Discussion:
Why is it better that Iraqis fight us than each other?
(too old to reply)
Jonathan
2004-04-28 06:25:53 UTC
Permalink
Curious.

Everyone says that if we leave, civil war will erupt... My question is: So?

Would the body-count be any higher than it is now?




Jonathan
David Johnston
2004-04-28 07:55:46 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 01:25:53 -0500, "Jonathan"
Post by Jonathan
Curious.
Everyone says that if we leave, civil war will erupt... My question is: So?
Well that's not a problem as long as you don't mind having a
reputation as a country that goes around making things worse for
everyone else.
Post by Jonathan
Would the body-count be any higher than it is now?
Hugely greater.
Jonathan
2004-04-28 16:19:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 01:25:53 -0500, "Jonathan"
Post by Jonathan
Curious.
Everyone says that if we leave, civil war will erupt... My question is: So?
Well that's not a problem as long as you don't mind having a
reputation as a country that goes around making things worse for
everyone else.
We already have that reputation.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Jonathan
Would the body-count be any higher than it is now?
Hugely greater.
But less Americans, right?



Jonathan
David Johnston
2004-04-28 18:12:46 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 11:19:19 -0500, "Jonathan"
Post by Jonathan
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 01:25:53 -0500, "Jonathan"
Post by Jonathan
Curious.
So?
Post by David Johnston
Well that's not a problem as long as you don't mind having a
reputation as a country that goes around making things worse for
everyone else.
We already have that reputation.
And presumably you also have the reputation of a country that
can get it's ass kicked by a few thousand opponents. But do
you want to keep those reputations?
Post by Jonathan
Post by David Johnston
Post by Jonathan
Would the body-count be any higher than it is now?
Hugely greater.
But less Americans, right?
If you weren't prepared to take American casualities...why did
you support the conquest of Iraq in the first place? Did you
imagine that it would be easy?

Bear in mind that after the civil war you will have contributed
another Islamic republic to the world, one which hates the
United States more than Saddam did and which will support
terrorism with alacrity.
Jonathan
2004-04-29 04:07:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 11:19:19 -0500, "Jonathan"
Post by Jonathan
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 01:25:53 -0500, "Jonathan"
Post by Jonathan
Curious.
So?
Post by David Johnston
Well that's not a problem as long as you don't mind having a
reputation as a country that goes around making things worse for
everyone else.
We already have that reputation.
And presumably you also have the reputation of a country that
can get it's ass kicked by a few thousand opponents. But do
you want to keep those reputations?
ANY country can get its ass kicked by a few thousand opponents... Especially
on a deployed force that isn't willing to kill mass numbers of civilians.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Jonathan
Post by David Johnston
Post by Jonathan
Would the body-count be any higher than it is now?
Hugely greater.
But less Americans, right?
If you weren't prepared to take American casualities...why did
you support the conquest of Iraq in the first place? Did you
imagine that it would be easy?
I imagined that the Iraqi people wanted to be liberated... This was not the
case... I also imagined that Saddam was a brutal tyrant, this also was not
the case (for him to be a brutal tyrant, he would need to be killing
innocent people... So far, what I have seen, he was only killing the people
we are trying to kill now...)
Post by David Johnston
Bear in mind that after the civil war you will have contributed
another Islamic republic to the world, one which hates the
United States more than Saddam did and which will support
terrorism with alacrity.
I will not dispute this.

Which is one of the many reasons I have changed my position.



Jonathan
Transition Zone
2004-04-29 12:33:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonathan
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 11:19:19 -0500, "Jonathan"
Post by Jonathan
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 01:25:53 -0500, "Jonathan"
Post by Jonathan
Curious.
Everyone says that if we leave, civil war will erupt... My question
is: So?
Post by David Johnston
Post by Jonathan
Post by David Johnston
Well that's not a problem as long as you don't mind having a
reputation as a country that goes around making things worse for
everyone else.
We already have that reputation.
And presumably you also have the reputation of a country that
can get it's ass kicked by a few thousand opponents. But do
you want to keep those reputations?
ANY country can get its ass kicked by a few thousand opponents... Especially
on a deployed force that isn't willing to kill mass numbers of civilians.
Fortunately, just ANY country isn't experiencing that right now. Only
the one led by the DUI guy.
Post by Jonathan
Post by David Johnston
Post by Jonathan
Post by David Johnston
Post by Jonathan
Would the body-count be any higher than it is now?
Hugely greater.
But less Americans, right?
If you weren't prepared to take American casualities...why did
you support the conquest of Iraq in the first place? Did you
imagine that it would be easy?
As a matter of fact, did anyone ask the war opponents exactly why they
opposed the war ??
Post by Jonathan
I imagined that the Iraqi people wanted to be liberated...
Which automatically meant having the US install a government. BTW, why
wasn't this the first excuse that bush used (instead of the WMD
argument).
Post by Jonathan
This was not the case... I also imagined that Saddam was a brutal tyrant,
this also was not the case (for him to be a brutal tyrant, he would need to > be killing innocent people... So far, what I have seen, he was only killing > the people we are trying to kill now...)
Post by David Johnston
Bear in mind that after the civil war you will have contributed
another Islamic republic to the world, one which hates the
United States more than Saddam did and which will support
terrorism with alacrity.
I will not dispute this.
Which is one of the many reasons I have changed my position.
Isn't it a little late to change ?? We're already there appointing
former Saddam officials and talking about re-appointing the man
himself.

All we ask is, what dooping is next, Jonathan ??
Jonathan
2004-04-30 04:24:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Jonathan
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 11:19:19 -0500, "Jonathan"
Post by Jonathan
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 01:25:53 -0500, "Jonathan"
Post by Jonathan
Curious.
Everyone says that if we leave, civil war will erupt... My question
is: So?
Post by David Johnston
Post by Jonathan
Post by David Johnston
Well that's not a problem as long as you don't mind having a
reputation as a country that goes around making things worse for
everyone else.
We already have that reputation.
And presumably you also have the reputation of a country that
can get it's ass kicked by a few thousand opponents. But do
you want to keep those reputations?
ANY country can get its ass kicked by a few thousand opponents... Especially
on a deployed force that isn't willing to kill mass numbers of civilians.
Fortunately, just ANY country isn't experiencing that right now. Only
the one led by the DUI guy.
Are you suggesting that we are losing guys because the president had a DUI
20 years ago?
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Jonathan
Post by David Johnston
Post by Jonathan
Post by David Johnston
Post by Jonathan
Would the body-count be any higher than it is now?
Hugely greater.
But less Americans, right?
If you weren't prepared to take American casualities...why did
you support the conquest of Iraq in the first place? Did you
imagine that it would be easy?
As a matter of fact, did anyone ask the war opponents exactly why they
opposed the war ??
Yep...

Some of them said the US was an imperialist, Nazi regime and that Rumsfeld
and Bush were Satan.
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Jonathan
I imagined that the Iraqi people wanted to be liberated...
Which automatically meant having the US install a government.
You break it, you buy it...

Personally, I would have preferred arming the Kurds and Shiites and letting
them take down Saddam... No revolution, fought from without, has ever
succeeded.
Post by Transition Zone
BTW, why
wasn't this the first excuse that bush used (instead of the WMD
argument).
Because he could sell WMD...

Would you have supported ANY military option for purely humanitarian
reasons?
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Jonathan
This was not the case... I also imagined that Saddam was a brutal tyrant,
this also was not the case (for him to be a brutal tyrant, he would need
to > be killing innocent people... So far, what I have seen, he was only
killing > the people we are trying to kill now...)
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Jonathan
Post by David Johnston
Bear in mind that after the civil war you will have contributed
another Islamic republic to the world, one which hates the
United States more than Saddam did and which will support
terrorism with alacrity.
I will not dispute this.
Which is one of the many reasons I have changed my position.
Isn't it a little late to change ??
Possibly... However, the alternatives are to fake approval...
Post by Transition Zone
We're already there appointing
former Saddam officials and talking about re-appointing the man
himself.
I don't have much problem with that.
Post by Transition Zone
All we ask is, what dooping is next, Jonathan ??
Did you just make up that word?



Jonathan
Charlene Charette
2004-04-30 05:29:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonathan
Post by Transition Zone
All we ask is, what dooping is next, Jonathan ??
Did you just make up that word?
I'm guessing that's a mispelling for "dupe". A "doop" is "a little
copper cup in which a diamond is held while being cut."

--Charlene
--
Curiosity is a willing, a proud, an eager confession of ignorance. --
Leonard Rubenstein

--

email perronnelle at earthlink . net
Transition Zone
2004-04-30 11:30:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charlene Charette
Post by Jonathan
Post by Transition Zone
All we ask is, what dooping is next, Jonathan ??
Did you just make up that word?
I'm guessing that's a mispelling for "dupe". A "doop" is "a little
copper cup in which a diamond is held while being cut."
Also, I thought that use of the spelling doop would add a more
spaced-out notion indicated by the word. I'm sure that the meaning
still got across.
David Johnston
2004-04-30 05:36:26 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 23:07:04 -0500, "Jonathan"
Post by Jonathan
Post by David Johnston
If you weren't prepared to take American casualities...why did
you support the conquest of Iraq in the first place? Did you
imagine that it would be easy?
I imagined that the Iraqi people wanted to be liberated...
Many of them did. But if they all did, then no external intervention
would have been required to get rid of Saddam. No ruler can survive
without a basis of support. And of course some of his opponents
simply want to establish their own dictatorship.

This was not the
Post by Jonathan
case... I also imagined that Saddam was a brutal tyrant, this also was not
the case (for him to be a brutal tyrant, he would need to be killing
innocent people...
He most certainly was killing "innocent" people and lots of them.
Post by Jonathan
Post by David Johnston
Bear in mind that after the civil war you will have contributed
another Islamic republic to the world, one which hates the
United States more than Saddam did and which will support
terrorism with alacrity.
I will not dispute this.
Which is one of the many reasons I have changed my position.
It's too late for that. Yes, you would have been better off not
to go in the first place, but nobody has a time travel device
so you can retroactively make that decision.
Jonathan
2004-04-30 06:02:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 23:07:04 -0500, "Jonathan"
Post by Jonathan
Post by David Johnston
If you weren't prepared to take American casualities...why did
you support the conquest of Iraq in the first place? Did you
imagine that it would be easy?
I imagined that the Iraqi people wanted to be liberated...
Many of them did. But if they all did, then no external intervention
would have been required to get rid of Saddam. No ruler can survive
without a basis of support. And of course some of his opponents
simply want to establish their own dictatorship.
I seriously doubt that more than a few thousand Iraqis wanted to be
liberated...

Actually, what is more likely is that they did, they just want their own
thingy now... and we should let them work it out.
Post by David Johnston
This was not the
Post by Jonathan
case... I also imagined that Saddam was a brutal tyrant, this also was not
the case (for him to be a brutal tyrant, he would need to be killing
innocent people...
He most certainly was killing "innocent" people and lots of them.
I no longer believe that.

Sure, there were mass graves, but who was in those graves again? Mostly
Shia... and from what I have seen, I think Saddam was acting in a way
consistent with that region.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Jonathan
Post by David Johnston
Bear in mind that after the civil war you will have contributed
another Islamic republic to the world, one which hates the
United States more than Saddam did and which will support
terrorism with alacrity.
I will not dispute this.
Which is one of the many reasons I have changed my position.
It's too late for that. Yes, you would have been better off not
to go in the first place, but nobody has a time travel device
so you can retroactively make that decision.
If Kerry is allowed to change his mind every 10 minutes or so, I can change
it once.

However, I will confess that I never believed the WMD claims, and I didn't
believe Saddam was linked with Al Qaeda in any way.

My only basis for supporting this was to remain morally consistent with my
position on Rwanda... It would make no sense to want military intervention
to save the Tutsies, and oppose an intervention to save the Shia and Kurds.

However, it has become clear to me now that you cannot compare the two...
While Saddam was a brutal dickhead, he did not come close to the actions of
the Hutus...

Which begs the question, at what magic number of slaughtered do we warrant
an intervention... and my response would be complicated... It depends how
many you have killed and at what rate.

Ideally, I would love to go in and kick ass with one killed, but that isn't
feasible... So, let's say, 50,000 or more in a month...

I am having difficulty weighing my two moral imperatives... The US should
never start a war (we should respond to every attack decisively and
extremely violently, but we shouldn't invade before the attack)... and the
US should ensure the safety of the planet's persecuted minority populations.

I think the solution is to abandon this moral framework, and adopt an
America-First isolationist attitude, terminating all military alliances
(except the one with Canada), and removing US forces from every overseas
posting, and pull the Navy back to within 500 miles of the US (pant em all
white, and put a red stripe on the bow)... Organize the DoD for a purely
defensive mission (including NMD).

Because 736 Americans are dead, and another 3,466 are wounded (some 1,395
have RTDed)... and no argument can be made that a humanitarian mission in
Iraq is worth one tenth that.

I want these guys and gals back home and safe.



Jonathan
A good 80% of this is survivor guilt... The Army Reserve unit I was in in
August of 2002, shipped to Kuwait in October of that year, 3 months after I
was discharged... They are still in Baghdad... The good news is that no one
from that unit has been killed or seriously wounded (one guy took some
shrapnel to his arms, but is ok)... However, some friends from my active
duty days weren't so lucky... One was killed in Mosul a few months back (RPG
attack), and two others have lost limbs they were fond of.

