state of the Iraq War? - DFWstangs Forums
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-28-2008, 12:18 PM Thread Starter
Time Served
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 779
state of the Iraq War?

So, when the general election comes, this has to be the big question.
Mc Cain basically says keep at it. Clinton and Obama are saying pull out of Iraq.

President Bush has always basically said, if we keep investing guns, lives, and money the country of Iraq will stay together, be a democratic USA ally, we will be able to maintain a strong military presence in the region, and eventually we'll get some good oil business.

The democratic election platform is that these goals can not be accomplish. Iraq can not be forcibly held together. Hence, pull the troops out and deal with the consequences.

I do not think that President Bush's end plans are achievable in Iraq. I maintain, Iraq is doomed to breaking up, similar to Yugoslavia. Hence the current investments are a wasted effort.

What do you think? Will President Bush’s plan still work?

05 GT Torch Red C&L CAI, Diablo 93 tune, BMR LCR's & UCR, Pro 5.0, S UDP, Mac
<a href="http://giftube.com/"><img src="http://giftube.com/gifs/1016.gif" alt=""></a><br/><a style="padding:3px;background: transparent;color:#00ADEF;font-family:tahoma;font-size:10px;font-weight:bold;text-decoration:none;" href="http://giftube.com/" target="_blank">Gifs at Giftube.com </a>
jones4stangs is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-28-2008, 12:28 PM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,017
If Iraq does break up, a significant U.S. presence in the region should still be possible with at least one of factions (such as the Kurds for instance). Such a presence will also go a long way to keep Iranian ambitions to be "the" power in the region in check. Pulling out all troops carte blanc is a recipe for disaster, and would be tantamount to surrender. That probably is of no great concern to the likes of the Clintons; I don't know about Obama or really care to know.
Mr Majestyk is offline  
post #3 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-28-2008, 12:52 PM
IA2
 
mikeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 22,413
You remember the fram filter guy? Pay me now, or pay me later? That in a nutshell IMO is iraq.

We've already paid the up front costs at this point. If we pull out and it all collapses then we'll most likely have to pay (some or all of) those costs again at some point once iraq begins to destabilize the middle east as it surely will. If we leave who knows what kind of radical force will move in to fill that gap. I'm sure it will be US-hostile though.

From a lot of stuff i've read the surge worked. The iraq army is getting stronger, attacks are down, and citizens have banded together to throw out al-quieda. Life in many areas is approaching "normal". Infrastructure is getting rebuilt. Kids are going to school. Citizens have jobs and income, and thus have far less incentive to join in with the radicals. In spite of what the liberal press would have you believe, it is getting better and in spite of what harry reid and his bunch would have you believe, we have not "lost" the war.

People forget that we were rebuilding Europe for years after WW2. Why should this be any different?

A stable, US friendly country in the middle east is sorely needed, and iraq has the potential to be that country and to be a stabilizing force for the area. Pulling out now just shows weakness and how divided our country really is to the world.
mikeb is offline  
 
post #4 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-28-2008, 01:39 PM
BP
Keep your unicorns
 
BP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: At the Dexter Lake Club
Posts: 12,422
One day the Iraqi military will rival Israel and Saudi Arabias and it'll be chock full of F-18 Super Hornets, decommissioned US aircraft carriers and hundreds of American built tanks and troop carriers. Not to mention thousands of M-16s, M4s and all the ammo we can produce.

Sure we are paying a ton of money right now but we'll recoup a good portion of it back in future arms sales and by having an extremely powerful ally in the region we shouldn't have to go back in for a long time.

Or we can be liberals and cut and run today and lose out 100% on the entire deal and have to go back in again in 10-12 years.
BP is offline  
post #5 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-28-2008, 05:38 PM
ebay pimp
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Carrollton, TX
Posts: 4,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeb
A stable, US friendly country in the middle east is sorely needed, and iraq has the potential to be that country and to be a stabilizing force for the area.
We already have 2 stable, US friendly countries in the middle east. Remember Saudi Arabia? where most of the 9/11 bombers came from.....and Dubai?, Bush was going give them control of all our ports? where all the money to finance 9/11 came from?

Why was that we went into Iraq?
White trash wagon is offline  
post #6 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-28-2008, 06:58 PM
IA2
 
mikeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 22,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by White trash wagon
We already have 2 stable, US friendly countries in the middle east. Remember Saudi Arabia? where most of the 9/11 bombers came from.....and Dubai?, Bush was going give them control of all our ports? where all the money to finance 9/11 came from?

Why was that we went into Iraq?
Neither saudi or the UAE will help to stabilize iran/syria/afganhistan. But a peaceful iraq sure would.
mikeb is offline  
post #7 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-28-2008, 08:30 PM
PAN
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Under a rock
Posts: 20,154
In the long run the libs reeaallyy don't want to have to admit that we won the war and that it had a positive result. It is beginning to shape up as such. Because if that were the end result, many would have to eat a LOT of crow.

Why not try and pull out now? After all, if we do, all will be lost and they will then be able to say "See, I told you so!"

Imo, pulling the troops out if they win the election is a desperation ploy that will give them fodder to damn the Republicans. And it's a crying damned shame that our politicians, on BOTH sides, will do anything and everything that they can, regardless of whether or not it is to the detriment of you and I and our great country, to make the others look bad. Sad as sad can be.
Fox466 is offline  
post #8 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-28-2008, 10:43 PM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ellis County
Posts: 18,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by White trash wagon
We already have 2 stable, US friendly countries in the middle east. Remember Saudi Arabia? where most of the 9/11 bombers came from.....and Dubai?, Bush was going give them control of all our ports? where all the money to finance 9/11 came from?

Why was that we went into Iraq?
Either of those could be dusted off by Iran. Dubai is hardly known as a "military power"...

CHL holder and Conservative...AKA "Domestic Terrorist"
Vertnut is offline  
post #9 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-28-2008, 11:31 PM
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by BP
One day the Iraqi military will rival Israel and Saudi Arabias and it'll be chock full of F-18 Super Hornets, decommissioned US aircraft carriers and hundreds of American built tanks and troop carriers. Not to mention thousands of M-16s, M4s and all the ammo we can produce.
Um... didn't we already equip them in the 80's?
gpamp is offline  
post #10 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 07:00 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by gpamp
Um... didn't we already equip them in the 80's?
Umm....that enabled the Iraqis to repel Iranian invaders. Maybe you're too young and/or not versed in recent history enough to remember that though.
Mr Majestyk is offline  
post #11 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 08:06 AM
BP
Keep your unicorns
 
BP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: At the Dexter Lake Club
Posts: 12,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by gpamp
Um... didn't we already equip them in the 80's?
I guess you don't remember all the T-72 tanks and Migs buried in the sand. Iran flies some F-14s still but nearly all of the middle east nations have been shopping at the communist weapons supply for the last 40 years with the obvious exception of Israel.
BP is offline  
post #12 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 10:32 AM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Majestyk
If Iraq does break up, a significant U.S. presence in the region should still be possible with at least one of factions (such as the Kurds for instance). Such a presence will also go a long way to keep Iranian ambitions to be "the" power in the region in check. Pulling out all troops carte blanc is a recipe for disaster, and would be tantamount to surrender. That probably is of no great concern to the likes of the Clintons; I don't know about Obama or really care to know.
I too think Iraq will break up, too many differing factions. I do not think the Kurds will side with the US over Iran, they are ethnically tied to Iran not to mention they helped one another during the Iraq-Iran war.

