TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Progress in Iraq
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX Its fairly simple. The people in Iraq that are murdering our troops and Iraqi civilians are terrorists. They are not the majority of the Iraqi people. They are not an army. They are not fighting a war. They cannot defeat the coalition forces in any kind of conventional battle. Their tactics are limited to roadside bombs to take out a few troops here and there or terrorist attacks against Iraqi civiilans. Their goal: get US forces out of Iraq so they can have free reign over the country and kill and murder whoever they want.

So far I agree.

quote:

But how do you do that when all you are is a bunch of half-assed terrorists? There is no way you are ever going to defeat the US Army by killing a few soldiers here and there. But they do have an ace in the hole, the most powerful weapon ever used against the US Army. What is that weapon? The left wing liberal media in the US. The fucking terrorists in Iraq are trying to rip a page right out of Ho Chi Minh's book, where the only way to beat the US Army is to use the liberal media back at home to erode public support for a war and force a pull out.

****record scratch***

Okay, get over yourself with the "librul" media snipe. I think it's high time we have a separate thread about the so-called "librul" media and have it out once and for all. In this particular instance, it's nothing shy of silliness to claim the "librul" media supposedly aiding and assisting the insurgents when all they are doing is reporting events on the ground.

What is it with you Bush supporters and having reality being shown to the rest of the world? Is reality pointing out that this whole war has gone to hell in a handbasket that difficult for you to handle and be revealed? I'm terribly sorry that you have a desparate need to quell all the bad icky stuff that's truly occurring in Iraq to the rest of the world, but I think it's more than fair for the rest of the world to see how this Administration's policies have given us this debacle we're stuck in today.

So stop blaming the Dems. Stop blaming the eeeevil "librul" media (uhh, like Judy Miller, right?). Stop blaming everyone else out there who's turned on all the neocon foreign policies that have taken us to failure time and again up to this point, and START blaming the person and Administration who continually pushes these policies forward WITHOUT listening to anyone else with half a rational thought. This is going beyond the point of pathetic when you Bush supporters have nothing left but to fingerpoint at everyone else for your political and foreign policy failures.

AND START BLAMING THE PERSON AND ADMINISTRATION BEHIND THESE POLICIES IN THE FIRST PLACE FOR ONCE.

quote:

I'm not saying I agree with the reasons we went to Iraq, but the bottom line is we are there now and we need to allow the military to finish the job or we are going to have to end up going back there again in the future.

So I will ask you just as I have asked each and every other Bush supporter here:

quote:

Given the fact that hardly any predictions made by this Administration and its supporters have come to fruition about this war in Iraq, why the fuck do you think you have an ounce of credibility to make any predictions about the situation in the future? Given your support to the group that's been wrong on almost all accounts with this war, what on earth should compel anyone to start believing your predictions now? And lastly, again I wonder, do you think it's okay for Bush to call for a timetable of withdrawal against Clinton back in 1999?

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover Who says I have debated MisterOpus? As I mentioned, Ill debate MisterOpus when he shows more intelligence in the topics he wants to debate. But at no instance I have tried to DEBATE him. All I have done is stated my opinions/analysis. As I mentioned in other posts engaging in a debate with the kind of this "neocon" mentality he carries is going backwards instead of going forward.

Ahh, I see. So I'm just not up to your level of "intelligence" to where you feel like debating me, and as a result you're only here to give your unsupported opinions/analysis?

Uhh, do you not see how that appears to be a bit inconsistent?

If I'm not on your level of intelligence, then surely you could easily shoot my arguments and supported points down with evidence of your own, can't you? Surely it couldn't be that difficult? Because as much as I enjoy your unsupported and unresearched opinion on matters, I would think a person as highly intelligent as you would have no problem disproving any points I have made with some very logically consistent and supported arguments. Hell, as your buddy Limbaugh loves to say, you could probably do it with half your brain tied behind your back.

But I'll tell you what. Me having such a difficult time matching your superior brain power, let me hear your unsupported opinion on the following question posed to you:

quote:

Given the fact that hardly any predictions made by this Administration and its supporters have come to fruition about this war in Iraq, why the fuck do you think you have an ounce of credibility to make any predictions about the situation in the future? Given your support to the group that's been wrong on almost all accounts with this war, what on earth should compel anyone to start believing your predictions now? And lastly, again I wonder, do you think it's okay for Bush to call for a timetable of withdrawal against Clinton back in 1999?

I know a person as highly intelligent as you could easily answer that question with your astute analytical viewpoint. Perhaps one day you could then educate us all by having some support behind your argument....when you deem us all worthy, of course.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 What is it with you Bush supporters and having reality being shown to the rest of the world? Is reality pointing out that this whole war has gone to hell in a handbasket that difficult for you to handle and be revealed? I'm terribly sorry that you have a desparate need to quell all the bad icky stuff that's truly occurring in Iraq to the rest of the world, but I think it's more than fair for the rest of the world to see how this Administration's policies have given us this debacle we're stuck in today. So stop blaming the Dems. Stop blaming the eeeevil "librul" media (uhh, like Judy Miller, right?). Stop blaming everyone else out there who's turned on all the neocon foreign policies that have taken us to failure time and again up to this point, and START blaming the person and Administration who continually pushes these policies forward WITHOUT listening to anyone else with half a rational thought. This is going beyond the point of pathetic when you Bush supporters have nothing left but to fingerpoint at everyone else for your political and foreign policy failures.

See thats the problem. The media is the ones creating the preception that the situation over there has gone to hell in a handbasket. Fuck, its a country full of people who hate each other and have scores to settle from back before Saddam took power. Its a country with more than its fair share of terrorists who have ready access to weapons (thanks Iran!). Its a miracle things are goin as well as they are. I'm not saying Bush is doing everything right, but we don't need the media making us think Iraq is a lost cause and we should pull out right now.

We have been in Iraq for four years. We have less than 4,000 US military dead and maybe 600,000 Iraqi casulties.

World War Two lasted a little over 5 years. We had over 400,000 US military dead and 72,000,000 military and civilian dead worldwide. By comparison the Iraq situation is hardly the complete disaster that the media is making it out to be.

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX See thats the problem. The media is the ones creating the preception that the situation over there has gone to hell in a handbasket. Fuck, its a country full of people who hate each other and have scores to settle from back before Saddam took power. Its a country with more than its fair share of terrorists who have ready access to weapons (thanks Iran!). Its a miracle things are goin as well as they are. I'm not saying Bush is doing everything right, but we don't need the media making us think Iraq is a lost cause and we should pull out right now. We have been in Iraq for four years. We have less than 4,000 US military dead and maybe 600,000 Iraqi casulties. World War Two lasted a little over 5 years. We had over 400,000 US military dead and 72,000,000 military and civilian dead worldwide. By comparison the Iraq situation is hardly the complete disaster that the media is making it out to be.

That 600,000 figure has been debunked a few times...

Carry on

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r That 600,000 figure has been debunked a few times... Carry on

Yeah, I was beating the liberals to the punch by using their "best (worst) case" estimate of the casualties over there

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX Yeah, I was beating the liberals to the punch by using their "best (worst) case" estimate of the casualties over there

well, some of us moderates out there don't think that the "it's not as bad as WWII" argument is worth a shit

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX See thats the problem. The media is the ones creating the preception that the situation over there has gone to hell in a handbasket. Fuck, its a country full of people who hate each other and have scores to settle from back before Saddam took power. Its a country with more than its fair share of terrorists who have ready access to weapons (thanks Iran!). Its a miracle things are goin as well as they are. I'm not saying Bush is doing everything right, but we don't need the media making us think Iraq is a lost cause and we should pull out right now. We have been in Iraq for four years. We have less than 4,000 US military dead and maybe 600,000 Iraqi casulties. World War Two lasted a little over 5 years. We had over 400,000 US military dead and 72,000,000 military and civilian dead worldwide. By comparison the Iraq situation is hardly the complete disaster that the media is making it out to be.

