Re: A war of utter folly

by TerryRC Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:17 am

It really irks me when I hear of someone who begged, pleaded and promised "anything" if they would just be hired for a job ............ and then shortly after being hired they start bitching, pissing and moaning about the "hard work", .... the "long hours", ...... the "low pay" ...... or something.

Stick to the point Sam.

I wasn't bitching.

I said the state pays poorly and they make up for it with leave. They don't pay overtime so they make up for it with comp time. If you don't like the leave I get (and hardly ever use), take it up with the state.

Also, you are an ass.

There are very, very, very, very few professionals that are not paid what they are worth, but you are not one of them, ....... and many, many that are paid more than what they are worth, which you might be one of.

Asshat. So much for that resolution to not lower yourself to personal attacks.

No comeback for the fact that Bush spends a couple of months at a time on his ranch except to use personal attacks?

We went to Iraq for economic and military security? We went there to secure some oil reserves?

Perhaps, but we are less stable and secure than we were before we went.

All of your off-topic bitching and ad hom attacks haven't been able to refute that.

by TerryRC Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:23 am

Those without ears cannot hear and those without eyes cannot see. I've explained what I meant too many times. Your lack of comprehension is your problem dude, not mine.

And maybe I should go to work for a think tank because it seems like everything I say is backed up by one military expert or another somewhere along the line. Once again, your lack of comprehension is your problem dude, not mine.

And right now, there's no saving this country. Not from the likes boneheaded idiot liberals. I fear they've got too much of a hold. I think we're on the downside of the mountain and it's only going to get worse.

"I can't justify my argument so I'm going to call you ignorant and liberal."

Been taking debating lessons from Sam, Aaron?

The situation in Afghanistan is turning shitful and top military brass can't decide if the "surge" is working in Iraq. Your president did that. Great job "saving" this country.

Where is this evidence that you have posted from the "military experts" and about what. Iraq? Afghanistan? 9/11. Be more specific.

I understand that you support the military. Fine. That doesn't mean that you have to stick your nose up Bush's ass. Dogs do that, not men.

by **SheikBen** Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:14 am

I'm curious as to the assertion of tens of thousands in jail without trial. Is your journalist implying that, as we speak, there are tens of thousands of people in Iraqi prisons who were rounded up for political reasons? If so, then it ought to be front page news everywhere on earth.

I think, however, that Ziggy's journalist is employing hyperbole knowing darn well that his readers do not have the resources or inclination to go to Iraq to see first hand what is going on, and even if they did, they would have no way to compare that life to Iraq under Hussein.

Ziggy, I have already conceded that Iraq was a rather tolerant country, as Muslim countries go, under Hussein, my point is that it was not a utopian paradise, and that there were many people who were murdered. The implication that things were just grand until the US came along is just unfair.

You are correct that Hussein's misdeeds were ignored by the US when he served our purpose, but your acceptance of those misdeeds, although used for the sake of discrediting Reagan and Bush I, is itself a tacit acceptance of my point that violence is not a recent US addition to the Iraqi landscape.

by Aaron Thu Mar 27, 2008 8:50 am

TerryRC wrote:Those without ears cannot hear and those without eyes cannot see. I've explained what I meant too many times. Your lack of comprehension is your problem dude, not mine.

And maybe I should go to work for a think tank because it seems like everything I say is backed up by one military expert or another somewhere along the line. Once again, your lack of comprehension is your problem dude, not mine.

And right now, there's no saving this country. Not from the likes boneheaded idiot liberals. I fear they've got too much of a hold. I think we're on the downside of the mountain and it's only going to get worse.

"I can't justify my argument so I'm going to call you ignorant and liberal."

Been taking debating lessons from Sam, Aaron?

The situation in Afghanistan is turning shitful and top military brass can't decide if the "surge" is working in Iraq. Your president did that. Great job "saving" this country.

Where is this evidence that you have posted from the "military experts" and about what. Iraq? Afghanistan? 9/11. Be more specific.

I understand that you support the military. Fine. That doesn't mean that you have to stick your nose up Bush's ass. Dogs do that, not men.

Dude, what I won't do is attempt to convince you. I told you. You're too stubborn to pull your head out to acknowledge even the slightest good that Bush has done and I see that as your personal thoughts. I can't change those nor will I try.

And I don't know if you realize it or not but George Bush is the President of the United States of America. So unless you're a resident of another country, he's your President as well.

by SamCogar Thu Mar 27, 2008 9:23 am

If things are so bad in Iraq, ..........

just how does it compare to the City of Los Angeles?

Now the Iraq population is: 27,499,638 (July 2007 est.)

which is seven (7) times greater than the City of Los Angeles, ...... therefore to make an equal comparison, lets multiply the following crime figures by seven (7).

General Information: Violent and Property Crimes

State: California (CA)
City Population: 3,838,838 ..... 26,871,866

Murder: 515 ..... 3,605
Forcible Rape: 1,226 ..... 8,582
Robbery: 16,577 ..... 116,039
Aggravated Assault: 30,506 ..... 213,542
Burglary: 25,115 ..... 175,805
Larceny or Theft: 77,111 ...... 539,777
Car Theft: 33,555 ...... 234,885
Arson: 2,072 ...... 14,189
Property Crimes 135,781 ...... 950,467

Data Source:
2003 FBI Report of Offenses Known to Law Enforcement
http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Los+Angeles&state=CA

And the media and a few on this Forum are badmouthing the situation in Iraq?

.

by Aaron Thu Mar 27, 2008 10:28 am

I've known numerous people who've served in Iraq, including one that is serving right now. Every one has told me that the situation in Iraq resembles very little what the media portrays on TV. I know one soldier that was so scared BEFORE he went in 2004 that he considered going to Canada. He went to Iraq instead and served 12 months.

He went back in 2006 and served 15 months. June will mark a year he's been home. He is trying to go back in July.

by **Stephanie** Thu Mar 27, 2008 11:03 am

Hmm......perhaps the media is making up the 4,003 US military deaths in Iraq. Perhaps the Veterans Administration is fabricating the number of seriously wounded etc.

hmmm.......

by Aaron Thu Mar 27, 2008 11:58 am

Considering we're in our 6th year of combat in Iraq and considering that on average, more then 2,000 service members lost their life in the 1980's and that on average over the past 50 non-combat years, more then 1,000 service members per year lose their life every year, and considering that pundits that know nothing about warfare or the military are quick to point to numbers they know nothing about, overall, operations in Iraq are going well, at least according to David Petraeus and the rest of our military leaders who actually know what they are talking about.

Saying all that, I have no doubt whatsoever that peaceniks, copperheads, cowards and idiots who don't have a clue what they are talking about, many of the same pole chasers that got us into this mess 5 years ago by the way, will do everything in their power to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by pulling too many troops out way to soon.

Rolling Eyes

by ziggy Thu Mar 27, 2008 12:48 pm

SheikBen wrote:I'm curious as to the assertion of tens of thousands in jail without trial. Is your journalist implying that, as we speak, there are tens of thousands of people in Iraqi prisons who were rounded up for political reasons? If so, then it ought to be front page news everywhere on earth.

I think, however, that Ziggy's journalist is employing hyperbole knowing darn well that his readers do not have the resources or inclination to go to Iraq to see first hand what is going on, and even if they did, they would have no way to compare that life to Iraq under Hussein.

And I think that your sources are employing similar hyperbole when you assert that:

SheikBen wrote:Ziggy I have to disagree with the idea that life as usual was an acceptable situation under Saddam Hussein. I also disagree that it's worse there today than it was under Hussein.

That's not to say that I agree with our ground occupation of Iraq. I think the thing to do with a Hussein is to bomb wherever he is, if previous gunshots fail you. But I also truly believe that Iraqi life is not generally worse than it was under Hussein, and in a lot of circumstances, quite a lot better.

-------------------------

(Sheik)- Ziggy, I have already conceded that Iraq was a rather tolerant country, as Muslim countries go, under Hussein, my point is that it was not a utopian paradise, and that there were many people who were murdered. The implication that things were just grand until the US came along is just unfair.

I don't know anyone who is contending that. The question is whether the U.S. invasion and military occupation made things there worse, or made them better.

You are correct that Hussein's misdeeds were ignored by the US when he served our purpose, but your acceptance of those misdeeds, although used for the sake of discrediting Reagan and Bush I, is itself a tacit acceptance of my point that violence is not a recent US addition to the Iraqi landscape.

The available information indicates that the last decade of Saddam's rule was far less violent than the previous 15 or 20 years. Do you have credible information to the contrary?

by ziggy Thu Mar 27, 2008 12:54 pm

SamCogar wrote:If things are so bad in Iraq, ..........

just how does it compare to the City of Los Angeles?

Now the Iraq population is: 27,499,638 (July 2007 est.)

which is seven (7) times greater than the City of Los Angeles, ...... therefore to make an equal comparison, lets multiply the following crime figures by seven (7).

General Information: Violent and Property Crimes

State: California (CA)
City Population: 3,838,838 ..... 26,871,866

Murder: 515 ..... 3,605
Forcible Rape: 1,226 ..... 8,582
Robbery: 16,577 ..... 116,039
Aggravated Assault: 30,506 ..... 213,542
Burglary: 25,115 ..... 175,805
Larceny or Theft: 77,111 ...... 539,777
Car Theft: 33,555 ...... 234,885
Arson: 2,072 ...... 14,189
Property Crimes 135,781 ...... 950,467

Data Source:
2003 FBI Report of Offenses Known to Law Enforcement
http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Los+Angeles&state=CA

And the media and a few on this Forum are badmouthing the situation in Iraq?

Then maybe the resources that are going into Iraq should instead be going into Los Angeles and other American cesspools of human degradation. Let America take care of its own problems, and let Iraq take care of its own problems.

by Aaron Thu Mar 27, 2008 1:05 pm

ziggy wrote:
The available information indicates that the last decade of Saddam's rule was far less violent than the previous 15 or 20 years. Do you have credible information to the contrary?

You think Ziggy? Considering that from 1991 until the invasion of 2003 the United States of America had a military presence in Kuwait, enforced a no-fly zone over 3/4 of Iraq, bombed Aspirin factories on a blowjob's notice and generally kept them from re-building their military after we bombed them into submission after Desert Storm, yes, I would agree that the last decade of Saddam's rule was far less violent the previous 15 or 20 years.

So do you have any other brilliant deductions that you can share with us? Maybe you can tell us when the grass is wetter, after it rains for a day or after a month of no rain. Very Happy

by Aaron Thu Mar 27, 2008 1:29 pm

Stephanie wrote:We marched in, we can march out.

I've thought about this some over the past few days or so and something came to me at lunch today. We had 4 individuals that were running for the office of President of United States of American whose stance was immediate withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq.

Combined, after spending millions of dollars, these 4 individuals got less then 1% of the vote. So while Iraq may not be popular and the majority of those polled may very well be against the current policy, over 99% of those who vote do not follow this "march out" philosophy and agree that the United States must, at the very least, maintain a military presence in Iraq.

Just a thought.

by ziggy Thu Mar 27, 2008 1:50 pm

Aaron wrote:
ziggy wrote:
The available information indicates that the last decade of Saddam's rule was far less violent than the previous 15 or 20 years. Do you have credible information to the contrary?

You think Ziggy? Considering that from 1991 until the invasion of 2003 the United States of America had a military presence in Kuwait, enforced a no-fly zone over 3/4 of Iraq, bombed Aspirin factories on a blowjob's notice and generally kept them from re-building their military after we bombed them into submission after Desert Storm, yes, I would agree that the last decade of Saddam's rule was far less violent the previous 15 or 20 years.

And so then, going back to Mike's assertion, how are things any better today than they were from 1993 to 2003? Can women today walk through Baghdad and other Iraqi cities without harassment for not wearing a burka? Can either women or men walk through Baghdad without a reasonable fear of violence against their person based on their religious or political affiliations? How many hours a day is the electricity on in any one section of Iraq? How is the water system functioning? Perhaps more importantly, how is the sewage disposal system functioning? How is the educational system functioning. What is the employment rate? How safe is it to drive down the streets? Can people go to the morgues to collect their murdered relatives without themselves being murdered because of their religious faction affiliations? What is the quality of life in Iraq today compared to what it was in 2002?

by Aaron Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:21 pm

Is their future more or less bright?

by SamCogar Fri Mar 28, 2008 4:24 am

ziggy wrote:
SamCogar wrote:If things are so bad in Iraq, ..........

just how does it compare to the City of Los Angeles?

Now the Iraq population is: 27,499,638 (July 2007 est.)

which is seven (7) times greater than the City of Los Angeles, ...... therefore to make an equal comparison, lets multiply the following crime figures by seven (7).

General Information: Violent and Property Crimes

State: California (CA)
City Population: 3,838,838 ..... 26,871,866

urdeMr: 515 ..... 3,605
Forcible Rape: 1,226 ..... 8,582
Robbery: 16,577 ..... 116,039
Aggravated Assault: 30,506 ..... 213,542
Burglary: 25,115 ..... 175,805
Larceny or Theft: 77,111 ...... 539,777
Car Theft: 33,555 ...... 234,885
Arson: 2,072 ...... 14,189
Property Crimes 135,781 ...... 950,467

Data Source:
2003 FBI Report of Offenses Known to Law Enforcement
http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Los+Angeles&state=CA

And the media and a few on this Forum are badmouthing the situation in Iraq?

Then maybe the resources that are going into Iraq should instead be going into Los Angeles and other American cesspools of human degradation. Let America take care of its own problems, and let Iraq take care of its own problems.

So Zigster, Stephanie said:

Stephanie wrote:Hmm......perhaps the media is making up the 4,003 US military deaths in Iraq. Perhaps the Veterans Administration is fabricating the number of seriously wounded etc.

that would be 4,003 American deaths in Iraq in 5+ years.

But, if there is an average of 515 murders each year in LA, that would be 2,575 American deaths in LA in 5+ years.

And if we adjust for the 7 to 1 population, the number of American deaths in LA in 5+ years would be 18,025.

And Zigster, all you have to say about those horrific extrapolated statistics is:

Let America take care of its own problems,

GEEEZUS, that implies your lack of patriotism in that you really don't give a shidt about America's problems, ........ and your constant criticism of our government pretty much proves it.

American deaths in LA and other American cesspools of human degradation have been ocurring for far, far more years than said deaths in Iraq ......... yet you have failed to say very much of anything about them.

Just why is that Ziggy, ......... why is that? affraid

.

by SamCogar Fri Mar 28, 2008 4:32 am

ziggy wrote:
And so then, going back to Mike's assertion, how are things any better today than they were from 1993 to 2003? Can women today walk through Baghdad and other Iraqi cities without harassment for not wearing a burka? Can either women or men walk through Baghdad without a reasonable fear of violence against their person based on their religious or political affiliations? How many hours a day is the electricity on in any one section of Iraq? How is the water system functioning? Perhaps more importantly, how is the sewage disposal system functioning? How is the educational system functioning. What is the employment rate? How safe is it to drive down the streets? Can people go to the morgues to collect their murdered relatives without themselves being murdered because of their religious faction affiliations? What is the quality of life in Iraq today compared to what it was in 2002?

YADA, ........ YADA, ....... YADA, .......

Let America take care of its own problems, ....

because you are too busy worrying about Iraq's problems, ....... right Ziggy?

.

by **SheikBen** Fri Mar 28, 2008 8:03 am

Sam,

One hopes that the situation in Iraq will get better over time. Any forecasts on the future of Los Angeles?

There exists a certain level of political manichaenism going on by many who oppose the war. Since the war itself is unwise (which I readily agree with), they think that therefore it must not be going well and must not have done anything good (which I disagree with).

The comparison that bothers me is not the one with Los Angeles (I'd be interested in how Detroit and Gary, Indiana, stack upa s well) or the comparisons with the 1980s, which are also interesting. I note that 4,000 troops in an all volunteer military have died, and yet the war is being compared with Vietnam, in which 58000 troops in a largely drafted army died. By my math, at the present rate, the war in Iraq would need to last 70 years to equal the American loss of life in Vietnam.

by ziggy Fri Mar 28, 2008 10:33 am

SamCogar wrote:And Zigster, all you have to say about those horrific extrapolated statistics is:

Let America take care of its own problems,

GEEEZUS, that implies your lack of patriotism in that you really don't give a shidt about America's problems, ........ and your constant criticism of our government pretty much proves it.

Sam, I am not going to let you nor anyone else define either my patriotism nor my "lack of patriotism" any more than I will let you or anyone else define my spiritual salvation or lack thereof. I will develop my own theology and my own patriotism, thank you. If you don't like it, then you and the local Baptist preacher can shove it. If the Bill of Rights means anyting it means that I can critize our government and damn it to hell and back- just as you do the government of the state of West Virginia.

American deaths in LA and other American cesspools of human degradation have been ocurring for far, far more years than said deaths in Iraq ......... yet you have failed to say very much of anything about them.

I have said very much about them over my 6 or so years here and in my writings elsewhere. And the primary theme of my comments about American social degradition is that lawless government and lawless corporations foster what Judge Hayden called "an atmosphere of lawlessness". We cannot expect the real people, whether in Los Angeles or rural Appalachia, to be any more law abiding and "civilized" than their peers in both the halls of government and in corporate board rooms. "Do as I say, not as I do" might work with some children. But it does not work with free adults. Physicians, heal thyselves.

by ziggy Fri Mar 28, 2008 10:56 am

SamCogar wrote:
ziggy wrote:
And so then, going back to Mike's assertion, how are things any better today than they were from 1993 to 2003? Can women today walk through Baghdad and other Iraqi cities without harassment for not wearing a burka? Can either women or men walk through Baghdad without a reasonable fear of violence against their person based on their religious or political affiliations? How many hours a day is the electricity on in any one section of Iraq? How is the water system functioning? Perhaps more importantly, how is the sewage disposal system functioning? How is the educational system functioning. What is the employment rate? How safe is it to drive down the streets? Can people go to the morgues to collect their murdered relatives without themselves being murdered because of their religious faction affiliations? What is the quality of life in Iraq today compared to what it was in 2002?

YADA, ........ YADA, ....... YADA, .......

Let America take care of its own problems, ....

because you are too busy worrying about Iraq's problems, ....... right Ziggy?

.

Twisted evil indeed, Sam.

When American military expansionism, based on gross deliberate deceptions of Congress and of the American people, creates so many times more problems for Iraqis than it "solves", then yes, we have exported the American atmosphere of official lawlessness to Iraq and around the world.

You may think that is a good thing, and that it shows a "lack of patriotism" to point it out and criticize it. But your faux claims of "lack of patriotim" are of no more effect than the Baptist poreacher who says that we will aqll "go to hell" who do not salute the doctrines of the imaginary Gods. The proclamations that religious skeptics are doomed sinners and that skeptics of government propaganda show "lack of patriotism" are equally bankrupt of any real meaning. But are designed solely to browbeat skeptics and heretics to the "official" propaganda into submission.

Parson, save thyself first; America heal thyself first.

by ziggy Fri Mar 28, 2008 11:12 am

SheikBen wrote:I note that 4,000 troops in an all volunteer military have died, and yet the war is being compared with Vietnam, in which 58000 troops in a largely drafted army died. By my math, at the present rate, the war in Iraq would need to last 70 years to equal the American loss of life in Vietnam.

The comparison with Vietnam is the attitude that American militarism against small nations is the cure for all things that "patriotic" Americans, whipped into a frency with hype and unfounded innuendos, panically imagine to be evil about those other nations.

You talk about troop casualties. But you totally ignore the inconvenient (for the nation attacked) ever increasing ratio of civilian casualties of war over troop casualties. That is convenient to an agressor nation. It is not only convenient, it allows the propagansists for the agressor nation to offer a warped sense of the total costs of war- as you are doing here. It allows you and SamCogar to endlessly harp about "only" 4000 U.S. troop deaths, but to totally ignore the civilian deaths and injuries of Iraqis these past 5 years. How very Christian of you.

by ziggy Fri Mar 28, 2008 11:22 am

Aaron wrote:Is their future more or less bright?

Ask the women of Iraq that. Ask the survivors of "collateral damage" victims, and the family survivors of the Iraqi sectarian killings over the past 5 years about that.

For sectarian religious wannabe bosses, for the advocates of Sharia law in Iraq, yes, the future is brighter. The prospect that, once they kill off their sectarian enemies, that they will be rulers annointed by Allah to enforce the Gospel, yes, the future is brighter. But for Iraqi women in general and the other victims of Sharia, what do you think?

by SamCogar Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:57 pm

SheikBen wrote:Sam,

One hopes that the situation in Iraq will get better over time. Any forecasts on the future of Los Angeles?

Mike, one can only hope that the situation in LA, Detroit, etc. will not get any worse over time.

But that is only false hope because no one is willing to take drastic measures.

.

by Aaron Fri Mar 28, 2008 2:03 pm

ziggy wrote:
Aaron wrote:Is their future more or less bright?

Ask the women of Iraq that. Ask the survivors of "collateral damage" victims, and the family survivors of the Iraqi sectarian killings over the past 5 years about that.

For sectarian religious wannabe bosses, for the advocates of Sharia law in Iraq, yes, the future is brighter. The prospect that, once they kill off their sectarian enemies, that they will be rulers annointed by Allah to enforce the Gospel, yes, the future is brighter. But for Iraqi women in general and the other victims of Sharia, what do you think?

I don't think any woman in the Muslim religion has a bright future.

Overall, the citizens of Iraq do. That's not what I think, that has been the the opinion of the average Iraqi people.

by SamCogar Fri Mar 28, 2008 2:04 pm

ziggy wrote:
SamCogar wrote:And Zigster, all you have to say about those horrific extrapolated statistics is:

Let America take care of its own problems,

GEEEZUS, that implies your lack of patriotism in that you really don't give a shidt about America's problems, ........ and your constant criticism of our government pretty much proves it.

Sam, I am not going to let you nor anyone else define either my patriotism nor my "lack of patriotism" any more than I will let you or anyone else define my spiritual salvation or lack thereof.

Zig, no need for you to worry about anyone else, ........ you have already defined your "lack of patriotism" for yourself, ..... dozens n' dozens of times.

.

by Aaron Fri Mar 28, 2008 2:16 pm

ziggy wrote:
SheikBen wrote:I note that 4,000 troops in an all volunteer military have died, and yet the war is being compared with Vietnam, in which 58000 troops in a largely drafted army died. By my math, at the present rate, the war in Iraq would need to last 70 years to equal the American loss of life in Vietnam.

The comparison with Vietnam is the attitude that American militarism against small nations is the cure for all things that "patriotic" Americans, whipped into a frency with hype and unfounded innuendos, panically imagine to be evil about those other nations.

You talk about troop casualties. But you totally ignore the inconvenient (for the nation attacked) ever increasing ratio of civilian casualties of war over troop casualties. That is convenient to an agressor nation. It is not only convenient, it allows the propagansists for the agressor nation to offer a warped sense of the total costs of war- as you are doing here. It allows you and SamCogar to endlessly harp about "only" 4000 U.S. troop deaths, but to totally ignore the civilian deaths and injuries of Iraqis these past 5 years. How very Christian of you.

The civilian casualities are not at the hands of Americans. Those casualities are at the hands of insurgents and terrorist and are often murdered for no other reason then they did not resist American forces.

And you want to turn Iraq over to those insurgents and terrorist and allow them to allign themselves with countries that would control over 1/5th of the worlds oil supply and all of these people despise America.

Yeah, that seems like a a really smart thing to do.

Rolling Eyes

by Sponsored content