Iraq War Costs hit home

[texaspackerbacker]

It looks like you lefties succeeded in diverting the discussion away from your LOSER POSITION again--the fact that supposedly liberal-minded people loving/everybody created equal-type people are spewing the idea that a large slice of humanity isn't cut out for little gems of civilization like freedom and representative democracy.

Who exactly is saying this? I haven't read or heard anyone critical of the war talking about what Iraqis are and arent' "cut out for." I think you're deliberately distorting the real point of the critique, which is that by definition you can't "give" someone their freedom (which is what the "white man's burden" view has always sanctimoniously claimed it could do). But of course, the invasion of Iraq, as you yourself have pointed out, was never really interested in freedom, unless you somehow think that freedom and power are the same thing.

Leftists in general, I can't keep track of which of you say what and when, have said repeatedly that America can't/shouldn't inflict our way, our values, etc. on foreigners in general, Iraqis in particular. I recall somebody specifically mentioning democracy as one of the things they weren't ready to handle.

There were a lot of purple ink-stained fingers over there that say otherwise. I can remember a few decades ago when liberals (before liberal became a dirty word) used to have the attitude that people are people. What is natural and feasible and enjoyable for one group is pretty much the same the world over. In fact, that premise has proven true pretty much whenever it has been tried--EVEN in Iraq and Afghanistan, if you dig deep enough for the stonewalled stories of human success. Everybody who has been over there knows this and doesn't even think of it as controversial. It's only the American leftists that you forum leftists idolize who think there is something wrong with ENABLING freedom and representative government.

You try to sound all pious and claim we can't GIVE them these things. Well, there is a huge difference between GIVING and ENABLING.

And lest some disingenuous leftist or some normal pro-American person trots out the old line that this sort of thing isn't worth 4,000 American lives, that would be true if it were purely a matter of do-gooderism. However, having free happy educated prosperous people in foreign countries is GOOD FOR AMERICA in the sense that it makes our own wonderful position and situation more secure.

I'm as much for peace and harmony as anybody; I just realize that it takes strength and occasional use of that strength i.e. war to achieve that peace and harmony. Before resorting to that, however, we should always give the American Way--freedom, representative government, and free enterprise capitalism a chance.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

It looks like you lefties succeeded in diverting the discussion away from your LOSER POSITION again--the fact that supposedly liberal-minded people loving/everybody created equal-type people are spewing the idea that a large slice of humanity isn't cut out for little gems of civilization like freedom and representative democracy.

Oh yeah, as for your little diversion, the French indeed DID enable American "emancipation" from the British--not that King George was exactly Saddam Hussein, but he was a bit of a tyrant. And did we ASK for aid from the French? I really don't think history is all that clear about that. Jefferson and Franklin weren't over in Paris for the feminine company ....... or were they?

The place where the analogy goes south, though, is that France was NOT the world's monopolistic super power at the time--more like the Cold War era with the French helping Britain's insurgent rebels and vice versa, just like America and the Soviet Union. There's no need for invitations to parties like those.

Wow. Way to rewrite history. Of course we asked for their help. Almost all Euro countries supported the U.S...secretly then openly. Time for you to reread your history books.

I guess those treaties they signed with us in 78 aren't real. Nor was there declaration of war against GB real. Nor were the Spanish or Dutch declarations of war.

You shouldn't talk about history if you don't know it.

King George a tyrant...lol. THere is no way you can even begin to compare the ruler of england to Hussein. More importantly...which you conveniently fail to acknowledge is that the Iraqi people weren't trying to free themselves from Hussein...well, except for the Kurds..which again, you fail to acknowledge that Bush 1 didn't help out with.

Uh, Tyrone, nice post ........ but how exactly is what YOU said any different from what I said?

Are you serious.

You keep acting like the French assisting us is analgous to us helping the Iraqis.

1. We declared a war ourselves. The Iraqi's didn't.
2. We signed treaties and wanted the french and other's help. Nobody asked for our help in Iraq.
3. Those that did ask back in the early 90s were rebuffed by a REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT.
4. King George wasn't a tyrant. Under any definition he doesn't qualify. In modern usage a tyrant is a single ruler holding vast, if not absolute power through a state or in an organization, carries connotations of a harsh and cruel ruler who places their own interests or the interests of a small oligarchy over the best interests of the general population which they govern or control. Definitely Saddam.

In the classical sense (which would have to utilized when judging George), the word simply means one who has taken power by their own means as opposed to hereditary or constitutional power (and generally without the modern connotations). So, George doesn't qualify.

My god, King George had a parliament.

[texaspackerbacker]

It looks like you lefties succeeded in diverting the discussion away from your LOSER POSITION again--the fact that supposedly liberal-minded people loving/everybody created equal-type people are spewing the idea that a large slice of humanity isn't cut out for little gems of civilization like freedom and representative democracy.

Oh yeah, as for your little diversion, the French indeed DID enable American "emancipation" from the British--not that King George was exactly Saddam Hussein, but he was a bit of a tyrant. And did we ASK for aid from the French? I really don't think history is all that clear about that. Jefferson and Franklin weren't over in Paris for the feminine company ....... or were they?

The place where the analogy goes south, though, is that France was NOT the world's monopolistic super power at the time--more like the Cold War era with the French helping Britain's insurgent rebels and vice versa, just like America and the Soviet Union. There's no need for invitations to parties like those.

Wow. Way to rewrite history. Of course we asked for their help. Almost all Euro countries supported the U.S...secretly then openly. Time for you to reread your history books.

I guess those treaties they signed with us in 78 aren't real. Nor was there declaration of war against GB real. Nor were the Spanish or Dutch declarations of war.

You shouldn't talk about history if you don't know it.

King George a tyrant...lol. THere is no way you can even begin to compare the ruler of england to Hussein. More importantly...which you conveniently fail to acknowledge is that the Iraqi people weren't trying to free themselves from Hussein...well, except for the Kurds..which again, you fail to acknowledge that Bush 1 didn't help out with.

Uh, Tyrone, nice post ........ but how exactly is what YOU said any different from what I said?

Are you serious.

You keep acting like the French assisting us is analgous to us helping the Iraqis.

1. We declared a war ourselves. The Iraqi's didn't.
2. We signed treaties and wanted the french and other's help. Nobody asked for our help in Iraq.
3. Those that did ask back in the early 90s were rebuffed by a REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT.
4. King George wasn't a tyrant. Under any definition he doesn't qualify. In modern usage a tyrant is a single ruler holding vast, if not absolute power through a state or in an organization, carries connotations of a harsh and cruel ruler who places their own interests or the interests of a small oligarchy over the best interests of the general population which they govern or control. Definitely Saddam.

In the classical sense (which would have to utilized when judging George), the word simply means one who has taken power by their own means as opposed to hereditary or constitutional power (and generally without the modern connotations). So, George doesn't qualify.

My god, King George had a parliament.

Tyrone, if you scroll back up to what I said which you attempted to "contradict by paraphrasing", you would see that I stated that France's ENABLING of American success in the Revolutionary War was more similar to the Cold War era--one superpower trying to enable the nemesis of the other superpower--U.S. v. Soviet Union/Br. v. Fr.

As for those treaties you mentioned--as you yourself said, they were in '78, AFTER THE FACT in the American Revolution.

Bush rebuffing the Kurds in the 90s? I'll give you that one. Yet who among the Iraqis are the most loyal and pro-American of all?

As for poor old King George, I said he was "a bit of a tyrant", but not exactly like Saddam Hussein. You would really dispute that? King George, from what I've heard, was deranged in an inbred, possibly syphilitic way, and even though he had Parliament, he pretty much dominated Parliament and got his way, particularly in treatment of colonials.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

It looks like you lefties succeeded in diverting the discussion away from your LOSER POSITION again--the fact that supposedly liberal-minded people loving/everybody created equal-type people are spewing the idea that a large slice of humanity isn't cut out for little gems of civilization like freedom and representative democracy.

Oh yeah, as for your little diversion, the French indeed DID enable American "emancipation" from the British--not that King George was exactly Saddam Hussein, but he was a bit of a tyrant. And did we ASK for aid from the French? I really don't think history is all that clear about that. Jefferson and Franklin weren't over in Paris for the feminine company ....... or were they?

The place where the analogy goes south, though, is that France was NOT the world's monopolistic super power at the time--more like the Cold War era with the French helping Britain's insurgent rebels and vice versa, just like America and the Soviet Union. There's no need for invitations to parties like those.

Wow. Way to rewrite history. Of course we asked for their help. Almost all Euro countries supported the U.S...secretly then openly. Time for you to reread your history books.

I guess those treaties they signed with us in 78 aren't real. Nor was there declaration of war against GB real. Nor were the Spanish or Dutch declarations of war.

You shouldn't talk about history if you don't know it.

King George a tyrant...lol. THere is no way you can even begin to compare the ruler of england to Hussein. More importantly...which you conveniently fail to acknowledge is that the Iraqi people weren't trying to free themselves from Hussein...well, except for the Kurds..which again, you fail to acknowledge that Bush 1 didn't help out with.

Uh, Tyrone, nice post ........ but how exactly is what YOU said any different from what I said?

Are you serious.

You keep acting like the French assisting us is analgous to us helping the Iraqis.

1. We declared a war ourselves. The Iraqi's didn't.
2. We signed treaties and wanted the french and other's help. Nobody asked for our help in Iraq.
3. Those that did ask back in the early 90s were rebuffed by a REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT.
4. King George wasn't a tyrant. Under any definition he doesn't qualify. In modern usage a tyrant is a single ruler holding vast, if not absolute power through a state or in an organization, carries connotations of a harsh and cruel ruler who places their own interests or the interests of a small oligarchy over the best interests of the general population which they govern or control. Definitely Saddam.

In the classical sense (which would have to utilized when judging George), the word simply means one who has taken power by their own means as opposed to hereditary or constitutional power (and generally without the modern connotations). So, George doesn't qualify.

My god, King George had a parliament.

Tyrone, if you scroll back up to what I said which you attempted to "contradict by paraphrasing", you would see that I stated that France's ENABLING of American success in the Revolutionary War was more similar to the Cold War era--one superpower trying to enable the nemesis of the other superpower--U.S. v. Soviet Union/Br. v. Fr.

As for those treaties you mentioned--as you yourself said, they were in '78, AFTER THE FACT in the American Revolution.

Bush rebuffing the Kurds in the 90s? I'll give you that one. Yet who among the Iraqis are the most loyal and pro-American of all?

As for poor old King George, I said he was "a bit of a tyrant", but not exactly like Saddam Hussein. You would really dispute that? King George, from what I've heard, was deranged in an inbred, possibly syphilitic way, and even though he had Parliament, he pretty much dominated Parliament and got his way, particularly in treatment of colonials.

Tex, unfortunately you seem to forget where this started. Gunakor posited that the Iraqis must fight for their own freedom.

Which then you stated you were glad that nobody said that to lafayette.

Thus, you are comparing our assistance now in helping the country establish itself..to france helping the U.S.

The point, which you can't seem to comprehend is that the U.S. wrote and Declaration of Independence and had it's own army and was fighting against the GB. None of which the Iraqi's even came close to doing.

Treaties: I guess you are purposefully obtuse...I said secretly and then openly. The french were assisting us from early on. What do you think Franklin was doing there. Upon his arrival frenchmen left to join up with us...either outta hatred for GB or because we embodied the spirit of enlightment. Lafayette and L'enfant weren't frenchmen fighting as rogue soldiers or as part of a french unit..they enlisted in OUR army.

You obviously don't know your history as Beaumarchais was founded Roderigue Hortalez and Co. supported by the French and Spanish crowns, whose purpose was to supply the American rebels with weapons, munitions, clothes, and provisions. THIS STARTED IN 76.

Do you think the french aid of american piracy of british frigates was by accident. do you think those french military strategists granted "vacation" that wound up in the u.s. was by accident? Geez...wake the fuck up.

Regardless of formally entering in 78...we were still fighting prior. The iraqi's were not doing so. So, to even make any sort of analogy of us being anywhere in the same vicinity as the French were to the colonialists is asinine.

Tyrant:Nope. I've given you a defintion..and he doesn't pass the tyrant test. Bad leader, maybe. Tyrant no. And, if bullying the parliament counts as being a tyrant..then i guess Bush counts as well..since he pretty much has gotten most everything he wanted.

Bush 1: well, that is a start. Admitting when you are wrong is freeing, isn't it.

[texaspackerbacker]

OK, Tyrone. I'm going to do something I very very seldom do: surrender--albeit a conditional surrender.

You are right about my flawed analogy of the French in the American Revolution, although I stand by the fact that the French fleet preventing the British to escape by sea at Yorktown, as they had done other times, was the biggest single factor in enabling us to win our freedom from the British.

I should have compared what we are doing in Iraq to our installing and propping up new regimes in Japan and West Germany against Communism after we defeated them in the military portion of World War II.

Your knowledge of history is impressive. You just need to work on the conclusions you come to in the here and now.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

OK, Tyrone. I'm going to do something I very very seldom do: surrender--albeit a conditional surrender.

You are right about my flawed analogy of the French in the American Revolution, although I stand by the fact that the French fleet preventing the British to escape by sea at Yorktown, as they had done other times, was the biggest single factor in enabling us to win our freedom from the British.

I should have compared what we are doing in Iraq to our installing and propping up new regimes in Japan and West Germany against Communism after we defeated them in the military portion of World War II.

Your knowledge of history is impressive. You just need to work on the conclusions you come to in the here and now.

well, that is about as close to a surrender as you can get. I know your foolish pride won't allow to actually admit totally defeat...so, like a good victor, i'll allow you to surrender with honor.

French: Nobody was disputing their significance in the revolutionary war.

Your new analogy is just as flawed. While we are indeed propping up a new regime...Iraq did not attack us, we never faced a civil war, terrorist threats, or citizens that were rabidly against us and willing to fight...furthermore, we didn't limp into WW2 like we did vs. Iraq.

Conclusions: Just as you were wrong about your analogy, perhaps you should take the opportunity to revisit your conclusions. You might find them flawed as well.

[texaspackerbacker]

Lack of terrorism in that context, yes. Tactics weren't as sophisticated back then.

However, for the rest:

Saddam's Iraq indeed did attack our ally, Kuwait. Germany, at least, didn't attack us directly either.

There is NOT and never has been during the current war a civil war in Iraq. That is just wishful thinking on the part of leftist politicians and media who thirst for bad things to happen to Bush and America.

And the huge bulk of the population of Iraq are not "rabidly against us" in Iraq either. This also is false reporting by the leftist mainstream media. About 100% of the Kurds and a solid majority of the other two groups are supportive.

And we didn't "limp into" Iraq. We roared in like a whirlwind and demolished Saddam's vaunted army in just a few days. We aren't limping out either--not unless one of YOUR scumbag leftist candidates gets in, anyway.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Lack of terrorism in that context, yes. Tactics weren't as sophisticated back then.

However, for the rest:

Saddam's Iraq indeed did attack our ally, Kuwait. Germany, at least, didn't attack us directly either.

There is NOT and never has been during the current war a civil war in Iraq. That is just wishful thinking on the part of leftist politicians and media who thirst for bad things to happen to Bush and America.

And the huge bulk of the population of Iraq are not "rabidly against us" in Iraq either. This also is false reporting by the leftist mainstream media. About 100% of the Kurds and a solid majority of the other two groups are supportive.

And we didn't "limp into" Iraq. We roared in like a whirlwind and demolished Saddam's vaunted army in just a few days. We aren't limping out either--not unless one of YOUR scumbag leftist candidates gets in, anyway.

Attacked kuwait...so, this war is a continuation of what happened under Bush One. LOL

Civil war: Sectarian violence..tomatoe tomahto.

Against us: They don't want us there. They want to be free of us. At best most are indifferent, but very few are clamoring for us to stay...other than to ensure that they aren't killed in sectarian violence.

Limped in: Sorry, but you are wrong. The reason we have had to add additonal troops, stop loss, continue to use NATIONAL GUARD..for more than one call up..as if National guard should be over there...is that we came in with an inadequate force. You can't tell me that we need to listen to the military and yet deny that our military wanted more troops initially.

[hoosier]

By DAVID BARSTOW, New York Times
Published: April 20, 2008
In the summer of 2005, the Bush administration confronted a fresh wave of criticism over Guantánamo Bay. The detention center had just been branded “the gulag of our times” by Amnesty International, there were new allegations of abuse from United Nations human rights experts and calls were mounting for its closure.

The administration’s communications experts responded swiftly. Early one Friday morning, they put a group of retired military officers on one of the jets normally used by Vice President Dick Cheney and flew them to Cuba for a carefully orchestrated tour of Guantánamo.

To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as “military analysts” whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.

Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.
(....)

Nothing new under the sun as far as the Bush administration's dealings with the coverage of the war. But this does expose the wide extent to which the administration's tentacles have penetrated the "mainstream media," and thus it provides an interesting counterpoint to the Right's obsession with the idea that the "mainstream media" is biased toward the Left. Of course, many on the Right will dismiss this point of view out of hand (or never even hear of it in the first place) because of its point of origin.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Against us: They don't want us there. They want to be free of us. At best most are indifferent, but very few are clamoring for us to stay...other than to ensure that they aren't killed in sectarian violence.

It seems like the Sunnis have become much more accepting of the U.S. presence since they were cleansed from Baghdad; they see they aren't gonna fight way to power, and they actually are very much in harmony with U.S. goals of unified state that shares oil wealth.

Sadr is the champion of U.S. Out of Iraq. His political popularity spread from Baghdad to southern Iraq in past 2 years largely because of this stance. So Shia appear increasingly ready for us to go.

But situation is fluid & murky. Lots of stories lately of resentment of militias & Sadr for reigniting violence. Surely the success of Patraeus's strategy in last 9 months has bought considerable good will.

I don't know what Iraqis would think about U.S. withdrawal within 2 years. I'll guess more are for it than against, but they are scared about it.

[texaspackerbacker]

Lack of terrorism in that context, yes. Tactics weren't as sophisticated back then.

However, for the rest:

Saddam's Iraq indeed did attack our ally, Kuwait. Germany, at least, didn't attack us directly either.

There is NOT and never has been during the current war a civil war in Iraq. That is just wishful thinking on the part of leftist politicians and media who thirst for bad things to happen to Bush and America.

And the huge bulk of the population of Iraq are not "rabidly against us" in Iraq either. This also is false reporting by the leftist mainstream media. About 100% of the Kurds and a solid majority of the other two groups are supportive.

And we didn't "limp into" Iraq. We roared in like a whirlwind and demolished Saddam's vaunted army in just a few days. We aren't limping out either--not unless one of YOUR scumbag leftist candidates gets in, anyway.

Attacked kuwait...so, this war is a continuation of what happened under Bush One. LOL

Civil war: Sectarian violence..tomatoe tomahto.

Against us: They don't want us there. They want to be free of us. At best most are indifferent, but very few are clamoring for us to stay...other than to ensure that they aren't killed in sectarian violence.

Limped in: Sorry, but you are wrong. The reason we have had to add additonal troops, stop loss, continue to use NATIONAL GUARD..for more than one call up..as if National guard should be over there...is that we came in with an inadequate force. You can't tell me that we need to listen to the military and yet deny that our military wanted more troops initially.

OK, as for your points--not necessarily in order:

Against us? As Harlan said, the Sunnis for the most part are appreciative and want us there at least until stabilty is achieved; The Shi'ite were propelled from the depths of depravity to democratic power consistent with their near majority status; And the Kurds love us. That about covers the whole population. How could you possibly disagree with this?

Sectarian violence or civil war? Picture Northern Ireland--some nastiness and small scale killing, etc. That's sectarian violence. Now picture Rwanda--the Hutus versus the Tutsis. I heard on PBS earlier this evening there were 900,000 killed in 100 days in late '93 and early '94. THAT'S a civil war. In Iraq, you have a government composed of and supported by the leaders of all three major factions--no organized resistance that has any chance of regime change--just messing things up and killing people. Why? Because al Qaeda made it their business to stir up the different sects. But the LEADERS OF THOSE SECTS have had the good sense NOT to buy into the idea of civil war--despite the fervent hope of BOTH al Qaeda and their faithful allies, the American Left.

Limped in? Refer to my paragraph in the post above.

Kuwait? The subject of the discussion was your assertion that Iraq was NOT similar to World War II. You would actually claim that the invasion of Iraq was NOT a continuation of the Gulf War--and Saddam's refusal to abide by the generous terms of surrender he was given the first time around? Maybe I should have compared Iraq to World War I AND World War II.

Your willingness to carry on an intelligent and civil discussion of the issues is appreciated, Tyrone--especially in light of other lefties not doing so.

[Partial]

So this new guy at work is from Kuwait, and I guess during the Iraq ivasion of Kuwait, a bomb went off on his street and his father and him had to take off running down the street. He said he ran over a slew of dead bodies that his dad told him were sleeping in the street.

That has to be horrifying for a small child.

[Freak Out]

Germany didn't attack us directly? Ha ha ha ha ha........

[Deputy Nutz]

So this new guy at work is from Kuwait, and I guess during the Iraq ivasion of Kuwait, a bomb went off on his street and his father and him had to take off running down the street. He said he ran over a slew of dead bodies that his dad told him were sleeping in the street.

That has to be horrifying for a small child.

Thats a sad story.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Germany didn't attack us directly? Ha ha ha ha ha........

We entered the war long before they attacked us. We were covertly supporting the British long before they made a direct attack.