Iraq; Why we must lose this war

[LynnTheDem]

“The United States needs to lose the war in Iraq as soon as possible. Even more urgently, the whole world needs the United States to lose the war in Iraq. What is at stake now is the way we run the world for the next generation or more, and really bad things will happen if we get it wrong.”

He explains how we haven’t grasped that the world has changed, that we aren’t living in our old superpower world anymore, one in which we’re the leader of the forces of light against the evil dark powers of communism. Nor are we, in fact, even a military superpower in the way we like to think we are; in reality, our military machine can only be used against very weak countries. As he notes, “War with a serious opponent would lead to a level of American casualties that the U.S. public would not tolerate for long.”

Dyer writes, “No other major power wants to abandon the project to outlaw war … but if the world’s greatest power becomes a rogue state, they won’t have much choice.” Some days, it appears we’ve already crossed the line.

Interestingly, if that happens, we may not be able to afford to be a rogue state for very long. In what’s surely the most telling and terrifying part of this book, the author takes on the most frightening topic of all — the real condition of the American economy, which is now totally dependent on foreign investment.

http://www.metrotimes.com/editorial/story.asp?id=7302

We're currently learning -or those who have brains (ie not the freepo-fascist rightwingnuttery) are learning- that in fact we aren't a "military superpower" anymore and we're having major losses & difficulties even against "very weak nations".

[stellanoir]

1. The writing

has truly been on the wall for quite some time.

"Perhaps super powers are not longer appropriate for this stlll new millennia. . ."

Dunno for sure. Just know that I never thought that we'd fall so far so fast under such complete deceit, incompetance., and buffonery. It's truly unbelievable.

Always enjoy your visceral and most plaintive posts.

[EFerrari]

2. That would be Gwynne Dyer quoted in Detroit's Metrotimes.

(Sorry, I feel a little nuts if I don't know who I'm reading.)

Dyer writes, “No other major power wants to abandon the project to outlaw war … but if the world’s greatest power becomes a rogue state, they won’t have much choice.” Some days, it appears we’ve already crossed the line.


We crossed that line so long ago, we can't even see it from here. I wonder how long the saner countries will take to put the brakes on.

[Cooley Hurd]

3. It's becoming abundantly clear that we're on the highway known as...

...the road of failed empires. This artery is littered with wreckage as old as man himself. Well-documented wreckage that the Neocons, astute historians that they are :eyes:, continue to ignore.

Just like Atilla.
Just like Napoleon.
Just like Hitler.

[EFerrari]

4. Yet, Cooly, why are we still talking about ourselves

in that language? "Failed empire"? Did you ever get up in the morning and want to be part of a successful empire?

Real question, my brain tosses the same terms at me. Deprogramming in order, and in short order apparently.

[leftchick]

7. ......

Empires fall
This one will too
Here is to the day
When this one is THROUGH!

my favorite toast these days!

[ElectroPrincess]

5. Thank you for the reference ...

I remember reading Gwynne Dyer's excellently researched book, simply entitled "War" during the early 1980s. He is a remarkable researcher and a gifted writer. I'll be sure to read his latest, Future Tense: The Coming World Order.

[IntravenousDemilo]

87. Gwynne Dyer is a god

...if there is such a thing. And not evil like the Freeper god, either. Ditto David Suzuki. I'd trust anything either of them writes.

[CatBoreal]

103. Hear! Hear!

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. The thing that got me

was when Dyer said that when our economy failed, our democracy would go, too. Does anyone here know if this means he thinks Bush, after the economic collapse, would declare a dictatorship? Do you think that Americans would stand for this?

[Disturbed]

9. At least 43 % would.

We now almost have a Fascist State. All it would take for the Bush Junta to declare that no more elections would be held for awhile is a major atack in the U.S. The FBI and CIA say that one is on the way and nothing can be done to stop it. Enough of a heads up for anyone?

[achtung_circus]

8. Dyer's book "Future: Tense" is a wonderful read

as is his pre-Iraq invasion book "Ignorant Armies". He's one of my favourite columnists, we get to see him as a commentator on CBC on a regular basis. He needs to vary his leather jacket.

His columns are posted here:

<http://www.gwynnedyer.net/>

and are worth checking out.

[DistantWind88]

10. I never even noticed

that it was our country that was invaded, that it was our "leader" who was imprisoned, and that it was our county that was occupied. I thought Iraq lost.

[LynnTheDem]

11. Well if you "thought Iraq lost" then you think wrong.

No surprise there. :)

[thebigidea]

12. zing!

yeah, they seem to be doing a pretty good job at bogging down and humiliating the supposedly invincible fighting machine of the good ol' us of a.

not that this reality seems to enter into anything wolfowitz contemplates...

[DistantWind88]

14. So we've lost?

Looks like it's Iraq that has it's sovereign territory occupied and its government disposed. Looks like, thus far, the US has met its objectives. Things suck, but to say we've lost is totally wrong.

[thebigidea]

15. I doubt their objective was to get bogged down in a quagmire

I doubt their objective was to be stretched thin, with 70 attacks a day, chaos everywhere, with oil pipelines being blown up daily.

to interpret this as a "win" would be totally laughable.

[DistantWind88]

17. Like a I said

I didn't realize it was the US that was occupied with out Government disposed. I guess Saddam and Iraq really did win.

[thebigidea]

18. yeah, it makes even less sense the second time around.

well, may as well run a victory lap or something. Declare mission accomplished again.

[DistantWind88]

19. I'm sorry

I missed something. So Saddam is still in power?

[thebigidea]

21. no, but Shiite clerics and insurgents seem to be calling the shots

Iraq does not equal Saddam.

by your own alternate logic, a country can never win or lose a war anyway. So why argue otherwise?

[DistantWind88]

24. You're right.

The insurgents are calling the shots. That's why the election turnout was 10% and the insurgents won the majority of the seats. I forgot about that.

[thebigidea]

31. oh, isn't that cute! Somebody who believes in those glorious elections

yes, 300 attacks on election day, 2% turnout in some places... massive, massive success on all levels.

[DistantWind88]

34. NO it was a massive failure

I admitted that. I mean only 10% of the people turned out and our hand-picked guys won, right? It was a disaster.

[thebigidea]

36. you know, when trying to be funny...

... actually being funny helps. Otherwise it just comes off looking pretty pathetic.

[DistantWind88]

37. I'm not trying to be funny

at all. I'm agreeing with you and showing you what a failure those sham elections were. I mean we RIGGED the election for Christsakes. Our guy's party won easily and the Shiites were big losers.

[thebigidea]

41. well, you're certainly not succeeding in being funny.

another wack-e comedy tip: when being funny, do not repeat the same mirthless joke over and over again. This tends to lead to Saturday Night Live Syndrome, an awful condition that results in endless Moebius strip humor that goes on and on and on and on, sucking all joy from comedy until you dissolve into a talentless puddle.

[DistantWind88]

44. You're totally oblivious

to my reason for agreeing with you.

[thebigidea]

46. yes, you can't think of anything vaguely substantive

...and are trapped on a treadmill of what you imagine is devastating, Oscar Wilde-style wit, but in reality is about as effective as Richard Perle's combover.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[thebigidea]

51. yes, its a glorious victory. that's why the military is so strained

that's why the NG are being held over and so forth - because of this amazing, incredible victory.

why are we increasing the amount of troops there? because of our shattering victory of course.

[DistantWind88]

55. Yes you're right

We're going from 150,000 troops to 140,000. A massive increase of negative 10,000.

I was unaware that the measure of troop strength at any one point was the measure of victory. Thanks for making it easy for me.

[thebigidea]

56. the measure of victory is an aircraft carrier stunt and a sham election

wackiness aside, what would you consider victory in Iraq? Define your terms.

[DistantWind88]

58. There IS no victory

in Iraq. You've already proved to me that we lost.

[thebigidea]

59. yeah yeah yeah, hilarious. ha ha.

about as funny as a baby with brain cancer.

well, I'll leave you to your vast military knowledge, infallible geopolitical acumen, and devastating wit.

Perhaps you can share it with needy orphans or something... but I've gotta run!

[tralfaz]

138. I enjoyed reading

you two squable back and forth. I do think that DistantWind88 won the fight by more than a few points.

[thebigidea]

143. well, round two then. give me the coup de gras!

go on, where was I wrong and how can I learn to see the light.

Because someone who thinks that a single digit turnout in major cities is a great turnout is bound to have a rather interesting take on reality.

[DistantWind88]

154. He's too blind to see

he got his ass kicked. Most of the points went right over his head.

[thebigidea]

155. it doesn't quite work when you act as your own referee

personally, I think you overplayed the tanks in DC line and got into a really boring, repetetive loop. Just like that guy who looks like a monkey whose policies you seem to be defending.

however, I am always ready to open my eyes to the truth only you can provide. Oh great master of all that is repetetive, teach me sweet words of sickly sweet wisdom... teach me how to avoid the subject at hand and resort to the same three jokes, endlessly played unto infinity...

[DistantWind88]

Whoa, I don't defend his wrong-headed polices.

They are indefensible, but to allege we are losing to Iraq is just plain silly.

[thebigidea]

158. to allege that W achieved his objectives there is a bit more than silly

yes, of course! it was all according to plan!

we were supposed to have this level of violence in 2005!

I guess I missed the part when they said they wanted to make Iraq's highway system of a deathtrap that effectively prevents any journalists from getting anywhere and slaughters hundreds a month.

they did meet that objective, huh?

i guess they met the torture/rape/murder innocent prisoners objective and got it publicized real good.

real good objective met there.

[DistantWind88]

165. You're right

Saddam and his cronies are still in power AND they have WMD (which they never had to begin with BTW). Objective number one not attained.

[thebigidea]

173. yes, they never had WMD and we invaded for a lie

which objective was that, again?

to lie our way into a war that turns the international community against us, dispells any lingering post 9/11 goodwill... all for - nothing?

300 billion and counting?

for what objective was that, again?

you never bothered to tell us why you think we invaded Iraq - and if you start babbling about bases and oil again in that horribly droning attempt at sarcasm manner you will look empty indeed.

[LynnTheDem]

170. We are, in fact, LOSING in Iraq. That's not "silly", that's FACT.

And when even REPUBLICAN senators say it, you know it's serious FACT.

But of course as you have so very often posted, anyone who disagrees with YOU is "silly".

[LynnTheDem]

164. And I do think that says a lot about you.

I sure love DU's "search by author" feature. :)

[DistantWind88]

168. What ? You don't like the fact

I haven't drank the loony left kool-aid and think the sky is falling? I prefer the mainstream left.

[thebigidea]

171. which would be what, exactly?

oh, and you believed Saddam had WMD?

do you buy the total tinfoil conspiracy crazy theory that he shipped them to Syria or something? boy, I'd love to hear you try and defend that Elvis Bigfoot Ufo bullshit.

[LynnTheDem]

172. One thing you most certainly are not

is "mainstream left".

I've read all your posts. We both know what you are.

[tralfaz]

131. Iraq had

more of a turnout for elections than we (the US) could ever hope to have.

[thebigidea]

144. really, you wouldn't be concerned if, say, only 2% of Houston voted?

4% in the South Carolina province and Al-Arkansas region while 300 seperate attacks take place?

300 attacks on election day, that's what you want America to aspire to?

some fucking democracy you people are peddlin'

[LynnTheDem]

176. ROTFL!

I didn't think even Faux Moos was still spewing that lie!

[LynnTheDem]

26. As a "search by author" will show you,

cerain posters only think in black-white mode;

"Because Saddam Hussein is no longer president of Iraq we win."

LOL!

[DistantWind88]

27. I SAID you were

right. We obviously lost. That's why Iraqi tanks are occupying Washington right now.

[LynnTheDem]

20. LOL!!! Yeah suuuuure the US has "met its objectives" in Iraq.

Uh huh. Right.

rotfl!

[DistantWind88]

22. You're right we haven't

I forgot that Saddam was still in power. My bad!

[thebigidea]

23. who cares about Saddam, he wasn't important. safe bases and oil is.

we have neither. pipelines and bases are under constant attack, roads are a nightmare maze of bombs and bullets.

some objective.

[DistantWind88]

25. True, true

Our only objective was to build bases in Iraq. I forgot that one, sorry! Oh, yeah, and steal all their oil...that too. My bad!

[thebigidea]

29. wha, you're denying that the US needs a military foothold in the ME?

you're denying that we need bases due to the fact that we left Saudi Arabia?

what comic book reason do you believe was behind Operation Iraqi Fuckup, pray tell? This should be fun.

[DistantWind88]

32. You're right

We're there to steal their oil and build bases. We need bases. Lots of bases all over the world. We want to put bases in Iran and France next, just wait.

[thebigidea]

35. yeah, we get it - you're as funny as Carrot Top. ha ha.

now set us rubes straight and tell us the reasons for the Iraq war. Go on, what?

[DistantWind88]

39. I agree with your assessment

It was for oil and bases. What else could it have been?

[thebigidea]

43. I dunno, why don't you floor us with your geopolitical expertise and tell?

coming from the "no country can ever truly lose a war" guy, I'm sure it'll be satori on an epic scale. I'm all curled up in the lotus position, just waiting for the enlightenment.

[DistantWind88]

47. I yield to your superior intellect

We obviously lost this war. And Germany and Japan are still suffering from the effects of the war they lost in 1945.

[thebigidea]

50. they sure are, those wounds run deep

you think the echoes of the Holocaust have been silenced? Tell that to relatives of mine who survived the camps.

you think that the Japanese are over Hiroshima? take a stroll there and talk to some folks about it.

[DistantWind88]

57. Yes that's

why their economies are in ruins, their standards of living are so low, their people so unhappy; because they still wallow in those wounds.

[leftchick]

40. I thought it was all about those WMD and an Imminent threat?

oops no, this week reason number #153 is it is about spreading democracy and freedom around the globe!
and oh yes, "for our freedoms".. LOL!

[DistantWind88]

42. Nope it was about oil and bases

No doubt.

[leftchick]

45. Then I guess we didn't win

not much oil dribbling out these days. Those bases are nothing more than big ass targets. We lose again.

[DistantWind88]

49. Yes we lost

I agree we lost. Our government has fallen and we are soon to have new elections under Iraqi protection.

[thebigidea]

53. I suppose it hasn't occured to you that Iraq doesn't need to invade...

... for us to have lost a war.

or did we win in Vietnam?

[LynnTheDem]

61. black-white thinking and innane "sarcasm"

Always as always with you.

Buh bye. :)

[thebigidea]

62. sarcasm: the comedy of the lazy

ooooo, isn't sarcasm great - oooo, its sooooo funny to just say the opposite of what you mean, oooo its so fashionable... ooo, everybody is doing it these days, oooooo sarcasm oooo how funny.

The above is an example of sarcasm. Like previous examples of sarcasm on this thread, it is devoid of humor. We now return you to your irregularly scheduled thread, already in progress.

[leftchick]

78. didn't seem to answer my point

you always seem to come up with another unrealistic point rather than answer the poster. curious indeed.

[DrWeird]

183. Indeed we have.

Bush bungled us right into a trap. We've taken some 20,000 casualties. An untold amount of equipment has been destroyed. Our reserves have been exhausted. We've broken the bank getting there.

And for absolutely nothing. If we stay there we'll just continue to lose, and if we pull out then the resistance gets back their territory and installs whatever anti-US government they want to. And we're going to have to pull out eventually.

The war is lost. The war is lost. The war is lost.

And frankly, it's a disgrace to our troops to continue to deny it.

[DistantWind88]

13. Does any country truly "lose"

a war? They may be invaded and occupied, but unless they cease to exist as a nation, they don't really lose--look at Germany, Italy, and Japan. Governments lose wars (Saddam and the Bathists); countries really don't. Not that you'd understand that.

[thebigidea]

16. wow, like, man - how like, zen, man. far out.

countries can never truly lose a war... I can dig it, man. Totally cosmic.

[LynnTheDem]

28. LOL!

Some people will be pro-invasion & occupation of nations not doing anything to anyone, regardless of the facts. ;)

[DistantWind88]

30. I was and remain

TOTALLY against the invasion of Iraq.

[LynnTheDem]

33. Really?

Sure.

[thebigidea]

38. I'm quite charmed by the ability to look at a pile of shit and see gold.

Ya gotta love insane optimism with no basis in reality.

[LynnTheDem]

52. LOL!

I'd rather just laugh at such insanity.

:D

[thebigidea]

54. the amount of delusion that's needed... phew.

I can't imagine waking up to such awful news from Iraq every morning, smiling, and reflecting on how great things are going. Well, I guess if you don't pay too much attention it seems ok from thousands of miles away.

Me, I find it difficult to paint a smiley face with Iraqi & American blood.

[Ripley]

60. And the money....billions and billions...

But thank God Almighty WE WON!!!

How come we keep paying for it if we won already?

I Think OBL won. He said he'd bankrupt us like we did to Soviet Union over Afghanistan. We're on that path. He changed the way normal, law-abiding citizens live their lives; our freedoms are limited.

And to the military expert here, who won Iraq? I don't think the Iraqi people would agree with you since they are being murdered at a higher rate than they were before the war. Dying at the hands of a suicide bomber or US Marine is no different than dying at the hands of a Saddam thug. Dead is dead.

[Jim__]

63. Thanks for posting that - I'll have to read that book - n/t

[hatrack]

64. Basic US military doctrine

If an insurgency can grow, or even merely sustain itself in the face of large-scale counterinsurgency efforts, by default it is winning.

[Val]

65. Are we Cowards?

Why "throw in the towel" so early in the war between Radical Islam and The West? This Infidel feels pretty good about living in the Nation that has the will and power to stand and fight as compared to France, Spain etc. who have already surrendered.

[Ripley]

66. It's early in the Holy Crusades huh?

Well Infidel why aren't you over there in Iraq fighting? Oh, and by the way explain to me how Saddam was a member of Radical Islam.

[LynnTheDem]

69. Hey no fair, Ripley!

Using LOGIC and FACT!

You know that makes certain type heads explode and creates a huge mess for the janitors!

:D

[Ripley]

71. Wow! Exploding melons!

Sounds like Fun!

I think the little Ditto-heads are getting mighty nervous about this Gannon/Bulldog/Hooker thingy and they're coming over here to make sure we keep our eye on the same ball the MSM wants us to have it on. Bad Radical Islam.

Well, guess what little weenies? We ain't gonna let go of this tasty morsel....the bloggers will pound the shit out of this until MSM is FORCED to acknowledge it!

[Val]

74. You forgot to add "Off-Topic". n/t

[Val]

72. OK here goes:

1) I guess it kinda their pay-back for the Holy Crusades.

2) I'm still in school and the draft hasn't started yet.

3) Saddam LOVED to kill thousands of fellow Muslims, so I just assume
his boasting about using his (pretend) WMDs against the West was
sincere.

[LynnTheDem]

79. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. 3 for 3, congrats!

When you don't know the facts, it's better to keep quiet about it. ;)

[thebigidea]

83. as if you're bothered by Saddam killing "his own people"

you want to butcher them now but are somehow concerned with deaths decades ago?

what a consistent humanitarian.

[LynnTheDem]

88. Sometimes they even say both in the very same sentance

We have to kill em all and it's ok for us to kill em all now coz Hussein was killing em all 20 years ago.

:eyes:

And of course they never ever mention how bush & bLiar LIED about the "300,000" in them "mass graves", and they never ever point out how the US helped Hussein's govt put down the rebel uprisings 14 years ago and never never ever mention how Rumsfailed & Powell and bush etc all publicly said at the time that it was just a "spat" and not our business to "interfere" and hey we didn't want the Shia to win anyways, we wanted Hussein to stay in power.

No mention either, of course, which nation put the Ba'ath Party in power in Iraq to begin with.

[Val]

115. So your not concerned...

...with the deaths of the Kurds, thousands of Iraqis and Kuwaitis, millions of Jews, millions of Rwandans (too bad no one helped)?

I thought fighting the murdering oppressors and freeing the oppressed ways a good thing.

[thebigidea]

121. yeah, nothing says loving like regime change ala Wolfowitz

So why didn't he do something about Rwanda instead of invading Iraq when there was absolutely no urgent need, no connection to Al-Qaeda, no WMD, no concievable threat.

why are you ignoring the plight of those being murdered in Africa in favor of meddling in ME politics?

have you even read a single book about ANYTHING related to the Middle East, or are your pontifications solely backed up by what some guy on the teevee said?

oh yeah, and obviously because I'm against the Iraq war, I don't mind millions of Jews being murdered. That is such a classy little leap of logic... so sweet of you to attribute shrugging off the Holocaust to me.

Do I get to make up something about you in return? Some people say you eat bugs. Some people say you support the rape of children by the ancient Greeks. Why do you hate America so much?

[Val]

129. You should ask President Clinton....

all the questions in your post about Rwanda. It all began during his terms. That's when the bulk of millions, some say BILLIONS, were butchered.

Maybe YOU should try to be more up to speed on History and current events. Oh snap!

Why do so many, so quickly, insult?

[thebigidea]

130. are you people still obsessed with Bill's cock?

geezus, blaming Clinton. what the fuck do I care about Clinton, and what does he have to do with the year 2005? You can blame him for polio, Diff'rent Strokes, and the rise of idiotic slang like "snap" for all I care, but don't expect me to either defend him or care in the least.

yeah, lecture me on history.

name a single book you've read on the ME.

just one.

Hannity doesn't count.

[Name removed]

139. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[thebigidea]

141. hey, its not my fault his awful, adulterous penis so fascinates the right.

I didn't grind government to a halt for years because of it.

I didn't ignore AL FUCKING QAEDA because Monica was more important.

you care about Rwanda, huh?

what about stopping Bin Laden, which he tried to do but was hampered and distracted from do to the antics of people like you.

your infantile twaddle is a slap-down? No wonder you put it in quotes. Its about as authentic a slap-down as the emptyheaded lies you're perpetuating.

billions in Rwanda? bwahahahh.

Still waiting to hear about that single book you read about the Middle East that informs your deep knowledge of ME politics.

[Name removed]

152. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[thebigidea]

153. yep, worthless Regnery Press Washington Times garbage

What a surprise you went to that nonsense. I suppose you blame 9/11 on the guy you voted for too?

Funny how you seem to spread every idiotic right wing theory propagated by the far right in support of the guy you voted for... I guess you have a roundabout way of supporting Bill Penile.

it was a blast, I loved the billions in Rwanda one. I hadn't heard that one before, and it really gave me a giggle. If you're still around, I'd love to hear where you picked that one up.

I haven't had this much fun on DU in ages! Thanks again for the enjoyment.

[Val]

169. Maybe I exaggerated on "Billions", only Millions butchered...no need

to be concerned, outraged, lift a finger...just look away. You'll care when it hits a billion...that's the threshold...until then F*** 'um. And if anyone mentions a billion, you can giggle and say..."you fool it's ONLY .76 BILLION not ONE BILLION!" "Bwahahahahah!"

Damn I'm missing class. Glad to be of service to such a selectively knowledgeable humanitarian.

[thebigidea]

175. glad to be of assistance in deconstructing a proven, repeated liar

until next time, Gadget... NEXXXXTTT TIMMMMMMMMMMEEEEEEEEEEE!

[LynnTheDem]

179. You also "exaggerated" on the "millions"

It was 600,000-800,000.

And yet again, we are NOT talking about CLINTON or RWANDA.

We are talking about BUSH and his illegal war of aggression that has so far killed an estimated 100,000 Iraqis who had not being doing anything against anyone.

BUSH.

IRAQ.

2005.

[Val]

188. Your right lynn...damn...

...I'm feeling better about this by each moment. It was only .8 MILLION. I do often get "million"/"billion" flipped. Now I understand why my President Clinton took no action...low numbers, didn't hit a threshold.

A U.N. expert evaluating population loss in Rwanda estimated that 800,000 Rwandans had died between April and July 1994...

[LynnTheDem]

190. Yes, I know I'm correct. And it's "you're". Careful of that in your

schoolwork. ;)

I'm also correct (right is a direction) on the facts that Clinton was never "offered OBL" and that Iraq was secular under Hussein.

And tell me, dear, why do YOU think President Clinton didn't take action in Rwanda? Why the world didn't take action in Rwanda?

Careful now! RESEARCH FIRST before you post, because I do know the facts. ;)

And then PERHAPS we can actually get back to what you try so hard to stay away from; BUSH'S illegal immoral and unjust supreme crime war of aggression invasion & occupation of IRAQ that has so far killed an estimated 100,000 Iraqis for a steaming pile of bush bullshit.

[Val]

201. Just Damn...My FIRST grammatical errors in all this...

...but you have seized on it to make me fell small and stupid. Congratulations! You've proved my point in a previous post! You have no idea how you much you could belittle me were there no spell checker!

There is evidence that OBL was offered up...(won't matter to you if I link to it...propoganda)

I stand by Iraq as a sacred nation and people, not secular...(dictionary supports it)

Clinton and the rest of the world did nothing because they didn't give a shit...(Latest News reports are UN officials and soldiers join in on exploiting Africans though rape and abuse of children...won't matter if I link to the latest news and investigations cause you'll say it's agitprop...)

And there's no point in disputing the Iraqi situation with you as you see it, because your CORRECT, and everyone that disagrees with you is either wrong and stupid...or both.

It must be tough for someone like you to have to deal with a world of fools. I feel sorry for you...really.

[thebigidea]

204. that evidence is discredited and only spread by liars.

the further you go, the further you humiliate yourself and degrade the truth.

keep up the good work, clinton-voter.

maybe you can tell us the one about Clinton molesting underage migrant workers while under the influence of PCP sold to him by Osama bin Laden.

I read it on newsmax! it must be true!

[meganmonkey]

206. Why don't you actually post the links?

instead of assuming we won't trust them? Some of us are just reading this exchange and I, for one, would like to see a link to this OBL thing.

One thing I don't understand is how the dictionary can define Saddam Hussein's government as sacred and not secular. I would defintely like to see that link.

[IrateCitizen]

208. Because she'd much rather play the victim

Given the lack of veracity of her claims thus far regarding Iraq, she has realized that she will not be effective by continuing to beat that dead horse.

So, in order to try and gain some allies via sympathy, she's playing the victim and decrying how she's been so ruthlessly savaged on this thread, and how her wittle feewings are hurt.

[achtung_circus]

214. Which dictionary are you using,

From Dictionary.com (God I love Firefox)

sa·cred Audio pronunciation of "sacred" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (skrd)
adj.

1. Dedicated to or set apart for the worship of a deity.
2. Worthy of religious veneration: the sacred teachings of the Buddha.
3. Made or declared holy: sacred bread and wine.
4. Dedicated or devoted exclusively to a single use, purpose, or person: sacred to the memory of her sister; a private office sacred to the President.
5. Worthy of respect; venerable.
6. Of or relating to religious objects, rites, or practices.

sec·u·lar Audio pronunciation of "secular" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sky-lr)
adj.

1. Worldly rather than spiritual.
2. Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body: secular music.
3. Relating to or advocating secularism.
4. Not bound by monastic restrictions, especially not belonging to a religious order. Used of the clergy.
5. Occurring or observed once in an age or century.
6. Lasting from century to century.

[LynnTheDem]

215. No worries about the grammar.

There is NO evidence that OBL was "offered up" because in fact he was not.

Iraq was secular under Saddam Hussien; had been secular for over 2 decades. Again, that is a fact. You can have your own opinions, but you cannot have your own facts.

There is actually a reason Clinton & the UN and the rightwing in America didn't want to tackle the Rwanda problem. SOme day if you're interested I'm more than happy to give you links to CREDIBLE sources.

You may dispute your OPINIONS on Iraq all you like. Your opinion that Iraq is a humanitarian intervention, for example. That's just your opinion. In FACT, the experts whose entire lives are spent dealing with just that issue say Iraq is NOT a humanitarian intervention, the Iraqis themselves disagree about invading their nation being a humanitarian intervention (and after all, their opinion really is the only one that counts on such an issue, wouldn't you agree?) and common sense would clearly show that invasion and occupation and killing 100,000+ civilians can hardly be called humanitarian. Why are the Iraqi people, 2 years later, still doing worse for food and heat and electricity and security and safety than they did before the invasion under Hussein? Some "humanitarian intervention", making people worse off than they were.

Now I can fully document every statement I made in the above paragraph by very credible sources; leftwing, rightwing, American, Iraqi and other. That doesn't mean you must change your opinion, but it does seem to show a very closed mind to cling to the opinion that invading & occupying Iraq was a humanitarian intervention against all such evidence to the contrary.

You may PREFER to believe that invading & occupying and killing tens of thousands of human beings was for "humanitarian" purposes. But it's NOT FACT and to argue as if it were fact is dishonest. To call me & other posters names because we call you on your false statements you present as facts is also dishonest.

Start with the actual facts and discuss opinions from there.

[thebigidea]

191. you can't blame Clinton's dick for your poor math skills, ya know.

[Val]

203. Why do keep talking about Clinton's Cock????

You brought it up and won't stop. I really don't care about his dick. Jeez. Talk about obsessed.

[thebigidea]

209. I dunno, ask Ken Starr and Co - they seem to have started it.

its the source of all man's woes, isn't it.

did you know that Clinton's Cock personally impregnated over 2000 Kurds kept in a meat locker by Saddam Hussein (who sublet it from OBL) as part of a diabolical experiment to uh... do something or other?

[klyon]

200. some of us believe in the rule of law national and international

KL

on edit I do not know why I took the bait
sorry to all thinking readers

KL

[achtung_circus]

211. All is forgiven, my child.

Go, and sin no more.

hehe

[Name removed]

151. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

156. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

162. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

174. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

184. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

192. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

195. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

198. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

166. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Val]

182. Two against one...

...no fair tbi and lynn. But I moved from lurking for a while, posted a little more, didn't get any "message deleted" (Lynn got one...bad girl ;-)), and I didn't get banned, so some of what I posted must have some ring of truth.:bounce:

And I missed class!

Whoohoo!

[Name removed]

185. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Val]

205. I think I would good sir. n/t

[Name removed]

207. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LynnTheDem]

186. Truth has nothing to do with whether your posts get deleted, dear.

No posts of mine were deleted on this thread, dear.

I have had posts deleted in the past because I violated DU rules. You really should read those rules yourself. ;)

And in fact, NONE of your posts were true; there were not "billions" nor "millions" killed in Rwanda; Clinton was never "offered OBL" at any time; bush's invasion & occupation of Iraq had nothing to do with any "humanitarian intervention"; and Iraq was not "sacred Islam" under Saddam Hussein.

[IrateCitizen]

133. Billions? Really?

I didn't realize that the population of Rwanda alone was in the billions.

What's the world population at now, by that count? Around 23 trillion and growing?

BTW -- the talk here is about the Iraq War, not the genocide in Rwanda. Nor is it about Bill Clinton.

Try to stay on topic, please.

[thebigidea]

134. apparently you don't keep up with current events or something

either that or you're not getting data from the Institute of Madeup-on-the-spot Numbers.

[IrateCitizen]

136. Not to mention the Inst. of Madeup-on-the-spot Facts... (nt)

[LynnTheDem]

150. Maybe YOU should realize the fact that Clinton is NOT the current prez.

Maybe YOU should realize that Clinton didn't wage an illegal supreme crime war of aggression against Iraq.

BUSH did.

TRY to stay current; BUSH is the president, BUSH is responsible for the illegal war of aggression against Iraq.

NOT Clinton. BUSH.

BUSH is why 100,000+ Iraqis are dead in the past 2 years.

BUSH.

[achtung_circus]

160. "some say BILLIONS"???

Do the math, Hon. Who is this "some" who say billions.
Or do the research

<http://www.geohive.com/global/geo.php?xml=idb&xsl=idb&par1=af>

Population of Rwanda (2000) 7,507,056
Population of Africa (2000) 796,598,429

If you want to pick a tyrant to overthrow, why Sadam? Why not Mugabe?

[Val]

210. Yeah hon I Know...I corrected it to .8 Million somewhere in all this...

mess of posts. According to the UN, total butchered ONLY approaching a Million at 800,000. My bad. No biggie at 800K.

[thebigidea]

212. so you're saying its not a big stretch/lie to go from 800k to billions?

no wonder you believe all these conspiracy theories about Clinton from tinfoil websites.

do you hear messages from space elves at night warning about Clinton's dark powers?

maybe you can tell us about how Saddam Hussein plays golf with Clinton while smoking the flesh of dead African babies. I think I saw a story like that on one your websites.

[LynnTheDem]

123. Murdering is ALWAYS WRONG in my books.

And ESPECIALLY wrong is INVADING and OCCUPYING and MURDERING 100,000+ people who were not doing one damn thing to anyone.

If you think this illegal war of aggression was a "humanitarian intervention", then you'd be wrong again. Or do groups such as the ICRC, AI and HRW not know what they're talking about? Because they've already said bush CANNOT call his invasion of Iraq a "humanitarian intervention".

RESEARCH FIRST before posting; always a good idea.

[Val]

132. Your research supports your view...

...I don't have to agree with your interpretation of the facts, or those groups you site that agree with your views. And nor do you have to agree with me our mine. But why are some so ugly and insulting? Can't we just discuss?

[IrateCitizen]

135. Some of us have no patience for propaganda disguised as fact.

We've seen enough of that on a daily basis from the administration and the mainstream media.

So, when someone comes in here either portraying their opinions as facts, or spouts mindless propaganda, we tend to get a little excited.

Perhaps if you could back up your pronouncements, you might find people a little more receptive. But then again, if you were relying on facts, you would likely reach some different conclusions.

[Val]

146. I really don't think...

...it would matter one bit what links I'd post for support of an opinion. Many here are only wanting to hear their pure brand of "kool-aide"...not even a hint of a mixture of two or three "kool-aides". Like when as a young kid, I'd mix multiple soft-drinks at the fountain machine.

Some here are just too pissed-off, too condescending, and too ugly. That's why I usually just lurk.

[thebigidea]

148. well keep lurking if you're going to spread lies like "billions in Rwanda"

its bound to be an ugly day when John Negroponte gains power.

[LynnTheDem]

157. Don't forget her lie of "Clinton was offered OBL" on a platter bullshit

Been a long time since I heard that one. When it was thoroughly debunked and proven as just another rightwingnut lie and even the rightwingnuts stopped spouting it, I thought that was one rightwingnut lie never to be heard again.

[thebigidea]

163. pulling that one is really indicative of what media they are consuming

oh, but I forgot - she voted for Clinton. mmmhmmm.

[IrateCitizen]

199. Familiar traits of someone without a compelling argument...

Rather than attempt to produce any kind of factual basis for your "opinions", you instead resort to whining about "kool-aide" and moaning about how mean-spirited people are around here.

Some here are just too pissed-off, too condescending, and too ugly.

Yeah. That's the hallmark of a well-reasoned argument. Nothing you have posted here -- actually, despite it being off-topic, the failure of any real action in Rwanda -- is of any real value. Unless, of course, you thought that we wanted some easy target practice at shooting down arguments based on little more than propaganda and falsehoods.

Perhaps if you'd take the time to ATTEND your classes instead of missing them on account of posting on an anonymous internet discussion board, you might learn something.... :shrug:

[thebigidea]

137. because you're wrong and people are dying. you're contributing to it...

... by perpetuating those oily PR lies used to sell this abomination to people who should know better.

and don't you consider this discussion?

this isn't a case of "oh we both have seperate opinions but they are both equally valid."

you are making up stuff out of whole cloth and babbling stuff discredited years ago. Its flat out wrong, not a mere difference of opinion.

[LynnTheDem]

147. So YOUR OPINION that invading & occupying Iraq & killing 100,000+ Iraqis

was "humanitarian intervention" is superior to the "opinions" of the International Red Cross, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch, all of whom have been there, IN Iraq, for decades.

The IRAQIS disagree with you, but hey that's just THEIR INTERPRETATION.

I don't think so.

You do know bush & bLiar LIED about the "300,000" in those "mass graves" and have admitted they lied? You do know that we, in the past 2 years, have killed a CONSERVATIVE estimate of 100,000 Iraqis, and that in over 20 years Hussein, according even to bush, killed "thousands", of which bush includes a decade-long war with US support, and a rebellion which the US instigated and then helped Hussein put down?

You do know that the Iraqi people themselves disagree with you totally? That 97% view us as occupiers and NOT as liberators; that the majority want us the hell out of their country & to leave them alone?

Yeah that's sure some "humanitarian intervention".

If posters are "ugly and insulting" to you. maybe it's the BS you're posting.

[tabasco]

85. No excuse on #2, tough guy.

Get your ass to a recruiter.

No excuses.

The military is missing recruiting goals while chickenhawks like you have other priorities.

I did my time, time for you, tough guy.

[Val]

122. I'm a girl, not a "tough guy"...

...my brother is thinking about enlisting though...when he's 18.
I don't think I have the upper body strength to do combat stuff, but it's a moot point. My heart arrhythmias disqualify me as I understand. Thanks for your service and the unkind insults.

[LynnTheDem]

124. They're taking girls, no worries.

They're even taking people over 70 years old, and people with missing limbs.

I'm sure they can find a place for you, someone so eager to kill other people.

[thebigidea]

125. yeah, Ashcroft/Limbaugh/Cheney/etc had the same excuses

other priorities, right.

this isn't the 1950s, "girls" aren't excluded from the joys of service in the New American Century.

I can send you a brouchure, unless you want the butchering done by others.

and why haven't you convinced your brother to enlist?

wouldn't you want to sacrifice a family member in the great name of freedom?

its such a noble thing, this war.

[tabasco]

187. A chickenhawk is a chickenhawk.

Consider some volunteer service with a humanitarian organization. During my military service, and multiple combat tours, I had the honor to work with many civilians with relief organizations in combat zones. If you saw firsthand the results of war, you might not be so gung ho.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Val]

75. Hey...

...I've got 37. Why pick on me for not wanting to give-up?

[LynnTheDem]

81. Hitler invaded & occupied Poland, a nation that had done nothing

whatsoever against Germany, Do you also feel Hitler should not have given up?

PLEASE tell us you're NOT one of those Americans who still thinks Iraq had something to do with al Qaeda or 911!

[Val]

84. Why always Hitler?

I am not one of those Americans that believe Saddam had anything directly to do with 9/11.

Hitler's plans for ruling all of Europe and exterminating the Jewish race (he got 6 Million) were widely known.

Different War, different time, different situations.

[LynnTheDem]

86. "directly"...so you're one of the minority who think Saddam INdirectly did

911?

Interesting. Wrong, if that's what you believe, but explains things.

You do know that even BUSH has publicly admitted Iraq and Hussein had nothing whatsoever to do with 911, yes?

You do know that Saddam in fact NEVER threatened to use "WMD" on the USA, correct?

You do know that most the entire world and even the majority of Americans knew BEFORE his illegal war of aggression against Iraq that bush's "WMD" bullshit was in fact all bullshit, correct?

You do know bush ILLEGALLY INVADED AND OCCUPIED a nation that had been doing NOTHING WHATSOEVER against anyone, EXACTLY as Hitler did to Poland, yes?

[Val]

106. Take out the "directly" qualifier if you like...

It's hard to know the unknowable. Did some of the 9/11 planning meetings occur in Baghdad? They did in Las Vegas, maybe Baghdad, with Saddam or his sons "looking the other way"? I doubt they would have refused knowing the potential outcome and damage to the US. Still unknowable.

The whole "cat and mouse" game on Saddam's WMDs that he had used before on the Kurds, (especially after Kuwait) led many nations and people, including Sen. Kerry, to believe the WMD intellegence...faulty and wrong as can be if the assumed WMDs were not secreted off to Syria our some such place.

Saddam screwed up...the US and UK called his bluff.

The Hitler comparison is just getting silly.

[IrateCitizen]

111. Oh, something's getting silly here...

... but it's not the Hitler comparisons. It's your tap-dancing that's getting silly.

There was plenty of intelligence, VERIFIED intelligence, out there that said Saddam didn't have any significant WMD's. There was his son-in-law, Hussein Kamel, who defected in the 1990's and was able to confirm that 99%+ of all weapons stocks were destroyed. There was the testimony of former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, testimony that was even backed, if not 100%, by Richard Butler. Then there was the new weapons inspections themselves, which turned up nothing.

Finally, there was the little fact that Colin Powell acknowledged when he said, "We know what he has -- we still have the receipts." All of the WMD's sold to Saddam by the US were of varieties that had a limited shelf life. If he didn't have the manufacturing capabilities, then there's no way he could have WMD's. Finally, the gas he used on the Kurds was provided to him by the US, and we didn't raise a big issue then, so it's rather hypocritical to point back to that more than 10 years after the fact.

Your "reasoning" continues to fail to hold up to exposure to sunlight....

[LynnTheDem]

126. What's silly is your clinging to such a well-proven pile of bullshit.

Even BUSH has publicly said Iraq had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the 911 attacks.

It is NOT, as you like to quote Rumsfailed, "unknowable". It is in FACt well KNOWN that Iraq had -last time now, try to get it this time- NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with 911.

What, dear, was "CAT AND MOUSE" about Saddam Hussein saying "WE HAVE NO WMD IN IRAQ."???

Saddam SAID MANY TIMES he did NOT have WMD. He did NOT "bluff", and the US/UK did NOT "call his bluff".

You have fully swallowed all the bullshit. How sad for you.

BUSH: "...the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

The WMD Saddam Hussein REPEATEDLY SAID Iraq DID NOT HAVE.

Gee, that's some "cat & mouse" game. :eyes:

[thebigidea]

68. if you hadn't noticed, Iraq was fucking SECULAR.

we made it a hotbed of radical islam... the boneheaded policies you support have made us less safe and more despised.

... and the arrogance needed to lecture Spain and France about terror - as if they don't goddamn know. Well, carry on - because the world is laughing at you.

In the meantime, it sure is easy to bray about being so tough and firm... when you're not holding a gun in a fucking desert hellhole. When you're not holding an amputee and trying to convince him not to kill himself. When you're not missing your only child. When you're not watching your family obliterated in front of you at some unmarked checkpoint in the middle of the night.

[LynnTheDem]

70. Most bush-supporters still think Iraq did 911, Iraq had ties to al Qaeda,

Iraq was threatening to overrun us and make us all wear burkas, Iraq had WMD and we found WMD in Iraq...etc etc ignorance etc.

Most bush-supporters are soooooo DUMB.

[thebigidea]

73. and when DUMB meets BLOODLUST, we're all in trouble

the insane hate now being directed at the Iranians and Syrians for no goddamn reason whatsoever is pretty discouraging - Wolfie snaps his fingers and the flock falls in line, hissing and hating on cue.

"four more years, four more wars" doesn't seem quite as humorous now.

[Val]

76. I thought Iraq was "fucking sacred", not "fucking secular"...

Islam IS sacred. Isn't it?

[LynnTheDem]

77. Oh good grief.

Go do some research. Come back when you're relatively caught up on FACT and REALITY to the rest of us.

Saddam Hussein was secular. Start there and work forwards.

Sheeesh. :eyes:

[Val]

89. Saddam and his sons were certainly "Worldly"...

...but they brutalized, controlled, oppressed a nation of people that would have to be considered sacred, devoted to a life following the teachings of some religious faith, chiefly Islam. And that fits the definition of SACRED not SECULAR.

That's the whole reason radical Islam hates the secularism so represented in the cultures of the West.

A double smug "Sheeesh" right back at you.:eyes: :eyes:

[LynnTheDem]

91. WRONG yet again.

And you're a very confused person who keeps contradicting himself.

Iraq was SECULAR under Saddam Hussein. That's a FACT, dear. Get over it.

Hussein's government oppressed RADICAL ISLAMISTS. You know, the people YOU want to "not give up" and keep killing. So it's pretty damn stupid to have invaded & occupied a nation and overthrown the government that was oppressing the very people YOU want killed.

DUHHHH huh.

The people of Iraq NEVER did ONE DAMN THING to YOU or to AMERICA and never threatened to do one damn thing to YOU or to AMERICA. Yet YOU think it's a good thing to invade & occupy and kill the Iraqi people.

Hey why don't we also invade & occupy CANADA! After all, they have water and oil and land we so desperately need, and what's killing a few million Canucks, no big deal! Just as big a deal as killing 100,000 Iraqis who never did a damn thing to us, and Canada DOES have missiles that can reach us.

Go sign up with the military, dear. Go die for bush-god's lies; go kill for bush-god's lies. You certainly have no inkling of the facts nor do you appear to care about learning any.

[thebigidea]

96. again, what the fuck do you care about the people Saddam abused?

your crazy chickenhawk rhetoric is getting them butchered right now, not 20 years ago.

isn't it the West vs. Radical Islam? aren't we taking the fight to the enemy or something?

so what do you care?

[mattclearing]

140. Yeah, it's amazing.

There's a chance to watch bombs blow stuff up, and suddenly everyone's a freakin' human rights activist.

:eyes:

[achtung_circus]

97. Here goes, I'll talk slowly

"...but they brutalized, controlled, oppressed a nation of people that would have to be considered sacred, devoted to a life following the teachings of some religious faith, chiefly Islam. And that fits the definition of SACRED not SECULAR."

Wrong. Saddam was a bias free tyrant. Not SACRED, but SCARED, scared that anyone, Kurd, Shia or Sunni would challenge his power, for that's what he was about, power, and hanging on to it any way he could.

Can't follow the rest of your argument, so I'm not able to comment on it other than to say

[tralfaz]

142. I agree with you,

this was a man who gassed his own people, his secret police killed many tens (hundreds?) of thousands of people and the only thing that they can think of is how we should lose this war. I feel sorry for the people whom hate W so much that they wish death and destruction upon our military. I sometimes have to wonder if some of these people are really Democrats or something way beyond that. I feel sorry for those people.

[thebigidea]

145. we're all communists working under orders from moscow

and you would be, what, then?

at the very least, someone who makes shit up to smear his supposed political allies. Some big tent, huh. Just because a "fellow" dem disagrees with you, they advocate the death of our troops?

gee, who uses rhetoric like that... hmmm...

[IrateCitizen]

161. Lets lay out the whole truth here, shall we tralfaz?

this was a man who gassed his own people with the supplies we had given him, while we looked the other way, his secret police killed many tens (hundreds?) of thousands of people while he was on our payroll, and we looked the other way.

I don't see anyone here cheering for the deaths of our military personnel. What I do see is the recognition that the only way we can prevent dishonorable and unjust uses of military force in the future is for the situation to degenerate to the point that it shakes people out of their soft, fluffy cocoons insulating them from reality. Wishing death on our military folks is a projection you assigned, not anything anyone actually said or implied.

And I must say I feel sorry for people like you, people who adopt a worldview in which they are an American first, and a human being second. Consistently denying reality so as to not upset your worldview becomes a tiring exercise over time.

[achtung_circus]

178. Make sure you know what you're agreeing with before you post.

I'm of the belief that a kick in the ass is what the US needs in order to stop the insane agenda of the neo-cons from proceeding to perdition.

Do I "hate" bushit? Sure, he's a small man with a small mind. He either doesn'y know or doesn't care much about the rest of us who share this planet. I tend towards the "doesn't care" side of that equation.

Do I wish death and destruction on your military, I don't need to, it's happening, solely due to the isolationist, cowboy mentality of your administration.

Am I way beyond a "Democrat" Check my profile.

Your sorrow is noted.

[LynnTheDem]

189. I feel sorry for people who love bush so much that they could defend

such an incredibly abhorent thing as a supreme crime war of aggression invasion & occupation, killing 100,000+ people, perpetrated on a nation that was weak, defenseless and had been doing NOTHING WHATSOEVER to anyone.

And then to hear some people who love bush so much they bring up Iraq having used chemical weapons OVER TWENTY YEARS AGO, supplied by AMERICA, in a WAR SUPPORTED by AMERICA as an excuse justifying invasion & occupation and killing 100,000+ Iraqis OVER TWENTY YEARS LATER.

I have to wonder sometines about if these people are really human or something. I feel sorry for those people. Sick MFers that they are.

[IrateCitizen]

98. Speaking of "sheesh"...

That's the whole reason radical Islam hates the secularism so represented in the cultures of the West.

This blanket statement alone demonstrates your need for further reading on this subject.

Radical Islam does not necessarily "hate the West". Rather, Radical Islam is engaged primarily in an internal struggle within predominantly Muslim countries in the Middle East. Radical Islam is against MODERNIZATION, which is a process that the majority of the ME is currently going through. They also hate the hypocrisy of the Saudi ruling class, but that's another matter entirely.

Now, a large portion of the Arab world, which does not particularly care for these fringe elements in Islam, also has a great deal of distrust for the United States. And why not? Simply do a search for Mohammed Mossadeq, Shah Reza Palavi, or look at the way in which we supported Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran (and domestic brutality against Iraqi people as well), and it's pretty easy to see how this came about.

Furthermore, much of the power and influence gained by radical Islam can be traced back to the United States, particularly in regards to the Soviet incursion into Afghanistan. When asked about the "morality" about arming Fundamentalist Muslims in Afghanistan, former Nat'l Security Advisor Zbigniew Brezinski said, "That helped us win the Cold War. So what if we created a few stirred up Moslems in the process?"

Radical Islam doesn't hate the secular cultures of the West, although I'm certain that it doesn't like them either. What it does hate, however, is modernization. And it sees the best way to attack modernization as trying to get the more moderate Muslims on their side. Since a lot of Muslims view the United States as causing them a lot of problems over the years, and since the US props up most of the regimes in the Muslim world (i.e. Egypt and Saudi Arabia), then attacking the US could be seen as a rallying cry to the rest of the Muslim world.

Actually, much of this movement was in disarray prior to 9/11. It was steadily losing in the Middle East, because modernization was a force they were powerless to hold back. In that light, the attack on the WTC and Pentagon could be seen as an act of desperation. Had the United States approached this problem in the way the rest of the world was urging -- as a "criminal matter" accompanied by economic development aid (without meddling) to the Middle East -- it is likely that the movement of Radical Islam could have been largely neutralized. But by invading Afghanistan and then Iraq, we played right into the hands of OBL. Now, radicals can point at the US and tell the Arab world about how we're a source of many of their problems, and many people will feel that there is a good bit of validity in this assessment.

My advice to you is to read up on this before you start making such smug pronouncements. And I'm talking about BOOKS and information that exists OUTSIDE the mainstream, not Newsweek articles and whatever they're saying on television.

[thebigidea]

80. apparently you're the religious expert, you tell us.

somehow I doubt you consider the religion "sacred," but who knows what you've got rolling around in that brain of yours.

Personally, the only things I could consider sacred would be the first two Velvet Underground albums and the writings of William S. Burroughs. Other than that - nah, not so sacred.

[Val]

90. My arguments above....

are well reasoned and valid. Just as valid as someone who likes Velvet Underground and Burroughs. I don't know why you would include that info unless the references are to imply that you are superior in some way.

Self-absorption and insecurity lead to insulting others with which you disagree.

[thebigidea]

92. which of course, you never dabble in

I included it because you asked if I considered Islam sacred - no, I don't consider any religion "sacred" - what does the term mean, and what would I consider sacred? Those are the first two things that came to mind. If it it makes you feel insecure or something, perhaps I could be more lumpen and say I pray at the altar of Shemp Howard.

Or is that too elitist?

and nice try spinning out of the question, tough guy.

do you consider Islam sacred?

do you understand that Iraq had a secular government with no crazy Islamist problem because they hated those guys until America "remade the face of the Middle East" in a way old Wolfowitz didn't anticipate?

or I suppose facts and stuff like that is too snooty and elitist for you. I suppose you could listen to "the wall" or something to remind yourself of your inherent cultural superiority.

Meanwhile, those in the reality-based community will snicker behind your back. "Oh my gawd, he actually buys that horseshit?"

but you know who won't be laughing?

the tens of thousands butchered by chickenhawk bravado like the stuff you posted above. nice going, colonel patriot.

[LynnTheDem]

95. No actually, your "reasons" are not "well argued and valid".

You say we should keep killing the Iraqi people.

-Even though the Iraqi people NEVER did or threatened to do one damn thing to you or to America.

-Even though bush's excuses for invading & occupying and killing a lot of Iraqis was always known to be pure bullshit.

-You say but Saddam killed them! So WE should overthrow Saddam and kill them ourselves??? This is "well argued and valid" in your mind?

-You keep insisting Iraq under Hussein was "sacred"; no, it was SECULAR. Again, that's a FACT, get over it.

By the way, your remark of "Self-absorption and insecurity lead to insulting others with which you disagree." is an INSULT to someone you disagree with. THINK about it.

And while you're at it, think about WHY you, who supports bush's illegal & unjust supreme crime war of aggression against Iraq., are in the MINORITY here in America, and have always been in the TINIEST LITTLE FRINGE MINORITY in the world.

Is the majority of the entire world just stupid? Just all "Saddam-lovers"? Or gee, maybe it's YOU and the MINORITY you're in. Hmmmm.

[IrateCitizen]

99. Your arguments are far from well-reasoned and valid

You have provided no background for your arguments. You have only stated opinions, and tried to pass them off as reasoned judgements based on personal research. As someone who knows the difference between the two, I will tell you that you are not going to convince others to the contrary, unless they hold your simplistic worldview.

[IrateCitizen]

82. Emmanuel Todd has made many of the same points...

... in his book After the Empire. The United States is overstretched economically, and now also militarily. The only way that we can continue to flush over half a trillion dollars per year down the toilet on maintaining military hegemony is by borrowing trillions of dollars from the rest of the world. Since our trade deficit is approaching half a trillion, along with our yearly budget deficits, the hogging of global investment capital along with unsustainable, rampant consumption is the only thing really keeping our economy going in its present form.

Of course, there will come a day, possibly in the not too far future, at which the rest of the industrialized world will realize how deranged and out-of-control we've become, and will then decide that it is no longer in their interest to keep the United States afloat. When that day of reckoning comes about, it will NOT be pretty. Americans will see a near-immediate drop in their living standards of at least 20-25%. Our military behemoth will essentially crumble, because there will be no more money to keep it afloat.

Of course, this will all be good in the long run, for the world as a whole. We have entered an age in which power and influence is no longer wielded militarily. Military means are only viable expressions of power against extremely weak states. The United States believes it has hegemony, but is actually in a position of considerable weakness. The rest of the world figured this out, but the US was so busy believing that it won the Cold War it forgot to notice that it just didn't lose it quite as quickly as the Soviets.

Nobody knows what the future world will bring, but one thing it will certainly NOT bring is the continuation of a "unipolar" structure with the United States being the lone superpower. What is much more likely is that we will become a multipolar world of various spheres of influence, both competing and cooperating amongst each other.

[mattclearing]

93. I'm not sure about losing the Iraq War...

But I agree with the rest of it. It would be nice if we could declare victory and get out with some semblance of face.

Our economic position is a travesty. This is one area where the media is completely insane.

Outlawing War...boy would that be great.

[LynnTheDem]

104. The only saving of face we can do is to ourselves by lying to ourselves

There is no way possible to save face to the rest of the world.

We lost any chance of that the day bush launched his illegal supreme crime war of aggression. The icon now viewed by the world as representing America is not the Statue of Liberty; it's a hooded man stnading on a box with electrodes attached to him.

We are, though, very good at lying to ourselves; we lie about our 3rd world power grid, we lie about our 3rd world infant mortality rate, we lie about our 3rd world literacy rate, we lie about being the best the greatest the most free. We lie lie lie lie lie to ourselves and have for decades.

But none of our lies have ever been swallowed by the rest of the world.

[DrGonzoLives]

94. I agree with parts of this

But the "we need to lose" nonsense...just loading the right-wing's gun for them. You can make the point that we must no longer be the world's bully or primo superpower anymore without idiocy like that.

Instead of a serious discussion on foreign policy and our place in the world, it'll just be "Liberals want us to lose!"

[LynnTheDem]

100. I so do not CARE what rightwingnuts will say or think or do.

And I am so damned TIRED of leftwingers saying we should or shouldn't do this or that or the other because gee the rightwingnuts will say or think or do whatever.

THEY WILL ANYWAYS.

I will NOT CENSOR myself for the benefit of rightwingnuts.

The US losing this war -which we are in the process of doing- will save lives, because a "win" by bushCartel & rightwingnut standards will mean the deaths of millions more.

You, of course, are free to censor yourself for their benefit. :)

[IrateCitizen]

101. It's addressing the reality of the situation, Doc.

The only way that the US stopped directly intervening with troops in places for a couple of decades was the humiliating defeat we suffered in Vietnam.

A victory for us, even a partial one, will do nothing to stem this spirit of militarism. The only way that militarism is defeated is by a demonstration of how utterly foolish it is as a philosophy.

I take no comfort in this. As a former Army Reserve officer and member of Iraq Vets Against the War, it gives me great pain to say that the only way that our voices of dissent will be amplified is a degeneration of the situation in Iraq (and more US casualties). But, sadly, that is the situation in which we find ourselves, and we can only try to make the best of it and end this senseless bloodshed as quickly as possible.

[achtung_circus]

119. Dyer's point, and I've read the book,

is that the US needs to be shocked into rejoining the rest of the world. One of the potential shocks is "losing" (by whatever criteria you wish) the present incursion in Iraq.

Dyer talks about "the Mogadishu Line" and the "Dover Criterion" as being the point at which the American public decide that the cost is not worth it. Your admin is very aware that this is dangerous territory- it's why journalists are forbidden from Dover AFB where KIAs are returned to the US.

That's one definition of losing, others include the cost in dollars and forgone opportunities.

Dyer does not believe that oil was a major factor in this incursion. He makes the point that the US can buy all the oil it wants merely by paying market price.

Dyer goes to great detain about PNAC and the Neo-cons that are currently setting US policy. THEY, and the American public need a demonstration that makes the point, that the rest of the world is working in one direction while the US is going it's own path.

One way that path varies is the treatment of terrorism. Terrorism isn't an enemy, it's a tactic, usable by anyone. 9/11 was a bad thing, but it's greatest impact was that it happened in Murrica. The world has been dealing with terrorism forever. Most of the world, with the notable exception of the US has decided that the way to deal with it is as a police matter. The US is using it to flex muscles in ways that have unintended consequences.

Read Dyer's columns here: <http://www.gwynnedyer.net/"
Iraq is just part of it. It includes Kyoto, the International Criminal Court, the Land Mines Treaty, fiscal policy, North Korea (not any threat according to Dyer) and a lot more.

You don't have to agree, but he makes you think. Now I'm in trouble for posting at work, gotta run.

[Hell in a Handbasket]

102. yeah, i bet that soundbite will go over well with Johnny Q,. Public....

:eyes:

[LynnTheDem]

107. The Johnny Q Public who know the FACTS and REALITy already agree

The rightwingnut Johnny Q Public know and don't care, or are too stupid & ignorant of facts & reality to know facts & reality, & wouldn't care if they did. So TOO BAD for the stupid ignorant few in this country who would get their little knickers in a twist over a "soundbite" they don't like.

[Hell in a Handbasket]

117. the average public believes we have to 'LOSE'? nt

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[meganmonkey]

108. Gee, congrats, you lasted 2 whole posts!

Who wants pizza?

[LynnTheDem]

110. I'd love to get myself around a pizza, NUMMM...but tell me, is it safe

to eat such a pizza? Wouldn't they be contaminated?

BLECH!

[meganmonkey]

114. I forgot how much fun GD is.

I should hang out in here more ;)

[LynnTheDem]

118. Lotsa pizza to eat too, if it's not contaminated.

:D

[reallygone]

109. A true patriot

Boy, this is really going to sell in middle America! Just the right clarion call.

"Help America Lose the War"

What a campaign slogan! Right on! Yeah for our team! :puke:

This kind of thoughtless arguement is so "over the top" and counter-productive that it is embarrassing! We lost (yes LOST) the last election because the majority of America thought we couldn't be trusted on defense and security. Now someone advocates the DEFEAT OF AMERICA and we're cheering????

Get real! The solution is to win and get the heck out! Blame losses on Bush. Promise America we won't start wars if they vote for us. Cut back on Defense so we can't AFFORD to go to war overseas.

But calling for the defeat of America IS unpatriotic! Anyone who advocates it is unpatriotic. Any American who works to make that happen is a traitor (literally, by definition). If you want to "protest", complain, march, write letters, vote out politicians, pass out leaflets.....etc. Go ahead! You can do that. I'll help. But to call for "America must lose" is absolutely beyond belief. Then i will be working against you (and so will the rest of America).

[LynnTheDem]

112. Reality for ya; we are LOSING the illegal war of aggression in Iraq.

Reality; we'll stop allowing our govt to wage these bullshit invasions if we keep losing them; if bushCartel "win" in Iraq, then a lot more people are going to die.

Too bad YOU were unable to see the THOUGHTS of this argument.

No, calling for the defeat of America's ILLEGAL SUPREME CRIME WAR OF AGGRESSION is NOT "unpatriotic", dear. And in fact, as the author is NOT AMERICAN he's nothing to do with being a "patriot" or not.

LOVE your "if you want to "protest"..."

Says all I need to know about you.

[meganmonkey]

113. Did you actually read the article?

just curious. You seem to be reacting to one sentence taken out of context.

[IrateCitizen]

116. It's posts like this that remind me of the words of Albert Camus...

... when he said, "I wish I could love my country, and justice too."

[thebigidea]

127. yeah, because its all just a fucking game. hurray for the "team"

your little game is murdering tens of thousands.

why not try badminton instead? you can root all you want and nobody gets their skull cracked open unless you're playing australian rules style.

[achtung_circus]

128. Dyer is a Canadian

living in London, England.

As an "outside" observer he may see things from a broader perspective. Read his columns before dismissing his line of thought.

[GOPBasher]

120. Powerful reading. Thanks for the post!

[sniffa]

149. i have one question

which free repubLic thread is sending them here?

[meganmonkey]

159. I don't know but it's pretty funny.

[sniffa]

167. not too funny

the mods must be on a smoke break. :P

[thebigidea]

177. well, somebody give them an extra cig - this is a freakin' blast!

too much coffee and John Negroponte on the teevee can do this to ya.

let this be a lesson to us all. amen.

[achtung_circus]

180. As a Lounge Lizard I'm not here much

I was thinking it's pretty "western". Is this thread abnormally abnormal?

[LynnTheDem]

193. Hey I'm having FUN!

I know, we're not spose to play with them. It's cruel etc. But some FACTS and REALITY just may stick to them.

Ok that's not gonna happen. But it's still fun. :D

[sniffa]

196. nope

no tombstones yet.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

181. Well, we sure as hell aren't "winning".

Not one of the announced objectives were attained.

1. Destroy the WMD threat that Iraq supposedly posed.
2. Cut the supposed help that the "terrorists" were getting in Iraq.
3. Bring stability to the region.
4. Make America "safe".
5. "Shock and Awe" the Iraqis into submission.

Instead, the "World's Mightiest Military" is confined to safe zones that they venture out of only to destroy cities full of hostile Iraqis and escort "friendly" Iraqis and visiting American politicians around. The overjoyed, "liberated", Iraqi populace hates the occupation and the soldiers that enforce it, not to mention America as a whole. The "terrorists" have now moved into Iraq and are using it as a recruiting poster and training ground. Instead of having a few scattered cells of religious fanatics as a threat, we now have about 1 billion Moslems who see us a threat and hate and fear us.

Add to the above, that the rest of the world sees us not as a "beacon of democracy" but as neo-colonialist predators.

And, to top it all off, the cost of "Supporting our troops" is draining the treasury, indebting America to China and Japan, lowering our standard of living, and allowing the rest of the world to see us as the ineffective, bungling, bullies that we are.

[LynnTheDem]

194. Wow.

Now that was very well said.

[thebigidea]

197. b-b-b-b-but, we won... uh, Iraqi tanks aren't in DC... we... won...

elections and stuff... uh, freedom is on the march. making good progress. freedom is the gift of the uh, creator... to all mankind. and we're uh - making good progress.

[ultraist]

202. Excellent OP! But, but, but...Mission Accomplished!

Bush has declared Mission Accomplished, it must be true, since the President said it! We have been victorious, our goals have been achieved: Iraq is a free democratic country.

Now it's time to move on and "spread democracy" in Iran. I heard Bush say today, that "democracy is on the rise."

Did anyone catch that news conference? Bush had major cotton mouth and a very strange look in his eye. He is obviously under major stress and likely taking meds. There is a bad moon on the rise.

[applegrove]

213. Dyer has been a speaker/writer on military issues for decades

Very popular in Canada. I have just started the book and it goes into great detail about what is happening in Iraq and the multiple failures in the occupation.

[Moderator]

216. Locking.....

This thread as run its course.



DU Moderator