Chrono Compendium
Zenan Plains - Site Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Lord J Esq on March 27, 2006, 03:53:26 am
-
As conditions in Iraq continue to deteriorate, Republicans have resorted to blaming our misfortunes there on the journalists covering the war. The charge: Our coverage is too negative.
Journalist Lara Logan, in Iraq, has something to say about that:
(http://www.crooksandliars.com/images/cnn_rs_blame_media_lara_logan_060326a1.jpg) (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/03/26.html#a7669)
Ouch.
News organizations like CNN are betraying themselves by repeating the conservative lies that journalists are causing us to lose the war. Logan speaks very clearly and forcefully to the contrary, with an emotional touch of desperation in her voice. If every American could see this, our prosecution of the war, such as it is, would end tomorrow. Definitely watch this clip.
-
I don't know, and I'm in no manner qualified to comment on this. Honestly, as strange as it must seem to you Americans, I'm totally out of touch and disconnected with that whole war. Well, that and that I don't watch TV. But I think we get to hear very little about it up here. To me, Afghanistan is more pertinant, as we've got troops there. My godfather actually has sons who are there right now on Peacekeeping missions.
-
We seem to be here, alone, at the same time tonight. In any case, you are fortunate that your government refused to go to war from the very beginning. I remember when former Prime Minister Martin made his speech before Parliament. It was a good day. And it got all of four seconds of television coverage here at the time.
Since then, the United States has killed tens of thousands of people, lost thousands of its own, and utterly bankrupted itself--not ethically (that too), but financially. Really, the budget here is very bad. Not simply are our annual deficits unsustainable; our public debt is crippling. Canada did well to distance itself from all of that...and would do still better to change its immigration policies to accept American refugees. Not that we'll be fleeing to your country or anything, but...you know...
-
The war in iRaq can be concluded by:
(http://www.koreus.com/files/200407/iraq.jpg)
(http://thecreativeforum.com/forum/articles/Glaser/iraq_sm.jpg)
Look carefully at the fine print.
Oh yeah, and *ahem* these too...
http://sf.indymedia.org/uploads/children.jpgz16032.jpg
(http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-01/07/xin_320102070809500104173.jpg)
-
The war in iRaq can be concluded by:
(http://www.koreus.com/files/200407/iraq.jpg)
Do you know where this came from?
Oh yeah, and *ahem* these too...
http://sf.indymedia.org/uploads/children.jpgz16032.jpg
That one is pretty graphic, so I changed it to a link.
-
Sorry, not sure. Translations from the site didn't help:
~ Mashed potaties the miss have to me too much make flippé!! what a bitch lol if not I think that they are truths and they are well lol!!
~to answer grosbill it has says that it apelle tina and which can evaluate your university level if you wishes it but ptetre that your connection is bad whereas you do not extend because its must charge.
~It is funny but I ever heard the voice of the lady...
It says what???
~Ouai it is funny but its would not owe it!
But these pics aren't uncommon. Go to http://www.forkscrew.com/main.html for more info.
-----------------------
Nice move Gray, but I just thought that the members here were mature enough. Well, you the mod! *does Johnny Depp laugh*
-
Vietnam (even though sort of won by the numbers) was not lost due to journalistic coverage, and neither has Iraq been ruined for the same reason. So I'll agree.
I have another thing, though. Saddam's right hand man recently appeared on the Daily Show, and declared outright that he witnessed the WMDs shipped out and heard accounts from pilots who flew them to Syria. He says the brass is putting together the formal report right now before making an announcement. If this comes to pass, what will happen to the political climate?
-
journalistic coverage has nothing to do with war efforts
it's simply a way for the media to continue to spread lies while the real truth is sadly wat is exactly going on in Iraq
i've had many friends come back, with pictures showing me the disgusting vile trash everywhere, unknown substances in the sand that looks like chocolate milk tar . . . it's hell
i don't want to get into a debate about war media and what not, it's simply this and only this
wat happens over there will ALWAYS be exaggerated to either make us look good or bad
it's a vicious cycle that's been repeated many many times over
-
Am I the only one getting tired of these threads?
Vietnam was lost thanks to media coverage, and the anti-war movement. We were mere months from victory there, the NVA had their back broken. Yet we pulled out thanks to the anti-war movement, rendering all the deaths suffered there in vain.
In Iraq, I don't feel the war has been lost. And if you are content with allowing us to loose, and your a US citizen, you should feel ashamed of yourself.
-
Am I the only one getting tired of these threads?
Vietnam was lost thanks to media coverage, and the anti-war movement. We were mere months from victory there, the NVA had their back broken. Yet we pulled out thanks to the anti-war movement, rendering all the deaths suffered there in vain.
In Iraq, I don't feel the war has been lost. And if you are content with allowing us to loose, and your a US citizen, you should feel ashamed of yourself.
