Posted on 10/27/2005 1:06:59 PM PDT by swarthyguy
>>1700 soldiers have died in combat?
Nice propagandistic spin.
Splitting the difference between combat and noncombat deaths. How absurd.
For all your "respect" for the troops, you simply parrot the goooberment line.
They died in a war zone. If the govt classifies their death as non combat deaths, is it to screw them out of their death benefits.
Over 2000 Dead in IRaq and counting. Spin it, justify it any way you want, but I agree with General Odom, Iraq is the biggest strategic disaster in US history.
"Nice propagandistic spin."
I see you try to label FACTS as spin.
Why must you attempt to do so?
"Splitting the difference between combat and noncombat deaths. How absurd."
Facts are absurd to you, eh? How interesting.
"For all your "respect" for the troops, you simply parrot the goooberment line."
Of course I 'parrot' this line ITS TRUE! To bad you don't see that for what it is worth.
"They died in a war zone."
What I said doesn't dispute that. Do you honestly think that every soldier in Iraq today takes part in combat? FFS dude THINK will ya!
"If the govt classifies their death as non combat deaths, is it to screw them out of their death benefits. "
False premise there sir, they are classified as WHAT THEY ARE. Its a fact thing, not surprising you dismiss that.
Accepting 687 on the terms that Saddam would actually comply......YUP Iraq was the biggest mistake HUH? Seems you forget this started LONG ago and you attempt to put it all in a box that supposedly started in 2003.
Your attempt to keep combat and non combat deaths combined shows that the ONLY thing you care about is a number of dead to politicize to push your ideological agenda. If this was not true you would simply have agreed with the truth I posed to you and accepted the facts for what they are. Not all the over 2000 deaths were in combat. This is a simple fact. Accept it for what it is and stop trying to politicize soldiers dying for your anti war ideology.
You claim this is such a mistake. OK you oppose the action. I ask you to qualify the opposition with alternative solution that was not tried in the 12 years preceeding it.
Lets see you pose your supposed alternatives, I do not think you can or will.
I think you oppose war on an ideological level ( and you oppose the US on this and not the terrorists as you say nothing about them) and I think that you fail to see that 12 YEARS of talking diplomacy FAILED. Not due to the USA but indeed due to Saddams choices. There was no other options remaining which is why Bill Clinton said to hell with inspections ( as the farce they always were) and made "Regime Change" the USA POLICY. He said it, but he wouldn't DO IT. He was HAILED for SAYING it and you oppose DOING IT. The final step in diplomacy (relationship between parties) is WAR. Clinton was scared to alienate the liberal base of the Democratic power so he would SAY it but he wouldn't DO it. W did it and its ABOUT DAMN TIME. Should have been done a long time ago.
More time was tried. Waiting him out was tried, incentives were tried,sanctions were tried, harsh language was tried ( 1441 was the last effort at tough language). Limited strikes were tried ( operation desert fox), even ignoring it all together was tried.
I offere to you sir, that you cannot offer any alternative to regime change by force. ALL you can offer is that Saddam and his actions should have been IGNORED.
Soldiers died in 1991, sir, and to allow Saddam to just ignore the agreement they fought and died for is, INDEED, a lack of respect for what they did from 1990 to 2003. You spit on their actions when you claim that Saddam should not have been held to account for his LACK OF ABIDING BY his terms of surrender. This is what you leave out when you form a box that started in 2003.
Prove me wrong sir, offer up alternatives that WERE NOT TRIED. Pose to me here, how you offer that Saddam be held to account for lack of compliance with the agreement HE ACCEPTED April 6 1991.
I eagerly await your response. Though I will not hold my breath.
YOu type a lot, use too many caps and it's hard to argue with such a skilled shill like you.
believe what you want.
No skin off my back. Adios.
Don;t you mean you just cannothalnde the truth and when it is put to you...you have nothing to return?
See I told you, you HAVE no alternative.
In order to bow out of a question posed that you cannot answer to, you attack my CAPS and call Facts 'shill".
