• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

They know we're soft

mikhail

blond bombshell
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
4,728
Reaction score
763
Location
uk
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
This sounds so harsh but the fact is the enemy wouldnt give a **** about 4000 deaths.We have massive advantages in this fight in terms of firepower and technology.Are we gonna sit back and wait for them to catch up GWB has caused massive controversy but he is right on the basic and most important point there is no diplomacy with islamic extremists.We act so soft when we cant handle a few thousand deaths i know that might sound callous but everyone of them are heroes and as a result we can defeat this enemy.My biggest fear is we wont face up to it until we have no choice.
 
Thats a point I've been trying to make forever.

We are the most powerful country in the world, and yet, we can;t ight a loose group of terrorists to save ourselves.

"Why don't we just be nice to the terrorists and leave them alone" - bullcrap, wasn't that what we were doing before 9/11?

I have a fantastic Idea! There are terrorists that want to kill us, how about we kill them first and save ourselves!
 
For a minute there, I thought this had to be a four year old thread. Other than the body count, there's nothing in your posts that wasn't said in the first internet post by the first NeoCon.

Did someone hit the reset buttons on you guys? :2razz:

Newsflash. Not only are we not going to win, we lost a long time ago.
 
Newsflash. Not only are we not going to win, we lost a long time ago.

This is what really kills me. It's one thing to think that we can win through another method, even some form of diplomacy... but the incessant "We've already lost, so let's just lose completely" advocacy I'll have to disagree with.

I don't think we've lost yet. What's more, I think we can win.
 
^----this is the patriotism of a neo-liberal.
 
Seems that more and more people are finally comming to realize the truth!
bush screwed up and now our Troops are dying daily because of bush-de-buss-boys screwups.
---
I'll tell ya how smart the terrorists are, they waited for a ***WEAK*** pres to come along and then they hit us!
 
According to him we've already lost, and the only way he can come to that conclusion is if, in an orgy of self-interest, he wants us to lose in the first place.
 
Seems that more and more people are finally comming to realize the truth!
bush screwed up and now our Troops are dying daily because of bush-de-buss-boys screwups.
---
I'll tell ya how smart the terrorists are, they waited for a ***WEAK*** pres to come along and then they hit us!
You may be right there. But as for the terrorists, methinks their strongest leader is weaker than our weakest president.
 
2006 38,588

2005 39,252

2004 38,444

2003 38,477

2002 38,491

2001 37,862


Can someone tell me what these numbers represent?
 
2006 38,588

2005 39,252

2004 38,444

2003 38,477

2002 38,491

2001 37,862


Can someone tell me what these numbers represent?

The number of people who actually support Bush?
 
:rofl No.

They are the numbers of people each year since 2001 that we have sacrificed for the privilege of personal transportation (ie, people who have died on our roads).

It helps to keep things in perspective when we are considering how afraid we are of people dying at the hands of terrorists on our own soil.

Are these people heroes?

Are their deaths somehow less deserving of recognition? Significance?

Or is it that their deaths are not as politically useful?

We act so soft when we cant handle a few thousand deaths i know that might sound callous but everyone of them are heroes and as a result we can defeat this enemy.My biggest fear is we wont face up to it until we have no choice.
We cannot handle a few thousand deaths? How about more than 230,000 deaths since 2001?

It's all a matter of perspective.

I am prepared to sacrifice Americans, including my own life and those of my loved ones, for the privilege of remaining a free and honorable sojourner on this planet.
 
^----this is the patriotism of a neo-liberal.

Yawn.

And this is the tired old unimaginative response from a NeoCon. When you can't think of anything else, impugn someone's patriotism. Absolutely nothing about what I have said has anything to do with my love and loyalty to my Country.

Based on my background, you're going to have to try a bit harder to convince me I'm not patriotic. :rofl
 
I have a fantastic Idea! There are terrorists that want to kill us, how about we kill them first and save ourselves!

:confused: what are the GIs trying to do in Iraq for 4 years?

what a fantastic idea!
 
I'll tell ya how smart the terrorists are, they waited for a ***WEAK*** pres to come along and then they hit us!

Really, bright bulb, I didn’t know that, that Al Quacka “waited for a ***WEAK*** pres to come along and then they hit us,” so is that what your Al Quacka friends told you?

August, 1996: “More than 600,000 Iraqi children have died due to lack of food and medicine and as a result of the unjustifiable aggression (sanction) imposed on Iraq and its nation. The children of Iraq are our children. You, the USA, together with the Saudi regime are responsible for the shedding of the blood of these innocent children. Due to all of that, what ever treaty you have with our country is now null and void.
The treaty of Hudaybiyyah was cancelled by the messenger of Allah (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him) once Quraysh had assisted Bani Bakr against Khusa'ah, the allies of the prophet (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him). The prophet (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him) fought Quraysh and concurred Makka. He (Allah's Blessings and Salutations may be on him) considered the treaty with Bani Qainuqa' void because one of their Jews publicly hurt one Muslim woman, one single woman, at the market.” (Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places.) Online NewsHour: Bin Laden's Fatwa

March 1997: “Though Bin Ladin had promised Taliban leaders that he would be circumspect, he broke this promise almost immediately, giving an inflammatory interview to CNN in March 1997. The Taliban leader Mullah Omar promptly "invited" Bin Ladin to move to Kandahar, ostensibly in the interests of Bin Ladin's own security but more likely to situate him where he might be easier to control.73
There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response. According to one report, Saddam Hussein's efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.74“(The 9/11 commission report, page 65-66)
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
details

July 1997: “Those who desire to face up to the Zionists conspiracies, intransigence, and aggressiveness must proceed towards the advance centers of capabilities in the greater Arab homeland and to the centers of the knowledge, honesty and sincerity with whole heartiness if the aim was to implement a serious plan to save others from their dilemma or to rely on those capable centers; well-known for their positions regarding the enemy, to gain precise concessions from it with justified maneuvers even if such centers including Baghdad not in agreement with those concerned, over the objectives and aims of the required maneuvers." (On the 29th anniversary of Iraq’s national day (the 17th of July 1968 revolution). President Saddam Hussein made an important comprehensive and nation wide address) http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/countries/Iraq/speech.htm

February 17, 1998: “While speaking at the Pentagon on February 17, 1998, President Bill Clinton warned of the ‘reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals.’ These ‘predators of the twenty-first century,’ he said ‘will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq.’“ Bombing of Iraq (December 1998) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Text Of Clinton Statement On Iraq - February 17, 1998

February 23, 1998: One (“The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people…”), Two (“despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance…”), Three (“if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq…”)! http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm

January 14, 1999: “ABC News has learned that in December, an Iraqi intelligence chief, named Farouk Hijazi, now Iraq's ambassador to Turkey, made a secret trip to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. Three intelligence agencies tell ABC News they cannot be certain what was discussed, but almost certainly, they say, bin Laden has been told he would be welcome in Baghdad.” ABC News: Iraqi intelligence chief met with bin Laden in December 1998
http://www.debatepolitics.com/war-i...lip-connecting-obl-saddam.html#post1057483750

“Never before has our nation enjoyed, at once, so much prosperity and social progress with so little internal crisis and so few external threats.” (2000 State of the Union Address Thursday, January 27, 2000)

“War? We ain't got no war! We don't need no war! I don't have to show you any stinking war!” {Bill Clinton 1998}

April 2000: “Throughout the year, the Taliban continued to host Usama Bin Ladin--indicted in November 1998 for the bombings of two US Embassies in East Africa--despite US and UN sanctions, a unanimously adopted United Security Council resolution, and other international pressure to deliver him to stand trial in the United States or a third country. The United States repeatedly made clear to the Taliban that they will be held responsible for any terrorist acts undertaken by Bin Ladin while he is in their territory.”
1999 Global Terrorism: Asia Overview

October 23, 2000: “Asked to explain the similarities with the blasts that destroyed the U.S. embassies, Clarke stopped short of pointing the finger conclusively at bin Laden.”
CNN.com - US - U.S. official sees similarities between USS Cole blast and embassy attacks - October 22, 2000

“The victory of the US and its allies over Iraq would conceal the opposing attitude and analysis, and would not allow it to emerge again for a long time.”
(Saddam Hussein Shabban 13, 1422 H. October 29, 2001.)

“JUSTICE THOMAS would treat Osama bin Laden’s 1996 declaration of jihad against Americans as the inception of the war. See post, at 7–10 (dissenting opinion). But even the Government does not go so far; although the United States had for some time prior to the attacks of September 11, 2001, been aggressively pursuing al Qaeda, neither in the charging document nor in submissions before this Court has the Government asserted that the President’s war powers were activated prior to September 11, 2001.” (Opinion of STEVENS, J.) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-184.pdf

Honestly, I think if your Al Quacka buddies saw anything, they saw a president we (republicans) would not support in wartime, they saw a president we would have said was wagging the dog.
 
Yawn.

And this is the tired old unimaginative response from a NeoCon. When you can't think of anything else, impugn someone's patriotism. Absolutely nothing about what I have said has anything to do with my love and loyalty to my Country.

Based on my background, you're going to have to try a bit harder to convince me I'm not patriotic. :rofl
:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl
What a load of liberal Bull!
If I am a neo-con, I'm the only one willing to vote for John Edwards(D). :P
 
2006 38,588

2005 39,252

2004 38,444

2003 38,477

2002 38,491

2001 37,862


Can someone tell me what these numbers represent?

As a side point i find those deaths unexceptable which why we eventually have to computer controlled cars.
 
So how do you "win" an imperial occuption after an illegal, unprovoked invasion? The population, from which comes the insurgency, wants all foreign forces out, and the US has the most by far. So what is a win? To successfully imprison or kill all Iraqis? To maintain israeli-style walled ghettos of the rightful inhabitants? In Vietnam that was tried with "fortified hamlets." To get the "Iraqi Army" to stand up when it doesn't want to (kill their own peple) and has no incentive because we are going bankrupt holding them up?

pe_09.JPG


"[American leaders] are perhaps not so much immoral as they are amoral. It's not that they take pleasure in causing so much death and suffering. It's that they just don't care ... the same that could be said about a sociopath. As long as the death and suffering advance the agenda of the empire, as long as the right people and the right corporations gain wealth and power and privilege and prestige, as long as the death and suffering aren't happening to them or people close to them ... then they just don't care about it happening to other people, including the American soldiers whom they throw into wars and who come home - the ones who make it back alive - with Agent Orange or Gulf War Syndrome eating away at their bodies. American leaders would not be in the positions they hold if they were bothered by such things." William Blum The Second Treatise of Civil Government
 
So how do you "win" an imperial occuption after an illegal, unprovoked invasion? The population, from which comes the insurgency, wants all foreign forces out, and the US has the most by far. So what is a win? To successfully imprison or kill all Iraqis? To maintain israeli-style walled ghettos of the rightful inhabitants? In Vietnam that was tried with "fortified hamlets." To get the "Iraqi Army" to stand up when it doesn't want to (kill their own peple) and has no incentive because we are going bankrupt holding them up?

In a recent column in the Middle Eastern Outlook, Reuel Marc Gerecht addressed this question of "winning" in Iraq. Here are some relevant excerpts from that column:

Bartle Bull, the foreign editor for the British magazine Prospect, has probably gone the furthest in his assessment of where the surge has taken us. In an essay entitled "Mission Accomplished," Bull declares victory for the Americans and the Iraqi government. He makes several points to support his contention, but his key commentary is this:

"Understanding this expensive victory is a matter of understanding the remaining violence. Now that Iraq's biggest questions have been resolved--break-up? No. Shia victory? Yes. Will violence make the Americans go home? No. Do Iraqis like voting? Yes. Do they like Iraq? Yes--Iraq's violence has largely become local and criminal. The biggest fact about Iraq today is that the violence, while tragic, has ceased being political, and is therefore no longer nearly as important as it was. Some of the violence--that paid for by foreigners or motivated by Islam's crazed fringes--will not recede in a hurry. Iraq has a lot of Islam and long, soft borders. But the rest of Iraq's violence is local: factionalism, revenge cycles, crime, power plays. It will largely cease once Iraq has had a few more years to build up its security apparatus."

I think Bull is right, although the gains could be reversed if the United States were to draw down its forces precipitously. This seems, however, unlikely. President George W. Bush is surely loath to turn victory into defeat by resurrecting the premature "Iraqification" approach of former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld and Generals John Abizaid and George Casey.

In discussing the role of Sunni versus Shiia sectarian strife, Gerecht makes the following points:

But the odds are decent that Mesopotamia's Sunni Arabs will reconcile themselves to the new Iraq without the official reconciliation legislation that the Bush administration and the Democratic party have viewed as essential elements of success. It is likely that the political Shiite elite, who are often depicted in the press as being selfishly stubborn in their resistance to the American-backed reconciliation initiatives--chiefly the de-de-Baathification and oil-distribution bills--are reflective of the vast majority of Iraq's Shiites.[10] Some form of these bills will likely pass eventually, but only after the Sunni Arab community proves to the Shia that the violence of the past, in particular the Sunni Arabs' tolerance of insurgent and extremist attacks, is over. In the eyes of the Shia, the Sunni Arab about-face against al Qaeda is surely a good thing, but one motivated by the fact that al Qaeda started doing to Sunni Arabs what it had been doing to the Shia since 2003. Maliki's government offered monetary aid to Anbar in 2006 and 2007 but encountered difficulty within the Shiite-led government. Intra-Sunni feuding, between the Iraqi Islamic Party governor of Anbar (the Iraqi Islamic Party is a nontribal, Baghdad-centered organization) and the region's tribal elders, has also been a significant factor in slowing disbursement of federal funds to the province.[11] Americans, who have a hard time thinking consistently in Iraqi terms, see "political reconciliation" as politically astute magnanimity. But the Shia, Iraqi to the core, are unlikely to show weakness so soon after the Sunnis have been defeated in battle. This is, in part, undoubtedly why the Shiites are anxious about the Americans giving aid to the Anbaris: they do not want to see the Sunni "Will to Power" reenergized. They do not want to confront Sunni soldiers materially or organizationally aided by the Americans. This fear is probably misplaced, but Shiite hesitancy about this American-supported project is understandable. For the Sunnis, it will most likely turn out to be a direct and simple choice: better democracy than death.

This progress might be reversed if we again repeat the mistakes of premature "Iraqification" and rapidly drew down our forces too soon, but elsewise, the surge has likely made lasting success the more probable scenario. More and more, it appears that it is the collapse of Sunni hubris, not the triumph of Sunni-Shiite "reconciliation," that is the key to long-term success.

It has always been doubtful that "reconciliation" could in any meaningful way be legislated by the Iraqi national government; the most that could be hoped for would be legislation easing the path forward toward that goal.

But it appears now that Iraqis grasp this reality, and, in the end, that is what matters.

Winning in Iraq, paraphrasing Gerecht, could well be defined as the survival of the Middle East's first fully Muslim experiment in representative government proving more durable precisely because it is not at all what the Bush administration expected.
 
I like how people claim we have already lost, and ignore the marked improvements in the situations we are actively engaged in right now. I know some of you people didn't even want the Iraq war to begin with, which is fine. But don't let it cloud your judgement as far as viewing the overall picture of what needs to be done in that region of the world. Iraq is a means to that end. Winning in Afghanistan against al-qaeda and the Taliban wasn't going to do the job alone. If you believe that, then you took a very short-sighted view of the solution to the problem of Islamic extremism. Its a cultural war that has no boundaries. The best way to combat this extremism is to allow the moderate voices to stand up and be heard, to allow the men and women to vote against the extremists, and for them to take up arms against them, themselves. Our post Iraq war planning failed to do this initially, and for a few years afterwards. But the shift in strategy implemented by Gen. Petraus has been nothing short of genius and has created an improving situation in Iraq.
 
I agree i think people have allowed their judgement to be clouded by their dislike of the bush administration.I dont see how the best plan can possibly to hand over a massive victory to the extremists.I know the conventual wisdom is we are just dealing with a handfull of extremists but i think most people would be very concerned if they realised how big the handfull was.
 
Back
Top Bottom