Dems pass bill to hasten defeat

Originally Posted by gnirtS

Lack of intelligence meaning easily misled. Army in particular at lower level thinking for yourself really isnt encouraged. You're told what to believe.

Deliberate lies, propaganda in an attempt to mislead an entire population. Sums up iraq nicely.

I guess everyone in this country is just plain stupid. Thanks John Kerry and the elitist people you represent.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by waste gate

I guess everyone in this country is just plain stupid. Thanks John Kerry and the elitist people you represent.

Wow, you really don't like reading, do you?

[Enigma]

[August]

Originally Posted by gnirtS

Lack of intelligence meaning easily misled. Army in particular at lower level thinking for yourself really isnt encouraged. You're told what to believe.

Well believe this. Not only does the US Army have a much higher average of high school and college graduates per capita than their civilian counterparts, they have complete access to all the sources of information that you do and they have first hand knowledge of the situation over there.

"Told what to believe"? No sir it sounds like its you that has been "told what to believe" and it's a crock of bovine feces.

[dean_acheson]

Where is my beating the dead horse icon when I need it?

I don't know about Democratic Liberal Commie Scum, but if you haven't attended a post-graduate program outside a MBA course in this country in the last decade, then you don't really grasp the internal hate America crowd, and yes, they are for the most part, folks who lost the Cold War, b/c the Soviet Union dissolved, and from more than one professor have I heard that the U.S. and the USSR were moral equivalents. And more than a few students express that belief that the vast majority of problems in this world are/were caused by U.S. foreign policy.

Now some of you might agree with that last statment, or even the last two. That's fine, but you are wrongheaded.

I do not like Foucault, and am not a big fan of FDR, but at least the latter understood that there are something that are real, and worth fighting for, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Freedoms, as compared to the modern left's embrace of post-structrualism.

The values that we fight for in Iraq are important, and unless you are bigoted enough to think that that cobbled up nation state can't exist without a strongman, than you should be pulling for the success of the United States and Great Britain in their efforts to create a functioning republic where today only exist theocratic forms of government that stay in power by oil revnues that pay for vast amounts of cultural auturky and hatred for Isreal.

Those that would call the cautionary word that leaving would invite slaughter is simply a 'gamblers bet,' I give you this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge.

I can't believe that many of the same people that would stomp their feet up and down and scream and yell about folks like Pinochet now seem to look towards Saddam and his regime with rose colored glasses.

I can't believe the people that would like to see the U.S. fail, and leave this fanantic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad genocide preaching idiot in charge of what could very well be the strongest power in teh region, given an Iraq bathed in fratricide after an early U.S. pullout.

Then again, a lot of folk want to see the United States fail, for their own personal reasons.

I guess it doesn't matter, the Dems will pull funding, the whole region will fall further into despotism and bloodshed, and the left will blame Bush.

I'm glad that I don't live in a big city anymore, so I won't be there when a re-energized terrorist movement funded by Iran, using funds siphoned from Iraqi oil sales in Iranian controlled regions (ala Syria and Leabanon) pays for a dirty bomb in NYC.

Who was it that said that to understand politics, you must understand that the right thinks the left is stupid, and the left thinks the right is evil. I can't help but think about that when I work myself in a froth at the banality of statements I hear coming out of DC concerning current events.... http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=190

[dean_acheson]

Originally Posted by gnirtS

A large % of americans still think 11/9 was somehow to do with Iraq. That shows just how utterly deluded the populace is, taken in by spin, propaganda and paranoia from the government.

Occupying an arab area in the middle east and killing more and more each day is REALLY going to make them love you. As america found out on 11/9 - piss people off enough and they eventually strike back.
You dont make people like you by bombing/killing their families.

you know, gnirtS, I guess I am one of those idiots, but wth is 11/9?

how many degrees does a person have to earn before they can disagree with you and not be someone taken in by spin, propaganda and paranoia from "the" government, or is it that until they agree with you they remain a simpleton?

You didn't happen to work at Pravda, did you?

[Ark]

At least Dean and a few others know what they are talking about.

[Ark]

[quote=gnirtS]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Being intelligent was never a requirement for joining the army so thats to be expected.

I don't get where this attitude stems from that you can basically be an idiot and serve effectively in the military.

Do me favor and don't comment on the intelligence of those in the Army. Your broad-based generalizations make you look like a moron.

So far, your entire outlook is a study in Bovine Scatology.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by dean_acheson

you know, gnirtS, I guess I am one of those idiots, but wth is 11/9?

how many degrees does a person have to earn before they can disagree with you and not be someone taken in by spin, propaganda and paranoia from "the" government, or is it that until they agree with you they remain a simpleton?

He's using dd/mm/YY format, as opposed to mm/dd/YY. I'm assuming that you're aware of this already.

You might be one of those idiots, I don't know. There definitely was a PR exercise involving the President, VP and others to link the events of 9/11 to the rationale for war in Iraq. Check the result here
I'd fisk your longer post, but I'm have to get some sleep. Working on a post-grad in the US system is hard work, and as yet, not anti-American hard work

edit-

Originally Posted by Ark

I don't get where this attitude stems from that you can basically be an idiot and serve effectively in the military.

Why don't you put your elitist attitude in check. It is apparent you are not qualified to dictate to others what exactly it takes to be in the military.

I'd say the only ones qualified are those who either have served, or are serving, but this is a sidetrack.
Rather than focusing on gnirtS shooting his mouth off, has anyone got a theory on why so many soldiers think they're in Iraq in reaction to 9/11?

I mean, when it's so obviously for WMD/humanitarian/oil/whatever reasons...

[Ark]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

He's using dd/mm/YY format, as opposed to mm/dd/YY. I'm assuming that you're aware of this already.

You might be one of those idiots, I don't know. There definitely was a PR exercise involving the President, VP and others to link the events of 9/11 to the rationale for war in Iraq. Check the result here
I'd fisk your longer post, but I'm have to get some sleep. Working on a post-grad in the US system is hard work, and as yet, not anti-American hard work

edit-

I'd say the only ones qualified are those who either have served, or are serving, but this is a sidetrack.
Rather than focusing on gnirtS shooting his mouth off, has anyone got a theory on why so many soldiers think they're in Iraq in reaction to 9/11?

I mean, when it's so obviously for WMD/humanitarian/oil/whatever reasons...

*EDIT* To get back on topic. lol

I think we all interpolate information differently. There are those that see everything Bush does as backwards and without reason, while there are others who are in total disagreement.

99% of us have the same sources of information yet a majority of us have differing opinions. Why? Who knows....it's probably a nature vs nurture debate. lol

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by gnirtS

As for those that haven't joined the army, a nationwide poll conducted by the Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University found that more than a third of Americans suspect that the federal government “assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East;” 16% believe that the twin towers collapsed not because fully-fueled passenger jets smashed into them but because agents of the Bush administration had secretly rigged them to explode.

Now who's looking stupid?

EDIT: I will also try searching for a link showing the then-assumed connections between Iraq and 9/11. The fact that they may have been based on poor intelligence is another matter but the nonsense that "Bush lied people died" is obnoxiously boring already.

[Ark]

Originally Posted by gnirtS

Lack of intelligence meaning easily misled. Army in particular at lower level thinking for yourself really isnt encouraged. You're told what to believe.

Deliberate lies, propaganda in an attempt to mislead an entire population. Sums up iraq nicely.

Being easily misled is not a sign of a lack of intelligence.

I can show you a TON of Master's and PHD students/graduates that are very easily misled. These people are obviously intelligent, even if their views are different. Being a follower and not a leader does not make somebody an "unintelligent".

Care to explain what signifies "intelligence"?

On a side note, this whole "evil Bush is killing innocent families with his lies!!!11111oneoneone" garbage is non-sensical and boring at best.

[Yahoshua]

Originally Posted by gnirtS

Being intelligent was never a requirement for joining the army so thats to be expected.

Wow Gnirts.

Have you ever sworn an oath to defend the values of your nation, picked up a rifle and actually DONE something about it? I admit I have not done so, but I most certainly have a desire to join them but as of yet have been prevented by frustrating circumstances involving an utterly inept bureaucracy from doing so (further elaboration is unnecessary). Irregardless of my imposition I fully support our troops to whatever end may come about.

I don't know how you feel about the rights you currently exercise in your nation but you certainly haven't earned them. But here in America they are just that: Inalienable rights guaranteed to the populace. While I may feel that I have not fully earned the rights I do exercise, the difference between us is that I'm working toward earning it while you are busy abusing those who actually earned those rights. Those men have fought for it, shed blood, sweat, and endured bitter tears for it. They have most certainly earned the rights they freely exercise.

You are exactly the kind of person who leave that kind of work to everyone else, riding on the coattails of better men than themselves. All the while you are ridiculing them, putting them under a microscope for every mistake they made while in a position of service these men volunteered for time and again. Have you ever wondered WHY a large number of the soldiers there have volunteered for a 4th tour? You are content with the busy nothings of everyday life while being quick to criticize the faults of others before correcting your own.




P.S. Here's the Dead horse Icon that dean was inquiring about (copy it and use it in photobucket, it's a grat free service).

[dean_acheson]

That is something that I have always had a hard time with Mr. Jefferson about. His postulation that there are 'inalienable' rights. He makes it sound so easy.....

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

What a radical statement. In fact, there are none. There is just the belief, that if we belive, then they exist. They are based on faith. The same faith the leads men and women to stand up and fight for these ideas. They are not defended by snarky comments that stike the less washed anarchists amongst us as being radical chic iconoclasim.

No. My President did not orchastrate 9/11. No, my President did not lie about the intentions and capabilites of Saddam Hussein before the Iraqi invasion. Yes, Hussein was a destablizing threat in a region declared vital to American security interests by Jimmy Carter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_doctrine). And yes, the work that the allies are doing to bring these 'inalienable' rights to common Iraqis is not only important and right, but is an example of the best western ideals of acting for the good of others.

The other day I was downstairs at work, and a recuriter was there to talk to me, and a woman sitting around made a snarky comment about how she bet he 'wished the war was over and the boys could come home' from behind her Lisa Loeb glasses, and he said "yes ma'am, but not until the job we are there for is done."

[squigian]

It will be interesting to look at Iraq in a decade. It could go any number of ways. Here's a brief analysis of two possible routes:

If we pull out..:

The weak Iraqi security forces cannot contain the internal unrest adequately without the help of the Shi'ite militias. Seeing this new state of a weakened and Shia-based, Iran may attempt to move in for the sake of 'regional stability'; if so, ordinary Iraqis may resist their old enemy's overtures whilst Shia hardliners welcome the change. An internal conflict, between hardliners, backed by Iran, and moderates, backed by the US (perhaps) develops.


If we stay in...:

Our troops are worn down by attrition but reinforced by new soldiers from America and Iraqi volunteers. The ordinary people will either loathe us the more for staying or become used to our presence over a longer period. The focus will have to shift from anti-insurgent offensives to reconstruction in order to win the people on-side. Heavier troop presence will be necessary to ensure the security of the reconstruction teams; maybe a draft will have to be taken. It's a long and hard struggle with a very uncertain future.

Factors to consider:

How strong are the insurgents? 20,000 is a liberal estimate.
How strong are the terrorists? An 'unknown known'. Probably growing in number but losing organisation as leaders are killed off.
What is the mood of the ordinary citizen? They just want security first, and to have Iraq be independent,
Will 'Operation Persian Freedom' be undertaken? Most likely not. No military strategist, even an amateur, would see anything to gain from opening up a third front.
Will new foes/friends emerge? An 'unknown unknown'.
Will Afghanistan draw off troops/attention? Perhaps a little; the Taliban cannot win an offensive war, though.
Who'll be in power in the relevant nations? In the US, it's hard to tell. In Iraq, most likely a Shia leader. In Iran, Ahmadinnerjacket will be gone due to high unemployment and inflation.

Conclusion:

Whichever route is taken, it won't be easy. We must prepare ourselves for some hard times ahead no matter what we do. Of course, it was wrong to start a war in the first place, because:

- Saddam had no connection with Osama bar a mutual hatred of America: a secular dictator and a fanatical theocrat getting on? Come off it.
- Saddam was an introverted dictator. That is to say that he kept his dictatorship to itself, not causing mass regional disturbance and simply maintaining his powerbase within Iraq.
- Iraq did not have and was not capable of developing WMD.
- Iraq is ammunition for propagandists.
- The war has left only one regional power: Iran, a theocratic democracy covertly supporting terrorism.
- Afghanistan was not and is not won.

So, how to win? The only way to win would be politically unacceptable. That is, a mass draft in the 100s of thousands. To maintain order, a vast body of infantry is required, standing on every street corner, watching from the rooftops, patrolling the roads. This is no surge but a medium-term strategy for ensuring stability. In the relative peace afforded by this heavy presence, Iraqi troops and police must be recruited and trained; not disbanding the Iraqi army in the first place would have helped. Also, money must be poured into restoring infrastructure. This strategy has be employed time and time again by numerous empires conquering unstable territories. In order to win, it will cost us highly in lives and monetary resources; the question is, is it worth it?