Would more U.S. troops help stop Iraq violence?

[Gorgon]

"Does it? I don't think so, just look around. Maybe one day humankind will be advanced enough that laws can be passed to effectively govern war (I'm not even going to get into the moral implications of that), but then again, the same can be said for say, gravity itself."

 

I'm not talking about some grand design, just a court of public opinion that keep the powers that are responsible to the people in check. It worked during Bush sr.

[Sand]

It seems that my senator, Tom Harkin, and Ted Kennedy are seeking to stop financial support for this "surge." In fact I hope that Congress does everything in its power to stop Bush from sending more troops over there and sabotage his occupation efforts. It is time for the Iraqis to take over. Civil war or not.

[metadigital]

Easy to say especially for someone who doesn't indulge in "what-if" thinking.

 

You really think the US is invulnerable to the world, don't you? That's just amazing.

[Sand]

I don't think the US is invulnerable. September 11 proved that. The war in Iraq is a complete and total debacle thanks to Bush's incompetence and it makes no sense to continue to do it his way. Bush failed. Plain and simple. Until he realizes that Congress should do everything in their power to make sure Bush isn't allowed to do what he wants just that he can add to the failure.

[metadigital]

[Sand]

Its not a dead horse till all our troops are home or Bush is no longer in office.

[metadigital]

It's dead. You keep beating the poor beast. Even if Obsidian aren't bored with reading it, I am.

[metadigital]

Right.

 

Let's keep the discussion relevant, and not just bleat opinions ad nauseam, as this is not conducive to the fair and equal exchange of information.

 

[Sand]

Meta, I am keeping it on topic as the original post.

 

Now Bush has stated that if we pull out now Iraq would become a "terrorist state." I highly disagree with that. The Bush administration's track record on predictions and interpretations of data has been very much been wrong.

 

They said there was WMDs in Iraq. That was proven false. They also said that Saddam had links to Al Qaeda. That has also been proven false. He stated that putting in a democracy and free elections would bring peace to the nation. Nope. Can we trust the man who has been wrong at every single decision about Iraq? He stated he has made changes in his policy on Iraq but all I see is him doing the same as always. Putting more troops in and hope for the best. The man is clueless and worse, delusional.

 

We are trying to force western democratic ideals on a group of people who do not share those ideals. They have their own culture. Their own social mores that they adhere to and trying to force ours on theirs, no matter who we ourselves don't like them, will meet strong resistance and resentment.

[metadigital]

The Bush administration's track record on predictions and interpretations of data has been very much been wrong. 

 

... Can we trust the man who has been wrong at every single decision ..?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sounds like a description I'd apply to a certain very vocal individual, and his opinions, from these very boards ... "

We are trying to force western democratic ideals on a group of people who do not share those ideals.  They have their own culture.  Their own social mores that they adhere to and trying to force ours on theirs, no matter who we ourselves don't like them, will meet strong resistance and resentment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's right, those dirty little semites aren't cultured enough to participate in a democracy. Adding racism to your isolationist diatribe, now? Excellent, I'm so pleased I re-opened the topic.

[Sand]

That's right, those dirty little semites aren't cultured enough to participate in a democracy. Adding racism to your isolationist diatribe, now? Excellent, I'm so pleased I re-opened the topic.

 

I did not say they aren't cultured enough. Nowhere did I make such judgment. That is your judgment of them, not mine. They have a different culture than ours. The have a different set of social norms on what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. Their culture is no more advance nor any more backwards than our own.

Edited January 14, 2007 by Sand

[metadigital]

That's right, those dirty little semites aren't cultured enough to participate in a democracy. Adding racism to your isolationist diatribe, now? Excellent, I'm so pleased I re-opened the topic.

 

I did not say they aren't cultured enough. Nowhere did I make such judgment. That is your judgment of them, not mine. They have a different culture than ours. The have a different set of social norms on what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. Their culture is no more advance nor any more backwards than our own.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Congratulations, you just defined Apartheid.

[Sand]

No.

 

You seem to think that we have the right to force our belief system, our social mores, our form of government, our culture on someone else. We don't. If the Iraqi people want peace, they will get peace, but they have to earn it themselves. If the Iraqis want a democracy they will earn it for themselves. Forcing someone to do something will only garner hostility and resentment. To think otherwise is a mark of hubris.

 

Only the Iraqis can determine what post occupation Iraq will look like and it is time that we let them.

Edited January 14, 2007 by Sand

[metadigital]

You seem to think you have the right to live in a country whose safety was earned with the blood of your ancestors, without fighting for the values that they died for for ALL mankind.

 

[Sand]

You seem to think you have the right to live in a country whose safety was earned with the blood of your ancestors, without fighting for the values that they died for for ALL mankind.

 

Because not all of mankind shares those values. That is your fallacy. Just as my ancestors fought and died for their beliefs so has theirs. If my country is attacked I will defend it if called upon. If my way of life is threatened I will face that threat without fear and with determination. However I will not force my country's culture, mores, and form of government on others. I do not have that right.

Edited January 14, 2007 by Sand

[Gorgon]

It makes you look foolish when you close a topic because of one poster you have been going tit for tat with yourself.

Edited January 14, 2007 by Gorgon

[Sand]

"

[metadigital]

It makes you look foolish when you close a topic because of one poster you have been going tit for tat with yourself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It makes me look foolish to argue with a fool, you mean.

 

You seem to think you have the right to live in a country whose safety was earned with the blood of your ancestors, without fighting for the values that they died for for ALL mankind.

Because not all of mankind shares those values. That is your fallacy. Just as my ancestors fought and died for their beliefs so has theirs. If my country is attacked I will defend it if called upon. If my way of life is threatened I will face that threat without fear and with determination. However I will not force my country's culture, mores, and form of government on others. I do not have that right.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's right, those dirty little semites aren't cultured enough to participate in a democracy. Adding racism to your isolationist diatribe, now? Excellent, I'm so pleased I re-opened the topic.

 

I did not say they aren't cultured enough. Nowhere did I make such judgment. That is your judgment of them, not mine. They have a different culture than ours. The have a different set of social norms on what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. Their culture is no more advance nor any more backwards than our own.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Congratulations, you just defined Apartheid.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Sand]

Nope, you are wrong meta no matter how large of a font you use.

 

As you seem to forget that the US and Iraq are two different nations, while South Africa is one nation. Nice try, but no dice.

[213374U]

That's right, those dirty little semites aren't cultured enough to participate in a democracy. Adding racism to your isolationist diatribe, now? Excellent, I'm so pleased I re-opened the topic.

You seem to think you have the right to live in a country whose safety was earned with the blood of your ancestors, without fighting for the values that they died for for ALL mankind.

 

[metadigital]

Nope, you are wrong meta no matter how large of a font you use.

 

As you seem to forget that the US and Iraq are two different nations, while South Africa is one nation.  Nice try, but no dice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just because you post a reply does not mean you have answered the comment.

 

You are fallaciously advocating that a tyrannical government can exist side-by-side with free societies, because the other culture is "different". THAT IS EXACTLY how Apartheid was rationalised by the racist government of SA.

 

First you advocate isolationalism, then endorse tyrannical Stalinist states (Saddam's Iraq) as an equal government model for peoples.

 

All you need to say now is The Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act (1949) between those semites and good, Amer'kan people from Iowa, with a The Population Registration Act (1950) to register those "different" people from the Middle East, too. Don't forget to keep them away from the USA with The Reservation of Separate Amenities Act (1953).

 

See a pattern yet?

 

No, of course not.

[Sand]

Meta seems to think that a democracy helps define an advance culture, while I do not.

[metadigital]

That's right, those dirty little semites aren't cultured enough to participate in a democracy. Adding racism to your isolationist diatribe, now? Excellent, I'm so pleased I re-opened the topic.

You seem to think you have the right to live in a country whose safety was earned with the blood of your ancestors, without fighting for the values that they died for for ALL mankind.

 

[213374U]

Meta seems to think that a democracy helps define an advance culture, while I do not.

That is not a stance I would support. If you are indeed willing to compare the degree of development of certain aspects of a culture, you must concede that democracy is usually superior to the alternatives, despite its many flaws.

 

Otherwise, you must fall back to cultural relativism, in which the phrase "advanced culture" has no place.

[Sand]

Just because you post a reply does not mean you have answered the comment.

 

You are fallaciously advocating that a tyrannical government can exist side-by-side with free societies, because the other culture is "different". THAT IS EXACTLY how Apartheid was rationalised by the racist government of SA.

 

If the people who are governed do not like the government governing them then they would revolt and replace it with a government of their choosing.

 

First you advocate isolationalism, then endorse tyrannical Stalinist states (Saddam's Iraq) as an equal government model for peoples.

 

That is up for the Iraqis to decide what is acceptable to them. Not for me to judge or force my views on them.

 

All you need to say now is The Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act (1949) between those semites and good, Amer'kan people from Iowa, with a The Population Registration Act (1950) to register those "different" people from the Middle East, too. Don't forget to keep them away from the USA with The Reservation of Separate Amenities Act (1953).

 

Who people marry is irrelevant to me. That is their life and not mine. If two people of different cultures seek to marry and have kids, more power to them. if they want to adhere to one culture over another, more power to them as well. It isn't my place to tell them that they are right or wrong unless they try to force their views on me.

 

See a pattern yet?

 

No, of course not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, I do. I see a pattern that you cannot accept complex social dynamics of other cultures being valid and believe the U.S. way of things is the only way of things and seek to dominate and force other cultures, using force of arms if need be, to adhere Western social mores.