Funny enough, the war was un-invited. It's funny how your saying that the US Citizens should feel ashamed of themselves. That just shows what US Citizens have been taught all along, to be war supporters. Geez, thats an example why no body really likes the US these days - invading Iraq and the whole Middle East under your stupid president, or should I say Dictator wannabe.
Maybe the US should watch their backs. Actually, I kind of hope that the US gets whats coming for them. Whilst everyone is out in Iraq or whereever they have to be, in comes a fleet of Korean, Japanese, Russian, Chinese and eastern European ships and jets and they start taking over ^^...... Nah.
-
Am I the only one getting tired of these threads?
It is your choice to keep coming back into them to argue. And if by "these" you mean the three or four that are active on this board right now, I propose you are exaggerating.
Vietnam was lost thanks to media coverage, and the anti-war movement. We were mere months from victory there, the NVA had their back broken. Yet we pulled out thanks to the anti-war movement, rendering all the deaths suffered there in vain.
In Iraq, I don't feel the war has been lost. And if you are content with allowing us to loose, and your a US citizen, you should feel ashamed of yourself.
There is one way for us to still win. You might have heard in the news that some eighty percent of soldiers in Iraq think the war is now unwinnable. But what the news report probably did not include is that this statement was provisional: Those soldiers also agreed that increasing our troop levels in Iraq would make it winnable.
From the beginning we have had to few troops in Iraq. This was the fatal error of the Department of Defense, not the media. And we could still salvage it if we wanted--by doubling or tripling the number of American troops in Iraq, and keeping them there for many years to come. We would, of course, have to institute a draft and reawaken the military-industrial complex, but it could be done.
Ironically, this was the administration's main reasoning for going into Iraq with such a light force in the first place. Fewer troops for a shorter period would supposedly result in a cheaper, easier war--id est, a war the public could more easily rally behind.
But the administration's reasoning backfired. We sent in too few troops, and the only solution would be to inrease troops--something everyone in the administration had explicitly gone out of their way to avoid talking about.
The media have reported, more or less, that what we've got in Iraq right now isn't cutting it. We are losing. More honestly, Iraq is losing--to itself. This is the truth. And because of the administration's original strategy--and, presumably, its current strategy--the media have not widely reported that more troops would possibly solve our problems. It just isn't on the table. It isn't a Republican talking point. No one is talking about more troops. As a result, it isn't in the public scope of awareness that adding more troops is a viable solution. Pullout is the only solution of which they are aware. And because the war is going badly, public opinion has logically shifted in the direction of pullout.
Is Sentenal right, then? Are the media costing us the war? No. We literally are losing the war there, because the administration went to war with a faulty game plan. The media just happen to be reporting this fact.
Let's face it: The Republicans lost big, and reamed everyone else on their way down. At this point the only reasonable options are to call for a pullout, call for a draft, or continue on the road of delusion with President Bush. But on an individual level, I propose we let justice and irony win the day: Anyone who still wants us to win this war should enlist in the military. That means you, Sentenal.
-
Josh, buddy, could you please tell me where you get your numbers from? Just curious.
-
Josh, buddy, could you please tell me where you get your numbers from? Just curious.
* 82 percent of Iraqis want us to leave; or, rather, are "strongly opposed" to our presence in Iraq. (Secret poll conducted for the British Ministry of Defense and intercepted by the London Sunday Telegraph; Source (http://www2.townonline.com/roslindale/opinion/view.bg?articleid=448827))
* 72 percent of our own troops want us to pull out within the year. (This includes a majority 51 percent who say we should pull out either immediately (29 percent) or within six months (22 percent).
(Zogby Int'l poll; Source (http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/2/28/143556/654))
* 60 percent of American civilians believe we should either reduce our troop levels in Iraq or pull out entirely. (NYT/CBS News poll; Source (http://www.clw.org/iraq/archives/2005/12/december_8_nyti.html))
One statistic in particular that I wanted to show you--the percentage of troops who believe we will not win in Iraq because our troop levels are not high enough--I could not find. It is possible that I mistook that idea with the second poll mentioned above, but I would have sworn it was a seprate number. It's hard to google for troop polls because there are so many more civilian polls that they flood the search results. In any case, even if they're not exactly what I wanted, the numbers mentioned here still reflect what I said earlier, so let's take it from this point and move forward.
-
How exactly would you define success or victory in Iraq at this point? We won the war against Saddam and the Baathists; that was easy. The trouble is that there was no exit strategy, and no clearly defined terms of victory or defeat in the occupation. They had an election? Great, a new democracy. Too bad no government has formed as a result, and even when it does, it is most likely to be even more divided than the U.S. government at this point, and that's saying something. So what is a victory? The election? What if the new government imposes Sharia law, like in Afgahnastan? Surely, you've all heard about the case of the Afghani man who converted from Islam to Christianity, and is now be threated with execution under the law of the post-Taliban, democratically elected Afghan government?
Democracy is not some magic pancea. Not that it was the reason for going to war in Iraq, but I'd like to point that out anyway. Democracy isn't any better than a dictatorship if the people elect a dictator. I fail to see how the U.S. wins in the long run by replacing a mostly secular lunatic with a pannel of bickering zealot dictators, even if those dictators were chosen by the Iraqi people.
So, I reiterate my question. What are the terms of victory and defeat for the United States at this stage in the Iraq conflict?
-
Still, isn't a bit of a stretch to say we're losing? I mean if you compare to Vietnam or Korea, then we're not losing that many troops. I mean yeah, I understand that *any* death is tragic. But from a statistical standpoint...
-
Still, isn't a bit of a stretch to say we're losing? I mean if you compare to Vietnam or Korea, then we're not losing that many troops. I mean yeah, I understand that *any* death is tragic. But from a statistical standpoint...
Victory in war is not determined by casualties.
-
Perhaps, but I really think it's being stretched out of proportion.
-
If we measure the war in terms of casualites, we are not loosing. In terms of battle victorys, we are not loosing. If we measure it with how willing the public is to continue, its in trouble. I believe that if we stick with it, we will win. This war is having some major PR problems. Not that its all the media's fault, Josh.
-
If we measure the war in terms of casualites, we are not loosing. In terms of battle victorys, we are not loosing. If we measure it with how willing the public is to continue, its in trouble. I believe that if we stick with it, we will win. This war is having some major PR problems. Not that its all the media's fault, Josh.
We aren't losing battles over there either, Sentenal. What we've lost is the peace. Iraq is in an informal civil war, with dozens of civilians murdered every day, people living in reprehensible conditions and untenable fear. You'd rather we focus on only the good news? Did you even watch the video clip at the start of this thread?
There were never enough troops to do what Bush wanted done in Iraq. (It's arguable that even an unlimited number of troops may have been unable to win the "hearts and winds" of the people.) And now, instead of building a democratic ally of Iraq, we have built the war-zone Islamic theocracy of Iraq. I know he can't come out and say it, but George Bush has got to be as pissed off about the way this turned out as anybody. Problem is...it's his damn fault.
-
If we measure the war in terms of casualites, we are not loosing. In terms of battle victorys, we are not loosing. If we measure it with how willing the public is to continue, its in trouble. I believe that if we stick with it, we will win. This war is having some major PR problems. Not that its all the media's fault, Josh.
How do you define victory at this point?
-
You have to ask:
What is the reason for the war?
Is there a viable plan for victory?
Are the objectives leading to victory being met?
-
Heres my two cents: We fucked up.
Leaving the nation now could do good, but we fucked the country up so much already, that its just become a hellhole.
-
We had good intentions, I believe. I don't believe Bush is evil, at all. In fact, I still cringe when I hear people say he's a wannabe dictator or whatever. And I'm not pro-Bush.
However, I can admit that my intial support of the ass-kicking has been thwarted by the fact that I watched the beginning of the invasion...3 years ago. And it was supposedly over...2.5 years ago. Then things got far, far worse than they started, war-wise. Sure, people weren't suffering from an evil, murdering, dishonest, secretive dictator. Now they're suffering from a complete lack of order. Chaos is killing everybody out there.
What causes the chaos? A shitload of rebellion. We didn't attack Iraq. We attacked terrorism. Terrorism is fuckin' scary in size of support. That was not such a great idea, now that I think about it, challenging the world of terror all by ourselves. Sure, higher numbers most likely would've tipped the scales in our favor, even against the entire army of terrorists. But...uh...what support? No one [/exaggeration] supported the cause, which more than pisses me off, but I personally don't know every country's reasons for not supporting.
Still, that should've shown us that we needed a different idea. Just because we're America doesn't make us invincible. We used to think we were. I used to think we were. Now look at us. We're in horrible shape. The average American is unhappy. That, to me, is worse than economic depression, which we are also in to a degree.
My opinion on the media fuddling everything? It's obvious that the media, being written by humans, cannot escape some degree of bias. But I don't believe it made the war any worse. If anything, it's caused more discontent among US civilians, since there's a split of people who call the media the bible, and those who are angry at the fact that they aren't there to see it for themselves and know the complete truth. Apparently, the journalists can't go everywhere and see the complete truth, either. That's disconcerting.
-
However, I can admit that my intial support of the ass-kicking has been thwarted by the fact that I watched the beginning of the invasion...3 years ago. And it was supposedly over...2.5 years ago. Then things got far, far worse than they started, war-wise. Sure, people weren't suffering from an evil, murdering, dishonest, secretive dictator. Now they're suffering from a complete lack of order. Chaos is killing everybody out there.
What causes the chaos? A shitload of rebellion. We didn't attack Iraq. We attacked terrorism. Terrorism is fuckin' scary in size of support.
I want you to take a second look at what you have said here. You say you originally supported the war. So, if you can remember back to that time, why is it you supported this invasion and subsequent occupation? From the beginning, the Bush administration has had four basic rationales for going to war: 1) take out Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction; 2) punish Saddam for harboring al Qaeda and playing a role in the September 11 attacks; 3) liberate the Iraqi people from Saddam’s brutal rule; and 4) spread democracy across the Middle East in general.
Weapons of mass destruction was the official reason we went to war—the reason that the administration used to sway American public opinion as well as that of the UN, which passed Resolution 1441 in response to the alleged threat by Saddam’s weapons. Condi Rice promised mushroom clouds hanging over American cities, and Colin Powell went before the United Nations with “solid proof” that Iraq had WMDs and meant to use them.
In retrospect, we know these claims to be absolutely false. The Bush administration cherry-picked the intelligence that best fit its policy, rather than letting the policy follow from the intelligence. As a result, we went in expecting to find mobile labs and underground caches, and instead turned up tumbleweeds and dirt. This alone made the war illegal as per the terms of the Congressional resolution authorizing the president to invade Iraq and depose its government. Many Americans were likewise bamboozled; however, those who had supported the war in the first place tended to follow the president as his administration, in the months and years that followed, retroactively devised other principal reasons for invading Iraq.
The other big claim made by the Bush administration prior to and following the invasion was that Saddam harbored al Qaeda and had even played a role in September 11. These allegations were ultimately proved not only to not be true, but to be outright lies. Iraq’s secular Sunni government had no interest in helping his ideological enemies, and no direct links between al Qaeda and Saddam were ever found.
Because you say now that terrorism was your biggest reason for initially supporting the war, I should think you would feel embarrassed and angry at being lied to by our government.
The third reason Bush came up with for having gone to war—after the first two had belly-flopped—was that we needed to depose Saddam and liberate the Iraqi people. We deposed Saddam, all right. But rather than liberating the Iraqi people, we have destroyed their country. Physical infrastructure—water, power, sanitation, roads, etc.—social infrastructure—schools, hospitals, etc.—and economic development—jobs, material wealth, etc.—are all at prewar levels. Stability in Iraq does not exist anymore. Ordinary Iraqis now live under constant fear of many stripes: fear of abuses by Iraqi troops; fear of roving armed militias of every type who abuse, murder, rape, and pillage; fear of unscrupulous American contractor-mercenaries who earn more than our troops do and have none of the ethical scruples about assaulting or killing civilians; fear of large-scale troop actions that shatter neighborhoods and whole towns while bringing the local economy to a complete halt; and fear of abuses by U.S. troops themselves. This word, “liberation,” when coming from the lips of George W. Bush is as Orwellian as anything Big Brother could have ever dreamed. Indeed, where once Iraq was a country with relatively little terrorist apparatus, now Iraq is the terrorist capital of the world. The violence there breeds new terrorists and gives them live combat training. We have not destroyed terrorism; we have built a terrorism factory. Even once we pull our troops out, Iraq will be a net exporter of terror.
The final reason Bush cites as cause for invading Iraq is a general wish to spread democracy across the Middle East. Reading between the lines reveals this to mean that the president wants pro-US allies in this hostile region. A fair enough desire in principle, but this reasoning never appeared prior to the invasion, and for good reason: Had it been our chief argument to go to war, neither the American people nor the United Nations, nor any other country, would have given the Bush administration a mandate of any sort.
However, with his other justifications in peril, Bush finally came out with this “freedom on the march” mantra of spreading democracy, and cited it as the retroactive justification for the war. But, irony of cruel ironies, if you have followed the news you will have seen what Iraq has done with its newfound “democracy.” It elected an Islamic theocracy that will impose strict laws that repress the whole Iraqi people, whilst simultaneously denouncing the West and the U.S. in particular…basically an Iran Jr. That’s Bush’s idea of democracy? Not even he would be so stupid.
No, the war had no good reason to be prosecuted. It has brought nothing but death and misery to the Iraqis, hatred of America all over the world, and massive economic debt to the people of the United States.
Finally, I want you to realize that what you call “the ass-kicking” has led to dozens of thousands of deaths, as well as the social implosion of an entire country. Millions of people there now live worse lives than they did under Saddam Hussein. Americans are dead by the thousands, and a government that went to war to demonstrate the vastness of US power succeeded in revealing only the limits of that power.
That was not such a great idea, now that I think about it…
That really is all you needed to say.
-
Yes, Iran sure is a bullshit place. Ever since they took out the American imposed dictator, the Shah, its been going downwards! Damn the Ayatollah for making it better for the people! Damn him!
-
yah mon
times like today really do suck
proof that us humans are wayyy outta control
-
Political unrest is nothing new. The 1800s and 1700s are hallmarks of it. Plots to overthrow England existed prior. The medieval age was one constant petty, venal squabble after another, and before that the Romans had much intrigue and distress in their empire. To quote Encounter at Farpoint:
Q
At which time you slaughtered millions in silly arguments about how to divide the resources of your little world. And four hundred years before that you were murdering each other in quarrels over tribal god-images. And since there have been no indications that humans will ever change.....
PICARD
But even as far back as...!... that costume, we had begun to make rapid progress.
~
I believe we can look forward to this progress as education continues.
Speaking of Encounter at Farpoint:
http://www.fiveminute.net/nextgen/comic.php?ep=encounteratfarpoint&page=1
-
Well, since Josh somehow made me his opposition in this regard, I, nagingly, feel the need to explain myself even further. One of the things that bugs me about politics, liberals in particular, is the need to etch out every fricken detail.
Ok, I supported the war for all four of those reasons, mostly cuz of the third reason, the second one least of all. The first one was a nice bonus, and I didn't care that there weren't any there (besides, we still don't know why we didn't find any; Saddam may have had half a brain to move the WMDs out of the country; why do people discount this possibility? It makes perfect sense to me...*shrug*). Sure, that was the 'excuse' it took to convince everyone else to go in, but I didn't need that. I saw the suffering out there and the evil that rested in power and glory, and got pissed off and wanted to free those people and give Saddam justice. I honestly felt the US were the best for the job.
My 'ass-kicking' referred to the fact that we went in and, in a very very short time, had totally upheaved Saddam and his minions, with no American casualties. A very quick, clean cut. That was my 'ass-kicking'. That ended about the time Bush gave that lovely victory speech on the boat, right before the real war began and we lost big time.
And I want to make it clear that I was WRONG, and I know that now. We failed, horribly, and I know that. That's not a result that comes from the hub-bub caused by the media or vocal liberals. That's the truth. And anyone who still says it can be fixed, or won, is stupid, now that this civil war has begun.
Iraq is fucked, and we, unwillingly, caused it. Wonderful.
-
You'd rather we focus on only the good news?
Come on, Josh, don't put words in my mouth. I'd like there it be fair coverage, of both good and bad.
How do you define victory at this point?
At this point, I would say that victory would be the creation of a reasonably stable democratic government. Stability is the problem right now. Thats why getting the Iraqi security forces up and running to ensure stability is so important.
-
Well, since Josh somehow made me his opposition in this regard, I, nagingly, feel the need to explain myself even further. One of the things that bugs me about politics, liberals in particular, is the need to etch out every fricken detail. (...)
And I want to make it clear that I was WRONG, and I know that now. We failed, horribly, and I know that. That's not a result that comes from the hub-bub caused by the media or vocal liberals. That's the truth. And anyone who still says it can be fixed, or won, is stupid, now that this civil war has begun.
You're a good guy, Mystik. I was not making you the "opposition." If you look at it again I'm not even arguing with you all that much. I'm just rehashing history, because a lot of people still don't realize that a war they once casually supported has failed so spectacularly, and at such an incredible cost in terms of human lives, livelihood, and dollars.
I just want people to realize what their war-lust led to.
In any case, you admitted to being wrong and I have no beef against you. I myself supported the war too, for a while, and I was certainly wrong to do so. Iraq was one of the last straws when it came to me giving the president and his administration the benefit of the doubt on anything.
"Liberals"--or more accurately a small subset of rational-minded people, often including some liberals--often linger on the details and fine points because the truth is easily abused. The Republicans pay their rent by supplanting complex truths with feel-good vagaries. It's wrong, wrong, wrong, and leads us down all sorts of destructive paths. Like it or not, detail is something you have to accept if you want to live an aware life.
-
Hmm...hearing from a certain "someone" who shall forever remain unnamed, for the fact that she doesn't belong to this forum and never will, though you may know her when she becomes a famous author, which she will, the Liberals are the anti-American, "people-that-teach-children-that-America-sucks", unpatriotic group. And yeah, she is Christian. But don't have it against her, she is a good person!
-
How do you define victory at this point?
At this point, I would say that victory would be the creation of a reasonably stable democratic government. Stability is the problem right now. Thats why getting the Iraqi security forces up and running to ensure stability is so important.
We can have that by the end of the year. It won't be pro-West, it will probably impose Sharia law, and, at best, maintain order between the ethnic groups, but it'll be stable.
Hmm...hearing from a certain "someone" who shall forever remain unnamed, for the fact that she doesn't belong to this forum and never will, though you may know her when she becomes a famous author, which she will, the Liberals are the anti-American, "people-that-teach-children-that-America-sucks", unpatriotic group. And yeah, she is Christian. But don't have it against her, she is a good person!