Personally I think that shows the depths at which you consider your own position. You atack me and my writing cuz you do not like the facts I present to you.
"believe what you want"
YUP, I will continue to believe that which is true and presented as the facts they are. You should do the same thing. Maybe thyen the positions you stake out would have a bit more merit and a little less blind ideology that doesn't reflect reality based common sense.
>>you HAVE no alternative.
Sweetie, it's too late for alternatives. They are bad, worse, disastrous and catastrophic.
400 BILLION and 2000 Dead! Wrap your head around that.
I have no desire to correct your propaganda, spin, lies and halftruths going back years.
I find it laughable to respect UN resolutions so much.
Sometimes the UN matters, sometimes it doesn't.
Anway this war was not UN sanctioned.
Anything to protect the gravy train of the Saudis, eh.
Inshallah. Enjoy the dead. Remember them.
And wake me when we find Osama, LOL!
I notice you move to "its too late for alternatives"
Ill take that as the truth it is shows, you cannot offer any. That is the reality of this. There WAS NOT an alternative, save Ignore it alltogether.
12 years of games was the Real quagmire.
"400 BILLION and 2000 Dead! Wrap your head around that."
How much of that money would have been spent anyway? Soldiers eat in peace time, they spend ammo and fuel in peace time, they get paid in peace time. How much of that money has already been spent? In addition, how many died as a result of the terrorism that Saddam financed? Surely you will not say that he didn't, and surely you will not say that 9 11 was the ONLY terrorism that matters, will you?
Ignoring the problem is part of what got over 3000 killed on 9 11, I am saddened that you omit that little tidbit.
I can argue the removal of saddam from the UN resolution standpoint or I can argue it from the Bush Doctrine standpoint Both have Merit. I prefer to cite both entities as reason for his removal.
The UN matters when it does was it was intended to do. One sided crap they put out is rediculous and should be called what it is A FARCE....as the Oil For Food progam has been exposed to be. As Rawanda was exposed, as Sudan is being exposed today, as Kosovo shows you, not to mention that little escapade in Somalia....
Was saddams invasion of Kuwait "sanctioned"? Of Iran?
His financing of terrorism in Israel? His harboring of Abu Nidal? The 39 SCUDS he threw at Israel when they were not even part of the conflict? Or when he threw missiles he claimed not to have to begin with at Kuwait city? The gassing of the Kurds? The draining of the wetlands in southern Iraq? The harboring and financing of terrorism????? Any of that Sanctioned by the UN HA HA HA I love this line of you opposers....it fails so miserably yet you try it over and over again anyway.
The U.N., like yourself, refuse to offer alternatives. In addition, you both also fail to admit the very same thing. The simple reality that there was nothing left to try except military force to remove Saddam and his regime. Inaction is no longer an option but I guess you forgot what happened that day in September when inaction was the choice made. you fail to see that you call for (prior to this war and now) the very basic notion that lead to that day.
Someday you will see that.
LOL @ protecting the Saudis. Again you use a broad brush and you should think twice about that. To say all the Saudis think alike is to say all Americans think alike. Isn't this very discussion proof that isn't the case? Cmon now, get real eh?
You tell me to remember the dead, while at the same time you dismiss those that died in 1991. You do this by omitting the reality of 687 and what was called for on Saddams part.You dismiss all those souls dead as a result of terrorism that went on unopposed. Tyrany that was allowed to progress due to lack of ideological will by people in power with the same mindset you pose here. I 0ffer that you need to practice what it is you are attempting to preach. Remember what went on in 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003.
Here is a choice, you see the top 6 commanders of Al Qaeda. We capture or kill 4 of them ( possibly killing Osama too as you can present no proof he lives) and you call that a failure. You keep trend with the idea that total failure results when perfection is not attained.
I would love to see Osama captured. If he isnt dead already. I would also love to see Aiman captured or killed. Maybe, just maybe, that has something to do with why troops remain in Afghanistan today HUH? Instead of wishing those soldiers luck in their mission of finding Osama you blame Bush for the fact he isn't captured yet. See your mindset? It is indeed backwards and partison ideology is what got you there.
Oppose Oppose Oppose at all costs.....you don't even see where that has lead you do you? It has lead you to the very same positions that Osama himself argues. Sad It IS.
Your endless opposition without qualifying alternative solution has made you take the same position as that of the people that will fly planes into buildings and blow up civilians at a market place with a carbomb. The same folks that will send rockets with no guidance at anyone they will hit, the very same folks that put ona vest of bombs and blow up unsuspecting innocent people just shopping or eating. You know the same folks that Saddam Financed.
Now you may ignore what I just said, you may strictly deny it. Facts show otherwise. Opposition without alternative solution can make strange bedfellows, you sir, lie with those we fight against today. I hope you take solice in your position, its your choice. I offer that maybe you should make a different one ......being American and all.
At the end of your lengthy missive is the cheap shot and innuendo.
That, demonstrates both paucity of the quality of your arguments and similarly of your character.
I am direct with examples, that is hardly cheap shots or inuendo. Truth is the quality of my remarks and my character.
But see like other posts you make, I see more claims that are unsupported. Show me sir, where what I say is inaccurate. Cannot do it can ya?
The truth is as far from a cheap shot as it gets. I do not change contexts to provide spin.
Simply put, when you make the same arguments that Osama and his Ilk makes ( IE Its all Bush's fault, its all America's fault) you will be told that you do so.
If you do not like being told that, then by all means take a good look at the positions you take and adjust them accordingly. If you do not do so then accept the truth as it is. If you make the same cases that terrorists make you are indeed on their side. That isn't me making it that way, it is your position that makes it that way. For that you have only yourself to blame.
Thank you very much for your discussion of the posted article.
Fine, if my POV makes me, in your eyes some type of AntiAmerican, then I PROUDLY wear that label.
If you're on the other side, that's fine.
Enjoy the Dead.
"Enjoy the Dead."
It is you that drools over a count to make a point of. To mark numbers as some kind of progress or lack of it. to Pipe about for your political gain.
At least you proudly wear the label of being on the same side as Osama. Most on your side deny that too.
IF you truly oppose war then you will agree that Iraq hs to remain a state, even if it has semi autonimous regions much as we have here. I would offer to you that it works pretty well. Unless of course there is war between Wisconsin and Illinois I have missed.
you, sir, politicize deaths for ideological gain.
It is you sir that enjoys the dead. You see it as a means to say "I told you so".
What you miss is that soldiers accept that risk. What you miss is that people that ADMIT there is no options left also accept that risk. Not that we like it, not that we want it to happen, but simply accepting it for what it is.....the cost of freedom. For it is not free now and never has been.
Iraq will remain a contiguous country. Iraq will settle internal disputes with ballots instead of carbombs. Iraq will settle in on their newfound path of freedom. Iraq may well be best off with three semi autonomous regions. Iraq will prosper more in the next decade than it has in the last four. Iraq's neighbors will see changes that will benefit them as well. You will see, in time.
All your opposition will never lead to progress. However, alternative aolutions that qualify it leading to alternative actions will. Maybe, in time, you will see that also.
As I recall, Yugoslavia was fine with that. Not sure Iraq would be.
You really are one arrogant condescending character convinced that whatever you say is right.
Your statements are DISGUSTING. Your certitude is inversely proportional to your wilful ignorance and parroting of the party line.
Show me where what I have said is wrong AND WHY it is wrong, you are more than willing to say it is wrong but you fail miserably as to the Why.
I hardly parrot the party line and I hardly follow Bush or Pubs blindly.
That is a misconception on your part. In fact, a bad assumption.
If you oppose what I say, great! Show your opposition and your alternative solution.
You say my statements are disgusting, post which ones you mean. Post what is disgusting and why you find it disgusting. That way either you can learn or I can learn or the both of us can learn.
I ask you questions and you just pass over them and do not address them. I make statements and you label them disgusting but you fail to post which ones you find disgusting or even why you find them to be so.
You make overall assumptions and then make claims based on those assumptions. Then you claim my ignorance and parroting. I find that amusing.
So, please take the next post and list what you find disgusting so we can talk about them and clear the air. Lets examine the merits of my posts next to yours ok?
Using facts , of course, and not blind ideology that removes reality based truth.
bonk
>your alternative solution.
The article, Einstein.
From the article:
he problem is, of course, oil. Kurdistan has oil, Shia Iraq has oil, Sunni Iraq does not.
False premise from the very get go. There is no "sunni Iraq" there is no "shia Iraq" and there is no "kurdistan Iraq". Simply stated there are various regions in a country called Iraq that has internationally recognized borders.
" can Sunni Iraq demand a share of the oil if the others dont want Sunnis to be part of the country?"
The progress made in the constitution they VOTED on shows that the majority cannot ignore or shut out the minority.Checks and balances are there. Red Herring here.
"Which in any case was made into a "country" by the British after WWI"
So What?
"3 provinces of the Ottoman Empire that nothing to do with each other "
OOOPS they are all muslims part of the muslim world right? Cmon now.
"The British kept the minority Sunnis on as overlords, just as the Turks had done. Their ascendancy has come from imperial dispensations, not from any natural process such as numbers."
That changing today is a very good thing HUH? Thank the troops DUDE!.
"We have repeatedly suggested: the US should indeed break up Iraq."
Who is the "we"? It sure aint me and it isn't the majority of Iraqis.
"US had no hesitation to break up Yugoslavia into the original six states and let each become its own country."
That isn't Iraq is it?
How come the US found it acceptable to see India breakup into India and Pakistan, and then Pakistan breakup into Pakistan and Bangladesh, and would like nothing better than an independent Kashmir, which would mean breaking up India and Pakistan still further, and would result, inevitably, in the final breakup of Pakistan itself. And how come the breakup of the Soviet Union is welcomed, and the drive to break up Russia has only just begun?
They aren't Iraq either are they?
After breaking Iraq up the US should: strongly protect the Sunni state and support it to grow strong; maintain close relations with the Kurd State, acting as its protector against Turkey, and maintain principled relations with the Shia state, not seeking to sway it one way or the other, but helping it to stay independent of Iran.
I fail to see why breaking up Iraq into parts is what it takes to do this. Is this to say that the USA has to be broken up into 50 parts to remain stable? See the error yet?
"Okay, so your editor hears the litanies of "we can't do this because". Right. Turkey will go berserk, Saudi will go berserk, Iran will go berserk with joy, etc etc. All valid points. "
Like Afghanistan would be a failure?
Like the Mighty arab street will rise up?
Like we would lose tens of thousands of soldiers upon invasion of Iraq?
Like we would be bogged down in a quagmire (said at three weeks!) My aunt might be my uncle too JEEEZZZ.
"But consider this: the success of a world empire lies not in imposing what Washington wants."
LMAO @ world empire.
"It lies, rather, in Washington working with the various subordinate states to achieve a balance where both sides are happy."
Right working the nation called IRAQ.
"If Washington does this, the American world empire will last, metaphorically, for a 1000 years."
America IS doing this and the votes in Iraq show you that. Again I laugh at world empire.
"If, however, it persists on incorrect calculations of its interests - which it is doing by forcing Iraq into staying a unitary state and other follies we don't think Washington will fall into, then between 2030-2050, America can fuggedabhatit."
Laughable in the fact that this author take the position that America wants a world empire. The only thing to forget about is the foolishness presented here. NOW on to YOUR posts.
"Tell the country, dude, 2000 dead with no end in sight."
Ane END isnt what we seek a new path is what we seek. A new path is what we SEE today.
"All Dubya says is more sacrifice required."
Oh really? Better check that one out a bit more. LMAO.
"The American people have a finite capacity for casualties without end."
I cannot say the last has died already anymore than you can predict how many more will die.
"A democracy cannot fight foreign wars without the support of the citizens."
