| Advertise Here » Browse ad-free by donating | |
|
|
| The Debate Forums | Blogs | | | Donate | Register (it's free) | Chatroom | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| ||||||
 |
| | Thread Tools |
Sep 14, 2007, 08:58 am
| #21 (permalink) (top) |
| moderat-e/o-r  Location: boston Posts: 11,184 | this is a final warning... this is not some AOL chat room. stay on topic - and dilligras, pay careful attention. the public doesn't support petraeus's rosy report - a report that repeated the same rhetoric coming from the white house. the public is also not as dim as i usually see it as being. despite petraeus's report, there has been absolutely zero political progress made in iraq. and, as all of the fools in the white house have said, iraq can only be "won" when there's a stable political system in place. minor shreds of improved stability in a handful of areas do not negate the fact that without political progress, all of these areas could easily unravel and become as violent as they once were (or worse). how long does the american taxpayer have to pay for iraqi lethargy? how long do american soldiers have to die for someone else's country? i agree with auto and brien, i want them home now. iraq can rot for all i care. only a fool would prefer to so closely join our future to that of another country. |
|  |
|
Sep 14, 2007, 12:54 pm
| #22 (permalink) (top) | |
| Liberated thinker  Location: New Mexican Alps Posts: 2,118 | What really amazes(and amuses) me is the criticisms of the generals integrity and honor by politicians and the cooperative press. Here we have a commander who has been on the scene in Iraq for 3 years(being briefed daily and actually knowing the facts) being told he doesn't know what he is talking about and has even stooped so low as to alter his report to conform to the Presidents desire to have it appear in a favorable light? Told by several armchair politicians who have never been thereor maybe had a short visit some years ago how ineffective the surge is? Wow! That is about as illogical an explanation as anyone can conjure up and yet many in the leftist, antiwar public. believe it? A general who is on the site, has many decades of experience and an ambassador with many years experience in Islamic countries are countermanded, demeaned or ignored? In any case Patraeus was speaking to the Congress about the success of the "surge" which has only been going on for two months. The sheer lunacy of these buffoons and crooks, who operate under the cloak of legislative authority, expecting some sort of definitve report in 2 months is ridiculous. Each politically oriented clown got to present a long soliloquy about how terrible the war was and is, preface his /her questions with political opinions. Uninformed politcally guided opinions on how to prematurely solve the issue by getting out or announcing some sort of pull out schedule? These are the morons we elect! These are the people, thre majority of whom voted for the operation in the first place? In effect the hearing was a public sounding board for a bunch of disgrutled, uninformed, oportunistic politicians to get national attention! ...shall we say curry political and constituent favor? What does Joe Biden know about military strategy and tactics, or Hillary Clinton know about warfare and foreign policy? None of these cowards had the guts to vote to cut funding for the war, they knew it was not policially expedient..shall we say unpatriotic. Patrick your point is meaningless! Quote:
Thus we play the fools with the time, and the spirits of the wise sit in the clouds and mock us. | |
|
| |
|
Sep 14, 2007, 01:28 pm
| #23 (permalink) (top) | |
 Hot Lava Posts: 1,660 | Quote:
Iraq refugees chased from home, struggle to cope - CNN.com Last edited by The Decider; Sep 14, 2007 at 01:56 pm. | |
|
| |
|
Sep 14, 2007, 01:52 pm
| #24 (permalink) (top) | |||
| Aristotle  Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 4,400 | Quote:
 Quote:
Quote:
 | |||
|
| |
|
Sep 15, 2007, 02:54 am
| #25 (permalink) (top) | |||
| 9/11: Inside Job  Location: Hawai'i, Big Island Posts: 10,438 | Quote:
Quote:
 Steven Dale Green - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia And Green was the ONLY killer in Iraq, huh, GHook? Quote:
 ."Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." -- John Adams | |||
|
| |
|
Sep 15, 2007, 01:30 pm
| #26 (permalink) (top) | |
| Liberated thinker Location: New Mexican Alps Posts: 2,118 | Patrick?????You are generalizing off a few specifics? Quote:
 Sure out troops kill Iraqis but under the rules of engagement they only do so when threatened or attacked. The vast majority of civilian casualties in the last few years have been terrorists and Iraqi thugs killing their Islamic enemis! Thus we play the fools with the time, and the spirits of the wise sit in the clouds and mock us. | |
|
| |
|
Sep 15, 2007, 04:05 pm
| #27 (permalink) (top) | |
| 9/11: Inside Job Location: Hawai'i, Big Island Posts: 10,438 | Quote:
He said who is doing ALL this killing. That means US troops are killing none, or is that logic too subtle for you, xyz? US troops generally have killed thousands of innocent Iraqis. Only a few have been prosecuted for their crimes. And you say a few criminals? Four men with US uniforms murder children, then cover it up and to you it's only a few, huh? Think of it, man. Each of those four men could have said, "No way I am being involved in this mass murder." Instead they covered their crime...just like Uncle Sam does on the whole Iraq operation... "Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." -- John Adams | |
|
| |
|
Sep 15, 2007, 05:10 pm
| #28 (permalink) (top) | |
| The Cake is a lie... Location: St. Louis Posts: 2,343 | Quote:
The only real fact of the matter is that the figures on Iraqi casualties vary dramatically. Not all of them are innocent civilians and not all of them are terrorists or armed insurrectionists. Taking any position on the actual numbers just shows a clear bias on any side in a realm that is in no way certain. However, using blatant outliers to support even more blatant generalizations is completely dishonest. What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality? Last edited by Chaossaber314; Sep 15, 2007 at 08:59 pm. | |
| |
|
Sep 16, 2007, 01:10 pm
| #29 (permalink) (top) | ||||
| redneck scum  Location: Cut n Shoot, Texas Posts: 830 | Quote:
Quote:
But who ever saw a "war" without casualties? And since when is every single civilian death in a conflict to be ascribed to only one side? Al-qaeda needs their death toll, in order to be seen by prospective recruits as being effective at killing women and children. They're gonna be pissed if the moonbats don't give them credit where it's due. Quote:
Like Wiki's entry on the topic, for example: Vietnam War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Or, if it's anecdotal evidence you enjoy, perhaps you will find the story of Quang X. Pham (author of Sense of Duty: My Father, My American Journey) a compelling one: LOS ANGELES TIMES COMMENTARY U.S. Mustn't Betray Iraq as It Did South Vietnam By Quang X. Pham May 3, 2004 His email contact is included as a link near the top of the page, if you would like to argue with him about Vietnam. I'm betting he won't be buying into your version of things, however. :) (excerpt) "After Watergate dethroned President Nixon, President Ford's hands were tied despite his final plea to help South Vietnam amid the North's all-out assault to capture Saigon. Congress overwhelmingly voted against resuming aid despite atrocious and blatant cease-fire violations by the North Vietnamese. With the exception of a handful of people in the State Department and U.S. military and of citizens involved in the evacuation and refugee resettlement, Americans had had enough. The war had gone on for more than a decade, with 58,235 American dead and countless physical and psychological casualties. For the South Vietnamese, about 300,000 soldiers paid the ultimate price. Vietnam as a people lost 2 million to 3 million. The United States didn't lose in Vietnam. The South Vietnamese did. Those stranded behind paid dearly for losing their war and their country. Life changed drastically. A month after winning, the communists began rounding up a million former government officials, educators and soldiers, including my father, for internment in "reeducation" camps. With few exceptions, these prisoners were detained without charge, trial or protection from criminal abuses by the guards. A month turned into a year, then into more than a decade. My father was held for 12 years. Human rights researchers estimated 70,000 were executed and thousands died of hard labor, disease and malnutrition while the world ignored their plight. After several years under communist rule, millions began escaping, mostly via boats. According to the Red Cross, an additional 300,000 died on the high seas. In nearby Cambodia, 2 million more perished in the Khmer Rouge's "killing fields." Although the quest to account for American POWs and MIAs in the postwar years continued, the United Nations took several years to investigate the reeducation camp crisis." Quote:
(excerpt) "On its own, being so hopelessly crackpot, 'Jewish History, Jewish Religion' would hardly find enough buyers to pay for its printing. But this little booklet is not on its own. It has a foreword by a famous writer, Gore Vidal, who tells us that he, Vidal, is not himself an anti-Semite. And it carries an enthusiastic endorsement, right on its cover, by Noam Chomsky. Says Chomsky: "Shahak is an outstanding scholar, with remarkable insight and depth of knowledge. His work is informed and penetrating, a contribution of great value." (3) So that is how scholarship is judged these days at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. *** Since the present book first appeared in 1988, there have been a number of other works, on Holocaust-denial and related subjects, that have been critical of Chomsky. But on the whole I have not found these discussions fully satisfactory. These authors have mentioned some of the more conspicuous examples of Chomsky's outrageous behavior without coming to grips with what I would regard as the underlying problem of the Chomsky phenomenon. As this book will document in detail, Chomsky gave his name in support of Robert Faurisson, the well-known French neo-Nazi Holocaust denier. He has published in the neo-Nazi's journal. He went out of his way to have his books published by French neo-Nazis. He has promoted the anti-Semitic idea that the Jewish religion is basically anti-social. Nevertheless, the tenor of Chomsky criticism, as that of Chomsky admiration, has been to stress the image of Chomsky as a partisan of the political Left. Chomsky's use of anti-Semitic rhetoric 末 often not at all veiled by "anti-Zionism" 末 has by and large been ignored by his critics and sympathizers alike. (His handful of fully initiated followers, of course, are another matter). How can we account for this negligence? First, there is Chomsky's well-known deviousness, which we observed in his commentary on Rosenthal's writing. But that alone could hardly have misled the knowledgeable and sophisticated authors who have written about him (although it may indeed have played a part in certain instances). Second there is the obscurity of much of the Chomsky publication enterprise. Some of his most malicious pronouncements have been reported in very small ultra-leftist and neo-Nazi publications, and often in French, thus remaining hidden from the general American reader. (4) The single most revealing description of his intimate involvement with the neo-Nazis was written in French by Chomsky's neo-Nazi associate, Pierre Guillaume, and was published by a very obscure neo-Nazi publisher in Paris. (I report on this essay in some detail 末 on pages 52-62 末 and I ask the reader to pay particular attention to it). But, on the other hand, Chomsky has also made blatantly anti-Semitic statements, for instance his talk of "genocidal" teachings in the Jewish religion, in The Fateful Triangle, an accessible and widely-reviewed book. In other words, Chomsky's famous ability to obfuscate and the obscurity of most of his publications can only partially explain why his neo-Nazi involvements have escaped wide-spread criticism. In my view there has been a more fundamental obstacle to an understanding of the Chomsky phenomenon. I think that there is a persisting state of mind that divides the political world into "left" versus "right" and sees the "Left" as essentially incapable of primitive Jew-baiting. Even sophisticated writers can occasionally fall into this trap. All informed people, of course, know that there has been an anti-Semitism of the Left. Recently often disguised as "anti-Zionism," left anti-Semitism has a history that goes back well into the nineteenth century. (5) Most recently it was propagated by the Soviet Union, as long as it existed, by the splinter grouplets of the Left, and, not least, by the political propaganda of left-liberal Protestant Christianity. (6) But the rhetorical style has typically been different from the anti-Semitism of the Right. Where the latter was generally couched in racist or religious terms, identifying itself with chauvinist and xenophobic prejudices, the Left tended to use a Marxist, left-wing, humanistic vocabulary. This difference in rhetoric has led to the false assumption that Left and Right are ideologically and socially incompatible, and that the two anti-Semitisms 末 the left and the right 末 similarly preclude one another. Consequently it is mistakenly taken for granted that a proponent of left-wing ideas cannot possibly be involved with old-fashioned Jew-baiting. Chomsky's most characteristic stance 末 that of the left-wing gladiator battling "Zionism" 末 turned out to be a very effective cover for him." Dang! Lefty Nazis??? Will wonders never cease? As you were. "If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees." Pres. Bill Clinton, April 12, 1993 | ||||
|
| |
|
Sep 16, 2007, 10:05 pm
| #30 (permalink) (top) | |||||
| 9/11: Inside Job Location: Hawai'i, Big Island Posts: 10,438 | Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Let me remind you that I am calling GHook on his erroneous assertion of a bloodbath in Vietnam and his vapid prediction of a similar occurence if the US was to vacate Iraq. What I have done is to show two things. One, that there has been a massacre in Iraq ever since the US occupied that nation. And two, that the allegations of mass killings in Vietnam are unsubstantiated. "Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." -- John Adams | |||||
|
| |
|
Sep 18, 2007, 12:25 pm
| #31 (permalink) (top) | |
| blasphemer  Location: Michigan Posts: 7,626 | Quote:
He also assumes, obviously, that the US didn't devastate either country. Grandpa h. News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising. - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail | |
|
| |
|
Sep 20, 2007, 01:57 am
| #32 (permalink) (top) | ||||
| redneck scum Location: Cut n Shoot, Texas Posts: 830 | Quote:
The 3% obviously read only the NYT for their source of, "news." Quote:
One had only to watch the report given by the Ambassador, to find out that political reconciliations have occurred, albeit without the legislation to mandate it. Oil revenue sharing was one example given. Too busy shopping for burkhas, were we? Quote:
From one such informed observer: 'You Have Liberated a People' Iraqis of all sects report progress, not "civil war." BY FOUAD AJAMI Sunday, September 16, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT (Mr. Ajami teaches at Johns Hopkins University. He is author of "The Foreigner's Gift: The Americans, the Arabs, and the Iraqis in Iraq," and is the recipient of the Bradley Prize.) (excerpt) "BAGHDAD--'We liberated the Anbar, we defeated al Qaeda by denying it religious cover,' Sheikh Abdul Sattar Abu Reisha said with a touch of pride and impatience. This was the dashing tribal leader who emerged as the face of the new Sunni accommodation with American power, and who was assassinated by al Qaeda last week. I had not been ready for his youth (born in 1971), nor for his flamboyance. Sir David Lean, the legendary director of "Lawrence of Arabia," would have savored encountering this man. There was style, and an awareness of it, in Abu Reisha: his brown abaya bordered with gold thread, a neat white dishdasha, and a matching headdress. 'Our American friends had not understood us when they came, they were proud, stubborn people and so were we. They worked with the opportunists, now they have turned to the tribes, and this is as it should be. The tribes hate religious parties and religious fakers.' We were in Baghdad, and the sheikh gave me his narrative. There was both candor and evasion in the story he told. Al Qaeda and its Arab jihadists had found sanctuary and support in the Anbar; they had recruited the "criminal elements" and the "lowly," they had brought zeal and bigotry unknown to the Iraqis. Initially welcomed, they began to impose their own tyranny. They declared haram (impermissible) the normal range of social life. They banned cigarettes, they married the daughters of decent families without the permission of their elders. They violated the great code of decent society by "shedding the blood of travelers on routine voyages." The prayer leaders of mosques were bullied, then murdered. Abu Reisha and a small group of like-minded men, he said, came together to challenge al Qaeda. 'We fought with our own weapons. I myself fought al Qaeda with my own funds. The Americans were slow to understand our sahwa, our awakening. But they have come around of late. The Americans are innocent; they don't know Iraq. But all this is in the past, and now the Americans have a wise and able military commander on the scene, and the people of the Anbar have found their way. In the Anbar, they now know that the menace comes from Iran, not from the Americans.'..." Quote:
And why is it that lefties think that our troops are only useful as a tool in supporting one lame position after another? It seems that they are conflicted, not able to decide whether the volunteers in our armed forces are best viewed as murdering slimeballs, or as poor little boys who have been torn from their mother's apron strings in order to feed the insane averice of an America bent on conquering the planet and sucking the lifeblood out of its population. Perhaps they have been conditioned to fitting everything and everyone into one of the two neat pigeonholes of monster or victim, because they are the two catagories most prevalent in their media's reportage of daily events. They are apparently the, "hook" most easily identified by the lazy, jaded toadies of journalism. Very lame, indeed.... ring up a, "no sale." As you were. "If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees." Pres. Bill Clinton, April 12, 1993 | ||||
|
| |
|
Sep 26, 2007, 09:05 am
| #33 (permalink) (top) | ||||
| redneck scum Location: Cut n Shoot, Texas Posts: 830 | Quote:
But I suppose estimates are just imaginary figures, and mean absolutely nothing in terms of the real life or death of anyone of any significance.... and even less for the purposes of this debate, which requires its corpses to be rotting in a common pit, rather than floating aimlessly in the South Pacific, their bloated bellies glistening in the hot sun reminding us only vaguely of our last Princess cruise through the Carribean. Quote:
Oh, look.... now I'm having to debate myself, because you just aren't up to the task. Quote:
Quote:
Save your PC, lefty version of history for your grandkids, pardner, 'cause they won't have memories with which to refute your BS. As you were. "If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees." Pres. Bill Clinton, April 12, 1993 | ||||
|
| |
|
Sep 26, 2007, 09:25 am
| #34 (permalink) (top) | ||||||
| Logical Phallussy  Location: In your internets. Posts: 2,991 | Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
On another note, I have heard that the rules of engagement for US forces in Vietnam were such that they practically guaranteed that the "war" would become a stalemate and a quagmire for all involved. Perhaps "victory" was not the true objective of that conflict. Quote:
What does this have to do with the Iraq "war" or Gen. Petraeus' report? Quote:
Also, your accusations of Congressmen "flip-flopping to appease the radical lefties in the media and their moveon-type [sic] 'constituencies'" appears to be completely unfounded. I will not make any counter-accusations here, because they would be equally unfounded. I do not know the Congressmen in question, so I cannot gauge their motives with any degree of certainty. So I suggest leaving such things out of this debate. Quote:
- Rob "I'd rather be free and alive!" -- Ron Paul Religion isn't the greatest threat to mankind -- authoritarianism is. The Anarcheion Zeitgeist | ||||||
|
| |
|
Sep 26, 2007, 09:26 am
| #35 (permalink) (top) | |
| Logical Phallussy Location: In your internets. Posts: 2,991 | Quote:
On another note, I say bring home the troops now, which obviously conflicts with what you say. How will we resolve this dispute? - Rob "I'd rather be free and alive!" -- Ron Paul Religion isn't the greatest threat to mankind -- authoritarianism is. The Anarcheion Zeitgeist | |
|
| |
|
Sep 26, 2007, 09:37 am
| #36 (permalink) (top) | ||||||
| Logical Phallussy Location: In your internets. Posts: 2,991 | Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Also, maybe I don't care about political reconciliations, because the stability of an Iraqi government is simply not a concern of mine. What say you to this? Quote:
Quote:
Let me list a couple of problems with this response. First off, I consider it insufficient to disprove Bishop's claims, since it accounts for only a single (alleged) example. Second, unless this story is corroborated by multiple others, I see no reason to give it any credibility. Quote:
I don't know who you're really talking to, there, but let me respond anyway. I oppose any and all "foreign aid" sent by the US government to other countries. The same goes for foreign intervention, such as what we currently see in Iraq. So no, I see no reason for the US government to steal some of its people's money, labor, and lives to free anyone -- Iraqi, Sudanese, etc. -- from oppression. If people want to volunteer to go over there and help out, that's fine. Just don't mandate it. As for the rest of your post, I simply see no reason to respond to it. - Rob "I'd rather be free and alive!" -- Ron Paul Religion isn't the greatest threat to mankind -- authoritarianism is. The Anarcheion Zeitgeist | ||||||
|
| |