Shia Iraq will also side with Iran, and that just leaves the Sunnis to side with the US.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeb
From a lot of stuff i've read the surge worked. The iraq army is getting stronger, attacks are down, and citizens have banded together to throw out al-quieda. Life in many areas is approaching "normal". Infrastructure is getting rebuilt. Kids are going to school. Citizens have jobs and income, and thus have far less incentive to join in with the radicals. In spite of what the liberal press would have you believe, it is getting better and in spite of what harry reid and his bunch would have you believe, we have not "lost" the war.

People forget that we were rebuilding Europe for years after WW2. Why should this be any different?

A stable, US friendly country in the middle east is sorely needed, and iraq has the potential to be that country and to be a stabilizing force for the area. Pulling out now just shows weakness and how divided our country really is to the world.
Can't believe everything you read. It's like the huge decrease of crimes in the mid 90s. Everyone took credit for it, but looking back a huge portion of that decrease was abortions going back to the 70s. There may be other factors contributing to this, such as religious leaders calling for cease-fire for whatever reason (I hear bribes), and I've even heard from some people IN SW Iran that they are biding their time just to get a little calm before they launch a huge offensive.

The US has strong allies in the middle east. You have Israel, Saudi, Egypt, Jordan though only one of them can really be relied on to stick with you. The same could be said about Iraq, you can prop them up all you want but they will choose their religious 'brothers' over their American 'allies' at the drop of a hat. In the end, it's just a pitbull you're training that will bite you in the ass no matter how nice you are to him.

I believe pulling out is better for you in the short and long run, this spreading democracy crap won't work. Save your money, save your lives, and better yourselves instead of helping people who don't want your help.
SS

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
-Samuel Johnson
Stang Seller is offline  
post #13 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 04:45 PM
Secular Dogooderist
 
Zarathustra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Hive
Posts: 3,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeb
Neither saudi or the UAE will help to stabilize iran/syria/afganhistan. But a peaceful iraq sure would.
What? How?
How are these countries 'unstable'?

Thus Spoke Zarathustra
---
This will help everyone out, check it.
It is time we acknowledged a basic feature of human discourse: when considering the truth of a proposition, one is either engaged in an honest appraisal of the evidence and logical arguments, or one is not. Religion is the one area of our lives where people imagine that some other standard of intellectual integrity applies.
-Sam Harris
Zarathustra is offline  
post #14 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 04:58 PM
Secular Dogooderist
 
Zarathustra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Hive
Posts: 3,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Majestyk
Umm....that enabled the Iraqis to repel Iranian invaders. Maybe you're too young and/or not versed in recent history enough to remember that though.
HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWHAT!!!????

The Iraqis to repel IRANIAN INVADERS!!???

And to further move to claim some sort of superiority of information on the matter is downright hilarious, you're a piece of work. You really think that? You really think that it was the Iranians who were the aggressors in that conflict!?

Iraq invaded IRAN on September 22nd 1980.

Maybe YOU'RE too young and/or not versed in recent history enough to remember that though.

Furthermore, I would encourage you to stop talking down to people, it only makes you look even dumber than you really are.

Having said this, I'd like to invite you to explain the reasons why you think the Iranians were the aggressors. Surely you've some reason why you think this, do tell.

Thus Spoke Zarathustra
---
This will help everyone out, check it.
It is time we acknowledged a basic feature of human discourse: when considering the truth of a proposition, one is either engaged in an honest appraisal of the evidence and logical arguments, or one is not. Religion is the one area of our lives where people imagine that some other standard of intellectual integrity applies.
-Sam Harris

Last edited by Zarathustra; 02-29-2008 at 05:06 PM.
Zarathustra is offline  
post #15 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 05:00 PM
Secular Dogooderist
 
Zarathustra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Hive
Posts: 3,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stang Seller

I believe pulling out is better for you in the short and long run, this spreading democracy crap won't work. Save your money, save your lives, and better yourselves instead of helping people who don't want your help.
SS
Agreed.

And I haven't a single fluid ounce of liberal blood in my body.

Thus Spoke Zarathustra
---
This will help everyone out, check it.
It is time we acknowledged a basic feature of human discourse: when considering the truth of a proposition, one is either engaged in an honest appraisal of the evidence and logical arguments, or one is not. Religion is the one area of our lives where people imagine that some other standard of intellectual integrity applies.
-Sam Harris
Zarathustra is offline  
post #16 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 05:05 PM
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarathustra
Agreed.

And I haven't a single fluid ounce of liberal blood in my body.
so you obviously arent going to vote in this election then correct? Or you're gonna vote for some third party?

If you plan to vote for billary/osama you might want to rethink that statement...
Thats M Life is offline  
post #17 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 05:08 PM
Secular Dogooderist
 
Zarathustra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Hive
Posts: 3,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thats M Life
so you obviously arent going to vote in this election then correct? Or you're gonna vote for some third party?

If you plan to vote for billary/osama you might want to rethink that statement...
This warning is grounded in the skewed interpretation of the word itself. The word liberal has become but a verbal tag, and I see it as nothing other than the letters which make up the word.

The way of viewing this is that you're either a liberal and wanna get out of iraq, or you're a conservative and you want to stay. Quite frankly that's bullshit.

It's just not that cut and dry for me.

Thus Spoke Zarathustra
---
This will help everyone out, check it.
It is time we acknowledged a basic feature of human discourse: when considering the truth of a proposition, one is either engaged in an honest appraisal of the evidence and logical arguments, or one is not. Religion is the one area of our lives where people imagine that some other standard of intellectual integrity applies.
-Sam Harris
Zarathustra is offline  
post #18 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 05:10 PM
IA2
 
mikeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 22,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarathustra
What? How?
How are these countries 'unstable'?
As I said above if the US pulls out of iraq and leaves a void, there will be a power struggle to fill the void, and i'd put money on some kind of radical theocracy gaining power in iraq. It would then be the perfect trifecta for iraq, iran, and syria to band together and continue to foster terrorism and terrorists.

