| Author |
Topic:
The New Iraq, Five Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
|
McLaren
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
4/8 5:14pm
Subject:
RE: The New Iraq, Five Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
|
More on casualty counting:
John Edwards letter to NY Times, April 8, 2008
-----signature-----
Comprehending your fallibility is the first step in realizing your humanity.
You want to play in here? Bring a thick skin and a sharp knife.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
VadersLaMent
Registered:
Apr '02
|
Date Posted:
4/8 5:30pm
Subject:
RE: The New Iraq, Five Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
|
|
This has been on HBO, I have only caught bits and pieces
-----signature-----
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic--Arthur C. Clarke
Any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from God--Michael Shermer
I am officially Awesome.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Gonk
Registered:
Jul '98
|
Date Posted:
4/9 3:26am
Subject:
RE: The New Iraq, Five Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
- Date Edited:
4/9 3:26am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Gonk
|
You know what's telling at the end of the day?
George Bush is willing to launch a war supposedly for the disenfranchised people of Iraq, promorte Democracy in the region, etc, a move that he knew would kill many people in the process to what he thinks is the greater goal.
Yet he won't so much as decline to go to the opening Olympic cermonies for the disenfranchised people of Tibet, a move that wouldn't kill anyone.
-----signature-----
What shall we do to fill the empty spaces
Where waves of hunger gnaw?
Shall we set out upon this sea of faces
In search of more and more and more?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
J-Rod
Registered:
Jul '04
|
Date Posted:
4/9 5:57am
Subject:
RE: The New Iraq, Five Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
- Date Edited:
4/9 5:57am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
J-Rod
|
I'll tell you what's telling at the end of the day...
The Dem candidates still want to pull out of a war that is being won. Why? Because (agree or disagree) Reagan twenty years later is remembered as the man who defeated communism. They can't stand the possiblility that Bush may be remember 20 years from now as the man who planted the seeds of democracy in the Middle East.
You can argue all you want about whether or not democracy can take hold in that reagion. But what could it mean to the Dems...if...it...does...
-----signature-----
God bless George Bush John McCain 2008 Darth_wanderguard :"Maybe you're not quite as crazy as people say you are" 
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Gonk
Registered:
Jul '98
|
Date Posted:
4/9 6:39am
Subject:
RE: The New Iraq, Five Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
- Date Edited:
4/9 6:44am (2 edits total)
Edited By:
Gonk
|
First of all there's no evidence the war is being "won" becuase nobody agrees what "winning" means. At best you can say you're not losing it as quickly as before.
Not to mention, you could have come here and said the EXACT SAME THING before the surge even began. The Administration was sure as heck saying it over and over again: "the war is being won..." etc. We've heard that for years: at every given point in the conflict, someone is ALWAYS saying it no matter what happens. If an American nuke went off accidentally in Iraq and most of the country was destroyed you'd probably STILL have people going aroudn saying "the war is being won."
And secondly -- more importantly -- I have to congratulate you on dodging the point entirely:
Bush will launch a war to kill thousands for the sake of the IRaqi people, but won't stop himself from attending the Olympic opening ceremonies for the people of Tibet.
And you counter by saying: "The Democrats want to pull out of a war that is being won."
That's like me saying I don't approve of Bush's stance on how the Russians deal with Chechnya (let's just suppose I didn't for the sake of argument), and you saying "but the Democrats have said nothing about Russian flyovers in Britain and the Pacific".
Uh-huh. True or not, it has NOTHING to do with the point in question.
EDIT: On second thought... my example is bad because those two subjects are even MORE related to one another than what I posted and what you countered with. So I'm going easy on you.
-----signature-----
What shall we do to fill the empty spaces
Where waves of hunger gnaw?
Shall we set out upon this sea of faces
In search of more and more and more?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
J-Rod
Registered:
Jul '04
|
Date Posted:
4/9 6:42am
Subject:
RE: The New Iraq, Five Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
|
I'm sorry. I intentionally ignored the point as invalid. Seeing as how more Iraqis were dying due to sanctions than the war that put an end to those sanctions.
I kinda thought you were kidding.
-----signature-----
God bless George Bush John McCain 2008 Darth_wanderguard :"Maybe you're not quite as crazy as people say you are"
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Gonk
Registered:
Jul '98
|
Date Posted:
4/9 6:45am
Subject:
RE: The New Iraq, Five Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
|
|
No, because that point is not true. More Iraqis have died in the timeframe of this war than died under sanctions. A million, probably more Iraqis have died in this war, which is more than died under sanctions in a 5 year timeframe.
-----signature-----
What shall we do to fill the empty spaces
Where waves of hunger gnaw?
Shall we set out upon this sea of faces
In search of more and more and more?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
J-Rod
Registered:
Jul '04
|
Date Posted:
4/9 6:54am
Subject:
RE: The New Iraq, Five Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
|
Gonk posted:
No, because that point is not true. More Iraqis have died in the timeframe of this war than died under sanctions. A million, probably more Iraqis have died in this war, which is more than died under sanctions in a 5 year timeframe.
I dunno. That ain't what I heard. But understand, I didn't support the war 'cause I thought it would save Iraqi lives. Though in the long run I believe it certainly will.
-----signature-----
God bless George Bush John McCain 2008 Darth_wanderguard :"Maybe you're not quite as crazy as people say you are"
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
KnightWriter
Title:
Administrator Emeritus
Registered:
Nov '01
|
Date Posted:
4/9 6:59am
Subject:
RE: The New Iraq, Five Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
- Date Edited:
4/9 7:01am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
KnightWriter
|
Bush will launch a war to kill thousands for the sake of the IRaqi people, but won't stop himself from attending the Olympic opening ceremonies for the people of Tibet.
And what about the North Korean people? What about all the African countries under the thumb of dictators? What about China, even? The list goes on and on. We don't do much if it doesn't apparently affect us in any way, or at least doesn't help our bottom line (or is supposed to).
I dunno. That ain't what I heard. But understand, I didn't support the war 'cause I thought it would save Iraqi lives. Though in the long run I believe it certainly will.
Please don't tell us you still believe in that insanity about "saving/defending American lives". The idea of that is so ridiculous, so over the top, that it's fit for nothing but parody cartoons.
-----signature-----
"May you live all the days of your life"
"Discrimination doesn't violate anyone's rights, but prohibiting discrimination does."--KK
"Because John Bush..."--Tom Ridge
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Gonk
Registered:
Jul '98
|
Date Posted:
4/9 7:11am
Subject:
RE: The New Iraq, Five Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
|
I dunno. That ain't what I heard. But understand, I didn't support the war 'cause I thought it would save Iraqi lives. Though in the long run I believe it certainly will.
If it does that has yet to be seen, and by the way it's looking it's going to take some significant suppositioning about the sanctions and how long the situation would have had to go on before it matched the death toll from Iraq.
As for not supporting the war to save IRaqi lives... why the heck else would you possibly support it??? That's the only reasoning that could have ever made sense, at the time, in my book. Because the WMDs were an uncertain prospect even from the beginning, and absolutely nobody was under threat from Iraq at the time... otherwise Kuwait would have been kicking up a heck of a lot more fuss.
As for Knightwriter: well that's true -- but I was talking about this in respect to the "reasons" to go to war in Iraq. It sort of turns that aspect of the reasoning inside out like David Kay's report did to the WMD reasoning.
-----signature-----
What shall we do to fill the empty spaces
Where waves of hunger gnaw?
Shall we set out upon this sea of faces
In search of more and more and more?
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabba-wocky
Registered:
May '03
|
Date Posted:
4/9 8:29am
Subject:
RE: The New Iraq, Five Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
|
J-Rod posted:
The Dem candidates still want to pull out of a war that is being won. Why? Because (agree or disagree) Reagan twenty years later is remembered as the man who defeated communism. They can't stand the possiblility that Bush may be remember 20 years from now as the man who planted the seeds of democracy in the Middle East.
I think it's more that they want to pull out of a war that's being stale mated. The largest problems still exist, as evidenced by the persistently factionalized government and lack of meaningful political reconciliation. Iranian influence has not really waned, as seen in their role brokering the Basra peace deal, nor is it likely to in the long-run, given the close ethnic, cultural, and political ties between every major, non-Sunni party in Iraq, and Iran. The surge, while somewhat effective in reducing violence, is dependent on cooperation of many parties that cannot necessarily be relied upon in the long run (eg the Sadrist ceasefire). Overall, while things have gotten better, it is not at all certain that they are likely to get dramatic/significant continued improvement over the long term. Thus, the value of "staying" is pretty heavily debatable, because it can't be said to have an appreciable long term impact.
As to your larger point about, "history" J-Rod, regardless of what happens going forward, Iraq as handled by Bush will be seen, near universally as a disaster. It has certainly provided one of the best examples for regional strongmen who argue democratization would push their nations into chaos and violence. While Reagan made missteps, he did not fail in the Cold War so publicly, thoroughly, and consistently as Bush has in this one.
-----signature-----
ays Darius the king: 8 of my family (there were) who were formerly kings; I am the ninth (9); long aforetime we are kings.
All Hail His Excellency, Barack Obama
Roma vincit
Tearing Up a Lane (TERRIN UP A LAAAANE!!!)
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
SuperWatto
Registered:
Sep '00
|
Date Posted:
4/9 8:45am
Subject:
RE: The New Iraq, Five Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
|
Gonk posted:
Bush will launch a war to kill thousands for the sake of the IRaqi people, but won't stop himself from attending the Olympic opening ceremonies for the people of Tibet
I think we need to move past the Bush bashing... We know what he's like by now. The real question is, where do we go from here... We all know we've been dragged into this War with nonsense, we all know it didn't have much to do with terrorism - at first - but it's no use to keep pointing fingers... And I wondering if the current Democratic stance on this issue isn't purely motivated by finger-pointing, and not necessarily by looking for a good solution.
J-Rod posted:
Reagan twenty years later is remembered as the man who defeated communism
lol, not here in Europe he's not. Here he's remembered as the Star Wars guy who joked about outlawing Russia when the mike was on.
J-Rod posted:
They can't stand the possiblility that Bush may be remember 20 years from now as the man who planted the seeds of democracy in the Middle East.
I think that 'possibility' is very far-fetched. Also, following your reasoning, the Democrats should opt for staying insteada leaving, because if they leave and Civil War breaks out, they will be the ones who get the blame. So they would retroactively make Bush a hero.
-----signature-----
Trandoshan flatcakes!
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
JediCouncilMember
Registered:
Jul '03
|
Date Posted:
4/9 10:26am
Subject:
RE: The New Iraq, Five Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
|
Also, following your reasoning, the Democrats should opt for staying insteada leaving, because if they leave and Civil War breaks out, they will be the ones who get the blame. So they would retroactively make Bush a hero.
This is true, which is why neither Obama or Hillary will pull troops out, despite what they are saying in public to get elected.
It would be such a complete disaster and neither one will ever ever ever take that chance. They'll expain away their decision under the guise of "we didn't really know how bad it was since the Bush Admin. didn't tell us X...". They will also have a built in "buffer" of probably 6-12 mo. (if not more) if they keep the status quo such that they can blame the Bush admin.
So anyone thinking that the Dems will have the US presence in Iraq anywhere under 110K-130K troops in the immediate future (2009) is just being naive.
-----signature-----
How do you get those Blue Numbers in brackets after thread titles to appear???
The Bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding Bureaucracy
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lord_Vivec
Registered:
Apr '06
|
Date Posted:
4/9 10:51am
Subject:
RE: The New Iraq, Five Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
|
J-Rod posted:
They can't stand the possiblility that Bush may be remember 20 years from now as the man who planted the seeds of democracy in the Middle East.
The is not "if it does." There is no seeds of democracy there. There never will be. Not until we have the necessary communication and infrastructure. Anyone who has lived there a few years (like me) would have been able to tell you this. The infrastructure just doesn't exist. And a democracy can't run well w/o an infrastructure to support it. A non-functional democracy cannot protect its people from random attacks, and as long as the people aren't safe, the infrastructure cannot be built. It's a never-ending cycle. President Bush did not have the foresight nor the experience to see this.
I wish you could have seen Pakistan under Nawaz Sharif. That's what democracy in the Middle East is like: It EPIC FAILS.
-----signature-----
Lord Sithis, Dark Lord of Entropy  Senator of the Disciples of Lady Lumiya and Lord Shadowspawn Avatar: Of Fire and Lightning: http://boards.theforce.net/non_star_wars_fan_fiction/b10808/28930140/p1/?5 Obama/Biden '08 
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
4/9 1:04pm
Subject:
RE: The New Iraq, Five Years and Counting: Current Discussion Thread
|
But that's not completely accurate either. There are numerous positive aspects that can be looked at as well.
How about the UAE? While the Emirates isn't a democracy, it's a federation, and the governmental system is still quite effective at representing the will of the people.
Qatar is an emirate/monarchy that also has a Prime Minister and council that are elected by popular vote.
Kuwait is similar to Qatar, but with an elected council that is divided into national governor-districts.
Even Egypt, after flirting with various political systems in the 50's/60's/70's has settled on more of a democratic system. Egypt's first national Presidential election took place in 2005, which was 2 years after the US invaded Iraq. Lebanon has steadily moved in the same direction... Yemen had its popular election for President 2 years ago.
There is a larger picture that emerges. There are plenty of examples of democratically based systems in the Middle East that one could look at. Even after the situation in Iraq, the trend in the Middle East is to move toward democracy, not away from it.
-----signature-----
Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability.
..............................................................
Peter Shoomaker
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
