# Evaluating Iraq



## Makalakumu (Apr 9, 2004)

How many casualties are too many casualties?  50 our guys dead this week and counting...I haven't seen to many stats on iraqi dead, but I would imagine that with our soldiers training and equipment, the number is at least 10 times higher.  In other wars this stat would be seen as very light indeed.  Yet, is Iraq comparable to other wars in which our country has been involved?  When does the war in Iraq become a sickness that the US must amputate?  Is there any cure for Iraq?

upnorthkyosa


----------



## MisterMike (Apr 9, 2004)

The cure for Iraq would be to fast-forward evolution about 10,000 years. These people are primitives and cannot live in a democracy.

We're trying to force on them what they cannot understand or adapt into their lifestyles.

Killing off the remaining Bathists and Saddam loyalist and other foreign supporters who have crossed the border seems to be the only answer for now. Then leave them the keys and get out.

I await the responses in support of how a multi-national force would have been better treated by the Iraqi's...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 9, 2004)

To date, there have been 648 deaths and an official tally of 3,500 wounded since combat begain.  There is an unofficial tally of 7,000-10,000 wounded.

(source: http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/)

Historically speaking, these numbers are low.

The invasion of Sicily for example cost well over 22,000 casulties on the Allied side. (The Axis lost over 165,000)

More recently, the British Falkland war which only lasted 72 days had 240 KIA (wounded count not listed)
(Souce: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6909)

5,000-10,000 Iraqi civilians are reported to have been killed. Iraqi military loses are in the 4,800-6,400 range.

Some are comparing the Iraq war with Vietnam.  While I disagree with some of the political concepts in those comparisons, the tactical part is sound.
Iraq like Vietnam was a foriegn nation, were we were fighting against ages old concepts and a people who would willingly spend life to inflict damage on their enemies.
The enemy knows the terrain better than we do.

This counter-strike was expected, but it was hoped it wouldn't appear until after the transition was complete.  The fighting is house to house, through cramped neighborhoods, the layout well known to the enemy, not well known to us.

Any expert on military operations will tell you that urban fighting is one of the worst enviroments to fight in.  Collateral damage is high, and there are constraint on our troops that the enemy doesn't have.  They are hiding in sacred places where if we shoot back, we are accused of 'defiling a holy place', and the bad PR adds more fighters to the enemys camp.  The enemy has no problem with hiding behind women and children and firing, using suicide bombers, and rigging the wounded to explode.  There are rules of engagement that most nations subscribe to.  This enemy does not.

In plain words, its a very sucky situation.

Now, I'm of the camp that says we shouldn't have gone in there in the first place.  That argument doesn't need to be re-debated. Dead horse, we're there now.  Thats what counts.

So, getting out.
We can't leave until there is a stable government in place.
We can't leave while there is an armed uprising of a few thousand fanatics, especially when they have retaken several cities.
We can't leave while the country can't protect itself.

Leaving now would turn into a civil war, with possible other nations grabbing for their own pieces of the pie. Iraw, Syria, and Kuwait would love to push those borders back a bit...and don't doubt Turkey wouldn't want to drop the hammer on the Kurds as well.

The exit strategy is clear.
-Regain control of the areas currently in rebellion
-Continue the transition of power back to the Iraqis
-Continue to rebuild the infrastructure to allow self-sufficiency
-Protect the borders until such time as that duty can be returned to a functional Iraqi Army.

The timeframe for most of that is later this year.  That may be ajusted depending on how long pascification takes.

Expect at least another 100-200 American KIA before then.

For a military campaign, 1,000 deaths is a small number.
But each one robs us of one of our brightest, and is therefore too much.
It must however be done so that the job is done right.
Let us hope it is done with minimal future losses as well.

-Peace.


----------



## theletch1 (Apr 9, 2004)

Just to add a little fuel to the fire here... How many of the "fanatics" do you think are Syrian or Iranian regulars in civilian clothing?


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 9, 2004)

Does anyone see Iraq as a jumping off point for further conquest?  The building of a bunch of military bases in Iraq seems a bit suspect.  Also, I've heard it bantered about that the US would like to pull much of its strength out of Saudi Arabia and put it into a country that has a more democratic government.  Has anyone else heard this?


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 9, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> The cure for Iraq would be to fast-forward evolution about 10,000 years. These people are primitives and cannot live in a democracy...



It sounds like the Iraqis don't want democracy.  At least not in a western sense.  The shia majority want a theocracy - which is in line with the demands of their religion and the teachings of the Koran.  Sure, if we kill enough people we can force democracy on them, but when does that killing cross the line into a crusade-genocide?  Think about it, you are advocating a pogrom of Kahnish proportions.  Is that the only way we can acheive our goals?  What if the hearts and minds of all the people in Iraq are bent on Islam?


----------



## Tgace (Apr 9, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> For a military campaign, 1,000 deaths is a small number.
> But each one robs us of one of our brightest, and is therefore too much.
> It must however be done so that the job is done right.
> Let us hope it is done with minimal future losses as well.
> ...


Agreed...historically single battles could cost 1,000+casulties. With the recent attitude towards casulty lists, I believe our current generation would have pulled out of WWII after D-Day. To the question "how many are too many?" I would ask "How few do you expect?" Every death is a tragedy, but thats how this busniess is conducted.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 9, 2004)

The majority of Iraq wants to live peacefully.  The areas currently under conflict are also the main hotbeds of Saddams powerbase.  It is a combination of die-hards, those with blood on their hands, some religious fanatics, some criminal groups and numerous outside fighters who are causing the problems now ongoing.

There are a ton of weapons floating around there.  To use the old west comparision might be apt, as everyone seems to have a gun, and most aren't afraid to use it.  We are actively working to undo not just decades of brainwashing, but centuries of ideas.  The average Iraqi has heard of this democracy thing, but doesn't believe it. They look to their familiy and tribe first.  The 'nation' idea is outside many of their concepts.

While the news reports these events, they also fail to report the other side of the story, since peace is never front page news.
There have been improvements in health care, moderination of electrical systems, and water treatment, as well as repairs to the oil production systems.  Aid levels continue to rise, and commerce is on a steady improvement.  New businesses are opening daily, and the people are slowly realizing that they now have choices.

This improvement is slowed by the ongoing rebellion, which while doomed to failure, will still be costly to defeat.

The country is at a crossroads, and it will take time to finish things.  Americans are too damned impatient.  The Japanese can take 8 hours to make tea....an American complains his microwave is too slow in that minute and a half it takes.

Patience.
It takes time to repair, heal and grow.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 9, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> The majority of Iraq wants to live peacefully. The areas currently under conflict are also the main hotbeds of Saddams powerbase. It is a combination of die-hards, those with blood on their hands, some religious fanatics, some criminal groups and numerous outside fighters who are causing the problems now ongoing.
> 
> There are a ton of weapons floating around there. To use the old west comparision might be apt, as everyone seems to have a gun, and most aren't afraid to use it. We are actively working to undo not just decades of brainwashing, but centuries of ideas. The average Iraqi has heard of this democracy thing, but doesn't believe it. They look to their familiy and tribe first. The 'nation' idea is outside many of their concepts.
> 
> ...


Hey, whats going on here?? Were in total agreement....again.


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 9, 2004)

> The cure for Iraq would be to fast-forward evolution about 10,000 years. These people are primitives and cannot live in a democracy.



Heh. I wonder how you would respond if a more "culturally evolved" individual regarded you and all of your values as "primitive".   

Just something to think about.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 9, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> The cure for Iraq would be to fast-forward evolution about 10,000 years. These people are primitives and cannot live in a democracy.
> 
> We're trying to force on them what they cannot understand or adapt into their lifestyles.
> 
> ...


Bigoted statement.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 9, 2004)

theletch1 said:
			
		

> Just to add a little fuel to the fire here... How many of the "fanatics" do you think are Syrian or Iranian regulars in civilian clothing?


None ...  

"How many insane Syrian or Iranian regulars" .... well, that's another question, isn't it.


----------



## Ender (Apr 9, 2004)

The simple solution would be to divide the country up into the various sects...Sunni's, *****es, Kurds etc....all assets, like oil, would be divided to support each economy...like a divorce.


----------



## theletch1 (Apr 9, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> None ...
> 
> "How many insane Syrian or Iranian regulars" .... well, that's another question, isn't it.


I don't think any of the soldiers from other mid-east countries would be any crazier than the average jarhead (I can use that term) to go where their country sends them to fight for whatever reason their country says to fight for.  Both Syria and Iran have been put on the hot plate for various reasons in the near past.  Iran especially for their nuclear program.  The more heat there is to deal with in various cities in Iraq the less attention is being paid to what is going on in their own countries.  It is to their benefit to draw out the conflict for the U.S., bleed our assets do whatever they can to push world opinion further against us.  Someone mentioned a crusade earlier.  This does indeed remind me of the middle age crusades in that an invading force has entered muslim central to fight a battle.  How much difference does a political border matter when something as near and dear as your centuries old religion is being threatened (at least that's how I figure most folks of a jihad mindset in the area see it)?  Will we see groups of individuals coming to battle for personal reasons or will we see another situation like the beginning of Korea and have Iran and Syria instead of China sending in troops and supplies?

This link is for the northeast intelligence network.  The network is a private organization that provides additional intelligence to the U.S.  I've checked his site several times and the intel there generally seems pretty on with what I wind up seeing on the news.  Northeast Intelligence Network


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 9, 2004)

theletch1 said:
			
		

> I don't think any of the soldiers from other mid-east countries would be any crazier than the average jarhead (I can use that term) to go where their country sends them to fight for whatever reason their country says to fight for. Both Syria and Iran have been put on the hot plate for various reasons in the near past. Iran especially for their nuclear program. The more heat there is to deal with in various cities in Iraq the less attention is being paid to what is going on in their own countries. It is to their benefit to draw out the conflict for the U.S., bleed our assets do whatever they can to push world opinion further against us. Someone mentioned a crusade earlier. This does indeed remind me of the middle age crusades in that an invading force has entered muslim central to fight a battle. How much difference does a political border matter when something as near and dear as your centuries old religion is being threatened (at least that's how I figure most folks of a jihad mindset in the area see it)? Will we see groups of individuals coming to battle for personal reasons or will we see another situation like the beginning of Korea and have Iran and Syria instead of China sending in troops and supplies?
> 
> This link is for the northeast intelligence network. The network is a private organization that provides additional intelligence to the U.S. I've checked his site several times and the intel there generally seems pretty on with what I wind up seeing on the news. Northeast Intelligence Network


If there are foreign fighters in Iraq, I think it would not be at the behest of their respective governments. Both Iran and Syria are probably doing all they can to avoid being caught up in the whirlwind of Iraq. A very large precentage of the Iranian public (and certainly almost all of those fighting age) were not around in the 1979 religious revolution. They have, for several years (especially during the Clinton era) been working toward normalized relations with the United States. If not for inclusion in the 'Axis of Evil' speech, Iran's relationship with the US might be very different. They have been very much on the path of reform. And Iran's coming clean to the International Atomic Energy Adminstration has very little to do with US power in the Gulf, and a lot to do with sincere diplomatic efforts by the European Union.

Regardless of all that, Nobody is going to try and "Bleed Our Assets". The United States Military Budget is *Greater than* the next 10 largest nations *combined*. If the United States ever decided to turn its full attention to any nation, they could not withstand the onslaught for long.

Even the war in Iraq ... currently, the US is allowing the confrontation to be fought in the manner of the Enterprise v Borg ... enough mosquito bites, and we may stop to scratch.

OK ... honestly ... this is a more incoherent post than I would like ... its been a long week. I hope you all can discern my meanings. - Mike


----------



## MisterMike (Apr 9, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> If there are foreign fighters in Iraq, I think it would not be at the behest of their respective governments. Both Iran and Syria are probably doing all they can to avoid being caught up in the whirlwind of Iraq. A very large precentage of the Iranian public (and certainly almost all of those fighting age) were not around in the 1979 religious revolution. They have, for several years (especially during the Clinton era) been working toward normalized relations with the United States. If not for inclusion in the 'Axis of Evil' speech, Iran's relationship with the US might be very different. They have been very much on the path of reform. And Iran's coming clean to the International Atomic Energy Adminstration has very little to do with US power in the Gulf, and a lot to do with sincere diplomatic efforts by the European Union.
> 
> Regardless of all that, Nobody is going to try and "Bleed Our Assets". The United States Military Budget is *Greater than* the next 10 largest nations *combined*. If the United States ever decided to turn its full attention to any nation, they could not withstand the onslaught for long.
> 
> ...



If only I could roll my eyes 360 degrees....

Then this might look like it makes sense.


----------



## MisterMike (Apr 9, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Bigoted statement.




"Ah stifle yourself Edith." Or is it "Meathead?"


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 9, 2004)

Well, thank ahura-mazda there are no similarities to the Vietnam War here. 

I mean, it's not as though our government started a war based on trumped- up charges, lied like crazy to defend itself, lumbered into a complex situation without understanding what was going on, refused to consider history or international resistance, supported fascists like Nguyen Cao Ky and M. Chalabi, whipped up racist frenzies to further justify itself, kept getting working-class young men and women killed for ill-defined objectives, claimed that we'd have to fight in this country if we didn't fight there to justify itself, lied about costs, attacked the left wing and dissenters to justify itself, sent more and more troops for ill-defined reasons, killed more and more civilians and passed that off as unfortunate but necessary, kept getting in deeper and deeper, skipped over dealing with problems at home, and....

Hey, wait a minute.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 9, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Well, thank ahura-mazda there are no similarities to the Vietnam War here.
> 
> I mean, it's not as though our government started a war based on trumped- up charges, lied like crazy to defend itself, lumbered into a complex situation without understanding what was going on, refused to consider history or international resistance, supported fascists like Nguyen Cao Ky and M. Chalabi, whipped up racist frenzies to further justify itself, kept getting working-class young men and women killed for ill-defined objectives, claimed that we'd have to fight in this country if we didn't fight there to justify itself, lied about costs, attacked the left wing and dissenters to justify itself, sent more and more troops for ill-defined reasons, killed more and more civilians and passed that off as unfortunate but necessary, kept getting in deeper and deeper, skipped over dealing with problems at home, and....
> 
> Hey, wait a minute.



So, are we back to 1965?  Where are all the hippies that should know the answer to this question?  I wasn't alive then.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 10, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> So, are we back to 1965? Where are all the hippies that should know the answer to this question? I wasn't alive then.


I was born in 1964, so I wasn't too aware in 1965.

If you are asking about those college-age kids that were participating in the summer of love, and Woodstock, most of them now listen to Rush Limbaugh and his ilk; from whom they hear statements like "These people (Iraqis) are primatives" over and over again. They don't necessarily think about what that statement means, but they sure do repeat it (Kinda like Dr. Rice saying no-body could have anticipated terrorists using planes as weapons).

I think most of these college age kids are *not* objecting more strenuously because we now have an all volunteer military force. Those 18 - 19 - 20 year olds who are in college aren't worrying about what happens to them when they graduate. (You know Dick Cheney got married right out of college for the marriage deferment ... and when the marriage deferment went away, Lynn Cheney got pregnent, and he got a deferment as a father ....before his first child was born). There is a lot of noise about re-instating the draft. There is a lot of noise about how the delayed rotation out is *a consription* by any other name.

It will get interesting from here ... won't it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 10, 2004)

I have a feeling that this uprising is more then just a few criminals, foriegn terrorists, baathists, and fanatics.  Even making that list brings up higher numbers then the few thousand reported.  How else are they able to take back entire cities and fight off a large portion of our trained troops - remember we are calling in reinforcements as we speak.  With that being said, this violence is probably going to make the transfer of power by July impossible.  How is the rest of the world going to look at us then?  Are we going to pull out and let them fight it out?  Or are we going to stick to the "PlanfortheNewAmericanCentury" and stay until we establish a satallite nation in the middle east (An axis of American power that extends from Iraq to Afghanistan)?

What happens in Kerry is elected?

(Oh yeah, the top secret paperless electronic voting machines, the nearly 200 million dollar warchest of corporate money, and the multitudes of Katharine Harris' out there - oh yeah democracy  )


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 10, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> There is a lot of noise about re-instating the draft. There is a lot of noise about how the delayed rotation out is *a consription* by any other name.



I'm not sure that the military will ever be ever be formed of conscripts again.  It takes the "right" kind of people to participate in conquest.  Forcing dissenters into the ranks is one of the things that led to the situation in Veitnam isn't it?  Also, a professional army is easier to train (and brainwash).  Can you imagine if the troops over in Iraq were able to see past through the "we are fighting for Americas freedom" line?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 10, 2004)

1 interesting note:
"Non-Hostile Gunshot" seems to be a polite way of saying "Self-Inflicted".
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040325_775.html

One thing to note is that Primitive doesn't mean Stupid.

The "Primitive" Barbarians destroyed Rome....they also repeled Roman invasion of parts of the UK for years.  Primitive American Indians inflicted heavy losses on US troops during the indian wars, and the Zulu decimted the British during the Zulu War.

The Iraqis have a different cultural viewpoint.  Who are we to say that worrying about your family first and some 'government' thats far away last is wrong?

The truth is that in the past many great techological advances (like the concept of "zero") came from the arab world.  Unfortunately, many of the governments in that area are oppresive, and under opressive governments, inovation and creativity is styfled.  This has been the case in Iraq for decades where if you admit the experiment was a failure, you died.  This is similar to the Stalinistic system, with one small difference.  Stalin had enough scientists that some progress did occur.  Saddam did not.

1 last note on the primitive statement.  The US is not #1.


> Hardly surprisingly, Norway ranked as the most technologically advanced nation, with Australia, Canada, Sweden and Belgium tailing closely behind. Unexpectedly, the United States ranked sixth due to instances of poverty, health insurance issues, and sporadic Net-access in rural and inner-city communities.
> 
> Developing economies such as Mexico, Costa Rica and Chile were ranked as potential tech-leaders of the future alongside Portugal, Spain, Greece, Poland, and the Czech Republic.
> 
> At the bottom of the list were countries like Nicaragua and Mozambique where Net-access is virtually unknown and phones are thinly dispersed.


Source: http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/800051


Rewinding a bit....


> "Multinational Force..Better Received:"


I doubt it.  The US has proven repeatedly that when it comes to wars, it can't win.  It makes an ok police force....and would fit into traditional Iraqi system well.  It takes bribes, has a corrupt nature, etc.  Could it have deposed Saddamn?  I doubt it. 



> "How many of the "fanatics" do you think are Syrian or Iranian regulars in civilian clothing?"


- Probably some.  I'm sure that those military when faced with a request to go kill Americans said, sure, just leave the uniform behind...btw, heres an extra case of ammo.



> "Does anyone see Iraq as a jumping off point for further conquest? The building of a bunch of military bases in Iraq seems a bit suspect. Also, I've heard it bantered about that the US would like to pull much of its strength out of Saudi Arabia and put it into a country that has a more democratic government. Has anyone else heard this?"


The Saudi people wanted the US out and the Arab world saw an infidel presence in their holy land to be an insult.  Removing our troops from their sacred soil, but remaining close enough to act if needed is good PR.  Another point to consider is that the Iraqi army collapsed in record time.  Once the US pulls out, it must be strong enough to prevent its neighbors from grabbing pieces of the pie.  Training of a new Iraqi army continues, but it slowed by the uprising, as well as ingrained concepts that must be slowly worked out.  Traditional US military training was too much for them.  25% or so of the new recruits said "screw it" and quit.  Too much work. Other concerns revolved around the quality of that training, pay, and more.

Sources:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3700689/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A60899-2003Dec12?language=printer


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 10, 2004)

To even discuss the word 'Primative' in this thread is an embarrasment. 

The Iraqi people are just exactly as far along the evolutionary path as Americans. They are not in any way 'primatives'. Nine Hundred years ago, the Islamic world was the center of knowledge and learning. In many ways far superior than that of the western world (i.e Europe).

The statement 'These people ... cannot live in a democracy' is demonstrably false. Many Iraqis have moved to the United States and other Western Democratic nations and live there with no difficulties at all. 

MisterMike is spewing bigoted thoughts, throwing about scientific theory with disregard for actual science to mask his arrogance, bigotry, or ignorance. He bandies about these arguments in the same manner conquerers have always done so, to de-humanize the enemy to justify the killing.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 10, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> ...MisterMike is spewing bigoted thoughts...


This thread is being reviewed by staff members who aren't involved in the discussion as I am.


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 10, 2004)

> The Iraqi people are just exactly as far along the evolutionary path as Americans. They are not in any way 'primatives'. Nine Hundred years ago, the Islamic world was the center of knowledge and learning. In many ways far superior than that of the western world (i.e Europe).
> 
> The statement 'These people ... cannot live in a democracy' is demonstrably false. Many Iraqis have moved to the United States and other Western Democratic nations and live there with no difficulties at all.



While I definitely don't agree with most of the content of MisterMike's statements, I will have to say that cultural evolution is most definitely a reality. Being a student of what could be considered "evolutionary psychology" myself (no expert, mind you), I would have to agree that what could be construed as "the Iraqi culture" is, on the whole, not as "evolved" as what could be construed as "the American/Western culture(s)".

Of course, when the above statement is taken out of context, and not put in the proper framework of understanding found in evolutionary psychology (in which no culture is necessarily "better" than another, even though they may be more "evolved"), then it can be easily misunderstood.