The problem with comparing this war to any other war is pretty difficult. I understand the perspective of a relative comparison of the dead and injured, but what on earth does that really bring us? Of course we had millions more killed in WWII - we had a genocidal maniac with free reign to attack anyone he damn well pleased and who almost wiped out an entire race of people. We had a WORLD WAR involving most of the countries worldwide going apeshit on each other for years on end. We had a country attack our primary naval base in the Pacific that thrusted us into war. We had the entire country of America involved with a draft, a workforce for food, equipment, ammunition, and other supplies helping our cause in the war.

None of these things by a remote shot could be related to what we have with Iraq. A hapless dictator who no doubt was certainly a genocidal nut was fully contained and had absolutely nothing to do with attacking us on 9/11. We have NO draft while our forces are being stretched further and further (now they're being deployed for 15 months, 3 months longer than previously promised by our military), little to no public citizen involvement like there was in WWII. The comparisons between our involvement then and now are a complete apples to oranges, and that includes our troop death numbers and wounded.

But it is a curious topic to bring up, because on the flip side it begs the question - what would get your attention to the situation going bad? Do you really need hundreds of thousands of our troops being dead, more than a million Iraqi citizens in order to get your attention then? Is it really that unreasonable for you to examine the situation NOW and what is occurring at present to make a reasonable assessment of the situation?

Forget the appeal to authority on what others say for a moment, just look at the situation for what it is:

1. I do not think anyone can disagree with the fact that our troops are caught in the middle of a civil war, fighting for one side who's installing a Shiite fundamentalist regime who's bestest buddy is none other than Iraq, who sends out death squads to kill the opposition.
2. On the one hand, we've funded money to the Saudis who've directly diverted that money to the Sunni insurgency.

3. On the other hand, we've helped install a Shiite government and continue to fight for them.

4. We've abandoned the idea of the priority of training the Iraqi troops, which was our primary goal all along so they can fight for themselves (and not us doing all the fighting for them).

5. Bush has fired/retired generals on the ground whom disagreed with his "surge" strategy, a strategy concocted by AEI's Fred Kagan back in August, DESPITE his rhetoric of supposedly listening to his generals on the ground, and replaced them with people who will agree with him.

6. We've abandoned, actually we've never addressed the priority of diplomacy with Iraq's neighbors despite the obvious necessity of getting more than just our own asses involved in this mess.

7. We never had a viable post-war plan to begin with, and Rummy deliberately went into battle without even bothering to create a plan of any sort.

8. Bush has never once defined his rhetoric of "victory" or "success", and we have absolutely no way to measure what on earth that means or how to obtain it. There has been no set measurable benchmarks to help define this claim.

9. We have the audacity to treat our troops with a lack of body and vehicle armour for years, as well as try to screw with the funding for combat veterans once they return.

10. And, oh how we got there in the first place - diverting our attention away from bin Laden who was on the run in Tora Bora so we could attack a hapless dictator that had nothing to do with 9/11, but we were all sold on being there because he supposedly had WMD stockpiles and operational ties to al Qaeda.

Compare these points to WWII. Compare them to the cause and rationale for WWII. I'm sorry but there's absolutely no comparison at all. There never was a reasonable comparison. Not to say that things went splendidly in WWII. I'm fully aware of the history involving the post-war difficulties, and I'm sure Occ who's a WWII historian in his own right could discuss that even further. But taken as a whole, and defining our position there in Iraq as a whole as well as the rationale for why we're there and why we remain, it just does not add up anymore. The neocon dream of democratization with force just simply does not work in Iraq. They don't want what the neocons want. They never did. Continuing further with such a cause and situation will do nothing but continue in a stalemate while our men and women get picked off, one by one. The majority Americans want us out. The world wants us out. The Iraqis by broad majority (71% last I checked) want us out. Now a majority in the Iraqi government want a timetable for us to get out as well.

Given this situation, given our current policy and the idiots that have created it, what on earth do you realistically hope to attain with our presence in Iraq?

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Wait, he doesn't seem to be a great debater or anything, but has he been abusive?

yeah, but he makes NO effort to contribute whatsoever. i don't think abuse should be the only category for expulsion (otherwise me, shaolin and laz might be in trouble )

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN yeah, but he makes NO effort to contribute whatsoever. i don't think abuse should be the only category for expulsion (otherwise me, shaolin and laz might be in trouble )

Hey keep my name out your mouth my lil buddy from the land down under or I will ask Shaolin to do some of his Kung Fu Hustle on you.

Is this more of that darn librul media reporting such "biased" events on the ground when in reality all things are really much rosier?:

quote:

BAGHDAD - Mortar rounds hammered the U.S.-controlled Green Zone for a second day Wednesday, killing at least two people, wounding about 10 more and raising new fears for the safety of workers at the nerve center of the American mission in Iraq

In case you were wondering, the Green Zone is the rosiest area in Iraq, and it's been attacked with "experienced" mortar attack 2 days in a row:

quote:

Both the intensity and skill of the attack were noteworthy. The shells, believed to be 122mm, exploded in rapid succession over about a three-minute period. The blasts were relatively close to one another, suggesting an experienced mortar crew using more than one launcher.

And now diplomats have to wear flak jackets:

quote:

Nevertheless, the recent increase in attacks has raised alarm among American staffers living and working in what had been considered an oasis of safety in the turbulent Iraqi capital. This month, the U.S. Embassy ordered diplomats to wear flak jackets and helmets while outdoors or in unprotected buildings.

And don't think this will stop anytime soon, especially in lieu of this:

quote:

Later this year, the United States plans to open a massive new embassy inside the Green Zone despite the ongoing security threat. Embassy staffers have expressed concern that the new facility lacks enough space to house the estimated 1,000 employees in safety.

The article puts other recent events into perspective:

quote:

Those concerns have risen because of a number of high-profile security breaches in the American-controlled zone, located on the west bank of the Tigris River, which flows through the center of the city. In March, a rocket exploded near al-Maliki's office during a press conference for visiting U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who ducked behind the podium as the blast showered small bits of debris from the ceiling. Two Americans � a soldier and a contractor � died in that barrage. A few days later, two suicide vests were found unexploded in the Green Zone, presumably smuggled in by someone with a security pass to enter the fortified area. On April 12, a suicide bomber managed to penetrate the numerous security checkpoints, detonating an explosive belt in the cafeteria of the Iraqi parliament building. One Iraqi lawmaker was killed.

Everyone remember that cafeteria event? Let's also keep in mind one of our primary concerns:

quote:

The latest attack on the Green Zone occurred as about 4,000 U.S. troops and 2,000 Iraqis continued to search for three U.S. soldiers feared captured by al-Qaida during an ambush last weekend in which four Americans and an Iraqi were killed. Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, commander of U.S. troops south of Baghdad, said the U.S. was offering rewards of up to $200,000 for information on the missing soldiers' whereabouts. "We've done so much as to drain canals after a report that the bodies were in a canal," Lynch told The Associated Press. "So we're leaving no stone unturned." Lynch said he was optimistic that the three soldiers would be found alive, and the search remained focused on the area where they went missing. An al-Qaida front group, the Islamic State of Iraq, has said it captured the soldiers and warned the Americans in a Web statement on Monday to call off the hunt "if you want their safety." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070516...NOh0PCKnbiMwfIE

Hmmm, such a slant of events, ain't it? Well you needn't worry, it was only a day after Cheney's unexpected visit that the Iraqis have barred the press from explosion sites, as well as on the very same day the military shut down MySpace and YouTube for their servicemembers, often times a viable means of communication for them to their family, loved ones, and outside world:

quote:

Troops and families living on U.S. bases will still be able to view the sites through private Internet networks, but the move leaves servicemembers in Iraq and Afghanistan who use the popular picture- and video-sharing sites with little or no access to them. http://www.estripes.com/article.asp...21&archive=true

But of course as the article explains, our military is very concerned about the bandwidth space, which is why they shut it down .

Oh yeah, here's some more terrific evidence of this Administration supporting our troops:

quote:

White House: 3.5 percent pay hike unnecessary By Rick Maze - Staff writer Posted : Wednesday May 16, 2007 17:34:13 EDT Troops don�t need bigger pay raises, White House budget officials said Wednesday in a statement of administration policy laying out objections to the House version of the 2008 defense authorization bill. The Bush administration had asked for a 3 percent military raise for Jan. 1, 2008, enough to match last year�s average pay increase in the private sector. The House Armed Services Committee recommends a 3.5 percent pay increase for 2008, and increases in 2009 through 2012 that also are 0.5 percentage point greater than private-sector pay raises. The slightly bigger military raises are intended to reduce the gap between military and civilian pay that stands at about 3.9 percent today. Under the bill, HR 1585, the pay gap would be reduced to 1.4 percent after the Jan. 1, 2012, pay increase. Bush budget officials said the administration �strongly opposes� both the 3.5 percent raise for 2008 and the follow-on increases, calling extra pay increases �unnecessary.� �When combined with the overall military benefit package, the president�s proposal provides a good quality of life for service members and their families,� the policy statement says. �While we agree military pay must be kept competitive, the 3 percent raise, equal to the increase in the Employment Cost Index, will do that.� The House of Representatives plans on passing the bill tomorrow. The Senate Armed Services Committee has announced it will start writing its version of the bill next week. http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/...tehouse_070516/

Yes, our troops do not need that 0.5% rate increase from what the White House proposes, not at all.

But you needn't worry, troops. Paris Hilton will still show her love for you when she cashes in her wonderful tax break.......

quote:

Originally posted by XaNaX We have been in Iraq for four years. We have less than 4,000 US military dead and maybe 600,000 Iraqi casulties. World War Two lasted a little over 5 years. We had over 400,000 US military dead and 72,000,000 military and civilian dead worldwide. By comparison the Iraq situation is hardly the complete disaster that the media is making it out to be.

Look I'm sorry, but this comparison, to me, is one of the most retarded comparisons that I consistently keep hearing. I can only conclude that you fail to understand what was really at stake and why that level of sacrifice was necessary. Seriously, I would love for you to intelligently explain to all of us how we can justifiably expend 400,000 lives on this war on terror

Alright, team, pay no attention to those goalposts being moved:

quote:

Baghdad � Three months into the job, General David Petraeus says it is difficult to predict how well the surge of troops in Baghdad will succeed before the full number of troops arrive and that he would not have a definitive answer about prospects for stability by September, when he is to report back to Congress. �I think generally is is still early days. We are literally still just setting the footprint if you will to do what we intend to achieve but until we get all those forces in and have really worked with them for a while I think it�s difficult to see what�s going to happen,� he told me in an interview Tuesday evening. http://www.iraqslogger.com/index.ph...ce_by_September)

Compare that to back in late April:

quote:

�During Secretary Gates' recent visit to Iraq,� Petraeus said, according to a transcript of the April 26 presser, �we agreed that in early September, Ambassador Ryan Crocker and I would provide an assessment of the situation in Iraq with respect to our mission and offer recommendations on the way ahead. We will be forthright in that assessment, as I believe I have been with you today.� http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecr...r_Congress.html

So for anyone, including Republicans, trying to set an assessment date in September on Fred Kagan's "SURGE!!!" idea:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/07/AR2007050701689.html


well, forget it. Of course we pretty much knew what most war supporters were going to say come September anyway - let's wait a bit longer, say, until Bush is out of office until we make any actual assessment (so we can blame a different President for this fiasco).

What a fucking mess.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Alright, team, pay no attention to those goalposts being moved: Compare that to back in late April: So for anyone, including Republicans, trying to set an assessment date in September on Fred Kagan's "SURGE!!!" idea: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...7050701689.html well, forget it. Of course we pretty much knew what most war supporters were going to say come September anyway - let's wait a bit longer, say, until Bush is out of office until we make any actual assessment (so we can blame a different President for this fiasco). What a fucking mess.

Wow, you ARE an idiot.





[/lunacy]
Kidding.....I wanted to see what it felt like to be your biggest fan from the land of fruits.

I feel dirty now.


MrS

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.