OTOH, if iraq does form a stable, peaceful society then the number of players is cut down to two, with a neighbor that hopefully is not interested in playing terrorism games.

iran and syria are unstable in that they foster terrorism.
mikeb is offline  
post #19 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 05:14 PM
Secular Dogooderist
 
Zarathustra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Hive
Posts: 3,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeb
iran and syria are unstable in that they foster terrorism.
I agree with the power struggle issue, but I think the problem is more historically rooted in Islam than in Politics or terrorism.

I will further move to point out that the quoted passage and examine its truth value and validity. Even if it's not a complete argument, it still seems to beg the question, How do you know that Iran and Syria foster terrorism?

Thus Spoke Zarathustra
---
This will help everyone out, check it.
It is time we acknowledged a basic feature of human discourse: when considering the truth of a proposition, one is either engaged in an honest appraisal of the evidence and logical arguments, or one is not. Religion is the one area of our lives where people imagine that some other standard of intellectual integrity applies.
-Sam Harris
Zarathustra is offline  
post #20 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 05:34 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarathustra
I agree with the power struggle issue, but I think the problem is more historically rooted in Islam than in Politics or terrorism.

I will further move to point out that the quoted passage and examine its truth value and validity. Even if it's not a complete argument, it still seems to beg the question, How do you know that Iran and Syria foster terrorism?
Though I agree with you on most points, we both know that Iran funds Hezbollah... although I do not view them as terrorists. Maniacs, maybe, but not terrorists.

MikeB, if the US pulls out of Iraq there will be no supposed power vacuum. This sentence is straight out of the "Bush Administration handbook on catchphrases". People have been figuring out how to make shit work for thousands of years. Americans did not invent the post revolution or post-some-kinda-disaster rebuilding of a nation. Everyone has been doing it for thousands of years, why suddenly does the world need America to do this for them? Iraq has been around thousands of years longer than you, seen many changes of ownership, and I'm sure the people will eventually figure it out. Your people keep saying you could be there for 50-100 years, do you really want to keep paying for that? None of you are looking at it in the long run! If Iran or Syria or someone else want to disrupt, there is nothing you can do to stop it. Pull out, leave with what little dignity you have left (on the world stage) and better your situation at home. You could be spending those trillions of dollars on bringing production and all those other jobs you shipped overseas back. You could spend some of that money from keeping the Mexicans out. You could spend some of that money to repay your HUGE debt. Maybe this is why some of you guys call me names, I'm one of a very few who actually see the big picture.
SS

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
-Samuel Johnson
Stang Seller is offline  
post #21 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 05:40 PM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarathustra
HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWHAT!!!????

The Iraqis to repel IRANIAN INVADERS!!???

And to further move to claim some sort of superiority of information on the matter is downright hilarious, you're a piece of work. You really think that? You really think that it was the Iranians who were the aggressors in that conflict!?

Iraq invaded IRAN on September 22nd 1980.

Maybe YOU'RE too young and/or not versed in recent history enough to remember that though.

Furthermore, I would encourage you to stop talking down to people, it only makes you look even dumber than you really are.

Having said this, I'd like to invite you to explain the reasons why you think the Iranians were the aggressors. Surely you've some reason why you think this, do tell.
I never said Iran started their war with Iraq, you stupid bastard. If you take the risk of trying to debate my posts, learn how to comprehend. Find "agressors" in my post you quoted, dipshit. The tide turned against Saddam's forces, at which time Iran did attempt to become the invaders, fucktard. Don't ever think you can debate history with one who lived, as a mature adult (unlike you) during that time. One tidbit I remember very well, the really bright and failed Iranian attempt at "human wave" attacks. Saddam's forces must have clapped their hands with glee as they mowed down the blind Iranian sheeple that their beloved Mullahs threw at them.

BTW talking down to you is fun, so deal with it FudgePecker. You of all people should be used to having your ass reamed, since vitually everyone on this board has done it.
Mr Majestyk is offline  
post #22 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 05:42 PM
Secular Dogooderist
 
Zarathustra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Hive
Posts: 3,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stang Seller
Though I agree with you on most points, we both know that Iran funds Hezbollah... although I do not view them as terrorists. Maniacs, maybe, but not terrorists.

SS
Although there is evidence that Iran may have originally founded Hezbollah as a militia for other reasons, there still remains little to no evidence showing them supporting Hezbollah today, especially in the 'war' that happened this summer. This is just another aforementioned catch phrase out of their handbook of sayings. The only legitimate acknowledgment that shows Iran's hand in this conflict in any way are the unearthing of certain weapons, namely a certain type of missile that has Iranian origin. This is also merely speculation because the Iranian gov't likely lacked any culpability in any sale of weapons to the opposition in Iraq.

Thus Spoke Zarathustra
---
This will help everyone out, check it.
It is time we acknowledged a basic feature of human discourse: when considering the truth of a proposition, one is either engaged in an honest appraisal of the evidence and logical arguments, or one is not. Religion is the one area of our lives where people imagine that some other standard of intellectual integrity applies.
-Sam Harris
Zarathustra is offline  
post #23 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 05:45 PM
Secular Dogooderist
 
Zarathustra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Hive
Posts: 3,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Majestyk
I never said Iran started their war with Iraq, you stupid bastard. If you take the risk of trying to debate my posts, learn how to comprehend. Find "agressors" in my post you quoted, dipshit. The tide turned against Saddam's forces, at which time Iran did attempt to become the invaders, fucktard. Don't ever think you can debate history with one who lived, as a mature adult (unlike you) during that time. One tidbit I remember very well, the really bright and failed Iranian attempt at "human wave" attacks. Saddam's forces must have clapped their hands with glee as they mowed down the blind Iranian sheeple that their beloved Mullahs threw at them.

BTW talking down to you is fun, so deal with it FudgePecker. You of all people should be used to having your ass reamed, since vitually everyone on this board has done it.
Tried, and failed, mind you.

Wikipedia is your best friend, isn't it.

Funny how your replying post was riddled with references to Wikipedia, you're a funny guy. Your empirical evidence comes form the internet!! Don't worry though, you're not alone.

Thus Spoke Zarathustra
---
This will help everyone out, check it.
It is time we acknowledged a basic feature of human discourse: when considering the truth of a proposition, one is either engaged in an honest appraisal of the evidence and logical arguments, or one is not. Religion is the one area of our lives where people imagine that some other standard of intellectual integrity applies.
-Sam Harris
Zarathustra is offline  
post #24 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 05:53 PM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,017
Living life, pre internet, unlike a fag like you. I also remember Ronald Reagan's bitch-slapping of Iran during that time. That's something you can relate having done to your candy ass isn't it?
Mr Majestyk is offline  
post #25 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 05:57 PM
Secular Dogooderist
 
Zarathustra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Hive
Posts: 3,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Majestyk
Living life, pre internet, unlike a fag like you. I also remember Ronald Reagan's bitch-slapping of Iran during that time. That's something you can relate having done to your candy ass isn't it?
Is there a need for such language? I mean really. You're not even articulating anything, just cussing. Does this make you feel better?

Since Wiki's such a good friend of yours, I figured I'd save you the trouble in reference to your Reagan comment.

yea...

Thus Spoke Zarathustra
---
This will help everyone out, check it.
It is time we acknowledged a basic feature of human discourse: when considering the truth of a proposition, one is either engaged in an honest appraisal of the evidence and logical arguments, or one is not. Religion is the one area of our lives where people imagine that some other standard of intellectual integrity applies.
-Sam Harris
Zarathustra is offline  
post #26 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 06:00 PM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,017
Too bad you're too stupid to realize the fuckups of your wanna-be homeland, but hey, that's the price of your ignorance.
Mr Majestyk is offline  
post #27 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 06:12 PM
Secular Dogooderist
 
Zarathustra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Hive
Posts: 3,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Majestyk
Too bad you're too stupid to realize the fuckups of your wanna-be homeland, but hey, that's the price of your ignorance.
To a certain extent, yes, I am ignorant. Ignorant to stupidity, selfishness, ethnocentricism, materialism, religion, pity, faith, half and non-truths, propaganda, anthropocentrism. But not of the current state of 'fuckups' in Iran. I only move to illuminate the fact that you are of no authority to speak on the matter. I have a certain connection with these people, namely in my blood. You sir, do not.

Thus Spoke Zarathustra
---
This will help everyone out, check it.
It is time we acknowledged a basic feature of human discourse: when considering the truth of a proposition, one is either engaged in an honest appraisal of the evidence and logical arguments, or one is not. Religion is the one area of our lives where people imagine that some other standard of intellectual integrity applies.
-Sam Harris
Zarathustra is offline  
post #28 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 06:22 PM
IA2
 
mikeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 22,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stang Seller
Though I agree with you on most points, we both know that Iran funds Hezbollah... although I do not view them as terrorists. Maniacs, maybe, but not terrorists.

MikeB, if the US pulls out of Iraq there will be no supposed power vacuum. This sentence is straight out of the "Bush Administration handbook on catchphrases". People have been figuring out how to make shit work for thousands of years. Americans did not invent the post revolution or post-some-kinda-disaster rebuilding of a nation. Everyone has been doing it for thousands of years, why suddenly does the world need America to do this for them? Iraq has been around thousands of years longer than you, seen many changes of ownership, and I'm sure the people will eventually figure it out. Your people keep saying you could be there for 50-100 years, do you really want to keep paying for that? None of you are looking at it in the long run! If Iran or Syria or someone else want to disrupt, there is nothing you can do to stop it. Pull out, leave with what little dignity you have left (on the world stage) and better your situation at home. You could be spending those trillions of dollars on bringing production and all those other jobs you shipped overseas back. You could spend some of that money from keeping the Mexicans out. You could spend some of that money to repay your HUGE debt. Maybe this is why some of you guys call me names, I'm one of a very few who actually see the big picture.
SS
I'm not arguing that iraq will run around headless and out of control if the US pulls out; as I said before the vacuum WOULD be filled..... but with what? Chances are it will be another iranian style theocracy that is hostile to the US and friendly with iran & syria (or worse a bin laden style leader preaching hate and jihad to the west) and all of the progress made there will be quickly erased. By progress i am referring to tangible things like new infrastructure, removal of a despot, kids back in schools, functioning hospitals, and some semblance of a normal life for many without having to worry about getting blown up trying to go to the market, or getting captured and taken to a torture chamber by a goon squad, or getting captured and taken to the arena to be beheaded in front of a crowd and be made an example of.
mikeb is offline  
post #29 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 06:31 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 483
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeb
I'm not arguing that iraq will run around headless and out of control if the US pulls out; as I said before the vacuum WOULD be filled..... but with what? Chances are it will be another iranian style theocracy that is hostile to the US and friendly with iran & syria (or worse a bin laden style leader preaching hate and jihad to the west) and all of the progress made there will be quickly erased. By progress i am referring to tangible things like new infrastructure, removal of a despot, kids back in schools, functioning hospitals, and some semblance of a normal life for many without having to worry about getting blown up trying to go to the market, or getting captured and taken to a torture chamber by a goon squad, or getting captured and taken to the arena to be beheaded in front of a crowd and be made an example of.
Understood, and you do make a good point. However, isn't it just as possible that a civilized and non violent nation could be re-birthed on their own? And why does the nation HAVE to be Western friendly? The US has caused nothing but strife, having waged two wars against the people of Iraq and having stockpiled their hated enemy. You have to understand these things from their perspective. You cannot assume that you know what's best for them, just as I cannot say the same about you! THEY will never see eye to eye with you, it's as simple as that.

Iraq needs to solve their own problem, the way things are they have a Kurd in charge and that's not how it would be if the Iraqi's really had a choice. I agree that the infrastructure needs to be rebuilt, desperately. They need a semblance of normality, and that will never happen so long as Americans are talking about possibly staying there for 100 years.
SS

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
-Samuel Johnson
Stang Seller is offline  
post #30 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 06:39 PM
Secular Dogooderist
 
Zarathustra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Hive
Posts: 3,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stang Seller
MikeB, if the US pulls out of Iraq there will be no supposed power vacuum. This sentence is straight out of the "Bush Administration handbook on catchphrases". People have been figuring out how to make shit work for thousands of years. Americans did not invent the post revolution or post-some-kinda-disaster rebuilding of a nation. Everyone has been doing it for thousands of years, why suddenly does the world need America to do this for them? Iraq has been around thousands of years longer than you, seen many changes of ownership, and I'm sure the people will eventually figure it out. Your people keep saying you could be there for 50-100 years, do you really want to keep paying for that? None of you are looking at it in the long run! If Iran or Syria or someone else want to disrupt, there is nothing you can do to stop it. Pull out, leave with what little dignity you have left (on the world stage) and better your situation at home. You could be spending those trillions of dollars on bringing production and all those other jobs you shipped overseas back. You could spend some of that money from keeping the Mexicans out. You could spend some of that money to repay your HUGE debt. Maybe this is why some of you guys call me names, I'm one of a very few who actually see the big picture.
SS
There is a certain truth value to be discovered when removing the frame of reference of context from this whole paradigm. We, of the next generation, are the ones who will have to deal with the monumental repercussions of this conflict. The nature of our policy in the Mid East conflict has unarguably destabilized the region to an extent which we are and will continue to be unable to comprehend. On the other hand, MikeB's response to this post slightly resembled a slippery slope argument for it's purported fortune telling through a bulging convex lens the possible outcome of a total pullout.

I would also move to argue that these 'tangible things' mentioned that were such a great outcome of this occupation are largely superfluous to the Iraqi people. The way I see it, they don't need much, save for the allowance of their religious norms to be held and practiced freely. It seems like we're making a pointless attempt to instill American Ideals into a culture that wants no part of it. Even if it is in the form of infrastructure.

Thus Spoke Zarathustra
---
This will help everyone out, check it.
It is time we acknowledged a basic feature of human discourse: when considering the truth of a proposition, one is either engaged in an honest appraisal of the evidence and logical arguments, or one is not. Religion is the one area of our lives where people imagine that some other standard of intellectual integrity applies.
-Sam Harris
Zarathustra is offline  
post #31 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 06:42 PM
Secular Dogooderist
 
Zarathustra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Hive
Posts: 3,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stang Seller
Understood, and you do make a good point. However, isn't it just as possible that a civilized and non violent nation could be re-birthed on their own? And why does the nation HAVE to be Western friendly? The US has caused nothing but strife, having waged two wars against the people of Iraq and having stockpiled their hated enemy. You have to understand these things from their perspective. You cannot assume that you know what's best for them, just as I cannot say the same about you! THEY will never see eye to eye with you, it's as simple as that.

Iraq needs to solve their own problem, the way things are they have a Kurd in charge and that's not how it would be if the Iraqi's really had a choice. I agree that the infrastructure needs to be rebuilt, desperately. They need a semblance of normality, and that will never happen so long as Americans are talking about possibly staying there for 100 years.
SS
Exactly the point I'm getting at. If we knew what was good for the country then this conflict would have all but ended itself years ago. This can not be resolved without consideration of interests on the part of all Iraqis, as this is their way of life, not ours.

Thus Spoke Zarathustra
---
This will help everyone out, check it.
It is time we acknowledged a basic feature of human discourse: when considering the truth of a proposition, one is either engaged in an honest appraisal of the evidence and logical arguments, or one is not. Religion is the one area of our lives where people imagine that some other standard of intellectual integrity applies.
-Sam Harris
Zarathustra is offline  
post #32 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 06:42 PM
IA2
 
mikeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 22,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stang Seller
Understood, and you do make a good point. However, isn't it just as possible that a civilized and non violent nation could be re-birthed on their own? And why does the nation HAVE to be Western friendly? The US has caused nothing but strife, having waged two wars against the people of Iraq and having stockpiled their hated enemy. You have to understand these things from their perspective. You cannot assume that you know what's best for them, just as I cannot say the same about you! THEY will never see eye to eye with you, it's as simple as that.

Iraq needs to solve their own problem, the way things are they have a Kurd in charge and that's not how it would be if the Iraqi's really had a choice. I agree that the infrastructure needs to be rebuilt, desperately. They need a semblance of normality, and that will never happen so long as Americans are talking about possibly staying there for 100 years.
SS
If the US was trying to run Iraq then why is the new iraqi government set up to allow elections and free will of the Iraq people? This is because we don't presuppose to know where Iraq wants to go; that is for the iraqi people to decide. And if they'll grasp the brass ring that the US has given them by outing saddam then they can do so. Or, they can fall back into the old ways again. From where I am sitting the ball is in their court at this point; they decide what to do with the golden opportunity that the US has provided.

As far as the wars go, the first war was caused when saddam invaded kuwait. The US was simply defending Kuwait, evidenced by the fact that the US stopped at the iraqi border. The second war was caused by saddam thumbing his nose at the UN 20+ times, and claiming to have WMD. Make of it what you will, but both times saddam was the instigator of his own woes.
mikeb is offline  
post #33 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 07:03 PM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarathustra
To a certain extent, yes, I am ignorant. Ignorant to stupidity, selfishness, ethnocentricism, materialism, religion, pity, faith, half and non-truths, propaganda, anthropocentrism. But not of the current state of 'fuckups' in Iran. I only move to illuminate the fact that you are of no authority to speak on the matter. I have a certain connection with these people, namely in my blood. You sir, do not.
Contrast yourself with, say, Stang Seller. He and I both have actually lived the period during the fall of the Shah, the Iran/Iraq war, the Reagan years, albeit from different perspectives, and some of that period he may have learned about from his father. I may not agree with everything he posts, but he is intelligent and can convey that intelligence through the written word, and I respect him, his family, and his pride in country.

You sir, cannot accomplish any of the above. You are too immature and fail utterly at composition. You may claim a "blood" connection with the Iranian people, but you know nothing about life there from a first person perspective, so don't even try to pretend you do.
Mr Majestyk is offline  
post #34 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 07:10 PM
Secular Dogooderist
 
Zarathustra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Hive
Posts: 3,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeb
If the US was trying to run Iraq then why is the new iraqi government set up to allow elections and free will of the Iraq people? This is because we don't presuppose to know where Iraq wants to go; that is for the iraqi people to decide. And if they'll grasp the brass ring that the US has given them by outing saddam then they can do so. Or, they can fall back into the old ways again. From where I am sitting the ball is in their court at this point; they decide what to do with the golden opportunity that the US has provided.

As far as the wars go, the first war was caused when saddam invaded kuwait. The US was simply defending Kuwait, evidenced by the fact that the US stopped at the iraqi border. The second war was caused by saddam thumbing his nose at the UN 20+ times, and claiming to have WMD. Make of it what you will, but both times saddam was the instigator of his own woes.
i think it's because they're allowed free will, but only under the fundamental framework set forth by the US is what he was getting at. Their free-will, as it were, is not true free-will, only under the blanket of US policy.

Thus Spoke Zarathustra
---
This will help everyone out, check it.
It is time we acknowledged a basic feature of human discourse: when considering the truth of a proposition, one is either engaged in an honest appraisal of the evidence and logical arguments, or one is not. Religion is the one area of our lives where people imagine that some other standard of intellectual integrity applies.
-Sam Harris
Zarathustra is offline  
post #35 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 07:12 PM
Secular Dogooderist
 
Zarathustra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Hive
Posts: 3,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Majestyk
Contrast yourself with, say, Stang Seller. He and I both have actually lived the period during the fall of the Shah, the Iran/Iraq war, the Reagan years, albeit from different perspectives, and some of that period he may have learned about from his father. I may not agree with everything he posts, but he is intelligent and can convey that intelligence through the written word, and I respect him, his family, and his pride in country.

