JC Callender
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2013
- Messages
- 6,477
- Reaction score
- 3,270
- Location
- Metro Detroit
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
So how do we pick and choose who to help? I think Saudi Arabia is awful and treat women like animals...in public. Where are the troops to assist them? Saddam, gassed his people, but Saudi Arabia tortures people daily with the lashings, stonings, etc...while the Saudi's cheer it on like barbarians. The warlords in Africa kill and maim everyday...and zero intervention from any countries. The ME is on the other side of the globe and the chances of them rolling up on American shores is zero to none. They would not get within a 100 miles before they were intercepted. The ME knows nothing but corruption, violence and extreme religion and that will never change. If we wipe out ISIS another will take its place and we will be in a constant war. The US needs to concentrate their efforts closer to home...such as the Mexican border. The Cartel proposes more of a threat to our way of life than any other evil element out there and we do nothing about it. The Cartel is alive and well in the US...drugs that are poisoning our neighborhoods pours across the border every day as well has human trafficking. Why don't we liberate, Mexico, our neighbor from the Cartel?
Other countries in the ME have funded terrorism for years...just to keep them out of their backyards. They fund terrorism while we use tax dollars to fight terrorism. It doesn't make sense any more to help them. It also doesn't help the perception of Americans when other ME countries sit back and watch ISIS slaughter thousands of people. This is their war, not ours.
Mm-hmm. Y'know, you're a wonderful example of just what I was talking about: the "do what we say or we bomb you" mindset that seems to be the only tool in the conservative diplomatic toolbox.
I want to ask you two questions:
(1) If a much stronger nation told a much weaker America that if we didn't scrap our entire bomb-making infrastructure, they'd bomb us and maybe even invade us, what do you think we'd do. Do you think we'd knuckle under, or would we redouble our efforts to build bombs?
(2) Considering your answer to the previous question, what the hell makes you think that the Iranians would react any differently?
This is why we do things like use REAL diplomacy - which, if you knew half as much as you think you do about diplomacy, is not the panty-waisted appeasement process you seem to think. There's a reason why diplomacy is often called "the velvet glove that covers the mail'd fist". Think about it.
Imposing democracy on nations that have never had it is fraught with unintended consequences. The desire for democracy must come from within as must the defense of a nation.
To the bolded. No, that was BushCo that was massaging the intell, and there's plenty of corroboration on that. What's with you guys anyway, what's in it for you to defend that bastard administration to the death, hmm. Wtf is it???
Bolded says a lot already. No need to discuss this any further with you, your are just fine not hearing or thinking beyond to Dem talking points on this.
The fact of the matter is as I've said, that multiple nation's intelligence services corroborated the same intel. Is the Bush administration now being blamed by you for skewing all those nation's intel as well? That too is telling.
George Bush was fantasising about war with Iraq while he was yet governor of Texas. His first foreign policy meeting was on.......Iraq. After failing to convince his war ambitions with Iraq on the unsubstantiated claims that Saddam Hussein was affiliated with OBL and al Qaeda, or could produce mushroom clouds over US cities, he moved onto humanitarian concerns. Plenty of people knew that Bush was fixing the intelligence around a forgone conclusion to go to war with Iraq. At any rate the GOP congress as well as a majority of Americans regret the day we engaged Iraq. Catch up to speed and stop defending that colossal failure!
Glen, I'm confused.
I never said anything about bombing Iran to stop their nuclear weapons program. All I was saying was not to ease the economic sanctions. Are you equating economic sanctions to bombing now?
I don't think the two things are the same.
"After leading in the region for so many years, sure a stumble to allow ISIS to raise, wouldn't it be the height of irresponsibility to now just walk away?"
And all these assertions and projections without a single citation from a reliable source.
One WANTS to die and the other doesn't. Do we need to start again? My point that you decided to challenge was that M.A.D. deterrent is not effective when one side wants to die. Your argument was that "no side wants to die" ... and you are proving that by saying the only difference between a bomber crew and a suicide bomber in that the bomber crew doesn't want to die? You are thrusting a dagger into the heart of your argument and declaring success.
Ah, so some people are so bereft of luxuries that the only way they can conduct a war is by blowing up discos? :roll:
Yes, so dying trying to save others is noble. Blowing yourself up on purpose is meant to save nobody.
No, wrong. They don't see their deaths as sacrifice, they see their deaths as personal gain. Again, they WANT to die. A simple fact that you have now agreed with on your quest to prove otherwise.
Back to my original point: people who WANT to die are not governed by the central tenets of the M.A.D. deterrent.
You make some good points. I think we chose Iraq not only because of Saddam's crimes against humanity but also their failure to comply with regulations set forth by the UN. Of course, the White House and Congress believed there were WMD's, and since Saddam already used gas, why wouldn't he have used those.
As far as Saudi Arabia, at the very least we shouldn't be trading with them because of their treatment of women. But of course we do need oil to keep our economy and military going.
Btw, does it bother you that people volunteer in our country to fight evildoers like Saddam, and if so why? I mean, Iraq so far has been far from a success, although I don't believe a total failure yet, but they have taken out Saddam and his family and have killed tons of terrorists.
Carter saying Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' sparks more criticism, concern about Obama plan | Fox News
Here we go again with our desperate attempts to train those who will shoot at our backs once they will be left alone.
They say you can take a horse to the water, but you cannot make him drink. Bush Jr. invaded the wrong country (as if he could invade the right one). Iraqis understand they will die from ISIS attacks, but many of them got addicted to ISIS propaganda. So both facts are against US there - the fact Iraqis are muslims makes them sympathize isis and they never stopped treating us as invaders so I'm not surprised they don't want to fight.
It seems Pentagon's idea was to create non-US troops to fight ISIS and to oppose terrorists without getting involved to a direct confrontation.
So, does it mean we spend money on training future terrorists?
Really ? I've got two words for you then.
Tonkin Gulf
JFC are you ever naive. Yes Lilly White US would never do such a thing. :roll:
Just because it is not the way the country works does not mean what happens cannot be horrendous. We both know that. But when the information is consistent with normal and desirable behavior? And it is quite possible that the Administration did construct a conspiracy and publish lies and was able to hide it from the public. And maybe the large number of people that had to be party to the information. ....
But as I pointed out, the information I have seen was before the invasion and in its aftermath relatively massive. This type of analysis is always statistical and one can always miss the important bits. But in this case,I will be surprised if it turns out that Obama has been sitting on tapes that provide proof that Bush lied.
Yes it is hard to prove that a mistake was intentional and not just plain stupidity. That has always been a plus for Bush as he does stupid so well. Bu there are clues like the pet name of their #1 informer, "curveball". I wonder if you know what throwing someone a curveball means?
The Tonkin affair exemplifies why that type of thing happens relrelatively infrequently as does Watergate. The mechanisms the society has developed since the ascension to global power to prevent the misuse of so much power are relatively strong and intrusive. It is also the reason not to let up and I think doubt commendable. That is also why I resaresearched it as well as possible reading literally thousands of pages of description and analysis and checking the primary documents, where possible. And in this case, I think that you are very probably wrong. But should you have primary information that is stronger than the two snippets above, I will certainly read it and think about it.
So you really think after 12 years Iraq just suddenly became much more dangerous post 9/11 ? So much so that they required an immediate and massive military response ? Do you have any evidence for this because as illustrated both Powell and Rice didn't seem to think so just beforehand ?
The Lie That Got Us In: The Bush Administration Knew There Were No WMDs in Iraq « Antiwar.com Blog
The Bush administration exerted significant pressure on the intelligence community to provide justification for the Iraq War. According to John Brennan, who was Deputy Director of the CIA at the time, “we were being asked to do things and to make sure that that justification was out there.” “At the time there were a lot of concerns that it was being politicized by certain individuals within the administration that wanted to get that intelligence base that would justify going forward with the war,” Brennan told PBS. When asked who was exerting this pressure, Brennan said “Some of the neocons” in the administration “were determined to make sure that the intelligence was going to support the ultimate decision.” As CBS News reported in 2009, “barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq.”
