Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

I think, as with the Palestinians, decades of indoctrination has taken hold. When things like “America and the Jews are evil, subhuman creatures” become enshrined in textbooks and state propaganda, stuff like this happens.

I think we’re going to have a rough ride for a while, but I also think we’re stuck in Iraq for the duration. We can’t let the region explode, regardless of whether one agrees with the way in which we got there.

“…smiling in satanic victory.”

Careful, now. Inflamatory rhetoric does very little to help finding real solutions.

Also, you innumerate types of people that are fighting against us, lumping them all within the Saddam-supporter, Islamic fascist group. In fact, don’t you think that it is at least possible that some of these people are taking revenge on America for the killings of their loved ones? Or that it is possible that occupations in general simply breed violence? I don’t think that the name “Freedom fighter” is always an appropriate label for them, but neither is “Evil Baathist.”

I think the terrible events in Fallujah were just one item in a growing library that serve to illustrate the folly of this war. The anti-American hatred in the region shot up to over 90% because of our hasty invasion. If we could have gone in with the UN, the American face wouldn’t be on this occupation, and blame would be passed around. As it stands, us Americans are taking all the hits.

Now please don’t say that I want America to “bow at the alter of the UN to defend ourselves”, as our upright friend Mr. Hannity is so fond of saying. Defending ourselves is something that is our right. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that we hastily rushed to war because the evidence would not bare closer scrutiny, and that without an imminent threat, the American people would never support a pre-emptive war.

(As an aside, I know that occupations have yeilded good results in the past. These situations were different, however, since the fighting spirit had been taken out of the occupied by long years of war and many deaths.)

My first question to you is: have you seen the pictures? I can not call posing and smiling next to a horribly burned human body, anything but satanic and evil. Also you use “Occupation” far too loosely in applying it to the entire liberation of Iraq. While I concede that within the Sunni triangle we are a force unwelcome by the majority, the majority of Iraqis want us there during the transition to a democratic country.

Second: who said that under any conditions the UN would have ever gone into Iraq with us? The problem with the UN is that there are so many contradictory interests vying for attention. Considering the Oil and military contracts that Saddam had with Russia and France, it is hard to see any way they would have gone along with an intervention in Iraq. Considering both are permanent members of the UN Security Council and thus have veto power, how likely would they work against their interests:

“There is an economic as well as political aspect to the views of countries including France and Russia. Russian firm Lukoil says it expects its contract to develop Iraqi oilfields to be honoured while France’s state-controlled oil company TotalFinaElf also reached similar potentially lucrative understandings. France was also the leading supplier of goods to Iraq under the UN’s oil-for-food programme.”
That was from the BBC, not some rightwing conspiracy theorist site: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2955789.stm

for those who have not seen all the pictures here they are:

http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/pictures033104.html

“have you seen the pictures? I can not call posing and smiling next to a horribly burned human body, anything but satanic and evil.”

Yes, I have seen dozens of pictures from Fallujah, and despite what your cultural predispositions in judgement are, I stand by the statement: That kind of inflammatory rhetoric does nothing to help us in finding a solution. Manichaen views of the world have been discredited since the 1600s, after all. This is not to say that I don’t share your cultural predispositions… I just recognize that they have no bearing on the solution to the problem.

“who said that under any conditions the UN would have ever gone into Iraq with us?”

Very interesting point. Given that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction, it’s very possible that they would not have gone along with us. Part of the UN process would be to allow the inspections time to do the fullness of their work. Hans Blix is on the record as believing that Iraq did have WMD, and that he’s rather surprised now that we have found none. Through the course of the inspections, we would have been convinced that WMDs were not present. That leaves the following choices: support invading Iraq to right human rights violations, or support invading Iraq because Saddam might eventually restart his WMD development. I pose it to you, Miguel… which of those two do you support? Without the threat of WMD, would you have gone to war? Because our good President must have known that the WMDs were not really there. The chemical and biological weapons had a shelf-lives of only 6-months (tops); the nuclear weapons claim had been discredited months before he made it; the unmaned areal chem/bio weapons dispersal vehicles has been disclosed to us by Chalabi (someone whose claims had proven false over the course of many years).

