Gosh...!

[manu1959]

There already IS the start of a civil war. And it isn't our job to stop it even if we could, although we destabilized the country enough for it to happen.

http://www.itv.com/news/index_5d6af660b42b2022541fba5979721270.html

Better lay off that kool aid, trob... it clogs the arteries in the brain.

just so i am clear for later...

dafur none of our business
somalia
east timor
israel
congo
name your location....NONE OF OUR BUSINESS?

 

[Dr Grump]

just so i am clear for later...

dafur none of our business
somalia
east timor
israel
congo
name your location....NONE OF OUR BUSINESS?

You can add Iran and China to that list if you like...

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Anbar province in Iraq is, for all intents and purposes, no longer under US control. Iraq's Prime Minister, you know the one we installed, is sucking up to Iran's bat-shit crazy President. And things were going so well...

We installed? Is that what all those purple fingers were all about?

Uh, news alert. Circa 1770's, General George Washington's army is discouraged, and seems defeated. Beat back, and losing control of over 80% of the colonies, Britian is pounding its chest, and gleefully proclaiming victory.
The winter at Valley Forge appears to be nothing more than a moving cemetary for the Yankee troops. All is lost, no hope left. Follow the democrats, turn and burn, retreat and defeat.

Uh, how did that one turn out, ol BULLY?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

-Castro is a terrible man and has done horrible things to his people, he is still in power..

We did try to take him out. Unfortunately, JFK really blew that one.
-

-China has gone through terrible dictators, we did not invade China...and they have since opened up their economic system and become a trade partner..

We forced them into better human rights conditions by refusing to allow them into the WTO until they submitted to our demands.

--The USSR killed more of its citizens than Saddam Hussein could have dreamed of. The USSR died with time, not by the barrel of a US gun..

Actually it did, they barrels were nukes.

-Saddam Hussein was a bad man, the world is full of them. You and I both know that if Saddam Hussein was the ruthless dictator of a random Southern Pacific nation he would still be in power today. He was overthrown primarily because he is a risk to our oil supplies. .

wrong. Go read and study when it became official US policy for regime change in Iraq. It will also shed light on the fact that the timing had nothing to do with oil. IN fact, oil in the ME is much less a concern to our national security than most would think. The country we get most of our oil from isnt even in the ME. Try and guess who it is.

-Others have suggested that this administration is enfatuated with dominating the middle east and its wealthy black gold...I think this theory takes it too far..

Their suggestions are wrong, and have absolutely no merit in evidence, or truth. Mere suggestions or accusations mean nothing without substance to back them.

-In regards to WMD's: Outside of the conservative blogosphere, there were none..

wrong again. I guess the former top general of Saddam who emphatically stated he saw them shipped to Syria, is to be ignored? Thereis other hard evidence to show your claim to be in error.

-A government panel said the intelligence was: "dead wrong" and suggested sweeping changes to prevent further intel failures..

Ewww, a govt panel. Those panels are usually wrong. Just like the whiz kids of Macnamra in the Kennedy admin. whose panel made some stark and dizzingly bad judgement calls in Vietnam. Some of their decisions included policies that led to the M16 massive failures in combat. Up to half of the guns had stopped working while in combat and led to many deaths.

-The best our chief weapons inspector could come up with: "Distant technical analysts mistakenly identified evidence and drew incorrect conclusions". .

Oh, were those the inspectors that werent allowed to enter certain areas until saddams men were done "preparing" it for days? Those inspectors were pure boneheads.

-The bloggers are looking for anything to suggest the existence of weapons, but our government learned of their mistake in 2003. It is not an issue of "damn we thought Saddam had them...maybe they were taken away"...US weapons inspectors found upon further review that Saddam was not even capable of making them. The report can only conclude that it is something Saddam may have pursued if UN sanctions were lifted..

How could UN sanctions (which were being skirted anyways by France, German and Russia, in essence, they didnt exist) but even if they did, how would that prevent saddam from maintaining and creating more weapons?

-The bad intelligence leads to new questions. Was our intel community so gung-ho for war that they set Bush to fail? Perhaps they knowingly jumped to conclusions because they watned to see the Iraq war. .

Maybe you are jumping to conclusions

-Maybe it was the other way around?.