Secrets of American politics: Both liberals and conservatives use increasingly harsh rhetoric. Both of them are, ultimately, looking out for their own interests. Neither of them care about America.
Secrets of Religion: Being a Christian neither precludes nor implies that a person is morally good. Goodness and religion are wholly seperate issues, despite what many religious people will tell you.
-
How do you define victory at this point?
At this point, I would say that victory would be the creation of a reasonably stable democratic government. Stability is the problem right now. Thats why getting the Iraqi security forces up and running to ensure stability is so important.
We can have that by the end of the year. It won't be pro-West, it will probably impose Sharia law, and, at best, maintain order between the ethnic groups, but it'll be stable.
I doubt it will impose Sharia law. Unless Iran has something to do with it, which I doubt it will. It will most likely be "democracy." Unless of course Ayatollah Ali Sistani finds a schism and causes a revolution. Of course this won't help the sectarian violence, as being an Ayatollah, he will make Iran into a Shia State, not an Islamic one, which divides the people (wrong in Islam)
Hmm...hearing from a certain "someone" who shall forever remain unnamed, for the fact that she doesn't belong to this forum and never will, though you may know her when she becomes a famous author, which she will, the Liberals are the anti-American, "people-that-teach-children-that-America-sucks", unpatriotic group. And yeah, she is Christian. But don't have it against her, she is a good person!
Secrets of American politics: Both liberals and conservatives use increasingly harsh rhetoric. Both of them are, ultimately, looking out for their own interests. Neither of them care about America.
Secrets of Religion: Being a Christian neither precludes nor implies that a person is morally good. Goodness and religion are wholly seperate issues, despite what many religious people will tell you.
I wasn't trying to imply that being a Christian automatically makes you a good person.
-
It's naive to expect, say, that you can destroy hundreds of thousands of terrorists without losing at least tens of thousands of your own troops. We may have a great military and great technology, but *bodies* count for something, especially when our current enemy (insurgents) have the element of surprise to boot. As large and developed as our country is, we can't just steamroll through one country after another, when the enemy within each country is scattered and hidden all over the place. Wars like these entail real sacrifices, and as others have mentioned, Iraq was marketed as an easy feel-good story that had no hope of living up to those expectations, even if there were WMDs to be found (I saw that Daily Show interview, too, and I wouldn't doubt him; he's just too lovable). In particular, we were not prepared for the struggle with preserving order after getting Saddam out. Half-hearted efforts will just get your ass handed to you.
We absolutely had to go after Osama when 9/11 happened, but al Qaeda should have remained our focus until we achieved victory against them. Going after terrorism is general, without international support, is like throwing rocks at a bee hive or hornets' nest. We're not going to do any major damage, and we're just going to incite them towards more aggression, particularly towards us.
As weak as it may sound, sometimes you just have let some things play out. It wasn't until just over 140 years ago that the United States got rid of slavery, and then around 40 years ago we got over rampant racial discrimination. Women couldn't vote (nationwide) until 86 years ago and have been fighting for more rights since. Even if we had the military capacity 150 years ago to get rid of today's Saddam, we would have been moral hypocrites to do it (we, enslavers of blacks and tyrants of indians). Considering how long humanity has been around, it may not be the worst thing if some of these countries are only lagging 100 - 250 years behind us. And they will feel a lot prouder when they overcome obstacles (largely) on their own. Some will be disappointed that we aren't improving human life across the world as much then, but we would then gain a greater ability to improve life *here*, in term developing us better ambassadors of justice and democracy in the future (when we are less discriminatory and more sensitive to cultural).
I don't want to harp on the economic side of things too much, but if we don't adhere to fiscal responsibility (like through controlling the national debt), we may lose power to intervene in the rest of the world in the future. As such, we can't spend so much money fighting marginally effective wars while simulatenously granting large (sometimes no-bid) contracts to rebuild these countries. For a couple interpretations of how much debt we have, I give these graphs:
Inflation-adjusted debt (blue bar graph): http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html
As percentage of GDP: http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
The first graph is adjusted for inflation, but it doesn't take into account whether the economy is growing enough to keep up (population growth affects total GDP as well). Still, it's more useful than getting scared by the red graph (which doesn't adjust for inflation), and it gives us an accurate assessment of what *value* of debt we are talking about.
If you want to get an accurate interpretation of how *constraining* the national debt is (and how hard it would be to pay it off), look at the second one. This one is complicated a bit by the strength of the economy, but considering we are judging our government on the strength of our economy (GDP) as well, it's really not so bad. Obviously we have been through worse, but we are clearly heading in the wrong direction at the moment. Furthermore, we risk taking a GDP hit when those baby boomers retire (fewer workers), so it would be wise to turn things around now, so we can afford to absorb that hit later.
-
First off, It's almost time for school for me (damn the compulsory school system!) so I will make this short and snappy.
"We" aren't losing many causalties. We are just killing.
Secondly, a small tidbit of info, Iraq used to be the capital of the world. Just saying.
-
Not to deminish the loses of the War, but the casualities we have suffered thus far are much lighter than we suffered in past wars.
-
Not to deminish the loses of the War, but the casualities we have suffered thus far are much lighter than we suffered in past wars.
How wonderful for us. And I certainly can't think of any wars or blitzkreigs in the past where light casualties on the aggressor's side failed to justify the attack. Your logic has opened in me a third eye.
-
Hell, a lot of stuff used to be the capital of the world. Rome, London, and my personal favorite, Constantinople! Pax Byzantium! They were really cool, especially since they kept western civlization somewhat out of the peat bogs during the dark ages (while Muslim civilization began to thrive when the middle ages rolled around). A shame they changed Constantinople's name to Istanbul; the former name really imparts that sense of dignity and eternity. Rome lasted until 1453! And it would have been magnificent to have it last even until today. I'm always interested by old states and traditions surviving to the modern times. For instance, there's still a Sipahi of the Porte unit in the Turkish army (they were elites apart from the Janissaries). They don't ride on horses anymore, but they still maintain all the tradition of the unit.
-
First off, It's almost time for school for me (damn the compulsory school system!) so I will make this short and snappy.
"We" aren't losing many causalties. We are just killing.
Indeed, we aren't taking many casualties (single thousands). My point was more that we'd need to sacrifice more than that if we are going to eliminate so much of the enemy that has eluded us, but anyone who expects us to have a lower death toll considering the circumstances is delusional.
And as it's been suggested, it'll probably also require a greater military force to cover all the area we would need to.
The point I was trying to make is that even with our great technology and hard work from our military, winning any war like this will still be expensive, and that Bush's promotion of the war (and Congress's reaction now) as something that should be cheap and easy is wrong. And really, it's a disservice to those in our military who are really doing a great job, given the circumstances.
I hope this clarification makes my message clearer.
-
Hell, a lot of stuff used to be the capital of the world. Rome, London, and my personal favorite, Constantinople! Pax Byzantium! They were really cool, especially since they kept western civlization somewhat out of the peat bogs during the dark ages (while Muslim civilization began to thrive when the middle ages rolled around). A shame they changed Constantinople's name to Istanbul; the former name really imparts that sense of dignity and eternity. Rome lasted until 1453! And it would have been magnificent to have it last even until today. I'm always interested by old states and traditions surviving to the modern times. For instance, there's still a Sipahi of the Porte unit in the Turkish army (they were elites apart from the Janissaries). They don't ride on horses anymore, but they still maintain all the tradition of the unit.
Yeah :P The reason why the name was changed was because Constantinople signified Constantine, the spreader of Christianity, and correct me if I am wrong, the founder of the Roman Catholic Church.
What the hell Maelstorm? You realize people are dying. More Iraqis have probably died in these 3 years then in Saddams entire reign. And even so, you think killing more of your own people will make things better, killing people to save people getting killed, even if the amount of people we kill is far more then the amount of people being saved? I know each life is priceless but that is not the point.
-
Not to deminish the loses of the War, but the casualities we have suffered thus far are much lighter than we suffered in past wars.
How wonderful for us. And I certainly can't think of any wars or blitzkreigs in the past where light casualties on the aggressor's side failed to justify the attack. Your logic has opened in me a third eye.
Good job missing the point entirely.
-
What the hell Maelstorm? You realize people are dying. More Iraqis have probably died in these 3 years then in Saddams entire reign. And even so, you think killing more of your own people will make things better, killing people to save people getting killed, even if the amount of people we kill is far more then the amount of people being saved? I know each life is priceless but that is not the point.
Getting more of our own people killed isn't a part of my objective. It's just something that's going to happen the longer you fight a war.
Now, if you are talking about innocent Iraqi people that are getting killed (typically by insurgents, presumably), that was outside the scope of my original analysis. My discussion was more to point out how unrealistic certain people are when they see the *American* death toll from this war in the single thousands (~2400 now? but also 17k - 48k wounded) The point here is that the loss of American lives in war is going to be steep.
But yes, Iraqi lives are extremely important here, too. It speaks to very much to another thing that will certainly go wrong in war: Not only will the loss of our lives be substantial, but the *innocent* native people of the country we invade will suffer even more; estimates of citivilians killed are around 36,000. That loss is comparable to the United States losing over 400,000 from some tragedy (seeing as we have over 11x the population Iraq does). Perhaps this is one area our military has been disappointing in, but I don't think we've made the commitment (in terms of number of people we have over there) needed to keep this under control, and I don't see that being the fault of the people serving over there. It's one of those things that makes you wonder if any kind of aggressive war, the kind you can't justify unless you rebuild the country afterwards, is going to do more harm than good anyway, and thus would not be worth it. The cure is worse than the disease or whatever.
So, I'm not saying any of this as an advocate of the Iraq war. I'm saying it as more of a criticism of people (the White House, much of Congress, and several Americans who bought into the BS, although the government is far more to blame) who wanted this war, because they naively thought it would be easy and acted with excessive optimistism instead of planning with a bad case scenario (not necessarily worst, but a likely unfavorable) in mind.
At the same time, I should also criticize the people who wanted this war that did know the price involved (Iraqi and American lives, plus the $200 billion - $300 billion we've paid so far, which could be as much as $1 trillion total and probably also 4x as many lives lost across the board), especially those who advocate keep taxes low during this time (and hence don't give a damn about our future generations with regard to paying off the debt).
-
Just wondering, when did another nation actually invade America and attack the people? And I'm not including the British here. Pearl Harbour was just stupid, and so was 9/11.
-
Pearal Harbor was stupid... As was 9/11... What the hell?
America invaded itself like 150 years ago.
-
Just wondering, when did another nation actually invade America and attack the people? And I'm not including the British here. Pearl Harbour was just stupid, and so was 9/11.
Pearl Harbour and 9/11 weren't invasions, they were bombings. No ground troops were sent in. The last time America was invaded was by Japan during WWII, though. For part of the war, Japan held some of the Aleutian Islands; the archapelego stretching west from Alaska.
-
Didn't the Mexicans invade Texas, or was it the other way around?
-
Just wondering, when did another nation actually invade America and attack the people? And I'm not including the British here. Pearl Harbour was just stupid, and so was 9/11.
Pearl Harbour and 9/11 weren't invasions, they were bombings. No ground troops were sent in. The last time America was invaded was by Japan during WWII, though. For part of the war, Japan held some of the Aleutian Islands; the archapelego stretching west from Alaska.
Whoops, sorry, worded it wrong. I was just trying to say that America wasn't often invaded, and that the two big aircraft attacks were small compared to things happening in other countries.
-
Just wondering, when did another nation actually invade America and attack the people? And I'm not including the British here. Pearl Harbour was just stupid, and so was 9/11.
Pearl Harbour and 9/11 weren't invasions, they were bombings. No ground troops were sent in. The last time America was invaded was by Japan during WWII, though. For part of the war, Japan held some of the Aleutian Islands; the archapelego stretching west from Alaska.
Whoops, sorry, worded it wrong. I was just trying to say that America wasn't often invaded, and that the two big aircraft attacks were small compared to things happening in other countries.
While the amount of people killed relative to the total U.S. population was indeed less than what many nations have gone through in recent times, the effects of those attacks would better be measured in the effect of the United State's reaction to them. This is a country that does not respond well to being attacked at home.
-
Just wondering, when did another nation actually invade America and attack the people? And I'm not including the British here. Pearl Harbour was just stupid, and so was 9/11.
Pearl Harbour and 9/11 weren't invasions, they were bombings. No ground troops were sent in. The last time America was invaded was by Japan during WWII, though. For part of the war, Japan held some of the Aleutian Islands; the archapelego stretching west from Alaska.
Whoops, sorry, worded it wrong. I was just trying to say that America wasn't often invaded, and that the two big aircraft attacks were small compared to things happening in other countries.
Okay, whats your damn point? So they weren't as big as say, Germany invading Poland. So what? If a country is attacked, it should move to defend itself, and remove the threat.
As to Grey's question, Mexico invaded Texas, or at least sent troops to fight there, but it wasn't part of the US then. It had alot of US settlers in it. Meh, the history of the American-Mexican war isn't one of my strong points.
-
The British burned our White House and such in 1812. After failing to retain colonial rule over the pre-US, as well as various European intrigues that set our interests at odds, relations with our current best ally were far from pleasant. I paraphrase:
Those three little pigs think they're so tough;
Well, if I can't blow them down
I'll blow them up!
Although, technically, it was the United States who invaded Canada to open the war. But nobody knows enough War of 1812 history to bring that up, so I'll just use the strikethrough button and...uh...er...eh...damn you ZeaLitY!!
As for you, Zeppy, Pearl Harbor and September 11 were not "just stupid. The former was a day that lived "in infamy," and, for that matter, so was the latter. Granted they were not as profound in terms of loss of life, limb, or land as has been inflicted upon other countries from time to time throughout history, but they were important attacks and to downplay them for ideological purposes displays not your ideology but your ignorance of American history.
Right! So now I can say I tear down n00bs before breakfast. Cheerio, all! Off to a cup of me liberal latte.
-
As before, I stand corrected. True, I don't know much about American History. So...tear me down.