And if I had joined the Army two months later than I did in 1991, I would be
in Baghdad now.
Transition Zone
2004-04-30 11:28:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonathan
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 23:07:04 -0500, "Jonathan"
Post by Jonathan
Post by David Johnston
If you weren't prepared to take American casualities...why did
you support the conquest of Iraq in the first place? Did you
imagine that it would be easy?
I imagined that the Iraqi people wanted to be liberated...
Many of them did. But if they all did, then no external intervention
would have been required to get rid of Saddam. No ruler can survive
without a basis of support. And of course some of his opponents
simply want to establish their own dictatorship.
I seriously doubt that more than a few thousand Iraqis wanted to be
liberated...
Actually, what is more likely is that they did, they just want their own
thingy now...
You know, Jonathan. As weird as I may be, I've gotta question you
here. You don't think that they have always wanted their own thingy ??

Or is it just that you wanted them to have your own thingy ?? And that
you wanted them to want to have your own thingy ??
Post by Jonathan
and we should let them work it out.
Ahhh, going back to square one, now.
Post by Jonathan
Post by David Johnston
Post by Jonathan
This was not the case... I also imagined that Saddam was a brutal
tyrant, this also was not the case (for him to be a brutal tyrant, he
would need to be killing innocent people...
He most certainly was killing "innocent" people and lots of them.
I no longer believe that.
Sure, there were mass graves, but who was in those graves again? Mostly
Shia... and from what I have seen, I think Saddam was acting in a way
consistent with that region.
Well, I guess Bush never painstakingly took the time to try and find
out. He just rushed in willy-nilly in the GOP's usual damn-the-facts
style.
Post by Jonathan
Post by David Johnston
Post by Jonathan
Post by David Johnston
Bear in mind that after the civil war you will have contributed
another Islamic republic to the world, one which hates the
United States more than Saddam did and which will support
terrorism with alacrity.
I will not dispute this.
Which is one of the many reasons I have changed my position.
It's too late for that. Yes, you would have been better off not
to go in the first place, but nobody has a time travel device
so you can retroactively make that decision.
If Kerry is allowed to change his mind every 10 minutes or so, I can change
it once.
Speaking of the devil, why mention Kerry so quickly when Bush is
already putting Saddam loyalists back in power ??

Are you sure you don't need your head examined ??
Post by Jonathan
However, I will confess that I never believed the WMD claims,
You shouldn't say that, either. Then the chickenhawk party could
whine: "But Clinton said that Saddam had WMD".
Post by Jonathan
and I didn't believe Saddam was linked with Al Qaeda in any way.
With as many non-seculars as Saddam was deep-sixing, how could anyone
with at least one working brain cell conclude otherwise ??
Post by Jonathan
My only basis for supporting this was to remain morally consistent with my
position on Rwanda... It would make no sense to want military intervention
to save the Tutsies, and oppose an intervention to save the Shia and Kurds.
The only way you can maintain consistancy here would be to support
world-wide invasion to establish democracy.
Post by Jonathan
However, it has become clear to me now that you cannot compare the two...
While Saddam was a brutal dickhead, he did not come close to the actions of
the Hutus...
Was this at once not clear to you ?? I'm sure you had to at least have
understood that there was an extreme difference here prior to March
2003.
Post by Jonathan
Which begs the question, at what magic number of slaughtered do we warrant
an intervention... and my response would be complicated... It depends how
many you have killed and at what rate.
Not religiously motivated, the rate was very quick and shocking in
Rwanda. Many claim that the instigator resulted in being Belgium.
Would intervention have seen Belgian forces in accompanyment ??
Therefore would doing nothing have been better ??

On the other hand, a single well-financed dictator in Iraq kept
killing religiously motivated opposition members and afterwards,
publicly shaking-hands with the two-time US Secretary of Defense who
hates jointness.
Post by Jonathan
Ideally, I would love to go in and kick ass with one killed, but that isn't
feasible... So, let's say, 50,000 or more in a month...
I wouldn't say. Too many variables are still needed.
Post by Jonathan
I am having difficulty weighing my two moral imperatives... The US should
never start a war (we should respond to every attack decisively and
extremely violently, but we shouldn't invade before the attack)... and the
US should ensure the safety of the planet's persecuted minority populations.
And the two can't always be done, at that.
Post by Jonathan
I think the solution is to abandon this moral framework, and adopt an
America-First isolationist attitude, terminating all military alliances
(except the one with Canada), and removing US forces from every overseas
posting, and pull the Navy back to within 500 miles of the US (pant em all
white, and put a red stripe on the bow)... Organize the DoD for a purely
defensive mission (including NMD).
Come down a thousand with the abbreviations, this isn't an Efficiency
Report.
Post by Jonathan
Because 736 Americans are dead,
I think Rumsfeld said yesterday that it was only 500 or so (in his
mind).
Post by Jonathan
and another 3,466 are wounded (some 1,395 have RTDed)... and no argument can > be made that a humanitarian mission in Iraq is worth one tenth that.
I want these guys and gals back home and safe.
Maybe it comes down to having such a desire actually before the fact,
not afterwards.
Post by Jonathan
A good 80% of this is survivor guilt... The Army Reserve unit I was in in
August of 2002, shipped to Kuwait in October of that year, 3 months after I
was discharged... They are still in Baghdad... The good news is that no one
from that unit has been killed or seriously wounded (one guy took some
shrapnel to his arms, but is ok)... However, some friends from my active
duty days weren't so lucky... One was killed in Mosul a few months back (RPG
attack), and two others have lost limbs they were fond of.
Hmmm. I've never quite heard it put that way before. Anyway, sorry to
hear that.
Post by Jonathan
And if I had joined the Army two months later than I did in 1991, I would be
in Baghdad now.
Do you think your world view would have changed any by now ?
Jonathan
2004-04-30 15:50:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Jonathan
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 23:07:04 -0500, "Jonathan"
Post by Jonathan
Post by David Johnston
If you weren't prepared to take American casualities...why did
you support the conquest of Iraq in the first place? Did you
imagine that it would be easy?
I imagined that the Iraqi people wanted to be liberated...
Many of them did. But if they all did, then no external intervention
would have been required to get rid of Saddam. No ruler can survive
without a basis of support. And of course some of his opponents
simply want to establish their own dictatorship.
I seriously doubt that more than a few thousand Iraqis wanted to be
liberated...
Actually, what is more likely is that they did, they just want their own
thingy now...
You know, Jonathan. As weird as I may be, I've gotta question you
here. You don't think that they have always wanted their own thingy ??
I would have expected that they would want the country secured first... The
fact that it isn't, and they want us out suggests that they want us out so
that we won't get in the way of the civil war THEY want... So that the Shia
can annihilate the Sunni...
Post by Transition Zone
Or is it just that you wanted them to have your own thingy ?? And that
you wanted them to want to have your own thingy ??
Post by Jonathan
and we should let them work it out.
Ahhh, going back to square one, now.
Post by Jonathan
Post by David Johnston
Post by Jonathan
This was not the case... I also imagined that Saddam was a brutal
tyrant, this also was not the case (for him to be a brutal tyrant, he
would need to be killing innocent people...
He most certainly was killing "innocent" people and lots of them.
I no longer believe that.
Sure, there were mass graves, but who was in those graves again? Mostly
Shia... and from what I have seen, I think Saddam was acting in a way
consistent with that region.
Well, I guess Bush never painstakingly took the time to try and find
out. He just rushed in willy-nilly in the GOP's usual damn-the-facts
style.
Something I have yet to see, is a single expert of the region saying this
was a good idea...
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Jonathan
Post by David Johnston
Post by Jonathan
Post by David Johnston
Bear in mind that after the civil war you will have contributed
another Islamic republic to the world, one which hates the
United States more than Saddam did and which will support
terrorism with alacrity.
I will not dispute this.
Which is one of the many reasons I have changed my position.
It's too late for that. Yes, you would have been better off not
to go in the first place, but nobody has a time travel device
so you can retroactively make that decision.
If Kerry is allowed to change his mind every 10 minutes or so, I can change
it once.
Speaking of the devil, why mention Kerry so quickly when Bush is
already putting Saddam loyalists back in power ??
Because I don't think that is a bad idea...