You seem confused here.!!

- The intel community could have been conservative in their estimates, but Bush was anxious for war and decided to roll with it..

Or maybe neither is true. Since you arent even certain which you believe, its obvious there is no evidence to support either, hence, why even bring it up?

-Either way, I do not think that Bush or the intelligence community were too certain about Iraq's WMD's..

Knowledge of saddams possesions of weapons preceded the Bush Admin.
But, they knew the public would buy into it..[/QUOTE]
You mean the clintons knew the public would buy into it? They claimed he had them. Hillary, Kerry, and a long list of Dems claimed he had them LONG before President Bush provided it as JUST ONE OF THE MANY reasons to attain regime change. Or have you convientally forgotten the many speeches made by them.

-When thousands of lives are going to be lost...you should be 100% certain the cause is righteous..

thousands of lives had already been lost prior to invading Iraq. Of course the cause is rightous.

-That is why the invasion was needless. Here is why the occupation was ill planned:.

Nope, it wasnt needless. Having Iraq in its current state is still much better than under saddam. Kurds are placing ads in America, THANKING us for ousting saddam. Maybe you havent seen them.

-Saddam Hussein is a Sunni muslim. The Sunni's are a minority in Iraq, they make up 25-35% of the population. The shi'ites are the majority, they make up 60-70% of the population. Under most natural circumstances, wealth and power is balanced across a country or (for better or worse) the majority has the edge in wealth/power. .

WRONG. The minority in a country will hold and control most of the wealth. How many Bill Gates are there?something like over 80 percent of our tax revenues are paid by less than 5 percent of our population.

-In a few rare cases, a minority group will take control of a nation: this is what happened in Iraq..

RARE cases? hahhahahhahhaha,

-When a minority group is more wealthy and more powerful than the majority, disaster awaits. Violence may manifest itself while the minority is in power or it could be held off until the minority is toppled. Any country that has an economic dominant minority is more or less a barrel of gun powder. When we invaded Iraq, we threw a match into that barrel. In the past, the ensuing violence has resulted in mass genocide of the minorities. Unfortunately, this is not a rare phenomen. Mass killings (though not always on a genocidal level) and civil war have followed the fall of nearly every single economic dominant minority in modern history. It almost seems to be human nature--perhaps a revenge complex.. .

. Nice OPINIONS. Kinda short on evidence,examples or facts.

-To think Iraq could go through a natural transition into a democracy is laughable..

Yes, just as its laughable that the US could throw off the shackles of the worlds most powerful force, the BRITISH.

-If the evolution of nations is viewed as chemistry, the U.S. is trying to pour vinegar into baking soda without creating the reaction. .

which is why it shouldnt be viewed as chemistry. If my marriage were viewed as chemistry, it would mean my wife and I shouldnt be married. And my kids shouldnt be in my home, acccording to chemistry.

-It is not going to work. .

Defeatist. Thats what they told Washington.

-We are seeing the death toll of sectarian violence climb by the hour. . Hopefully the presence of our troops will prevent anything on the scale of genocide, but a civil war may be inevitable. A civil war means that the new government will be completely worthless (what can it do if its own people are at war with eachother?) and it means we will be tied down for years to come. .

lots of errors in that paragraph. Of course, faulty premise above, faulty conclusions here for you.

-Sorry for the length of this post.

.me too

 

[trobinett]

There already IS the start of a civil war. And it isn't our job to stop it even if we could, although we destabilized the country enough for it to happen.



http://www.itv.com/news/index_5d6af660b42b2022541fba5979721270.html

Better lay off that kool aid, trob... it clogs the arteries in the brain.

Every country in that part of the world is starting a civil war, the difference in Iraq? As long as we're there, it won't go any further.

As to laying off the kool aid, good advice jillian, I suggest you take it.

 

[1549]

I guess what I'm really trying to say here is shut the fuck up and go educate yourself. When you posess even a modicum of knowledge on the topic, THEN get back to me.

I think you may be incapable of engaging in argumentative discussions.

Anyways,

Are "lib bitches" a pack of monday morning quarterbacks? The first Bush and Schwartzkopf both said that an invasion of Iraq would be a mistake. Conservatives seemed more willing to forget this when 2003 rolled around. Liberals have been against the war since Saturday, monday morning merely vindicated our beliefs.