In any event, these terms refer mostly to the collective values and socioeconomic forms in these societies, and NOT to the individuals living within them. Individuals can vary WIDELY in comparison to the cultural and social "medium".

Thus, the claim that all Iraqis are "incapable" of living in a democracy is untenable, in my opinion.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 10, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> While I definitely don't agree with most of the content of MisterMike's statements, I will have to say that cultural evolution is most definitely a reality. Being a student of what could be considered "evolutionary psychology" myself (no expert, mind you), I would have to agree that what could be construed as "the Iraqi culture" is, on the whole, not as "evolved" as what could be construed as "the American/Western culture(s)".
> 
> Of course, when the above statement is taken out of context, and not put in the proper framework of understanding found in evolutionary psychology (in which no culture is necessarily "better" than another, even though they may be more "evolved"), then it can be easily misunderstood.
> 
> ...


The term 'Cultural Evolution' was not mentioned by MisterMike. His text said 'Evolution' and 'Primative'. He suggested that present day Iraqi's would require another 10,000 years of evolution to be able to function in a modern democratic society. Actually, it was some 10,000 years ago that homo sapiens were just beginning to form agrarian societies.  This was happening in the fertile crescent, part of which is current day Iraq ... (oh, the irony).

We could, perhaps, have an interesting debate as to whether the 'Cultural Evolution' that has transformed the species homo sapiens from hunter-gatherers to whatever we are today, could be called 'progress'. 

I'm sure the Cretaceous dinosaurs thought of themselves as less primative than there Jurassic predecessors ... look what good it did them. 

Mike


----------



## Mickey (Apr 10, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> The cure for Iraq would be to fast-forward evolution about 10,000 years. These people are primitives and cannot live in a democracy.
> 
> We're trying to force on them what they cannot understand or adapt into their lifestyles.
> 
> ...




One could also argue that those in the USA could not live in a modern day theocracy. One could also argue that in the theology based society that has evolved, and the modern "Western" Society has de-evolved or re-gressed or not evolved at all to the level of some other societies. 

Look at our Victorian view on sex, and our knee jerk reactions to the terms abortion, which are all based upon our religious instructions. One would wonder if a citizen of the USA has evolved far enough to live in a democracy themselves? 

Would the term evolve be Brain matter size? 

People thinking just like you? 

Keeping an Open Mind to others and their societies?

Others? Anyone? Anyone?


Thsoe who make the biggest weapons or the prettiest pictures or buy the most or what have you, are not automatically the most evolved. Unless you subscribe to the the people thinking just like you questions.

As to Irony, the choice to reply to the comment that your quoted words are not bigoted, you quote Archie Bunker known for his bigoted persona. So either, you MisterMike, are bigoted and do not care. Or you do not know you might be, or your choice of replies was a poor choice and coincidental. :idunno: I would like to know which it is????


Mick


----------



## MisterMike (Apr 10, 2004)

Mickey said:
			
		

> One could also argue that those in the USA could not live in a modern day theocracy. One could also argue that in the theology based society that has evolved, and the modern "Western" Society has de-evolved or re-gressed or not evolved at all to the level of some other societies.
> 
> Look at our Victorian view on sex, and our knee jerk reactions to the terms abortion, which are all based upon our religious instructions. One would wonder if a citizen of the USA has evolved far enough to live in a democracy themselves?
> 
> ...



There was nothing bigoted nor was it implied to be. We keep calling for the spread of democracy and the Iraqi people themselves are aleady a divided nation. But we plan to keep them whole, and then force democracy. I believe they would rather a theocracy.

By evolve, I meant they would have to evolve their "brains" in a direction of our choosing. As someone mentioned 900 years ago they were the brainpool, well, it seems they decided to stay there as the rest of the world spread out and moved on. (So I was off a little on the time)

All I care about is that the previous regime is gone. When someone else steps up to power, and we evaluate that they mean harm to us again, we should crush them again. But this whole idea of nation-building, and instituting a democracy, (with a constitution they already disagree over) is ludicrous.

As for archie, well, he meant well before all that PC crap came along. There were certainly lessons to be learned from his mistakes as the show meant to do, but I used it to simply keep stirring up the responses from the fanatics.

There are still primitives in the jungles of the Amazon and the Outback of Australia. Anyone who views this as offensive is a little too "sensthitive."


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 10, 2004)

Oh. It's unintelligent design theory. Mixed with an unironic version of Kipling's, "take up the White Man's Burden/Ye cannot stoop to less."

Congratulations on rediscovering Galton's "g," Cyril Burt's phony twin studies, and the rest of the pseudo-Darwininist, pseudo-biological, fake-science racist crap. And it is racist, if we define racism as the fantasy that there are different races of human beings and some of them are, "naturally," better than others. Personally, I'd recommend looking up Robert Plomin's work on behavioral genetics--he's one of the standards in the field, and he was always careful to point out that human genetics don't tell you diddley about  "races." Since there's only the one and all.

But the science probably isn't interesting to you ay the moment, what with being caught up in these fantasies about racial difference. I particularly enjoyed the closing with the, "sensthitive," a nice little lisp suggesting that anybody who disagrees with you is a fag. (Ugly language, I know, but exactly what you have in mind.)

Shame on you--not just for the morality of what you're arguing, which boils down to arguing that the "superior," (i.e. white) people should rule over the inferior (i.e. them aborigines and Jibaros). Shame on your ignorance of the actual science.

Fortunately, such ignorance can be remedied. All ya gots to do is use your brain and do the reading. Unless, of course, your biology prevents?

Three whacks with a copy of James Tiptree's "Beam us Home." Or any of Octavia E. Butler's novels.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 11, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> But the science probably isn't interesting to you ay the moment, what with being caught up in these fantasies about racial difference. I particularly enjoyed the closing with the, "sensthitive," a nice little lisp suggesting that anybody who disagrees with you is a fag. (Ugly language, I know, but exactly what you have in mind.)



The homosexual issue is the new civil rights movement, not that I'm saying the "old" civil rights movements is finished by any means.  Still, anything that can instill hatred of the enemy is part of the "mind control" I referred to before.  This is all part of the system on the right.  The Divide and conquer, Speak English or Die, Imminent Threat matrix is nothing but a "democratic" means of snatching large amounts of natural resources...the key to this puzzle is access.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 11, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> .the key to this puzzle is access.
> 
> upnorthkyosa


The thing is .... MisterMike lives in Massachusetts, which means he *has access.*  Although I am a Native of Massachusetts, I think I can say without prejudice that the state has always had one of the better public education systems in the country. Certainly, there are many high quality colleges in the state. MisterMike lives right up the road from Worcester, Massachusetts, which has a billboard proclaiming its ten excellent colleges.

Alas, it requires more than just access, there must also be a desire.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 11, 2004)

So is hatred of the people of Iraq part of the equation in this case?  Is the American public being propagandized to hate our "enemy"?

I know that hatred of dissenters is definitely part - whether the dissent is tied to anti-patriotism or the deep religious hatred of homosexuals (the thought that if you dissent from this war then you are somehow not man enough - gay infact).  

Shortly after the start of the war, in my home town, we had protests and counter protests.  The pro-war and anti-war crowds would stand across from each other and shout back and forth.  I remember walking calmly between both crowds.  (very dangerous considering the mood of both camps)  I asked some pro-war demonstrators whether or not it mattered that Iraq had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda and was told, "It doesn't matter.  They killed some of us, now we are going to kill more of them."

This pronouncement has stuck with me and has pretty much summed up the root of the pro-war crowd.  In the face of that statement, truly, the evidence doesn't matter anymore.


----------



## Mickey (Apr 11, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> There was nothing bigoted nor was it implied to be. We keep calling for the spread of democracy and the Iraqi people themselves are aleady a divided nation. But we plan to keep them whole, and then force democracy. I believe they would rather a theocracy.



You say there is nothing bigoted. Yet, you make another comment below that leads one to believe that you may not know that you are. Yet, as this is a written forum and I cannot see you smile or body language or know your intent, it makes it hard to determine. So, if you continue to either fan the flames of the fanatics as you put it, or being like your are, it does not matter as you are presenting yourself as a bigoted person. That is the impact of the situation. FYI



			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> By evolve, I meant they would have to evolve their "brains" in a direction of our choosing. As someone mentioned 900 years ago they were the brainpool, well, it seems they decided to stay there as the rest of the world spread out and moved on. (So I was off a little on the time)



Hmmmm, So they have to think just like us? Yet, above you state that they are different and want a theocracy versus a democracy or republic as the case may be. As to staying, many people here in the USA want to stay where they are at or where their parents are at, and not grow either. Should force be used against them as well?



			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> All I care about is that the previous regime is gone. When someone else steps up to power, and we evaluate that they mean harm to us again, we should crush them again. But this whole idea of nation-building, and instituting a democracy, (with a constitution they already disagree over) is ludicrous.



Yes, Power, threat, and 'WE' the USA gets to decide what is best. You contradict yourself here. You want to have the 'Power' to remove others, yet do not think then telling them how to do it better is the way to go. So, we should go crush China, and Korea others with France on the top of the list as the give away Nuclear power, which is a major threat? Where do we stop?



			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> As for archie, well, he meant well before all that PC crap came along. There were certainly lessons to be learned from his mistakes as the show meant to do, but I used it to simply keep stirring up the responses from the fanatics.



Archie was a character to learn from. Everyone, who grew up watching him learned, even if they did not know it. Was it social programming? Maybe? As to the PC Crap, you may be correct in that it has gone pretty far know. Yet, it was the natural swing of the pendulum and society, that we have to get us here today. Make sense? What are target is to be in the middle. It will take the some adaptive controls or fuzzy logic or incremental repetitive steps with over shooting to get to the middle ground.



			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> There are still primitives in the jungles of the Amazon and the Outback of Australia. Anyone who views this as offensive is a little too "sensthitive."



Yes there are primitives, and their culture, has some really cool aspects. they work 2 to 4 hours a day. They have some of the healthiest people, they have formulas and concoctions that cure things that modern science has problems with. Yet, they are primitive, for they do not have what you have.

Woudl someone with out a cell phone and PC or Laptop with internet coneection or high speed connection with IR capabilities be considered a primitive as they do not think like you and do not have the items or tools you have? I am asking to understand you.

As to the lisp, either you are being funny in your own mind? Trying to keep the fanatics fires burning as a button pusher, or you truly are a bigot. And as I stated above, you are presenting yourself as a bigot.

Mick


----------



## DAM (Apr 11, 2004)

an example of military programming

I was working with someome who was in Nam. We were overseas in NZ.
The Japanese were there at the same testing location. The host told us that we had to wait until the Japanese had gone through first. Ths guy, lost it. He said, "I did not eat after the MF G**** in Nam, I am not doing it here."  Hi condition came out later in a time of stress. I stood up and said "Let's Go!". I told him we should leave, and go eat elsewhere. The host was embarrassed, the othere two were hungry and one did not wish to leave. They other said he would do what everyone else wanted.

The work mate, just walked up and grabbed a plate and began taking food off of the buffet. The Japanese did not mind, they were confused, but not upset.

Conditioning happens.

Dave


----------



## MisterMike (Apr 11, 2004)

An example of arguements from the left:

They shout at you and call you a racist or a bigot.

There's nothing wrong with primitive people. I wouldn't have minded living with the Native Americans 200 years ago. But what I would not have done is sent members of my tribe to fly planes into the buildings of the other tribe.

Seems poeple today are OK with that. Some are just yellow, and obviously some are pink.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 11, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> An example of arguements from the left:
> They shout at you and call you a racist or a bigot.


I commented that your statements are bigoted. Having never met you, I really can not say if you are racist or not. And I do not want this to be about name calling. I hear similar statements from the right-wing radio talk show hosts in Boston, and it could be that you are repeating their comments without thinking about what they (and you) are saying. However, that you have been unable to see these statements as racist, when pointed out that they indeed are, does speak volumes.



			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> There's nothing wrong with primitive people. I wouldn't have minded living with the Native Americans 200 years ago. But what I would not have done is sent members of my tribe to fly planes into the buildings of the other tribe.


This, again, demonstrates a lack of knowledge, which, if you choose can be corrected by opening your mind and a couple of books. Native American people were at times very vicious toward others. Of course, violent behavior can be found throughout human history, on every continent, in every time. Attached here are two easily available paragraphs that demonstratehow some Native Americans actually behaved. 
To propose that you would not approve of, or participate in this behavior, some 600 years ago, is a non-sequitor. You are following the position of the current leadership in our society. From this evidence, we can not accept that you would fight against the leadership of the community some 600 years ago?



			
				Nebraska Studies.Org said:
			
		

> http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0200/frameset_reset.html?[url]http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0200/stories/0201_0122.html[/url]
> In late 1325 A. D. the Central Plains people at the Crow Creek were attacked by the Middle Missouri tradition people. The Middle Missouri people apparently were able to get through the fortification ditch that the Central Plains people had built or were in the process of completing. Earth lodges were burned. The victims were buried in a mass grave on the northern edge of the site, at the top of this picture. Archaeologists have identified 487 victims. For more about how archaeologists protected the site and honored the Native American dead, click here.
> 
> Archaeologists have several ideas about what happened at the Crow Creek Site, about who killed the people and why. One hypothesis is that the attack was carried out by the Middle Missouri villagers from the north who were unhappy that the Great Plains people had moved into the areas and had taken their land.​


​


			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> Seems poeple today are OK with that. Some are just yellow, and obviously some are pink.


And apparently, the arguements from the right are to call people cowards, and/or communists. While calling someone a coward, because they object to an unjustified war is an odd position to take, calling them a communist is even more strange. As we live in a democratic society, which allows one man, one vote, and guarantees that man the freedom of speech, you seem to be saying that by exercising those freedoms and privledges makes us 'communist' (as if this is a bad thing) ... If I understand the principles of communism (from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs), they would guarantee that one would not send members of the commune to fly planes into the buildings of the other communes. So, gee, maybe being a communists is what we all should aspire to be.

Happy Easter - Mike


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 11, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Seems poeple today are OK with that. Some are just yellow, and obviously some are pink.



Mike, seriously, if the shoe fits (and it is in this case)...arguments from the left often contain the charges leveled because of statements that you have already made.  It can be a frightening process to analyze the hatred we are raised with.  It goes beyond stating that you can live with someone, because obviously, your rhetoric points at something different.  Take a look at what you are saying from someone who is Iraqi or Homosexual.  Then tell me that you are not fitting such charges.


----------



## MisterMike (Apr 11, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I commented that your statements are bigoted. Having never met you, I really can not say if you are racist or not. And I do not want this to be about name calling. I hear similar statements from the right-wing radio talk show hosts in Boston, and it could be that you are repeating their comments without thinking about what they (and you) are saying. However, that you have been unable to see these statements as racist, when pointed out that they indeed are, does speak volumes.
> 
> This, again, demonstrates a lack of knowledge, which, if you choose can be corrected by opening your mind and a couple of books. Native American people were at times very vicious toward others. Of course, violent behavior can be found throughout human history, on every continent, in every time. Attached here are two easily available paragraphs that demonstratehow some Native Americans actually behaved.
> To propose that you would not approve of, or participate in this behavior, some 600 years ago, is a non-sequitor. You are following the position of the current leadership in our society. From this evidence, we can not accept that you would fight against the leadership of the community some 600 years ago?
> ...



1. Which statements? (Hint: there were no racist statements made, so your attack is what speaks volumes) It's the same attack the left uses when people speak up against Affirmative Action. In my case, it's unwarranted and borderline libel.

If it were Canada we were at war with (which is very diverse) and I used the same comment of "primitives" there would be no issue. But you took it upon yourself to assume I used it specifically against the race of the Iraqi's (which I honestly do not know what race that is..LOL)

2. Your principle of communism is not what this country was founded on. Great idea to you or not.

Everything I say is relative and from my own opinion. Whether someone does not agree with it or is insulted from it should not put me in the category of a racist or bigot unless there are some facts to back it up.

It seems people would rather attack me than speak to the subject of the thread. It's a diversionary tactic, but very transparent. It makes them feel better about themselves. Both you and robertson rarely contribute to a thread, but instead pounce on the person making the case for the "other side"

I feel this may be because your points are not the ones of the majority in this country and if you can make personal attacks instead, misquote people or misconstrue their statements you feel you've made your point.

Whether I've made more intellectual remarks in the past or those of Archie Bunker (in fun) it has made little difference in the substance your your replies. They have in most cases been personal attacks or attacks on what you think I believe in. Ah well, it's fun to be lumped in with the right wing Christian...what was it robertson, nutjobs or whackos?? Beautiful, just beautiful.

But let's not let this thread be about me or our differences. Say where you think this is going in Iraq and when enough's enough. I've made it clear we should stop when the killing is done. I can list my reasons and where they come from. But it seems I'm always put on the defensive by the personal attacks. Rebuilding Iraq should not be our cost. Call me cold-hearted on certain issues - oh well. I'll even say it for you if it makes you happy.


----------



## MisterMike (Apr 11, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Mike, seriously, if the shoe fits (and it is in this case)...arguments from the left often contain the charges leveled because of statements that you have already made.  It can be a frightening process to analyze the hatred we are raised with.  It goes beyond stating that you can live with someone, because obviously, your rhetoric points at something different.  Take a look at what you are saying from someone who is Iraqi or Homosexual.  Then tell me that you are not fitting such charges.



The only people I cannot live with are the ones who wish to kill innocent Americans. Are you saying you can?


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 11, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> 1. Which statements? (Hint: there were no racist statements made, so your attack is what speaks volumes) It's the same attack the left uses when people speak up against Affirmative Action. In my case, it's unwarranted and borderline libel.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 That statement. 




			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> 2. Your principle of communism is not what this country was founded on. Great idea to you or not.


It was not *my* idea of what communism is, nor was I making a statement on the foundation of our country.




			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> Both you and robertson rarely contribute to a thread, but instead pounce on the person making the case for the "other side"


If providing evidence that Native Americans used genocidal attacks, thus refuting your statement about 'primative' peoples and violent attacks, is not 'contributing' to the thread, what does qualify as a contribution?


----------



## MisterMike (Apr 11, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> That statement. ?


 OK good. No mention of race.


			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> It was not *my* idea of what communism is, nor was I making a statement on the foundation of our country.?



 You said "If I understand the principles of communism" meaning what followed was YOUR idea of it.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> If providing evidence that Native Americans used genocidal attacks, thus refuting your statement about 'primative' peoples and violent attacks, is not 'contributing' to the thread, what does qualify as a contribution?



It seems it was an effort to refute what you assumed I Was saying. If you assumed I Was saying NAtive Americans were ALL peacefull, you are mistaken and AGAIN have read beyond the words typed down.

It appears you simply CANNOT read and comprehend what I type - (how awefull for a Massachusetts Education, as "Great" as their system is), or you can't get over your current tactics of distortion.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 11, 2004)

Uh...Mike...you might need to check on the definition of the word, "racism." In my book, "racism," means that you're claiming that there are different "races," of human beings, that some of them are inferior (or in this case, "primitive"), that these inferiorities rest on biological differences, and that these biological differences explain cultural and historical phenomena like political differences. 

Which of these did you NOT do?

I realize it'll be easier for you to yell, "leftist," or "commie," or come out with another one like the, "sensthitive," remark, than to answer. So please do; I'm dyin' to see how far you'll go with this nonsense, and then too the more of it there is, the more the intellectual bankruptcy of your arguments about Iraq becomes clear. But you're plain and simple wrong. I am surprised at you, and more than a little shocked that you don't know any better, or are so into the argument that you're unwilling to acknowledge your--well, let's just call them, "errors." 

By the way, dragging the Flag on the ground like that is really, really poor flag etiquette. Learned that in the Scouts.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 11, 2004)

"With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations." -Lincoln


----------



## Mickey (Apr 11, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> An example of arguements from the left:
> 
> They shout at you and call you a racist or a bigot.
> 
> ...



MisterMike,

I do not think I am from the Left.

I do not remember shouting at you. I apologize if you believe so. I tried to say that you were presenting yourself as such, even if your intent may not be such.

As to tribes and belonging. Would you belong to a tribe that broadcasts daily into the other tribe, that they are unbelievers and thereby going to hell. Would you be a part of a tribe that tells others they are wrong for their beliefs. And before you answer, remember that Christians from the USA, fund such actions in the middle east. This, and the movies of corrupt police and goverenment and easy women are their perception of the USA and democracy. This is their only window into our world. If you are either Christian or a citizen of the USA, then you are a member of a tribe in essence.

As to being Yellow or Pink, I do not think I am either color or any such person who would these colors prescribed to myself by those who have to pigeon whole. Like I said you are presenting yourself as such.

I did not mean to Shout at you.

Mick


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 12, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> OK good. No mention of race.


You will note that *my *posts referred to your comments as 'bigoted', not racist. 

For the record, the first use of 'racist' in this thread was by rmcroberston to describe the governments' actions during the Vietnam war. The first person to use the term 'racist' in this thread to describe a person was 'MisterMike', apparently accusing me of throwing that label around.



			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> You said "If I understand the principles of communism" meaning what followed was YOUR idea of it.


Well, actually not. Simply defining a term does not mean that I believe in the term. For instance, if I posit that 'Christianity is based on the belief that Jesus was God's son, made flesh, was crucified for all mankinds' sins, was buried, and rose from the dead on the third day'; this does not make it *my belief*. 




			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> It seems it was an effort to refute what you assumed I Was saying. If you assumed I Was saying NAtive Americans were ALL peacefull, you are mistaken and AGAIN have read beyond the words typed down.


Well, let's see. You might be right. 

I was assuming that you said, had you lived amongst the 'primative' native North American inhabitants two hundred years ago, you would not send your tribe members to fly airplanes into the buildings of other tribes. I did assume that you were using a metaphore. Because I am fairly certain you are aware that native North American did not have airplanes two hundred years ago (you do know who the Wright brothers are). 

Of course, we are getting from your argument a 'mixed metaphore'. As this thread was started as 'evaluating Iraq', and the situation on the ground there, it is a non-sequitor to be discussing flying planes into buildings (even metaphorical planes into metaphorical buildings), because I know you are aware that the Iraqi people and government had *nothing* to do with the attacks of September 11, 2001 which used these tactics. In fact, I am fairly sure you are aware that there is no credible link between the people and/or government of Iraq and the criminal syndicate of 'al-Qeada'.​But, I am uncertain why you feel you can propose that you would not behave in the same manner native americans behaved? Perhaps you are stating that you would only live among the *peaceful* 'primative' native North Americans some two hundred years ago; not fighting back when the Europeans came and took the land on which you lived and hunted for generations.




			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> It appears you simply CANNOT read and comprehend what I type - (how awefull for a Massachusetts Education, as "Great" as their system is), or you can't get over your current tactics of distortion.


For those statements in which I have used the tactic of distortion, I retract them.

Now, can we turn to the instances of your ad-hominem attacks?


----------



## MisterMike (Apr 12, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> You will note that *my *posts referred to your comments as 'bigoted', not racist.
> 
> For the record, the first use of 'racist' in this thread was by rmcroberston to describe the governments' actions during the Vietnam war. The first person to use the term 'racist' in this thread to describe a person was 'MisterMike', apparently accusing me of throwing that label around.
> 
> ...



bigot n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Seems the pot is calling the kettle black eh? I'd go further to say that this may apply to little old ladies holding political signs.

racism n. 1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. 

2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

Nowhere did I mention superiority, or race.

If robertson wants to write "his book" on the English language, well, we will certainly have escalations such as these. I expect no less now though.

I'm through with this thread.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 12, 2004)

Hmmmmm,



			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> you can make personal attacks instead, misquote people or misconstrue their statements





			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> Nowhere did I mention superiority, or race.





			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> These people are primitives


Hmmmmm, indeed.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 12, 2004)

Well, I sure as hell did use the term, "racist." With excellent good reason, because MM argued that democracy in Iraq was impossible because of biological differences. He then proceeded to extend this ridiculous and science-free assertion into a claim that there were fundamental biological differences between us "advanced," human beings and the, "primitives," like Australian aborigines and certain South American tribes. Nor did he offer a shred of scientific evidience for these claims. 

What he did do was start throwing around claims that those who called him on it were Commies, or gay, or whatever goofy thing popped into his mind--a familiar pattern, to anyone who recalls the seminars on biology of, say, Lester Maddox.

If that isn't racism, I'll be darned if I know what else to call it. Fortunately, I feel pretty confident that it's a fairly-surface, intellectual racism, from somebody who doesn't understand what he's talking about, and is merely repeating some ugly ideas. I strongly suspect that he doesn't act on these ideas in his immediate life...and a good thing, too.

To me the problem isn't with the identification of terminology. It's in getting somebody to think through what he's saying, and to start looking for evidence. If it were a student writing a term paper, I'd just keep demanding references and documented facts (that's how you avoid saying, "look, these ideas aren't ideas")--but it's not, so I have no good strategy at this point other than to call him on it...and that's probably useless, especially since he's decided not to reply to anything I write. 

Ugly, ugly ideas, MM. Worse in some ways, they're completely bereft of fact or support, and all the verbal contortions and accusations won't help a bit. You need to know what you're talking about.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 12, 2004)

I understand and agree with just about everything you say here. It is always nice to see your thoughtful comments. Although I will admit at times you have me running over to Google to figure out what the hell you are referencing, not always mind you, but sometimes.

Mike


----------



## 8253 (Apr 13, 2004)

Ive said it before and I'll say it again.  We just need to quit screwing around with these people and do the job right so we dont have to deal with this crap anymore.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 13, 2004)

8253 said:
			
		

> Ive said it before and I'll say it again. We just need to quit screwing around with these people and do the job right so we dont have to deal with this crap anymore.


OK, I hear you, ... but what exactly do you mean by 'The Job'? And how do you suppose we get it done right?


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 13, 2004)

Perhaps by using the term 'primitives' MM is making a statement about the current practice of parading dead bodies as war trophies, or the locals who were on NPR radio saying that it was right and they got what they deserve - shop owners and 'average' citizens.  

Perhaps it is in reference to the inability, on a socio-political level, to find peace and overcome cultural prejudice between these factions based on religion, tribal affiliations, personal greed.  I am sure that, just like in any culture there are those groups that are tolerant and compassionate and even friends, but they aren't as common as in the USA or other more "evovled" countries.

Perhaps it is the inability of these 'average' citizens who are living with death in thier faces and not just on thier TV's to wake up to the value and significance of each human life.  Because, yes based on my personal values and the comparatively 'superior' quality of life, I don't see them, citizenry or government really effectively holding it together on their own - without the overlording of a SHussien or the stabilization of the foriegn occupation for now.

I would even use terms like barbaric (in the modern usage), corrupt, factioned, morally conflicted.... something about female circumcision, Kurdish holocaust, tribal 'racism' (in practice if not in literal ideology), and other fun things that mid-east countries and citizens live with that we don't that could be pointed to for a metaphorical use of the term primitive.  Relative to our culture and quality of life ( life expectancy, medical treatments, educational standards....) and the statistical difference in internal violence that might support the usage.

How many of these internet sparrings or coffee shop conversations turn into us forming our own gangs of 'anti-' or 'pro-' that parade through the streets and firebomb our fellow neighbors?  Honestly, how much of this 'religious' or 'politica' freedom battling in these countries is really motivated by personal gain, protection of a 'way of life' (translate fear of loosing the black market and access to money and power)?

I do think that it is going to be faster than ten thousand years to create some kind of stable and seemingly democratic type of government.

Call that bigoted if you want, but isn't the 'openness' and 'nonjudgemental/diversity respect' argument moot when you are lambasting someone on semantics instead of seeking clarification or understanding because you are too busy closing your judgement on terms and opinions?  I am just glad that we are socially more 'evolved' or 'superior' to the extent that this closed mindedness doesn't break out into violence as often as it does in...say the mid east?

Please note that I NEVER specified a specific culture, religion or 'people' in this statement.  I am talking about the 'primitiveness' of the cultural license to use violence so liberally on each other, so easily.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 13, 2004)

I think it is unsound to confuse 'Mob Behavior' with scientific theory. How individual members behave in a group has little to do with how 'evolved' the individual, or group, is.

Your statement that the Iraqi's can't "wake up to the value and significance of each human life' displays a bit of arrogance. Perhaps, the Iraqi's are a bit upset about the 10,000 individual human lives lost during the United States campaign. But the statement also helps to 'dehumanize the enemy', which is essential when asking soldiers to kill the 'other'.

And while you never mentioned a single group of people, many of the arguments have been used througout the history of the United States to suppress and oppress groups of people.

And that the United States uses violence from an altitude of 20,000 feet, or from the distance of a cruise missle strike does not make it any less violent.


----------



## MisterMike (Apr 13, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Well, I sure as hell did use the term, "racist." With excellent good reason, because MM argued that democracy in Iraq was impossible because of biological differences. He then proceeded to extend this ridiculous and science-free assertion into a claim that there were fundamental biological differences between us "advanced," human beings and the, "primitives," like Australian aborigines and certain South American tribes. Nor did he offer a shred of scientific evidience for these claims.



I never mentioned democracy and biological differences in the same sentence. Nor did I mentione biological differences when referenceing Australians or South Americans. Therefore, no evidence was needed. I simply showed use of the term and how it is not bigoted or racist.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> What he did do was start throwing around claims that those who called him on it were Commies, or gay, or whatever goofy thing popped into his mind--a familiar pattern, to anyone who recalls the seminars on biology of, say, Lester Maddox.



Those who called me on it didn't have a leg to stand on. Commies maybe, but I never called anyone gay. Just insinuated they were too compassionate.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> If that isn't racism, I'll be darned if I know what else to call it. Fortunately, I feel pretty confident that it's a fairly-surface, intellectual racism, from somebody who doesn't understand what he's talking about, and is merely repeating some ugly ideas. I strongly suspect that he doesn't act on these ideas in his immediate life...and a good thing, too.



IF you can't use a term correctly then, maybe you shouldn't use it at all.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> To me the problem isn't with the identification of terminology. It's in getting somebody to think through what he's saying, and to start looking for evidence. If it were a student writing a term paper, I'd just keep demanding references and documented facts (that's how you avoid saying, "look, these ideas aren't ideas")--but it's not, so I have no good strategy at this point other than to call him on it...and that's probably useless, especially since he's decided not to reply to anything I write.



Here I am.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Ugly, ugly ideas, MM. Worse in some ways, they're completely bereft of fact or support, and all the verbal contortions and accusations won't help a bit. You need to know what you're talking about.



Ugly through your clouded glasses mr. robertson.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 13, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I think it is unsound to confuse 'Mob Behavior' with scientific theory. How individual members behave in a group has little to do with how 'evolved' the individual, or group, is.
> 
> Your statement that the Iraqi's can't "wake up to the value and significance of each human life' displays a bit of arrogance. Perhaps, the Iraqi's are a bit upset about the 10,000 individual human lives lost during the United States campaign. But the statement also helps to 'dehumanize the enemy', which is essential when asking soldiers to kill the 'other'.
> 
> ...



Spoken like someone with no first hand experience....I could say the same thing about the Bosnian people...saw what they did to each other first hand....while I may not agree with much you say, I wont get a gang together and kill you for it...some of these other cultures will.


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 13, 2004)

Aim high, expecting to fall short.  We live in the real world where ideology is tempered/dilluted/corrupted by human contact.  

The USA isn't perfect by any means, but I think that relative to the destruction/reform, internal and external, compared to other countries by the citizenry and the government, we have earned the right to be proud of what we have accomplished.  Like it or don't, we have what the rest of the world thinks they want, or hate us because they don't have.  If I remember correctly, we came out of our American Revolution with a President and a democratic nation.  The French, not too long after, came out with.....Napolean?  Now they have national media stations and a governmental department in charge of acceptable language....but we are the evillist, most horriblest kid on the block.

All this talk about the USA as morally bankrupt, evil, incorporated... as if it is new or different.  I would be more concerned with the world evil potential of the Euro-Union/Euro Dollar issue of 'incorporating nations' and such.  Wasn't the coin of choice through all parts of the Roman empire the Roman coin, regardless of nationallity?  N. Korea is starving citizens and letting children die in the streets.  I mean citizens ignoring starving kids right in front of them all the way up to the lack of social services provided by the government.  Relative to that, I would say we aren't doing so bad.

Mexico, Bosnia, South/Central American countries, Phillipines, N. Korea.... regularly and daily 'dehumanize' their own.

Unlike some of you believe from your media/academiac exposure to training, the military only 'dehumanizes' the enemey in stress training - just like you 'dehumanize' your opponent in sparring/self defense so that you can do what you have to without the moral quandry of empathetic concerns.  Let's not make the gov/military out to be evil when we are practicing 'violent' arts on a regular basis.

In briefings, pre operational mission statements and train up, soldiers/sailors/airmen/Marines/Coasties are repeatedly reminded of the humanity they are engaging - the Mogadishu/Blackhawk down tactic of baby/women as human shields to use that humanity against the troops comes to mind.  Shoot or don't shoot, horrible decision to make.  The rules of engagement, laws of land warfare, Geneva Conventions, stress on Corps Values or Army values all are part of a basic serviceman's training to make sure they act honorably/morally in the use of violence and remember that it is people they are protecting/killing and dieing next to and for.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 13, 2004)

The interesting point here is that people keep looking at the actions of the Iraqis, the Somalians and theBosnians and saying "here there be savages."

They seem to miss the atrocities commited by the 'good guys'.
I can go back a bit and bring up the Massacre at Wounded Knee but thats a bit far back...100 or so years as were the actions by the military during the Fillipino campaigns.

More recent of course were the My Lai Massacre (1968), or the actions of Tiger Force in Vietnam (Hmmm...scalpings by US troops...aint that 'enlightened'.)

But wait..thats all way back in the past...in the last 40 years, we have evolved at lightning speed.

Right.

Even now, reports and rumors of 'events' in Iraq commited by us "Good Guys" are beginning to surface. 
"Recently eight U.S. Marine Corps reservists of the 2nd Battalion, 25th Marine Regiment were charged in connection with the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners of war. Two of the Marines were charged with negligent homicide in connection to the death of a captive."

Yes, this isn't quite the same as dragging the bodies through the streets and making pinyatas out of them...and you may argue "war zone, stress, etc".  But how does one explain the Orleans County LEO found guilty of "stepping on the penis of a mentally handicapped prisoner" does it? Or the Rodney King beating by a mob-mentality group of corrupt LEOs...or the sodomy of a prisioner in NYC by LEOs now does it?

Please, we can hide behind the concept of "democracy", some dubious high tech, and the willingness to die for the 'nation' rather than the 'cheif', but in the end...we are all still barbarians.  A few shiny trinkets, nukes and apple pie doesn't make us any better than our ancestors a thousand years ago.

Drive by shootings happened as often 100 years ago as they do today...just a different weapon, and a different transportation method.

If anyone wants to argue 'civilization', 'evolution', etc...lets talk again when we are ourselves 'civilized'.

I don't believe that will happen until such time as 1 guy says "I won't kill today"..and the majority of the world says "Good Idea...we won't either".

Peace.


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 13, 2004)

I find it interesting that these political discussions, from people who want to carry the banner of 'tolerance' and 'informative opinions', tend to push the idea that we need to be 'fair and equal' in our presentation/observation of global issues when:

We are 'ranked' in martial arts terms based in our man hours here from white to black.

That a system of reputation points exists for some to gain percieved support or undermining on a numerical scale

That, based on their vestment level, can award/penalize more points than others based on an entire set of criterion that I didn't vote on, but have to accept as the way business is done....

Sounds a little proprietary or token capitalist to me.  

Invest more, get more.
Say the right things to the right people, get more support.
Stand out in the wrong way, have your token earnings taken away from people with more token power/influence than you..... interesting.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 13, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Spoken like someone with no first hand experience....I could say the same thing about the Bosnian people...saw what they did to each other first hand....while I may not agree with much you say, I wont get a gang together and kill you for it...some of these other cultures will.


With which statement do you not agree with?

That I propose Iraqi's value a human life?
That I propose Iraqi's might be upset at 10,000 civilian fatalities during the past year?
That groups within the United States have oppressed other groups within the United States?
That the United States uses violence from a distance?

Perhaps you mean that the Bosnian attacked people of another faith, and killed them brutally.  Of course, were I an anthropologist from mars, I might say that the past year looks an aweful lot like Christians Killing Muslems for no good reason.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 13, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> I never mentioned democracy and biological differences in the same sentence.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hmmmm. It sure seems that 'primitive' and 'democracy' are used in the same sentence. 

What then do you mean by 'fast-forward evolution' and 'primitive', if not biological difference?


----------



## MisterMike (Apr 13, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Hmmmm. It sure seems that 'primitive' and 'democracy' are used in the same sentence.
> 
> What then do you mean by 'fast-forward evolution' and 'primitive', if not biological difference?



Had I said "Primate" that would have been biological. By primitive,(which has a whoooooole lot of application) and I explained this later in the thread, I meant as a society and their lack of values. You can keep pushing the issue, but you are the one looking like a "monkey."

My first post was meant to be short and to the point. As I again later explained, my feelings are that until all the "bad Iraqis" are dead, there will be no democracy in Iraq.

And the time it will take to get rid of all the "bad Iraqis" will be long and arduous. Again keeping in line with the subject of the thread, and not making things personal as you have. 

I consider things like "people shredders" and "gas chambers" primitive as far as their level of humanity. But if you like, I think we have Saddam sitting in a cell somewhere. Perhaps we could give him a shave, haircut and a new suit and put him back in Iraq just for you and robertson now that we are fairly certain there are no WMD's for him to have.(which he shoulda just let us come in freely for in the first place)


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 13, 2004)

OK, MM, lit crit time--let's unpack one of your quotes.

"By evolve, I meant they would have to evolve their "brains" in a direction of our choosing. As someone mentioned 900 years ago they were the brainpool, well, it seems they decided to stay there as the rest of the world spread out and moved on. (So I was off a little on the time)

All I care about is that the previous regime is gone. When someone else steps up to power, and we evaluate that they mean harm to us again, we should crush them again. But this whole idea of nation-building, and instituting a democracy, (with a constitution they already disagree over) is ludicrous.

As for archie, well, he meant well before all that PC crap came along. There were certainly lessons to be learned from his mistakes as the show meant to do, but I used it to simply keep stirring up the responses from the fanatics.

There are still primitives in the jungles of the Amazon and the Outback of Australia. Anyone who views this as offensive is a little too "sensthitive." "

Your words, right? OK then.

1. You not only used the word 'evolve,' a word that to my mind at least specifically calls upon Darwin and evolutionary biology for its basic, surface meaning, but you then went on to explain this political, 'primitiveness,' in temrs that explicitly drew upon evolutionary theory, i.e., "they decided to stay there as the rest of the world spread out and moved on." You have, knowingly or otherwise, borrowed a concept about human diversity from the so-called, "out of Africa," hypothesis. 

2. Your account of politics, in other words, rests upon the idea that being fit or unfit for democracy is a matter of biology, because you repeatedly use terms that advert to biological difference ("brains...jungles...primitives") rather than to language, culture or history. 

3. Your account also rests on a simple binarism: we, the "advanced," and pure democracies, will be forced ("when someone else steps up...and we evaluate that they mean harm...we should crush them again...this whole idea of...a democracy...is ludicrous") into action. 

4. Your ideas repeatedly link certain peoples together (why else bring up the Amazon, the Australian outback, in the context of discussing Iraq?), and rely upon the notion that these, "primitives," are incapable of, "nation-buliding," and "democracy," because of their "brains...the brainpool," in contradistinction to, "the rest of the world...{which} spread out and moved on." That is evolutionary languaage--and as a sidebar, I always find it interesting to see instances in which those who reject evolution as a scientific theory are only too willining to adopt Social Darwinist positions. In other words, there are still isolated pockets of less-evolved humans, and we should deal with them only to evaluate their status as threats.

5. I do not see how else to evaluate the, "sensthitive," misspelling, which cannot be a simple typo, in the context of your assertion that, "I used...{the reference to Archie Bunker}...to simply keep stirring up the responses from the fanatics," and your repeated equation of rugged masculinity with patriotism. I would be interested to see another explanation of such a misspelling.

I don't see how else to interpret what you're saying than as an assertion that political differences, and the current mess in Iraq, stem from biological differences. You might want to read at least the introduction and Judith Stein's essay, "Defining the Race 1890-1930," in Werner Sollors, "The Invention of Ethnicity," for some suggestions about better--i.e. better grounded in reality ways to argue such matters. And a little Stephen Jay  Gould on the topic of the actual science of evolutionary biology couldn't hurt, neither.

But the long and the short of it is (by the way, my name's Robert; otherwise, the correct term of address is, "Dr. Robertson," and I'd really prefer Robert), that you are claiming the Iraqi people are incapable of democracy. 

I was thinking about this as I walked by the Lincoln Memorial in my home town yesterday, en route to the library, and read this, chiseled on the wall:

THOSE WHO WILL DENY FREEDOM TO OTHERS DESERVE IT NOT THEMSELVES. AND UNDER A JUST GOD, THEY WILL NOT RETAIN IT LONG.

Good solid Republican sentiments, I might add.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 13, 2004)

Hmmm...cultures that dress up children as suicide bombers....celebrate people who fly planeloads of civillians into civillian targets as heros....round up busloads of civs. drive them to a site, force them to dig a mass grave, force them into it and mow them down...take civillian hostages and threaten to burn them alive.

Compared to a culture that at least attempts to minimize civillian damage....cans military leaders that commit illegal acts (instead of promoting them) and at least "thinks" they are doing the right thing (which agreed is up for debate). Yeah lots in common there...how could I miss it?


----------



## MisterMike (Apr 13, 2004)

"4. Your ideas repeatedly link certain peoples together (why else bring up the Amazon, the Australian outback, in the context of discussing Iraq?), and rely upon the notion that these, "primitives," are incapable of, "nation-buliding," and "democracy," because of their "brains...the brainpool," in contradistinction to, "the rest of the world...{which} spread out and moved on." That is evolutionary languaage--and as a sidebar, I always find it interesting to see instances in which those who reject evolution as a scientific theory are only too willining to adopt Social Darwinist positions. In other words, there are still isolated pockets of less-evolved humans, and we should deal with them only to evaluate their status as threats."

Again, *yawn* I've stated it over and over *yawn* and over that I meant nothing biological by it. They have never adopted Demcracy because they live the same way they have for centuries, maybe eons. They look at us as the infidel. Hmm...kinda makes you wonder if a little sugar is gonna be needed to get them to adopt ANYTHING we as Americans value in our government.

In contrast, I find them primitive, therefor called them primitives.

Wah, to anyone who's offended.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 13, 2004)

You don't axly know what a, "social Darwinist," position is, do you?

OK, sure. Fine. I've got it  wrong. So enlighten me. Why exactly are you using the word, "primitive?" Why did you bring up other societies, ones you identified as similarly, "primitive," in the context of  discussing Iraq? Why'd you use words such as, "brains," and "evolve," why'd you bring up the way human beings have spread out across the globe and suggest that their differences were due to that?

In other words, since you claim not to mean biology and evolution, why are you using the language of biology and evolution to make your "case?"

They're real questions, not rhetorical ones. So enlighten me: just explain. Skip the rhetoric, skip the insults, skip the allusions to homosexuality and communism. Step beyond Michael Savage and simply explain what you really meant.  

As for a statement--well, here's yours:

"They have never adopted Demcracy because they live the same way they have for centuries, maybe eons. They look at us as the infidel. Hmm...kinda makes you wonder if a little sugar is gonna be needed to get them to adopt ANYTHING we as Americans value in our government.

In contrast, I find them primitive, therefor called them primitives."

"Sugar," eh? Like horses and children?

Here's Lincoln's:

"THOSE WHO WILL DENY FREEDOM TO OTHERS DESERVE IT NOT THEMSELVES. AND UNDER A JUST GOD, THEY WILL NOT RETAIN IT LONG."

Personally, I'm gonna go with the Republican here. It strikes me as having come from a morally-evolved human being.


----------



## MisterMike (Apr 13, 2004)

Again...         

And somehow your are above Abe Lincoln now? Somebody call the U.S. Mint!!!!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 13, 2004)

So here is a side question...

What is your opinion of a government that uses excessive force against its own people, allows its police force to burn innocent women and children alive while they are surrounded by an armed force, that uses its military against protesting students, locks people away without trial or even the right to speak with legal council, uses torture and 'conditioning' to encourage confession, limits the freedom of the press to only those who toe the 'official' line, and supports other governments that not only do the same, but worse?

We invaded Iraq supposedly to remove a brutal government that did all that.

The argument is "they use children as bombs".  Ok, so they tie up a child with a few pounds of plastique, stop at the mall and -boom-.  Is that truely worse than the other guys lobbing a shell into the air and due to malfunction, error or 'misinformation' blowing the pogees outta a schoolyard?

War is hell, and casulties in the civilian side are usually high.  Funny thing is...to some they are sick bastards with no regard for life...to others, they are making the supreme sacrifice in the fight for their beliefs.  Interesting how the winner writes the summary.

Of course, we can argue how evil it is to tie bombs to babes....but then again, the US supports a government who has a history of using maximum firepower against children who throw rocks. While I'm certain that statement will piss off a few people, while we rally against the brutality of Saddam, and the terroristic actions of Osama, the US spends billions in aid to prop up equally if not more brutal regimes. 

The argument of celebration is interesting.  Arabs celebrated the pain we feel from 9/11. That makes them evil.  We celebrated the fall of Bagdad because we're the 'good guys'. Never mind the civilian losses, high crime rate, disorder and lawlessness we left behind.  Both actions were good/evil depending on which side you were on.  Ask Sadamn if killing his sons was good. 

The simple fact is, whats good for one, is bad for another.  Walk in their shoes a while, see through their eyes and it looks different.  Its all cultural differences...not much different at all really.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 13, 2004)

Well, I continue to be fascinated by the unwillingness to simply explain. Here, the strategy is to make a claim about my putting myself above old Honest Abe (not what  I did, incidentally: one may recognize achievement in another, the way one would recognize Mozart's ability, without claiming to be superior) rather than to simply explain one's own position. 

Of course, that's consistent: note the constant drift onto side issues or new issues, the constant attempts to change the subject, the constant personal accusations, the reiteration of "Commie," or, "gay," all of which attempt to mask an intellectually--and morally--bankrupt argument. 

As for Mr. Hubbard's comment, I tend to agree, I'm sorry to have to say--one thinks of Kissinger's realpolitik, which roughly translates out as, "You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs." And one thinks of Sinclair Lewis' corny character, Dorremus Jessup, who replies," By God, sir! Men's hearts and souls are not eggs for tyrants to break!" But then, to know Lewis' writing, you have to actually have an affection for American culture and history. 

Almost worse yet, these clowns never seem to figure out the point that history has made again and again and again: ever since we started propping these bastards up around the time of the Spanish-American War (see Twain, another America-basher, and "To the People Sitting In Darkness"), the sad thing is, IT DOESN'T EVEN WORK.

Unless of course you live in a world where Cuba is our buddy, Spain didn't get ruled by that fascist, Franco, we won the war in Vietnam, they love us in the Phillipines, and countries like Panama and Chile are just in the bestest of shape...


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 13, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> So here is a side question...
> 
> What is your opinion of a government that uses excessive force against its own people, allows its police force to burn innocent women and children alive while they are surrounded by an armed force, that uses its military against protesting students, locks people away without trial or even the right to speak with legal council, uses torture and 'conditioning' to encourage confession, limits the freedom of the press to only those who toe the 'official' line, and supports other governments that not only do the same, but worse?
> 
> We invaded Iraq supposedly to remove a brutal government that did all that.


*Negative.* 
We invaded Iraq because they posed an 'immenent threat' the 'United States' with 'Weapons of Mass Destruction'. While there are plenty of humanitarian reason to remove the government of Saddam Hussein, NONE of them were employed to justify the invasion.

Also beware of some of those accusations, for they are just as true here in the United States as they were in Saddam Husseins' Iraq.

"_locks people away without trial or even the right to speak with legal council"_
"_limits the freedom of the press to only those who toe the 'official' line_"
"_supports other governments that not only do the same"_

But, I am thinking that you knew that.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 13, 2004)

> Negative.
> We invaded Iraq because they posed an 'immenent threat' the 'United States' with 'Weapons of Mass Destruction'. While there are plenty of humanitarian reason to remove the government of Saddam Hussein, NONE of them were employed to justify the invasion.



Not quite true.  While the elusive WMD was the main argument, on many occations, the brutality of the Iraqi regime was indicated as a prime reason for its overthrow. 

The sad part is, Sadamn is still alive.  GWB is probably quite pissed that he was taken alive. 


Of course, one has to wonder if the Iraqi8 people are better off under US control, rather than Sadamns control.




> US / Iraqi Relations 1960-2000
> 
> early 1960s: U.S. unsuccessfully attempts assassination of Iraqi leader, Abdul Karim Qassim.2
> 
> ...



So, now that we have "won", how do we disentangle and move forward?


----------



## MisterMike (Apr 13, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Well, I continue to be fascinated by the unwillingness to simply explain. Here, the strategy is to make a claim about my putting myself above old Honest Abe (not what  I did, incidentally: one may recognize achievement in another, the way one would recognize Mozart's ability, without claiming to be superior) rather than to simply explain one's own position.



Unwillingness. Well, it's been explained. Makes me wonder how anyone could read so many books and retain anything if you can't follow this thread far enough to see my explanations. 



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Of course, that's consistent: note the constant drift onto side issues or new issues, the constant attempts to change the subject, the constant personal accusations, the reiteration of "Commie," or, "gay," all of which attempt to mask an intellectually--and morally--bankrupt argument.



I think you're talking about yourself here. I don't think I see more spin and tangents coming off these posts from anyone other than you. Perhaps it's a result of the lack of attention span mentioned above.

You're wasting your time now. Maybe I'll catch you on a substantive thread, but there, you'll probably be attacking people rather than the issue. Pretty sad. I think they're affectionately called trolls.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 13, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> The argument is "they use children as bombs". Ok, so they tie up a child with a few pounds of plastique, stop at the mall and -boom-. Is that truely worse than the other guys lobbing a shell into the air and due to malfunction, error or 'misinformation' blowing the pogees outta a schoolyard?


?????? Is murder truely any worse than accidental homicide????? That logic boggles me.



> The argument of celebration is interesting. Arabs celebrated the pain we feel from 9/11. That makes them evil. We celebrated the fall of Bagdad because we're the 'good guys'. Never mind the civilian losses, high crime rate, disorder and lawlessness we left behind. Both actions were good/evil depending on which side you were on. Ask Sadamn if killing his sons was good.


Hmmmm...celebrating intentional, planned, mass murder where the GOAL was to kill as many civillians as possible is the same as celebrating military victory, with civillian casulties that we would have avoided if possible?? Somehow when we "walk in others shoes" it becomes acceptable for others to suicide bomb innocent civillians in malls, busses and street corners "because its their way and we dont understand" but when we accidentally kill civillians we are now at the same level?? 

This good/bad issue smacks of moral relativism...where we arent allowed to define good/evil right/wrong...

"Everyone is indignant when he hears the Germans define justice as that which is to the interest of the Third Reich. But it is not always remembered that this indignation is perfectly groundless if we ourselves regard morality as a subjective sentiment to be altered at will. Unless there is some objective standard of good, over-arching Germans, Japanese and ourselves alike, whether any of us obey it or not, then of course the Germans are as competent to create their own ideology as we are to create ours...Unless the measuring rod is independent of the things measured, we can do no measuring."
-- C.S. Lewis


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 13, 2004)

Oh. No morality without theology, eh? But with theology, a morality that gets real slippery when we need it to...seems to me that a martial artist of any worthwhile sort would have contemplated the moral character of violence exercised in even the best of causes from time to time, but I guess not. Must be me--I'm just squeamish about our having blown up kids and babies, however noble or necessary the cause. But then, hey, I was more or less in favor of shipping Moammar Quaddafi off to hell any day now, and I still had problems with our cheerfully blowing up a year old baby girl with an airstrike. Silly me--I thought our higer moral status meant we had a greater moral responsibility than those, "primitives," out there.

As for MM's comments, well, I guess defending the indefensible is rather difficult. Personally, I'd have loved to have heard how a statement such as, "The cure for Iraq would be to fast-forward evolution about 10,000 years. These people are primitives and cannot live in a democracy," isn't in any way biological, has nothing to do with social Darwinism, and--in its references to, "these people," if nothing else--is in no way whatsoever racist. I'd also have loved to have heard why exactly it was that you used that odd spelling of, "sensitive," but I guess we're not going to be regaled with that one either.

One of the worst things that some have learned from the likes of Michael Savage is that screaming, racist hatred and angry contempt for one's fellow Americans is perfectly OK. I'd say it's un-American, but regrettably I actually know a bit about American history and characters like Col. Chivington.

Still, my apologies for actually understanding what's being said. I'd be upset too, if I were presenting some of these arguments.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 13, 2004)

Did I equate morality with theology somewhere?? 

Name me any other country that, when engaged in military operations, gives as much consideration for civillian casualties as the US.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 13, 2004)

Small point - I never said I agreed with things....just said look at it from the other perspective.

My here has been the idea that -we- (the US) are somehow superior because we don't do certain things.  There is an old saying "We have met the enemy...and he is us."

It is too true.

We will condemn Saddam for secret police actions, torture and execution....while we support others who do worse.

We condemned the Chinese for driving tanks over protesting students...I guess National Guard bullets are better?

We protest how North Korea mistreats their people...yet hundreds of thousands of Americans go hungry, have no health care and worse each day.

I'll answer my own question...answers in bold.

What is your opinion of a government that uses excessive force against its own people, (*Seattle, New York, Waco, Ruby Ridge*) allows its police force to burn innocent women and children alive while they are surrounded by an armed force (*Waco*), that uses its military against protesting students (*Kent State*), locks people away without trial or even the right to speak with legal council (*Japanese Internment, post 9/11 round ups of Arabs*), uses torture and 'conditioning' to encourage confession (*Guantano prison*), limits the freedom of the press to only those who toe the 'official' line (*CNN/Fox/ABC really all that accurate?*), and supports other governments that not only do the same, but worse? (*Israel, Russia, and England to name 3*)

Personally...I think it stinks.... 

So, while we sit here and argue over the 'civility' of the Iraqis....lets not forget..we're not that 'evolved' ourselves.

Maybe people should take a few minutes to understand what is really said in those books they hold so dear?

Maybe then...and only then we'll be a peaceful world.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 13, 2004)

Uh...dude, which moral yardstick did you think C.S. Lewis was talking about? trust me...his is not a humanist or culturally-relativist position. 

As for who pays more-careful attention...well, you might wanna scope out the British conduct off this particular fine little war.


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 13, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Small point - I never said I agreed with things....just said look at it from the other perspective.
> 
> My here has been the idea that -we- (the US) are somehow superior because we don't do certain things.  There is an old saying "We have met the enemy...and he is us."
> 
> ...



I think that in my post I did qualify my 'superior' statement by saying that we are not perfect.  There are things that stink, internally and externally.  We, as a nation have done some bad things.  Again, RELATIVE to other countries, we aren't doing so bad if you COMPARE our treatment of civilians(internally and externally), prisoners of war, our average conduct on a day to day basis - we don't make it a habit of running people out of neighborhoods now because they are muslim, christian, jewish, black but couch in under false charges or pretenses.... If you look at our level of social reform, it ain't perfect, but it is far from the racism and open prejudice of what it use to be - or anywhere near the stuff that many mid-eastern countries still hold on to.  I am talking NOW. 

Just today I watched a special on SF operating in Afg.  They basically said the same thing as MM: Until the people can 'evolve' into a national mentallity from the tribal/regional/religious loyalties they have known for so long, democracy isn't possible.  He was hopeful and said that he did think it was moving in the right direction though.  Guys on the ground with the same idea...hmmm.  Considering the locals outnumber the SF 12 man team and haven't run them out or burned them alive seems that they aren't feeling the 'arrogance' of the American mentallity.

A lot of this talk sounds like 'they' did all these horrible things but and made these problems but 'we' need to make a difference.  If you are going to say we it needs to be across the board.  Accountability.  If you aren't 'perfect' in your own everyday life, if you make mistakes that will lead to consequences that will impact others, if you are prone to make emotional/conspiratorial actions and behaviors what room to any of 'us' have to be SO accusatory or judgemental of those same behaviors in someone in another arena?

I don't know what vacuum of ideology some of you are living in, but the world is a messy place and unless you are willing to step up to the table and take a bite of the S*(T sandwich by contributing to the cause what ever it may be(Peace Corp, Military Service, lobby/vote for a candidate, run for an office....) I think it is very 'armcherry' of us to waste time judging those who have chosen to take that responsibility.  Like any human endeavor, there is imperfection, but what are you going do about it:  Sit on this proprietary, token capitalistic forum and whine about how the world is unfair?  Your arguing for equal and fair in a forum that has a skewed reputation point system based on 'rank' or 'supervisory title' - seems like an inconsistent pattern to me.  

Venting is not the same as informing.  Bitching is not the same as REFORMING.  I don't see any major ex-patriation going on from any of you, nor do I hear about the refusal to buy certain brands of this or that - so that we aren't contributing to the 'corporate nation'  or other things.  We just finished with Easter for of us and it is a major Chocolate holiday.  Do any of you refuse to support the slave labor out of africa and other countries associated with the chocolate industry?  This smacks of the person who complains about the inhumanity of hunting while chewing on a Burger, or is a fashion vegetarian and still wears leather shoes/belts.

Fix the problem, not the blame.  Lengthen your own line to make yourselves feel better instead of cutting down someone elses... maybe then we will have some peace in the world.


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 13, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> I find it interesting that these political discussions, from people who want to carry the banner of 'tolerance' and 'informative opinions', tend to push the idea that we need to be 'fair and equal' in our presentation/observation of global issues when:
> 
> We are 'ranked' in martial arts terms based in our man hours here from white to black.
> 
> ...



Posted this earlier, the irony seems to be lost on people though.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 13, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> ... Name me any other country that, when engaged in military operations, gives as much consideration for civillian casualties as the US.


I think that would be a challenge that is difficult to meet. Certainly, the United States does attempt to exercise care for 'collateral damage' when engaged in military operations. But I also think that is wrong.

If 'military operations' are warranted, then the military should target all legitimate targets and destroy them. The military should use the most effective weapon in the arsenal to destroy a target. All military operations should be conducted fast and overpowering. Then end result of any military action should an 'unconditional surrender' of the opposing force, or its complete destruction.

If the military is going to *****-foot around with sacred relics and concern for civilian casualties, then perhaps a military operation is not the correct tool.

One of the rules concerning guns is that you "*Never point a weapon at anything unless you plan to destroy it.*" I think the military should be employed with the same principle.

Mike


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 13, 2004)

Someones corn flakes had the secret ingredient huh?

Interesting how you can so easily dismiss the barbaric actions of Americans as being in the past and insist on the NOW.  Well...right NOW there are individuals being held, without charge, without access to legal council, without access to Red Cross representatives by the US Government in Cuba.  Right NOW someone in Iraq is eating dirt after taking a rifle butt to the mouth for not obeying an order from a US soldier. (Didn't matter that he didn't understand english).  Right now, there are those Americans who are abusing their power and those under their control.  Right NOW Paul.  I realize that the events of 10 years ago are almost a lifetime to a culture to whom the microwave takes too long to warm their tea, but its not a long time.

You haven't refuted my points, you have blured them.

You ask what others have done....what have -YOU- done?

You can point at your badge and say "I'm a cop.  I save lives. I protect and serve."
So were the guys who beat Rodney King.  So was that bastard in Orleans County.  So was the NYC cop who shoved the objects in a prisoners rectum.  

Don't whine about an internet boards setup...things on here are for recreation sake.  Don't like it, don't play.  Theres thousands of other boards out there.

I have incredible respect for those in the military, and law enforcement.  Theirs is a thankless task, dealing with horrors I hope to personally never encounter.  There are heros in there...and there are zeros as well.  Which are you?  What are -you- doing to fix the problems?

The question is....which problems are you trying to fix?

Racial Profiling is alive and well in WNY.  Folks may not be run outta the neighborhoods...but they sure are pulled over alot in certain WNY communities. 

As to the comment "RELATIVE to other countries, we aren't doing so bad if you COMPARE our treatment of civilians"...well..that is all a matter of opinion.  I'm sure that while the FBI was busy burning them alive, the Branch Davidians didn't think "Thank God its Americans doing this and not those damn Nazis."  I'm also pretty certain the retarded inmate wasn't thinking "Glad I'm in NY.  Having my penis stepped on and abused like this would hurt so much worse in a 3rd world nation."

You ask what I am doing....I am opening my mouth and spreading the word.  I am attempting to present multiple sides of arguments, to help encourage people to think for themselves.  I realize that sometimes, I'm way off base...hell, sometimes, I'll argue a side I don't agree on, simply to make others -think-.

-THAT- in my opinion, is what makes the -idea- of America something special...that we can think for ourselves, if only we can find the data we need to do so... That can be our greatest gift to the world that lacks such a wonder.

Its interesting to note that all of us debating and arguing in this thread...we all agree and disagree with each other at certain points. Both Robert Robertson and myself have been both on different sides and the same side and complimentary sides of various debates.  You and I Paul...same thing.  -Thats my America-  Where we can do that, and not yet have to worry about a bullet to the head.

You ask what I am doing.... I'm providing the forum where you can speak your mind, without fear of censorship. (Provided of course you follow the basic rules.) Is that a contradiction?  No.  Every debate must have rules.  You can (and have) taken me to task, forced me to think, to research, to discover.  If I have done that to anyone here...made them take 1 moment and reach...then I have made a difference, and -that- is my purpose here.

I can't change the past.  I can't in a moment steer the ship of state (which steers like a drunken cow thats eaten alot of lead), but I can create a ripple...and ripples can become waves.  

What am I doing?  I'm speaking up, and out.  My opinions are out there, in public.  Not hidden away lest they be heard by the SS.  (My 3 cats will purr those cheep suits into a fuzzy shedded oblivion in my defence....I swear I heard them say that...or was it "feed us"...hard to tell...anyone here speak cat?) 

So, Paul....what are you going to do to change things?  To free the illegally held captives, to stop the attrocities, to right the wrongs?  Or do you believe that those sitting captive, without being charged with any crime, without legal representation, without outside contact since 9/12/01 deserve it?

We can pat ourselves on the back and lie, but the truth is, the US isn't -that- much better than so many others in the human rights department.

For the record...I do try to buy American, and support local businesses, and organic foods wherever possible. I tend to do most of my own cooking, and research many of the products I buy.  I won't buy a Dell because they shipped much of their support to India for example. 

Education...independance....free-thinking....and the ability to scream "Down with Adolph Bush" and not worry (too much) about dissapearing tomorow...or being found dead, on a train trak, with your hands tied behind your back, throat slashed, gun shot to the head, no blood left in your body...and have it ruled a suicide.  (Clinton-WhiteWater...look it up...)

Now, we can go ding each other with the rep system, we can argue here, or we can add our voices to what we believe in 'out there' in the real world.  Maybe we make a difference, maybe not.  Me, I think I make a difference..small as it may be....

Time will tell if I'm right.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 13, 2004)

> We are 'ranked' in martial arts terms based in our man hours here from white to black.
> 
> That a system of reputation points exists for some to gain percieved support or undermining on a numerical scale
> 
> ...



I didn't vote on the speed limit, didn't get a say really in how my performance at work was rated, nor the pay-rise if I was a good performing chimp....have no say in what the Gas company is overcharging me to heat my flat, etc.

Funny thing is....I really did get a little bit more say in the rep system here though...and the 'belt ranks'.  Rep systems pretty much the 'default' though....belt ranks...that was put to mostly a community effort way back when.

Much different from the karate schools where, maybe I just want a green belt...but I gotta know hitten-mitsugi style 4 first.  Bah.  I bought a green sash, its mine, it means something to me, problems?  Poo.   I earned the Blue though. 

The board stuff here...I'm always open to suggestions for.

Don't always follow em...but I do listen.

Shame the world doesn't listen more, y'know?


----------



## Tgace (Apr 14, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I think that would be a challenge that is difficult to meet. Certainly, the United States does attempt to exercise care for 'collateral damage' when engaged in military operations. But I also think that is wrong.
> 
> If 'military operations' are warranted, then the military should target all legitimate targets and destroy them. The military should use the most effective weapon in the arsenal to destroy a target. All military operations should be conducted fast and overpowering. Then end result of any military action should an 'unconditional surrender' of the opposing force, or its complete destruction.
> 
> ...


I think any of our opponents would say our operations are "fast and overpowering"...at the same time, military operations are "politics by force" and the peace we hope to garner after the conflict may depend on the way we wage the war in the first place.

Another firearms rule is * Be sure of your target and beyond.* We do our best to fight by that principle too.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 14, 2004)

Interesting post on a weblog from Iraq.


> April 13, 10:50 am EST. Baghdad, Iraq -- Aadhamiyah. After a day cooped up shuttling between hotel and Internet cafe yesterday, I went out again, this time to the Sunni neighborhood of Aadhamiyah. I have yet to write up what I saw in full, but here's the basics.
> 
> This is a followup to the Fallujah story. I wrote earlier about the massive relief collections for Fallujah, coordinated through the moseques of Baghdad and beyond, with the mosque of Abu Hanifa in Aadhamiyah as the epicenter. We saw that on April 7, within hours of the beginning of the operation.
> 
> ...



Source: http://www.empirenotes.org/


Other Blogs: http://www.zmag.org/weluser.htm

For a different perspective than the one above :
http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/qndguide/default.asp?target=Iraq


----------



## Tgace (Apr 14, 2004)

So there is no good or bad. Right or wrong. We must be perfect and faultless before we can take any action and believe its "right". A bomb dropped on the wrong target puts us on the same level as a suicide bomber...An illegal massacre in Vietnam (for which there was an investigation and court martial) is the same as state sponsored progrom...Our nation was discovered by a "fortune hunter" that brought disease and genocide to innocent native cultures and is just a litany of slavery, unjust wars and atrocities to our modern times. I vote we just give our country to Canada and start over again...

How do you "respect" soldiers and LEO's in a world like this?? Arent they just agents of all this @#$% you see as wrong and evil in our society??

Excuse me while I go outside and torch myself out of guilt...


----------



## Tgace (Apr 14, 2004)

At least I guess I can be proud I live in a country that looks at incidents like Kent State, Mi Lai (SP?) and other instances of wrongdoing and see them (even if through the lens of history) as wrong, conducts investigations and attempts to prevent them in the future. Unlike the Chinese Gvt. that sees things like that as normal and will have no qualms about doing them again....


Anybody have a match???


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 14, 2004)

You are right.... we do look at those events and see them as wrong.

But they continue to happen.

If the deciding factor of 'worthyness' is knowing right from wrong...what is it if you do know it, but do the opposite anyway?


I respect the LEOs and Soldiers because I know that the majority of them are good, honorable individuals.  The hearts of those who participate in things like the massacres are not the same hearts as those who willingly jumped to their deaths to protect their comrades.  

You point at the Chinese....what about the *Israeli*? 
Right now their leader is being applauded by W, despite having a record as vile as Saddam.  Towns raized, populations slaughtered to the last, the Red Cross denied access, etc.  

What about the years of support and help we gave to Sadamn while looking the other way at his barbaric actions?

Maybe if the US would support governments that actually had similar standards to those we ourselves profess to, we wouldn't be watching our international reputaion suffer so.

But, what worry is a tarnished rep, when you can toss 11 main battlegroups at a problem..when your greatest threat can field none?


Heres your match.


----------



## wisdomstrikes (Apr 14, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> You point at the Chinese....what about the *Israeli*?
> Right now their leader is being applauded by W, despite having a record as vile as Saddam. Towns raized, populations slaughtered to the last, the Red Cross denied access, etc. QUOTE]
> 
> How can you compare Sadam to Israel's Leadership? Get educated before you make remarks like that!!!!!


----------



## Tgace (Apr 14, 2004)

Sorry...guess I cant be proud of anything. Oh the "majority" of soldiers and LEO's are good...explains all the examples of the good they do Ive seen here. How can you separate governmental agents from the government they work for??


----------



## Tgace (Apr 14, 2004)

wisdomstrikes said:
			
		

> Kaith Rustaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 14, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> I didn't vote on the speed limit, didn't get a say really in how my performance at work was rated, nor the pay-rise if I was a good performing chimp....have no say in what the Gas company is overcharging me to heat my flat, etc.
> 
> Funny thing is....I really did get a little bit more say in the rep system here though...and the 'belt ranks'.  Rep systems pretty much the 'default' though....belt ranks...that was put to mostly a community effort way back when.
> 
> ...



So, if you decided to run the rep. program - which you didn't have to do -  and you are tweeking it the way you say, yet cry the lack of fair and equal in the world, why is increased rep. connected to increased influence?  

Fair and equal would be that each member would have equal point value of influence regardless of time.  We should all be the same as 'citizen/members' of this forum.  Membership time, volume of posting or status as moderator/administrator/advisor should have no bearing on our 'influence' of another poster's rep points - if it is just an expression of agreement or disagreement of another poster's opinion.  Rep. point influence should be a separate thing from membership 'seniority' or moderator/administrator/advisor status - since it is an expression of just another member's opinion.  As it is now, those with more 'influence' can really pound others based solely on an opinion.  

Glad that those 'new immigrants' during the industrial revolution didn't have this type of 'membership' system that gave them less voting clout than 'old immigrant' voters.  It is bad enough that voting corruption happens at all.

This does not mean that I don't think that said 'influence' shouldn't be exercised by those admin/moderators/advisors acting within the role of overwatch to warn or take punitive action on posters who are violating forum rules.


Or 

If fair and equal is your banner, there shouldn't even be a seniority system or rep system.

Still find it interesting....perfect chance to demonstrate fair and equal from a position of power but....


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 14, 2004)

What am I doing?
I think I made that clear in the New Jersey School thread:

"I am a teacher, and I agree there are some stupid policies and practices that are being implemented, but REMEMBER that the teachers are not the implimentors, Administrators and Superintendents/School Boards (some of which have NEVER taught or don't have very much time in the trenches before they go for higher degrees and higher paying jobs) are the policy writers and final decision makers. 

TEACHERS are the people trying to help your children learn the critical thinking and subject skills as well as acceptable social behavior so they can be productive, positively impacting citizens as well as NON-Judgemental and prejudicial about things they don't know a lot about.... like bashing teachers/education/military/religion/LEO/Race when you are not directly involved, knowledgeable on the subject."

And that was in response to statements like this:

"I'd make the teachers use the same system.

Oh wait....this is the same group that said test scores were meaningless (after a group of them failed the same tests given to their students.....)

Morons.

Common sence has left the building and they wonder why so many kids are going postal nowadays. Hell, if I was in school today they would have executed me on principal. (I used to read war books, knew how to make gunpowder by 6th grade, etc.)"

by you.

On top of that, I have served 13 years of military service, already laid out in other threads, and train/have trained critical thinking/tactical self defense approach in a character/team building approach.

Basically, that is philosophical justification of 'what I do' but concretely, I vote for the guy I think is best for the job and try not to make commentary about those appointed leaders that are critical without reform in mind....


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 14, 2004)

wisdomstrikes said:
			
		

> Kaith Rustaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Israeli issues:
http://www.socialistworker.org/2004-1/480/480_07_PalestinianLives.shtml


> What the U.S. media ignored is that since the last Palestinian suicide bombing in Haifa on October 4, Israeli forces have carried out dozens of raids and attacks. These assaults have killed 117 Palestinians, injured hundreds more and destroyed enough houses to leave thousands of Palestinians without shelter, according to a tally by Palestinian commentator Ali Abunimah.
> 
> But for the U.S. corporate media--its horizons defined by loyalty to the U.S. agenda in the Middle East--a period of intense Israeli violence still counts as a "lull" in the conflict. In fact, just two days before the suicide bombing, more than 40 Israeli military vehicles--supported by Apache helicopters--staged an assault on the densely populated Rafah refugee camp in southern Gaza.


*Media Blackout Over Israeli Atrocities in Nablus *
*Monday, 5 January 2004, 12:19 pm*
*Press Release: Palestine Media Center - PMC* 
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0401/S00014.htm


> Palestinian witnesses said Amjad Bilal Al-Masri, 15, was shot in the chest by an IOF sniper as he threw stones at an Israeli armored vehicle from a rooftop in the Old City of Nablus.
> 
> Al-Masri and Rawhi Shuman - a 19-year-old shot in the chest in a separate incident - died of their injuries in the citys Rafidya hospital, medics said. Amer Arafat, 25, was shot in the back and pronounced dead upon his arrival to hospital. During the funeral of the three, IOF shot and wounded another teenager, 17-year-old Mohammed el-Masri. Hospital officials later pronounced him dead. Witnesses said he was helping to carry the coffin of his cousin Amjad el-Masri when he was shot.


 
*Press Release from the Palestine Red Crescent Society (PRCS)*
Oct 18 2000
Emergency Medical Services (EMS) of the Red Crescent


> To-date 24 of our ambulances have been hit by live ammunition by Israelis in 42 separate attacks. 27 Emergency Medical Technicians have been injured, and one killed. PRCS has logged 47 incidents of denial of access to ambulances at roadblocks. EMS continues to utilize vehicles now in desperate need of repair due to lack of replacements and personnel. The 8 ambulances received from the Norwegian Red Cross are already working in the field.
> 
> Total Attacks on Ambulances by Israelis: 42
> 
> ...


from: http://www.hoffman-info.com/palestine31.html





> Rumors tell of dozens of Palestinian prisoners arbitrarily executed by the Israeli forces. Israeli army spokespersons allege that only gunmen have been killed in gun battles. But medics of the International Red Cross and United Nations officials have proven that the weapons of the executed Palestinians showed no signs of being fired.


From : http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/401/1/42/




> One of the most notorious and controversial events of current conflict between Israel and the Palestinians was the April, 2002 Israeli invasion of Jenin Refugee Camp. For weeks, the Israeli army assaulted the camp with helicopters, tanks, bulldozers, and troops. Almost immediately, reports began to trickle out of Jenin about massive human rights violations occurring in the camp.



http://www.jenininquiry.org/


So...you were saying?

I know....they didn't drop folks into mulching machines while they were alive, and such.. so you're right, they aren't quite the same.

Terroism, barbarism, etc takes many forms. Here are a few.

Now, before someone starts screaming the 'anti-semitic' crap....(and I know someone will), I'm not. I look at the actions of a nation, not a religion here. I can easily fill a couple of hard drives with the crap done to Israel by arabsm nazis and others as well. This is to simply say "I have compared, and there it is. Go refute it if you can. I hope you can do so."

That is of course my point in many of these things.... "Here is what I found...please prove me otherwise."


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 14, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Basically, that is philosophical justification of 'what I do' but concretely, I vote for the guy I think is best for the job and try not to make commentary about those appointed leaders that are critical without reform in mind....



How can you even broach the subject of reform when someone disgrees as to whether there is a NEED to reform?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 14, 2004)

Sorry Paul, 

While I agree with certain concepts expressed by "Comrade Lenin", I think the world has proven them not realistic in a large enviroment.  Communism just doesn't scale well. :rofl:

Again, how the rep system here connects to the evil that men do, and how to disentangle the US from the mess that is Iraq I just seem to miss, y'know? But! to clear up a misconception... admins have a set 'influence' level.  Due to our having some of the highest post counts, it was decided that to be fair, we would be 'locked'.  Also, when it was started, -everyone- started at zero.  That means I started out the same as everyone else.  I don't use it myself as 'punishments', those based on the comments I've gotten, some feel I have. Oh well.

I asked what you (meaning paul here) have done knowing it was mentioned earlier, however he asked us (meaning those involved in debate) what we have done, so it was only fair to have him repeat his own actions (which I do applaud BTW)

Since we've gone miles past the original topic here (partially my fault I admit), where does all this end?  Some of us see the wrongs, some don't and some of what we see we disagree on if it is in fact wrong, and to what extent in relation to other issues.

So, where to from here?


----------



## Tgace (Apr 14, 2004)

I guess we all agree that America Sucks and go on from there...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 14, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Sorry...guess I cant be proud of anything. Oh the "majority" of soldiers and LEO's are good...explains all the examples of the good they do Ive seen here. How can you separate governmental agents from the government they work for??


 There is plenty to be proud of.  

America is often first to offer aid to other nations, even those we are at odds against.  Recent aid to Iran in the aftermath of an major eathquake is just 1 small example.

America offers unlimited opportunity to everyone.  Where else in the world can a bankrupt, penniless, uneducated individual rise to be a captain of industry?  

America has been a shining light of opportunity in the past, to those seeking freedom, opportunity and a chance to shine.


I argue about the darkness, in the hope that light will shine through.

Perhaps...rather than being sarcastic and snippy, you could share the light you yourself see?

Or, should I pass you a few more containers of $3/gallon gas so that you too can become a shining flaming beacon? :rofl:  (made more funny if he's eaten at TacoBell.....)


----------



## wisdomstrikes (Apr 14, 2004)

I feel any nation that is under constant attack, has the right to defend its self by any means necessary. Israel attacks for one reason, to prevent Israeli casualties.  The bottom line is, Palestine wants Israel to stop existing. Jews are a democratic people trying to coexist with a nation that has no regard for human life. Israel is a country that has had to fight its entire existent in order not to be wiped off this planet. Israel does not send its children into the streets with the intent to blow themselves up to kill others. Israel's only defense is to react first, and if it means killing those willing to kill them then so be it.
As a government employee I know first hand what takes place there. And I know that if Israel does not take these measures they will annihilated.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 14, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Israeli issues:
> 
> Now, before someone starts screaming the 'anti-semitic' crap....(and I know someone will), I'm not. I look at the actions of a nation, not a religion here. I can easily fill a couple of hard drives with the crap done to Israel by arabsm nazis and others as well. This is to simply say "I have compared, and there it is. Go refute it if you can. I hope you can do so."
> 
> That is of course my point in many of these things.... "Here is what I found...please prove me otherwise."


I think you hit the nail on the head right here. I can't understand why The US can't at least give the appearence of being a neutral party to all the hoopla. While I think that islamic fundamentalism may end up being the death of us all, the US has to at least look like it isn't subject to the whims of Israel. If terrorism were truly what we have taken a stand against, then Israel would be right at the top of our list for invasion. Its not right that we treat Israel with kid gloves and smash those that don't like it. Elohim does not represent the trinity, why do we suddenly become Old testament Jews when dealing with the islamic world?
Sean


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 14, 2004)

wisdomstrikes said:
			
		

> I feel any nation that is under constant attack, has the right to defend its self by any means necessary. Israel attacks for one reason, to prevent Israeli casualties.  The bottom line is, Palestine wants Israel to stop existing. Jews are a democratic people trying to coexist with a nation that has no regard for human life. Israel is a country that has had to fight its entire existent in order not to be wiped off this planet. Israel does not send its children into the streets with the intent to blow themselves up to kill others. Israel's only defense is to react first, and if it means killing those willing to kill them then so be it.
> As a government employee I know first hand what takes place there. And I know that if Israel does not take these measures they will annihilated.


 So, you are saying that Israel can do anything they want, machine gun unarmed women and children, bulldoze unarmed protestors, and such and..its all ok?

I do not deny the fact that they have faced some seriously stacked odds, but come on...there -has- to be a limit.  Maybe they should just gather up all the Palestinians, put em in camps and warm up the ovens?  Or...is -that- too far?

Remember..you said -any means necessary-.  One of the most hated regimes in world history felt the same way....and they slaughtered over 12 Million innocents.

I'm sorry...but, that isn't right.

Israel has one damn fine military...some tactical miracle workers in there.  Certainly a few children throwing rocks isn't a threat to armed trained soldiers with machine guns.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 14, 2004)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> I think you hit the nail on the head right here. I can't understand why The US can't at least give the appearence of being a neutral party to all the hoopla. While I think that islamic fundamentalism may end up being the death of us all, the US has to at least look like it isn't subject to the whims of Israel. If terrorism were truly what we have taken a stand against, then Israel would be right at the top of our list for invasion. Its not right that we treat Israel with kid gloves and smash those that don't like it. Elohim does not represent the trinity, why do we suddenly become Old testament Jews when dealing with the islamic world?
> Sean


 Exactly.  If we condemn Sadam, and Stalin, and Hitler, and their ilk, why do we take a blind eye to the terroristic actions of our 'partners'?

Make the deal.
Put it bluntly....keep up the BS, lose the help.
Step into the 21st century...and let us help you grow.
Make the offer to -both- sides...and keep it.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 14, 2004)

What, was I being sarcastic and snippy? Sorry..I thought that since most of the political threads here focused on how evil, corrupt, Rome on the verge of burning my country has become, how thuglike our soldiers are, how corrupt LEO's are,...with hardly any (none that I could see) examples to the contrary...I didnt think my "attitude" mattered.

Folks say "Just because I protest/am against American policy doesn't mean Im Anti-American". And I agree.

I say "Just because I say Im patriotic dosent mean Im blind to my countries wrongs." Deal with the wrongs and "drive on". I just have faith. Why cant that seem to be accepted in the same spirit?

Reminds me of the breifing I had by my SWAT leader when I first got on the team... "You only have the right to complain if you have a solution. Dont waste our time by pointing out whats wrong If you arent going to suggest a way to fix it." If we all approached problems as fellow Americans, in the spirit of doing whats best for our nation, we'd all be better off. I just tire of the bashing that seems like "from Columbus to now America is nothing but a history of evil and oppression" where does light shine from that???


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 14, 2004)

Yin/Yang Tom.....Yin/Yang.

I offer the dark.... can you bring the light?

You say not to bring up a problem, unless one has a possible sollution...I agree, 110%.

Here are my solutions:
- Better training for those who must "do and die"
- Better intellegence for our leaders so they don't spill our lives on futile efforts
- Better focus on our own internal problems. We can't heal the world until we heal ourselves.
- Restore the "American Dream" to the American People.
- Truely learn from the past, not just give it lip service.
- Agressively remove those LEO/Military who abuse their positions, power and authority.
- Continue to refine that which makes us great.

In the case of Iraq...we must leave the land better than it was before we came.  We can't do that while we are shooting up children and mosques.....and we can't do that while we are being shot at either. Peace must be forged there 1 section at a time, and they must see the improvement.  Hard to see when you have no power, clean water or running plumbing.  Hard to fix those when you might get shot or worse.

What is the answer?  I'm not sure.  Encircle a town, sweep it for hostiles, then, when it is all clear, rebuiild it to shine as an example perhaps.  Those in the field with current data have to decide the 'how'.  I cannot.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 14, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> *Be sure of your target and beyond.* We do our best to fight by that principle too.


Do you think so? I'm not so certain. In the time leading up to the invasion, the President made repeated statements that he felt (aside --- he felt strongly --- have you noticed how everything he feels, is felt strongly) that the Iraqi people could rule themselves, once Saddam Hussein was gone.

Well, now it seems that the way the Iraqi's want to rule themselves is to get the United States out of their country. Seems we might have missed the target there. We may end up with 'One Free Election - One Time'; i.e. the Iraqi people may elect a totalitarian government headed by al-Sadr (bad) or ali-Sistani (not so bad). This begs the question ... What then? What is beyond the target?

Mike


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 14, 2004)

wisdomstrikes said:
			
		

> Jews are a democratic people trying to coexist with a nation that has no regard for human life.


Statements like this are certainly going to arouse my hackles. But what you say is true .... *NATION*s have no regard for human life. 

However, what I think you mean is that Palestinians have no regard for human life. Broad, sweeping statements like that are not quite good for dialog. They are very good at picking a fight.

Perhaps the Palistinians are upset about getting kicked off their land. As of yet, the Isreali government has not allowed them to build Casino's to payback the inequities they have suffered.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 14, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Statements like this are certainly going to arouse my hackles. But what you say is true .... *NATION*s have no regard for human life.
> 
> However, what I think you mean is that Palestinians have no regard for human life. Broad, sweeping statements like that are not quite good for dialog. They are very good at picking a fight.
> 
> Perhaps the Palistinians are upset about getting kicked off their land. As of yet, the Isreali government has not allowed them to build Casino's to payback the inequities they have suffered.


 Or cigarette stands.....


----------



## Tgace (Apr 14, 2004)

Now were coming to points I can agree with...I would say "focus on fixing our nations problems" too, but I wouldnt say "dont take action on what you see as wrong unless you were never wrong yourself". "or untill your nations perfect". I would also say that some of those points are more "goals" than solutions....solutions have process. More "How things should be done" than "what should be done" if you get my drift?

"offering the dark" is one thing but like I stated before if we paint a picture of America as evil and corrupt from Columbus to now....where does light shine from that?


----------



## Tgace (Apr 14, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Do you think so? I'm not so certain. In the time leading up to the invasion, the President made repeated statements that he felt (aside --- he felt strongly --- have you noticed how everything he feels, is felt strongly) that the Iraqi people could rule themselves, once Saddam Hussein was gone.
> 
> Well, now it seems that the way the Iraqi's want to rule themselves is to get the United States out of their country. Seems we might have missed the target there. We may end up with 'One Free Election - One Time'; i.e. the Iraqi people may elect a totalitarian government headed by al-Sadr (bad) or ali-Sistani (not so bad). This begs the question ... What then? What is beyond the target?
> 
> Mike


If you want to turn my point from combat to politics fine...I thought we were talking about the US's concern for non-combatant casulties.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 14, 2004)

Someone has to point out the dark spots....I tend to have a nack at finding the 'crap'.

Someone able to find that light needs to offer it up as well.
I often point out things, in the hope that others will find the evidence to refute them, to outshine them, to prove them wrong or biased.

Why?  Because, the information is there....if I found it, so did others.  Most times it is there without the 'balancing point' being available. If I post both sides (which I sometimes do), there can be a bias implied, IMO.


"Perfect".... eh...not possible to hit that mark.  Its reserved for those on a higher level than us.   We can aim for it though, and work like mad to get as close as we can.  I do see your drift though...and do agree with it.  Problem is, most folks either don't see a goal or solution, or if they do, see it as being unreachable.   Before you can get directions (solution/process) one must know where they wish to arrive.  Once you have a destination in mind...one can research and plan on how to best reach it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 14, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> "offering the dark" is one thing but like I stated before if we paint a picture of America as evil and corrupt from Columbus to now....where does light shine from that?



Contemplate this...what if the history of our country has been shaped predominantly by human greed and dark ambition?  Sure there are good things out there that people are doing.  I am attempting to do a lot of good in the city where I live by being active in our community.  Yet, the big picture...it doesn't look good.  History, its doesn't look good.  You want solutions - I don't know what to do sometimes - for instance there is nothing I can do to stop an unjust war...

Look, I applaude your faith in the principles of this country.  I don't want to deride that.  It's important to love your country and, I would say, its even more important to work to make your government stand up for the things that you love.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 14, 2004)

Agreed...my problem has been more with the "spirit" than the "content" if you get that drift .


----------



## Tgace (Apr 14, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Contemplate this...what if the history of our country has been shaped predominantly by human greed and dark ambition? Sure there are good things out there that people are doing. I am attempting to do a lot of good in the city where I live by being active in our community. Yet, the big picture...it doesn't look good. History, its doesn't look good. You want solutions - I don't know what to do sometimes - for instance there is nothing I can do to stop an unjust war...
> 
> Look, I applaude your faith in the principles of this country. I don't want to deride that. It's important to love your country and, I would say, its even more important to work to make your government stand up for the things that you love.


"Your" country or "our" country?
"Your" government or "our" government?

That has been my question and my problem with many posters on these threads that list US locations as their homes. Just because we may not "stand up" for the same things doesnt make you "right" and me "wrong". Tolerance extends in both directions right?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 14, 2004)

wisdomstrikes said:
			
		

> I feel any nation that is under constant attack, has the right to defend its self by any means necessary. Israel attacks for one reason, to prevent Israeli casualties.  The bottom line is, Palestine wants Israel to stop existing. Jews are a democratic people trying to coexist with a nation that has no regard for human life. Israel is a country that has had to fight its entire existent in order not to be wiped off this planet. Israel does not send its children into the streets with the intent to blow themselves up to kill others. Israel's only defense is to react first, and if it means killing those willing to kill them then so be it.
> As a government employee I know first hand what takes place there. And I know that if Israel does not take these measures they will annihilated.


now that you bring it up, democracy is what will truly end the nation of Israel. They cannot import Jews fast enough to vote against the dissolution of the Israli government. At that point I'm sure America will forgive the dictatorship that then must be put in place to maintain that nations very existance. Of course Americans will probably forget about democracy once Spanish is voted in as our national language; suddenly we be a republic run by sound minded corporations on the mobs behalf. But I digress.
Sean


----------



## Tgace (Apr 14, 2004)

A little "light" from a Canadian....

"This Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the most generous and possibly the least appreciated people on all the earth. 

Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts. None of these countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States. 

When France was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up, and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it. 

When earthquakes hit distant cities, it is the United States that hurries in to help. This spring, 59 American communities were flattened by tornadoes. Nobody helped. 

The Marshall Plan and the Truman Policy pumped billions of dollars into discouraged countries. Now newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent, warmongering Americans. 

I'd like to see just one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States dollar build its own airplane. Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tri-Star, or the Douglas DC10? If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all the International lines except Russia fly American Planes? 

Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or woman on the moon? You talk about Japanese technocracy, and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy, and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy, and you find men on the moon - not once, but several times and safely home again. 

You talk about scandals, and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everybody to look at. Even their draft-dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets, and most of them, unless they are breaking Canadian laws, are getting American dollars from ma and pa at home to spend here. 

When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke. 

I can name you 5000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble. Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake. 

Our neighbors have faced it alone, and I'm one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them get kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles. I hope Canada is not one of those." 

-Gordon Sinclair


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 14, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> A little "light" from a Canadian....
> 
> "This Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the most generous and possibly the least appreciated people on all the earth.
> 
> ...


Just keep that positive attitude when we saction Canada to death for not following our laws.
Sean


----------



## Tgace (Apr 14, 2004)

No responses to any of his points though I see...


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 14, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> If you want to turn my point from combat to politics fine...I thought we were talking about the US's concern for non-combatant casulties.


I too am talking about the concern for non-combatants. I expanded your thought from a small weapon (a gun) to a large weapon (the US Military). Should not the same care used when operating a gun be used when operating the US Military?

I am also expanding the idea of discharging the weapon one round at a time, to a larger scale, of one engagement at a time; (fallujah?). 

After we discharge the weapon of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force in Fallujah, what is beyond that? Not in distance, but time.

Tonight, on the matt, we reviewed the 3rd person point of view. What do we see when we look at this engagement as a bystander?

That's all ... not really a point about politics, but practicality.

Mike


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 14, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> No responses to any of his points though I see...


Ok why should France feel indebted? We saved them but unless we force there children to hold the US in there prayers and pledges of allegiance, they remain a soveriegn nation. By the way what nation were you taught to feel indebted to as a child? I know when I was brought up, they taught us to love America, and I don't expect france to be different. In fact I expect every country to teach that they are where a citizens loyaty should lie. As for the debts, why should they pay us back? If we could have let France fall and become communist in the fifties, but we weren't prepared to do that; because, it wouldn't have been in our best interest. The United states has been around long enough to know that no one is going to pay us back. I laugh at the Americans that expect us to take oil from Iraq to pay for the war. It ain't gonna happen. Our image is at stake. Unless we conquer a people, set up the flag, and make them a fifty first state, no one is going to have any "extra" money to throw at the US. Just accept that the US does what it does because the US doesn't like the alternative. Now stop selling prescription drugs to lower income americans or you will see the US acting in its own best interest!!! (just kidding, I don't care)
Sean


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 14, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> A little "light" from a Canadian....
> 
> "This Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the most generous and possibly the least appreciated people on all the earth.
> 
> ...



My response to these points is that for every single one, you can flip the coin and find the darkness.  There are people in power who do NOTHING if it doesn't get them something in return.  Hint - follow the money.  Its all part of the dialectic form our government is arranged...

Otherwise, I agree the spirit of many posters here has been negative.  I for one will place myself among those posters.  There is a lot that is going wrong with my home and I am not happy with it.  I can only speak for myself, but I would say that I am doing my share to rectify what is going on...Perhaps I should become a Freemason...

Now, returning to Iraq...  

It has been shown and supported that Iraq has no ties to Al - qaeda.  

It has been shown and supported that we have found no WMD and that our government had serious doubts concerning their presence before we went into Iraq.  

It has also been shown and supported that the US can tolerate brutal dictatorships (as long as they obey their overlords).  

These points beg the questions...

WHAT IS THE US DOING IN IRAQ?

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Rich Parsons (Apr 14, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Exactly.  If we condemn Sadam, and Stalin, and Hitler, and their ilk, why do we take a blind eye to the terroristic actions of our 'partners'?
> 
> Make the deal.
> Put it bluntly....keep up the BS, lose the help.
> ...




Hmmm let me think about this one for a moment.

Sadam was a partner at one time.

Stalin was a partner at one time.

Nope Hitler was not.

2 out of 3 wow.

Are we our own worse enemy?

The PI, Iran, Iraq, Soviet Union, South America (* Multiple countries *)

 :idunno:


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 14, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Sorry Paul,
> 
> While I agree with certain concepts expressed by "Comrade Lenin", I think the world has proven them not realistic in a large enviroment.  Communism just doesn't scale well. :rofl:
> 
> ...



Each member having an equal 'vote' regardless of 'status' or 'rank' doesn't sound 'communisitic to me.  Sounds the same as the evolution from caste society and aristocracies to democracy to me.

My point is this, again, if you are screaming the fair and equal arguement, the evil that men do, and any other 'pointing out of the dark' stuff - yet employ a system of inequitable 'value' of the members in voting power on issues/opinion you are using a skewed scale - actively.  

So, even in your opportunity to create Bobby Land, you are creating a token reward system were the token haves can throw more influence and token power over the token have nots..... comments like 'oh well' in response to questioning/criticism don't seem too 'open' and are almost "Bushish" in tone 

How does it relate?  Scale, analogy:  "Let he who is free of sin cast the first stone..."  (For those who want to argue religion versus morallity, read it philosophically as opposed to theologically).

BTW:  Listing "Goals" and calling it action plans or steps toward reform is like telling a child to 'work harder' when they aren't getting good grades.  How should the work be 'harder', or what should be done better.

As far as the 'what do you do about it' questioning, I am not the ones crying in and about the darkness yet not making any statements about proposed reform.  Or mentioning any hope or faith in anything.  

Self fulfilled prophecy seems to be working overtime here:  If you think the world/USA is going to hell in a hand basket, it is and you can be part of the problem.  If you think that there is some redeemable qualities/values/people worth fighting for, there are and you can be part of the positive changes.  One of the most common character traits of success - from sports, military, personal tragedy/crisis and other challenges - is an indominable spirit:  doesn't than mean that you have to see the good, not blindly, but still see it?

Long and short of it, Iraq will be occupied (USA, UN, Coalition...) for a while.  Leaving is not a viable option.  We are committed, like it or don't, and unless "WE" as a nation are willing to finish this to a successful completion, it will fail and "WE" will look bad and Mid East bitterness will grow even more.  "WE" will suffer even more terrorist hatred and attack domestic and abroad....

Don't like the way we got here.  DON'T like the lack of timing and effective intelligence for decision making, or honest presentation but we are committed now.  But, in MOUT training, even if it is a bad choice you follow the leader through the door.  You back up his play as a demonstration of loyalty and you don't criticise until it is over because an ununified front creates friction and gets MORE PEOPLE KILLED THAN WILL HAPPEN ALREADY.

Right now, believe you me, I am shaking my head as I am following this nation through the door of Iraq, but for the sake of the troops on the ground and the presentation of the USA 'family' to the world, I am going to reserve my heavy critiques until the dust settles some.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 14, 2004)

If the point man goes in the door and draws fire and the #2 man stops in the door...the rest of the team gets "dog piled" in the "fatal funnel" and you could all wind up dead......if youre "in" you better be in all the way...anything less is suicide.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 15, 2004)

"It is not the critic who counts, not the one who points out how the strong man stumbled or how the doer of deeds might have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred with sweat and dust and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, if he wins, knows the triumph of high achievement; and who, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 15, 2004)

The "Oh well" is because no matter what I do, say, or attempt, some will damn me regardless.  As to the 'scoring'...its interesting to note that while the admins are locked at a certain limit, all other members have full freedom of growth.  Why should a casual visitor pop in and make major waves?  Let them join the community, and share. 

I also realize the 'shortcomings' of my suggestions, etc.  The cruz of it is, I can see a problem.  I can see a possible goal in the solving of said problem.  I do however lack the information needed to formulat a more coheasive solution to offer.

Its sorta (but not exactly) like talking to someone who says "I gotta go visit Aunt Frida."  You say, "Call AAA, ask for a map.".  You've given them direction that may help them solve their problem, but not necessarily the solution itself.

I can say "Surround the city, and go house to house.".  Without knowing the important information (friendlys available for action, lay of the land, history of that zone, equipment available, postential hostiles, etc) its hard to be more specific.

Here is a 'thought'.  It is open for analysis, refinement, expansion and testing.

Can the darkness be fought?  Yup.  Easy? Nope.

Alot of what you wrote, I agree with, to varying degrees.  Some I don't.
I point out the dark.  You have a few options.
Point out the light, or take me to task for focusing on the dark.
The later won't remove the dark.

If you don't see the problem, then thats ok.
If you see it, but remain silent, that is.
To not act is still an action.
or, as the song goes "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. "

I decide to speak out, and regardless of who it annoys, point out what I see as problems.  Where I can, I offer suggestions on what to do to solve them...other times, I point them out to simply say "Heres a problem,...whatta we do about it?" counting on other more experienced folks to offer up ideas.

I don't have an answer to the "what do we do about Iraq" question..just my own thoughts, ideas and wishes on possible ideas, that need more data before being considered 'solutions'.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 15, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> "It is not the critic who counts, not the one who points out how the strong man stumbled or how the doer of deeds might have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred with sweat and dust and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, if he wins, knows the triumph of high achievement; and who, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."


 Or put another way..."No one ever built a statue to the critic".

:asian:


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 15, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Long and short of it, Iraq will be occupied (USA, UN, Coalition...) for a while. Leaving is not a viable option. We are committed, like it or don't, and unless "WE" as a nation are willing to finish this to a successful completion, it will fail and "WE" will look bad and Mid East bitterness will grow even more. "WE" will suffer even more terrorist hatred and attack domestic and abroad....
> 
> Don't like the way we got here. DON'T like the lack of timing and effective intelligence for decision making, or honest presentation but we are committed now. But, in MOUT training, even if it is a bad choice you follow the leader through the door. You back up his play as a demonstration of loyalty and you don't criticise until it is over because an ununified front creates friction and gets MORE PEOPLE KILLED THAN WILL HAPPEN ALREADY.
> 
> Right now, believe you me, I am shaking my head as I am following this nation through the door of Iraq, but for the sake of the troops on the ground and the presentation of the USA 'family' to the world,* I am going to reserve my heavy critiques until the dust settles some*.


I believe this choice is truly unamerican. 

I want the fighting soldiers to have the best equipment, best training and best leaders on the ground. I want to ensure that they are fairly compensated and the our country's promises to them are fulfilled. I want their families to be properly cared for while the soldiers are away.

I don't want to offer silly platitudes about 'supporting our troops' ... because I am not sure what that means. I do want my government to *tax me* so that our soldiers are able to meet all threats. I want my government to *tax me* to support the 'G.I. Bill', in all its forms (my father is still able to take higher education classes at little or no cost from his service in Korea). I want my government to *tax me* to support the Veterans Adminstration (hopefully more efficiently) which does such wonderful things for those who have served, and continues to do wonderful things, including buying wounded soldiers the *best* prostetics available - I believe the current artificial limbs cost upwards of $100,000.00.

But the United States military is an organization founded on the principle of defend my rights as a citizen of the country. One of those rights is to criticize my government. To not offer criticism, in times when it is called for, is to behave in an unpatriotic manner, and I believe does not honor the service of those in the military.

Two quick examples.
1) - I believe the civilian leadership of the US Military has done a disservice by not using available historical information and intelligence to plan for the proper troop strength in post-Saddam Iraq to guarantee stability. Secretary of War Rumsfeld launched this campaign short of appropriate feet on the ground to prove a point; that a small, nimble, military is the fighting force of the future. This has put American soldiers lives at risk.
2) - I believe the civilian leadership of the US Military has done a disservice by planning its operations to rely so heavily on the Reserve and National Guard units. Many of those in the Reserve and Guard that have been called up, and are serving honorably are suffering (finacially, family separation). Many of those families are calling for additional compensation to make up for what they have lost while serving. *I am against this change.* Those who have signed up for the Guard and Reserve did so with what should have been full knowledge of what type or service may be required. I don't think we should change the rules mid-stream. I do think, however, that in order to keep our volunteer forces at requested troop strength (per the Quadrennial Review) we are going to have to start paying our incoming soldiers more money, we are going to have to start paying those soldiers that 're-up' better when they do, we are going to have to further reward the new Reserve and Guard troops to go along with our heightened expectations of their responsibilities.

Mike


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 15, 2004)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Hmmm let me think about this one for a moment.
> 
> Sadam was a partner at one time.
> 
> ...



Hitler was financed by members of the Bush clan.  Auschwitz was a subsidary of a steel company that was run by Prescott Bush.


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 15, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Why should a casual visitor pop in and make major waves?  Let them join the community, and share.
> 
> I also realize the 'shortcomings' of my suggestions, etc.  The cruz of it is, I can see a problem.  I can see a possible goal in the solving of said problem.  I do however lack the information needed to formulat a more coheasive solution to offer.
> 
> ...



And, along those same lines of logic, why shouldn't those who invest more time in the reform and service of their country have more clout than those who simply comment.  Truth is they don't.  Why don't 20 year servicemen/women get 2/3 votes when the guy who only grew up and went to school and paid taxes only gets one?  Because it could lead to a 'good old boy' system of corruption.  It already happens on a networking level when groups unit against others.  So, if even the 'casual member' of our country who doesn't even vote has an opportunity for equal representation, shouldn't the casual member here have the same treatment?  Fair and equal in opportunity, but not judged based on their investment.  Joining the community is simply subscribing.  After that it is up to the individual.  Sounds EOE/democratic more than communist to me.  As is, the system is competitive and hierarchal.  Not a living example of fair and equal.

Those who sit in the dark and complain about it usually don't really accomplish much, so I might propose that those who see it as their job to point out the darkness aren't really productive either.  What did your mother say when you would complain about how the food was 'icky', and yeah it might have been 'icky', but the frustrated response after repeated complaining usually (at least in my house ) was something along the lines of "fine, you cook next time" - but if I didn't know enough to do it, or wasn't willing to do it, I was subject to the menu she choose.

Taking you to task for it, yup:  it is proven through time to be unproductive -especially when comments like "I don't know enough to offer possible reforms/solutions" but you seem to know enough to be critical of everything under the sun.

There are those who are steering this 'ship of state' and we are suppose to be running the sails, keeping the decks clean and taking care of other various needs.  Mutiny by those who 'don't know enough to offer solutions' leads to even worse problems.  I don't think there is a job description for "sitting in the corner and pointing out how they aren't doing it good enough."  I do think there are opportunities to make a difference in places other than these "recreational actitivities."

See the darkness, point it out, but (and I don't think anyone here knows enough about any of the issues that we discuss to make the perfect or 'right' decision/solution/reform and even if I don't agree with the ideology or the answers, I do respect the courage to step up and act) bring some kind of match with that candle, don't just sit there and say "this candle would make it brighter in here.....I thought you would bring the matches."

The act of not acting is a conscious choice, it is called non participation - but the consequences of that usually is that you leave yourself subject to someone elses decision - by choice.  Where does that leave any right, room or validity to criticism?


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 15, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I believe this choice is truly unamerican.
> 
> I want the fighting soldiers to have the best equipment, best training and best leaders on the ground. I want to ensure that they are fairly compensated and the our country's promises to them are fulfilled. I want their families to be properly cared for while the soldiers are away.
> 
> ...



Yeah, I was 'unAmerican' because I choose to temper the timing and tone and content of my comments, when I voted, when I held my tongue about political rhetoric concerning Bosnia while we were activated and operating in country so that my troops wouldn't think that their leadership wasn't commited to the small and larger missions they were asked to risk their lives for.  I was unAmerican when I exercised my freedom of choice to let my contract end and not re-enlist so that I could provide my son with a stable household (believe me there are those in my old unit who think it was a dishonorable, cowardice act) instead of being deployed again and again when I am basically a single parent right now (getting married again, but his biological mother lives in Az.).  I didn't say "don't attempt/offer/support effective change", I did say that complaining to vent and point out the negative stuff for no purpose is demoralizing to those who are reading these comments while they are risking their lives.

If this nation is one body at war, right or wrong, acting with single minded commitment swiftly and effectively is the same as when you are fighting as one body and don't clutter your martial applications with doubts.  How effective is your fight if you keep telling yourself all the negative things while you are doing it?  Critique in martial arts/military applications and training happens when it is done.  The work is hard enough, why make it harder by creating doubt in the troop on the ground.  I have heard with my own ears individual soldiers who start out with noble intentions say "why bother" because of something/someone blasting the very cause they are participating in.  Assessment, changing the allocation of resources, offerng alternatives, raisng issues that seem to be neglected is VERY different than just screaming into the chorus of already screaming voices - gets nothing done.

Basically, at its simpilist application, NOT supporting the troops means you have done something that will mean that he/she is sitting, stuck in a foreign country away from family and friends, stinking and tired from working way harder or dealing with stresses way more than he/she ever thought possible and opening a copy of USA TODAY and reading some of the 'criticisms' of the very cause that he/she are actively serving to accomplish while it is happening, before the goals are clearly accomplished.  It is creating self fulfilled prophecies by making judgements before the end goal is reached because no matter what does happen at the end (and because it is already disillusioning, disheartening enough while on the ground without us feeding more stuff to that fire) perception of the results/goals/cause will be made to fit 'prophetic' expectations.

If we don't finish this right, comment like crazy.  If we don't pull out when goals OBVIOUSLY are reached, I will be screaming next to everyone else.  Comment on issues of budget and such for social/political reform, but I will not be guilty of saying something or knowingly support someone/an issue that will get back to the troops and cut morale off at the knees.  It is hard enough without adding that on top of everything else.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 15, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Yeah, I was 'unAmerican' because I choose to temper the timing and tone and content of my comments, when I voted, when I held my tongue about political rhetoric concerning Bosnia while we were activated and operating in country so that my troops wouldn't think that their leadership wasn't commited to the small and larger missions they were asked to risk their lives for. I was unAmerican when I exercised my freedom of choice to let my contract end and not re-enlist so that I could provide my son with a stable household (believe me there are those in my old unit who think it was a dishonorable, cowardice act) instead of being deployed again and again when I am basically a single parent right now (getting married again, but his biological mother lives in Az.). I didn't say "don't attempt/offer/support effective change", I did say that complaining to vent and point out the negative stuff for no purpose is demoralizing to those who are reading these comments while they are risking their lives.


I hate to bring the discussion to a 'bumper sticker' level, but what were you fighting for while in the service, if not for 'Truth, Justice, and the American Way'.

What then is the 'American Way'?

I thought it was Freedom of Speech, Consent of the Governed, Freedom of Assembly.

And why are my comments reduced to 'Vent' or 'Point out the Negative Stuff' ... what must I say to raise my comments to a level that you deem appropriate?

Mike


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 15, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I hate to bring the discussion to a 'bumper sticker' level, but what were you fighting for while in the service, if not for 'Truth, Justice, and the American Way'.
> 
> What then is the 'American Way'?
> 
> ...



Well, using the old intro from the Black and White SuperMan serials isn't going to raise the level any - just joking .  Interesting side bar on that comment though, that last line about the American Way was added later, I believe trying to profit on some of the cold war, anti communist rhetoric of the time.  Prior to that, SuperMan was not a copyright trademark of American values as much as a Comic contruct of the Old testament/Judeo Ubermench.

My point is that I will and do make critical comments but, like when my son is playing hockey and having a sucky game, I am not going to shout at him from the benches about what he is doing wrong.  I will say things about staying strong and being motivated and staying positive..... Afterwards, we can talk out the critiques and such.  Exercising your constitutional freedoms, and this is not directed specifically at you MWard, without reasonable consideration of the time, place and consequences in the short and long term is UnAmerican as far as I am concerned.

Things like the women demonstrating during WWI for voting rights and being called treasonous is ridiculous.  They were not 'complaining' they were pushing for reform.  Commenting on the adminstrations decisions and budgetary decisions is not treasonous or 'complaining.'  Comments that call the cause for which troops are risking their lives, in honor of their voluntary oath sometimes in spite of their personal convictions, immoral link the soldier to the immoral comment.  This can make the troops question the support/respect for their sacrifices from the homefront.  The way we got there is questionable, but the ideals/goals are not to those doing the job.  History channel just got done interviewing troops who are very proud of trying to bring peace and stability to Iraq and Afg.

 The standing joke in the service was that we swore an oath to uphold the constitution, but there wasn't any law against being lazy, ignorant or stupid....otherwise we might all be arrested/charged at some point in our lives.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 15, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> If this nation is one body at war, right or wrong, acting with single minded commitment swiftly and effectively is the same as when you are fighting as one body and don't clutter your martial applications with doubts.  How effective is your fight if you keep telling yourself all the negative things while you are doing it?  Critique in martial arts/military applications and training happens when it is done.  The work is hard enough, why make it harder by creating doubt in the troop on the ground.  I have heard with my own ears individual soldiers who start out with noble intentions say "why bother" because of something/someone blasting the very cause they are participating in.  Assessment, changing the allocation of resources, offerng alternatives, raisng issues that seem to be neglected is VERY different than just screaming into the chorus of already screaming voices - gets nothing done.



No.

If you disagree with this war it is your duty to express that as a citizen.  The dissent is not a focus group to be ignored.  It is millions upon millions of people.  From this rhetoric, it seems as if you want to silence all of those voice to get the job done - am I right?

Look right now the situation is as Hermann Goehring stated, "If some of the citizens do not want war, you drag them to it kicking and screaming."

Well I'm still kicking and I'm still screaming and I'm still out in the streets voicing my opinion and supporting the candidates that express my opinion.


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 15, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> No.
> 
> If you disagree with this war it is your duty to express that as a citizen.  The dissent is not a focus group to be ignored.  It is millions upon millions of people.  From this rhetoric, it seems as if you want to silence all of those voice to get the job done - am I right?
> 
> ...



I don't want to silence anyone, don't want to exercise more authority than I have.  Just talking from my POV, now have I gone from being a member of the Right to a Facist/Nazi/Opressor?  I don't see our SS, or FBI knocking on any of our doors for comments either so it seems that you are not being severely imposed upon.  

There is and ever will be a dip in support, even in a 'just' war, when the body count rises and when the goals aren't accomplished right away.  Bob Hubbard said it best about our instant gratification culture.  This is going to take a while to accomplish.

What do you think is the best tact now for our nation?  Pull out?  Stay?  If we stay, we need commitment.  Kick and scream all you want.  I just choose a different approach.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 15, 2004)

Almost everybody says "were in it now...lets finish it right and get out." Unless you all are saying "get out now and leave Iraq to chaos".

If its the first...support the mission and the troops trying to accomplish it.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 15, 2004)

Paul,
  It is my -right- as an American to speak out and bring notice to those wrongs which I see.

It is my -duty- as an American to do so.

It is my -Privilige- as well.

To see the evil, and say nothing is to become part of it.

If you saw a cop raping a woman, or beating a man, or stealing from the old, but you were unable to act, would you remain silient?  
If you knew of corruption, but were unable to change it directly, would you hold your voice?

You may dismiss my own efforts and the efforts of -thousands- of others by saying "you guys do nothing but complain.".  It won't change the fact that someone has to have the testicular fortitude to speak up, for those who can not.  Eventually, enough people speaking out, will get the attention of those who -can- make a change.  When critical mass is achieved, change occurs.

You read the hundreds of reports of atrocities, abuses of power, etc.  Everything from the masacres in 'Nam, to the certain police forces racial profiling of black drivers. Someone must speak up for those who can't, or won't.

Why were many of our ground troops sent to Iraq -without- protective armour? So bad was the worry, that familiys were buying it themselves so that their loved ones would be safe.  Why didn't the military take care of its own here?

You may call those of us who speak out 'unamerican'....but it is those who complacently sit at home and wait for the score who are in fact UnAmerican.

It is my -right- and -duty- to take the President and Congress to task over the paths they lead us.  They are supposed to be looking out for our collective best interests, not lining their small circle of supporters pockets at the expense of our brightest youth.

As to the military..I do support them. Military family n all that y'know.  However, I do not want to read about destroyed cities, desicrations, masacres and their ilk performed by our troops.  I don't want to hear more stories of the raping of children performed by those in our uniforms, fighting under our colors.  You can argue the 'stress of war', 'heat of the moment', etc.  I will acknowledge that accidents happen.  But certain lines must not be crossed again.  -THAT- is unAmerican. The masacres in Vietnam and Korea must never again be repeated by American soliders.

Many do not know history.  I seek to remind them of that history, so that they can say "Never Again".  It makes no difference to me for I will never serve in the military.  But those who will, must know so they can not only safely retire from their service in pride, but know that by their service, they raised the shine on the entire organization.

I want to look back at the whole Iraq war and feel proud of how our men and women in uniform acted.  I want to look at their examples and feel inspired at their actions. I don't want the actions of a few criminals to tarnish the success of the operation.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 15, 2004)

Gee what "police forces" could you be talking about?? Do you really want to open that can of worms here Bob??


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 15, 2004)

We can't just pull out.  We must finish the job once started.

Restoring order, rebuilding the infrastructure, and educating the general population on how democracy works should be (and I believe are) the goals before we withdraw.

Disarming the country is going to be a key part of that, however that's gonna take a while.  They have more guns per person it seems than I have comic books, and thats saying alot.

The peoples basic needs must be met.  Food, water, electricity, and security.  After that, you expand the scope.  Now obviously, food and water are key parts anywhere.
Water treatment centers must be rebuild, upgraded and renewed.  New water lines run. Roads repaired, and warehouses built, guarded and used as distribution points.

The police force must be trained in modern police methods, and made ready to act like cops.  "To serve and protect" must become their mantra.  I don't know if building a few Krispy Kremes would help, but you'll know its mission acomplished when it happens. 

Seriously, those experienced with urban renewal / rebuilding should be brough in to help guide the restoration.  Competent contractors able to do the job right, not just low-bidders who cut corners.  To do that, their safety must be ensured.  A million bucks isn't enough to send me to Iraq right now...I value my life over fleeting greenery.  A safe enviroment would encourage more of our techs to go there and help.

Its a hard road, and there will be more losses. I can only hope that those planning the rebuilding have the knowledge they need, or know who to call when the time is right to fill in the gaps they have.  

Unlike many, I am not alarmed by the loses.  Saddened yes, but not alarmed.
5 years from now, if we are still engaged in military action, and the losses have hit the 100,000 mark....then, I'll be alarmed.


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 15, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Paul,
> It is my -right- as an American to speak out and bring notice to those wrongs which I see.
> 
> It is my -duty- as an American to do so.
> ...



And when the troops come home, some who have had access to this forum and could be reading your focus on the attrocities and darkness of those who serve, what kind of greeting do you expect?  What do you think they will say about your refusal to participate yet choice to comment?  Keeping the homefires burning doesn't mean throwing the baby on the fire with the...bath water (now that doesn't work does it)

I mean really, I was 'in' and chose to get out for my family/son and my integrity/honor and courage came into question.  I felt like a heal standing in front of the unit commander on the day of the 9/11 response activation and telling him that I had already requested Inactive Reserve status because of family/personal reason but, if they didn't have enough bodies, I was ready to go if he gave me the order.  

What kind of perception of your military support do you expect?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 15, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Gee what "police forces" could you be talking about?? Do you really want to open that can of worms here Bob??


Not really.  But..since you mentioned it... http://www.counterpunch.org/drivingblack.html
http://www.racialprofilinganalysis.neu.edu/article.php?article_type=whats_new

They omited the WNY connection you seem jumpy about though.....

But please....lets do that dance on a different thread.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 15, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> And when the troops come home, some who have had access to this forum and could be reading your focus on the attrocities and darkness of those who serve, what kind of greeting do you expect? What do you think they will say about your refusal to participate yet choice to comment? Keeping the homefires burning doesn't mean throwing the baby on the fire with the...bath water (now that doesn't work does it)


If they take the time to read -all- of my comments they will understand.
They will see the often cited desire for their safe return. They will see the support.  They will see my articles on the war which I have posted across the internet, in both the US and Canada.
(http://rustaz.com/writings/nonfiction/iraq.htm) 

They will understand.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 15, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> What do you think is the best tact now for our nation?  Pull out?  Stay?  If we stay, we need commitment.  Kick and scream all you want.  I just choose a different approach...



...until something comes along that has you kicking and screaming.  

I would say the focus of my dissent is removing the President from office.  It is pointless arguing whether or not we should have gone.  We are there.  In my opinion we need to fight it out and wrap up the mess President Bush handed us.  There are few alternatives.  We need to stay the course and finish the job and then we need to fire the leadership who brought us this fiasco.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 15, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> And when the troops come home, some who have had access to this forum and could be reading your focus on the attrocities and darkness of those who serve, what kind of greeting do you expect?  What do you think they will say about your refusal to participate yet choice to comment?  Keeping the homefires burning doesn't mean throwing the baby on the fire with the...bath water (now that doesn't work does it)
> 
> I mean really, I was 'in' and chose to get out for my family/son and my integrity/honor and courage came into question.  I felt like a heal standing in front of the unit commander on the day of the 9/11 response activation and telling him that I had already requested Inactive Reserve status because of family/personal reason but, if they didn't have enough bodies, I was ready to go if he gave me the order.
> 
> What kind of perception of your military support do you expect?



Coming home to people who disagree with what you did is part of living in a democracy.  It's part of the package you get when you sign up.  In my opinion, any war, no matter how just, should always have dissent.  There should always be a variety of opinions and those opinions should always be expressed.  Just curious, how many soldiers over there feel that what they are doing is bogus...now that is something that hasn't been reported very often, but I can't imagine that everyone is unified.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 15, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Not really. But..since you mentioned it... http://www.counterpunch.org/drivingblack.html
> http://www.racialprofilinganalysis.neu.edu/article.php?article_type=whats_new
> 
> They omited the WNY connection you seem jumpy about though.....
> ...


Jumpy? Hardly...but youre from WNY and I make no secret of what dept. I work for....isnt much of a stretch to take your implication.


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 15, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> ...until something comes along that has you kicking and screaming.
> 
> I would say the focus of my dissent is removing the President from office.  It is pointless arguing whether or not we should have gone.  We are there.  In my opinion we need to fight it out and wrap up the mess President Bush handed us.  There are few alternatives.  We need to stay the course and finish the job and then we need to fire the leadership who brought us this fiasco.



Ow, Ow, he's dragging me out by my civil liberties!

Seriously though, it doesn't look like the POTUS is really pushing too hard for public support or being 'political' in his decision making (back to his press conference about not making decisions based on poll results).  I think he will find his way out of office because he took a stand and is acting according to his principles.  I can't see him winning the next election.  He did leave a mess for future administrations and I do think that he had that on the table before 9/11.  I remember the build up talk.  But the question is whether it is a good mess because SHussein was a bad guy.  We can't ignore that fact.  He was ignoring/uncompliant for years with the agreed cease fire terms at the end of Desert Storm.  All the public relations linking to AlQ rang funny to me too.  I do think that SHussein could have waited some more, but did need to be dealt with.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 15, 2004)

Tom, 
  if you're not one of those doing it, then theres no reason to be defensive. 

Paul,
  please, no pictures of your "civil liberties"..this is a family forum. 

UpNorth,
  "how many soldiers over there feel that what they are doing is bogus".
Enough to matter.  The sad translation of "non-hostile gunshot" is "suicide", in too many cases.  The numbers of those who stepped into enemy fire so as to go heroically aren't known.  I don't have the stats, but I would guess that many of those are the 'Guard units that never thought it would be more than the weekend a month - money for college stuff, y'know?  I believe the suicide numbers are such that while its not a major issue, it is a concern however.


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 15, 2004)

By the way, 

What exactly does "Ah Tovarich" mean in this usage and context?  The messenger might want to stay anonymous, but I am confused by the comment intention.  Other reply options are available if discression is a goal.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 15, 2004)

Googled it.


> tovarich
> 
> SYLLABICATION: to·va·rich
> PRONUNCIATION: t-värch, -sh, -shch
> ...


----------



## Tgace (Apr 15, 2004)

We all seem to agree that the War wasnt started, waged and planned in the right manner. We all agree that we now have to stay and finish what we started....where are we disagreeing here??

-attitude/support for the troops: how do we "support" the agent of government policy while disagreeing with that policy? We seem to be disagreeing over "time and place" rather than "right and wrong".

-General attitude towards America


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 15, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Googled it.



Like I said, within the context, I know the translation/etymology.  Wondering about the message intent.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 15, 2004)

Wouldnt say Im defensive...just looking like someone wanted to start a fight (knowing what we both know about our area). If I made some sweeping statement about your MA instructor how would you respond??


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 15, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Wouldnt say Im defensive...just looking like someone wanted to start a fight (knowing what we both know about our area). If I made some sweeping statement about your MA instructor how would you respond??


Rereading what I wrote, I apologize for the misunderstanding.

As to my instructor....it all depends on what was said...I might bite ya, or get ya a cool beverage. 




			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> Like I said, within the context, I know the translation/etymology. Wondering about the message intent.


Well, I can search the PM/Rep systems and dig.  Was there more? A link to a particular post?  Was it positive or negative? etc?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 15, 2004)

1. There's a difference between an individual soldier or squad going through a door, and an army going across a border.

2. Since when did the Prez and his cronies become the same thing as America? With some of the logic I'm seeing here, there would be no act of war on the part of our government could possibly be opposed legitimately. Mexican War? Keep your mouth shut 'till it's over. Massacres of Indians by US Cavalry? Keep your mouth shut till it's over. Suppression of the Phillippine Insurrection? Keep your mouth shut till it's over. Sending Guard units to shoot strikers in Colorado? Keep your mouth shut till it's over. President knowingly lies and send troops to Vietnam, where aa few of the troops murder civilians at places like My Lai? Keep your mouth shut till it's over...

And before some of y'all crank up, do try to keep it in mind that I am not arguing that our present fine little war is the same thing. Nor am I arguing that our troops are bad people, or any such sort of nonsense. I'm arguing that the position that once the Prez, whoever it is, sends in troops, the only thing we can do is keep silent and support them, is completely loopy. If you think for five seconds, you'll realize that of course you can't possibly mean that--hell, even Robert Heinlein noted again and again that we'd had power-mad Presidents and greedy Congresses launching us into stupid wars...

Find Mark Twain's, "To the People Sitting In Darkness." Read it. Now more than ever.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 15, 2004)

Accepted...knowing what I know about "some" of my co-workers I could say the same.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 15, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. There's a difference between an individual soldier or squad going through a door, and an army going across a border.
> 
> 2. Since when did the Prez and his cronies become the same thing as America? With some of the logic I'm seeing here, there would be no act of war on the part of our government could possibly be opposed legitimately. Mexican War? Keep your mouth shut 'till it's over. Massacres of Indians by US Cavalry? Keep your mouth shut till it's over. Suppression of the Phillippine Insurrection? Keep your mouth shut till it's over. Sending Guard units to shoot strikers in Colorado? Keep your mouth shut till it's over. President knowingly lies and send troops to Vietnam, where aa few of the troops murder civilians at places like My Lai? Keep your mouth shut till it's over...
> 
> ...


Im not saying that in the least....My dilema is were saying "right or wrong, were in it now...lets stay and finish things right." Should we deal with the rightness/wrongness of getting into it in the first place ...yes. Where/how do you "support" the mission as it is (as opposed to pulling out and leaving Iraq out to dry) and protest the war as a whole?? If were saying "right or wrong we have to deal with it now" than it is similiar to a squad going through the door. In for a penny...in for a pound. How do we deal with the contradiction?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 15, 2004)

Just to tie 2 boards discussions into 1, since many of the same points are being hit in both places:

MartialTalk:
Evaluating Iraq

BudoSeek:
More Bodies Found Mutilated In Iraq!!!


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 15, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Rereading what I wrote, I apologize for the misunderstanding.
> 
> As to my instructor....it all depends on what was said...I might bite ya, or get ya a cool beverage.
> 
> ...



Not looking for an investigation, just wanted to communicate with the rep voter/poster a little further.  Leaving it up to them to 'go public' or communicate more privately.  Thanks though


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 15, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. There's a difference between an individual soldier or squad going through a door, and an army going across a border.
> 
> 2. Since when did the Prez and his cronies become the same thing as America? With some of the logic I'm seeing here, there would be no act of war on the part of our government could possibly be opposed legitimately. Mexican War? Keep your mouth shut 'till it's over. Massacres of Indians by US Cavalry? Keep your mouth shut till it's over. Suppression of the Phillippine Insurrection? Keep your mouth shut till it's over. Sending Guard units to shoot strikers in Colorado? Keep your mouth shut till it's over. President knowingly lies and send troops to Vietnam, where aa few of the troops murder civilians at places like My Lai? Keep your mouth shut till it's over...
> 
> ...



Did I not clarify that I was talking about my personal chosen path of commentary about these issues?  Didn't I say that I wasn't trying to tell others that they HAD to do it this way?  I did think for five seconds, or more, I can't remember with my 'loopy' logic and all those other accusitory, judgemental, one paragraph ways of getting called 'stupid' that you love so much... and still expect us to bow down and say 'your right.'

Just when things were getting chummy again, Mr. PhD Turrets sticks a fresh log on the fire, or should that be Dr. Academic Turrets, even though you prefer Robert....


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 15, 2004)

Kinda bugs you that I'm doing this stuff without benefit of, "Bartlett's Familiar Quotations," don't it?

Other than that, I think what I think, and I ain't getting into these endless tangles of spaghetti any more, since all they seem to amount to are claims that, "I didn't say what I said," or, "that word didn't mean what it means."

You are presuming personal attacks when I do not make them, based upon what you think I must be thinking rather than what I write.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 15, 2004)

Well, maybe if you read the last 2 days worth of posts you'd see that we arent saying the @#$% youre accusing us of saying...or at least should ask for clarification of our stance before calling us "Bushie War supporters".

We're in a Vietnam backlash when it comes to our troops. How do you "support" soldiers fighting an "unpopular" war? Spitting on soldiers like was done in the 60-70's was wrong. But the current method of "support" seems shallow and fake


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 15, 2004)

I wonder ... what would happen if the United States just left Iraq. I mentioned in another thread, earlier or somewhere else ... I voted for Kucinich in the primary because he wants out in 90 days. I believe his sentiment is you can't have a 'Good Occupation from a Bad Invasion'.

So, While the US won't leave (anytime soon), what if they did.

Certainly, the Iraqi Governing Council would relocate to England or the United States (or be killed if they didn't). So they would no longer be the Iraqi Governing Council.

The *****e might go about exterminating the Sunni's in a Civil war.

Would the conflict expand outside of Iraq? I don't think so. Iran might throw its support behind the *****e's ... which would quicken the Sunni's demise.

Saudi Arabia & Kuwait would become stronger supporters of the US. This might allow us to apply a bit more pressure to reform those countries. 

OPEC might collapse.

Hmmm ... any other thoughts. What would happen if we just left. 

Oh, yeah .. No more american soldiers would die. Although, it may embolden the 'Terrorists'.

hmmm - Mike


----------



## Tgace (Apr 15, 2004)

I think the message of "we just come in kick @$$ and leave" is worse than getting into an "unjust"* war and staying to at least not leave things worse than before we arrived.


*(at least on the face of what was presented. I still think that a better case could have been presented based on atrocities/failure to comply to Gulf War 1 terms etc.)


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 15, 2004)

btw, I have only really glanced at this thread so far, so bar with me.

Mike E., I can appreciate your position.

But, here enlies the problem of why we should have never gone to war UNILATERALLY in the first place. Sure, we had the resources to kick their @$$ around for a few weeks, but we DO NOT have the resources to rebuild them without it costing us greatly. 

But, if we just get up and leave, they and the rest of the world will hate us more for not finishing what we have started, and Iraq risks being in a worse state then it was when Saddam was actually in power.

What we need is to suck it up, go to the rest of the world and the U.N., and basically say, "Yes, we F-ed up. We were being ruled by a moron at the time. Please excuse our temporary insanity. Now...we need your help." Get other countries to start putting their money and troops in so it isn't just us; SHARE the contracts so that their will be mutual gain, and come up with a 5 year plan to leave Iraq to it's own independence.

Unfortunatily, though, by going in unilaterally and preemptively we have created a monster of a problem.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 15, 2004)

PAUL said:
			
		

> btw, I have only really glanced at this thread so far, so bar with me.
> Mike E., I can appreciate your position.
> But, here enlies the problem of why we should have never gone to war UNILATERALLY in the first place. Sure, we had the resources to kick their @$$ around for a few weeks, but we DO NOT have the resources to rebuild them without it costing us greatly.
> But, if we just get up and leave, they and the rest of the world will hate us more for not finishing what we have started, and Iraq risks being in a worse state then it was when Saddam was actually in power.
> ...


Thanks for your contribution. 
But, really ... we do have the ability to go in and rebuild the country on our own. In fact, it would hardly be a struggle. Yes, it would cost the United States money, but we have so much money, most of us don't know what to do with it. (please don't jump on me for this statement ... I know many of us are always broke - me included - but when you look at that bigger picture, we're flush).

Iraq's Gross National Product (in 2001) was $59 Billion dollars. That is the 'Total Value of Goods and Services produced by the residents of the Nation'. The US is spending more than that just to have our military people there (I think the number for the current year is 79 Billion, isn't it?) We could buy and sell the country.

Of course, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney would probably have to give back their tax cuts (if you didn't see ... they both made out nicely, while 60% of Americans do not feel they have benefited from the Bush tax cuts). If we put a 'Marshall Plan' in place for Iraq, their economy would benefit and our economy would benefit ... and maybe eventually, we really could have tax cuts shared by all.

Also, I think I am getting tired of the term 'Preemptive'  .... we should call it what it is, and Invasion. (think George Carlin - Shell Shocked).

Thanks - Mike


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 15, 2004)

1. Please see T. Grace's posts on page 9 of this thread, which featured: a) an assertion that Iraq is pretty much the same as a SWAT team going through a door, and therefore must be supported no matter what; b) big flag and reassedrtion of point; c) BIG flag  and citation of TR on critics; d) restatement of statement on critics. 

2. Again, my prob here is that the logic being offered could easily have been used to justify--and probably was--the German blitzkrieg. Are the situations different? Absolutely. Are the arguments and excuses similar? Disturbingly so.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 15, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Im not saying that in the least....My dilema is were saying "right or wrong, were in it now...lets stay and finish things right." Should we deal with the rightness/wrongness of getting into it in the first place ...yes. Where/how do you "support" the mission as it is (as opposed to pulling out and leaving Iraq out to dry) and protest the war as a whole?? If were saying "right or wrong we have to deal with it now" than it is similiar to a squad going through the door. In for a penny...in for a pound. How do we deal with the contradiction?




Sigh...since you didnt read it the last time I posted it.....How do you validate a "lets at least finish this right" aspect of this mess without supporting the operation as it is now....as to the rest Ive stated my opinion of "critics without solutions/or at least goals".....If we are going to leave Iraq at least not as bad as before we arrived... we are like that team.....


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 15, 2004)

I don't know Mike E., I think that I have to humbly disagree.

It's not just a money problem; if that was the only problem then yes, I think that we could handle it uni-laterally, and would have already. The sooner that Iraq is up and running safely, the sooner our corperations can profit more then they have already. Because of the special interest involved, I think that if it was as easy as spend a few bucks, then the Administration would have solved all of Iraqs problems already.

I don't think it is that easy. 

Iraq has gone through a dictatorship to an area of political unrest where every group is struggling for power. If one group doesn't get their way over another, then they resort to violence as the means of solving the problem. Our U.S. government holds elections for positions by gun-point (literally) only to have the democratically elected official get assasinated the next day by an opposing group. People are ethnically and politically seperated over there. No amount of money will be a quick fix to these problems. Their GDP was only 58 bil; we could give them 200 bil if we wanted too, but if we left them alone then that money would be used by them to fight among themselves until another dictator prevailed. 

Iraq has been run by dictatorship for too long for the country to really know how to operate any differently. Members of different sects don't seem to understand that if someone gets elected, you can't just shoot them out of office because you don't like them.

I appreciate your views, but let's not negate how F-ed up it really is over there. Money won't solve it without some sort of process. And it will take years, I repeat YEARS to put that process in place. 

And, because we INVADED THEM, we now have put ourselves in a position to help them to put this process in place. This means YEARS of billions of dollars spent now over seas, and YEARS of our troops getting sent to Iraq, and YEARS of our troops dying due to the unrest over there. 

SO,...you really believe we can do this ourselves in 90 days with a few billion dollars? I think we will have to spend billions over the next 5 years at least, and even then, where are all these troops going to come from? I don't know how many enlisted military people we have, but I would like to see some numbers to see how long we would have to keep this up before we actually have to institute a draft.

This is no happy little war. This isn't the O.K. corral that Bush was dreaming about, where the good guy shoots up the bad guy, then goes to the salon for hookers and beer afterwards, and everyone is happy because the town is saved. This thing is going to drag on and on. Can we do it alone? Maybe...but not without it greatly effecting our economy, our security, our military, and our resources.

I say we get some others involved so at the very least, we aren't draining our manpower, money, and resources to solve this problem. We have problems that we could be spending that money on within our own borders.

PAUL


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 15, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. Please see T. Grace's posts on page 9 of this thread, which featured: a) an assertion that Iraq is pretty much the same as a SWAT team going through a door, and therefore must be supported no matter what; b) big flag and reassedrtion of point; c) BIG flag  and citation of TR on critics; d) restatement of statement on critics.
> 
> 2. Again, my prob here is that the logic being offered could easily have been used to justify--and probably was--the German blitzkrieg. Are the situations different? Absolutely. Are the arguments and excuses similar? Disturbingly so.



Thought you were done with it.  And that was a piggy back on my analogy to the nation at war like a military unit during MOUT (Military Operations in an Urban Terrain - to decipher the military babble for the uninitiated ) moving as one body.  I don't really see it as any different as the 'ship of state' analogies that run rampant in politico circles.

At least the rest of the active contributors here are willing to stand and say "I am Spartacus" with filled out profiles and open discussions, not jabs and run behind the blinds.  It would be nice if you took that superior training and logic and maybe....ran for office so that we could all benefit from your superiority, otherwise it seems like it is for entertainment purposes only from the way you use it to try and remind the rest of us how inferior we are.

I am entertained at least.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 15, 2004)

Problem is...the UN's track record on dealing with these situations is spotty at best...got their @$$ handed to them in Bosnia and NATO had to take care of busniess...a couple of bombs and they were out of Iraq so quick my head spun.


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 15, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Problem is...the UN's track record on dealing with these situations is spotty at best...got their @$$ handed to them in Bosnia and NATO had to take care of busniess...a couple of bombs and they were out of Iraq so quick my head spun.



I agree with you there Tom; I am not real confident in the UN right now myself. But unfortunitaly, I feel that because of the way we went in, we aren't left with good choices. It seems like we either leave (leaving them worse off then when Saddam was in power, possibly), Stay (where we risk dragging ourselves through years of conflict, risking our troops and resources), or get help (where at least, even if it's S**tty help, at least all our soldiers aren't the ones to take the bullets, and all our $$ isn't what is being spent).

Not good choices, but what else can we do now? :idunno:


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 15, 2004)

PAUL said:
			
		

> I don't know Mike E., I think that I have to humbly disagree.
> It's not just a money problem; if that was the only problem then yes, I think that we could handle it uni-laterally, and would have already.


I didn't copy your whole statement, but your talking about two separate arguments that I made.

1) We should get out as soon as possible ... 90 days / 60 days. Let the looming civil war work out the future of Iraq.
2) We could completely rebuild the country and bring it to a level of industrial output equal to any western europe.

I am not arguing for both of these items at the same time. If the choice was an 
'Either/Or', I think Option 1 would be better. 

If we were going to do Option 2, we would immediately have to increase troop strength to probably 500,000, plus fly in another 500,000 - 600,000 civil workers. We could probably spend somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 billion dollars a year to rebuild and reconstruct. Also we would be there for probably 30 to 40 years. We would install a client government (in the shape of a democracy).

I think both of these choices are better than our current policy ... but, that's why they don't hire me to do the job.

Mike


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 15, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I didn't copy your whole statement, but your talking about two separate arguments that I made.



So, your saying let an imminent Civil War sort things out? Perhaps you right, but that option still makes me queasy.

I am more or less also offering an option 3; help make them into an industrialized nation comparable to Europe, but with the help of the rest of the World so it's not all our 500K troops, our 500-600K civilian workers, and not all our money that will be used to get the job done.

I am just worried that option 1 will leave us even further behind in our relationship with the rest of the world; they no-likey us now, so they will REALLY no-likey us if we pulll out and leave the job "unfinished." :uhohh:


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 15, 2004)

PAUL said:
			
		

> I am more or less also offering an option 3; help make them into an industrialized nation comparable to Europe, but with the help of the rest of the World so it's not all our 500K troops, our 500-600K civilian workers, and not all our money that will be used to get the job done.
> 
> I am just worried that option 1 will leave us even further behind in our relationship with the rest of the world; they no-likey us now, so they will REALLY no-likey us if we pulll out and leave the job "unfinished." :uhohh:


Certainly, going with your Option 3 makes the most sense. But the current administration has done everything it could to prevent others from wanting to help (which is foolish and sad, I think). It seems the NeoConservatives or the Project for a New American Century sold the idea that as the Worlds Only SuperPower, we don't need anyone else ... and we've gone out of our way to let them know .... from Kyoto forward.

I do think we aren't going to get anybody to contribute money or services until we can stabilize the fighting on the ground. This is going to require a major ramp up of our ground forces.

All of the Administration is sending signals to the Abizaid that he should ask for more troops ... they will be provided (I feel sorry for Germany, it's going to be a ghost town). One concern I have is, will the soldiers follow the orders. I think Rumsfeld told the Generals to win this fight with smaller troop numbers, and the Generals have been very good about toeing the company line. Here's hoping the read the signals clear enough and rapidly and dramatically increase the troop strength to provide some safety over there.

If the US chose to pull up stakes and walk away, I don't think we would suffer any harm that people and other countries would get more upset (sure we would be breaking international law, by abandoning an conquered country, but we already have broken international law by invading without cause). I can't imagine countries getting more mad at us ... they are already pretty wound up. I think the problem would be that it would enbolden the terrorist organizations.

It is just an ugly situation ... and it was predictable.

Good night all.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 16, 2004)

So, I'm listening to NPR - "All things considered" - and I hear a report on the prevelence of soldiers who are REFUSING to go back to Iraq or to do their jobs while there.

Their reasons...

1.  The deaths of civilians
2.  The focus on oil

So, here we have people who are in Iraq.  They are experiencing the reality of the situation and are not having to rely on second hand or third hand reports like we do here in the states.  And they would rather face a court martial and prison time because civilians are dying and the focus of our efforts so far has been to secure oil production.

hmmmm

What about building schools and bridges and hospitols and such that we are hearing about?  Why is there a discrepency in the stories?  Can anyone guess...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 16, 2004)

Its hard to build a school, fix a road, or run new powerlines when you may be shot by a sniper, or kidnapped.  The lawlessness is a double edged sword. They yell about the lack of progress, yet they are part of the cause of the slow pace.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 16, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Its hard to build a school, fix a road, or run new powerlines when you may be shot by a sniper, or kidnapped.  The lawlessness is a double edged sword. They yell about the lack of progress, yet they are part of the cause of the slow pace.


I say we declare martial law. This was Saddams plan all along. Any voice against our protecting our guys for the sake of diplomacy is traitorous to say the least. We need to step up or get out. Good morning vietnam!
Sean (www.iemat.com)


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 17, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> So, I'm listening to NPR - "All things considered" - and I hear a report on the prevelence of soldiers who are REFUSING to go back to Iraq or to do their jobs while there.
> 
> Their reasons...
> 
> ...



Much like your point about coming home to dissenting/protest for the cause, there will be those who do so in the service as well.

To paraphrase Clauswitz, to get men to go to battle the first time is easy.  The hard part is to get them to go back after they have seen the white elephant (homage to Vietname era slang on seeing combat).

This generation of servicemen and women are of the same 'instant gratification' generation that we have all complained about in the past.  They are, in the majority the most professionally trained and best equipt military force in the world, but they are not the most experienced.  There will be those who say "that is enough, can't do it anymore."  Even durin WWII, when troops were in for the duration, there were those who had enough and refuse to even go at all.  I respect the earlier generation of vets, but I don't forget the fact that they are human beings - not the near demigods that history wants to turn them into.  Read "The Nake and the Dead" or "The Thin Red Line" where vets, fictional but based on reality, are not all Band of Brothering along but complaining and in fighting.  There are all types in any age.

Civilian casualties?  Sure, the enemy is blending in and hiding in plain site, THEY are making the statistical possibility of civilian casualties higher than in a stand up fight.

Oil focus?  Sure, the mid east oil is the Wall Street of the international oil market.  The entire market prices is influenced by the stability/instability in that region.  Also the crude oil is more than just gas for our cars.  It is the raw material for so many industries that we really on for so many products and services.  The 'blood for oil' simplification is a protest cry to minimize the importance of the oil issue.  I don't see people boycotting driving cars, buying sneakers/workboots with soles made from petroleum based synthetics, refusing medical treatments that include petroleum based products, or refusing to by technology - including the game station stuff or computer stuff - that is made from petroleum based materials.

I do NOT fault these folks for speaking up and saying "I have had enough" but the emotional stress and disillusionment can cloud informative statements and ideas.  Happens in every war.  I wish everyone would come home from one - on both sides (0r all sides in this case) would say "that is enough" - but that doesn't look realistic with the track record of human civilization.  Death is a part of life.  Sad, but true.  I think the scale and openness of this Conscientious Objection speaks more to the overburdening of Guard and Reserve units and the immaturity (meaning unseasoned, not childish) of our current forces.

I do agree that humanitarian efforts would go a long way in creating stability AND improve approval there and here.  I just don't know, if things like contract employees and other civilians being kidnapped (going old school terror on that one) happening, if the stability level is there for it to be the focus now.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 17, 2004)

The President states on June 17, 2004, about Saddam Hussein



			
				President Bush said:
			
		

> "He was a threat because he provided safe haven for a terrorist like al-Zarqawi, who is still killing innocents inside Iraq," Bush said, referring to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi,


I really wish someone would tell the president that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was not granted safe haven by Saddam Hussein. Prior to the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, al-Zarqawi was working with Ansar al-Islam, a terrorist organization working in the hills of Northern Iraq, under the protection of the US / Great Britain Northern Watch No Fly Zone. Ansar al-Islam and Saddam Hussein's government were at odds with each other throughout the period preceeding the US invasion.

What is worse than the president making this foolish statement, is the fact that CNN, in reporting his claim did not offer any information to the contrary. So much for the 'So-Called-Liberal-Media'.

Mike


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 18, 2004)

Today, the 'quote' from the president's statement yesterday is parsed in this manner:



			
				CNN said:
			
		

> President Bush, however, insisted Thursday that Saddam had "numerous contacts" with al-Qaida and said Iraqi agents had met with the terror network's leader, Osama bin Laden, in Sudan.
> 
> Saddam "was a threat because he had terrorist connections -- not only al-Qaida connections, but other connections to terrorist organizations," Bush said.


This sentence fragment preceeded the sentence fragment I include in the previous post.



			
				President Bush said:
			
		

> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/images/20040617-3_hw8n3205copyjpg-515h.html I always said that Saddam Hussein was a threat. He was a threat because he had used weapons of mass destruction against his own people. He was a threat because he was a sworn enemy to the United States of America, just like al Qaeda. He was a threat because he had terrorist connections -- not only al Qaeda connections, but other connections to terrorist organizations; Abu Nidal was one. He was a threat because he provided safe-haven for a terrorist like Zarqawi, who is still killing innocent inside of Iraq.


The So-Called-Liberal-Media (sometimes referred to as the 'Communist News Network) is not including the complete quote, which is demonstrably false.

OK .. rant completed (for now) - Mike


----------



## MisterMike (Jun 18, 2004)

Putin today said that his intelligence had said Saddam was plotting terorist attacks against the US and its interests after 9/11 and this was passed on to President Bush.


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 18, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Putin today said that his intelligence had said Saddam was plotting terorist attacks against the US and its interests after 9/11 and this was passed on to President Bush.


Yes, I heard that. I am looking forward to a more clear statement concerning what information the Russian Security Agency might have had. Certainly, this could have a significant impact on the Adminstrations plans to invade Iraq. It is interesting to note that even with that knowledge, Russia continued to oppose the war in Iraq. I wonder if that says anything about the credibility of the intelligence.

I think back to the arguments Secretary of State Powell made before the United Nations, and I don't recall any of his arguments being supported by Russian intelligence. Of course, most of his claims were unsourced, so it is difficult to tell. Reviewing the arguments put forth by Powell, most (if not all) are still unproven.

Mike


----------



## MisterMike (Jun 18, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Yes, I heard that. I am looking forward to a more clear statement concerning what information the Russian Security Agency might have had. Certainly, this could have a significant impact on the Adminstrations plans to invade Iraq. It is interesting to note that even with that knowledge, Russia continued to oppose the war in Iraq. I wonder if that says anything about the credibility of the intelligence.
> 
> I think back to the arguments Secretary of State Powell made before the United Nations, and I don't recall any of his arguments being supported by Russian intelligence. Of course, most of his claims were unsourced, so it is difficult to tell. Reviewing the arguments put forth by Powell, most (if not all) are still unproven.
> 
> Mike



Yes, I agree. It seems their secrecy is a double-edged sword.


----------



## jeffbeish (Jun 18, 2004)

*>>>LINK REMOVED<<<*
http://www.drudgereport.com/jp.htm


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 18, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Yes, I heard that. I am looking forward to a more clear statement concerning what information the Russian Security Agency might have had. Certainly, this could have a significant impact on the Adminstrations plans to invade Iraq. It is interesting to note that even with that knowledge, Russia continued to oppose the war in Iraq. I wonder if that says anything about the credibility of the intelligence.
> 
> I think back to the arguments Secretary of State Powell made before the United Nations, and I don't recall any of his arguments being supported by Russian intelligence. Of course, most of his claims were unsourced, so it is difficult to tell. Reviewing the arguments put forth by Powell, most (if not all) are still unproven.
> 
> Mike





			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> Yes, I agree. It seems their secrecy is a double-edged sword.


Well, this should solve that whole Global Warming thing ... MisterMike and I agreeing on something (other than Ghostbuster references). Hell Freezing over will certain stomp out any of the nasty fossil fuel emmissions easily.

<chuckle>


----------



## MisterMike (Jun 18, 2004)

:rofl:


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 21, 2004)

This just in:




			
				altercation.msnbc.com said:
			
		

> *Transcript, CNBCs Capital Report, June 17, 2004*
> 
> Gloria Borger: Well, lets get to Mohammed Atta for a minute, because you mentioned him as well.  You have said in the past that it was quote, pretty well confirmed.
> 
> ...


----------

