Our Mission in Iraq
POSTED BY: dreamtrove
UPDATED: Thursday, June 12, 2025 06:42
VIEWED: 5443
PAGE 5 of 7
Merchant Marine,
The problem you outlay exposes the reality: We live in a Mediacracy. So for that matter do the Enlish. But they have the advantage that their media more or less tries to keep them informed. 80% of the people are sheep, probably anywhere, and here they are being told what to think. You like Bush or Clinton, you like pepsi or coke, you like the mets or the yankees. What if you like both or neither? Well that doesn't sell, we need to pit you against each other, because only then can we be sure that you will always choose, in one way or another, New York Baseball, Cola Sodas, and Team Evil.
I don't think America is alone in thinking it is the greatest country on Earth. I think that's the nature of nationalism, and everyone does it. But we do okay, overall. It's usually America showing up to help when problems arise. I remember I was in Europe recently, a position in which an American is always under unsolicited fire for the policies of their govt. and someone said to me "Where was the US when Rwanda broke out?" My reply was, "Blah blah blah Clinton" but I added "Good Question. Where was Europe?" The truth is, even when our govt. is corrupt and failing to do what it should, our people still swarm to help. I remember reading that Americans were something like twice as likely to contribute to Tsunami victims as the next contributing country, as in individuals. Maybe that's changed, now, I can't find the stats, but it does show that even when the Bush govt. was slow and unwilling to respond, America was still ready.
I'm really not up for an argument on whether or not America has done this right or wrong, I'm just making the point, before you throw out the baby with the bathwater, that "We do ok."
For America to be a great nation again in the eyes of the world, it would need great leadership. Another Eisenhower. Even a Reagan or a Nixon would do. It's Clinton/Bush that are destroying our govt.
Quote:
People who behave like this are called "anger addicts".
Actually, without getting into an argument about it, I call them "the political left."
It's pretty much true everywhere. What the left in the US has done to this effect, when in power, is exactly what the EU is doing right now, forcing it's will on everyone else (in Europe.) The illusion here is that it is Europe doing it to itself, but it's not. It's Brussels, with a lot of French and German influence, forcing it's will particularly on points East, but also on points north.
Furthermore, it's what China is doing right now in Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau, Bhutan, and Nepal. It's what the Soviet Union did. This is what the left does, it's its raison detre. To save the world from itself.
The fooler here is that Bush, elected as a republican, is really just a monkey in a suit stomping for Clinton, and is really the political left. The only reason the left got up in arms against Bush is not that he's too far to the right. He's not to the right at all. He's exactly like Clinton, because he is Clinton. It's that because he's technically the right, the media has attacked him, though not as much as it should, and so people know when Bush is evil.
The reason Bush exists at all is that Clinton never got a majority of the vote, and this always creates an air of illegitimacy to the office. Clinton was elected, as you all know, twice because of a right wing vote splitter H. Ross Perot.
Because of this, People were always forced to compare Clinton to Bush Sr., who would have won if Perot had stayed out. This forces the comparison more than it would otherwise, just as people in compare Bush to Gore, because of the questionable outcome, more than they would, say, compare Reagan to Mondale, who, after being defeated in a landslide, was really never thought of again.
So, what happened was the people of America were getting upset with the level of Clinton corruption, and there was an increasing feeling of, we should go back to Bush. The Clintons thought up this brilliant scheme whereby they would play on their own unpopularity by becoming
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You know, Dream, I'm wondering if you're one person or two. LOL
I was about to right you off as one of the multitude of weirdos whose posts I have to avoid (because they damage my calm), when you post something which sounds like -- well, not like you.
Is there two of you? Does someone else have access to your computer?
Darn it!! Now, I'm going to have to continue reading your posts -- at least for now.
Blast!! I can't even remember why I was leary of you in the first place!! This isn't fair!! 
You've thrown some shades of gray into my theories about you, and (in the process) have me totally confused (something which admittedly isn't that difficult a thing to do).
(I still think there's two of you. That's the only logical explanation.)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by cartoon:
I can't even remember why I was leary of you in the first place!! This isn't fair!!
I just remembered what it was!!
Nevermind!! I'm still mad at you.
Ignore the above post.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Dream,
very well said. I was a participant in the tsunami relief efforts, my ship was alongside the hospital ship USNS MERCY, there is support from a large segment of America, we have seen that from the relief efforts of all natural disasters. What is troubling is how easy and convient memory loss can be. We entered the Balklins, Kosovo, Yugoslovia, remove their president and charge him with war crimes and crimes against humanity at the Hague, still hunt nazi's even deported a suspected concentration camp guard living in Ohio revoking his citizenship. Now people ask where is the weapons of mass destruction? I was in Kuwait in 1990-1991, I remember our cease fire accourds does anyone else? we planted our weapons inspectors, they were denied access to numberous facilities, but after 1993 no one cared, the UN took over in 1994, said to be able to its political and security arm, along with the OIL for FOOD program and we now know how that worked. The inspectors were eventually kicked out by the regime in 1998, and nothing done, the UN as well as everyone else stood by and did nothing. You mentioned Rwanda, you were in Europe, you should have asked, "why did the French paratroopers stood at there garrison and do nothing during the massacre in Rwanda?" The Rwanda mission was complete UN, even our beloved Secretary General was in charge of UN Security during that mission. Politics and sloopy journalism have clouded our minds for way too long, you are right, our media no longer is interested in educating or keeping the people informed. I did not personally vote for clinton or Bush, I was a Perot fan, liked his honesty, alot of my shipmates say he ducked out, I say, perhaps we were watching and witnessing an attempt to actually limit our countries leadership to a two party system. I believe Mr. Perot when he said he was receiving threats against his family... why.. he told the truth... look later at Larry King Live and his debate with Vice President Al Gore and NAFTA? Guess what they are back with CAFTA, no doubt SAFTA (something for south america) or we can all say shafta its the same.
Merchantmarine1
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Thank you, Rue, that was my point in using like that. I can let it go now.
Originally posted by rue:Quote:It was old, dead and rotting the first time out.
but it's gotten old, real quick
Maybe...
Beatin' that horse Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"we have seen that from the relief efforts of all natural disasters" Except Katrina
You've got an uniformed version of what happened in Iraq. The UN withdrew its inspectors DUE TO US BOMBING. They weren't 'kicked out'.
You seem to think that all the corruption in the oil for food program was due to the UN. US OIL COMPANIES made BILLIONS from illegal Iraq oil, all arranged on their own - and the US turned a blind eye.
The French and Belgian troops in Rwanda were peacekeepers only, monitoring an existing truce. They did not have the mandate, equipment or numbers to intervene in Rwanda. 10 Belgian peacekeepers were captured and tortured to death.
Both the UN and the US refrained from calling it genocide and setting into motion a capable response.
I too believe Perot.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Chrisisall,
You're welcome. I got it the first time. Some people just need it spelled out, is all.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Cartoon,
I am only one person. I'm fairly consistant. I know where I stand on most things. Sometimes I change my mind. In case you are confused, here's my current position more or less:
1. I'm a republican, still pretty solidly.
2. I oppose Bush, largely because I think he's Clinton, more or less, and his policies are more far left than far right. But essentially, both of them have been led too far off course by Cheney and his pack of former socialists, the old social democrats, richard perle, paul wolfowitz et al.
3. On military issues, I follow a rule I call "least death." If military action results in less death than no military action, as in Nazi Germany, or probably would have in Rwanda, then military action should be taken. If military action results in more death then no military action, then no military action should be taken. A few examples where no war would have been a better idea are support for the russian civil war and campaigns against the indians.
4. On the Iraq war, initially, though I'm always appalled by the creation of war, they did have me going on the idea that it was least death. But now, clearly with Zarqawi feeding and breeding terrorists this isn't the case. But the real point where they lost me was when I found out when and where the idea came from. It's a concoction of Max Schactman and co., the old socialist workers party, and it's all about reforming the middle east, which I think falls into 'not our problem' terrorism aside, and not worth all out war. If you fight war to end perceived oppression than it becomes possible to make an argument that everyone should be at war with everyone else all the time.
