|
What now for the Chickenhawks and Warmongers (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| NYCTrancefan |
| quote: | Originally posted by speedracer_mec
Yes because Germany France and Russia will jump in joy when Bush is gone and will say ,'' YAY! lets send our soldiers to go die instead of the U.S. because Kerry knows what to do...."
Fact of the matter is Kerry reveiled he will pull out troops as soon as next march and completely in 4 yrs? So Kerry wants to basically change the skin color of the soldiers dieing in IRAQ?
Its much easier said than done ... |
Please read my statement correctly, I asserted that "He brings the concept of getting more nations involved in Iraq so that we are not left footing the bill for this process". I never asserted that troops would be sent into Iraq by any nation capable of doing so if John Kerry is elected. You completely misinterpreted my statement, there are other ways that nations can be involved and I see no reason why France or Germany would send troops to Iraq after being ridiculed by the Secretary of Defense and being called every name under the sun. I certainly wouldn't send troops if I was the leader of any of those nations. |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
| We'll find out in due time |
|
|
| smokeape |
Don't forget folks that it would only take a couple of American divisions with air support to take out their Army and overrun the country. LIke there aren't any forces already next door in Iraq. Problem is maintaining control afterwards like Iraq, but we could quickly withdraw after having destroyed all their nuclear capablity. Hell, air power could do that alone, but you want the ground forces to confirm it...
;)
[[[smoke]]] |
|
|
| Shakka |
Good editorial.
Probably requires a subscription
| quote: | A War Referendum
September 22, 2004; Page A28
If nothing else, John Kerry's apparent decision to close out the 2004 Presidential campaign as the "antiwar" candidate would seem to be true to himself and to the party he now leads.
The Democratic nominee entered public life, after all, questioning both America's policy and its purposes in Vietnam. He's now staking his bid for the White House as a critic of the boldest and most divisive American foreign policy initiative since. In the process, Mr. Kerry just might offer us all a clarifying debate over the proper scope and scale of the war on terror, and his Democratic base a badly needed sense that its misgivings about Iraq in particular have gotten a fair hearing.
At least that's what we're hoping. Although we'll make no secret of the fact that we disagree with much of what Mr. Kerry had to say is his speech at New York University on Monday, the Senator finally did offer an internally coherent alternative to the Bush foreign policy of the past four years.
"We must have a great honest national debate on Iraq. The President claims it is the centerpiece of his war on terror. In fact, Iraq was a profound diversion," Mr. Kerry said, in what was a fairly accurate summary of the strategic differences between the two men. Whereas Mr. Bush has argued for tackling not just terrorists but their state sponsors -- as well as for a broad "forward strategy of freedom" against terrorism's root causes in the Middle Eastern despotism and poverty -- Mr. Kerry wants to limit the fight to "the battle against our greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden and the terrorists."
In Iraq, Mr. Kerry said without equivocation that "we have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure." The Democrat painted a sad picture of life in that country without Saddam Hussein, and suggested he could do a more competent job than President Bush handling the "mess" that America now finds itself in. In other words, he now agrees with Howard Dean that the war he voted to authorize was a mistake.
As for what to do now, Mr. Kerry continues to insist that he will do a better job attracting international support for our efforts. That, he says, will help us train Iraqi security forces more quickly, which will help create the right conditions for elections, which will in turn allow American forces to start withdrawing next summer: "The principles that should guide American policy in Iraq now and in the future are clear: We must make Iraq the world's responsibility..."
When it comes to the war on terror's grand strategy, readers probably won't be surprised to learn we prefer the Bush version. Limiting the definition of the enemy to bin Laden and his associates makes little sense in an age when terrorists cavort with rogue states and multiply like blades of grass in the despotic soil of the Middle East. Without an Iraq-type plan for changing the region, the U.S. would seem condemned to a century of playing terrorist whack-a-mole. If Mr. Kerry has an alternative root-causes strategy, he has yet to articulate it.
When it comes to Iraq specifically, Mr. Kerry's picture of the country is unrealistically bleak and many of his proposals are already in motion. Iraqi security forces are being trained, after all, and Mr. Bush and Prime Minister Allawi remain committed to the January elections. As for getting other countries to share more of the burden, good luck. Sometimes we think we might enjoy a Kerry victory just for the spectacle of watching a Secretary of State Biden or Holbrooke try to convince the Europeans to accept responsibility for their own security, never mind Iraq's.
The line about making Iraq "the world's responsibility" was perhaps the most revealing in Mr. Kerry's speech. Whereas John F. Kennedy's Democrats pledged to "pay any price, bear any burden" in the promotion and defense of liberty, today's Vietnam-scarred party sees little or no special role for American providence in the world. And the world knows it. Such statements risk encouraging our Baathist and jihadist enemies in their belief that we lack staying power. Likewise, they signal to our potential Iraqi allies that it would be wise to avoid choosing sides until November.
Let us be clear: We're not questioning Mr. Kerry's patriotism or his right to make an issue of Iraq. But let's not kid ourselves either that the words of Presidential candidates don't have consequences.
Which brings us to the gamble inherent in Mr. Kerry's decision to mount an antiwar campaign: He risks being seen as hoping for an October of unprecedented violence in Iraq. Despite all the challenges to date, current polls show clear if not overwhelming American support for the war. While it may be possible to run an antiwar campaign without appearing to root for the enemy, the record of others who've tried would not seem encouraging. Mr. Kerry would be on stronger ground if his criticism of Mr. Bush's war management included a vow to win the war, rather than a promise to leave Iraq at the earliest possible moment.
As we've noted before, one of the striking trends in recent years has been the complete role reversal of our two major parties in their philosophy of foreign policy, with Republicans pushing idealism and Democrats deriding it as "neocon" folly. This campaign is shaping up to be no exception.
Mr. Kerry is offering a minimalist conception of the war on terror, focused on al Qaeda and a rapid exit from Iraq. Mr. Bush spoke to the United Nations yesterday again pushing his democracy-for-the-Middle-East line. No one will be able to say voters weren't offered a clear foreign policy choice come November. |
|
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
The fundamental flaw in that text is that it assumes that the war in Iraq was some act of benevolence on the part of the current American leadership and moreover that we can tell others what to do in their own nations at the barrel of a gun, good luck with that I say.
For those who cannot seem to grasp the concept as yet, Iraq is a Muslim nation and America's image in the Muslim world is devoid of any sense of trust among the people there, if someone came to my house and told me how to live, what I should and shouldn't do when I don't even trust their motives I would certainly slap him stupid. The Bush administration has had ample time in Iraq since "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" to bring some sense of security to Iraq. When you cannot walk down the street of the capital of a nation without worrying about being kidnapped, blown up, murdered on a daily basis it should tell us something. I am waiting for Americans to wake up to the realities of Iraq, read more media please. MSNBC, CNN and FAUX News doesn't cut it.
We can talk about freedoms and democracies all we want but be prepared for years of conflict in Iraq and that will cost many more American lives. Forgive me if I don't think that one American life should be shed for Iraqi freedom, while Iraqi security forces run and hide.
A War that began because of WMDs became a War for Freedom and Democracy and subsequently a War on Terror. Go figure. Ironically the biggest butcher of a terrorist is in Iraq cutting off heads for months and yet he is no closer to being caught than the day he entered Iraq. |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
Ahh nothing like a USA bashing thread on american imperialism.
People forget that Iraq and the US were both once colonies of the UK.
And to think the UK is no longer viable. What a joke to even think that it isn't.
Same store, same merchandise. Different management. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by NYCTrancefan
For those who cannot seem to grasp the concept as yet, Iraq is a Muslim nation and America's image in the Muslim world is devoid of any sense of trust among the people there, if someone came to my house and told me how to live, what I should and shouldn't do when I don't even trust their motives I would certainly slap him stupid. |
I know plenty of muslims hate the U.S., but then again, they always have--that's why they chose to blow up buildings with airplanes, silly. How many more muslims hate America now that didn't hate America 10 years ago? 20 years ago? We've never been their dinner guest of choice. Then again, that's assuming that the muslims are one collective mind and that none of them has their own opinion. But granted, they want the U.S. to leave, and nobody can blame them. Dubya has acknowledged this many times. Nobody wants our troops to be there any longer than necessary, but they must finish the job, and finish it correctly. I've seen a lot of muslims in the streets who are extremely grateful to the U.S. Remember, the status-quo isn't news.
| quote: | | ...bring some sense of security to Iraq. When you cannot walk down the street of the capital of a nation without worrying about being kidnapped, blown up, murdered on a daily basis it should tell us something. |
I agree. That's not a good environment to live in. I don't live in Rio de Janiero for similar reason, or anywhere in Africa for that matter--I lion might "kidnap" me and have me for dinner. |
|
|
| smokeape |
You don't like the US? Then bring it. Bring it in Iraq instead of here at home. You terrorists might be alot safer with your Muslim buddies over there where you can hide than here in the homeland where us Rednecks would take care of business in a heartbeat.
Lol!!!!
[[[smoke]]] |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by NYCTrancefan
The fundamental flaw in that text is that it assumes that the war in Iraq was some act of benevolence on the part of the current American leadership and moreover that we can tell others what to do in their own nations at the barrel of a gun, good luck with that I say. |
it was and is an act of benevolence on many levels. deeper levels than what you believe. the barrel of a gun can bring as much peace as it can war when dealing with a man like Saddam. and can only bring harm to the men that threaten peace.
| quote: | | For those who cannot seem to grasp the concept as yet, Iraq is a Muslim nation and America's image in the Muslim world is devoid of any sense of trust among the people there, if someone came to my house and told me how to live, what I should and shouldn't do when I don't even trust their motives I would certainly slap him stupid. The Bush administration has had ample time in Iraq since "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" to bring some sense of security to Iraq. When you cannot walk down the street of the capital of a nation without worrying about being kidnapped, blown up, murdered on a daily basis it should tell us something. I am waiting for Americans to wake up to the realities of Iraq, read more media please. MSNBC, CNN and FAUX News doesn't cut it. |
there has to be some sense of trust among the majority in Iraq. its obvious. it can't be denied. i can't understand why you can't grasp that?
if i lived with Jeffery Dahmer (bad reference cause i'm not a homo)and the police broke in and arrested his dumb ass and said my long lost aunt was gonna move in with me from then on, i'd be fairly grateful. but we both no it's not that simple, is it?
| quote: | | We can talk about freedoms and democracies all we want but be prepared for years of conflict in Iraq and that will cost many more American lives. Forgive me if I don't think that one American life should be shed for Iraqi freedom, while Iraqi security forces run and hide. |
we can talk about defeatism, pacivism, and pessimism all day too but the reality is that there are more than just American soldiers dieing needlessly over there. there are construction workers, humanitarian workers, policemen, nurses, firefighters anybody who has a legitamate reason to stand that country up is at risk of dieing at the hands of masked cowardly murderers straight out of the stone age. cowards and barbarians by most Muslim standards much less the West's. |
|
|
| smokeape |
Uh, Ditto...
LOL!!!
[[[smoke]]] |
|
|
| BadBadNeil |
| quote: | Originally posted by NYCTrancefan
The fundamental flaw in that text is that it assumes that the war in Iraq was some act of benevolence on the part of the current American leadership and moreover that we can tell others what to do in their own nations at the barrel of a gun, good luck with that I say.
For those who cannot seem to grasp the concept as yet, Iraq is a Muslim nation and America's image in the Muslim world is devoid of any sense of trust among the people there, if someone came to my house and told me how to live, what I should and shouldn't do when I don't even trust their motives I would certainly slap him stupid. The Bush administration has had ample time in Iraq since "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" to bring some sense of security to Iraq. When you cannot walk down the street of the capital of a nation without worrying about being kidnapped, blown up, murdered on a daily basis it should tell us something. I am waiting for Americans to wake up to the realities of Iraq, read more media please. MSNBC, CNN and FAUX News doesn't cut it.
A War that began because of WMDs became a War for Freedom and Democracy and subsequently a War on Terror. Go figure. Ironically the biggest butcher of a terrorist is in Iraq cutting off heads for months and yet he is no closer to being caught than the day he entered Iraq. |
Are you prepared for the beheadings to be shown on tv to show Americans the "realities of war". I watched it the other day and I have seen some pretty nasty things in my day and that way by far the most vile thing I've ever seen. In fact I was gagging here in my room and had to turn it off. Does the public need to see that?
I always point this out but saying people are naive for watching MSNBC or CNN just doesn't cut it and makes it look as though you have a holier than though attitude because you watch the BBC or whatever you do in your spare time when in reality how much more informed are you really. They may not show all the horrors of Iraq (we do have other news in this country to cover) but they do show civlians getting hit. In fact I think the news doesn't tend to avoid the bad parts of war like you seem to be saying but is avoiding the good parts of this war such as interviwing kurds in the north or average people in the cities.
I really don't know what you want our media to do, I'd like to hear some concrete examples? Do you think we need a 24/7 iraq channel? I read people always saying American media is evil, biased, not showed all sides, but I never see a single example from anyone. |
|
|
| smokeape |
So you're saying we should behead our Iraqi prisoners to be equalling appalling and disgusting? I don't think so. The beheaders are desperate men seeking attention in a losing cause. It should be apparent in their extreme measures for attention and media play. Here's a great example: Turn over Al-Zarquawi tomorrow or we chop off the head of Saddam Hussein!!! BWAHHHAAAHAAAA!!!!
The Americans are winning and that is the understatement. Car bombings and random civilian killings and destruction of infastructure is about all the remnants of Saddam's henchmen have left in them. Every confrontation with troops is met with massacre - their own.
;)
[[[smoke]]] |
|
|
|
|