You sir, cannot accomplish any of the above. You are too immature and fail utterly at composition. You may claim a "blood" connection with the Iranian people, but you know nothing about life there from a first person perspective, so don't even try to pretend you do.
Ten times more than you do, sir. And to call me inarticulate of all things absolutely unfounded, as you couldn't string together a coherent set of words to save your life.

You make me laugh, sir.

Baaahahahahahahaha

Thus Spoke Zarathustra
---
This will help everyone out, check it.
It is time we acknowledged a basic feature of human discourse: when considering the truth of a proposition, one is either engaged in an honest appraisal of the evidence and logical arguments, or one is not. Religion is the one area of our lives where people imagine that some other standard of intellectual integrity applies.
-Sam Harris
Zarathustra is offline  
post #36 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 07:46 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 483
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeb
If the US was trying to run Iraq then why is the new iraqi government set up to allow elections and free will of the Iraq people? This is because we don't presuppose to know where Iraq wants to go; that is for the iraqi people to decide. And if they'll grasp the brass ring that the US has given them by outing saddam then they can do so. Or, they can fall back into the old ways again. From where I am sitting the ball is in their court at this point; they decide what to do with the golden opportunity that the US has provided.

As far as the wars go, the first war was caused when saddam invaded kuwait. The US was simply defending Kuwait, evidenced by the fact that the US stopped at the iraqi border. The second war was caused by saddam thumbing his nose at the UN 20+ times, and claiming to have WMD. Make of it what you will, but both times saddam was the instigator of his own woes.
I dont believe for a second that the Iraqi's have untampered and free elections, the illusion of it is given to you, the American TV watcher and you're satisfied with that. When you know they lie to you about the facts to go to war, then how can you be satisfied when it just appears that the ball is now in their court? What if they're not even on the court? I do not think that Jalal Talabani of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan is the person the Iraqi's would have chosen to lead their nation.

I hate to admit it, but Kuwait belongs to Iraq. The British never had any authority to carve up any nations in the middle east. And you cannot use the UN as ANY sort of proof or example, didn't the UN condemn America wanting to wage war against Iraq? Didn't the UN say NO to war with Iraq? Then the US went ahead anyway, even without a declaration of war passed through congress as your own laws state. Saddam was a piece of shit and deserved to die, but not at your hands.
SS

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
-Samuel Johnson
Stang Seller is offline  
post #37 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 08:28 PM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarathustra
Ten times more than you do, sir. And to call me inarticulate of all things absolutely unfounded, as you couldn't string together a coherent set of words to save your life.

You make me laugh, sir.

Baaahahahahahahaha
Good to know I pegged you right without even trying. How's it feel to be the laughingstock of this entire board, which you for some reason must cherish highly in your pathetic excuse for a life. Come back some day when you've lived and can converse with us grown-ups.

Sure is entertaining for a while watching a 'tard like you are, FudgePecker, getting dick-slapped at every turn, but eventually that becomes boring and we must move on to topics and people on here that actually matter to someone.
Mr Majestyk is offline  
post #38 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 08:36 PM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: South of the Red River
Posts: 3,332
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarathustra
Your empirical evidence comes form the internet!! Don't worry though, you're not alone.
What's wrong with that?

Talk is cheap because supply exceeds demand!
black01gt is offline  
post #39 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 08:38 PM
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarathustra
This warning is grounded in the skewed interpretation of the word itself. The word liberal has become but a verbal tag, and I see it as nothing other than the letters which make up the word.

The way of viewing this is that you're either a liberal and wanna get out of iraq, or you're a conservative and you want to stay. Quite frankly that's bullshit.

It's just not that cut and dry for me.
I asked a very simple question for which you did not produce an answer. Who do you plan to vote for? I couldnt vote for say GW Bush and claim to not have an ounce of conservative blood in me the same way if you plan to vote for Obama or Hillary you cant claim to not have an ounce of liberal blood in you. Doesnt matter how you perceive the word or its definition...Obama is as liberal as it gets so if its him you're already wrong no matter what you try to say. And if its Hillary then you're not AS liberal but definately still liberal on a lot of views. I'm not referring to just the war either, but yes wanting to pull out of a war and run is definately liberal...turning to the UN or economic sanctions to try and control a countrys hostility is definately liberal thinking. The thought of universal healthcare for all the deprived and minorities at the expense of the middle/upper class is definately liberal. I can go on but you should get the point. Just as being pro-life and against abortion is conservative, believing in the right to bear arms is conservative, banning gay marriages is conservative etc etc...doesnt mean you have to believe soley in liberal or conservative ideas to be classified as one just depends on the majority.

So care to enlighten me to who your candidate of choice is? If you dont plan to vote thats fine, and possibly your statement is true or if you're going to find some random third party to throw your vote away on then it could also stand to be true. Just from a lot of the tangents you have gone off on and things you have said in reply to others Political opinions I find the statement of "not having an ounce of liberal blood" completely erroneous.
Thats M Life is offline  
post #40 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 09:12 PM
Secular Dogooderist
 
Zarathustra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Hive
Posts: 3,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thats M Life
I asked a very simple question for which you did not produce an answer. Who do you plan to vote for? I couldnt vote for say GW Bush and claim to not have an ounce of conservative blood in me the same way if you plan to vote for Obama or Hillary you cant claim to not have an ounce of liberal blood in you. Doesnt matter how you perceive the word or its definition...Obama is as liberal as it gets so if its him you're already wrong no matter what you try to say. And if its Hillary then you're not AS liberal but definately still liberal on a lot of views. I'm not referring to just the war either, but yes wanting to pull out of a war and run is definately liberal...turning to the UN or economic sanctions to try and control a countrys hostility is definately liberal thinking. The thought of universal healthcare for all the deprived and minorities at the expense of the middle/upper class is definately liberal. I can go on but you should get the point. Just as being pro-life and against abortion is conservative, believing in the right to bear arms is conservative, banning gay marriages is conservative etc etc...doesnt mean you have to believe soley in liberal or conservative ideas to be classified as one just depends on the majority.