How'd you like to deploy for 6 months only for it to turn into 13 months just because that nimrod decided to invade another nation to steal its oil? Then spend six months at a whack five more times in 9 years babysitting his border? That didn't cost the AMerican taxpayers much, did it?

That is all pretty shitty...but tax fees and deployment durations from the first Gulf war were not factors in choosing to invade Iraq.

You libs bitch about getting shaken down at the airports, well how does being snatched off the street and fed feet first into a tree shredder sound? Just for the amusement of his sick whelps? Yeah, you got it tough.

Au contraire. I do not mind airport security. Of course the Saddam regime was brutal and terrible, but do not kid yourself, the US has never/will never send 3,000 troops to their death for humanitarian reasons.

LuvPRgrl: I am not going to address all your points, I am a little short on time...just a few quick things:

Actually it did, they barrels were nukes.

If our nukes did anything, they made the USSR spend more money than they should have. But that probably did not matter because the soviet system was not user friendly for citizens. It was a bureaucracy beyond the meaning of the word. The simple fact is that a nation can not survive when people have to wait months for something as common as a pair of shoes. Soviet ideology destroyed the Soviet Union.

Oh, were those the inspectors that werent allowed to enter certain areas until saddams men were done "preparing" it for days? Those inspectors were pure boneheads.

It was the U.S. weapons inspector that led the investigation of WMD's in Iraq following the fall of Saddam's government.

Nope, it wasnt needless. Having Iraq in its current state is still much better than under saddam. Kurds are placing ads in America, THANKING us for ousting saddam. Maybe you havent seen them.

Having Iraq in its current state is better for the Kurds. Whether or not it is better for the rest of Iraqis and better for the U.S. is still to be determined.

WRONG. The minority in a country will hold and control most of the wealth. How many Bill Gates are there?something like over 80 percent of our tax revenues are paid by less than 5 percent of our population.

This is an ethnicitiy issue. When I say a minority holds the wealth, I mean that a minority ethnic group holds the wealth (as the Sunnis did in Iraq), and when they are toppled, the majority ethnic group tends to strike back with genocide. The most prominent example is Rwanda.

RARE cases? hahhahahhahhaha,

See above...it might clarify.

Nice OPINIONS. Kinda short on evidence,examples or facts.

I had to write a few papers on it last year...the best source is Amy Chua. Her book World On Fire is an excellent source of info on the subject.

 

[trobinett]

1549 posts:

I had to write a few papers on it last year...the best source is Amy Chua. Her book World On Fire is an excellent source of info on the subject.

GOSH, Amy Chua?

How wonderful, next time I'm looking for reference material I'll be sure and "check it out".

Check this out 1549.

You want REAL LIFE information, listen to people like Gunny, but listen with your EARS, not your mouth.

You want to write a paper on some kind of school project, fine, use Ms Chua, do YOU understand the difference?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Well, guess what. Amy Chua is soooooo far off the mark its incredible. I bet she has never even visited any of the countries she writes about. Just learns about them by reading. Kinda like that liberal idiot who proclaimed that the soldiers in Iraq didnt really know what is going on there, that they are just stupid high school grads, and that he, with a degree from university, and reads seven newspapers a day, has a much better grasp on the reality of what is going on in Iraq, than do the US soldiers. I think he even really believes it.

ANyways, Amy's premise is way off for one reason. The countries she talks about are NOT FREE and OPEN economies, nor are they hardly even democracies. The problem is blatant out and out corruption in all of them. The politicians are in cahoots with the business leaders and they supress the poor. I know this for a fact, I have been to the Philippines 15 times in the last year. The Philippines is one of the countries she cites. The corruption there is unbelievable. I was even tempted to bribe a few public officials to get my wife's visa process going a bit quicker. But bribing a govt official is so foreign to me I just couldnt do it.

Even the great middle class in America didnt prosper until the govt corruption was basically eliminated. Yea, I know, its still there, but relatively speaking, we have a fairly non corrupt govt and system.

So, she is analyzing countries that are only democracies and free market economies on the face of things. TRUE free market democracies, like Canada and much of Western Europe and America of course, dont have the problems the countries she describes, have.