Kerry's Iraq war votes are much more troubling...
Post by Transition Zone
Are you sure you don't need your head examined ??
Post by Jonathan
However, I will confess that I never believed the WMD claims,
You shouldn't say that, either. Then the chickenhawk party could
whine: "But Clinton said that Saddam had WMD".
Oh, I believed he had WMDs, I just didn't think he was any kind of threat...
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Jonathan
and I didn't believe Saddam was linked with Al Qaeda in any way.
With as many non-seculars as Saddam was deep-sixing, how could anyone
with at least one working brain cell conclude otherwise ??
I still meet people who say Saddam was behind 9/11...
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Jonathan
My only basis for supporting this was to remain morally consistent with my
position on Rwanda... It would make no sense to want military intervention
to save the Tutsies, and oppose an intervention to save the Shia and Kurds.
The only way you can maintain consistancy here would be to support
world-wide invasion to establish democracy.
Which is part of the problem...

Also, I don't think we need democracy everywhere, we just need people to
stop annihilating their ethnic minorities...
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Jonathan
However, it has become clear to me now that you cannot compare the two...
While Saddam was a brutal dickhead, he did not come close to the actions of
the Hutus...
Was this at once not clear to you ?? I'm sure you had to at least have
understood that there was an extreme difference here prior to March
2003.
I kept seeing news reports of disappearances in Iraq, of people having ears
cut off, of rape rooms, of mass graves... taken as a whole, it made sense to
believe he was evil.
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Jonathan
Which begs the question, at what magic number of slaughtered do we warrant
an intervention... and my response would be complicated... It depends how
many you have killed and at what rate.
Not religiously motivated, the rate was very quick and shocking in
Rwanda.
You think?
Post by Transition Zone
Many claim that the instigator resulted in being Belgium.
Would intervention have seen Belgian forces in accompanyment ??
Therefore would doing nothing have been better ??
If the US had sent ONE battalion of Infantry, it would have stopped... If
the US had announced that it was sending troops, it would have stopped.

If the Belgians hadn't fled the country...
Post by Transition Zone
On the other hand, a single well-financed dictator in Iraq kept
killing religiously motivated opposition members and afterwards,
publicly shaking-hands with the two-time US Secretary of Defense who
hates jointness.
Post by Jonathan
Ideally, I would love to go in and kick ass with one killed, but that isn't
feasible... So, let's say, 50,000 or more in a month...
I wouldn't say. Too many variables are still needed.
If you are offing that many, at that rate, the goal is a total genocide.
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Jonathan
I am having difficulty weighing my two moral imperatives... The US should
never start a war (we should respond to every attack decisively and
extremely violently, but we shouldn't invade before the attack)... and the
US should ensure the safety of the planet's persecuted minority populations.
And the two can't always be done, at that.
Post by Jonathan
I think the solution is to abandon this moral framework, and adopt an
America-First isolationist attitude, terminating all military alliances
(except the one with Canada), and removing US forces from every overseas
posting, and pull the Navy back to within 500 miles of the US (pant em all
white, and put a red stripe on the bow)... Organize the DoD for a purely
defensive mission (including NMD).
Come down a thousand with the abbreviations, this isn't an Efficiency
Report.
DoD - Department of Defense
NMD - National Missile Defense
US - United States
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Jonathan
Because 736 Americans are dead,
I think Rumsfeld said yesterday that it was only 500 or so (in his
mind).
It was Wolfowitz, see post I made yesterday...
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Jonathan
and another 3,466 are wounded (some 1,395 have RTDed)... and no argument
can > be made that a humanitarian mission in Iraq is worth one tenth that.
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Jonathan
I want these guys and gals back home and safe.
Maybe it comes down to having such a desire actually before the fact,
not afterwards.
Post by Jonathan
A good 80% of this is survivor guilt... The Army Reserve unit I was in in
August of 2002, shipped to Kuwait in October of that year, 3 months after I
was discharged... They are still in Baghdad... The good news is that no one
from that unit has been killed or seriously wounded (one guy took some
shrapnel to his arms, but is ok)... However, some friends from my active
duty days weren't so lucky... One was killed in Mosul a few months back (RPG
attack), and two others have lost limbs they were fond of.
Hmmm. I've never quite heard it put that way before. Anyway, sorry to
hear that.
Post by Jonathan
And if I had joined the Army two months later than I did in 1991, I would be
in Baghdad now.
Do you think your world view would have changed any by now ?
Depends when you ask... At times I would rather be there... At times I am
glad I am not.



