stop any time they wanted.
And just to wind you up a little more, if I remember correctly, none of those people (except the Baath party) were killing anyone in the pre-invasion Saddam era. And the Baath party wasn't killing on nearly the scale we're seeing now. So the U.S. might not be the efficient cause of all those deaths (per Aristotle's four causes), but we damn sure bear some responsibility (mind you, I think that responsibility should take a right at Virginia, head north a couple hundred miles, and knock on the door of a big white house on Pennsylvania Avenue).
________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.
Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html
Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I think eventually they could have some kind of republic, but they have to get their killin' done before that.
Originally posted by Causal:
So the democracy-building effort going into the Middle East is practically doomed (from my perspective) because they're trying to build the house before they get the foundation laid. And that just won't work.
Sorry, I just can't put it as intelligently as you can, Causal. Your above post was spot on.
I read somewhere that Buddha would never have been the Buddha we all know and love if he hadn't been well-off, and didn't have time to contemplate his navel due to poverty and lack of education...
Pony-wantin' Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME