Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 201
  1. #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bri Guy View Post
    Since we're in a quoting mood:

    "War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." --- John Stuart Mill

    In WW2 we lost American lives at a rate of close to 400 per day. Although Japan and Germany posed no immediate threat to our land (i.e., they weren't parachuting into our country a la "Red Dawn"), our Greatest Generation recognized the grave threat they both posed and our men and many women died on foreign soil to preserve the freedom and save the lives of countless people, in America and abroad.

    So here we are again. A new enemy, mostly faceless (or wearing hoods or masks), and apparently far more deadly in that they have no compassion for their victims; men, women, and children alike are fair game. Hitler and the Nazi regime were a great evil, but identifiable --- they wore uniforms and marched under a national flag, likewise Japan. Now, we face an enemy of idiology who wear no uniforms, march under the nebulous flag of radical Islam, and will use any means available to destroy all those who will not embrace their faith. They live in many lands and even live among us. Once again we have taken up arms and fight the enemy on foreign soil that would destroy us.

    If killing Al Q and insurgents (radical Islam) in Iraq and Afghanistan (and anywhere else we can find them) is not protecting us, then I invite the critics to offer a better solution. So far, I've heard none. I've only heard criticism, protest, unashamed accusation that our general in charge is a traitor (how ironic), and not a single breath spent on alternative solutions. The true mindless repetition is found in the cry to "bring the troops home!" before they have finished the job.

    How long will the job take? What if it takes years? Five more years? Ten? Twenty? Is our attention span so short and our lack of courage and heart so complete that we will throw in the towel and bury our heads in the sand until the wolves are at the door? The wolves slipped through the door on 9/11 and are anxious for the door to slip open wider.

    What if we decided to bring the troops home without completing the job fighting Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan? I mean, 400 deaths PER DAY is a hefty price, especially when not a single enemy soldier's boot set foot on our mainland. Or how about our "liberal" Revolutionaries? What if they threw in the towel and called the boys home because there were just too many Brits, too many of our boys were dying, and it just wasn't worth the price?

    Maybe there is no good solution. War is never desirable, but sometimes it is necessary. If we're not willing to do the hard thing, then we SHOULD bring the troops home, open our borders wide, and ask our government to provide every household with prayer mats so we can kneel and pray to Mecca five times a day. If we do nothing, this vision of our future is not nutty, but likely.
    Lovely dissertation. The short answer to your rather narrow view of things is that the war in Iraq was an elective war - not one of necessity, as evidenced by the lack of solid allies and inevitable conclusion that there were no WMDs. Sadly you've taken to that American flag Karl Rove wrapped around you and have bought into the hyperbole that this war is as morally justifiable as was WWII.

    The war against terror is a complex one, full of gray and/or the absence of color. After 8 years of George-simpleton and his black & white cowboy politics I think it's clear that treating the war on terror like it’s a conventional war of yesteryear is a mistake of calamitous proportions.

    Fighting the war on terror requires a chess player, not a checkers player. GW Bush cannot even play checkers – he just throws a hissy fit and tosses the game board off the table and demands a new game be started until he gets the results he desires (or thinks he deserves since he is the ultimate silver-spoon-in-mouth elitist brat).
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bri Guy View Post
    In WW2 we lost American lives at a rate of close to 400 per day.
    You might want to recheck your stats. 221/day is the accurate figure. [Source: http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/cwc/other/stats/warcost.htm] Modern medical practices and technology, as well as warfare technology have greatly advanced. As well, American involvement in WWII's duration was only 44 months.

    If killing Al Q and insurgents (radical Islam) in Iraq and Afghanistan (and anywhere else we can find them) is not protecting us, then I invite the critics to offer a better solution. So far, I've heard none. I've only heard criticism, protest, unashamed accusation that our general in charge is a traitor (how ironic), and not a single breath spent on alternative solutions. The true mindless repetition is found in the cry to "bring the troops home!" before they have finished the job.
    It is incumbent upon those who leads the charge for and declare war to communicate the plan for victory. Those who point out that there is no definable plan are not those at fault when support erodes and the war fails. You and yours had the golden opportunity to orchestrate Iraq as you saw fit, and you have miserably failed, in planning, in execution, in the battle for their hearts and minds on a scale the US has never before witnessed. What remains is a salvage job, leaving the Iraqi people much less than they deserve. Besides all of this, Iraq never had anything to do with US national security [other than its sabre-rattling as all nations do] and even less to do with the causes of 9/11.
  3. #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Lovely dissertation. The short answer to your rather narrow view of things is that the war in Iraq was an elective war - not one of necessity, as evidenced by the lack of solid allies and inevitable conclusion that there were no WMDs. Sadly you've taken to that American flag Karl Rove wrapped around you and have bought into the hyperbole that this war is as morally justifiable as was WWII.

    The war against terror is a complex one, full of gray and/or the absence of color. After 8 years of George-simpleton and his black & white cowboy politics I think it's clear that treating the war on terror like its a conventional war of yesteryear is a mistake of calamitous proportions.

    Fighting the war on terror requires a chess player, not a checkers player. GW Bush cannot even play checkers he just throws a hissy fit and tosses the game board off the table and demands a new game be started until he gets the results he desires (or thinks he deserves since he is the ultimate silver-spoon-in-mouth elitist brat).
    Speaking of simple-minded narrow views ---- you win!
    Palm since Palm Professional --- Treo 650 (2 yrs), iPhone since 6/29/07
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bri Guy View Post
    Speaking of simple-minded narrow views ---- you win!
    Na na na na na na...I know you are but what am I?

    Don't you have a dirty bomb shelter to build or something?
  5. #45  
    On a more intellectual note Bri Guy (unless you want to stick your tongue out and call me names some more) I'd love to hear you tell us all exactly how you can compare WWII to Iraq? What are the parallels? Compare and contrast.

    PS: try and keep the discussion centered around Iraq. Start with Saddam and Rummy shaking hands and work your way forward from there.
  6. #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    You might want to recheck your stats. 221/day is the accurate figure. [Source: http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/cwc/other/stats/warcost.htm] Modern medical practices and technology, as well as warfare technology have greatly advanced. As well, American involvement in WWII's duration was only 44 months.



    It is incumbent upon those who leads the charge for and declare war to communicate the plan for victory. Those who point out that there is no definable plan are not those at fault when support erodes and the war fails. You and yours had the golden opportunity to orchestrate Iraq as you saw fit, and you have miserably failed, in planning, in execution, in the battle for their hearts and minds on a scale the US has never before witnessed. What remains is a salvage job, leaving the Iraqi people much less than they deserve. Besides all of this, Iraq never had anything to do with US national security [other than its sabre-rattling as all nations do] and even less to do with the causes of 9/11.
    You are right that I should have checked the facts. I heard that figure at one time but, after further checking, our total number of military casualties was just over 403,000, or given your 44 month figure of involvement at roughly 30 days per month, is just over 308 per day. Still a hefty figure.

    I still read only criticism and hand-wringing, but no alternative solutions.
    Palm since Palm Professional --- Treo 650 (2 yrs), iPhone since 6/29/07
  7. #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bri Guy View Post
    You are right that I should have checked the facts. I heard that figure at one time but, after further checking, our total number of military casualties was just over 403,000, or given your 44 month figure of involvement at roughly 30 days per month, is just over 308 per day. Still a hefty figure.

    I still read only criticism and hand-wringing, but no alternative solutions.
    Well since we're there now its a fine mess and I agree we cannot pull out in one day. I would say that of all the plans, Joe Biden has been touting a sensible one for some time.
  8. #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    On a more intellectual note Bri Guy (unless you want to stick your tongue out and call me names some more) I'd love to hear you tell us all exactly how you can compare WWII to Iraq? What are the parallels? Compare and contrast.

    PS: try and keep the discussion centered around Iraq. Start with Saddam and Rummy shaking hands and work your way forward from there.
    Oh please, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You've exhibited nothing but condescension since this post began. You will never accept any parallels, comparison, or contrasting due to your pre-determined moral judgment.

    I'm sure your selection for our next president will solve our problems, and if he/she (more likely she, God help us) fails to rise to your expectations, then you'll get off the hook by blaming the previous administration. Better yet, perhaps you should run yourself? I'm sure you will do a FAR better job than those bearing that responsibility, given how much better Liberals are than Conservatives.

    It's dinner time here, so I'm on my way to better things. But Moderateinny, if you are offended, or if your feelings are hurt, or if you believe I was calling you names and sticking out my tongue, I truly apologize. I hope you have a great night.
    Palm since Palm Professional --- Treo 650 (2 yrs), iPhone since 6/29/07
  9. #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bri Guy View Post
    I still read only criticism and hand-wringing, but no alternative solutions.
    What's the primary plan, Stan? Stay the course, Part II?
  10. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bri Guy View Post
    It's dinner time here, so I'm on my way to better things. But Moderateinny, if you are offended, or if your feelings are hurt, or if you believe I was calling you names and sticking out my tongue, I truly apologize. I hope you have a great night.
    Not offended at all. But thanks for the apology anyway....I think.

    I've offered my opinion that Joe Biden has presented one of the better alternatives to what has been done to date. http://www.joebiden.com/issues/?id=0009
    Now it's your turn to reciprocate with a defense of your position that appears to be "stay the course" (or whatever the right wing is calling it this week).

    BTW - Recent history has shown that those of us that have served in combat cannot get elected since they get smeared before ever reaching office. But I appreciated the suggestion to run nonetheless.
    Last edited by moderateinny; 09/17/2007 at 07:58 PM.
  11. #51  
    Oh and I am still waiting for that history lesson explaining to us all just how WWII equates to Iraq.
  12. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Oh and I am still waiting for that history lesson explaining to us all just how WWII equates to Iraq.
  13. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikec View Post
    As someone says "Liberalism is a mental disorder".
    Good god, You listen to Micheal Savage, and actually put stock in what he says?
  14. #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    What's the primary plan, Stan? Stay the course, Part II?
    You're merely answering a question with a question. Again.

    But since you won't provide an answer, I'll suggest a possible solution. First, I believe that removing Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do. I believe the Iraqi people are better off without him. Say what you want about President Bush, but regardless what you or I may think about him, we don't really know with certainty how well he's done or how badly he's done because you and I (and all of us underlings) simply don't have all the facts, given the need for national security.

    Second, I believe the exit strategy relied heavily on the Iraqi people taking accountability for their own self-government and self-policing and protection, and they haven't carried the ball as we would have hoped. This was short-sighted on our part, but part of the gamble. In my opinion, I think it's important that we have a strong presence in that area of the world and Iraq made the most sense --- we know the territory (been there before via GW1), and Saddam turned out to be a bad guy. We knew he was a bad guy, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend, right?

    Third, given that the Iraqi government has underperformed, we now need to provide them a sure timeline for which we will begin a withdrawal with the expectation that they will step up to fill the vacuum. That course seems to make the most sense. And I'm willing to place a moderate amount of trust in the military to assess the situation and develop a timeline --- the politicians aren't very good at that on either side of the aisle.
    Palm since Palm Professional --- Treo 650 (2 yrs), iPhone since 6/29/07
  15. #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Oh and I am still waiting for that history lesson explaining to us all just how WWII equates to Iraq.
    I already told you that it's wasted breath (er, wasted keystrokes) to attempt a history lesson for you when you have already determined that WWII and Iraq bear no moral equivalence. They are different situations, but the reason I draw a comparison is because I believe that engaging in both conflicts is and was a morally correct thing to do. It seems to me that those who criticize the war effort and speak of how "immoral" it is are more interested in seeing Bush fail (because they voted for the other guy) than seeing our troops succeed. A very sad state of affairs indeed.

    This argument has been rehashed again and again, but it still boggles my mind. We invaded Iraq for a number of reasons, including the fact they defied numerous UN resolutions and several intelligence agencies (meaning, more than just ours) confirmed the existence of WMDs in Iraq. Given that no significant cache of WMDs were ever found, somehow Bush lied. When did the definition of "lie" suddenly change from a deliberate deception to an honest mistake due to misinformation? The political spin really went into high gear on this one.

    Whatever the reason for invading Iraq, the result is positive --- removing a murdering, torturing dictator and his murdering, torturing family and administration. If anyone can criticize that action, then by comparison, please then justify the defeat of Hitler and Germany in WWII. I've already spent too much time and keystrokes on this and, sadly, it won't accomplish anything because the Bush-hating is far more important for many than offering anything constructive.
    Palm since Palm Professional --- Treo 650 (2 yrs), iPhone since 6/29/07
  16. #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bri Guy View Post
    But since you won't provide an answer, I'll suggest a possible solution.
    WTH did I just post above? I said I like Biden's plan the best and offered him as an example of a Democrat that has in fact been offering an alternative strategy (as far back as 2006 if I recall).

    First, I believe that removing Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do. I believe the Iraqi people are better off without him.
    Well I disagree. There are many dictators and very bad leaders that have remained in power - even while GW has been in power - and while it would be nice to go and rescue their oppressed people it just is not possible. That said, he is gone now and the Iraqi people are largely not going to miss him.

    Say what you want about President Bush, but regardless what you or I may think about him, we don't really know with certainty how well he's done or how badly he's done because you and I (and all of us underlings) simply don't have all the facts, given the need for national security.
    I think there has been a small army of ex-military, advisors, cabinet members, etc. that have provided enough insight to tell us all that we've made a ginormous blunder by invading Iraq. In fact while you fantasize about Bush being vindicated and his true genius being revealed to us all in the history books, I think we'll find quite the opposite - proof positive intelligence was hand-picked and outright criminal activity to drive the nation of the cliff into the Iraq war.

    Second, I believe the exit strategy relied heavily on the Iraqi people taking accountability for their own self-government and self-policing and protection, and they haven't carried the ball as we would have hoped. This was short-sighted on our part, but part of the gamble. In my opinion, I think it's important that we have a strong presence in that area of the world and Iraq made the most sense --- we know the territory (been there before via GW1), and Saddam turned out to be a bad guy. We knew he was a bad guy, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend, right?
    Well here again we disagree....I think. We're there now and we'll be for some time but I am not in favor of long term bases ala post-WWII spread throughout the middle-east.

    Third, given that the Iraqi government has underperformed, we now need to provide them a sure timeline for which we will begin a withdrawal with the expectation that they will step up to fill the vacuum. That course seems to make the most sense. And I'm willing to place a moderate amount of trust in the military to assess the situation and develop a timeline --- the politicians aren't very good at that on either side of the aisle.
    Well lest you have forgotten the whole surge thing was sold to us as necessary so that the Iraqi government could meet our expectations. They did not - instead they failed abysmally and took a vacation while our troops and their people died.

    You know if you didn't jump into this thread with rhetorical BS about our likely having to bow to Mecca some day, I wouldn't have been so condescending. While I differ with you on some of the above I find this post to be refreshing in that you've articulated your position while largely refraining from right-wing talking points like mushroom clouds and praying to mecca someday.

    Now please read Biden's plan and let me know what you think of that. I'll look forward to more civil discourse.
  17. #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bri Guy View Post
    You're merely answering a question with a question. Again.
    No. I simply didn't bite on your deflective bait. I'm uninterested in your attempts to distract.

    You castigate those who take exception with Bush's prosecution of the unnecessary war against Iraq, yet it is the responsibility of those who plan and prosecute the war to provide the public clarity necessary to have their nation behind them. So, again, what is [present tense] the plan? Coming from the President of the United States, anything shy of that 'vision' of how to bring about victory is worthy of objective ridicule.
  18. #58  
    http://www.slate.com/id/2173965

    "The conservative case against this study is easy to make. Sure, we're fonder of old ways than you are. That's in our definition. Some of our people are obtuse; so are some of yours. If you studied the rest of us in real life, you'd find that while we second-guess the status quo less than you do, we second-guess putative reforms more than you do, so in terms of complexity, ambiguity, and critical thinking, it's probably a wash."
    Last edited by treobk214; 09/17/2007 at 10:30 PM.
  19. #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    WTH did I just post above? I said I like Biden's plan the best and offered him as an example of a Democrat that has in fact been offering an alternative strategy (as far back as 2006 if I recall).

    Please scroll up. That post was not directed to you. Read the quote at the beginning of the post.[/I][/I]

    Well I disagree. There are many dictators and very bad leaders that have remained in power - even while GW has been in power - and while it would be nice to go and rescue their oppressed people it just is not possible. That said, he is gone now and the Iraqi people are largely not going to miss him.

    I disagree with your position. I think all dictators should be removed from power, and if the people under that dictator are unable to do it, then I think the free world is morally responsible to help. We can't take them all on at once (obviously), but is it also the right thing to do to just sit back and do nothing? Everyone has their panties in a bunch about global warming, but what about basic human rights?

    I think there has been a small army of ex-military, advisors, cabinet members, etc. that have provided enough insight to tell us all that we've made a ginormous blunder by invading Iraq. In fact while you fantasize about Bush being vindicated and his true genius being revealed to us all in the history books, I think we'll find quite the opposite - proof positive intelligence was hand-picked and outright criminal activity to drive the nation of the cliff into the Iraq war.

    Yes, and all of this is monday-morning quarterbacking. Doing my best to ignore your unwarranted condescencion (because I don't think you have a monopoly on truth or wisdom here), I certainly don't fantasize about any Bush vindication. I hope he has done his best and I believe he's basically a good man who has had a great burden placed on his shoulders (9/11, etc.). I didn't much care for Clinton, but I supported him when he made decisions about our country's involvement internationally. I always hope our leaders will do the right thing. Your belief that Bush had criminal intent is pure speculation and lacking proof, actually, so why go there?


    Well here again we disagree....I think. We're there now and we'll be for some time but I am not in favor of long term bases ala post-WWII spread throughout the middle-east.

    I think it's vital that we have a presence in the Middle-East. Isolationism in our efforts to combat terrorism will simply lead to more attacks on our soil.

    Well lest you have forgotten the whole surge thing was sold to us as necessary so that the Iraqi government could meet our expectations. They did not - instead they failed abysmally and took a vacation while our troops and their people died.

    The surge has been very successful in eliminating thousands of Al Qaida. Do you talk to any of the men and women that have served in Iraq? I assume you have due to your reference that you've served in the military. I've talked to several because I'm curious to hear it from people that are there (rather than the filtered news content), and I've heard nothing but positive things.

    You know if you didn't jump into this thread with rhetorical BS about our likely having to bow to Mecca some day, I wouldn't have been so condescending. While I differ with you on some of the above I find this post to be refreshing in that you've articulated your position while largely refraining from right-wing talking points like mushroom clouds and praying to mecca someday.

    Again, I have no monopoly on rhetorical BS --- re-read your posts and I think you'll find you are equally guilty (if, in fact, we're guilty of anything). We won't be bowing to Mecca because we simply won't convert, but I do believe our way of life is headed for extinction if we don't wake up and realize how serious this threat is, and that our success in Iraq is paramount.

    Now please read Biden's plan and let me know what you think of that. I'll look forward to more civil discourse.
    I read Biden's plan. Thank you for the link. I agree with many points. What has Biden done about any of it? Perhaps it's worth trying. Have we attempted to implement any of his points already? Is he just trying to get elected? (Can't help being a little cynical about politicians these days).

    I enjoy healthy debate. I hope we both can avoid accusing the other of over-simplification or narrow-mindedness just because we don't agree on all points.
    Last edited by Brian Hart; 09/17/2007 at 10:29 PM.
    Palm since Palm Professional --- Treo 650 (2 yrs), iPhone since 6/29/07
  20. #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bri Guy View Post
    I already told you that it's wasted breath (er, wasted keystrokes) to attempt a history lesson for you when you have already determined that WWII and Iraq bear no moral equivalence. They are different situations, but the reason I draw a comparison is because I believe that engaging in both conflicts is and was a morally correct thing to do.
    What you believe and what history will show are two very different things. While Pearl Harbor acted as our motivation to join the war, the fact is our allies were all at war and needed our help. Hitler occupied much of Europe and was threatening to invade every country on the planet. Now if you are drwaing parallels of Nazism to radical Musilims declaring holy war, well OK, I can see that and recognize, and support our fight against terrorism.

    It seems to me that those who criticize the war effort and speak of how "immoral" it is are more interested in seeing Bush fail (because they voted for the other guy) than seeing our troops succeed. A very sad state of affairs indeed.
    As a veteran you've made my blood boil with this sort of BS. You have no friggin' idea what you are talking about. So anyone that criticizes the war are only interested in seeing Bush fail? I criticize the war because it was it poorly justified, poorly planned, and poorly executed.

    This argument has been rehashed again and again, but it still boggles my mind. We invaded Iraq for a number of reasons, including the fact they defied numerous UN resolutions and several intelligence agencies (meaning, more than just ours) confirmed the existence of WMDs in Iraq. Given that no significant cache of WMDs were ever found, some how Bush lied. When did the definition of "lie" suddenly change from a deliberate deception to an honest mistake due to misinformation? The political spin really went into high gear on this one.
    He hand picked intelligence. At best he was too stupid and too weak of a leader to stand up to those around him who hand picked intelligence. Cut it anyway you'd like - he failed to serve as commander in chief in the best interest of the country and our poor troops paying for his ineptitude.

    Whatever the reason for invading Iraq, the result is positive --- removing a murdering, torturing dictator and his murdering, torturing family and administration.
    If you view it as myopically as Saddam is gone...well OK. But the aftermath of this wonderous whacking is a cess pool of even deeper hatred, civil war, infinite recruiting commercials for extremists looking for more extremists, etc. etc.

    If anyone can criticize that action, then by comparison, please then justify the defeat of Hitler and Germany in WWII.
    Really? Saddam vs. Hitler? Are you truly that daft? Hitler killed 6MM Jews and invaded dozens of our allies triggering WWII. Is it really even comparable to Saddam at all? Saddam was surrounded and being inspected by UN inspectors. He didn't occupy any allies that I know of (we took care of that during GW1). How exactly are they comparable again?

    I've already spent too much time and keystrokes on this and, sadly, it won't accomplish anything because the Bush-hating is far more important for many than offering anything constructive.
    I really don't hate Bush that much. I hate those that have propped him up as being something other than a spoiled pisspot that has failed at everything he ever did in his life (with the minor exception being Governor, and even that is debatable) - you know the Karen Hughes, Dan Bartletts, and of course Karl Roves. But I hold an especially deep hatred for those that exploited his obvious intellectual shortcomings, such as Cheney and Rummy.
Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions