A war of utter folly

Aaron wrote: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.

How do we know that? That seems to be propaganda designed to fit the Cheney-Bush "we are winning" mantra. It is simply the 2008 version of "We will be greeted as liberators". But what tangible evidence do you have that significant numbers of "average Iraqi people" actually think that Iraq "has a bright future"? What is an "average Iraqi" person, anyway? Are women among those "average Iraqi people"?

I find it outrageous that anyone would question my patritotism, or the patriotism of other Americans opposed to US aggression in Iraq. Iraq did not attack the USA. Our attack on Iraq was needless and so the deaths of over 4,000 American military men & women, the grave injuries of tens of thousands more, not to mention the death, injury, and dislocation of millions of Iraqi civilians was needless.

I find the actions of my government shameful. It actually causes me anguish, this preemptive war and all the death and destruction associated with it. I want it to end.

I find it very hypocritical that some say (including members of this forum) that it is acceptable to stay in Iraq and/or invade other Arab countries because they are a violent culture and they've been at war for 2 thousand years. Yet when I say we should just march out, I'm an idiot or lack compassion or whatever because we must bring some kind of stability. That is an impossible task.

The fact of the matter is the majority of people living in the Middle East hate America and Americans. I believe they have legitimate reasons for hating us, some of you disagree. However, we all agree they hate us and want us out. We all agree they will go to extreme lengths to get us out, to kill us, to destroy all things American. That is the notion that the USA can bring stability to a Muslim nation is so ridiculous. They will never accept us. Most of them would rather die than to submit to the USA. It is probably accurate to say that most of them would sacrafice the lives of their own children to rid their people of our interference. Staying the course won't work. It will never work. We will always be the enemy there as long as we keep interferring with their governments, their way of life, their nation, their community. They don't want our culture, our system of government, or our way of life. We need to accept and respect that.

btw.........I think the number, whatever it is today, 4003 give or take seems small unless it is your son, or your daughter, you brother, etc killed for reasons that have nothing to do with the freedoms Americans have long held so dear.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote: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.

How do we know that? That seems to be propaganda designed to fit the Cheney-Bush "we are winning" mantra. It is simply the 2008 version of "We will be greeted as liberators". But what tangible evidence do you have that significant numbers of "average Iraqi people" actually think that Iraq "has a bright future"? What is an "average Iraqi" person, anyway? Are women among those "average Iraqi people"?

No, we actually know this because it is what the Iraqi people have said in various polls reported from both sides of the spectrum.

This week the polls show optimism is lower then it was in January with the increased violence in southern Iraq and Sadr city but that's to be expected. Anytime there is an increase in violence, peoples opinions will reflect the fear that comes with uncertainty. It happens both here and in Iraq. It's a good thing that the military, unlike Congress and liberals, does not base every decision on the latest poll.

Speaking of this round of violence, it is not led by American forces. It is led by Iraqi forces who are starting to stand on their own that are fighting against Iranian supported factions of the Mahdi army, which is a good thing.

Of course the peaceniks will so there’s been no progress because of this violence.

Stephanie wrote:I find it outrageous that anyone would question my patritotism, or the patriotism of other Americans opposed to US aggression in Iraq. Iraq did not attack the USA. Our attack on Iraq was needless and so the deaths of over 4,000 American military men & women, the grave injuries of tens of thousands more, not to mention the death, injury, and dislocation of millions of Iraqi civilians was needless.

I find the actions of my government shameful. It actually causes me anguish, this preemptive war and all the death and destruction associated with it. I want it to end.

I find it very hypocritical that some say (including members of this forum) that it is acceptable to stay in Iraq and/or invade other Arab countries because they are a violent culture and they've been at war for 2 thousand years. Yet when I say we should just march out, I'm an idiot or lack compassion or whatever because we must bring some kind of stability. That is an impossible task.

The fact of the matter is the majority of people living in the Middle East hate America and Americans. I believe they have legitimate reasons for hating us, some of you disagree. However, we all agree they hate us and want us out. We all agree they will go to extreme lengths to get us out, to kill us, to destroy all things American. That is the notion that the USA can bring stability to a Muslim nation is so ridiculous. They will never accept us. Most of them would rather die than to submit to the USA. It is probably accurate to say that most of them would sacrafice the lives of their own children to rid their people of our interference. Staying the course won't work. It will never work. We will always be the enemy there as long as we keep interferring with their governments, their way of life, their nation, their community. They don't want our culture, our system of government, or our way of life. We need to accept and respect that.

btw.........I think the number, whatever it is today, 4003 give or take seems small unless it is your son, or your daughter, you brother, etc killed for reasons that have nothing to do with the freedoms Americans have long held so dear.

For the record, you were for the invasion before you were against the invasion, correct!!!

At least she can admit that she was wrong. That's a hell of a lot better than many of us here can do.

That doesn't change the facts one iota.

And if I ever am, I'll admit it.

If it happens.

ziggy wrote:At least she can admit that she was wrong. That's a hell of a lot better than many of us here can do.

Yes, I was wrong. I think why I was wrong is a very important, though. I was wrong because I foolishly believed what our President and his administration was telling us. I've also freely admitted I voted for the jerk twice. Nobody put a gun to my head and nobody can claim I've been dishonest. Too bad we can't say the same for our illustrious leaders.

I just wish those who disagree with me would pick a story and stick to it. Am I radical anti-Semite, or a heartless bitch who cares nothing for the Iraqi people?

I don't know if your heartless or a radical but you're wrong about 'marching out'.

Stephanie wrote:

ziggy wrote:At least she can admit that she was wrong. That's a hell of a lot better than many of us here can do.

Yes, I was wrong. I think why I was wrong is a very important, though. I was wrong because I foolishly believed what our President and his administration was telling us. I've also freely admitted I voted for the jerk twice. Nobody put a gun to my head and nobody can claim I've been dishonest. Too bad we can't say the same for our illustrious leaders.

I just wish those who disagree with me would pick a story and stick to it. Am I radical anti-Semite, or a heartless bitch who cares nothing for the Iraqi people?

Stephanie,

I don't peg you as a radical anti-Semite, nor do I peg Dr. Paul that way. Anti-Semitism, like racism, has become a very convenient charge against those who disagree with a given policy, and I think it's a charge that is unfair 99% of the time when used. As for "heartless bitch," well, aren't we all? Seriously, I'd put that in the same category as the former charge.

I would again disagree with the charge that Bush was being dishonest, however. He believed that Iraq was a threat because he wanted to. That's not quite the same as dishonesty. When someone has come to dislike a dictator/ex-spouse/boss very much indeed, it becomes a little too easy to believe their intentions are worse and more likely than they really are. My mother in law, for example, has accused my father in law (currently in prison) for crimes against humanity that such a mortal would be incapable of.

I think Bush is analagous to the mother in law. He hated Hussein for a long time and came to believe that he was a threat, perhaps irrationally. Bush chose to believe what he wanted to, but I think that made him unwise rather than dishonest. While I will again repeat that many better choices can and should have been made, I do not believe that Bush's intentions were wrong, but rather his mind was not functioning as well as it should have.

I'm anxious to see how the Iraqi military strike on Basra goes. If the Iraqis themselves begin to do the dangerous business with success, then it's high time to march out. It's also high time for our country to have an open and honest debate about when it is appropriate to use our military overseas, and that debate needs to have similar standards for Republican Presidents as it does for Democratic ones.

SheikBen wrote:I'm anxious to see how the Iraqi military strike on Basra goes. If the Iraqis themselves begin to do the dangerous business with success, then it's high time to march out. It's also high time for our country to have an open and honest debate about when it is appropriate to use our military overseas, and that debate needs to have similar standards for Republican Presidents as it does for Democratic ones.

I would agree with that, to an extent. I believe the 'march out' must be gradual to ensure the Iranians don't take our place militarly once we're gone.

I definately agree about future deployments. Congress needs to take their responsibility seriously and stop giving their constitutional obligations away to one man.

Michael,

There certainly is truth to the notion that people believe what they want to believe. I still don't see that as an excuse for the actions of Bush and his adminstration.

I don't see a whole lot of people disagreeing that Saddam Hussein was a dangerous man. He proved himself to be a murderous lunatic and a ruthless dictator willing to commit atrocities to futher his agenda. He wasn't the only person like that at that time, there have been others before him, there are others in power right now. Sadly, I believe there will be others in the future. We can't solve the problems of the rest of the world. We should be concentrating on solving the problems we have right here at home.

If Bush were sincere about his efforts to protect Americans from terrorism, he wouldn't have sent troops to Iraq to topple Saddam. He would have sent troops to our ports and borders to protect Americans from the terrorists and other criminals crossing our porous borders. They pose the greatest risk to our sovereignty and to our way of life.

SheikBen wrote:I think Bush is analagous to the mother in law. He hated Hussein for a long time and came to believe that he was a threat, perhaps irrationally. Bush chose to believe what he wanted to, but I think that made him unwise rather than dishonest. While I will again repeat that many better choices can and should have been made, I do not believe that Bush's intentions were wrong, but rather his mind was not functioning as well as it should have.

And we told you so- back then, when it could have mattered more, decisively more- but they branded us as but un-patriotic, piert (using Sam's new word) "peaceniks" (using Aaron's favorite word) who deserved to be ignored, if not imprisoned for treason. Not only was Bush's brain not functioning as well as it should have, but we, collectively, saluted and bent over and turned our own brains- the brains of Congress and of tens of millions of us into war-stampeeding mush, in a "follow the leader Bush who will save us from the sky is falling" frenzy of faux patriotism, and persecution of those who dared to doubt the dubious bunk of the delerious dumbasses.

Actually I like copperheads better. Peacenik gives the impression of someone who is honorable and not a coward, which many "peaceniks" were during the 60's. But that's another conversation.

And not everyone supported Bush. Hell, most of the democrats didn't support Bush. They were doing all they know how to do, chasing a poll and going the way the present wind was blowing. Those cowards didn't want to be in Iraq any more in 2003 then they do now. They were just more scared of the going against the American people and possilby losing some votes then standing up for their cowardly convictions. If the American opinion suddenly shifted and victory in Iraq became the current choice of the people, sister Nan, dingy Harry, BO and HC couldn't print money fast enough to give it to Bush.

Stephanie wrote:If Bush were sincere about his efforts to protect Americans from terrorism, he wouldn't have sent troops to Iraq to topple Saddam. He would have sent troops to our ports and borders to protect Americans from the terrorists and other criminals crossing our porous borders. They pose the greatest risk to our sovereignty and to our way of life.

Stephanie, I have to disagree with you on that.

The terrorists and other criminals crossing our porous borders do not pose such a problem.

In the "long term", it is the lefty liberals, the socialists and the do-gooders who argue, protest and demand "equal rights", new Laws and special treatment for ...... those of the Muslim faith, ..... the illegals ........ and said terrorists and other criminals crossing our porous borders ......... that pose the greatest risk to our sovereignty and to our way of life.

Never before in the history of the Uniited States has a Religious sect determined the Rule of Law, .... nor has Government or Public entities "favored" a specific Religious sect ......... as is now occuring with those who claim "special privileges" because they are believers of the Muslim faith.

In the "short term", the greatest risk to our sovereignty and to our way of life would be an abrupt disruption and/or "cut off" of our Middle Eastern oil imports.

"Hell would hath no fury" ....... like would be experienced here in the US within 6 to 12 months if that were to happen.

Our economy would come to a "screeching halt" and riots, thefts, murders, etc., etc. would "flare up" in every County in every State in this Nation.

.

SamCogar wrote:

Stephanie wrote:If Bush were sincere about his efforts to protect Americans from terrorism, he wouldn't have sent troops to Iraq to topple Saddam. He would have sent troops to our ports and borders to protect Americans from the terrorists and other criminals crossing our porous borders. They pose the greatest risk to our sovereignty and to our way of life.

Stephanie, I have to disagree with you on that.

The terrorists and other criminals crossing our porous borders do not pose such a problem.

In the "long term", it is the lefty liberals, the socialists and the do-gooders who argue, protest and demand "equal rights", new Laws and special treatment for ...... those of the Muslim faith, ..... the illegals ........ and said terrorists and other criminals crossing our porous borders ......... that pose the greatest risk to our sovereignty and to our way of life.

Never before in the history of the Uniited States has a Religious sect determined the Rule of Law, .... nor has Government or Public entities "favored" a specific Religious sect ......... as is now occuring with those who claim "special privileges" because they are believers of the Muslim faith.

In the "short term", the greatest risk to our sovereignty and to our way of life would be an abrupt disruption and/or "cut off" of our Middle Eastern oil imports.

"Hell would hath no fury" ....... like would be experienced here in the US within 6 to 12 months if that were to happen.

Our economy would come to a "screeching halt" and riots, thefts, murders, etc., etc. would "flare up" in every County in every State in this Nation.

.

You know, Sam, there is some truth to what you have said here. I believe the ubra-liberals are our own worst enemies. They are willing to indebt our grandchildren and beyond to fund their socialist causes.

On the issue of Middle Eastern oil, that is another story. We have known for decades US oil supplies could not meet our energy needs, yet instead of creating policies that encourage the development of alternative sources of fuel and the construction of hydro, nuclear, and other types of power plants, our government places obstacles in their paths. Some of this is due to environmentalists but an equal amount is caused by those with money and power who don't want their corner on the market infiltrated.

Even now, with this discovery of all that oil Jimmy posted the other day, how much that will help us depends a lot on our governments willingness to allow the development of the region and price reductions will only be possible if we create new refineries.

The problem of US dependency on Middle Eastern oil is a problem we ourselves in large part created. Rather than invading, occupying, dislocating, and toppling Arab governments the USA should be investing heavily in becoming energy independent. Had we taken this issue as seriously as we should have since the Carter administration, if not sooner, we wouldn't be in this kettle of fish now. We won't get out of it by digging ourselves and future generations into unsurmountable debt with an unneccesary war(s) either. We will still need to find and discover alternative sources of energy and create machines and devices etc that will run on them.

Ziggy,

How exactly were the anti-war voices persecuted? Did something happen to you or Mr Kucinich that I am unaware of?

SheikBen wrote:Ziggy,

How exactly were the anti-war voices persecuted? Did something happen to you or Mr Kucinich that I am unaware of?

Look at the way our candidates are treated, Michael. Look at the ridicule and scorn heaped upon kucinich. Examine the way Ron Paul has been treated, the way he continues to be treated. He advocates peace and the party leaders and the MSM call him and his supporters names and tell us to "take off our tin foil hats".

Who knows what else is going on? Do you know for a fact I'm not on some "list" somewhere? I don't. Do packages your friends and family send you come stamped "Scanned by US Marshals"? Mine do now. My mother's Christmas gifts to my children, my mother-in-law's Easter presents to the kids. I saved one of the boxes to prove it. I have a couple of friends overseas I speak to by telephone. They're convinced my phone is tapped. They don't need a warrant anymore so it is a distinct possibility and given my support and contributions to groups like The Campaign to End the Occupation, I'd say it's probably quite likely.

Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel and Bill Richardson are treated by democrats the way they are because they're all way out there in left field on many, many issues, not just war. Each are about as far to the left as you can get and if truth be known, the only reason they're registered democrats is because they couldn't get elected to the offices they hold were they to run on the Green party or whatever liberal fringe thier kind normally belong to.

Same thing with Ron Paul. He has publically stated that the only reason he's a republican is it's easier to get on the ballot then it would be if he were to run as what he really is, which is a libertarian. The only reason he garnered any tv time or recognition is because he was the only anti-war candidate in the Republican party.

Each of these individuals found a small niche in their limited community but none were main stream America before Iraq, they're not now nor will they be after Iraq. That's not perscution. That's simple fact.

Stephanie wrote:

SheikBen wrote:Ziggy,

How exactly were the anti-war voices persecuted? Did something happen to you or Mr Kucinich that I am unaware of?

Look at the way our candidates are treated, Michael. Look at the ridicule and scorn heaped upon kucinich. Examine the way Ron Paul has been treated, the way he continues to be treated. He advocates peace and the party leaders and the MSM call him and his supporters names and tell us to "take off our tin foil hats".

Steph, I am almost absolutely sure that the "real reason" Ron Paul is being persecuted is because of his stance on "spending".

Me thinks both Parties and others are scared to death that if elected he would hack n' slash each new year's Budget ........ to the bare bones ...... and veto any Bills containing "pork", etc.

.

Stephanie,

I have to agree with Sam; Ron Paul is hated not because of his opposition to the war but because of his insistence of common domestic sense. It worries the fat cats.

I also have a problem with the government invading our privacy, but is that the same as "persecution?" Dennis Kucinich freely roams the west side of Cleveland, with his new wife, doing all the socially hip things to do and I don't believe anyone is trying to silence him.

I will agree that some people can be rude when they address those against the war, just as some people can be very rude indeed when addressing those in favor of the war. A dose of civility can always do a great measure of good, and it could be used, particularly on television (my wife and I had to choose between internet and cable, so we chose internet--I was at my mom's the other day and turned on the tv and immediately realized that I was missing nothing). Still, incivility is not persecution, and if it is, then the word "persecution" has lost all of its meaning.

SamCogar wrote:

Stephanie wrote:

SheikBen wrote:Ziggy,

How exactly were the anti-war voices persecuted? Did something happen to you or Mr Kucinich that I am unaware of?

Look at the way our candidates are treated, Michael. Look at the ridicule and scorn heaped upon kucinich. Examine the way Ron Paul has been treated, the way he continues to be treated. He advocates peace and the party leaders and the MSM call him and his supporters names and tell us to "take off our tin foil hats".

Steph, I am almost absolutely sure that the "real reason" Ron Paul is being persecuted is because of his stance on "spending".

Me thinks both Parties and others are scared to death that if elected he would hack n' slash each new year's Budget ........ to the bare bones ...... and veto any Bills containing "pork", etc..

Even though, unlike John McCain, he's requested MILLION$$$ in ear mark pork spending just like Hillary and Byrd. Wouldn't that make him a bit of a hypocrite Sam?

"He would have sent troops to our ports and borders to protect Americans from the terrorists and other criminals crossing our porous borders. They pose the greatest risk to our sovereignty and to our way of life."

Well Steph that makes for a good sound byte but your allegation above does not appear to be altogethor accurate.

(I refer to the part about "terrorists" crossing our "porous" borders).

"Terrorists" have no need to sneak across the Mexican border.

Just look at the 9-11 perpetrators as a case in point.

Did any of them "sneak" in? No, they did not need to.

And as to the ports, I think there is a lot of misunderstanding there too.

Let me give a case in point.

This past week I went to the port facility at Norfolk to pick up a load of rubber from Indonesia ok.
Lots of port security. they check you up and down, run your name thru the computer, etc.

Well after 3 or 4 hrs they figured out my ship had already come in and the load I was after had been picked up and taken to a warehouse several miles away.

So then I had to go thru the same anal exam to get back out and go to the other warehouse.

Where there was no security whatsoever.

(In the meantime the load had switched hands 3 times on paper but that's a topic for another thread).

So if you were a terrorist bent on sabotage or mayhem, where yould you attack that load of rubber?

At the port facility teeming with armed security or the warehouse where there is zero security?

They had several loads of rubber coming out that day so how much trouble would it be to load a small detonating and/or inflammatory device in one or more of them which they could assume are going to leave and go straight thru the harbor tunnel to come back west.

Talk about mayhem just intercept one load on one end of the tunnel and another on the other end and activate the improvised devices. No need for anything elaborate.

40,000 pounds of rubber burning with thick black smoke on each end of the tunnel.

What a mess.

I know you might think I am just a paranoid ex-cop driving a truck but still.

My point being that an impenetrable fortress type wall on the Mexican border is a simplistic solution that some seem to be buying in to.

I recommend a more broad-based, holistic approach.

Just think what a job I could do if I was the color code coordinator, LOL....

Sherm's right. The Mexican border is 1,969 miles long from California to Texas. That's nothing compared to the 5,522 mile Canadian/US border. And none of the compares to the thousands of miles of shorelines this country has. Maybe we should build a big fence to keep everyone out.

SheikBen wrote:Stephanie,

I have to agree with Sam; Ron Paul is hated not because of his opposition to the war but because of his insistence of common domestic sense. It worries the fat cats.

I also have a problem with the government invading our privacy, but is that the same as "persecution?" Dennis Kucinich freely roams the west side of Cleveland, with his new wife, doing all the socially hip things to do and I don't believe anyone is trying to silence him.

I will agree that some people can be rude when they address those against the war, just as some people can be very rude indeed when addressing those in favor of the war. A dose of civility can always do a great measure of good, and it could be used, particularly on television (my wife and I had to choose between internet and cable, so we chose internet--I was at my mom's the other day and turned on the tv and immediately realized that I was missing nothing). Still, incivility is not persecution, and if it is, then the word "persecution" has lost all of its meaning.

Geesh, I've never thought of Dennis Kucinich as being hip in any way. Well, he does have that lovely wife.

I would say the government invading the privacy of citizens is a form of persecution. Surely there are worse forms of persecution, but sometimes these violations of our civil liberties lead to some pretty grave consequences.

We got satellite television about 11 months ago. We discuss regularly dropping it once our year agreement is up. It's all so much garbage. Having said that, we've become fans of "Don't Forget the Lyrics" and my husband and daughter have been trying to convince me to try to get on that show. I couldn't tell you what I had for lunch yesterday, but I know song lyrics that span nearly 6 decades and cover everything from Abba to ZZ Top, Frank Sinatra to Frank Zappa, and Alabama to White Zombie. Unfortunately, I couldn't carry Row Row Row Your Boat in a bucket and am not up for the public humiliation.