Jonathan
Transition Zone
2004-05-01 02:47:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonathan
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Jonathan
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 23:07:04 -0500, "Jonathan"
Post by Jonathan
Post by David Johnston
If you weren't prepared to take American casualities...why did
you support the conquest of Iraq in the first place? Did you
imagine that it would be easy?
I imagined that the Iraqi people wanted to be liberated...
Many of them did. But if they all did, then no external intervention
would have been required to get rid of Saddam. No ruler can survive
without a basis of support. And of course some of his opponents
simply want to establish their own dictatorship.
I seriously doubt that more than a few thousand Iraqis wanted to be
liberated...
Actually, what is more likely is that they did, they just want their own
thingy now...
You know, Jonathan. As weird as I may be, I've gotta question you
here. You don't think that they have always wanted their own thingy ??
I would have expected that they would want the country secured first...
They would probably be assuming that strings would be attached,
though. Others practice the contingency thing, too.
Post by Jonathan
The fact that it isn't, and they want us out suggests that they want us out > so that we won't get in the way of the civil war THEY want... So that the
Shia can annihilate the Sunni...
Not just that, but simply that we are foreigners. We don't belong.
They just don't want us there.
Post by Jonathan
Post by Transition Zone
Or is it just that you wanted them to have your own thingy ?? And that
you wanted them to want to have your own thingy ??
Post by Jonathan
and we should let them work it out.
Ahhh, going back to square one, now.
Post by Jonathan
Post by David Johnston
Post by Jonathan
This was not the case... I also imagined that Saddam was a brutal
tyrant, this also was not the case (for him to be a brutal tyrant,
he
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Jonathan
Post by David Johnston
Post by Jonathan
would need to be killing innocent people...
He most certainly was killing "innocent" people and lots of them.
I no longer believe that.
Sure, there were mass graves, but who was in those graves again? Mostly
Shia... and from what I have seen, I think Saddam was acting in a way
consistent with that region.
Well, I guess Bush never painstakingly took the time to try and find
out. He just rushed in willy-nilly in the GOP's usual damn-the-facts
style.
Something I have yet to see, is a single expert of the region saying this
was a good idea...
Depends upon what "expert" you consult.
Post by Jonathan
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Jonathan
Post by David Johnston
Post by Jonathan
Post by David Johnston
Bear in mind that after the civil war you will have contributed
another Islamic republic to the world, one which hates the
United States more than Saddam did and which will support
terrorism with alacrity.
I will not dispute this.
Which is one of the many reasons I have changed my position.
It's too late for that. Yes, you would have been better off not
to go in the first place, but nobody has a time travel device
so you can retroactively make that decision.
If Kerry is allowed to change his mind every 10 minutes or so, I can
change it once.
Speaking of the devil, why mention Kerry so quickly when Bush is
already putting Saddam loyalists back in power ??
Because I don't think that is a bad idea...
Why was anything more than assassinating Saddam a good idea, then ??
I wonder if we are getting back to the oil issue, now.
Post by Jonathan
Kerry's Iraq war votes are much more troubling...
Hmmm. Interesting. I say Kerry & his votes are 100% irrelevant to Iraq
as he or his democratic collegues had no real say over it.
Post by Jonathan
Post by Transition Zone
Are you sure you don't need your head examined ??
Post by Jonathan
However, I will confess that I never believed the WMD claims,
You shouldn't say that, either. Then the chickenhawk party could
whine: "But Clinton said that Saddam had WMD".
Oh, I believed he had WMDs, I just didn't think he was any kind of threat...
Because he got rid of them all at the end of the Gulf War I ?? Or is
remembering that all a bit too convenient ??
Post by Jonathan
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Jonathan
and I didn't believe Saddam was linked with Al Qaeda in any way.
With as many non-seculars as Saddam was deep-sixing, how could anyone
with at least one working brain cell conclude otherwise ??
I still meet people who say Saddam was behind 9/11...
If I may "tell another lie", they might be most in the country.
Post by Jonathan
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Jonathan
My only basis for supporting this was to remain morally consistent with
my position on Rwanda... It would make no sense to want military
intervention to save the Tutsies, and oppose an intervention to save the > > > Shia and Kurds.
The only way you can maintain consistancy here would be to support
world-wide invasion to establish democracy.
Which is part of the problem...
Right. You can't use others' resources to play white knight in shining
armor everywhere.
Post by Jonathan
Also, I don't think we need democracy everywhere,
I once thought you did.
Post by Jonathan
we just need people to stop annihilating their ethnic minorities...
That's a juvenile expectation. From the dawn of time, nations have
always found new ways to harm traditional minorities.
Post by Jonathan
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Jonathan
However, it has become clear to me now that you cannot compare the two...
While Saddam was a brutal dickhead, he did not come close to the actions
of the Hutus...
Was this at once not clear to you ?? I'm sure you had to at least have
understood that there was an extreme difference here prior to March
2003.
I kept seeing news reports of disappearances in Iraq, of people having ears
cut off, of rape rooms, of mass graves... taken as a whole, it made sense to
believe he was evil.
But then you were shown a picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with
Saddam while those people lied in those graves. Or did the dots just
not connect ??
Post by Jonathan
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Jonathan
Which begs the question, at what magic number of slaughtered do we
warrant
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Jonathan
an intervention... and my response would be complicated... It depends
how
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Jonathan
many you have killed and at what rate.
Not religiously motivated, the rate was very quick and shocking in
Rwanda.
You think?
Post by Transition Zone
Many claim that the instigator resulted in being Belgium.
Would intervention have seen Belgian forces in accompanyment ??
Therefore would doing nothing have been better ??
If the US had sent ONE battalion of Infantry, it would have stopped... If
the US had announced that it was sending troops, it would have stopped.
Im not sure at all as to what the Central African nation's response to
an American or Belgian deployment would have been.
Post by Jonathan
If the Belgians hadn't fled the country...
Post by Transition Zone
On the other hand, a single well-financed dictator in Iraq kept
killing religiously motivated opposition members and afterwards,
publicly shaking-hands with the two-time US Secretary of Defense who
hates jointness.
Post by Jonathan
Ideally, I would love to go in and kick ass with one killed, but that
isn't
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Jonathan
feasible... So, let's say, 50,000 or more in a month...
I wouldn't say. Too many variables are still needed.
If you are offing that many, at that rate, the goal is a total genocide.
But if they are offing just as many on the other side, then it's a
civil war.
Post by Jonathan
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Jonathan
I am having difficulty weighing my two moral imperatives... The US
should
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Jonathan
never start a war (we should respond to every attack decisively and
extremely violently, but we shouldn't invade before the attack)... and
the
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Jonathan
US should ensure the safety of the planet's persecuted minority
populations.
Post by Transition Zone
And the two can't always be done, at that.
Post by Jonathan
I think the solution is to abandon this moral framework, and adopt an
America-First isolationist attitude, terminating all military alliances
(except the one with Canada), and removing US forces from every overseas
posting, and pull the Navy back to within 500 miles of the US (pant em
all
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Jonathan
white, and put a red stripe on the bow)... Organize the DoD for a purely
defensive mission (including NMD).
Come down a thousand with the abbreviations, this isn't an Efficiency
Report.
DoD - Department of Defense
NMD - National Missile Defense
US - United States
You forgot RTDed...Returned to Duty I guess.
Post by Jonathan
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Jonathan
Because 736 Americans are dead,
I think Rumsfeld said yesterday that it was only 500 or so (in his
mind).
It was Wolfowitz, see post I made yesterday...
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Jonathan
and another 3,466 are wounded (some 1,395 have RTDed)... and no argument
can > be made that a humanitarian mission in Iraq is worth one tenth that.
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Jonathan
I want these guys and gals back home and safe.
Maybe it comes down to having such a desire actually before the fact,
not afterwards.
Post by Jonathan
A good 80% of this is survivor guilt... The Army Reserve unit I was in
in
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Jonathan
August of 2002, shipped to Kuwait in October of that year, 3 months
after I
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Jonathan
was discharged... They are still in Baghdad... The good news is that no
one
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Jonathan
from that unit has been killed or seriously wounded (one guy took some
shrapnel to his arms, but is ok)... However, some friends from my active
duty days weren't so lucky... One was killed in Mosul a few months back
(RPG
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Jonathan
attack), and two others have lost limbs they were fond of.
Hmmm. I've never quite heard it put that way before. Anyway, sorry to
hear that.
Post by Jonathan
And if I had joined the Army two months later than I did in 1991, I
would be
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Jonathan
in Baghdad now.
Do you think your world view would have changed any by now ?
Depends when you ask... At times I would rather be there... At times I am
glad I am not.
Jonathan
David Johnston
2004-04-30 20:17:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Jonathan
Because 736 Americans are dead,
I think Rumsfeld said yesterday that it was only 500 or so (in his
mind).
Rumsfeld was distinguishing between combat casualties and accidents.
Often the media doesn't.
Jonathan
2004-04-30 20:55:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Jonathan
Because 736 Americans are dead,
I think Rumsfeld said yesterday that it was only 500 or so (in his
mind).
Rumsfeld was distinguishing between combat casualties and accidents.
Often the media doesn't.
Actually, it was Wolfowitz, and he said there had only been 350 combat
deaths and 500 total...

And what difference does it make if you are killed in combat or by accident?



Jonathan
David Johnston
2004-04-30 22:46:05 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 15:55:15 -0500, "Jonathan"
Post by Jonathan
Post by David Johnston
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Jonathan
Because 736 Americans are dead,
I think Rumsfeld said yesterday that it was only 500 or so (in his
mind).
Rumsfeld was distinguishing between combat casualties and accidents.
Often the media doesn't.
Actually, it was Wolfowitz, and he said there had only been 350 combat
deaths and 500 total...
And what difference does it make if you are killed in combat or by accident?
Do you think it made a difference that the World Trade Center
collapsed as a result of enemy action rather than from an accidental
plane collision? I do.
David Marc Nieporent
2004-05-01 21:29:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonathan
Post by David Johnston
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Jonathan
Because 736 Americans are dead,
I think Rumsfeld said yesterday that it was only 500 or so (in his
mind).
Rumsfeld was distinguishing between combat casualties and accidents.
Often the media doesn't.
Actually, it was Wolfowitz, and he said there had only been 350 combat
deaths and 500 total...
And what difference does it make if you are killed in combat or by accident?
Well, I think most distinguish between a car crash and a homicide in their
feelings about a death.

Moreover, if they were killed in an accident, then they well might have
died had there been no war, making it unreasonable to attribute their
deaths to the war.

---------------------------------------------
David M. Nieporent ***@alumni.princeton.edu
Jonathan
2004-05-01 21:51:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Marc Nieporent
Post by Jonathan
Post by David Johnston
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Jonathan
Because 736 Americans are dead,
I think Rumsfeld said yesterday that it was only 500 or so (in his
mind).
Rumsfeld was distinguishing between combat casualties and accidents.
Often the media doesn't.
Actually, it was Wolfowitz, and he said there had only been 350 combat
deaths and 500 total...
And what difference does it make if you are killed in combat or by accident?
Well, I think most distinguish between a car crash and a homicide in their
feelings about a death.
Moreover, if they were killed in an accident, then they well might have
died had there been no war, making it unreasonable to attribute their
deaths to the war.
Doesn't this come close to implying that their deaths mean less than those
that died as a result of combat operations?

The US Military loses about 20 people a year to accidents... In Iraq we have
seen ten times that many deaths... Yet, you argue that their deaths would
have happened anyway...



Jonathan
David Johnston
2004-04-30 20:14:58 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 01:02:18 -0500, "Jonathan"
Post by Jonathan
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 23:07:04 -0500, "Jonathan"
Post by Jonathan
Post by David Johnston
If you weren't prepared to take American casualities...why did
you support the conquest of Iraq in the first place? Did you
imagine that it would be easy?
I imagined that the Iraqi people wanted to be liberated...
Many of them did. But if they all did, then no external intervention
would have been required to get rid of Saddam. No ruler can survive
without a basis of support. And of course some of his opponents
simply want to establish their own dictatorship.
I seriously doubt that more than a few thousand Iraqis wanted to be
liberated...
You are of course wrong. It's just that if two million want to be
liberated and five hundred thousand want to kill their liberators,
the liberators have a very serious problem.
Post by Jonathan
Actually, what is more likely is that they did, they just want their own
thingy now... and we should let them work it out.
Post by David Johnston
This was not the
Post by Jonathan
case... I also imagined that Saddam was a brutal tyrant, this also was
not
Post by David Johnston
Post by Jonathan
the case (for him to be a brutal tyrant, he would need to be killing
innocent people...
He most certainly was killing "innocent" people and lots of them.
I no longer believe that.
<Shrug> You are wrong. Everybody who engages in warfare kills
innocents.
Post by Jonathan
Post by David Johnston
It's too late for that. Yes, you would have been better off not
to go in the first place, but nobody has a time travel device
so you can retroactively make that decision.
If Kerry is allowed to change his mind every 10 minutes or so, I can change
it once.
Boy, you're a sucker for propaganda.
Post by Jonathan
However, I will confess that I never believed the WMD claims, and I didn't
believe Saddam was linked with Al Qaeda in any way.
My only basis for supporting this was to remain morally consistent with my
position on Rwanda... It would make no sense to want military intervention
to save the Tutsies, and oppose an intervention to save the Shia and Kurds.
You are just beginning to understand the outside world's lack of
enthusiasm for going into places like Rwanda.
Post by Jonathan
I think the solution is to abandon this moral framework, and adopt an
America-First isolationist attitude, terminating all military alliances
(except the one with Canada), and removing US forces from every overseas
posting, and pull the Navy back to within 500 miles of the US (pant em all
white, and put a red stripe on the bow)...
The Americans tried that before. Didn't work out so well.
Jonathan
2004-04-30 20:56:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 01:02:18 -0500, "Jonathan"
Post by Jonathan
I think the solution is to abandon this moral framework, and adopt an
America-First isolationist attitude, terminating all military alliances
(except the one with Canada), and removing US forces from every overseas
posting, and pull the Navy back to within 500 miles of the US (pant em all
white, and put a red stripe on the bow)...
The Americans tried that before. Didn't work out so well.
Well, practice makes perfect... I say one more go at it...



Jonathan
Baard Ove Kopperud
2004-05-02 01:05:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 01:02:18 -0500, "Jonathan"
Post by Jonathan
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 23:07:04 -0500, "Jonathan"
I seriously doubt that more than a few thousand Iraqis wanted to be
liberated...
You are of course wrong. It's just that if two million want to be
liberated and five hundred thousand want to kill their liberators,
the liberators have a very serious problem.
I think the problem is more of the little matter
that in this case, the liberator has stayed long
after they were done "liberating"... and during
this time, they have harassed and killed civilians,
they have made sure their country will greatly
economicly benifit and they are after the countries
natural-resources. On top of that, is the rather
harsh way the actual liberation was done... you
don't get people to love you by dropping bombs on
them.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Jonathan
I think the solution is to abandon this moral framework, and adopt an
America-First isolationist attitude, terminating all military alliances
(except the one with Canada), and removing US forces from every overseas
posting, and pull the Navy back to within 500 miles of the US (pant em all
white, and put a red stripe on the bow)...
The Americans tried that before. Didn't work out so well.
It's a question of picking the battles you fight...
not to mention that you should refrain from *starting*
a fight. It's also a good idea to clear it with ones
allies and the rest of the world first.

+++

To take WWII as an example... it would have been wrong
to attack Germany and throw-out Hitler as soon as he
won... but it was also a mistake to let him invade
country after country. It's a matter of choosing the
right time to interfer.

-Koppe
Transition Zone
2004-05-03 21:00:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baard Ove Kopperud
Post by David Johnston
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 01:02:18 -0500, "Jonathan"
Post by Jonathan
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 23:07:04 -0500, "Jonathan"
I seriously doubt that more than a few thousand Iraqis wanted to be
liberated...
You are of course wrong. It's just that if two million want to be
liberated and five hundred thousand want to kill their liberators,
the liberators have a very serious problem.
I think the problem is more of the little matter
that in this case, the liberator has stayed long
after they were done "liberating"... and during
this time, they have harassed and killed civilians,
they have made sure their country will greatly
economicly benifit and they are after the countries
natural-resources. On top of that, is the rather
harsh way the actual liberation was done... you
don't get people to love you by dropping bombs on
them.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Jonathan
I think the solution is to abandon this moral framework, and adopt an
America-First isolationist attitude, terminating all military alliances
(except the one with Canada), and removing US forces from every overseas
posting, and pull the Navy back to within 500 miles of the US (pant em all
white, and put a red stripe on the bow)...
The Americans tried that before. Didn't work out so well.
It's a question of picking the battles you fight...
not to mention that you should refrain from *starting*
a fight. It's also a good idea to clear it with ones
allies and the rest of the world first.
+++
To take WWII as an example... it would have been wrong
to attack Germany and throw-out Hitler as soon as he
won... but it was also a mistake to let him invade
country after country. It's a matter of choosing the
right time to interfer.
The lawless part of America that hates regulation has control of
the white house. Therefore the rest of the world can usually expect
this form of anti-UN behavior.

Fortunately, it will be over in Jan of 2005.
Jonathan
2004-05-03 22:47:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Baard Ove Kopperud
To take WWII as an example... it would have been wrong
to attack Germany and throw-out Hitler as soon as he
won... but it was also a mistake to let him invade
country after country. It's a matter of choosing the
right time to interfer.
The lawless part of America that hates regulation has control of
the white house. Therefore the rest of the world can usually expect
this form of anti-UN behavior.
Fortunately, it will be over in Jan of 2005.
Ah, blind optimism...

Seriously, do you believe Kerry has what it takes to beat Bush?



Jonathan
moravaman
2004-05-04 02:19:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonathan
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Baard Ove Kopperud
To take WWII as an example... it would have been wrong
to attack Germany and throw-out Hitler as soon as he
won... but it was also a mistake to let him invade
country after country. It's a matter of choosing the
right time to interfer.
The lawless part of America that hates regulation has control of
the white house. Therefore the rest of the world can usually expect
this form of anti-UN behavior.
Fortunately, it will be over in Jan of 2005.
Ah, blind optimism...
Seriously, do you believe Kerry has what it takes to beat Bush?
In an election No, Kerry is as bland as generic mayonnaise. In an IQ test
yes Bush is as wise as generic mayonnaise.
Jonathan
2004-05-04 04:39:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by moravaman
Post by Jonathan
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Baard Ove Kopperud
To take WWII as an example... it would have been wrong
to attack Germany and throw-out Hitler as soon as he
won... but it was also a mistake to let him invade
country after country. It's a matter of choosing the
right time to interfer.
The lawless part of America that hates regulation has control of
the white house. Therefore the rest of the world can usually expect
this form of anti-UN behavior.
Fortunately, it will be over in Jan of 2005.
Ah, blind optimism...
Seriously, do you believe Kerry has what it takes to beat Bush?
In an election No, Kerry is as bland as generic mayonnaise. In an IQ test
yes Bush is as wise as generic mayonnaise.
Too bad we are having an election...



Jonathan
Alan Pollock
2004-05-04 05:13:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by moravaman
In an election No, Kerry is as bland as generic mayonnaise. In an IQ test
yes Bush is as wise as generic mayonnaise.
Mayonnaise One. In an election, bland is a pretty good starting point for
interesting spins. Means you have few negatives and can start afresh;
something pols would give their eye-teeth for. Kerry's blandness doesn't
indicate a lost contest by any means.

Mayonnaise Two. IQ is vague. If you're talking about Bush's inability to speak
flowingly in public, he gets flustered. Many suffer from it, few are pols, and
it's no indication of IQ. A typical criticism of pols is their slickness, that
they speak too well, too glibly. Bush is direct. You can't have it both ways.

Now to the most important issue: even so-called 'generic' mayonnaise (not that
there is such a thing) can taste illegal on a hard-boiled egg. On fries. On an
artichoke heart, and on any number of foodstuffs. Context context context.
Dollops of context in the form of mayonnaise, which then highlights content.
Nex
Chris Free
2004-05-04 05:56:37 UTC
Permalink
MARGARET
Yes, Joe. The girls in the Political Affairs Office
saw you before and asked me to tell you
that they wouldn't have covered your parking spot
with mayonnaise if they'd known you were a biscuit.

- aaron sorkin, "life on mars"

Transition Zone
2004-04-29 00:36:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonathan
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 01:25:53 -0500, "Jonathan"
Post by Jonathan
Curious.
So?
Post by David Johnston
Well that's not a problem as long as you don't mind having a
reputation as a country that goes around making things worse for
everyone else.
We already have that reputation.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Jonathan
Would the body-count be any higher than it is now?
Hugely greater.
But less Americans, right?
In the short run.
alakaheem
2004-04-28 08:05:22 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 01:25:53 -0500, "Jonathan"
Post by Jonathan
Curious.
Everyone says that if we leave, civil war will erupt... My question is: So?
Would the body-count be any higher than it is now?
It could create an environment that is conducive to Islamic terrorist
camps vis-a-vis Afghanistan.
Post by Jonathan
Jonathan
-alakaheem
Chris Free
2004-04-28 08:28:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonathan
Curious.
Everyone says that if we leave, civil war will erupt... My question is: So?
Would the body-count be any higher than it is now?
because it would leave iraq
in the near exact opposite state
for which we went to war to prevent.

almost the entire premise for continuing the war
is based on preventing rouge states, their money,
and anti-democracies, from fostering our enemies --
if we fought over there, not only wouldn't we have to fight here
but that front could also be used as a geopolitical example for the region;
their war is not about them it's about us.

mr. perle, mr. wolfowitz, mr. cheney, et. al --
be careful what for you ask [sic].

"And desire shall fail: because man goeth to his long home,
and the mourners go about the streets." -- ecclesiastes 12:5

"For I have sworn thee fair, and thought thee bright,
Who art as black as hell, as dark as night. -- shakespeare, "sonnet 147"

sorkin would know how to weave that into relevant allusion.
Transition Zone
2004-04-29 00:39:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Free
Post by Jonathan
Curious.
Everyone says that if we leave, civil war will erupt... My question is: So?
Would the body-count be any higher than it is now?
because it would leave iraq
in the near exact opposite state
for which we went to war to prevent.
Some chickenhawk repubs are now asking for mass-graves saddam and his
lot to return, because he can restore order easier...all in keeping
with what's expected of the bushies, though.
Jonathan
2004-04-29 04:07:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Chris Free
Post by Jonathan
Curious.
Everyone says that if we leave, civil war will erupt... My question is: So?
Would the body-count be any higher than it is now?
because it would leave iraq
in the near exact opposite state
for which we went to war to prevent.
Some chickenhawk repubs are now asking for mass-graves saddam and his
lot to return, because he can restore order easier...all in keeping
with what's expected of the bushies, though.
Do you have a link to this?



Jonathan
Transition Zone
2004-04-30 10:55:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonathan
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Chris Free
Post by Jonathan
Curious.
Everyone says that if we leave, civil war will erupt... My question
is: So?
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Chris Free
Post by Jonathan
Would the body-count be any higher than it is now?
because it would leave iraq
in the near exact opposite state
for which we went to war to prevent.
Some chickenhawk repubs are now asking for mass-graves saddam and his
lot to return, because he can restore order easier...all in keeping
with what's expected of the bushies, though.
Do you have a link to this?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News:Baghdad protests reinstatement of Saddam's police

Baghdad protests reinstatement of Saddam's police. Last Updated Thu,
17 Apr 2003 21:04:52. BAGHDAD - Some Iraqis say the U.S. military is
putting Saddam Hussein's henchmen back in power by reassembling
Baghdad's police force.
cbc.ca/stories/2003/04/17/iraq_police030417
Jonathan
2004-04-30 15:51:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Jonathan
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Chris Free
Post by Jonathan
Curious.
Everyone says that if we leave, civil war will erupt... My question
is: So?
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Chris Free
Post by Jonathan
Would the body-count be any higher than it is now?
because it would leave iraq
in the near exact opposite state
for which we went to war to prevent.
Some chickenhawk repubs are now asking for mass-graves saddam and his
lot to return, because he can restore order easier...all in keeping
with what's expected of the bushies, though.
Do you have a link to this?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News:Baghdad protests reinstatement of Saddam's police
Baghdad protests reinstatement of Saddam's police. Last Updated Thu,
17 Apr 2003 21:04:52. BAGHDAD - Some Iraqis say the U.S. military is
putting Saddam Hussein's henchmen back in power by reassembling
Baghdad's police force.
cbc.ca/stories/2003/04/17/iraq_police030417
You said that "Saddam and his lot" not a few Baathist police officers...



Jonathan
David Marc Nieporent
2004-04-30 19:09:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonathan
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Jonathan
Post by Transition Zone
Some chickenhawk repubs are now asking for mass-graves saddam and his
lot to return, because he can restore order easier...all in keeping
with what's expected of the bushies, though.
Do you have a link to this?
CBC News:Baghdad protests reinstatement of Saddam's police
Baghdad protests reinstatement of Saddam's police. Last Updated Thu,
17 Apr 2003 21:04:52. BAGHDAD - Some Iraqis say the U.S. military is
putting Saddam Hussein's henchmen back in power by reassembling
Baghdad's police force.
cbc.ca/stories/2003/04/17/iraq_police030417
You said that "Saddam and his lot" not a few Baathist police officers...
He lies, Jonathan. You just figured that out?
--
David Marc Nieporent ***@alumni.princeton.edu
Jumping To Conclusions: http://www.oobleck.com/tollbooth
Jonathan
2004-04-30 19:51:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Marc Nieporent
Post by Jonathan
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Jonathan
Post by Transition Zone
Some chickenhawk repubs are now asking for mass-graves saddam and his
lot to return, because he can restore order easier...all in keeping
with what's expected of the bushies, though.
Do you have a link to this?
CBC News:Baghdad protests reinstatement of Saddam's police
Baghdad protests reinstatement of Saddam's police. Last Updated Thu,
17 Apr 2003 21:04:52. BAGHDAD - Some Iraqis say the U.S. military is
putting Saddam Hussein's henchmen back in power by reassembling
Baghdad's police force.
cbc.ca/stories/2003/04/17/iraq_police030417
You said that "Saddam and his lot" not a few Baathist police officers...
He lies, Jonathan. You just figured that out?
I am well aware of his passing curiosity with the truth, I just don't
believe that we should ever fail to call him on it.



Jonathan
Transition Zone
2004-04-30 23:14:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonathan
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Jonathan
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Chris Free
Post by Jonathan
Curious.
Everyone says that if we leave, civil war will erupt... My
question
is: So?
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Jonathan
Post by Transition Zone
Post by Chris Free
Post by Jonathan
Would the body-count be any higher than it is now?
because it would leave iraq
in the near exact opposite state
for which we went to war to prevent.
Some chickenhawk repubs are now asking for mass-graves saddam and his
lot to return, because he can restore order easier...all in keeping
with what's expected of the bushies, though.
Do you have a link to this?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News:Baghdad protests reinstatement of Saddam's police
Baghdad protests reinstatement of Saddam's police. Last Updated Thu,
17 Apr 2003 21:04:52. BAGHDAD - Some Iraqis say the U.S. military is
putting Saddam Hussein's henchmen back in power by reassembling
Baghdad's police force.
cbc.ca/stories/2003/04/17/iraq_police030417
You said that "Saddam and his lot" not a few Baathist police officers...
Which brings us back to the same problem. How do you logically follow
the statements of prominent republicans.
Transition Zone
2004-04-28 11:05:59 UTC
Permalink
What I'm wondering is why some chickenhawks are beginning to talk
about why they want old mass-graves saddam back in action; just to
"tame" the country.
Jonathan
2004-04-28 15:14:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Transition Zone
What I'm wondering is why some chickenhawks are beginning to talk
about why they want old mass-graves saddam back in action; just to
"tame" the country.
Actually, I am the only one who said that.



Jonathan
moravaman
2004-04-28 19:22:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonathan
Curious.
Everyone says that if we leave, civil war will erupt... My question is: So?
Would the body-count be any higher than it is now?
Jonathan
Well, If Iraqi's fight one and other for control of the oil, who will be
looking after Haliburton.
Jonathan
2004-04-29 04:07:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by moravaman
Post by Jonathan
Curious.
So?
Post by Jonathan
Would the body-count be any higher than it is now?
Jonathan
Well, If Iraqi's fight one and other for control of the oil, who will be
looking after Haliburton.
I am sure the US Gov't will continue to support them...



Jonathan
Transition Zone
2004-04-29 12:24:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jonathan
Post by moravaman
Post by Jonathan
Curious.
So?
Post by moravaman
Post by Jonathan
Would the body-count be any higher than it is now?
Jonathan
Well, If Iraqi's fight one and other for control of the oil, who will be
looking after Haliburton.
I am sure the US Gov't will continue to support them...
I thought they were them.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...