I am VERY pro-Soldier and very proud of our Military. It bothers me to see the condition that some of our Solider's are returning..fighting a war that will never be won. Even tho a Soldier makes the sacrifice to protect his or her country does not mean that we as a Nation should be reckless where we send them. The region is not worth the casualties or the resources. They will never separate religion from government and this is a must for peace. I do not think WE failed, I think the Iraqi people and government failed. We gave them a chance and they blew it. There isn't anything left to do, except maybe built a base there for stability, or stake an American flag there...since we have spent so much $$$, we practically own Iraq.j/k
Just because it is not the way the country works does not mean what happens cannot be horrendous. We both know that. But when the information is consistent with normal and desirable behavior? And it is quite possible that the Administration did construct a conspiracy and publish lies and was able to hide it from the public. And maybe the large number of people that had to be party to the information. ....
But as I pointed out, the information I have seen was before the invasion and in its aftermath relatively massive. This type of analysis is always statistical and one can always miss the important bits. But in this case,I will be surprised if it turns out that Obama has been sitting on tapes that provide proof that Bush lied.
I do not think I said, what you insinuate. Of course there were consequences of removing a harsh dictator. And we did not do a sufficient job of making peace and stability. And yes, the snippets sound like there had been grounds to want to be easy on the dictator at the time of the statements. And? So what? That has nothing to do with it.
Does that mean that the decision to enforce the Resolution was wrong?
Does it mean that Saddam was not acting against the Security Council demands?
Does it mean that Saddam was not hiding the fact from the UN that he had no more wmd?
And really now. If you want to use information as proof and want people to read it, use unbiased sources. And please something more valid than second hand opinion. And by that I do not mean the opinion out of context by someone like Brennan, who is there describing a very normal occurrence in large organizations. Of course there was pressure. There is always pressure for results.
[/B]
What apologetics that is?? There's always pressure to falsify facts to achieve desired results. :roll:
"We want the facts to fit the preconceptions. When they don't, it is easier to ignore the facts than change the preconceptions".
-American author Jessamyn West
No one wants to die - unless for desperation. There are no humans that are eager to die. Even the suicide bombers must have qualms about dying. Most of them do it not out of envy, but out of need.
Yes - absolutely. What, you prefer the guy with a stick versus a tank? Probably, if you're the one in the tank. IMO it's worse when the party blowing up schools, water treatment plants, hospitals etc is the one party with the means to do otherwise.
Dying as a soldier in any war is seen as noble by a majority of people. Wouldn't yourself find it noble if one german officer killed himself while trying to kill Hitler? When your ideals are firm, you are ready to suffer and die for them. It's that simple.
So... Arlington cemetery, and all these ceremonies in the memory of the dead at war... is the evidence that the USA are a death cult too? Why do you want to die?
Personal gain... after they died. Ha ha ha funny guy.
There are no sides that wants to die. Period.
Basic healthcare was free for everyone, and generally dirt cheap for anything that requires more than a simple visit to the doctor. Medicine prices were heavily discounted by the government. Things like birth control pills were made available, usually for free, for Iraqi women. Kids were vaccinated door-to-door by the government. Medical care reached 97% of the urban population and 71% of the rural population. Mortality rate was 50/1000 LB, infant mortality was 40/1000 LB. Hospitals were built in every city and the Iraqi healthcare system was known to be of very high quality, Iraq was actually about to gain developed country status, versus being a developing country.[16]
What are some of Saddam Hussein's positive achievements and progressive contributions to Iraq and the Arab World? - Quora
Again, the existence of a suicide bomb waiting list for ISIS stands against your willfully ignorant belief... as do the 9/11 hijackers who, to the man, were not destitute or desperate. Whether you believe it or not does not change the reality that there are a lot of people out there who don't fit your paradigm.
So when a suicide bomber blows up worshipers in a mosque are the worshipers in tanks? ISIS has tanks and they still have a waiting list for suicide bombers. The world just doesn't work the way you want it to. Reality proves you wrong.
Again, you are confusing ready-to-die with want-to-die. Until you see the difference you will remain bogged down in your inane equivalencies.
Do you see any parties being thrown at the grave sites? When a family gets word that there son or daughter died in a war, do we cheer? Is it our goal for our sons and daughters to die?
It doesn't matter one bit what you think of their beliefs. Surely you know that the suicide bomber believes that he will be rewarded for his wanton carnage in the afterlife? I mean, if you can't even grasp that simple fact then you are lost.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?