Given that the inspections worked, and proved that Iraq had no WMDs, then the UN would probably not have supported our invasion. I’m OK with that… What about you: If you had known Iraq had no WMD, would you have supported the Invasion?

I guess my last question was fairly off topic. I didn’t mean to change the subject back to why I disagree with the War in Iraq…. I’d say that my main point is that this sort of attrocity is the bounty that we reap from this ill-advised war. We went into this whole thing with a simple-minded, cavalier attitude. It is the primary failing of the campaign.

The inevitability of this sort of attrocity is foregone. I’ll go into it futher some other time.

“Despite what your cultural predispositions in judgment are, I stand by the statement: That kind of inflammatory rhetoric does nothing to help us in finding a solution. Manichean views of the world have been discredited since the 1600s, after all. This is not to say that I don’t share your cultural predispositions… I just recognize that they have no bearing on the solution to the problem.”

This is not about political or cultural correctness, this is about murder. The Muslim/ Sunni culture if anything is more condemnatory the desecration of the bodies of ones enemies than my Judeo-Christian “predisposition.” Those that did this are not only breaking natural law they are breaking the law of their own religion. Your logic is applied to other instances of history would say that we should not condemn the south for slavery because it was part of their “culture.” Maybe we as Americans should be inflamed over this, either to bolster support for our troops or to spur more protests in the US. By not making a judgment in this case you are saying that this IS acceptable to the culture of those that perpetrated these crimes, when it is absolutely not. Unless of course we are talking not abut Muslim/Sunni culture, but the culture of the Baathists, then I will have to insist on being as un-pc as possible to denounce what they have done to the rest of the Iraqi people in the past. However, you may have a point in that my rhetoric does not get further to the truth. In general I would agree with you, but in this case we dealing with people who have committed terrible crimes. I can and will denounce something this terrible in black and white terms when it helps to set the proper tone to describe what we are fighting against. How can we even identify human rights violations if we don’t say what is wrong and what is right?

Why must people be so quick to judgement? Let me clarify some misconceptions:

First, let me say that I am making a judgement on this event. I believe it was heinous murder, and we need to take steps to insure it does not happen again. What you and I disagree on (apparently), is the process we need to undertake in order to insure this never happens again.

“This is not about political or cultural correctness, this is about murder.”

Understand this, Miguel: you cannot change the culture of a people by force, and an integral part of this culture is independence from infidels. Changing culture by force may work with individuals, but it will never work with the millions of people we are talking about. They have a momentum unique unto themselves.

Please don’t lump me into the mythical “peace-nic liberal” label - force must be a part of the overall plan… but most important is treating the people of the region with respect, and with decency. Treating people with respect and decency is not really possible during a occupation. When have you ever heard of an occupation being well recieved?

If there was a UN face on the occupation, it would be much easier to call it “peace-keeping,” or “international security” pursuant to free elections. As it stands, most Iraqis don’t think there will be free elections at all.

But, since we’re there, we need to succeed. A failed Iraq courtesy of George Bush would be an international maelstrom, to put it mildly.

Given our President’s lack of honesty, or success, in Iraq, I do not see why people would put faith in his ability to win the occupation without creating untold more terrorists. As much as I see this as a reason to elect John Kerry, I also feel deeply saddened and concerned for the well-being of Iraq, as well as the national security of America. Bush’s actions have actually made me far less secure, and like all Americans, that scares me.

I’d still like an answer to the following question, if you can provide it:

If you had known Iraq had no WMD, would you have supported the Invasion?

> If you had known Iraq had no WMD, would you
> have supported the Invasion?

I feel fairly sure that Congress and the American people certainly wouldn’t have, nor would have England, France, Poland, or El Salvador.

-Cf

I look at Fallujah, and I see a situation that might not have gotten that bad if we had sent in more troops to begin with. It’s one thing to invade, another to occupy.

I do hope we don’t take to answering atrocity with atrocity. That will only make things worse. Hit them hard and clean, let everybody see us doing that, and respond to each one of these incidents with the same cold precision. Find out where the IEDs are being manufactured in great numbers, and make a public example of these devices. Let’s use their rage by turning it into the kind of foolishness that makes their kind of people helpless.

Indeed, Stephen… we see how the eye-for-eye strategy has worked for Israel. We need a new plan. We need John Kerry.

“If you had known Iraq had no WMD, would you have supported the Invasion?”

First everyone from Madeline Albright to Blix thought that Saddam had WMD, so I do not think that Bush and his staff have deliberately misled the American people. Even those on the left thought that Saddam had at least some WMDs. However, that is not your question. You want me to completely remove the issue of WMD from this discussion, and that is impossible because for the last decade, they have been the focus of attention on Iraq. The sanctions and the inspections where put in place to keep Saddam from developing these weapons. Without the threat from WMD’s Iraq does not get years of sanctions levied against it. You can not forget how Saddam has behaved in the years since being defeated by the first coalition. It is looking as if he did his best to make people think that he had weapons. Without going into how sanctions actually helped Saddam, it can be agreed that he was not pushing to lift them and his behavior showed that he did not want them lifted. So I think that considering that Saddam was purposefully trying to fool the world into thinking he had WMDs we have to fault our intelligence and the intelligence of many other countries for not seeing that.

So if you want to take out all that, you’re right that we would be left with no one big issue to ride on into Iraq with. But we do have a cornucopia of smaller issues from human right violations and sponsorship of terrorism in Palestine and the harboring of terrorists (albeit less than our allies like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia). Are those things enough to justify 600 deaths of American service men? No.

***YES IT WAS SATANIC (figuratively) but so indicative of the brainwashing existent in Wahabism and Islamic extremism.

PLEASE DON’T GET LOST IN TECHNICALITIES PEOPLE.

These people, no matter how sorry my fellow Dems may feel or conjure forth due to sensing their overall ignorance, are hellbent on murder in the name of a nihilistic form of Islam. These are not good people nor will they most likely ever be.

**Imagine if they were lynching a black person in Alabama or a gangmember killing a convenience store clerk. How would you feel about this mob?

Just because it’s a long distance aways does not mean that it lessens the agregiousness and dispicableness of their spiteful actions.

OH WAIT MAYBE THEY ARE MISUNDERSTOOD, PLEASE!
THEY MADE THEMSELVES PERFECTLY CLEAR.

> First everyone from Madeline Albright to Blix
> thought that Saddam had WMD, so I do not think
> that Bush and his staff have deliberately
> misled the American people. Even those on the
> left thought that Saddam had at least some
> WMDs.

There’s a big difference between believing that Iraq had “at least some WMDs” and believing that the WMDs existed in great numbers and were armed and ready for immediate use.

Like Albright, Clinton, Blix, and others, I also thought that it was quite likely that there were scattered remnants of WMDs here and there, but that they were likely both (a) broken, disassembled, buried, or otherwise useless, and(b) of such small quantities or potency as to be insignificant.

Sure, a lot of people thought there were probably WMDs in Iraq, but it took doctored intelligence to make those people believe that the WMDs were an imminent threat and worthy of launching an unprecedented near-unilateral pre-emptive invasion.

-Cf

“If you had known Iraq had no WMD, would you have supported the Invasion?”

This is an easy one for me. my support of the invasion had nothing to do with WMDs because while I DID believe Saddam had these weapons, I believe they possed no threat to us. I supported this invasion because I wanted that murdering thug out of power…and, as bonus reason, because I think a non-isreal democracy in the middle east serving as an example of the prosperity that can be achieved through freedom is, while a LONG shot, the only chance to truely win the war on terror- i have never heard of any other even plausible plan from anyone. As long as dictators rule that part of the world and tell their people we are evil, I cant see how terrorism against us will stop. Does anyone disagree with this last comment?

Second: who said that under any conditions the UN would have ever gone into Iraq with us? The problem with the UN is that there are so many contradictory interests vying for attention. Considering the Oil and military contracts that Saddam had with Russia and France, it is hard to see any way they would have gone along with an intervention in Iraq. Considering both are permanent members of the UN Security Council and thus have veto power, how likely would they work against their interests:

You’re forgetting that if they had thrown in with the US, they would have shared control of the oil.

According to some UN delegates, it’s probable that the UN Security Council would have backed the invasion. They needed 3 more weeks for the inspectors to provide “independent” verification that Iraq was not in compliance with the first resolution, so they could say to the citizens of their respective countries (who mostly opposed the invasion) that they were going to war, not because the US railroaded them, but because they had “independently” decided Saddam needed to go.

Bush was not interested in waiting.

If you had known Iraq had no WMD, would you have supported the Invasion?

Not until Afghanistan had been cleared of al-Qaeda, and bin Laden had been captured. And only on the condition that the invasion take place under UN auspices.

It’s been argued that making the case for removing Saddam using the “bad man” argument from the beginning, rather than the “fishy” WMD and terrorist arguments, would have found willing backers at the UN.

In other words, GW shot himself in the foot by making outrageous claims of WMDs and terrorists that, given time, could actually be verified, rather than stating the obvious: Saddam = bad.

As far as I’m concerned, he could have used any instance of Iraqi SAMs targeting US or British warplanes as a casus belli, and I’m pretty sure the UN Security Council would have gone with it.

What we are seeing here is the potential beginnings of a Sunni and Shia uprising. I’m becoming worried that we could be looking at an imminent civil war, not to mention increased violence against Americans. The attrocities in Fallujah will only help speed it, since our heavy-handed response will create more blood-feuds, and the vichy government that we are setting up will be too weak to stem the rising tide.

If Bush runs from this country after the ridiculous “handover” date… well… I don’t know how to express how I’ll feel.

I saw the pictures too Miguel…and people say that we aren’t hated!

“and the vichy government that we are setting up will be too weak to stem the rising tide.”
I see, the US is equivelent to nazi germany and Bush is Hitler. I just wanted to make sure that is what you were trying to say. Maybe I watch too much of the History channel, but I find your comparison without merit, especially considering what we are fighting against in Iraq, are modern day nazis.

“I see, the US is equivelent to nazi germany and Bush is Hitler.”

No, no, no, no, no. Why must people jump to such extremist conclusions when analyzing the statements from the other side of the aisle?

All I’m saying is that the government will be seen in much the same way by a huge portion of the Iraqi population. Have you seen the opinion polls? And with every day that goes by, with every innocent Iraqi accidentally killed while trying to damage our enemies, the contempt for what we are doing grows.

So, while obviously not the literal Vichy Government, there is no doubt that the post-occupation government will be seen the same way by Iraqis - leading to all the same problems the Vichy Government of France dealt with, and which helped lead to its eventual downfall.

I like what Mike Savage said the other night on “The Savage Nation.” We should drop flyers from airplanes telling people in that peninsula area telling them that they have 72 hours to pack up their modes of transportation (be they by hoof or by wheel) and get out. Then, at the end of the 72 hours, we start bombing. BOOM…Problem solved.

Forrester: “BOOM…Problem solved.”

What in the hell are you talking about? Are you being sarcastic? Please, god, say you’re being sarcastic.

Well, although I consider it to be a huge compliment, I must say that I feel unworthy of the title “God” Gaelen.

But as far as me being sarcastic…nope.

You literally think that the solution to this problem is the destruction of the geographical area? Seriously?

By the way, I never called you “God Gaelen.” :)

Forrester,

You know what you’re proposing here?

Global Thermonuclear War.

Has “Wargames” tought us NOTHING?!?!

Have you ever played tic-tac-toe?

What do the rest of the conservatives on this list think of Forrester’s suggestions?

-Cf

I thought Mike Savage got kicked off the air for being an idiot.

WAKE up people, and not because it is 7:55 in the morning (where I am).

We are hated, not because we are white, or black, Christian or Jewish, etc…we are hated because we are Americans!

The very people that some of you are defending would love to have your head on a plate.

I don’t like war, however at times, especially when a group of people want everything that our country stands for (freedom, diversity, ect.) to be ended in a mushroom cloud, we must do what we have to do.

I am not saying that we should blow them ALL up, but I am saying that we must not falter in ourquest for survival, and if that means sending some more terrorists to Kingdom Blazes via a few strategically dropped bombs, I am all for it.

When it comes down to it being either us or them not seeing tomorrow, I would rather it be them.

Forrester, aren’t you interested at all in why these people hate us? I’ll tell you why: Because of Americans like you.

Killing innocents creates new blood fueds that last generations! With the Iraq war, we’ve already incensed an entire generation of arabs, with a significant portion hating us violently. Your plan would change that from a significant percentage to an overwhelming majority. The attacks would no longer be an insurgency - they would be a massive grassroots offensive. Just put yourself in their shoes. If you lived without hope, wouldn’t you be likely to take up arms against your oppressor? I would. It’s the American way, in fact.

You’ve said that I’m “defending” the terrorists, and that is an out and out lie. Military force needs to be used against the terrorists, but it should be precise force - individual bullets put into confirmed targets, not salvos of missiles put into residential areas. That would win not only the battles against the terrorists, but the respect of the innocents that are not yet against us. This military force needs to be coupled with measures taken to address the underlying problem. One or the other is simply not enough, and yet, simple-minded people seem to think the “Big Stick” is enough to solve all of our problems. Our President is one of them.

Forrester, whether you know it or not, what you want is the erradication of the Arab people. Because that is the only way your moronic, arrogant plan would work.

Gaelen, I have seen the light and the error of my ways.

I was wrong to think that the people of Iraq are better off without someone as nice as Suddam Hussein…heck…I bet he is really just one big-cute-puppy dog.

No wonder everyone is so mad at us! How dare we take away their saint!

Recap:

Forrester: We should nuke bad Iraqis!

Gaelen: Umm.. That’s dumb because it won’t solve anything.

Forrester: You must love Saddam!

Here we have a completely ludicrous response. It’s another example of Straw Man arguments from Forrester.

Debating pointers: When an argument is being made about what the US should do now, saying the opponent wants Saddam back is irrelevant, distracting, and completely useless to intelligent debate. Please respect the arguments that Gaelen actually was making - he was responding directly to you and said nothing about preferring Saddam.

For the record, I agree with Gaelen that bombing Iraq to glass is a really bad idea, both morally and strategically.

Sure my last post was sarcastic…it was meant to be.

I made that post because Gaelen took it upon him/herself (I am sorry I honestly do not know if Gaelen is a boy’s or girl’s name) to speak for an ENTIRE generation of Arabs (please see Gaelen’s lat post especially the “With the Iraq war, we’ve already incensed an entire generation of arabs…” part) now what on earth gives Gaelen that honor?

I would like a response to this…and please do not say “Because the NY Times tells me so,” or any other news source for that matter. I want to see hard facts/numbers that shows 100% (not 99% or 99.99%) of an ENTIRE generation of Arabs actually is incensed about what we have done.

Forrester:
Um, actually its as simple as checking out the opinion polls in Iraq.More than 90% of Iraqi’s detest the invasion and want the troops to disappear and fast.
As for the numbers that you desire, its virtually impossible to prove those claims, but very easy to see the reality if you took one step out of suburbia and took a long hard look at the rest of the world, particularly Palestine, Iraq , Pakistan and Afghanistan. Ofcourse you couldn’t do that if you went ahead and cluster bombed them all , could you?

Suhasini, Your 90% number is wrong. the majority of Iraqis want the US to stay to make sure that civil war does not erupt.

What a bunch of hot air you people blow who cant stand to take the bull by the horns. You want to enjoy the comforts but not do the work to keep things safe. If these Fallujah “freedom fighters” had slaughtered and mutilated one of your family members who had gone over to try to help put the country back together you would be standing underneath him hanging from the bridge trying to rationalize and sweet talk your way through why these people are misunderstood and mistreated by the whole world. Your just like John Kerry all talk. We all know now that when he so bravely stood up and disrespected his fellow soldiers and threw his medals away his balls were attached to them. god help us if he and people like you Galen and others are ever in a position of leadership. Get a life and a grip on reality. I dont agree with everything Bush has done but I applaud his courage to step to the line and do something about a madman dictator and his brutal regime.