Don't click or your IP will be banned


Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread ><<  2    3    4    5    6    7    8  >>Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject:

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/4/2007 at 03:39 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
We constantly hear about the cost of war in billions of dollars and
we have been told repeatedly of the "successes" by the Bush adminstration.

It seems the one thing not being reported adequately were the wounded
and the dead. It was rare to see a photo of a flag-draped coffin even.

We are not in a vacuum here. This daily report is filling in some of the blanks that are being neglected elsewhere.

I find this to be a good daily reminder of the true cost of the war in young lives.

We all have our opinions about Iraq, reporting the dead and wounded is not a
matter of opinion.

I applaud Ann for her diligence in keeping this tread going. I'll be here every day
reading her report.


It's not neglected to me. I am fully aware of the costs as are most of the war's supporters. But are you aware of the benefits? Of what has been gained? Of how the average soldier over there feels about the mission? About how ordinary Iraqi's feel about being freed from the yoke of a tyrant? Of what the costs of failure are? Of what the benefits of victory are? Or is it all filtered through those who have either given up altogether or who actually want the mission to fail?



You and I are so far apart on this I doubt we could ever convince each other of much.
I feel very strongly about this and I've read all the articles and listened to the news. I am well informed but I just don't see things your way. I won't accuse you of anything, like thinking in a vacuum. You have a right to your views. I suppose I am in "the left" you speak of. And right now I'm proud to be there.
Ruthie

[Edited on 3/4/2007 by ruthelane]

BTW I don't hate Bush more than the jihadists. I don't hate him at all, I just believe
he is wrong-headed and incompetent.

[Edited on 3/4/2007 by ruthelane]


I accept what you say. But many MANY people in this country hate Bush and hate him more than or consider him more dangerous than the jihadists. I am coming around to the opinion that he is incompetent for a variety of reasons but I don't think he is wrong-headed. Most of the people who want to lead us I am afraid would be both wrongheaded and highly incompetent. It's not a happy day. At this point my man is Guliani. But it's early.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/4/2007 at 03:42 PM
quote:
quote:
It's not neglected to me. I am fully aware of the costs as are most of the war's supporters. But are you aware of the benefits?


Theres benefits to all the dead people, missing money, corruption, Pakistani complicity etc.? You were led down a path by some very bad people. Its ok if you want to feel differently about all this now.

quote:
Of what has been gained?


Such as what?

quote:
Of how the average soldier over there feels about the mission?


You will find as many that are for the war as are against it, I wager.

quote:
About how ordinary Iraqi's feel about being freed from the yoke of a tyrant?


...to be occupied by a foreign army. To have less electricity and water than they did under Saddam...to worry like never before about sending their kids to school...the hundreds of attacks per day on the population... yeah, Im sure they are thrilled. Keep in mind that these people "freed from the yoke of a tyrant" are the same people that want us OUT of Iraq. All those people throwing roses at our feet never did quite materialize despite the best efforts of Cheney and others to say it would be so.

quote:
Of what the costs of failure are?


We have been watching the costs of failure for the past 4 years. Where have you been?

quote:
Of what the benefits of victory are?


Define victory. Tell us how you defeat a tactic. Tell us how you defeat a guerilla army with conventional forces. So far, our military and our glorious leader have been unable to do any of this.

quote:
Or is it all filtered through those who have either given up altogether or who actually want the mission to fail?


Nobody wants the "mission" to fail. It was failed from the start. Some of us were able to see that ahead of time. The "mission" was to get rid of the WMD that didnt exist. The mission got bastardized into something else in an effort to make the best of a bad situation, but people much smarter than your president were ignored in favor of saving face and staying the course. Now, we are laying in the bed we made.


I disagree with you on much of this as you know but I will mention only one thing which I think you are very wrong about. There are MANY people who want us to fail. I will give the mainstream Democrats the benefit of saying they don't think that failure will have a serious consequence so why not tag Bush with it? But others actualyl hate the U.S. and want us to fail to hurt us. That is clear on a daily basis.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/4/2007 at 03:45 PM
quote:
quote:
Let's be honest here. We can NEVER make this country secure enough to block the jihad from coming here.


Jihad. Its the new communism. The 50's had McCarthy, the 00's has Rush Limbaugh and his idiot followers. "Jihad" is no more a threat now than it was 20 years ago. Its been blown way, way out of proportion. If you really fear some idiots with a perverted view of Islam being any more dangerous than say, some idiots with a perverted view of Christianity, then I would suggest that you are a long way down the path to being brainwashed by those that have very little understanding of this entire issue. Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh and others are loons. Dont follow that line of thinking, please.


I don't listen to a single one of those people. I don't listen t o talk radio.

quote:
We must defeat or at least diminish the jihad.


Please tell everyone how we can defeat a ideology. I hate to tell you this, but Islam is not the problem...its the people who interpret it to be not what it was intended. It reminds me of people like Koresh and Jim Jones for instance.


I didn't say "Islam" I said "The Jihad" And you say its the new communism like communism was not a problem. You don't have to be a Mcarthyist to realize that Communism was indeed an evil ideology that had to be coutnered. There was a time when liberals believed that. The ADA was founded as a movement of liberal anti-communism. But that's gone now.

quote:
If I agree that it has not been done properly over the past six years you need to at least agree that we can't sit back and play goal while our enemies find ways to penetrate our blessedly free and open country.


They dont have to come here to affect us. They can hit our interests anywhere on the planet. As Ive said before, there doesnt have to be a concerted effort against us. One person could do a lot of damage...this is one of the reasons why I believe the so called threat to us is very overstated. If these people really wanted to hit us, you would be reading about bus bombings, mall bombings, day care center bombings etc. on a daily basis. This country would basically have to be on a lockdown / martial law status to stop anyone.


I don't think they are going to settle for hitting our interests abroad. I agree we can't stop every determined jihadist. That's why the ideology itself needs to be fought.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16576
(16858 all sites)
Registered: 12/24/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/4/2007 at 04:13 PM
quote:
“War is the remedy our enemies have chosen, and I say give them all they want.”

- William Tecumseh Sherman





"Bring it on."
- George W. Bush

I'll wager that's one Bush wishes he had never said.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16576
(16858 all sites)
Registered: 12/24/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/4/2007 at 04:24 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
We constantly hear about the cost of war in billions of dollars and
we have been told repeatedly of the "successes" by the Bush adminstration.

It seems the one thing not being reported adequately were the wounded
and the dead. It was rare to see a photo of a flag-draped coffin even.

We are not in a vacuum here. This daily report is filling in some of the blanks that are being neglected elsewhere.

I find this to be a good daily reminder of the true cost of the war in young lives.

We all have our opinions about Iraq, reporting the dead and wounded is not a
matter of opinion.

I applaud Ann for her diligence in keeping this tread going. I'll be here every day
reading her report.


It's not neglected to me. I am fully aware of the costs as are most of the war's supporters
.

You and I are so far apart on this I doubt we could ever convince each other of much.
I feel very strongly about this and I've read all the articles and listened to the news. I am well informed but I just don't see things your way. I won't accuse you of anything, like thinking in a vacuum. You have a right to your views. I suppose I am in "the left" you speak of. And right now I'm proud to be there.
Ruthie

[Edited on 3/4/2007 by ruthelane]

BTW I don't hate Bush more than the jihadists. I don't hate him at all, I just believe
he is wrong-headed and incompetent.

[Edited on 3/4/2007 by ruthelane]


I accept what you say. But many MANY people in this country hate Bush and hate him more than or consider him more dangerous than the jihadists. I am coming around to the opinion that he is incompetent for a variety of reasons but I don't think he is wrong-headed. Most of the people who want to lead us I am afraid would be both wrongheaded and highly incompetent. It's not a happy day. At this point my man is Guliani. But it's early.


I don't have a favorite but they would definitely be democrats. I think Guliani is more democrat than republican, but, he would be at the bottom of my list. I don't care for his gunslinger approach.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16576
(16858 all sites)
Registered: 12/24/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/4/2007 at 04:27 PM
quote:
quote:
It's not neglected to me. I am fully aware of the costs as are most of the war's supporters. But are you aware of the benefits?


Theres benefits to all the dead people, missing money, corruption, Pakistani complicity etc.? You were led down a path by some very bad people. Its ok if you want to feel differently about all this now.

quote:
Of what has been gained?


Such as what?

quote:
Of how the average soldier over there feels about the mission?


You will find as many that are for the war as are against it, I wager.

quote:
About how ordinary Iraqi's feel about being freed from the yoke of a tyrant?


...to be occupied by a foreign army. To have less electricity and water than they did under Saddam...to worry like never before about sending their kids to school...the hundreds of attacks per day on the population... yeah, Im sure they are thrilled. Keep in mind that these people "freed from the yoke of a tyrant" are the same people that want us OUT of Iraq. All those people throwing roses at our feet never did quite materialize despite the best efforts of Cheney and others to say it would be so.

quote:
Of what the costs of failure are?


We have been watching the costs of failure for the past 4 years. Where have you been?

quote:
Of what the benefits of victory are?


Define victory. Tell us how you defeat a tactic. Tell us how you defeat a guerilla army with conventional forces. So far, our military and our glorious leader have been unable to do any of this.

quote:
Or is it all filtered through those who have either given up altogether or who actually want the mission to fail?


Nobody wants the "mission" to fail. It was failed from the start. Some of us were able to see that ahead of time. The "mission" was to get rid of the WMD that didnt exist. The mission got bastardized into something else in an effort to make the best of a bad situation, but people much smarter than your president were ignored in favor of saving face and staying the course. Now, we are laying in the bed we made.


I agree with you 100% on this. Well spoken.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 27533
(27822 all sites)
Registered: 2/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/4/2007 at 06:32 PM
I find this current dialogue very interesting. With some people posting, you're either with Bush or you're a liberal, cowardly, America hating democrat. It's not that simple. There are those of us who believe this administration made the decision to attack Iraq with at best, faulty information. Once there were no WMDs discovered, then we were told we were spreading freedom and the country would be better off. Please allow me at this point to discredit the often used association with the Iraq war and this country's war for independence.

First, the people of this country wanted their freedom from English rule. They banded together, issued the Declaration of Independence and then fought it out. In Iraq, they never came together for a common cause and therefore do not have a vested interest in a unified outcome. Second, even with the people wanting independence it took from 1776 until about 1789 to fight the war and for all of the states to come to an agreement on the constitution.....and remember....they independently declared their desire for freedom....Iraq never did.

Are we prepared to spend thirteen years in Iraq making them want independence? How do we do that?

Those who say this is the mission our soldiers were sent in to fight for have forgotten the original mission. That one was declared as 'accomplished' 1,418 days ago....the rest of this war has been for reasons other than stated.

We can't check each container coming into America? Then how do we even think we can protect this country? You say it's impossible? Why? That's a statement that begs a clarification.

Sorry, people who support this madness can't claim only the democrats are against it...it's just the recycling of old talking points. Love the war if you wish, belive we can fight ideology if you so desire, but you can't accurately say everyone else is wrong. The end of this story hasn't been written yet. And unless you've served in uniform, I find it difficult to buy into the gung ho go get 'em rhetoric. You know...the 'bring it on' mentality.

One last thought.....the hatred I am sensing for those with other religious beliefs, those who would hold Christianity out as the model of common sense must have forgotten the Crusades. When Christians were going into foreign countries and killing those who refused to convert I have to believe those dying at their hands had to believe they were the radicals who must be stopped.

It's a matter of perspective. It would be nice if some people had some.

 

____________________
Sometimes we can't choose the music life gives us - but we damn sure can choose how we dance!


 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3636
(3636 all sites)
Registered: 5/1/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/4/2007 at 07:02 PM
quote:
We can't check each container coming into America? Then how do we even think we can protect this country? You say it's impossible? Why? That's a statement that begs a clarification.


Well, of course we could, but I suspect the cost would then make it prohibitive for all of us to get the cheap stuff we love so much from Hell Mart and Targay. And I think unfortunately the ultimate cost to this situation will be a very real change in how we live - and not for the better.

A greater problem is probably not whether we could check every container, it's whether the nuclear missile feels the need to stop at customs before detonating, or whether the terrorist that's already here exits the country and re-enters legally before performing his/her mischief.

Someone earlier made a great point (sorry I have to run, or I'd find it) that it's very interesting that many that make the argument that we should secure our borders first, are often the ones most resistant to the means to do so. And imagine their reaction if we started rounding up illegal aliens?!?!

bigann I apologize - I don't know you and I hope this doesn't feel like it's pointed only at you. I suspect that you started this thread not to initiate a debate, but to remind everyone of the very real human cost to this war - regardless of politics - and regardless of our politics, I think we all feel the same way that you do, it's tragic. We can argue the merits ad nauseum, but I think we all wish we didn't have leave another drop of blood in Iraq.

Greg

 

____________________
Walk down on the street and leave, my blues at home

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 27533
(27822 all sites)
Registered: 2/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/4/2007 at 07:18 PM
No apology needed, Greg. I'm glad to see this is an active forum. It's, as you recognize, a reminder that there is a very human consequence to this war on both sides, but it's also meant to be thought provoking...whatever the thought, whatever the side is taken.

I'm a liberal and I'm proud of it....but you're in error when you imply all of us who want our borders secured would object to rounding up illegal aliens. I want them rounded up and sent home. I don't want states stuck with the rising health costs of providing care for them nor do I want tax dollars spent on welfare programs for those who didn't enter legally. I understand our economy is dependant on illegal labor and it's a shame. In the long run, it would cost our economy less to pay a higher price for items direct rather than indirect for subsidies to the workers. But you can lay that problem at the door of business.

I believe in the right to human dignity, but I also believe in the law and its application. Here's another thing with which I take issue. Just because someone is born in this country, I don't think it should confer automatic citizenship. If you're not a legal resident of the United States, then your children born here should not be legal either. I stand by what I said previously. We need to secure our borders, return the illegals to their homes and keep up with those who have been given visas. If we don't pay attention to those we're allowing inside our country we're literally sleeping with the enemy.

Thank you all for the dialogue. As long as we're talking about it, in most cases we can find common ground.

 

____________________
Sometimes we can't choose the music life gives us - but we damn sure can choose how we dance!


 

Extreme Peach



Karma:
Posts: 1531
(1644 all sites)
Registered: 12/6/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/4/2007 at 08:22 PM
quote:
Do you think it's even worth mentioning the mission what it was intended to do, what has been accomplished or anything positive at all? Or is it best to just mention the deaths in a complete and total vacuum?
One of the most frustrating aspects of this whole debacle is that there was never a clear, coherent mission communicated. It has changed so many times, it is likely that most people couldn't even come close to stating all of the missions. This is truly a sad state of affairs for this great nation and you bet it is one of the most demoralizing points in our short history.

BTW, Ann, thanks for starting this thread. I have a nephew out there who could appear as one of those numbers at any time. Does any one know if the casualty counts being posted include deaths of those employed by private security corporations? One of the unique aspects of this war is the level of privatization. We are in a time where corporations have plenty of resources to field their own private armies. I heard or read recently that there is a firm that markets its services as a private "CIA" for corporations. The consequences of a world wide, public corporate race to militarize is quite frightening to me, although, I believe we are now experiencing its infant stages.

Peace.

Erik







[Edited on 3/5/2007 by CEEJ]

 

____________________
Walk True, Walk Tall, Walk Together

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 27533
(27822 all sites)
Registered: 2/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/4/2007 at 09:24 PM
Hi Erik. I truly pray for the safety of your nephew as well as all others on the line in Iraq. No, the count does not mention private security forces in Iraq. Last I read, the count of those dead was close to the number of military personell. I agree with you that it's rather frightening to think much of our military is being privatized. I may not live to rue the day, but future generations may well do so. Our government has truly run amok and it doesn't seem as if there is much of a viable fix in the near future.

 

____________________
Sometimes we can't choose the music life gives us - but we damn sure can choose how we dance!


 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/4/2007 at 10:08 PM
quote:
I find this current dialogue very interesting. With some people posting, you're either with Bush or you're a liberal, cowardly, America hating democrat. It's not that simple. There are those of us who believe this administration made the decision to attack Iraq with at best, faulty information. Once there were no WMDs discovered, then we were told we were spreading freedom and the country would be better off. Please allow me at this point to discredit the often used association with the Iraq war and this country's war for independence.

First, the people of this country wanted their freedom from English rule. They banded together, issued the Declaration of Independence and then fought it out. In Iraq, they never came together for a common cause and therefore do not have a vested interest in a unified outcome. Second, even with the people wanting independence it took from 1776 until about 1789 to fight the war and for all of the states to come to an agreement on the constitution.....and remember....they independently declared their desire for freedom....Iraq never did.

Are we prepared to spend thirteen years in Iraq making them want independence? How do we do that?

Those who say this is the mission our soldiers were sent in to fight for have forgotten the original mission. That one was declared as 'accomplished' 1,418 days ago....the rest of this war has been for reasons other than stated.

We can't check each container coming into America? Then how do we even think we can protect this country? You say it's impossible? Why? That's a statement that begs a clarification.

Sorry, people who support this madness can't claim only the democrats are against it...it's just the recycling of old talking points. Love the war if you wish, belive we can fight ideology if you so desire, but you can't accurately say everyone else is wrong. The end of this story hasn't been written yet. And unless you've served in uniform, I find it difficult to buy into the gung ho go get 'em rhetoric. You know...the 'bring it on' mentality.

One last thought.....the hatred I am sensing for those with other religious beliefs, those who would hold Christianity out as the model of common sense must have forgotten the Crusades. When Christians were going into foreign countries and killing those who refused to convert I have to believe those dying at their hands had to believe they were the radicals who must be stopped.

It's a matter of perspective. It would be nice if some people had some.


I think you are the one pigeonholing people. No one ever said you either love Bush or you are an America hating pinko. But you are calling those of us who support the war gung ho rah rah types when that is not the reality at all. I hate war and love peace. But I have a different view than you on what consitutes peace. And I really have a problem with totalitarian dictators who kill hundreds of thousands. I would not go to war with all of them but I think it is a positive good when they disappear. I am not going to get back into the reasons why it is vital for us to have success as we are way beyond convincing each other. But I think you should look at your statements and see the assumptions about me and other war supporters that you are making. For one thing I am not Christian and this has NOTHING to do with Christianity vs. Islam. It has to do with modern civilization vs. barbarism. And again for the millionth time, it is not Islam that we are fighting it is jihadism, a subset of Islam and a distorted evil one at that. It's like saying that fighting communism is like fighting all left of center political movements. It's just not true.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/4/2007 at 10:12 PM
quote:
No apology needed, Greg. I'm glad to see this is an active forum. It's, as you recognize, a reminder that there is a very human consequence to this war on both sides, but it's also meant to be thought provoking...whatever the thought, whatever the side is taken.

I'm a liberal and I'm proud of it....but you're in error when you imply all of us who want our borders secured would object to rounding up illegal aliens. I want them rounded up and sent home. I don't want states stuck with the rising health costs of providing care for them nor do I want tax dollars spent on welfare programs for those who didn't enter legally. I understand our economy is dependant on illegal labor and it's a shame. In the long run, it would cost our economy less to pay a higher price for items direct rather than indirect for subsidies to the workers. But you can lay that problem at the door of business.

I believe in the right to human dignity, but I also believe in the law and its application. Here's another thing with which I take issue. Just because someone is born in this country, I don't think it should confer automatic citizenship. If you're not a legal resident of the United States, then your children born here should not be legal either. I stand by what I said previously. We need to secure our borders, return the illegals to their homes and keep up with those who have been given visas. If we don't pay attention to those we're allowing inside our country we're literally sleeping with the enemy.

Thank you all for the dialogue. As long as we're talking about it, in most cases we can find common ground.


Well the rules on citizenship are very clearly stated in the constitution and it would require an ammendment to change them. I somehow don't see the left wing in this country (I will not use the word liberal because I don't think most "liberals" are very liberal) going along with it. Frankly, I think most Democrats in this country are opposing all the homeland security measures just because Bush supports them. I suspect that if Hillary Clinton were president and favored them, we would not hear the opposition. And you know what? That's somehow much much worse.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/4/2007 at 10:17 PM
I will admit something here. One of the primary reasons I supported the overthrow of Sadaam Hussein was that I hoped that the overthrow of a vile anti-American de-stablizing dictator in the heart of the middle east would send a serious message to Iran of our resolve and give them reason to make the strategic decision to back off their weapons and terrorism programs as Libya did. I always felt it would be difficult to impossible to do to Iran what was done to Iraq and hoped the invasion of Iraq would make military action against Iran unnecessary. I suspect that you will find this is a large component of the thought process behind many supporters of the invasion. We hoped the long term benefit of a decent society in the Middle East would help spread liberalism throughout the region as well. This may still happen in the long run but obviously the other thing has backfired as Iran has been emboldened by what they see as our timidity and lack of resolve. Given this, I would probably not have supported the invasion but I think Sadaam and his psychopathic sons would have been a long term danger. But now that we are there we must salvage the situation and I firmly believe that it can be salvaged if we give the new strategy a chance.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 27533
(27822 all sites)
Registered: 2/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/4/2007 at 11:11 PM
I think you are the one pigeonholing people. No one ever said you either love Bush or you are an America hating pinko. But you are calling those of us who support the war gung ho rah rah types when that is not the reality at all.

Contrary to your belief, I was not referring to you directly. If you choose to read yourself into my comments, then it says much for what you're thought proccess is.


I somehow don't see the left wing in this country (I will not use the word liberal because I don't think most "liberals" are very liberal) going along with it. Frankly, I think most Democrats in this country are opposing all the homeland security measures just because Bush supports them. I suspect that if Hillary Clinton were president and favored them, we would not hear the opposition.

And yet, you respond with a pigeonholing statement about Democrats. I find that interesting. I make the assumption from your comments, that it's pigeonholing only if it doesn't fit into your thought process. But I could be wrong.


We hoped the long term benefit of a decent society in the Middle East would help spread liberalism throughout the region as well. This may still happen in the long run but obviously the other thing has backfired as Iran has been emboldened by what they see as our timidity and lack of resolve

I've always found it rather presumptious of the American governments to believe they could create peace in the Middle East. These cultures have been at war for thousands of years....I see little chance we can change the ingrained beliefs and hatereds of generations of peoples.

I speak with a number of people with differing views on various issues....I try to make blanket statements concerning the comments I've received rather than personalizing them. I stand by my statements concerning Bush....I've found the people supporting the war to be very militant in their defense of this administration's policies and rather dismissive of those who don't. If my remarks seem to hit home, my point has been made. If they ring hollow, then I'm not referring to the reader.

 

____________________
Sometimes we can't choose the music life gives us - but we damn sure can choose how we dance!


 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 27533
(27822 all sites)
Registered: 2/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/4/2007 at 11:14 PM
I supported the overthrow of Sadaam Hussein was that I hoped that the overthrow of a vile anti-American de-stablizing dictator in the heart of the middle east

ps....and who helped create that monster?

 

____________________
Sometimes we can't choose the music life gives us - but we damn sure can choose how we dance!


 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 19442
(19456 all sites)
Registered: 6/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/5/2007 at 01:50 AM
quote:
First, the people of this country wanted their freedom from English rule. They banded together, issued the Declaration of Independence and then fought it out. In Iraq, they never came together for a common cause and therefore do not have a vested interest in a unified outcome. Second, even with the people wanting independence it took from 1776 until about 1789 to fight the war and for all of the states to come to an agreement on the constitution.....and remember....they independently declared their desire for freedom....Iraq never did.



Number one, during the American Revolution, the country was divided into three seperate sections, about one third wanted the revolution, about one third was loyal to England as the Tories, and the other third waited to see who won. The idea that it was one big common cause is dead wrong. Unity was not there, even after we won, which is why it took so long to come up with a Constitution. Plus, in light of the 42nd anniversary of the Selma March, and the four young girls killed in the church bombings, there was a lot of this country, some parts more than others, who were far from a 'common cause' in my lifetime.

Secondly, the idea that the majority of folks in Iraq were for Saddam is equally misguided. The Sunni's, from which Saddam's tribe sprang, were always a minority. The Shi'ites and Kurds combined easily outnumbered the dictators minions and was the biggest part of the Iraqi population. Saddam ruled by intimidation, murder, torture, and secret police. To suggest that the majority of Iraqi's didn't want Saddam out because there wasn't some kind of 'Declaration' doesn't fly, because that would have had led to all involved instantly killed. Saddam was right there, over their heads, as opposed to King George's troops which had an ocean to cross.

quote:
Ann, thanks for starting this thread. I have a nephew out there who could appear as one of those numbers at any time. Does any one know if the casualty counts being posted include deaths of those employed by private security corporations? One of the unique aspects of this war is the level of privatization. We are in a time where corporations have plenty of resources to field their own private armies. I heard or read recently that there is a firm that markets its services as a private "CIA" for corporations. The consequences of a world wide, public corporate race to militarize is quite frightening to me, although, I believe we are now experiencing its infant stages.



Number one, my first cousin, a veteran of both Gulf Wars, is over there now as well, only in a 'consulting' mode this time around. As far as the notion of being alarmed at private militaries, they are as old as the hills.

quote:
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2007-02-08-most-dangerous-places- forbes_x.htm

By Elisabeth Eaves
It's no wonder the world seems to be getting more dangerous. After all, we're bombarded every day by news of violence, natural disaster and the rising death toll in Iraq.
Sounds like a good reason to stay home, or at least take your vacations in Canada. But business travelers often have no choice. Where corporations go, so do their employees, sometimes even at risk to life and limb.

Fortunately, companies have a place to turn for know-how on bringing employees back alive. Risk consultancies such as Annapolis, Md.-based iJet Intelligent Risk Systems and London-based Control Risks specialize in advising corporations on staying safe in the world's most dangerous places. Security contractors such as Triple Canopy, Blackwater USA and DynCorp International can provide physical protection just about anywhere in the world.

In Pictures: The world's most dangerous destinations

Based on the banner year risk consultants had in 2006, it would seem that the world really is getting less safe. As privately held companies, several of those we talked to wouldn't disclose profits. But iJet—which has advised companies including Archer Daniels Midland and Prudential Financial—announced last week that revenues for 2006 had increased by more than 50% over 2005. Triple Canopy, meanwhile, opened new offices in Lagos, Abu Dhabi and Manila, and Control Risks added four new offices, including one in Hong Kong and another in Erbil, the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan. DynCorp, whose clients include the U.S. government, went public last May.

How we play a role

Perhaps, though, it's not more danger that's helping these businesses thrive, but the fact that we put ourselves in harm's way more often.

"I wouldn't say it's a more dangerous world," says James Smither, global issues manager for Control Risks. "I'd say the risks are changing. Civilians and business travelers are more in the firing line."

For one thing, we go to more places we didn't used to, thanks to globalization, easier and cheaper travel and, according to Smither, some very specific market forces.

For instance, prices for platinum, copper, aluminum and other metals are high because they serve as raw materials in industrial manufacturing, which is growing tremendously in India and China.

"So mining companies are looking at countries that previously would have been written off as too risky, because of the high price of metals," Smither says.

That means these companies' employees are heading for places such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, a country with extravagant natural wealth but also a long history of brutal government, where urban crime is high and some areas are dominated by local militias. Both Control Risk and iJet give Congo their highest risk rating, and the U.S. State Department warns citizens against traveling there.

Other countries on our most-dangerous list include Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Côte d'Ivoire, Pakistan and Burundi. Most are in the grip of conflict to one degree or another. For instance, a civil war that began in 1993 is ongoing in Burundi, with rebel factions engaging in intense fighting with government forces. In Somalia, the federal government recently retook much of the country from the Union of Islamic Courts, but remains weak and dependent on the backing of the Ethiopian army. And in Côte d'Ivoire, a 2002 uprising nominally ended in 2003, but the north of the country remains under the control of armed rebels.

In many of these places, conflict has tended to exacerbate lawlessness—in Iraq, for instance, criminal gangs operate alongside ideologically motivated insurgents. Other countries make our list mainly because of crime. Neither Liberia nor Haiti is technically at war, but rampant criminality can make parts of these countries feel like war zones.

New to our list this year: Sri Lanka, Chad and Lebanon. Lush tropical beauty made Sri Lanka a popular holiday destination, but a ceasefire between the government and the separatist Tamil Tigers broke down last year. While foreigners are not directly targeted, the risk of becoming collateral damage is rising in the north and northeast. Chad has seen ethnic conflicts spillover from the neighboring Darfur region of Sudan and is also experiencing tension between its own government and rebel groups. And while hostilities between Lebanon and Israel ended last August, political tensions within Lebanon have been on the rise.

Because oil and other natural resource companies have to go where the riches are, they make up a big percentage of the clientele for risk consulting and security companies, but other sectors are in growing need of their services too. As mobile telephone use expands in the poorest and most conflict-prone areas of the world, telecom companies are increasingly doing business there, Smither says.

Triple Canopy's main customer is the U.S. government, but it's also focusing on gaining commercial customers, especially in the oil, mining and shipping industries, says CEO Lee Van Arsdale. It opened its new Nigeria office based on a simple business equation: Lots of Western workers plus massive political instability add up to demand. About 120 foreign oil workers were kidnapped in Nigeria in 2006, and violence by armed groups is on the rise. Though Nigeria doesn't make our most dangerous places list (there's a lot of competition), Control Risks' Smither also cites it as a hot spot in danger of worsening this year.

New terrorist targets

One big change taking place internationally, according to Smither, is that terrorists are increasingly focusing on so-called "soft" targets—unprotected tourists, commuters and other civilians. In the past, embassies, government buildings and airlines were among the most common terrorist targets, but they've all stepped up security in recent years. In response, terrorists seeking maximum damage on a limited budget increasingly seek to hit civilians.

"The soft target is a favorite of armed terrorists who, unlike al-Qaeda, have limited means," says Smither.

Another danger on the rise is kidnapping.

"It's really grown as a cottage industry," says Triple Canopy's Van Arsdale. "It used to be just Colombia, but now it could happen on any continent, and not just for political purposes but for profit."

Watch yourself

What to do if you have to work in a danger zone? Risk consultancies offer their clients extensive pre-trip advice and help track and protect employees in-country.

Van Arsdale suggests you familiarize yourself with the most current information on where you're going—because sometimes out-of-date facts can be more dangerous than none at all. (Last year's rebel leader could be this year's president.)

He also recommends varying your daily route so that potential attackers can't predict when you'll be in particular place, dispensing with obvious signs of wealth and if possible traveling in a group. Control Risks provides a list of general advice that includes suggestions such as memorizing important local phrases and avoiding alcohol intake, which, no surprise, tends to make people more vulnerable to attack.

Travelers to potential danger zones should also always check the State Department's website for the latest travel warnings before departure. The State Department currently has standing warnings on 31 countries, including Iraq and Afghanistan, but also places that make Western headlines much less, like the Philippines.

To determine which places were the most dangerous, we asked Control Risks and iJet to provide us with their watch lists of high-risk countries. IJet evaluates countries across six categories, including crime and civil unrest, and assigns each country a rating of one to five, with five being the most severe. Control Risks assesses countries for overall security risks, specific terrorism risks and travel risks and rates each of these categories on a five-point scale. "Extreme" and "high" are the first- and second-most dangerous ratings.

We came up with 13 countries that get the highest rating from either Control Risks, iJet or both. The State Department has also issued warnings against travel to all of these places. If you plan to visit any of them, we hope you are equipped with the latest body armor and have an excellent life insurance policy—and that you get plenty of danger pay.


 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16174
(16174 all sites)
Registered: 10/6/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/5/2007 at 09:34 AM
quote:
I don't listen to a single one of those people. I don't listen t o talk radio.


Its the same line of thinking.

quote:
I didn't say "Islam" I said "The Jihad" And you say its the new communism like communism was not a problem.


Last I checked, "Jihad" was associated only with Islam. The Red Scare was our propaganda machine running at full throttle. Anti-Islamic rhetoric is the new Red Scare. Communism is still an ideology that has never been defeated, just as Democracy cannot be defeated and just as militant Islam cannot be defeated.

quote:
The ADA was founded as a movement of liberal anti-communism. But that's gone now.


What? Not quite.

http://www.adaction.org/about.htm

Civil rights, not anti-communism

quote:
I don't think they are going to settle for hitting our interests abroad. I agree we can't stop every determined jihadist. That's why the ideology itself needs to be fought.


How are you going to defeat an ideology? Be as specific as you can.

 

____________________
Missing- 245 spines. If found, please send one to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and the rest to the Capitol building care of the Democratic Party.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 20943
(20942 all sites)
Registered: 6/15/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/5/2007 at 09:55 AM
quote:
quote:
I don't listen to a single one of those people. I don't listen t o talk radio.


Its the same line of thinking.

I don't have a "line of thinking" I think indepndently. I know it is difficult for you to believe that an independent thinker could reach such a conclusion.

quote:
I didn't say "Islam" I said "The Jihad" And you say its the new communism like communism was not a problem.


Last I checked, "Jihad" was associated only with Islam.

Yes. It is related to Islam. But it is you, not us, who are saying that we are attacking Islam. We are attacking a radical distortion of Islam that is a menace to the world.

The Red Scare was our propaganda machine running at full throttle. Anti-Islamic rhetoric is the new Red Scare. Communism is still an ideology that has never been defeated, just as Democracy cannot be defeated and just as militant Islam cannot be defeated.


Never been defeated? I think not. You show me the country where the rhetoric of Marx is still seriously followed. The ideology has been defeated and largely defeated within the countries that followed it. That does not mean Democracy is flourishing in those countries.

quote:
The ADA was founded as a movement of liberal anti-communism. But that's gone now.


What? Not quite.

http://www.adaction.org/about.htm

Civil rights, not anti-communism

The ADA separated itself from fellow travelers of the far left who had a soft spot for the Stalin and the Soviet Union. I did not mean the ADA was an anti-communist organization. I meant it was an organization for liberal anti-communists to pursue liberal causes without seeking to undermine the American free-enterprise system for the benefit of Moscow. You can talk all you want about the "red scare" but if you don't think that the Soviet Union and communism was an advesary of ours, well then I understand why you don't see the threat from the Islamic fascists.

quote:
I don't think they are going to settle for hitting our interests abroad. I agree we can't stop every determined jihadist. That's why the ideology itself needs to be fought.


How are you going to defeat an ideology? Be as specific as you can.


I don't know how to defeat it but I do no that like all bullying ideologies such as Naziism and Soviet style Marxism, the ideology scorns weakness and respects or at least fears strength. The best way to fight it is to never give in and accomodate it, to support its opponents and work against its adherents and to give the people an alternative. This is how we defeated Communism. Sometimes you have to be prepared to use violence and sometimes merely being prepared lets you avoid actually having to use it. These things are axiomatic. You should read the essays of George Orwell.

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16174
(16174 all sites)
Registered: 10/6/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/5/2007 at 10:00 AM
quote:
No one ever said you either love Bush or you are an America hating pinko.


Have you been living in the same America Ive been in for the past 6 years? Either you are with us or against us ring a bell? Dixie Chicks? Examples of this type of thinking are so numerous that I cant list them all here. All it took for Cindy Sheehan to become a 4 letter word was for her to speak out about Bush, for example.

quote:
But you are calling those of us who support the war gung ho rah rah types when that is not the reality at all.


But in many cases, it is and has been. Its one of the principle reasons we are where we are right now.

quote:
I hate war and love peace. But I have a different view than you on what consitutes peace. And I really have a problem with totalitarian dictators who kill hundreds of thousands.


Then you should be really pissed off that we support them when its convenient to us. I hate the hypocrisy of our foreign policy. You should be asking why we are such good friends with such oppressive regimes as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Sudan.

I should say that I fully support military action when its warranted and I completely support our mission in Afghanistan. Iraq, not so much. I want our guys out before another single soldier is killed or maimed.

quote:
I would not go to war with all of them but I think it is a positive good when they disappear.


If you wouldnt go to war with all of them, then by what measure are you saying one is worse than another?

quote:
I am not going to get back into the reasons why it is vital for us to have success as we are way beyond convincing each other.


Again, how are we measuring success? At what point have we "won"?.

quote:
But I think you should look at your statements and see the assumptions about me and other war supporters that you are making. For one thing I am not Christian and this has NOTHING to do with Christianity vs. Islam.


For many, it does. Especially many of our leaders and their supporters.

quote:
It has to do with modern civilization vs. barbarism.


Ah, I see. From my perspective, both sides have their barbarians. Our torture isnt as bad as Saddams torture, for instance.

quote:
And again for the millionth time, it is not Islam that we are fighting it is jihadism, a subset of Islam and a distorted evil one at that.


Well, the larger problem you are going to face is the fact that militant Islam is still, at its core, Islamic, and ultimately the radical and militant ideologies which cannot be defeated with bombs or bullets. Islamic nations are not differentiating between militant/radical Islam and regular Islam when a foreign army is poised to occupy them. Do the research and you will see that mainstream Islam feels very threatened and feel they are being singled out. When cornered, most people will defend themselves.

quote:
It's like saying that fighting communism is like fighting all left of center political movements. It's just not true.


No, its not true, but that doesnt mean that people dont believe that. I know of one person here, for instance, that believes liberals and communists are all linked together even though there is a wide variance of beliefs even among liberals.

 

____________________
Missing- 245 spines. If found, please send one to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and the rest to the Capitol building care of the Democratic Party.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16174
(16174 all sites)
Registered: 10/6/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/5/2007 at 10:24 AM
quote:
I don't have a "line of thinking" I think indepndently. I know it is difficult for you to believe that an independent thinker could reach such a conclusion.


With all due respect, it seems like you have been "scared" into believing that the sky is falling with regards to the threat of Islam.

quote:
Yes. It is related to Islam. But it is you, not us, who are saying that we are attacking Islam. We are attacking a radical distortion of Islam that is a menace to the world.


You are attacking Islam whether you believe that or not. Its not how Im seeing it, its how mainstream Islamic followers are seeing it and they are the ones that we should be working with.

quote:
Never been defeated? I think not. You show me the country where the rhetoric of Marx is still seriously followed.


Marxism, as I understand it, is the basis of communism itself. That said, any country thats still communist is still following Marx. Its a pretty broad topic to limit just to Marxism considering all the other forms of communism out there.

quote:
The ideology has been defeated and largely defeated within the countries that followed it. That does not mean Democracy is flourishing in those countries.


Ideas are never defeated. Its why declaring war on militant Islam is so pointless.

quote:
You can talk all you want about the "red scare" but if you don't think that the Soviet Union and communism was an advesary of ours, well then I understand why you don't see the threat from the Islamic fascists.


Russia was certainly a threat...hyper industrialized nation, possibly the largest standing army in the world at the time, millions of troops, nuclear missles, etc. Militant Islam has always been around but they have none of that. Are we to believe that its only become a threat to us since 9/11? I dont see the threat the same way many people that have been talked into it see it. I know that if they wanted to, they could detonate a device every day in America, but for some reason, its not happening. I dont buy the threat especially because of who is doing the warning. I have 0 trust in the Bush administration since they have a long record of lying and deceit. Scaring everyone is a great way to push other measures (P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act for instance) through without proper evaluation and debate. Whittling away of our rights if you will.

quote:
I don't know how to defeat it but I do no that like all bullying ideologies such as Naziism and Soviet style Marxism, the ideology scorns weakness and respects or at least fears strength.


Some would say that what we are doing in Iraq is "bullying". Who are we to say which form of government is the best? It seems like in the past 30 years, we invade or have issues with nations that really have no real way of defending themselves against us. North Korea has nukes and we give them a pass. Iraq had nothing and we invaded them. Strange.

quote:
The best way to fight it is to never give in and accomodate it, to support its opponents and work against its adherents and to give the people an alternative.


But again, who are we to march in and do that to another country? Arent we doing wrong by spreading Democracy through war?

quote:
This is how we defeated Communism.


Again, I wouldnt say we defeated anything in that regard. Cuba is still around. Dozens of other nations, not the least of which is China, still practice communism. North Korea... etc.

 

____________________
Missing- 245 spines. If found, please send one to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and the rest to the Capitol building care of the Democratic Party.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 27533
(27822 all sites)
Registered: 2/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/5/2007 at 11:21 AM
March deaths - 9
February deaths - 84
January deaths - 86
Total dead - 3,173

February '07 - 50
January '07 - 631
Total wounded - 33, 814

March Iraqi civilian deaths - 137
February Iraqi civilian deaths - 1,531
January Iraqi civilian deaths -1,802
Total Iraqi civilian deaths in past 14 months - 22,037

Mission Accomplished day 1,419


 

____________________
Sometimes we can't choose the music life gives us - but we damn sure can choose how we dance!


 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 19442
(19456 all sites)
Registered: 6/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/5/2007 at 01:23 PM

quote:
Have you been living in the same America Ive been in for the past 6 years? Either you are with us or against us ring a bell? Dixie Chicks? Examples of this type of thinking are so numerous that I cant list them all here. All it took for Cindy Sheehan to become a 4 letter word was for her to speak out about Bush,
]

Interesting. Is that why you have thrown Cindy under the bus in recent months??


quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
I hate war and love peace. But I have a different view than you on what consitutes peace. And I really have a problem with totalitarian dictators who kill hundreds of thousands.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----



Then you should be really pissed off that we support them when its convenient to us.


Situational ethics. Here is a question that you have STILL yet to answer specifially. Would you have teamed up with the murdering communist dictator Stalin during WWII to defeat Hitler?? Yes or no??


quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
It has to do with modern civilization vs. barbarism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----



Ah, I see. From my perspective, both sides have their barbarians. Our torture isnt as bad as Saddams torture, for instance.


We have American soldiers in jail right now for what they did. When did that happen in and under your buddy Saddam's regime?? You honestly can't tell the difference?? Pathetic.

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
And again for the millionth time, it is not Islam that we are fighting it is jihadism, a subset of Islam and a distorted evil one at that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----



Well, the larger problem you are going to face is the fact that militant Islam is still, at its core, Islamic, and ultimately the radical and militant ideologies which cannot be defeated with bombs or bullets. Islamic nations are not differentiating between militant/radical Islam and regular Islam when a foreign army is poised to occupy them.


Wrong again. In fact, in an article that probably bothers you because there is agood news in it, I pointed out the other day on this thread that even Sunni's were turning against Al Qeada making your argument, as usual, clueless. Below,

quote:
Al Qaeda's outrages swing Sunnis to U.S.
By Pamela Hess
UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL
February 17, 2007


RAMADI, Iraq -- Sunni tribes in troubled Anbar province have begun working closely with U.S. and government forces, contributing nearly 2,400 men to the police department and 1,600 to a newly organized tribal security force, authorities say.
U.S. troops are training and equipping the new tribal forces, which are called Emergency Response Units (ERUs), and are charged with defending the areas where they live, according to the local U.S. commander.
By a U.S. count, 12 of the Ramadi area's 21 tribes are cooperating in the security effort, six are considered neutral, and three are actively hostile. That is almost the reverse of the tribal posture last June, when three were cooperative and 12 were hostile.
For nearly four years, the tribes around Ramadi survived by playing both sides, working with U.S. forces when it suited them, while at the same time helping or tolerating Sunni insurgent groups and al Qaeda in Iraq -- the terrorist organization once led by Jordanian Abu Musab Zarqawi.
That changed in August, according to U.S. Army Col. Sean MacFarland, commander of the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division, which has been responsible for security operations in Ramadi since June.
Al Qaeda in Iraq -- which has also turned its intimidation tactics on the tribal leaders -- kidnapped and killed Sheik Khalid of the Albu Ali Jassim tribe and left his body where it could not be found, preventing the family from burying him within 24 hours as prescribed by Muslim tradition.
"Al Qaeda overplayed its hand," Col. MacFarland said at his headquarters, a dusty base on the west side of Ramadi.
At a meeting that month, several sheiks drew up an 11-point declaration vowing to fight al Qaeda, within the rule of law, and declaring solidarity with coalition and government security forces. It is a movement referred to by the tribes as "the Awakening."



Duh.............

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
It's like saying that fighting communism is like fighting all left of center political movements. It's just not true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----



No, its not true, but that doesnt mean that people dont believe that. I know of one person here, for instance, that believes liberals and communists are all linked together even though there is a wide variance of beliefs even among liberals.


They're on the same path. It's just a matter of degree.

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
I don't have a "line of thinking" I think indepndently. I know it is difficult for you to believe that an independent thinker could reach such a conclusion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----



With all due respect, it seems like you have been "scared" into believing that the sky is falling with regards to the threat of Islam.



Nope, just folks that are intelligent enough to know that Islamo-Fascism is a world-wide movement.

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
Yes. It is related to Islam. But it is you, not us, who are saying that we are attacking Islam. We are attacking a radical distortion of Islam that is a menace to the world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----



You are attacking Islam whether you believe that or not. Its not how Im seeing it,


Of course you don't. That would require international and religious knowledge as well as the ability to decipher nuance.

quote:
Marxism, as I understand it, is the basis of communism itself. That said, any country thats still communist is still following Marx. Its a pretty broad topic to limit just to Marxism considering all the other forms of communism out there.



This ought to be good- explain the different kinds of communism out there??

And then, explain your buddy Chavez's fascination with Marx while you're at it.

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
The ideology has been defeated and largely defeated within the countries that followed it. That does not mean Democracy is flourishing in those countries.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----



Ideas are never defeated. Its why declaring war on militant Islam is so pointless.




There are still followers of nazism in the world, but they damn sure don't control any countries or armies. I guess that you, and God forbid that the modern day liberal movement would have existed during World War Two or the Revolutionary War, would not have declared war on nazism because it is pointless??

quote:
Russia was certainly a threat...hyper industrialized nation, possibly the largest standing army in the world at the time, millions of troops, nuclear missles, etc. Militant Islam has always been around but they have none of that.


The minute that they get nukes they do.

quote:
we to believe that its only become a threat to us since 9/11? I dont see the threat the same way many people that have been talked into it see it. I know that if they wanted to, they could detonate a device every day in America, but for some reason, its not happening.


....therefore there is no threat from "terrorism?"


Squatch, Bigann said the following on here,

"We need to secure our borders, return the illegals to their homes and keep up with those who have been given visas. If we don't pay attention to those we're allowing inside our country we're literally sleeping with the enemy."

Is she foolish for thinking that way????

quote:
But again, who are we to march in and do that to another country? Arent we doing wrong by spreading Democracy through war?



Japan.

quote:
Again, I wouldnt say we defeated anything in that regard. Cuba is still around. Dozens of other nations, not the least of which is China, still practice communism. North Korea... etc.


So, your highly nuanced mind sees no difference in the amount of communism compared to pre-1989??



DH

 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16174
(16174 all sites)
Registered: 10/6/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/5/2007 at 03:48 PM
quote:
Interesting. Is that why you have thrown Cindy under the bus in recent months??


There you go again with your dishonest portrayals. I pointed out that Sheehan became a hated figure due to her comments about Bush and this war. Do you deny that or think Im wrong? If so, please elaborate. Beyond that, I havent thrown anyone "under the bus" as I was never her supporter to begin with aside from the fact that I agree with her in that this war was a mistake. If Hitler liked ice cream and I like ice cream does that mean I like Hitler? Moron.

quote:
Situational ethics. Here is a question that you have STILL yet to answer specifially. Would you have teamed up with the murdering communist dictator Stalin during WWII to defeat Hitler?? Yes or no??


The situations are quite different between then and now. Did we know then what we know now? I doubt it. Its always easy to make the right decision after the facts are known. The fact that you keep trying with this stupid comparison is evidence that you know youre wrong in pursuing "situational ethics" (your preaching about ethics is hysterical. You wouldnt know whats ethically correct if it walked up and introduced itself). Its either right or wrong all of the time, not sometimes when it suits us. Like Ive said before; Saddam didnt just wake up one day in '91 and decide to be a shait. He was a shiat for decades prior to that and we helped him murder thousands because it was good for us. He was a horrible, sadistic dictator but he was our horrible, sadistic dictator and as long as he was doing what we approved of, we looked the other way and helped him when we could. Just like we do today with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and others.

quote:
We have American soldiers in jail right now for what they did.


By my count its two people.. come on Derek. Not even you can believe that there was only two people responsible for the wrongdoing thats going on over there under our occupation. The hidden camps..the troop ships that were left off of declaration lists for the Red Cross...it goes on and on and its still happening today. We have approved the torture and encourage it to this day.

quote:
When did that happen in and under your buddy Saddam's regime?? You honestly can't tell the difference?? Pathetic.


Whats pathetic is that you approve of torture when its us doing it while bellyaching about Saddam doing it. Youre a typical RW lowlife hypocrite. I expect torture from people like Saddam. I dont expect torture from our troops nor do I expect the explicit endorsement of said behavior from our government.

quote:
Wrong again. In fact, in an article that probably bothers you because there is agood news in it, I pointed out the other day on this thread that even Sunni's were turning against Al Qeada making your argument, as usual, clueless. Below,


LOL.. you dont even know the difference between factions and ideology. Derek, please, shut the fark up until you can get a grasp on things you dont know anything about. The core philosophies are the same. Ideology doesnt change.

<snip irrelevant article attempting to derail the discussion as usual>

quote:
They're on the same path. It's just a matter of degree.


So then the same could be said for everyone on the Right being fascists. Hey, they are all on the same path, its just a matter of degrees. Goose/Gander and all that.

quote:
Nope, just folks that are intelligent enough to know that Islamo-Fascism is a world-wide movement.


Hooey. Its no more of a movement than any other bastardized take on a religion. If you were as smart as you think you are, you would recognize that.

quote:
This ought to be good- explain the different kinds of communism out there??


Nice try, but F.O. I indicated in my post that I was quite unsure as to the varying differences in the different forms of communism. Feel free to educate the masses with your superior intelligence, Derek.

quote:
And then, explain your buddy Chavez's fascination with Marx while you're at it.


Chavez, as far as I know, is a Socialist, not a communist. Apparently youre too stupid to understand the nuances there.


quote:
There are still followers of nazism in the world, but they damn sure don't control any countries or armies.


Oh hell, now we have to discuss scale? We were having a perfectly good discussion until you showed up, Derek. Anyway, yes, theres followers of nazism in the world (a few thousand maybe). Compared to the number of militant Islamists (a few million maybe), I would suggest that the number is a tiny fraction, so what is your point? Any more nits you want to pick?

quote:
I guess that you, and God forbid that the modern day liberal movement would have existed during World War Two or the Revolutionary War, would not have declared war on nazism because it is pointless??


No, and again, you miss the point entirely.

Nazis- invaded countries, murdered millions, had a standing army, professional military etc. etc. etc.

Militant Islamists - not so much.

quote:
The minute that they get nukes they do.


How would they get a nuke? Surely our good friends in Pakistan are keeping tabs on everything while they help us look for Bin Laden (remember him?)

quote:
....therefore there is no threat from "terrorism?"


I didnt say that. I believe the threat is vastly overstated and hyped by our government to keep us scared so they can do things they otherwise wouldnt be able to do, such as the PATRIOT act. We have covered this ground many times before.


quote:
Squatch, Bigann said the following on here,

"We need to secure our borders, return the illegals to their homes and keep up with those who have been given visas. If we don't pay attention to those we're allowing inside our country we're literally sleeping with the enemy."

Is she foolish for thinking that way????


Absolutely not. I agree with her 100% on that. Note though that none of that involves invading other countries and occupying them for years based on bs.

quote:
Japan.


Our goal wasnt to spread Democracy to Japan through war. Our goal was to defeat them in a time of war. Nice try, though.

quote:
So, your highly nuanced mind sees no difference in the amount of communism compared to pre-1989??


You still dont know what ideology is? As long as their are two people alive on this world, there will be two sets of ideas. You cannot kill an idea. You cannot bomb an idea and you cannot shoot an idea. All you can do is educate and assist. People and nations will have to make their own decisions and in 5 years, your map may look better or worse depending on global politics. The big change, of course, is the collapse of the USSR. This was not a defeat of ideology, but a breaking of the bank. You know this. Surely communism is alive and well or you and others like you wouldnt be so bent on trying to defeat it.

 

____________________
Missing- 245 spines. If found, please send one to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and the rest to the Capitol building care of the Democratic Party.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 27533
(27822 all sites)
Registered: 2/18/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 3/5/2007 at 04:10 PM
Yeah, what Squatch just said.

 

____________________
Sometimes we can't choose the music life gives us - but we damn sure can choose how we dance!


 
<<  2    3    4    5    6    7    8  >>  


Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software


Privacy | Terms of Service
The ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND name, The ALLMAN BROTHERS name, likenesses, logos, mushroom design and peach truck are all registered trademarks of THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. whose rights are specifically reserved. Any artwork, visual, or audio representations used on this web site CONTAINING ANY REGISTERED TRADEMARKS are under license from The ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. A REVOCABLE, GRATIS LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ALL REGISTERED PEACH CORP MEMBERS FOR The DOWNLOADING OF ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION OF THE TRADEMARKS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROHIBITED AND ARE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO.,INC.
site by Hittin' the Web Group with www.experiencewasabi3d.com