This reminds me of something I read by one of the Soviet foreign ministers a long time ago. He said, from a Soviet perspective, America is an oppressive state because it is possible for someone to be refused healthcare, housing or employment. I don't agree with him, but I see the point, who is or isn't oppressive is a matter of perspective. If we, as a country, take the attitude that we can attack other nations to end what we see as oppression, everyone else will do the same. Already we have various little petty dictatorships starting their own 'war on terror' and a few in places like haiti and the sudan have been little more than a cover for genocide.
These are dangerous ideas. We should be exercising a lot more caution than we are.
Ps. I think I flamed your first post, I don't remember the issue though. I tend to respond to the individual post, so I'm likely to be on the side of someone one minute and against them the next. I think I've even been on Fletch's side a couple of times.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay, so, jumping late into a thread I haven't fully read, I have a question about the original topic: Do we HAVE a mission in Iraq? I mean, I get confused- we seem to have had a multiplicity of missions, or maybe none at all. What IS our mission in Iraq anway???
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I am only one person.
Hmmm...
And which of you is telling me this?
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
1. I'm a republican, still pretty solidly.
Same here. As if you (and the whole rest of the world) couldn't tell.
P.S. I'm a real republican. Not like my state's senior Senator Specter, who is a democrat in republican's clothing (except when it's convenient to be pretend to be otherwise).
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
2. I oppose Bush, largely because I think he's Clinton, more or less, and his policies are more far left than far right.
This is where you lose me. I see them as diametrically opposed... both personally and politically (politically, both socially & economically). Could you clarify (not for the point of argument, but I'm curious as to how you've arrived at this view)?
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
3. On military issues, I follow a rule I call "least death." (snip, for sake of brevity)
No argument from me there.
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
4. On the Iraq war, initially, though I'm always appalled by the creation of war, they did have me going on the idea that it was least death. But now, clearly with Zarqawi feeding and breeding terrorists this isn't the case.
You'll probably be surprised to know that I believe the current business in Iraq falls into the latter category -- and it probably could've been resolved with a good, old fashioned coup or assassination. Nonetheless, hindsight is always perfect, and now that we're there, we need to finish the job right or it was all for nothing.
I do believe, however, that Zarqawi would breed terrorists regardless. The terrorists strike me as the kind of people who don't need an excuse to act. Sure, their "excuses" (as feeble as they always are) may go over well with the bleeding heart press (who is likely to be sympathetic to the murderers anyhow), but sane folks see right through their crazy rhetoric.
Eventually, (hopefully soon) I believe the Iraqi people will be able to stand on their own and keep this to a minimum. Unfortunately, I think it'll always be part of that region, but the aim has to be to control and minimize it as best as possible.
P.S. Eventually, Saddam could've easily turned this into your former category, but we'll never know what might've happened. Best we could do is speculate, and that would be pointless.
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
But the real point where they lost me was when I found out when and where the idea came from. (snip, for the sake of brevity)
How can this be anything but speculation, though, unless Bush and his inner circle have confided in you (or elsewhere, where I haven't seen it)? On what do you base this view? Again, not for the sake of argument, but just to satisfy my curiosity.
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
This reminds me of something I read by one of the Soviet foreign ministers a long time ago. (snip, for sake of brevity)
I can totally understand the former U.S.S.R.'s paranoid attitude about the West (and even the USA). After what happened to them in WWII, they had every right to be paranoid, initially. But, I would imagine that after a while they would've seen that the U.S. wasn't interested in conquest -- or else we would've annexed Germany & Japan, much in the way the Soviet Union controlled eastern Europe for decades. We never did, and they should've seen that. That's a whole other bag of worms, though, and I see your point about perspective.
I do think most of the hatred people feel for the U.S., though, is due to envy. The guy on top is always hated. The late 18th through the early 20th century, it was the British Empire. Prior to that, Bourbon France, the Spanish Hapsbourgs, etc. And like those nations, our time on top will also be temporary. Of this, I have no doubt -- and personally, I hope its e
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME