Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Lorianne
"The “expert” and the consensus argument is not really that persuasive anymore."

If you would have bothered to read the article I shared with you, it was tracking the amount of car bombings etc that were happening and how it was on a downward trend. It was looking at the statistics and coming up with an analysis based on the stats. So I guess when all the arguments go against you your answer is everyone's wrong and I'm right. And you wonder why people are being condescending to you? Wonder no more. I'll say it, your ignorant and too stupid to realize your ignorance.
56 posted on 05/18/2015 12:18:17 PM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies ]


To: Old Teufel Hunden

Ok the car bombing and other attacks were trending down in Iraq. I don’t know that I agree with that, but let’s say it’s true. Then what?

How long were we to stay there? Because, I believe, no matter when we left the thing was going to fall apart. Only Saddaam was able to hold it together, and even he had difficulty (wars with Iran and so forth). Same deal with Assad in Syria.

If you look at the overall history of the region, going way way back up to present day, the only time there was a semblance of peace in that region was when there was a brutal iron-fisted dictator or caliphate in charge. And that broke down often enough. Cities and lands have changed hands through brutal (and I do mean truly brutal) means over and over and over again in that whole region. It’s all in the history books. So, speaking of facts and experts, is the history wrong? Why would the people of the region suddenly, just because a completely foreign power takes over for a few years, leave behind all that and decide to live in peace and harmony?

I just do not see the rationale for that belief. I understand we are dealing with the psychology of previous investment. We put a lot of blood and treasure into Iraq (for whatever reason) and we don’t want to see that lost. That is understandable. But there is also such a thing as putting good money (and blood) after bad.

I’m not seeing the REASON for staying in Iraq for decades, maybe even centuries just to enforce and artificial peace on people who would otherwise be fighting each other as they have for centuries before. What is the end game there? Just so we don’t lose face?

Look, I just don’t want our military to die for stupid stuff. And dying so that one group of Muslims can be top dog over another group of Muslims is what I see we have been doing.

If you can explain to me how this can work and why it is in our interest I’d be willing to listen. How long would we have to stay there? How many other places would we have to go to do the same thing (Iran, Yemen, Libya?). Do we really need to be over there doing all this forced peacefulness and if so to whose benefit?


65 posted on 05/18/2015 12:56:55 PM PDT by Lorianne (fed pork, bailouts, gone taxmoney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson