Commissar Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 The bottom line that everyone seems to be missing is that we cannot combat this sort of thing with our current policies and force structure. Doing what we're doing now, we couldn't possibly stop this from happening again tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
213374U Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 The only way to prevent more soldiers from dying would be to ship every one of them off. And leaving the Iraqi high and dry as things are right now wouldn't be very nice. - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walsingham Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 The residents of the adjoining (Sunni) suburb, came out and helped with the injured and dead, bringing water and assisting in the transport of the wounded to the hospital and the dead away. Of course, the honour of the individual members of the two sects belies the hatred espoused by the extremists, both therein and those casting stones from the other religions. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Absolutely. I don't believe for a moment that the Sunni general population approve of this. But these are Sunni aligned extremists. "It wasn't lies. It was just... bull****"." -Elwood Blues tarna's dead; processing... complete. Disappointed by Universe. RIP Hades/Sand/etc. Here's hoping your next alt has a harp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metadigital Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 I would even venture they are ex-Ba'th-apparatchik-anarchists trying to jostle for a position in the black government. OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 The only way to prevent more soldiers from dying would be to ship every one of them off. And leaving the Iraqi high and dry as things are right now wouldn't be very nice. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> To put it bluntly: so? Last I heard, it wasn't the job of the American armed forces to make Iraq a better place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
213374U Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 To put it bluntly: so? Last I heard, it wasn't the job of the American armed forces to make Iraq a better place. Nope. But last I heard it's your responsability to clean up the messes you make. - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metadigital Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 The only way to prevent more soldiers from dying would be to ship every one of them off. And leaving the Iraqi high and dry as things are right now wouldn't be very nice. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> To put it bluntly: so? Last I heard, it wasn't the job of the American armed forces to make Iraq a better place. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What if the best interests of the American people was served by the region being stabilised, and not left with a power vacuum like, um, when the British pulled out of the Middle East and Afganistan after WW1 ... then what should those armed forces do? Serve their own immediate needs, or the needs of the many? OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabrielle Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 I wish the US would go back to it's pre WW1 isolationism. We mind our own business and stay out of other peoples affairs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 The only way to prevent more soldiers from dying would be to ship every one of them off. And leaving the Iraqi high and dry as things are right now wouldn't be very nice. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> To put it bluntly: so? Last I heard, it wasn't the job of the American armed forces to make Iraq a better place. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What if the best interests of the American people was served by the region being stabilised, and not left with a power vacuum like, um, when the British pulled out of the Middle East and Afganistan after WW1 ... then what should those armed forces do? Serve their own immediate needs, or the needs of the many? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Fair point. But if that's where your argument's coming from, then you need to make the logical conclusion; we don't have the force in Iraq at the moment to accomplish that goal, no matter what Georgie might say, and if we're to have any chance at all of cleaning up our own mess, as numbers put it, we need to get more guys in-country. Except we don't have the people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveThaiBinh Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 To put it bluntly: so? Last I heard, it wasn't the job of the American armed forces to make Iraq a better place. Honour takes the decision about withdrawal out of our hands. We cannot withdraw honourably while a legitimate Iraqi government is asking us to stay. That's the mess we made. It's not about us anymore. It's not about our agenda for withdrawal. We are hostage to the situation we have helped to create. Of course, we could just withdraw dishonourably, if we want the world to hold is in even more contempt than they do now. "An electric puddle is not what I need right now." (Nina Kalenkov) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
213374U Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 But if that's where your argument's coming from, then you need to make the logical conclusion; we don't have the force in Iraq at the moment to accomplish that goal, no matter what Georgie might say, and if we're to have any chance at all of cleaning up our own mess, as numbers put it, we need to get more guys in-country. I only know what I see in TV, but apparently they are stabilizing the region. Slowly, but steadily. You know, all that stuff about their autonomous government and elections and whatnot. - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Volourn Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 "To put it bluntly: so? Last I heard, it wasn't the job of the American armed forces to make Iraq a better place." It is. Unless youa re saying the Amerikan armed forces should be uncaring gits who have no problem blowing things up and then leaving the mess for others to clean up. Not to mention, the US leaving would make the armed forces liars as they have promised to help the Iraqis rebuild their country? I thought the Amerikan armed forces were honourable. A part of honour is keeping your word. Your choice. DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 But if that's where your argument's coming from, then you need to make the logical conclusion; we don't have the force in Iraq at the moment to accomplish that goal, no matter what Georgie might say, and if we're to have any chance at all of cleaning up our own mess, as numbers put it, we need to get more guys in-country. I only know what I see in TV, but apparently they are stabilizing the region. Slowly, but steadily. You know, all that stuff about their autonomous government and elections and whatnot. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> There are still large parts of the country that have power for three or four hours out of the day. A government is being put in place - yes, put in place, not "formed by the people" - but it's not the sort of government that's going to be able to weather these attacks - which are not decreasing in number, by the way - without massive US involvement. The Iraqi security forces are good guys, but there's not a chance in hell they can handle the insurgency by themselves. And as far as the government itself goes, we're going to have to see if it actually does take shape. Consider everything right now provisional; the Sunnis could easily nullify the entire constitution in the referendum if they're really that unhappy with it, and then we're back to square one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 "To put it bluntly: so? Last I heard, it wasn't the job of the American armed forces to make Iraq a better place." It is. Unless youa re saying the Amerikan armed forces should be uncaring gits who have no problem blowing things up and then leaving the mess for others to clean up. Not to mention, the US leaving would make the armed forces liars as they have promised to help the Iraqis rebuild their country? I thought the Amerikan armed forces were honourable. A part of honour is keeping your word. Your choice. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Nope. You don't take an oath to defend Iraq when you enlist/get commissioned. Trust me. But you're right, higher-ups have indeed committed the military to George's Middle Eastern Adventure, and I have little doubt that we're going to try and make it work. What I'm telling you is that from my vantage point, I don't see how it can, at all. So the real choice is, do we gut it out until we're either obliged to admit we can't do the job or have to resort to a draft, or get out now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azarkon Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 Iraq has become a cesspool of strife for the worst kind of people, that is no surprise. However, it would also be impossible to label all terrorists with one broad brush, as the Bush administration is attemping to do. There is no "War on Terror", because there isn't a coalition of forces that considers itself "Terror". There are, instead, numerous organizations operating at various degrees of brutality, everything from idealistic freedom fighters to common thugs, that at times cooperate and at times conflict with each other's differeing political and economic objectives. Moreover, it has always been this way, which is the reason generalizations fail. There are doors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Volourn Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 "Afghanistan. They leveled the place and last I checked the country and its 'democratic' government aren't doing so well." Amerika is still there. And, actually, other than the drug issue, Afghanistan is doing okay. Certainly in better shape than when they wer eunder the Taliban. You don't help improve a country that was in the state that Afghanistan was over night. It takes time, and patience - somehting that many people lack while they expect things to be perfect overnight. It took years for Europe to recover after WW2. Why should Afghanistan and Iraq be any different? "Nope. You don't take an oath to defend Iraq when you enlist/get commissioned. Trust me. But you're right, higher-ups have indeed committed the military to George's Middle Eastern Adventure, and I have little doubt that we're going to try and make it work. What I'm telling you is that from my vantage point, I don't see how it can, at all." That's what i meant. I didn't mean the individual Armed Forces soldier. I meant the Amred Forces intity. Though, many many individuals in the army have given their promise to the Iraqi people to help them. I am pro US Army. I epxect them to honour their pledges. DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Moth Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 Amerika is still there. And, actually, other than the drug issue, Afghanistan is doing okay. Certainly in better shape than when they wer eunder the Taliban. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, I am not so certain about that. With only around 5000 soldiers there and hunting Bin Laden at the same time, they don't look so sincere about rebuilding the place they just bombed to pieces. And now they have Iraq on their hands and nobody cares about that backward coutry any more. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What are you talking about? The insurgency in Afghanistan is not nearly as bad as it is in Iraq. And besides, the biggest job of the soldiers is to secure the country and keep it safe, not to actually do the rebuilding themselves. That is where the relief workers, foreign aid, etc. come in. And Afghanistan wasn't "bombed to peices", either. the vast majority of targets bombed were military targets intended to eradicate the Taliban resistance. And don't forget, there are other countries helping us there as well. There are a bunch of people still there, it just doesn't get much media attention any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calax Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 Well I'm saying that the survivors write the history books. Because the suriving majority from WW2 was the allies we all wrote that Hitler was evil. We don't give him much(if ever at all) credit for reviving a failed economy. I'm not saying that anyone is good or evil. the world is in shades of grey. the only place I've ever seen sombody refer to themself as evil is in a B movie, and Star Wars... People do abomidiable things but wen they win they tend to cover them up. Like the firebombing of Dresden and the destruction of a mission in Italy. we never hear about them because they were somthing that was done wrong by the allies. the latter is talked about but the only place I ever heard of dresden before I came here was in my english class when we read Slaughterhouse five. Somtimes having a dictator can be a good thing. Especially when the rest of society is so split over a topic that they are literally fighting a covert war that spills out into the street every so often. Some people agree with others and fight for their beliefs. We generally say "go you guy's!" to them until they threaten us then we promply threaten to turn them into a glass parkinglot. Hitler should be lauded for turning a dying economy into a thriving one. I'm not saying we should start thowing Jew's into firepits. I'm just saying that a persons accomplishments, good and bad, should be recognized, just as we should be paying more attention to the Constitutional Violations at Guantanamo Bay and call Bush on it. I'm appauled by the fact that people want america to run around like a petulant child and demolish everything that doesn't agree with us and has few "backers", then impose our own society on them. Anyway you'd think that annihlating the culture and government from one country would be enough in response to the destruction of a pair of towers. but it isn't we have to wipe out another country, and there's rumblings of extening the new American Empire to Iran and eventually North Korea... Fortunatly we have bush leaving office in 3 years, and both the afore mentioned countrys have much better armies than either Afganistan and Iraq so we can't fight a 6 month war with them, so I doubt that Bush will even try to kill either country. I'm not trying to trivialize the Twin Towers, But we have already taken more lives than were lost in the Terror attack. Americans should feel lucky, we've never really been a target at home like Japan, Spain, and England. I just don't like the knee jerk reaction of "the president can push anyone into prison who he doesn't like because he's a suspected terrorist" Also I think that some of the security measures are grossly uncalled for. For Example: In my area there is a Dam, we used to be able to drive across it to get from one side of the American River too the other, It significantly shortened your trip and saved gas. Because of the terror attack, the government decided to close the road over the dam. according to them, it was too much or a risk. When you look at how the dam was built and how much explosives would be needed to actually cause the dam to break, It's useless to try to plant a bomb on top of the dam, or to fly a plane through a canyon and cause it to hit the dam. that would just take a few chunks out of the face/top of the dam rather than cause it to break. The easiest way to cause a flood would be to blow out the floodgates, or try for a levy (which hasn't been closed by the way). It'd require much less explosives and get more effect. Victor of the 5 year fan fic competition! Kevin Butler will awesome your face off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metadigital Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 But if that's where your argument's coming from, then you need to make the logical conclusion; we don't have the force in Iraq at the moment to accomplish that goal, no matter what Georgie might say, and if we're to have any chance at all of cleaning up our own mess, as numbers put it, we need to get more guys in-country. I only know what I see in TV, but apparently they are stabilizing the region. Slowly, but steadily. You know, all that stuff about their autonomous government and elections and whatnot. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> There are still large parts of the country that have power for three or four hours out of the day. A government is being put in place - yes, put in place, not "formed by the people" - but it's not the sort of government that's going to be able to weather these attacks - which are not decreasing in number, by the way - without massive US involvement. The Iraqi security forces are good guys, but there's not a chance in hell they can handle the insurgency by themselves. And as far as the government itself goes, we're going to have to see if it actually does take shape. Consider everything right now provisional; the Sunnis could easily nullify the entire constitution in the referendum if they're really that unhappy with it, and then we're back to square one. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> MacArthur didn't leave Japan for seven years AND he had a puppet monarch to placate the people. Big changes, like birth and democracy, take a lot of effort and pain. OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Moth Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 Well I'm saying that the survivors write the history books. Because the suriving majority from WW2 was the allies we all wrote that Hitler was evil. We don't give him much(if ever at all) credit for reviving a failed economy. I'm not saying that anyone is good or evil. the world is in shades of grey. the only place I've ever seen sombody refer to themself as evil is in a B movie, and Star Wars... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Do you realize how ignorant you sounded in that comment? Tell you what: you talk to some Holocaust survivors, some WWII Veterans, or survivors of Jewish concentration camps about Hitler's economic triumphs, and I'm sure they'll be happy to here about it. Hitler was evil. I know you don't seem to believe in black and white, but only a fool disregards black and white entirely. The world is gray, but to see it purely in gray is just wrong. Oh sure, he was a monster, and all...he killed countless people, tried to take over Europe, tried to eliminate an entire ethnic group, but he sure did do well with the economy! Do you see my point here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calax Posted August 31, 2005 Share Posted August 31, 2005 (edited) We shouldn't ignore the good that someone does because they are overwhelmingly "evil" that's all I was trying to point out. Just like we shouldn't ignore the bad that sombody does who's overwelmingly "good" Edit: I just know I'm going to catch so much flack for these two posts.... Edited September 1, 2005 by Calax Victor of the 5 year fan fic competition! Kevin Butler will awesome your face off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metadigital Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 ...Do you realize how ignorant you sounded in that comment? Tell you what: you talk to some Holocaust survivors, some WWII Veterans, or survivors of Jewish concentration camps about Hitler's economic triumphs, and I'm sure they'll be happy to here about it. Hitler was evil. I know you don't seem to believe in black and white, but only a fool disregards black and white entirely. The world is gray, but to see it purely in gray is just wrong. Oh sure, he was a monster, and all...he killed countless people, tried to take over Europe, tried to eliminate an entire ethnic group, but he sure did do well with the economy! Do you see my point here? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> We shouldn't ignore the good that someone does because they are overwhelmingly "evil" that's all I was trying to point out. Just like we shouldn't ignore the bad that sombody does who's overwelmingly "good" <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Perhaps, to put it in Calaxspeak, Hitler was not very light side of the blackness of a black hole. Also, he did his best to wipe out a couple of ethic groups, like the Armenians (who aren't predominantly Jewish), too. It wasn't his theories, though. The Second Reich did much the same thing in Namibia, but no-one is allowed to talk about that because it was not the Nazis. OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calax Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 Perhaps, to put it in Calaxspeak, Hitler was not very light side of the blackness of a black hole. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't think that's my language considering that I can't make sense of it. Victor of the 5 year fan fic competition! Kevin Butler will awesome your face off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
213374U Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 Do you realize how ignorant you sounded in that comment? Tell you what: you talk to some Holocaust survivors, some WWII Veterans, or survivors of Jewish concentration camps about Hitler's economic triumphs, and I'm sure they'll be happy to here about it. Hitler was evil. I know you don't seem to believe in black and white, but only a fool disregards black and white entirely. The world is gray, but to see it purely in gray is just wrong. Calax has a point. Our moral values today (not to mention the way our history is written) are the result of the victory of a party over another, again and again, since even before we have a written history. There is something called moral relativism, but I'm not really in the mood to get into another "Good and Evil" debate. Suffice to say that while people point to Hitler as the Evil Man, Stalin and his successors were much worse. He received far less publicity, though, because the USSR survived WWII while the Third Reich did not. - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted September 1, 2005 Share Posted September 1, 2005 For a war that is supposedly be over that is a lot of dead. WAY TO GO W! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now