So care to enlighten me to who your candidate of choice is? If you dont plan to vote thats fine, and possibly your statement is true or if you're going to find some random third party to throw your vote away on then it could also stand to be true. Just from a lot of the tangents you have gone off on and things you have said in reply to others Political opinions I find the statement of "not having an ounce of liberal blood" completely erroneous.
So you yourself reduced the stances of various politicians to be the sole basis upon which you use those words. The world is not that simple and I denounce the idea that this is the political structure under which we must operate. The various stances held by any given person is a product of his of her own intuition, not that of a political sect. My stances on these issues may be classifiable in the stiflingly simple world of conservo-liberal classification, but I still have no part or refer to myself or others as conservative or liberal. The words merely serve as a means of interpretation and classification by others. Furthermore the relatively recent splitting and classifying of these nasty monikers along religious lines literally makes me want to throw up.

If you must have some semblance of my opinion on the upcoming presidential race, I'll say that I believe the decision that will be voted on in November has already been made. This happened months if not years ago. The Clintons are part of the Council on Foreign Relations, and they are also compliant with the demands and wishes of the government that presides over the government. This global elite group of mega-wealthy, mega-powerful individuals runs the show, so to speak. None of the other candidates left standing represent an ice cube's chance in hell of winning the presidency because of the Clinton family's ties to this global power struggle. If you're not part of the Illuminati, then you will not be president in this country. This brings a whole new wave of fascist ideals into the government who continually refers to itself as a democracy, while exhibiting ever-increasing characteristics of a republic, or even an oligarchy. Over the past year or so I've lost mountain of faith in the 'democratic process', that illusory blanket of injustice. Voting in this country, in this day in age, is largely superfluous. At least to me.


How's that?

Thus Spoke Zarathustra
---
This will help everyone out, check it.
It is time we acknowledged a basic feature of human discourse: when considering the truth of a proposition, one is either engaged in an honest appraisal of the evidence and logical arguments, or one is not. Religion is the one area of our lives where people imagine that some other standard of intellectual integrity applies.
-Sam Harris
Zarathustra is offline  
post #41 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 09:15 PM
Secular Dogooderist
 
Zarathustra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Hive
Posts: 3,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Majestyk
Good to know I pegged you right without even trying. How's it feel to be the laughingstock of this entire board, which you for some reason must cherish highly in your pathetic excuse for a life. Come back some day when you've lived and can converse with us grown-ups.

Sure is entertaining for a while watching a 'tard like you are, FudgePecker, getting dick-slapped at every turn, but eventually that becomes boring and we must move on to topics and people on here that actually matter to someone.
I accept your concession.

Thus Spoke Zarathustra
---
This will help everyone out, check it.
It is time we acknowledged a basic feature of human discourse: when considering the truth of a proposition, one is either engaged in an honest appraisal of the evidence and logical arguments, or one is not. Religion is the one area of our lives where people imagine that some other standard of intellectual integrity applies.
-Sam Harris
Zarathustra is offline  
post #42 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 09:36 PM
IA2
 
mikeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 22,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stang Seller
I dont believe for a second that the Iraqi's have untampered and free elections, the illusion of it is given to you, the American TV watcher and you're satisfied with that. When you know they lie to you about the facts to go to war, then how can you be satisfied when it just appears that the ball is now in their court? What if they're not even on the court? I do not think that Jalal Talabani of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan is the person the Iraqi's would have chosen to lead their nation.

I hate to admit it, but Kuwait belongs to Iraq. The British never had any authority to carve up any nations in the middle east. And you cannot use the UN as ANY sort of proof or example, didn't the UN condemn America wanting to wage war against Iraq? Didn't the UN say NO to war with Iraq? Then the US went ahead anyway, even without a declaration of war passed through congress as your own laws state. Saddam was a piece of shit and deserved to die, but not at your hands.
SS
Well, i'm done with this discussion since whatever is posted is met with these kinds of statements. Really, most people can understand that iraq has a brighter future with a government that is not run by a despot named saddam who runs people thru chip grinders.
mikeb is offline  
post #43 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 10:00 PM
IA2
 
mikeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 22,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeb
Well, i'm done with this discussion since whatever is posted is met with these kinds of statements. Really, most people can understand that iraq has a brighter future with a government that is not run by a despot named saddam who runs people thru chip grinders.
I'm going to clarify this statement. Trying to have a discussion with Z or SS only leads to circular arguments. I'm trying to point out what I see as positives, and the responses bring up old grudges and a certain superior attitude about how good iran/iraq was really doing before the US got involved, and about how "we" as americans just don't understand. What I do understand is that many young american lives have have been given trying to improve that corner of the world, to give those that live there a better opportunity than they had with saddam and his sons, and that is met with attitudes of ungratefulness. How the hell do you show more commitment to a cause than dying for it? But yet the motives of the US are still questioned.

Shit, maybe we should pull out and give those people what they apparently want, a shitty life under a despot After all, who the hell would want to live in a free society such as the US?
mikeb is offline  
post #44 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 10:01 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 483
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeb
Well, i'm done with this discussion since whatever is posted is met with these kinds of statements. Really, most people can understand that iraq has a brighter future with a government that is not run by a despot named saddam who runs people thru chip grinders.
Come on now, I'm not telling you that you're wrong! I'm offering up my opinion and telling you what I think may happen. Certainly theres nothing wrong with sharing our viewpoints and discussing that? So long as it doesnt turn into a pissing contest and we don't get the usual trolls to come in and do nothing but call names then it's all good.
SS

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
-Samuel Johnson
Stang Seller is offline  
post #45 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 10:07 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 483
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeb
I'm going to clarify this statement. Trying to have a discussion with Z or SS only leads to circular arguments. I'm trying to point out what I see as positives, and the responses bring up old grudges and a certain superior attitude about how good iran/iraq was really doing before the US got involved, and about how "we" as americans just don't understand. What I do understand is that many young american lives have have been given trying to improve that corner of the world, to give those that live there a better opportunity than they had with saddam and his sons, and that is met with attitudes of ungratefulness. How the hell do you show more commitment to a cause than dying for it? But yet the motives of the US are still questioned.

Shit, maybe we should pull out and give those people what they apparently want, a shitty life under a despot After all, who the hell would want to live in a free society such as the US?
You're getting it all wrong man, you have to remember that I'm actually FROM that part of the world. So when I give my point, it might seem circular to you but that's only because I'm stating things someone from here just cant see right away.

I understand that you believe it to be positive, and that you believe that you are doing good and I don't think ill of you for it. However, how is it your responsiblity to make just that corner of the world better? What about Rwanda? What about Darfur? Why did South Africa have to go through what it did til the 90s!?!?

I appreciate those young Americans who are willing to sacrifice their lives for something they believe in, but it seems that many of those young Americans don't believe in it. The videos are everywhere, soldiers giving their testament and that carries more weight than your opinion of the situation.

Your view is so one sided that when I merely say "hey, look there's two sides and try to see it that way" you tell me that I'm turning it into a circular arguement. Step back for a second, read my writing for a second time then start typing your response.
Cheers,
SS

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
-Samuel Johnson
Stang Seller is offline  
post #46 of 232 (permalink) Old 02-29-2008, 10:41 PM
IA2
 
mikeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 22,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stang Seller
You're getting it all wrong man, you have to remember that I'm actually FROM that part of the world. So when I give my point, it might seem circular to you but that's only because I'm stating things someone from here just cant see right away.

I understand that you believe it to be positive, and that you believe that you are doing good and I don't think ill of you for it. However, how is it your responsiblity to make just that corner of the world better? What about Rwanda? What about Darfur? Why did South Africa have to go through what it did til the 90s!?!?

I appreciate those young Americans who are willing to sacrifice their lives for something they believe in, but it seems that many of those young Americans don't believe in it. The videos are everywhere, soldiers giving their testament and that carries more weight than your opinion of the situation.

Your view is so one sided that when I merely say "hey, look there's two sides and try to see it that way" you tell me that I'm turning it into a circular arguement. Step back for a second, read my writing for a second time then start typing your response.
Cheers,
SS
SS, You're getting it all wrong man, you have to remember that I'm actually FROM america. So when I give my point, it might seem confusing to you but that's only because I'm stating things someone from america just cant see right away.

I understand that you believe it to be negative, and that you believe that the US is doing bad but I don't think ill of you for it. However, how is it your belief that just that corner of the world better cannot be made better? You can compare what is happening in Iraq to places like Rwanda and Darfur and South Africa to see the changes and the amount of resources being poured into iraq by the US.

I grieve for those young Americans who are willing to sacrifice their lives for something they believe in, but since the US is a free country many of those young Americans don't believe in the war. And that is OK. The videos are everywhere, soldiers giving their testament of the improvements seen in iraq and testimonies of personal sacrifice and service above the duty of call to help iraq, and that carries more weight than your opinion of the situation.

Your view is so one sided that when I merely say "hey, look there's two sides and try to see it that way" you tell me that I'm not from the middle east and cannot understand. Step back for a second, read my writing for a second time then start typing your response.
Cheers,
MikeB
mikeb is offline  
post #47 of 232 (permalink) Old 03-01-2008, 12:19 AM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 483
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeb
SS, You're getting it all wrong man, you have to remember that I'm actually FROM america. So when I give my point, it might seem confusing to you but that's only because I'm stating things someone from america just cant see right away.

I understand that you believe it to be negative, and that you believe that the US is doing bad but I don't think ill of you for it. However, how is it your belief that just that corner of the world better cannot be made better? You can compare what is happening in Iraq to places like Rwanda and Darfur and South Africa to see the changes and the amount of resources being poured into iraq by the US.

I grieve for those young Americans who are willing to sacrifice their lives for something they believe in, but since the US is a free country many of those young Americans don't believe in the war. And that is OK. The videos are everywhere, soldiers giving their testament of the improvements seen in iraq and testimonies of personal sacrifice and service above the duty of call to help iraq, and that carries more weight than your opinion of the situation.

Your view is so one sided that when I merely say "hey, look there's two sides and try to see it that way" you tell me that I'm not from the middle east and cannot understand. Step back for a second, read my writing for a second time then start typing your response.
Cheers,
MikeB
The difference here is that you are from America, talking about another part of the world that you know little about. Whatever you know, is far from first hand. You can't use my arguement against me, because I have spent 19 years in Canada. While that may not be America, Canada isn't exactly far removed. I still see the same media that you see, a very similar culture to what you see. But, I know the culture of the middle east too. I am from there, so no matter how you want to try and turn my words against me it fails because you really cannot see it from our eyes.
I won't see it from your eyes, and I don't need to. I know why those people over there resent your people, most of you folks have no idea. You think it's because they're Muslims and consider Americans to be infidels, or great satan, or whatever else.
Why is America fighting only in Iraq? Why not those other places "you" mentioned? Why are the people of Iraq worthy of saving, but blacks in Africa being killed by the hundreds of thousands are not? Maybe you can explain this to me, since I'm not from America I just can't fathom it.
SS

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
-Samuel Johnson
Stang Seller is offline  
post #48 of 232 (permalink) Old 03-01-2008, 12:34 AM
IA2
 
mikeb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 22,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stang Seller
The difference here is that you are from America, talking about another part of the world that you know little about. Whatever you know, is far from first hand. You can't use my arguement against me, because I have spent 19 years in Canada. While that may not be America, Canada isn't exactly far removed. I still see the same media that you see, a very similar culture to what you see. But, I know the culture of the middle east too. I am from there, so no matter how you want to try and turn my words against me it fails because you really cannot see it from our eyes.
I won't see it from your eyes, and I don't need to. I know why those people over there resent your people, most of you folks have no idea. You think it's because they're Muslims and consider Americans to be infidels, or great satan, or whatever else.
Why is America fighting only in Iraq? Why not those other places "you" mentioned? Why are the people of Iraq worthy of saving, but blacks in Africa being killed by the hundreds of thousands are not? Maybe you can explain this to me, since I'm not from America I just can't fathom it.
SS
So the US should just pull out of the middle east, and let the chips fall where they may? The saddam era was nothing to write home about for those that had to live under him. You have yet to address the human rights violations present during that era. In fact, you seem to promote that the saddam era as being better than what is there now. People going thru wood chippers, beheadings, goon squads, hangings > current society status?
mikeb is offline  
post #49 of 232 (permalink) Old 03-01-2008, 12:41 AM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 483
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeb
So the US should just pull out of the middle east, and let the chips fall where they may? The saddam era was nothing to write home about for those that had to live under him. You have yet to address the human rights violations present during that era. In fact, you seem to promote that the saddam era as being better than what is there now. People going thru wood chippers, beheadings, goon squads, hangings > current society status?
Huh? Where on earth did I say or insinuate such a thing? Here is a newsflash for you, the Saddam era didn't end for those thousands upon thousands who have died since America invaded. What about them? Do their human rights abuses count? Or are they just collateral damage?
Yes, the US should just pull out of the middle east and let the chips fall where they may. You have no right to decide what is right for anyone. In Iran, they got a revolution. In time, Iraq may have had one too. Or they would have picked another fight with someone. Who knows? It's not your job to police the world.
SS

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
-Samuel Johnson
Stang Seller is offline  
post #50 of 232 (permalink) Old 03-01-2008, 09:22 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarathustra
I accept your concession.
Your welcome, you will be relieved of being made a fool of for the time being, provided you stay out of the big boys discussions.
Mr Majestyk is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the DFWstangs Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome