Should we support the surge?

[Xerxes]

I am by no means supportive of the decision to go to war or of Bush's mediocre handling of it, nor am I by any means a fan of the administration. But I do find myself, even though I don't like the war, supporting the surge because it is the best option we have out of a range of bad options. Whether or not we should have gone into Iraq doesn't matter, we are committed to ensuring the best result for the Iraqi people. And that means leaving them with a government that isn't going to collapse and leave them to fight a bloody war with the neighbors becoming involved. We think it's bad now, but it could get a whole lot worse. We failed Iraq once when we decided to go on this misadventure. However, we have to finish what we started or we will have only failed Iraq twice. If we leave and the government collapses, it will not have ended. The Iraqi people will still have to deal with the consequences, and the great instability that would likely result will create problems for us in the future that we will have to clean up later.

Now had does that lead to support for the surge? While I would like to think we could leave and put the Iraqis in charge, the Iraqis are not ready for such a charge. Due to the gross incompetence of the administration in not preparing for the aftermath, parts of Iraq have never been secure enough for the Iraqi government to take control of and for reconstruction to take place. We really needed the surge 4 years ago. Due to the incompetence of Rumsfield and his gang of idiots, we never created a situation where the Iraqi government has a chance to really succeed.

The surge is not just putting new troops in, but getting our troops off the bases and not just raiding to clear areas, but living in Baghdad to provide real security. Up until now we have been playing a game of whack-a-mole with insurgents, we clear and area, leave, and they come back. The surge strategy is designed to stop that cycle and actually hold areas we clear. That way the Iraqis will rebuild, see us as protecting them rather than just sweeping through kicking down doors every once in a while, allow for economic recovery, and get the Iraqis to start trusting the government and not put their faith into militias. It is doing what we should have been doing for years. Once we provide security, the people will stop supporting insurgents and miltias and support the government, the government can build its own military, and we can leave with the Iraqis in a position to succeed and have stable government. Is it to late to work? We don't know. It may be. But I pray that it isn't, for the sake of the Iraqi people. In any case we have to try, because, no thanks to Bush, we have no other good options.

By the way I am a liberal Democrat. This is only the second controversial issue I've ever supported Bush on (the first was the Dubai ports issue). Why do I choose to post on this issue then as my first in a long time? Because I don't believe in just posting to have everyone agree with me. We need to have an honest exchange on this issue, and we do that by engaging in dialog with people we disagree with. That is why I haven't posted here before, because on every other issue I am with the Democrats so I post on conservative forums in order to debate them on those issues. Thanks for your time.

[dkofos]

1. FUCK NO

[movonne]

6. ditto..

[Monkeyman]

40. Second that

[TahitiNut]

89. That about sums it up for me.

It's about as smart a 'plan' as "Into the Valley of Death rode the six hundred!"

There's nothing quite as insane as putting the military into a shooting gallery and base you definition of 'success' on something someone else does, something ill-defined and without any tangible measures over which you have no assurance can ever happen in the first place. It's even more brain-damaged than the so-called political 'ojectives' we had in Viet Nam. It takes a truly addled brain to even pretend it makes sense.


"Was there a man dismay’d?
Not tho’ the soldier knew
Someone had blunder’d.
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die.
Into the valley of Death,
Rode the six hundred."

[razors edge]

2. Once youv'e killed this many people

why stop now?

[Xerxes]

3. Because it isn't that simple

This war wont magically end when we leave. The Iraqis will still be in a shitty position and face death and destruction. Any discussion of what we should do has to be focused on what the future of Iraq will look like.

[razors edge]

8. And you think the US being

in the middle of the power vacuums we made and prolonging the inevitable retaking of power by locals is going to diminish the number who die in that struggle?

We are only going to make more dead by beating down any side who starts to get a foothold on power and leave them vulnerable to the other.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

[Xerxes]

10. We can ensure that power is in the hands of good locals who have control

The point is we need to establish a power there, not leave it up to whomever has the strongest militia. Leaving now would just leave us with a new Lebanon, a failed state where militias are the real agents of power.

[atreides1]

18. The "good locals"?????

Just for arguments sake just who are the good locals?

[Xerxes]

24. The Iraqi government

Not perfect by any means, but we have to think comparatively here.

[razors edge]

36. You are aware that the Iraqi government

is made up of the same factions fighting on the ground aren't you?

US supported, Saudi supported, and Iranian supported.

So short of killing or utter subjugation of all but the US supported , how do you propose to "win".

[Xerxes]

39. The same factions in a framework to work together.

I don't think that it is impossible for the different factions to work together.

[razors edge]

45. Give me one example

in history of this framework you speak of that includes three thieves deciding to divvy up the loot after they have been bloodied in front of every other thief in the world, who will loose all respect for all but the winner.

[Xerxes]

47. Not a good analogy

The Iraqis are not all thieves.

[razors edge]

57. Lame,

guess you can't keep up here, try reading back a reply or three on your own thread before responding.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=116&topic_id=14232&mesg_id=14269

[Xerxes]

58. It's lame because not everyone in the factions are the same

some are radical, some are moderate. To describe them all like they are radicals or agree with the most extreme that are causing violence is naive.

[razors edge]

66. Nieve is to belive

that in a country in civil war, a dove will ascend to the throne, taking power from those with a proclivity to kill for power.

[Xerxes]

73. Which is why we are needed

To ensure that who controls Iraq is not determined by who has the strongest militia.

[razors edge]

78. Militias are the name the M$M uses for

US consumption to make you think they have no right to stand up to an invading army in defense of their own country.

A militia is a force under the control of someone else who is pulling the strings. This is another proxy war and the strength of any given force will be controlled so as not exclude them form the field as long as they can be controlled for a higher purpose.

[Xerxes]

82. Two different types

Their are militias that attack other Iraqis and insurgents that attack Americans. The insurgents are defending their country. They believe they are, but their making the false assumption that we want to be there.

[razors edge]

85. We know you don't wan't to be there,

But the moneymakers want you there and you take you talking points from them, why not the mission?

Look up the British military history in Iraq during their occupation in the 1930's.

They fought the same factions we are fighting there now and finally left when in became painfully obvious that no mater who they trained and armed today, they would be killed by tomorrow, with the arms they gave them.

Do you think we should be training their army to defend against an invasion from Iran or Saudi forces?

[Xerxes]

87. Response

The situations now and then are different, and involving different powers.

In any case what is the relevance of your last question? I doubt we could train a military of the capacity to beat Iran or Saudi Arabia so it doesn't matter. In any case I doubt either would invade Iraq with conventional forces.

[razors edge]

88. Saddam

needed helicopters to put down the insurrection Poppy called for.

In the same vein wouldn't a legitimate Iraqi government need an air wing to support it's authority against the remnants of the baddies?

[razors edge]

90. What exactly was wrong

with Lebanon before the Israelis bombed the shit out of it.

The fact they looked the other way when rockets were fired in retaliation to illegal supersonic border crossings occurring almost daily?

[Xerxes]

91. Hezbollah

The government doesn't have control over Hezbollah or a monopoly of force, which is part of the definition of a government.

And I don't support Israel's attack on Lebanon.

[razors edge]

92. You seem to support strong goverment control

over their subjects.

Why do you support the * administration's efforts in Iraq when they refuse to train and arm the Iraqis with the tools to do the job.

All strong central governments need the power and equipment to put down an insurgency, yet no helicopter, interceptor jet, or even tank units are being trained and supplied to take the fight to the insurgents so we can stand down.

Why is that?

Why aren't we selling them the only thing the rest of the world wants from the US, American armaments, the one industry that directly benefits the Bush family and would allow all the wonderful things you espouse to become reality?

Could it be that they don't want them to stand up?

Could it be that they can't allow them to stand up?

Wouldn't the press coverage of an Iraqi F-22 squadron being brought on line show the world that we meant what we said?

Answer these questions or slither back under the rock from whence thou came.

[Xerxes]

93. I'm not sure why they don't do that

Seems like something they should be doing.

[razors edge]

94. But your belief system

will not allow you to entertain for a single moment the thought that you have been manipulated, used, and have become the useful idiot to carry the water for an evil endeavor.

If you think for a moment the bush administration gives a flying fuck for American troops or Iraqi citizens you are fooling nobody but yourself.

Money trumps all for the type of mind that will lie and destroy life in order to obtain it.

There were four countries left in this world when Bush took office without a central banking system, three are on the axis of evil and one is a little shit hole in Africa about to be swallowed in the next storm to hit that continent.

Expand you horizons beyond the immediate and see the world.

[razors edge]

98. After raggin on you

I have to say that this is the most intelligent response you made all day.

credit where credit is due.

[dkofos]

14. yes it is

This war wont magically end when we leave. true but it won't be our soldiers dying

The Iraqis will still be in a shitty position and face death and destruction. true and it will still be Iraqi's killing Iraqi's, not Americans

Any discussion of what we should do has to be focused on what the future of Iraq will look like. They can go to the UN for help. That is why we have a UN

[Xerxes]

16. The UN?

The UN isn't going to do anything for them, because none of the member countries would support it. What the Iraqis need right now is security and stability, and we are the only ones in a practical position to give as much of that to them as we can.

Given the number of Iraqis that could die if we left prematurely, I'm willing to sacrifice American lives to save Iraqis.

[dkofos]

19. If we had let the UN in june 03 we would not be there now.

Why don't you ask your pRez why the UN was kicked out??

[Xerxes]

25. Mute point because you are talking about 03

And the UN wasn't going to get involved after we did because none of it's countries would have been willing to get involved that weren't already.

[niyad]

51. by the way, the word is MOOT, not MUTE--and you a college student?? honestly, what are they

teaching in english these days?

never mind, I have seen what YOU, at least, have been taught in political science, and it isn't pretty.

[atreides1]

20. That's a cavalier attitude to have

"I'm willing to sacrifice American lives to save Iraqis."

Especially with the lives of people you don't know!!!!

[Xerxes]

So what is an Iraqi life worth to you then?

How is your attitude, that Iraqi lives aren't worth American lives, not cavalier?

[niyad]

26. YOU are willing to sacrifice american lives? you arrogant bastard!!! that right there tells me

that you are in NO WAY a liberal democrat.

tell me something. if you are so willing to sacrifice american lives, why isn't YOUR american life over there? are you willing to sacrifice your OWN life? if not, then shut up, and do not DARE tell us that YOU are willing to sacrifice american lives.

you can download the enlistment forms right now and take them to the recruiter.

[Xerxes]

27. How does that not make me a Democrat?

As far as I know the Democratic party isn't the party of pacifism, we have fought wars in the past. Hell it was Democratic presidents that fought both world wars.

[niyad]

30. because no democrat I know is willing to sacrifice american lives--or indeed, ANY lives, with the

cavalier attitude you have demonstrated in your posts here, not to mention your ignorance.

I repeat, WHY ISN'T YOUR ASS OVER IN IRAQ? after all, YOU are willing to sacrifice american lives, WHY ISN"T YOURS ONE OF THEM?

ANSWER THAT--or better yet, volunteer at the VA center nearest you, and tell the wounded and their families that YOU are willing to sacrifice american lives, while you complacently sit back in your safe little college dorm and pretend that you actually understand what is going on. tell the men and women in building 18 at walter reed. tell them at the VA in Menlo Park, or in Denver. Tell their families. Better yet, go to ANY military funeral for a military member who died in afghanistan or iraq how easiliy YOU are WILLING TO SACRIFICE AMERICAN LIVES. just make sure you are heavily insured, and name me the beneficiary. I am sure the patriot guard riders who guard the military funerals would just LOVE to meet you, you arrogant, ignorant little coward.

another proud member of the 101st keyboard brigage.

[Xerxes]

32. Most soldiers are pretty pro-war

Most soldiers are too pro war I think. I am indeed not gun ho about war. I think going to war was a very bad idea. I just think that once we are committed, we are committed. I also have great concern for Iraqis that die. Are you willing to go to the funeral of Iraqis that die if ethnic cleansing takes place after we leave?

I don't want to be in the military, and that is why I am not in it. Not because I wouldn't be willing to sacrifice my life, but because I don't like the military culture. If able, I would be willing to join the peace corps or some organization that does potentially dangerous but worthwhile work.

[razors edge]

37. That is a very convinient excuse for most chikenhawks.

Do you think that once the Germans committed to war they were correct to continue, and the citizens who gave their lives to protest against their government were wrong?

[Xerxes]

42. I fully support dissent during wartime if you think the war is wrong

I used to go to anti-war protests myself when I thought we should withdraw quickly before I really considered the potential consequences of an early withdraw.

And the Germany reference is irrelevant. The Germans were not doing good by continuing to fight.

[razors edge]

49. The Germans were

doing for their country what our government is doing for ours.

Centralizing power domestically, securing resources abroad, and running the most fierce propaganda front they could.

How is the comparison irrelevant simply because you buy the propaganda and refuse to see the facts?

[Xerxes]

52. Our government is not Nazis

Corrupt as hell, but not Nazis. Right now Bush is trying to save face over there. Fortunutly, saving face for him means a stable Iraq, which is good for the Iraqis.

[razors edge]

63. Neither were the majority of germans.

The Nazis were a political party, who made offers you couldn't refuse.

There is no question of our governments collusion with the germans before WWII and the continued collusion afterwards of our face saving president's grandfather's continued support after the US entered.

How do you save face by exposing yourself as a war criminal/profiteer?

I bet we could take up a collection to buy you a one way ticket to Iraq to do some humanitarian work and find out for yourself if it is a good thing for Iraq.

[Xerxes]

64. I wasn't denying that the majority of Germans weren't Nazis

But the American leadership is not like the Nazi leadership.

[razors edge]

68. Click heels together,

Theres no place like home, theres no place like home.....

[niyad]

95. you really are a clueless little coward, aren't you? do you even have the faintest idea what a

fascist society looks like? do you have a clue as to what denotes a fascist society? let me give you the information you , apparently, were NOT given in either your history or poli-sci classes (and I wonder if you are actually intelligent enough to recognize ANY of the entire 14. but, I seriously doubt it)

The 14 Characteristics of Fascism
by Lawrence Britt
Spring 2003
Free Inquiry magazine







Political scientist Dr. Lawrence Britt recently wrote an article about fascism ("Fascism Anyone?," Free Inquiry, Spring 2003, page 20). Studying the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile), Dr. Britt found they all had 14 elements in common. He calls these the identifying characteristics of fascism. The excerpt is in accordance with the magazine's policy.

The 14 characteristics are:

Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.


Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.


Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.


Supremacy of the Military
Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.


Rampant Sexism
The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.


Controlled Mass Media
Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.


. . . . .
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html

[Xerxes]

99. Looking at each one

I'm no fan for the administration or it's blatant disrespect for civil liberties, but fascist. That is hyperbole. We aren't sponsoring any genocide, the degree of nationalism or disrespect for civil liberties does not that of fascism. It isn't sex dominated, the media isn't controlled, labor unions are not being put down, and disrespect for the electoral process does not equal the degree of fascism. And a key component of Nazism at least, racism, is not supported by Bush. While I don't agree with Bush's concept of the "war on terror" or "axis of evil" type logic, he hasn't been promoting racism. Other right wingers have such as Ann Coulter (who btw, I would actually consider a fascist), but for all of its faults the administration hasn't. While Bush is authoritarian by American standards, he isn't authoritarian enough to fit the fascist label. Not that I'm excusing it (remember the only controversial issues I have supported him on is the surge and Dubai) but using the fascist label just discredits our efforts to counter his authoritarian tendencies.

[niyad]

101. your casual response to all of this indicates that you haven't got a freaking CLUE-- each and every

one of those points is happening/has happened here, and the fact that you do not realize it indicates that your education is sadly lacking (of course, your entire post proves this, as does the fact that you do not know the difference between MOOT and MUTE, two completely different words)

try again little boy, or, better yet, tell us WHY, as we have asked several times, your ass isn't in the peace corps. we KNOW you are too much of a coward to actually join in the sacrifice you are so ready for OTHERS to make, at least do SOMETHING positive.

alas, each and every one of your posts has demonstrated that you are nothing more than a little parrot, proud member of the 101st keyboard brigade.

I-95 and remd.

[Xerxes]

105. So explain each one point by point

I gave my explanation on those points, you give yours. And also remember the important aspect of degree.

And this whole "will why dont you serve" thing is a cop out that fails to address my points made.

[niyad]

43. you are not only a coward, you are a liar. exactly how many soldiers do you know? and, if you don'

like the war culture, how DARE you say that YOU are willing to sacrifice american lives, when YOU don't personally support the military.

as I suspected, you are nothing more than a 101st keyboard brigade coward, safe behind your keyboard. what is stopping you from going to the peace corps?

give us all a break, junior, and quit pretending you know anything at ALL about a suject many of us here have lived with all our lives.

and don't EVER talk again about YOUR willingness to sacrifice american lives, when you have clearly stated in this post that you are too much of a coward to put your ASS where your mouth is.

and DON"T EVER try to tell those of us who care about OUR people that we DON"T care about the iraqis. WE are the ones who didn't want our military there in the first place, WE are the ones who didn't want to see 670,000 iraqis killed, untold hundreds of thousands wounded, millions displaced.

learn your facts, or go back to freeperville.

[Xerxes]

46. Response

But you support a position that would make more Iraqis die.

Emm, freeperville, you mean that idiotic haven for right wing lunatics? I don't think so.

Most soldiers I have met are gun ho and supporters of the war who are to some degree brainwashed by nationalism. Not all, but most.

[razors edge]

55. The phrase is

Gung Ho, I let it slide as a typo the first time but now you have shown that you know absolutely jack shit of which you speak.

Did those troops you know wear a kerchief?

[niyad]

56. junior, you don't know the first thing about MY position. you are nothing but an arrogant, ignorant

little twit who pretends that he actually understands policies about which he has demonstrated that he knows absolutely nothing.

YOU are too much of a coward to lay YOUR ass on the line, as you have openly stated in your posts. don't DARE try to tell any of us what WE support or don't. we live by our words and actions, and we are NOT willing to sacrifice others' lives for our vanity.

join the peace corps, or shut up about YOUR willingness to sacrifice OTHER people's lives.

interesting that you know exactly the site to which I refer.
I-95 and remd.

[niyad]

4. first of all, the whole premise is wrong. we had NO business there in the first place. this is an

illegal, unjust and immoral war of CHOICE. all the rationales given for the war were LIES. we didn't need a surge four years ago, because we shouldn't have been there. it is that simple.

we are now demanding that the iraqis "step up to the plate" to fix what WE broke in this illegal invasion and occupation. the iraqis did NOT ask us to invade and occupy their country, they did NOT ask us to disband their military and security forces, they did NOT ask us to foment conditions in which outside forces would come in.

liberal dem or not, your premise is flawed from the beginning. sending more of our people into harm's way is NOT going to fix an unfixable problem.

[Xerxes]

7. The justification, or lack their of, for the invasion is irrelevant to what we should do NOW

I agree with you that we shouldn't have gone. However, that is over and done with. We can't magically wish away the problem we created when we invaded and go back to before the war began. When we made this mess, we took on the responsibility of cleaning it up. You break it you fix it. My premise isn't flawed because it is no way based on the justifiability of going to war. It is based on the fact that we are at war and that we need to base our actions on what will be the best for the future, not whether going to war or not was a good idea.

[razors edge]

9. "You break it you fix it."

How do you fix dead people?

[Xerxes]

11. You ensure that more people don't die

We can't go back on what we did, but we can ensure that given the options available to us now, we leave Iraq in the best condition that we can.

[dkofos]

17. Then getting our soldiers out now would be a good thing

[Xerxes]

28. And what about the Iraqis?

That is my biggest concern.

[razors edge]

34. Here's your gun, go kill some bad guys,

when your done, if you are still alive, don't ask another vet like myself to give a shit about you since you just blew off my type for citizens of another country.

You seem very naive about life. What we have here is evil men killing civilians for the oil they live on top of. These evil men need fodder to do the killing, since they will never allow their own kind to die for oil, and the old adage divide and conquer being used to archive that bloody goal.

That same tactic has been used since time immortal for the schemers to take what is not theirs from those gullible enough to fall for it.

You have fallen for it, as did I when I enlisted, but I was seventeen years old in rural Appalachia with no future, whats your excuse?

Study some history, please, for yourself. Google Operation Northwoods, USS Liberty, Tonkin Affair, and see if you can find the similarities here.

Spartacus is coming!!!!

[babylonsister]

5. NoNoNo! nt

[TwilightGardener]

12. No. The troops are sitting ducks

in the middle of Operation Stubborn Pride. Even if there's temporary peace, we have to leave sometime. We are just prolonging the inevitable, and losing more soldiers while we're at it.

[Xerxes]

13. and they are finally attempting to provide real security

We do have to leave at some point, but that should be when we have left Iraq in the best condition that we can. If we left now, we would not be leaving Iraq in the best condition that we can.

[atreides1]

22. How many American lives

Are you willing to sacrifice for your vision of Utopia in Iraq, 5,000, 10,000, how the same amount that is currently listed on The Wall?

There is no "best condition", the Iraqi government has to show its people that it can provide security and stability without the assistance of the US, until that condition is met, there will be no "best condition".

[Xerxes]

29. Response

You are missing the point, we have to put the Iraqi government in a position to where it CAN show it's people it can provide security. If we left now, we would be leaving them where they would most likely be bound to fail.

I'm willing to sacrifice as many soldiers as is necessary to save the Iraqis from losing hundreds of thousands or millions. That is one thing I think Americans are bad about. We should either be willing to do what we have to do to ensure war has a decent outcome, or we should not engage in it. Americans are way too willing to go to war, but not willing enough to finish it.

[razors edge]

35. Authorization to use force

is not a war. This country has never lost a declared war. This country has never and will never "win" a police action since there is no way to define a final win in a police action. The president, not the American people send troops to both.

[Xerxes]

102. I'm not agreeing with the decision to go to war

Just because a war isn't a declared war doesn't mean it isn't a war. In any case, I am in no way trying to justify the way Bush got us into this mess. I did and still do oppose America going to war with Iraq. However, Bush, constitutionally and honestly or not, got us into this, and my sole concern at this point is to ensure the best outcome possible now that we are at this point.

I fully support Congress's right to debate this issue and acknowledge their authority on this matter. Just because I support the surge, doesn't mean I don't think Congress doesn't or shouldn't have the authority to have control over it. Nor do I by right wing arguments that Congress discussing this issue "undermines the troops" or any of that BS, since Congress is not saying that they don't hope the surge succeeds, just that they don't think it is a wise course of action. I just don't support them asserting their authority because I disagree with their opposition to the surge.

I don't know how many times that I have to say this, but I am no Republican or neo-conservative or any of that shit, and it almost amazes me that I would ever have to say that, knowing me. I did a ton of volunteer work to help Democrats in the 2006, and am a very active member of the University Democrats at the University of Texas. Up until around a year ago, I also actively participated in anti-war protests.

[razors edge]

107. However, Bush, constitutionally and honestly or not, got us into this,

Actually he did not get us into this constitutionally. The authorization explicitly called for a link to those responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001, that excludes Iraq. Bush's advisers all told him there were no links found between Iraq and those attacks prior to his use of force, that means he violated the authorization, and his constitutional authority.

[Xerxes]

112. I agree

He didn't constitutionally get us into this, though I don't think the resolution that Bush uses to justify the war has anything to do with 9-11, it was specific to Iraq.

In any case you miss my point. I am opposed to us having gone to war. However, the point I am trying to get across is that the original justifiability of this war DOESN'T MATTER with regards to what we should do NOW to ensure the best outcome given the situation WE ARE IN. It would be lovely to go back in time and have us not invade the country. However, that is history and can not be undone. All that we can do now is to ensure that we make the best decisions from this point going forward.

And given all of the options we have in Iraq at this point, none of them great, I am forced to conclude that the surge is the best one.

No matter how much we may want to avoid the difficult topic of what we should do now that we are at this point by just attacking the way we go here and avoiding that issue, it is irresponsible to do so.

[razors edge]

114. We have come full circle.

Why stop killing now?

Tell me how our pulling out will cause more death and revenge killing.

Our troops are hunkered down in zones with the populace doing what they want all night and most of the day long.

We are not stopping these actions, we are not slowing them.

We are only prolonging the finalization of the carnage we started.

[Xerxes]

115. If you think Iraq can't get any worse

You are sorely mistaken. Right now they have a marginal government and violence for the most part is taking part in 3 out of 18 provinces. If the government and law and order totally collapsed and we saw full scale civil war you could see ethnic cleansing and hundreds of thousands or maybe even millions of deaths of deaths. Other countries such as Iran or Saudi Arabia could become more involved, Turkey could invade the North to crush the Kurds. Right now we are keeping a lid on the violence.

[razors edge]

127. It will get worse

when we pull out, be it next week or fifty years from now.

The later will be fine with you since you can say, we did our best, who could have known, but we can't stay there for fifty years without extracting the oil to pay for it.

But I'm sure thats Oky-Doky with you too.

[Xerxes]

133. Not if we leave a stable government

that is able to control the country.

[razors edge]

137. If a frog had wings

it wouldn't...

How do you know when you have archived this lofty goal?

[Xerxes]

145. I already adressed that

by stating that it is subjective, but this ain't it.

[razors edge]

151. Subjective, yes.

For Exxon - When the oil is gone.

For Haliburton - When Exxon doesn't need us anymore.

For General Dynamics - When the US can't afford more planes.

For Raytheon - When General Dynamics doesn't need us anymore.

For Iraqis - When the US leaves and they can go on with life.

For US troops - When they are dead or someone is forced to bring them home.

So may different agendas to coordinate to achieve the conception of success. Let us know how it turns out Dick.

[dkofos]

21. I like that "OPERATION STUBBORN PRIDE"

That will be my new name for the war

[atreides1]

15. Not Me

All this means is the US gets to stay in Iraq indefinitely, as long as they know that US troops will remain until they "win", the Iraqis will have no reason to step up to the plate and take care of things for themselves.

The troops on the ground are still playing whack-a-mole with insurgents, especially since most of the Mahdi Army has gone to ground in and around Sadr City, the Brits are pulling out of Basra, not because they have accomplished the mission, but because they can't beat back at least 4 different Sh ia militia factions in the South.

All the surge has done so far is to cause the militias around Baghdad to move to other cities and create havoc there, or haven't you been paying attention.

"Once we provide security, the people will stop supporting insurgents and militias and support the government, the government can build its own military, and we can leave with the Iraqis in a position to succeed and have stable government."

Why should the people of Iraq trust their government, when it will be the US that provided the security and not their own military. All that will happen is the weakness of the Iraqi military will be evident and the people will do what they have to do to survive, which is to continue to support the militias and the insurgents.


Putting American troops in what are mainly unsecured facilities, just puts those troops in greater danger. Because now the insurgents don't have to deal with American security, they just have to get through the great security provided by the Iraqi police and military, and we've already seen how effective that is.

The only reality is that the US has chosen sides in a civil war, and many more US troops will die because of this surge, as will many more Iraqis.

The option is to force the elected Iraqi government to stand up and take over, which means to provide the training and equipment that they will need to stabilize their government, with gradual
withdrawals of US troops.

Sometimes in order to teach a child to walk you have to let go, or they will always be dependent on you to do the job for the

[Xerxes]

23. Response

Bolded italic text is what I am responding too.

All this means is the US gets to stay in Iraq indefinitely, as long as they know that US troops will remain until they "win", the Iraqis will have no reason to step up to the plate and take care of things for themselves.

I am not advocating that we stay until we "win", I am advocating that we stay until the Iraqi army is ready to take control and have the most secure situation to take over that we are able to provide. Neither of those things has happened.

The troops on the ground are still playing whack-a-mole with insurgents, especially since most of the Mahdi Army has gone to ground in and around Sadr City, the Brits are pulling out of Basra, not because they have accomplished the mission, but because they can't beat back at least 4 different Sh ia militia factions in the South.

All the surge has done so far is to cause the militias around Baghdad to move to other cities and create havoc there, or haven't you been paying attention.

As far as I know, Baghdad and Al Anbar are the most violent areas.

Care to provide a source on them going to other cities? In any case, Baghdad has been very violent up until now. If Baghdad can be secured, and the consequence is some of the insurgents go off and cause trouble somewhere else, we will still have made a big accomplishment. Baghdad is 1/4th the population of the Iraq and the capitol.

Why should the people of Iraq trust their government, when it will be the US that provided the security and not their own military. All that will happen is the weakness of the Iraqi military will be evident and the people will do what they have to do to survive, which is to continue to support the militias and the insurgents.

Their military will be and is helping. The surge is not just made up of Americans but of Iraqis. Stability, provided in part by Americans, will help create conditions (like economic improvement and weaker militias and insurgents) that will allow for the Iraqis to take over. The security vacume is what is helping the militias gain power, because they are providing the security that Americans haven't been.

Putting American troops in what are mainly unsecured facilities, just puts those troops in greater danger. Because now the insurgents don't have to deal with American security, they just have to get through the great security provided by the Iraqi police and military, and we've already seen how effective that is.

The only reality is that the US has chosen sides in a civil war, and many more US troops will die because of this surge, as will many more Iraqis.

The option is to force the elected Iraqi government to stand up and take over, which means to provide the training and equipment that they will need to stabilize their government, with gradual
withdrawals of US troops.

Sometimes in order to teach a child to walk you have to let go, or they will always be dependent on you to do the job for the

The Americans have not taken sides in a civil war, because we do not support any one faction in that fighting.

It would be nice if we could gradually get out as you say, but Iraq is not stable enough for that. Sometimes you have to use force to solve some of someone's problems so that you can give them a situation where they can succeed. Beleiving Iraqis can by themselves eventually create stability in areas that have never been secure is naive and unrealistic. We need to hand over them a secure situation, and right now the surge is necessary to create that security.

[niyad]

31. forget what I said earlier about going to the VA, or the funerals. just come and talk to ME face to

face, tell ME how willing YOU are to sacrifice american lives, sonny boy, because when you do, I, who have spent the last 45 years of my life dealing with wounded vets and their families, dealing with the pain and horror of families left behind in our insane wars, dealing with the tortured minds and bodies of our ptsd/agent orange/du vets, am going to show you EXACTLY what you are wishing on people.

you are an arrogant, ignorant little fool hiding safely behind your keyboard. do you have a college deferrment?

WHY ISN"T YOUR ASS IN IRAQ RIGHT NOW? why is it that you are so willing to sacrifice american lives, yet here you sit, daring to casually announce your willingness to sacrifice OTHER lives, when you are safely ensconced behind a keyboard. you are a COWARD and a HYPOCRITE

I cannot wait until some of our vets, wounded or otherwise, get hold of this thread.

[Xerxes]

33. How willing are you to sacrifice Iraqi lives?

How willing are you to sacrifice Iraqi lives because you aren't willing to sacrifice American lives? If I thought what we were doing there wasn't serving a purpose, I wouldn't support it.

[niyad]

38. don't try that crap with me., you little coward. don't EVEN try that crap with me. I am not the

one who EVER supported this war, it has been illegal, unjust and immoral from the beginning. I was NOT willing to sacrifice ONE LIFE, iraqi OR american, for bush's insanity.

so, I repeat, if you are so DAMNED willing to sacrifice american lives, WHY ISN"T YOUR ASS ONE OF THEM OVER THERE RIGHT NOW? no, instead, you mewl about sacrifice, pretending you actually give a shit about the iraqis, when you have demonstrated that you don't know SQUAT about the realities over there, and you have failed to answer WHY YOUR ass is sitting safely behind a keyboard.

either get your ASS to a recruiter's office TODAY, or shut the f*** up about YOUR willingness to sacrifice american lives, you 101st keyboard coward.

come tell ME to MY face about YOUR willingness to sacrifice american lives, and I will sadly and willingly show you the reality.

in the meantime, you ignorant little christian punk, I suggest you read mark twain's "the war prayer" and, perhaps, gain a small sense of just what it is you are so damned willing to support.

[Xerxes]

48. Response

I don't support having gone to war, you seem to have missed that. The things is, the lives have already been sacrificed. We are in a position now that we have to put our soldiers on the line in order to avoid more Iraqi deaths. You can blame Bush for it, and you would be correct, but that still leaves the fact that we are in this situation.

The reason I support having American troops there is that I believe it will lead to less violence, not more. I don't support it for any right wing nonsense like "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" or any other bullshit like that.

[niyad]

59. you are repeatedly demonstrating that you are an ignorant, clueless little twit. I want you to go

to the nearest VA hospital, the nearest military funeral, the nearest home where a military member is, missing limbs, missing part of that person's soul, and tell THEM about YOUR willingness to sacrifice american lives--even though YOU are too much of a coward to go there yourself.

you claim to be a liberal dem, but you speak like all the repukes who are willing to let OTHERS do the sacrificing.

and don't EVER try that crap about us not caring about the iraqis, you clueless twit. how DARE you try to set up that kind of specious dichotomy? YOU are the one pretending one set of lives is more valuable than another.

I repeat, GET YOUR ASS OVER THERE IN SACRIFICE, or admit that you are a proud member of the 101st keyboard coward brigade, and then STFU.

I-95 and remd.

[Xerxes]

61. And you are demonstrating that you can't argue with my logic

So you resort to name calling and emotion based arguments.

Welcome to my ignore list.

[niyad]

69. junior, you don't HAVE any logic--you have reichwing talking points and BS--you don't even know the

difference between MOOT and MUTE, so don't EVEN try that crap on me.

YOU STILL HAVE NOT EXPLAINED WHY YOUR ASS ISN"T at leas in the peace corps. you have demonstrated callousness unlike anything I have seen except from my own trolls, and you DARE to say that I cannot respond to your LOGIC? BS, you ignorant little coward.

I repeat, go to the VA, go to a military funeral, go to the home of a wounded member, or come see ME face to face, and repeat the drivel you have spewed in all these posts. I assure you, you will receive an education, unlike whatever is taking place as you occupy space in classrooms at your university.

let me clue you in, junior. you can play this game all you want, but you cannot win. a good many of us have been around for a LONG, LONG time, we know ALL the tricks, and we don't fall for ANY of them.
and being insulted by little keyboard cowards doesn't bother us in the slightest, because we would actually have to respect your opinion in order to care what you say about any of us, including that we cannot respond to YOUR logic (which is nothing but reichwing blather)(

really, xerxes, go back to freeperville.

I-95 and remd.

[razors edge]

70. What logic? nt.

[razors edge]

41. Not as willing as you I guess.

We can keep rigging the game there as long as possible and watching them die while the oil is carted away along with our tax dollars, then pull out when the oil is gone and let them duke it out after millions are dead.

Or pull out now and let them duke it out.

Either way the fight for control will take place and the number of dead will only be increased by putting it off.

[Xerxes]

50. Response

What I hope is we can help them create a stable government so they don't end up duking it out.

[razors edge]

65. As long as * continues

to try to fulfill your hopes then you must be a very happy person.

You are about to have more posts on this board in one night than in the last three years.

Why exactly did you pick today to come back and grace us with your presence?

[Xerxes]

72. Response

Maybe with the Iraq issue, though not really because he hasn't handled it competently. But the other issues are important to me so I would lie to see him go.

I came back here because this is the first major controversial issue I haven't agreed with the Democratic position on. I for the most part like to discuss issues with people I disagree with. Posting your positions to have everyone agree with you is boring. Because of that, since I'm a solid liberal, I usually post on a conservative forum. I spend a lot of time pointing out that not all Muslims are evil and being called a "leftist Muslim apologist", lol. Or that I hate Christianity because I don't think it should be used to make law in this country or because I support gay marriage. It's quite amusing. It also helps me develop my positions and learn to argue better against the opinions I disagree with.

[razors edge]

80. You call opposition to continuation of the war

a Democratic position, wrong again.

Look, it's really very simple.

No American troops in Iraq means no Iraqis killed by American troops.

This is the third "Surge" and it will elicit the same response ass the first two.

The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and expecting a different result.

You are supporting insanity and murder.

[Xerxes]

84. How is it wrong?

Most Democrats are anti-war. Maybe not to Cindy Sheehan's level, but anti-war.

This surge is different because American troops are being used differently as I explained in the topic post.

[razors edge]

86. Most Democrats are NOT

anti-war, perhaps anti-this war.

You know no more than I do about how the troops are being used since the media cannot cover the story in any independent manner.

We will only find out latter that once again the official line was a lie.

[Xerxes]

100. Same thing

For today's purposes anti-war means against the war in Iraq.

And why would the media or administration lie about the change in how the troops are used?

[razors edge]

141. Why have they lied about everything

to date? Cash.

[Xerxes]

143. Cause they had good reasons too

However, they have no reason to lie about this.

[razors edge]

153. I would love to read

your explanation of a good reason to lie a nation into a war.

And if you can't think of any reason they would lie about the use of the additional troops, them you have very little foresight, or hindsight for that matter.

Let me give you one genius, have you heard about that new law in Iraq that opens the oil supplies up to American and British companies? How will they attract more oilfield workers if they don't have enough troops to protect them. If you think think these troops are to protect Iraqis then you are seriously deluded. But thats nothing new I guess.

[Xerxes]

154. From their perspective

I'm not saying it was justified.

In case you didn't know most of the extra troops are being put in Baghdad. Their aren't any oil wells inside of Baghdad to my knowledge.

[razors edge]

158. You dance and dance.

1) What good reason did the media have to lie in support of war?

2) Answer #1

[Xerxes]

159. I don't think the media knowingly and intentionally lied

I think they bought the bullshit being spewed by the administration.

[razors edge]

162. They didn't buy shit junior.

They sold the war to simpletons like yourself.

Unless you are not a simpleton who bought and are in fact a snake oil salesman in training.

If the former, go fuck yourself idiot.

If the latter, go fuck yourself failed salesman, cause not one single poster on this board has bought your goods, that fact alone normally gets a troll to rethink and try something else.

I will not waste another post talking to a traitor that advocates killing our own for the benefit of the elite.

[Xerxes]

164. You seem to forget I opposed going to war

And I'll explain further. I think the administration attacked because:
- It made for a good political environment for them and made Bush more of a "war president"
- As SNL put it, Rumsfield stood behind a podium because it could hide the huge boner he got when talking about war.
- The neo-conservatives thought it would be quick an easy, and would take out Saddam who was a bad guy.
- Saddam was acting like had had something to hide because if he was revealed to be the power-less tin pot dictator that he was, the Shiites and Kurds would have been harder to control and it would make him vulnerable to Iran and Saudi Arabia.

I believe the administration lied and severely exaggerated the "threat", and the media naively bought it and didn't have a critical eye. They don't have a pro-Bush agenda, they were just stuck on the post-9/11 bandwagon.

Now at this point Bush is trying to save face and his legacy and protect our national security interests in the region. Luckily, those interests and his legacy correspond with the best interests of the Iraqis.

Calling me a traitor? lol, now you are channeling stupid right wingers.

[Monkeyman]

44. I want to understand you

Lets see we should stay there and die for how long? We have lost this one a long time ago.

[Xerxes]

53. Response

Stay there until we have put the Iraqis in the best position possible for them to succeed after we leave.

[Xerxes]

54. In addition

And telling when that is is very difficult. But going without ever trying a good strategy to secure the areas that have never been secure isn't it.

[Monkeyman]

60. Let see 151,000 returning troops on waiting list for health care

Brain Injury research cut by 70 percent one out of ten troops who face an IED has some sort of brain injury. PTSD one out of four. 600 Billion for life time care if the war stops now. Iraqis not standing up now only show up for a pay check. Lack of Equipment and training for troops going over now.We have done this five times in the past. First part of the so-called surge 200 Iraqis show wil 2500 of our kids and my family in the fight. Wounded 23 4 KIA'S our kids. Soldiers asking why we are there. No its time to redepoly into bases and lets see if they stand. We went there on lies in the first place. Where is Bin'Laden the man who killed 3000 Americans.

[Xerxes]

62. response

I wouldn't support sacrificing Americans if I didn't think it was saving a greater number of Iraqis.

I had a hard time comprehending your thoughts, as they were stream of conscious. This isn't an attack, just a reason why I'm not responding to every comment made.

[Monkeyman]

67. Those are fact sorry you do not understand them

If you believe so much join up and serve a few of us here have. Iraqis are not standing up that's the whole point. There are some vets here from Iraq they will tell you this is not worth it. The bottom line for me is if you send someone into combat you better have a plan. There is none

[niyad]

71. ah, but monkeyman, you see, he doesn't WANT to join up, because the military is too, well. military.

he doesn't LIKE the war culture, or the military culture. he just likes the idea of sacrificing OTHER people for his deluded, cowardly, pathetic little viewpoint. why, he can't even join the peace corps!! (or, at least, he has not told us WHY he hasn't signed up for THAT noble organization, since he personally cannot stomach war and the military culture)

[Monkeyman]

74. You can have this one he just don't get it we have lost this one

[razors edge]

75. Your confusing him with facts

I am starting to think it's a waste of good keystrokes and electrons.

[Monkeyman]

76. Agree he sounds like one of these Replugs who cut and ran from Vietnam

Let other people fight the battles

[Xerxes]

77. Agreed on the plan

I have nothing good to say about how Rumsfield and that band of idiots have handled the war up until this point.

[Monkeyman]

79. Look what I need you to do is go to a VA Hospital

Talk to the wounded kids. Hear them learn from them. We no longer can put these heroes into harms way for a people who do not want us there. 80 Percent want us out now. Just go to a VA or a Military Hospital learn the facts from the boots.

[niyad]

81. You notice that I suggested several times that he do this--and there was no reponse. I guess he is

not nearly as stupid as he has presented himself in this thread, because he clearly knows what would happen if he repeated this drivel in a VA hospital setting.

also notice that he has been quiet for some time now? must be curfew over in his little sheltered world..

[Monkeyman]

83. I saw just and old soldier trying to get him to hear the truth

If he does not want to join . Maybe he should try working at a VA or Military Hospital with the budget cuts they sure could use him

[Xerxes]

106. I have a life outside of the internet

Which is why I didn't respond until now. In any case, if I went to a VA hospital, I'm sure just like with the soldiers I've encountered on the internet, their would be a large variety of opinion, anywhere from the far left to the far right.

[razors edge]

109. Just, short

of right and left arms and legs, you seem very willing to give away, so long as they are not your own.

[Xerxes]

110. And how is that different from being willing to sacrifice

Iraqi lives? You seem very willing to give away Iraqi lives.

This game your playing is dodging the issue of having to defend your position that the world would be better off if we left Iraq quickly.

[razors edge]

113. I've dodged nothing.

Once again, look up to my previous posts. You will see I have clearly addressed the issue.

Do you understand the meaning of power vaccumm?

Do you not understand that once we leave, at whatever point, we will leave a nation without any means to defend itself?

We are not providing the Iraqi government, a so called democratically elected government, with the means to do the job.

You think there will be a difference in the number of dead Iraqis in the struggle to fill the vaccumme after we leave, be it now or seventy years from now when the oil is gone, but you show no logic to back this up. We are not suppling the government with the tools to put down the inevitable resistance to any western formed government.

The Iraqi people don't fight as much for the oil we own that happens to be under their land, as they do for the land itself, the cradle of civilization, with an occupying army currently fomenting sectarian violence.

The resistance and violence is about to be redirected at our troops in a way you can't imagine, since Iran and Saudi leaders now agree that this fight between Muslims is a divide and conquer diversion.

Read it and weep.

http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/794

[Xerxes]

116. Response

"means to defend itself", are we talking about from other nations or internal stability? An army that can provide internal security doesn't require advanced hardware and very heavy weaponry (tanks, aircraft, artillery, etc.), though it would certainly be useful. I imagine as their army improves its capabilities we will give them more.

In any case, before the war, the Iraqi military was not in the condition to defend against a serious invasion from its neighbors.

Most Iraqis fight for power among themselves. Our presence is not creating sectarian violence. If anything it is keeping a lid on it.

Your "source" has a notable agenda and in any case, Iran and Saudi Arabia exchanging kind words won't do much to alleviate tensions within Iraq.

[razors edge]

117. How long

do you think we can keep a lid on it?

Is it worth the bankruptcy of our nation?

All news has some bias, acknowledging it is a prerequisite.

[Xerxes]

118. Response

We can to a certain extent.

Also, it isn't destined to last forever. If the surge works, and the Iraqis start trusting in the government rather than militias, it could be brought down to something the Iraqi could handle without our presence. That requires both reducing the challenges the Iraqis would face and increasing their ability to deal with them.

Preventing the worst case scenarios for when we withdrew, it's worth the cost for us to stay for now until we leave Iraq in the best possible position to succeed on its own.

An agenda and a bias are two different things. The site you provided is openly pushing one point of view, one that I find disagreeable (Israel is no saint but they aren't the devil either, both sides on that issue are at major fault), and wasn't really making a good point. I'll for the most part trust a news source whose agenda is to provide news and in a balanced manor, such as CNN, ABC, CBS, most local newspapers, and even occasionally Fox (it's kind of half way). I don't trust blogs or other sources openly and clearly pushing an agenda.

[razors edge]

119. Your just pissing in the wind.

When China cuts off the funds, it's over. Not just the war, but our way of life as we know it. It's coming, and the more we waste in this useless endeavor the worse it will be.

A failure to plan on the US government's behalf does not necessitate an emergency on my behalf. And if the Iraqis are hell bent on killing each other then nothing we do will change that.

You can pick up my share of the costs if you love this shit so much.

And people wonder why Washington warned of foreign entanglements.

[Xerxes]

120. Response

Are you an American? Than it is your and my problem and everyone's problem. And one we can't just wish away by blaming others or wishing it hadn't happened. I don't like the situation either. However, I think we have to be responsible for cleaning up the mess that we created. We break it we fix it.

I don't think that compromise within the Iraqi factions is impossible. We just created conditions by our incompetence for it to flourish and it has.

[razors edge]

121. American enough to serve four years in the Marines,

how about you?

It's not my problem if my solutions are disregarded.

You break it, you bought it. Let bush and the like minded individuals such as yourself go over there and make it all good again. I know it can't happen.

If bush hands out Guyana cool aid and says its the only way, I say fuck that.

My link to the previous news source is the prevailing view of the people involved in this mess who live there, and see the blood bath daily. Those are the people you have to convince that the US is a fair dealer, and I wish every luck.

Don't waste you time convincing me, I live here in the US, the people you need to convince to accept you point of view are waiting for you in Iraq.

Good Luck.

[Xerxes]

122. Response

And what are your solutions?

Based on the soldiers I have discussed this with and civilians, a larger proportion of soldiers than civilians are supporters of the war. But yea, see my previous posts in one of them I said that being a soldier doesn't make you an expert on this issue. And granted the wide variety of opinion among veterans, I don't think their is any prevailing viewpoint that going over their will give someone. And generally I think the biggest reason more soldiers support is because soldiers tend to be a lot more nationalistic than civilians.

[razors edge]

123. I don't think their is any prevailing viewpoint that going over their will give someone.

Then take one of these with you on your way to Iraq so your viewpoint can prevail.

[Xerxes]

125. Now care to respond with something substantial?

As your point did nothing to refute the points I made.

[razors edge]

128. Come on now,

My sister can do better than than that tough guy. Post your enlistment papers and show us your resolve or just continue to spew bullshit.

[razors edge]

130. Last time

It's reached the point of diminishing returns.

My solutions are not the the point of this thread and are not even considerable in the present western dialect. But if it makes you feel better I'll give you the gist of it.

Stop all foreign aid. There are children in this country eating out of dumpsters, need I say more?

Withdrawal all American forces from all foreign lands. Would you be for Russian troops in America?

Thats more of a start than you will ever be able to accept, but, as a beginning point, I think you get the idea.

If being an isolationist means isolating your standing army to it's own nation, while dealing with all nations of the world equally at a state department level, then call me an isolationist.

Next, and just for good measure, reform the UN to secure the individual rights of all nation's sovereignty in a manner where no resolution gives political or legal cover to a preemptive invasion by another nation, or so called coalition.

If you like I could go on, but I doubt you would like.

[Xerxes]

134. Response

I won't debate isolationism because I don't want to derail this thread.

But what would you do specifically in Iraq about the power vacuum we created?

[razors edge]

136. Educate the people

of America what happens when you stick you nose where it does not belong.


It is not our decision to make, when it comes to who fills that void, so stop trying to make it.

[Xerxes]

149. But it is our responsibility

to let the Iraqis have a fair process to determine what fills it, which we have done to the best of our ability with elections. Leaving it up to who has the strongest militias wouldn't do that.

[razors edge]

138. We created?

Is that you Dick?

[Xerxes]

148. Are you American?

than it is "we".

[razors edge]

150. Follow that point

to it's inevitable conclusion. You have just made the case that all Germans should have died after WWII because convictions at Nuremberg brought a death penalty for the leaders. If the people are as responsible as the leaders, they must share in the punishment equally right?

[Xerxes]

155. You know the difference between a national responsibility and personal

Are you or I personally responsible? No. But our nation is responsible, and we as citizens of that nation are collectively responsible. Just like if you were a post war German, your country was responsible for the holocaust so you as a citizen would have to deal with the general consequences against the nation, such as occupation, reparations, etc.

[razors edge]

131. Being a soldiar makes you

A soldier, something your kind will never know, so your commenting on it is like me, a 42 year old male, explaining menopause to my grandmother.

So I suppose you have a better take on policy than the soldier whose whole life in the field has been dictated by it?

Please explain how your life has been engulfed in our policy in a fashion that has given you the motivation and insight the ground pounder doesn't have, to consider how policy is right or wrong in placing your life on the line every single minute of every single day.

You think that once you volunteer to serve your country you loose all common sense about the world and what is really going on.

Tell me about those hot flashes oh enlightened one.

[Xerxes]

135. Response

I never said anything about soldiers "losing common sense". Being a soldier doesn't give you any special training in foreign policy. I have more insight than a soldier who doesn't read the news or do the amount of reading about foreign policy that I do. I don't have more insight than a soldier that does. Being a soldier may give you some first hand observations and knowledge of military tactics, but it doesn't give you an overall picture of the situation, a lot of knowledge about military strategy, or really any about foreign policy. As far as foreign policy is concerned, what matters most is time spent studying it and paying attention to the news.

[razors edge]

140. Actually you are not as informed as you think.

Basic training in the Marines consists of extensive training in the history of conflicts past and present, the reasons for engaging in those conflicts and their eventual outcomes or current status.

They are tested on this knowledge not only in boot camp, but throughout their service. Cutting scores determine promotions and are based, on among other things, direct questioning of the service person's knowledge of current events, past treaties and other associations like NATO, Warsaw Pact, etc. Poor knowledge in these areas will pigeonhole your ass in the lowest ranks as surely as poor performance.

There is no requirement of this knowledge in the civilian world outside of policy, press or similar type jobs. I doubt most employers even encourage such knowledge.

Policy and politics are a huge part of being in the military for anyone with a career in mind.

[Xerxes]

146. Any proof

Or have you recently gone through it? Is this for officers or all soldiers?

And still, their is a huge variety of opinion among soldiers I've encountered.

[razors edge]

142. They also tend to be a lot poorer than

most, at least the ones doing the majority of the dying. Old Joe can give you an Idea of who's doing the shit jobs with little chance of promotion. You will probably think him a conservative, but he is anything but. Growing up in northern Appalachia and entering the service at seventeen and a month, I can vouch for his observations as to where the fodder comes from and why. Nationalistic, hell no, hungry, yes.

http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2006/01/revenge_of_the_.html

Said meanness is polished to a high gloss murderous piety most useful to the military establishment. Thus, by the time we are of military age (which is about twelve) we are capable of doing a Lynndie England on any type of human being unfamiliar to us from our culturally ignorant viewpoint -- doing it to the “other.” Sent to Iraq or Afghanistan, most of us, given the nod, can torture the other as mindlessly as a cat plays with a mouse. That we can do it so readily and without remorse is one of the darkest secrets of underlying the “heroes” mythology the culture machine is so fervently ginning up about the ongoing series of wars now just unfolding. And when one of us is killed by a rooftop sniper in Baghdad we weep and sweat in our fear, band closer together as Border brothers in the ancient oath of ultimate fealty and courage. And we meant it and we do it.

[Xerxes]

147. Not sure how that was relevant

I've never professed to like the military culture or the spirit they instill in people, or the methods use to recruit soldiers. Soldiers join for many reasons, some of them because of nationalism. Others gain more of a sense of it once in the military.

[Xerxes]

103. And you'll find soldiers that think the opposite

Being a soldier doesn't make you automatically an authority on foreign policy. Soldiers often have tunnel vision regarding a war they fight in. Serving in one part of Iraq could give you a totally different impression than serving in another part. Nor does being a soldier make you an expert regarding the situation over there and what we should do, something I've had to explain to multiple soldier's I've encountered online who think the solution to Iraq is to bomb the hell out of it. Not that I'm an expert on it at all. None of us are. I've also encountered soldiers online who believe we are making progress and that we should stay.

[niyad]

96. since he seems to have run out of things to say on iraq, the clueless little wonder, anybody care to

enlighten him about the dubai ports issue, about which he ALSO favours der chimpenfuhrer? I can only handle so much reichwing stupidity in one day, and he has exceeded my limit!!

I-95 and remd, xerxes, proud member of the 101st keyboard cowards' brigade.

[razors edge]

97. And just like Kiser Suse

Phweeew

he was was gone.

[Xerxes]

104. Support for the Dubai deal right wing?

Are you kidding me? The opposition to the Dubai ports deal was precisely the kind of right wing bullshit anti-Muslim scare tactics that among right wing thought, I hold in the most contempt.

The Democrats were doing nothing more but trying to opportunistically upstage Bush on their toughness on national security. When Democrats adopt right wing scare tactics I'm not going to support them, and I would hope that others on the left wouldn't either.

And the 95% of the opposition had nothing to do with opposition to globalization, but phobia against Muslims.

[razors edge]

108. Then why did the right shut down

the democratic opposition to the deal, if opposition was right wing?

[Xerxes]

111. The right didn't shoot it down

The UAE company withdrew the offer, probably because the administration asked them to do it because the administration knew they were losing the issue, because the Democrats were sacrificing their principles and giving into right-wing fear tactics. In withdrawing from the deal the UAE company shut down the debate.

[razors edge]

124. You may want to check that.

The UAE set up a front company here in the US, completed the deal, and as most predicted would happen, Carlyle Group ended up with them.

[Xerxes]

126. Proof?

[razors edge]

129. You made the claim

that the deal did not go through, you show the proof.

[Xerxes]

132. Here is the link, they sold it to an American company

http://users1.wsj.com/lmda/do/checkLogin?mg=wsj-users1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB116584567567746444.html

[razors edge]

139. Yes, thats what I said.

They didn't "back out" of the deal.

[Xerxes]

144. No it isn't

You said they created a "front company", selling it is not creating a front company. In any case, the controversy was ended when the UAE company got it off of its hands.

[razors edge]

152. The media coverage ended

and that ended the controversy. Many still remember the resident threating to use his first veto to reject any block on the deal. That block was supported not only by the left but also by the right and the center.

Condemning Democrats for opposing this just because the nut jobs are xenophobes is pretty lame, they did it for different reasons. And it gained votes in 06, no doubt.

[Xerxes]

156. And he should have

I saw know legitimate reason to condemn it except xenophobia. I know some against globalization opposed it as a way to oppose globalization, but the Democrats sure as hell weren't. They were concerned about "security" and all that BS normally spouted by the right. I'm curios what your "different reasons" are.

Opposition to and support of the block both spanned across the political spectrum. Partisan identity didn't seem to make a difference on this one.

I doubt it gained that many votes (since people's political memory doesn't last that long) but even if it did, I still would rather the Democrats had had some spine and stood up for their principles, rather than adopt the cheap fear mongering tactics of the right.

[razors edge]

157. First of all

ALL POLITICS IS FEAR MONGERING, The world is roasting, the gays are kissing, the rich are stealing, the poor are stealing, the Iraqis will kill each other if we don't do it for them.................

My different reasons, as you put, weren't my reasons. They were the reasons of the so called leadership of the two parties in response to the electorate.

The highly knowledgeable electorate on both sides saw it as coruption and unfavorable to security.

I oppose it because back room deals like this exclude public participation and public investment opportunity.

[Xerxes]

160. Unfavorable to Security = Oh my god, Muslims will control our ports!

This would have never had been a big issue if it wasn't a Muslim/Middle Eastern company that was making the deal.

Corruption was not a primary aspect of the public debate.

[razors edge]

161. The public debate

was carried out by the main stream media, the same one you claim has a good reason for lying a nation to war.

I suppose pointing out the fact that the same lying corporate media pushed the lie that Muslims under the control of USAma Binladen, and Saddam Hussein carried the attacks on September 11, 2001 would be out of bounds and completely irrelevant for you.

[Xerxes]

163. And?

The "mainstream media" represents most people.

No one ever explicitly said that Saddam was linked to 9-11, though the Bush administration certainly tried to trick people into believing it.

I hope you don't think it wasn't Bin Laden that was responsible for 9-11. Thinking the war is all about natural resources and corporate corruption is one thing, 9-11 conspiracy theories are something else.

[Name removed]

165. Deleted message

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

[Xerxes]

166. Love how you call me an idiot when all you have is insults

It's the last refuge of someone who doesn't have a winning argument.

Or that you think just because someone isn't with the Democrats or left on every single issue means that they are a Bush lapdog. Given that I've never been complementary of the administration, on this thread or anywhere else, including a few other posts on DU where I post liberal positions, it is quite amusing that you think I am fond of them.

What's also sad is your confirming what conservatives say about DU, even if half of them are being hypocrites because they are just as bad.

[razors edge]

167. You wouldn't know

a winning argument if it fell out the sky, landed on your face and started to wiggle. You lost the moment you opened your mouth and started spewing bullshit with your OP.

I reserve my labeling of idiots for the special (in)breed you represent. Unfortunately for you anyone with two brain cells firing will recognize the failed attempts you have made on this thread as the work of a second rate mind defending the indefeasible.

I know if i were a stooge plant trying to spread disinformation or bait for an argument and I had posted the low level of rhetoric you have here, I would bury it from those I worked for as it would be a example of a failed propaganda attempt, and an even larger all around example of having ones ass handed to them. Unless of course I was giving a class on how not to do it and needed some reference material for the class.

Either way you have won nothing, and never will win anything, as an argument in the small confines of a single thread on a single board is of no significance, much like yourself.

I don't hate you, I pity you for your ignorance. I do not suffer fools well, and as such you have become insufferable.

[Xerxes]

168. lol

Again, resorting to insults just proves you can't debate the position.

This wasn't a "propaganda" attempt, it was an attempt to engage with people that I disagree with on this issue and have a reasonable and enlightened discussion. The failure of anyone to step up and really post good counter arguments, is a disappointment.

You are too closed minded to make it worth trying to engage in reasonable discussion with, that has been made clear.

[razors edge]

169. You think you are

smarter than the 100,000 members of this board. Think again.

All who have "engaged" with you have torn you to shreds.

Not one member has agreed with anything you have to say.

You remind me of the Black Knight in Python's Holy Grail, come back and fight like a man.

The vast majority of this board would never dirty their hands with the likes of you. I, on the other hand, have earned a living as a plumber and I'm quite accustomed to the likes of you. The smell is not new.

[Xerxes]

170. lol the "likes of me"

I am a liberal you do realize that don't you? Or an anti-American communist Muslim apologist/terrorist appeaser if you go by some of the things they call me on Right wing forums.

Funny, I haven't noticed my arguments being "torn to shreds", or even addressed that much at all, it's all been irrelevant crap such as "you go join the military" or attacks against the reason we went to war by people who can't seem to figure out that I don't support the decision to go to war either.

Not one member agrees with me, will that wasn't unexpected. Most of the time I only post on forums when most of the people will disagree with me, which is why I spend a lot more of my time on right wing forums than left wing ones.

Don't believe I'm a liberal? Go read some of the stuff on my blog: http://xerxes855.wordpress.com/