Reply #51 February 27, 2006 5:14 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

After all, we're sick of protecting the projects, and tired of their crime spilling over into our neighborhoods. Why don't they just take care of their own problems? They've got guns, right? It would be awful there, and it would be awful in Iraq.

so much for the 'when guns are criminalized blah blah blah' argument as well as the argument that small arms ownership--much less one assault weapon per family--is the trump card guaranteeing our liberty.

your analogy is imperfect at best.

while there may be some foreign fighters, the iraqis ARE the insurgency (by definition as well as in fact). yes there are foreign fighters involved, but so few by proportion they could easily be rounded up or wiped out by the natives. for that matter, there is a nationalist insurgency (which has little room or patience with foreign islamists for obvious reasons) and a religious insurgency. there are also a lotta tribalists and criminals taking advantage of the opportunities all the chaos presents.

you seem to feel 'ordinary' iraqis are outgunned because they aren't able to get their hands on rocket launchers or mortar shells. it's only true, i suspect, for those unwilling or unable to pay for them. you must not be paying a lotta attention to whenever they show coverage of an iraqi funeral or wedding.

Reply #52 February 27, 2006 6:46 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

i'm sure you thought this was a witty response...even though all you've really accomplished is providing one more reason not to take anything else you say too seriously.

That's funny, because stevendedalus had no such problem with the statement. I take it you didn't know that the Clinton administration also pursued regime change in Iraq?

As for the insulting remark about not taking what I say too seriously, I recommend that you start taking it more seriously soon. While I admit that there are many readers here on JoeUser who are already fairly knowledgable when it comes to Iraq, I have never had reason to consider you one among their number.

And given most of your opinions and how you back them up, I cannot help but think that you need to do A LOT of reading still.

Reply #53 February 27, 2006 7:51 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

And given most of your opinions and how you back them up, I cannot help but think that you need to do A LOT of reading still.

Come on Leauki, kingbee is one of the best informed people on this site. Show him some respect even if you disagree with his conclusions. Apart from maybe Bakerstreet I can't think of anyone else willing to trawl through ancient senate documents in search of supporting evidence.

The Bush administration didn't appear out of nowhere - a number of the current and previous cabinet have been linked to several organisations devoted to the downfall of Saddam's Iraq. PNAC is the obvious one, but I think there were others too. It's irrevelant that the Clinton administration also plotted his overthrowing, because kingbee was merely commenting on Bush's future cabinet's plans prior to his election.

Reply #54 February 27, 2006 8:02 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

Come on Leauki, kingbee is one of the best informed people on this site. Show him some respect even if you disagree with his conclusions. Apart from maybe Bakerstreet I can't think of anyone else willing to trawl through ancient senate documents in search of supporting evidence.

I'm not talking about his conclusions. I have seen him display amazing ignorance on a few topics, including Iraq. How many people think he's brilliant is not a part of the equation. He doesn't get to insult me, he is not smart enough. Full stop.

It's irrevelant that the Clinton administration also plotted his overthrowing, because kingbee was merely commenting on Bush's future cabinet's plans prior to his election.

It's not irrelevant at all. If "kingbee" wants to point out that the Bush team had planned the war in Iraq before they were even elected, whether or not the previous administration had similar plans is never irrelevant.

George Bush continued the Iraq policy of the Clinton administration. That he planned to do so even before he was elected seems quite logical to me. I am hoping that Bill Clinton would have acted similarly after it was clear that Arab extremists (of any kind) should not be trusted with WMDs (and common opinion before the invasion was that Iraq had such weapons).

As for showing Kingbee some respect after he insults me: why??? He doesn't deserve it, even if he was as brilliant as you seem to think he were.

Reply #55 February 27, 2006 8:26 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

I'm not talking about his conclusions. I have seen him display amazing ignorance on a few topics, including Iraq. How many people think he's brilliant is not a part of the equation. He doesn't get to insult me, he is not smart enough. Full stop

Fine. Whatever. I'm glad you have the ability to prevent insults from those of inferior intelligence. It is an all-too-rare talent which unfortunately can only be used on one's own blog.

George Bush continued the Iraq policy of the Clinton administration. That he planned to do so even before he was elected seems quite logical to me. I am hoping that Bill Clinton would have acted similarly after it was clear that Arab extremists (of any kind) should not be trusted with WMDs (and common opinion before the invasion was that Iraq had such weapons).

As you are undoubtably well aware PNAC's plans for Iraq were rather more extreme than Clinton's, as was the rationale behind them. Several founding members of PNAC were key figures in the current US administration, as you undoubtably know. You undoubtably know that following September 11 it was Iraq that was selected as suitably extremist Arab, when Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran were all far more important sources of terrorist action. You do not feel that the Bush administration's background was in any way influential on their choice of targets?

Perhaps Clinton would have done the same, but then again perhaps Monica would have done the same to Bush were she still in office. It's far too easy to get sidetracked when we deal with vague hypotheticals.

Reply #56 February 27, 2006 8:38 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

Fine. Whatever. I'm glad you have the ability to prevent insults from those of inferior intelligence. It is an all-too-rare talent which unfortunately can only be used on one's own blog.

What are you talking about now?

You seem to be upset that I didn't just accept "Kingbee's" insulting remark.

Why?

You undoubtably know that following September 11 it was Iraq that was selected as suitably extremist Arab, when Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran were all far more important sources of terrorist action.

I also know that of the four, Iraq was the one with the WMD program. The UN did not have inspectors expelled from Saudi Arabia at the same time.

Reply #57 February 27, 2006 1:34 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

We have claimed that we were going to fix this, and the goofballs in charge of our Iraq policy aren't interested in doing what it takes. That isn't the fault of the people who have to worry about getting killed every time they leave the house.

Obviously, then, there is no solution but to surrender to our mistakes and endure a pointless war.

Reply #58 February 27, 2006 2:17 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

I agree it is time to get out. Better now then after the country is in a real civil war. Then we will have the safety of our 130,000 troops and our equipment at risk.

Reply #59 February 27, 2006 2:40 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

lol, this, along with the UAE deal has been so enlightening. It amazes me how political the stances are, and how unattached to any ethical ideal. Those in opposition to Bush have show how deftly they can shift in order to remain on the opposite side of the discussion.

I mean, where is everyone crying for all the Iraqi children, yadda yadda? I'm amazed that people who have lamented and inflated the deathtoll in Iraq could now easily shift to not really caring if they kill each other. Now all those who threw a fit because Iraq might end up a terrorist stronghold want to hand it over to them.

I don't think Iraq is being handled well, no. Frankly I think it is a tad facetious when I hear some people on this blog who are sabre rattling and saying we oughtta be killing Mr X, or Mr Y, when they have opposed us killing ANYONE up until now. Some of us were more than willing to accept the flattening of insurgent areas, but then we were the nasty ones. Now, though, disregard of all those lamented women and children seems to be chic...

Reply #60 February 28, 2006 11:35 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

I mean, where is everyone crying for all the Iraqi children, yadda yadda? I'm amazed that people who have lamented and inflated the deathtoll in Iraq could now easily shift to not really caring if they kill each other.

It's a maddening killing field now--it's worth the chance to try a new strategy.

Reply #61 March 1, 2006 12:45 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

But it is always going to be a propaganda of death, steven. When we took the stance of isolation, we were starving children. When we unseated Sadaam and offered democracy, we were murdering children. When we leave, we'll be abandoning children.

I don't think it is a matter of leaving, it is a matter of finally deciding to STOP listening to this death toll propaganda and do ENOUGH killing to ensure the people preying on innocents are finally defeated. We are so afraid of killing people at this point that we are just standing by and watching them kill each other.

Reply #62 March 1, 2006 5:09 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

It's a maddening killing field now--it's worth the chance to try a new strategy.

Would the new strategy be leaving Iraq alone?

Wasn't that already tried in the 1980s? Didn't the world decide that it was too expensive in lives and neighbouring countries lost?

Reply #63 March 7, 2006 6:09 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

I wonder why this is not showing up in my article list?

Reply #64 March 7, 2006 6:10 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

mean, where is everyone crying for all the Iraqi children, yadda yadda? I'm amazed that people who have lamented and inflated the deathtoll in Iraq could now easily shift to not really caring if they kill each other. Now all those who threw a fit because Iraq might end up a terrorist stronghold want to hand it over to them.

well baker I just see this differently than you do, I believe no matter what we do there will be civil war and if we are there we will lose many many more troops than we have lost up to this date.

Reply #65 March 7, 2006 6:41 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

ok it is in the forums but is not on my article list. I am so confused.

helpppppppppppp!!!!!!!!!

Reply #66 March 8, 2006 12:28 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

Bless the beasts and the children.

Reply #67 March 8, 2006 5:25 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

66 by stevendedalus Wednesday, March 08, 2006

Bless the beasts and the children

ok I totally do not get that.

Reply #68 March 8, 2006 5:28 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

#62 by Leauki Wednesday, March 01, 2006

Would the new strategy be leaving Iraq alone? Wasn't that already tried in the 1980s? Didn't the world decide that it was too expensive in lives and neighbouring countries lost?

we freed them from sadam, trained there people to defend themselves, poured billions into the country, gave countless american lives, let them civil war already, we can return and clean up the mess.

Reply #69 March 8, 2006 5:55 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

we freed them from sadam, trained there people to defend themselves, poured billions into the country, gave countless american lives, let them civil war already, we can return and clean up the mess.

Wouldn't it be sufficient to withdraw to Kurdistan and leave the Arabs to do whatever they like?

Kurdistan seems quite safe, they actually want an American presence, and it seems a fun place.

Reply #70 March 8, 2006 6:27 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

#69 by Leauki Wednesday, March 08, 2006

we freed them from sadam, trained there people to defend themselves, poured billions into the country, gave countless american lives, let them civil war already, we can return and clean up the mess. Wouldn't it be sufficient to withdraw to Kurdistan and leave the Arabs to do whatever they like? Kurdistan seems quite safe, they actually want an American presence, and it seems a fun place.

yes as long as our brave troops are not involved in the upcoming wwar between the sunnis and the shiites

Reply #71 March 8, 2006 6:32 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

yes as long as our brave troops are not involved in the upcoming wwar between the sunnis and the shiites

I still don't believe that such a war is upcoming, but a withdrawl to Kurdistan is fine with me.

Reply #72 March 8, 2006 6:54 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

71 by Leauki Wednesday, March 08, 2006

yes as long as our brave troops are not involved in the upcoming wwar between the sunnis and the shiites I still don't believe that such a war is upcoming, but a withdrawl to Kurdistan is fine with me.

I figure one more bombing of a holy shrine either a sunni shrine or a shiite one will touch it off., Only time will tell for sure, I HOPE i AM wrong, but I doubt it.

Reply #73 March 8, 2006 8:20 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

I pray that an all out civil war does not start until AFTER we have removed our troops. However, I am very sure that a civil war will result in Iraq. The factions will not allow a fledgling government to exercise the control required to prevent a civil war. As was correctly pointed out, it took a civil war in our country to settle a very basic issue.

If an all out civil war does develop while we have our troops in Iraq, I hope Bush has a plan to extract them with a minimum loss of both American Lives and our equipment. It should be clear to anyone that all the shouting about the three elections in Iraq was simply Hype. This country is not even close to being ready for a democratic government and shows the basic flaw with the Bush policy of spreading democracy as the way to make America safer from radical Moslem factions.

Reply #74 March 8, 2006 8:38 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

#73 by COL Gene Wednesday, March 08, 2006

shows the basic flaw with the Bush policy of spreading democracy as the way to make America safer from radical Moslem factions.

only you could find fault with Bush spreading democracy gene. only you.

Reply #75 March 8, 2006 8:54 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

I pray that an all out civil war does not start until AFTER we have removed our troops.

I pray that an all out civil war does not start at all.