UMMM seems to me that on 911 EVERYONE was about fighting this war THERE and NOT here! That is to say FOREIGN WARS.
"As of now, victory is undefined."
Like hell it is. The war was done in a month, codified in 8 months with the capture of Saddam himself. What is waged there now is not the same as what was waged there to remove Saddam. Today we fight for peace against the people that do not want to see Iraq move forward from such dark days under Saddams rule. The very same folks that attacked us on 911 (among so many other examples I could cite here).
"All we get from the generals and politicals is pablum."
The truth is never trite my friend. If you suggest that what you are told is not factual then by all means lets have examples.
"How many American soldiers will die before it's enough."
With this statement right here YOU set the terms of victory or defeat at NUMBER OF SOLDIERS DEAD. Remember you said this here.
"And I also a remember a nursery rhyme about a large egg....
All the King's horses,
And all the King's men...
Could not put Mesopatamia together, again."
Here you JOKE about war that you supposedly abhor. Very telling about how serious you are about this subject to begin with. Germany was put back together and it sure was not done in a couple years. Same with Japan. THINK before you post will ya.
"Nice talking points. Slick, glib but not really relevant to today's situation."
Were you talking to yourself right there? LMAO I love this! LOOK at your last post.... Could not put Mesopatamia together, again.".... BWAAA HAHAHAHA hypocrite.
"Based on your logic, at what amount of dead will we have won? 5000, 10000 what."
I recently showed you how YOU define winning or losing by soldiers killed and here you ask another if THEIR logic poses such a thing? Laughable!.
"That's the ticket.
Let's keep soliders dying for an artifical country created by the Britishers. "
So I guess America is artificial? All countries are? More foolishness.
"Beautiful. Americans dying for an archaic colonial creation. Let me know when we win."
More of the same.
"Basically we have a strong ally in Kurdistan, and we could live with a non aggressive Shia theocracy in the south.
When the Sunnis tire of fighting each other we could help 'em, as the author maintains."
All of the above is true in a country called Iraq. This is hardly a reason to break the country up. There is no need.
"Oh, semantic games."
That is your department LMAO.
I asked you this: Do you make the case that a soldier dying is a reason not to fight?
"Only if the reason is worthwhile." and "The reason is not worth the deaths"
Lots of reasons to oust Saddam that are absolutely worthwhile. But anyway you didnt read this question properly from the start.
"That's why we destroyed a secular regime."
HA HA HA Ok.
"In the meantime, Osama romps free."
Have any evidence of that? Where does he 'romp' and what evidence of his existance today do you present?
"how many days since 911 and Osama's still free"
And you complain at me about discussing this article??? HAHAHAH hypocrite.
"Iraq attacked us?"
YUP, he shot at our boys daily for years.
"Okeydokee. It helps when fighting back to go after those who actually attacked you"
I see you indeed forgot Afghanistan. I also see that you think this nation cannot "chew gum and walk" at the same time.
"The problem with bringing democracy is that the majority of the people would vote for a theocracy"
They been voting is it a theocracy yet?
"Our best bet is not to put democracy as a holygrail, but support for secularists, who are the minority."
Chosing their own path forward is the Holy Grail...and that is EXACTLY what they are doing. You say to support the minority, when indeed we need to support ALL.
"Let them have their tribal cultures, because a foreign imposed regime will never have legitimacy in the eyes of the people."
You call for another PAKISTAN, DUDE!! The claim that anything is imposed by foreigners is FALSE. They have elected a temp gov to draft their own constitution. That constitution that they VOTED on passed and will govern the next election for a permanent government. Foregn imposed it is NOT. Blatant inaccuracy right there.
"What's our priority?"
Progress moving Forward. Seeing Iraqi people come together as a nation and begin on a new path. One of self determination and free choice.
"Stopping terror or imposing democracy."
False premise there.
"I say the former, because I don't believe the latter leads necessarily to the cessation of the former, especially if democracy is looked upon as a foreign imposition."
If they Choose their own path, how is it imposed on them? That is crap. The choice itself is forced on them? What choice to make is forced on them? Inked fingers show you they WANT to make the choice. Blatant inaccuracy there.
"While we impose democracy on Iraq"
Whatever.....
" a Pakistani dictator wins 90% of the votes in the last election; we support the most reactionary monarchy around, the Saudis."
If you pay attention, many changes are happening in BOTH those nations. The statement ONE BY ONE also comes to mind here and they KNOW that.
"If we were honest"
Implying we are a nation of dishonesty eh? How american of you!.
"we'd have started with the Saudis. Get our friends to change and we'd have some credibility."
Banking changes, voting rights changes, school ciriculum changes have ALL been happening. I guess you are so busy opposing W that you missed these things eh?
"CAPS make your post impressive. I'm IMPRESSED."
You slam imposition and then try to force my compliance to suit you, as you take issue with my way of emphasis. Typical.
"We should want friendly states, not democracies necessarily.Democracies aren't always friendly, look at Europe."
Examples please?
"Spilling blood is not a sign of victory. In fact, getting what you want with minimum spillage is far preferable."
You pose that lack of it is victory. Think about that a minute eh?
"and considering alternatives is prudent. This is one."
Breaking Iraq up is not an option to be considered any more seriously than that of ignoring Saddam and his actions for another thirty years.
"That's assuming, as you do, that democratization will not put in power the very jihadis we are fighting against"
If it does SO BE IT, there is noone to blame but themselves. BUT, I will offer to you that ISN'T happening now IS IT? So what is the point again? SPIN is your point here.
"That's one hell of a statement to make when US soldiers will have died to ennable jihadis."
OH yes, our soldiers are there to empower jihadis FFS dude wake up will ya.
I wrote: 1700 soldiers have died in combat?
You Wrote: "Nice propagandistic spin. Splitting the difference between combat and noncombat deaths. How absurd."
You really hate facts when they do not parrot YOUR ideological line eh?
"For all your "respect" for the troops, you simply parrot the goooberment line."
Examples please? Truth is what it is, I will be happy to repeat that for you over and over.
"They died in a war zone. If the govt classifies their death as non combat deaths, is it to screw them out of their death benefits."
Show the difference for me as to what you get each way?
"Over 2000 Dead in IRaq and counting. Spin it, justify it any way you want,but I agree with General Odom, Iraq is the biggest strategic disaster in US history."
Without invading Iraq how could it be split into three nations? You sir, offer ZERO alternative to removing Saddam by force. The biggest error here is your attempt at hindsight being your guide to the future.
"YOu type a lot, use too many caps and it's hard to argue with such a skilled shill like you. "
This is a typing forum right? It IS hard to argue against rational posts, and you can call me names all you want to but you cannot qualify them anymore than you can your positions or oppositions.
"Sweetie, it's too late for alternatives. They are bad, worse, disastrous and catastrophic."
NEVER EVER too late for alternatives.
"I have no desire to correct your propaganda, spin, lies and halftruths going back years."
You mean you cannot do so.
"Inshallah. Enjoy the dead. Remember them."
More playing games of politics with soldiers lives from you here.
"And wake me when we find Osama, LOL!"
You need to wake up all right!
"At the end of your lengthy missive is the cheap shot and innuendo."
Post what you claim, I stand by my posts and will gladly explain any of them.
"That, demonstrates both paucity of the quality of your arguments and similarly of your character."
Really, define that for me with examples.
"Thank you very much for your discussion of the posted article. "
Was that about Osama??? Ha Ha....pot calling the kettle black on your part there.
"Enjoy the Dead."
MORE playing GAMES with deaths of honorable soldiers doing an honorable thing.
You sir are the sick and disgusting one and your own posts show that clearly.
Breaking Iraq up isn't the plan. It isn't going to happen and there is no need for it to happen. They are ona new path and could have already chosen that if that is what they wanted. Yet you still talk like it is a possability. FUTILE buddy. Foolish and nothing more than a product of more OPPOSE W mentality.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.