You People on the Right

from JoeUser Forums

Why do “you people” on the right seem most of the time when arguing the current war to reference ancient history—WWII, Korea and Vietnam—to justify staying the course in Iraq?

It goes without saying that troops still in Germany and Okinawa that had been there to protect the West from Soviet menace in Eastern Europe, and from China and Soviet designs on the Pacific rim, but now no longer serve a useful purpose and should be withdrawn but for those as a contingency of NATO inasmuch as the threat of another colossal skirmish, but for the cries of warmongers, has diminished—even the vast Pacific fleet at full strength has outlived its usefulness. These troops would be better honored by enforcing our borders or some to assist in Afghanistan.

We are stuck in Korea because the US seems ill-equipped or unwilling to negotiate through the truce toward unification and eventual draw down of US troops. We have no leaders to say, “Kim-Jong Il, tear out the barbed wire.” The “lost” cause in Vietnam attributed to “if only we had stayed a little longer” is sheer nonsense. Those Viet crazies, had all the time, driven by centuries of culture, to wear us down—as they did the French.

The same applies to Iraq because we let the crazies out of the bag, the Shia, and having no leanings toward democracy, to wreak their revenge and come hell or highwater establish a theocratic regime. To carry out a potent surge we would have to forge a reign of terror, almost as brutal as Saddam’s, across the hapless country. We don’t have the troops for that, and such tactics would further tarnish our already tarnished image, let alone the excruciatingly rise in casualties on both sides.

It is time to stop wasting our resources—human and matériel—and turn away from the Calamity Janes who are privy to Clytemnestra’s voice of doom that if we withdraw there will be total annihilation, which is unlikely; at worst there will be three partitions sniping at each other. Despite Bush, McCain, Petraeus the chaos has been with us and more in the shadows whether we stay or leave.

To honor our troops bring them home for they gallantly did all they could for a people glaringly unappreciative.

politics
12,702 views 25 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

I can't speak for all "you people on the right" but for me, the answer to your question is... Becuase history didn't start with the swearing in of the last president.  Guess what, some decisions of a president can last half a century or more.  I also have the brain power to see through the myopic "well it was ok then, but this is different" bullcrap.

If it was acceptable to lose over 1,000 American troops just in training for Operation Overlord, but it's a waste of human life to lose over 3,000 in Iraq, then your logic should be questioned.  If the same people who demand we abandon Iraq are screaming for war against Darfur... then those people deserve the label hypocrites.

What is the point in studying history if we simply reduce it to answers for Jeapardy contestions to provide the questions? 

If any of those blowhards in Congress, many of whom CAUSED the U.S. to lose in Vietnam would learn the lesson of Vietnam, they would realize that there is good reason the Founding Fathers deliberatly kept Congress out of the business of fighting wars.  Instead they go around bleating out their bilge about "another Vietnam" when the ONLY way the war in Iraq will ever become "another Vietnam" is if Congress blows it again.

My question to you is, why do "you people on the left" insist that lessons learned from out past cannot be used to back present decisions.  Could it be that they simply don't fit your agenda, so you simply throw it out as irrelevent?

 

 

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

To answer your first question - Because the left (Congress mostly) brought it up first.

To them, I would challenge them to find any 2 wars that are identical.  The truth is no 2 are.  And this one is different as well.  Sure there have been mistakes.  But there is progress as well.  If we are to throw up our hands and say (as has been said on the left) "it only took 4 years in Europe", we are comparing apples to oranges.

Quite simply, having read most of your stuff, I do agree with some of your positions.  Iraq must take the bull by the horns so we can get out.  The only disagreement (of those who want an honest discussion, and not a 30 second sound bite) is how long that is going to take.

I think that setting a public deadline is suicide.  And I think the clowns in congress are being the stupid fools they are.  And when they continue to bring up past wars as examples, how can "you people" on the right not help but point out there stupidity and ignorance?

DeskScapes - Bring your desktop background to life.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

I wonder if the left would accept us fighting the war in Iraq like we fought in WWII, to bring it to an end.

Should we carpet bomb cities to take out factories?  Should we torture (not just tantamount to torture, but REALLY torture prisoners to get them to talk?  Should we lock up all Muslims in America "just in case"?  Should we hold all prisoners in camps until the end of the war plus six months? 

What about on the homefront, we are whining about gas prices, but shouldn't gas, sugar, rubber, steel, coal and other necesities or the war effort be rationed?  Shouldn't we convert be converting all the factories we have left to producing items needed to fight the war?  Shouldn't we be looking at any young man 18-25 who is not in uniform with contempt and distrust?  Shouldn't we be putting our life savings into war bonds?

yeah!  Let's fight this war the way "the good wars" were fought!

 

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

Let's fight this war the way "the good wars" were fought!

to the left (to be honest, not Stevendedalus), the only good wars are the ones they start.

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
We are stuck in Korea because the US seems ill-equipped or unwilling to negotiate through the truce toward unification and eventual draw down of US troops. We have no leaders to say, “Kim-Jong Il, tear out the barbed wire.”

!
That is a good one Steven. You are referring to a society run by one despot where the population has absolutely no outside information coming in. He has been told, asked, and begged to allow more border crossings, reunions and visits. The only thing the current economic cross border ventures do is to allow the North Korean elite hard currency to buy their Hennessy cognac and DVDs of the latest Hollywood movies for the jonger. The belief that words spoken by any person to the NK Government (Kim) could have any effect is nothing but wishful thinking. Kind of like thinking that Hillary actually respects people serving in the military.

There is a movement through the UN to open up a negotiated end to the Korean War; The current South Korean Government (President) wants to have something to show for their 5 years of appeasement and gifts of food and equipment other than the status quo.

Which will not change in the near future, even if there is an actual peace treaty rather than the current armistice agreement. It is not in the Jonger's interest to allow his slaves, oops! I mean citizens to have knowledge and the means to improve their lot in life.

You may take my statements skeptically but in my 16+ years looking at Korea, I have seen my projections and suspicions turn out to be more accurate than the folks from the State Dept.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
The belief that words spoken by any person to the NK Government (Kim) could have any effect is nothing but wishful thinking.
But it has to be done, and I personally believe with a serious ultimatum such as absolutely no international aid regardless of the effect on the common "slaves."
Let's fight this war the way "the good wars" were fought!
Yeah, why not?
Jonger's interest to allow his slaves, oops!
right the first time.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

"it only took 4 years in Europe", we are comparing apples to oranges.
wholeheartedly agree.

If the same people who demand we abandon Iraq are screaming for war against Darfur... then those people deserve the label hypocrites.
I don't propose a war in Darfur unless it is initiated by the UN and contingents from Arab and African leagues as well as NATO of which we are a part. There is no one starving in Iraq, but we certainly should support the displaced and refugees in Jordan and Syria.

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
I disagree.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
I disagree.
In everything I suppose[?]
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

I disagree.
In everything I suppose[?]

No, you are butting heads with your mirror image.

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
when arguing the current war to reference ancient history—WWII, Korea and Vietnam


Ancient history?? World War II started in '37 or '39 depending on which of the primary conflicts you happen to be referencing. That's 70 years maximum. What terms would you use to describe the Ming Dynasty i wonder?

protect the Soviet menace in Eastern Europe


Don't you mean protect "against". A typo im sure but it completely reverses the gist of your argument.

We are stuck in Korea because the US


We're not "stuck" anywhere. For better or worse, we are where we "choose" to be.

The same applies to Iraq because we let the crazies out of the bag


We didn't let the crazies out their bag, we stupidly let ourselves becomes crazed and then jumped right in the bag with them.

Now everyone's surprised that "crazies + crazed = crazier". Who would have thought?

To honor our troops bring them home for they gallantly did all they could for a people glaringly unappreciative


Why should they be appreciative?? They didn't ask for our help. We didn't go there for their benefit. We were chasing fictitous WMD remember..... we bullshitted our way into invading their country... and you expect thanks and a fond farewell??

If it was acceptable to lose over 1,000 American troops just in training for Operation Overlord, but it's a waste of human life to lose over 3,000 in Iraq, then your logic should be questioned


His logic should be questioned.... but not over these points. Your point's hardly logically valid either since your comparing apples with oranges. It was "acceptable" or at least "accepted" to lose 1000 in '44 and it is definitely not acceptable to lose 3,000 now for this sham.

IRAQ: The US, the worlds only remaining superpower, with a military budget totalling almost 50% of the worlds military spending according to these figures

WWW Link

INVADES another sovereign state in a fictional War on Terror and loses 3,000+ lives (to date) in the process.... never mind they were actually Saudis who trashed the towers.

WWII: The US being attacked and defending itself in a war that was global in nature, universally supported and what's more totally neccessary...... (from our point of view).

Although you were specifically referring to a single operation we lost a hell of lot more than 1,000 in WWII and I for one have never heard a peep from anyone to suggest that every life wasn't worth it.

Its a highly reasonable conclusion, (if you want to use "count the dead" argument), to say a 1,000 there was better spent than 3,000 here. Thats not the problem with his argument. The problems actually yours because you suggest that every wars the same. "If you say this is fine, then you cant say thats not". That's idiotic.

If the same people who demand we abandon Iraq are screaming for war against Darfur... then those people deserve the label hypocrites.


No they dont. First of all Darfur is a region of Sudan not a country.

WWW Link

The fighting there is FOR Darfur not AGAINST it. Secondly no one is "screaming for war", they are speaking out against and are looking to defuse one.

Thirdly, the vast majority agree that Darfur is a legitimate crises vs some half baked ream of propaganda that only the US and it's lacky states Australia and GB were prepared to swallow re: Iraq. So again it's apples and oranges.

I also have the brain power to see through the myopic "well it was ok then, but this is different" bullcrap.


Im not sure you do because real brain power, to use your turn of phrase, essentially boils down to being able to run horses for courses. Your argument instead is essentially to run the same beast round every track, the same way.

Thats not smart. Thats dumb. That's not brain power but rather a lack of brain power.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

We're not "stuck" anywhere. For better or worse, we are where we "choose" to be.
Precisely, another illogical example of a war of choice.

Ancient history??
Can't accept a tongue-in-cheek expression, eh?

Why should they be appreciative?? They didn't ask for our help. We didn't go there for their benefit. We were chasing fictitous WMD remember..... we bullshitted our way into invading their country... and you expect thanks and a fond farewell??
Good point but not in the context of the troops who actually believed they were liberators.

You got me on the omission which should have been ...the West from...   Thanks.

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

I don't propose a war in Darfur unless it is initiated by the UN and contingents from Arab and African leagues as well as NATO of which we are a part. There is no one starving in Iraq, but we certainly should support the displaced and refugees in Jordan and Syria.

oh mighty UN, we bow to thee and thy greatness and power.  Let us never do anything without thy permission.

 

The UN has already shown that they'll encourage rape and torture, as long as the price is right.  They don't deserve our respect, and we surely should never beg for their permission.

The UN, The Mafia, Street Gangs... only difference is the names and places. SPIT ON THEM ALL

Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
The UN, The Mafia, Street Gangs... only difference is the names and places. SPIT ON THEM ALL
Then why not include the Iraqis?
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Iraq must take the bull by the horns so we can get out. The only disagreement (of those who want an honest discussion, and not a 30 second sound bite) is how long that is going to take.


If we, all of us Ameicans, to honestly discuss this war we should start by asking the following question:

let's forget about the phony reasons that we were given as a reason for this war.Also let's forget all of the reasons that were introduced to justify this war after the original ones proved false. Let's start over and ask this: What exactly are we trying to achieve there?.

In trying to answer this question let's all keep in mind few facts about Iraq and the Irqis:

1- Iraq is a nation of hypocrites as Majority i.e. Shia. It is in their DNA. I say that with great pain. But it is the truth throughout all of their history. They assassinated their leader, the one they say they are his follower (Imam Ali, the cousin of Prophet Mohammad), then they mourn his death by beating themsleves on the day they killed him.
2- By nature, Shia is a theocratic-dictatorial brand of Islam. As such they will never allow Sunnis to even exist if they get full control. Look at iran after the Shah. That is iraq after Saddam if they get full control.
3- Sunnis in the region realized the two facts mentioned above from the start of the movement after they assassinated Ali. The way all the leaders of the area dealt with that problem is to make sure the leaders of both countries i.e. Iran and Iraq is a sunni who would not persecute the shia but keep them away from authority. The leaders of both countries before those two stupid leaders (Shah and Saddam) manged to do the job in a very reasonable way. The Shah and Saddam did that too at the start of their regimes then they started to be power crazy.
4- Unfortunately for the Iranians, the Iraqis, the region, the sunnis and the USA, we not only ignored the brutality of both men but we actually helped them and that inflamed the Shia against us and against those two men. Iran managed to get rid of the Shah on its own. and we helped Iraq to get rid of Saddam. These two actions in effect removed Sunnis from power. Iran became Shia once Khumini returned. and it was lost.
5-As for Iraq, now Saddam is gone and with him the sunni power structure.

Would we help retore Sunnis to power in Iraq? Can we do that? Is it even possible?

If we cant do that it will be a shia country as Iran. Even if we let it split we would still be faced with a Shia controlling the southern of Iraq and probably the center region too.

So what exactly are we trying to do there?

Depending on the answer, you will get an idea of how long it will take.

If sunnis control we are trying to restore, it will take forever.

If this is not the goal, then why stay there at all even one more day? To supervise Shia control?

If the goal is just to establish Bases and protect them regardless of what happens to Iraq itself, then you got your answer ..... forever again.

Get out NOW or stay fore the forseeable future.

Pick your pick.

Sad Sad choices, thanks to our Idiot-in-chief.

Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sad Sad choices, thanks to our Idiot-in-chief.
Sadly true.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

Why is it that the left tends to think history started last month?

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top


If we, all of us Ameicans, to honestly discuss this war we should start by asking the following question:

let's forget about the phony reasons that we were given as a reason for this war.Also let's forget all of the reasons that were introduced to justify this war after the original ones proved false.



Interesting so in your mind the best way for Americans to begin "honestly" discussing this war is by ignoring all the lies, deceptions and propaganda that got US into this war in the first place.

In other words "forget the history". I wonder if that would have worked for the Holocaust?

In trying to answer this question let's all keep in mind few facts about Iraq and the Irqis:


Facts eh??

FACT # 1: its in the Iraqi DNA that they are are a nation of hypocrites.

Where is this FACT taken from? Isn't that how klan meetings begin.... by denouncing other races as being genetically inferior?

And who exactly do you mean by They?? Some Iraqis kill an Imam and some other Iraqis mourn the loss. Two separate groups of Iraqis committing 2 different and opposing acts and this makes all Iraqis hypocrites? Didn't we whack Martin Luther at some point.... and JFK?? And then prompty ball our eyes out about it, in fact we still commemorate the daze dont we?

We must be using 2 completely different dictionaries here TA because what yours' defines as FACT mine defines as UTTER BULLSHIT.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Why is it that the left tends to think history started last month?
Not really, it's just that war blunders are easily forgotten over time and usually justified by some romantic achievement. Now the blunders are up close and there are so many that it clouds the achievements.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Interesting so in your mind the best way for Americans to begin "honestly" discussing this war is by ignoring all the lies, deceptions and propaganda that got US into this war in the first place.


Absolutely not. I didnt say we should forget that in the sense you understood it. I agree with all what you said. However, it does us no good now to talk about it. it is too little too late for that. I am against this foolish adventure from the start but now we are stuck there, and the question was when can we get out. All i wanted to show is that the answer is: NOW ... or Never in the forseeable future.

Where is this FACT taken from? Isn't that how klan meetings begin.... by denouncing other races as being genetically inferior?


I wish it was. at least it would have been a foolish judgement from a bigot. Unfortunately, that is far far from the truth. This fact is based on the history of Iraq and the Iraqis. As i said earier, it pains me greatly to say that. I have a deep respect and appreciation for the people and the culture of that regions. But the Iraqis have a unique love for revenge. They themselves know and say that. I can assure you of one thing: It is not in my nature or way of thinking to be a bigot regardless of the reason or the issue. But sadly, i cant ignore the history and the reality. I wish i can. Describing them as hypocrites is not mine by the way. That is how they were addressed by their own leader at the time of that terrible episode in their history (that is about 1300+ yrs ago). He addressed them thus: "Oh people of Iraq, Oh people of hypocrisy" (the statement rhymes poetically in arabic. Hypocrisy means 'nefaq' in Arabic).

And who exactly do you mean by They?? Some Iraqis kill an Imam and some other Iraqis mourn the loss. Two separate groups of Iraqis committing 2 different and opposing acts and this makes all Iraqis hypocrites? Didn't we whack Martin Luther at some point.... and JFK?? And then prompty ball our eyes out about it, in fact we still commemorate the daze dont we?


Again, i wish it was like that. They, all iraqis, supported him then rebelled against him and refused to protect him when he refused to do what they wanted him to do which was to declare war against other muslims who didnt support him. he wanted to negotiate but they wanted war.

It is a long and sad period in Islamic history and it all started from the moment they allowed his assassination.

I can assure you that I wish they get their act together and not betray each other. Remember that Chalabi and his group and other exiled iraqis painted a rosy picture for our idiot-in-chief and encourages him to invade THEIR OWN country in the belief that the US will just go there, take Saddam out then hand them a free country. How idiotic is that? instead of staying in their country and fight the dictator, they wanted someone else (us, our own US citizens)to fight and die for their own freedom. The point is this: All of the Shia supported the invasion, then what are they doing now? killing the invaders. you want more proof of their hypocrisy? Dont you see the pattern here? they supported the USA and when the USA refused to do what they want (i.e. give them full control without sunnis involvement), they turned against it. ...it is amazing how history repeats itself.





Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Absolutely not. I didnt say we should forget that in the sense you understood it. I agree with all what you said. However, it does us no good now to talk about it. it is too little too late for that


No what you said was:

let's forget about the phony reasons that we were given as a reason for this war.Also let's forget all of the reasons that were introduced to justify this war after the original ones proved false. Let's start over and ask this: What exactly are we trying to achieve there?.


You suggest we forget about the lies and propaganda that got us into this war in the same breath as you ask what exactly are we trying to achieve there??? I dont know about you but to me the lies and propaganda are an excellent indicator of what the people driving this war are trying to achieve.

How you think we could ever possibly hope to forget such motivations, wipe the slate clean and start fresh, when not only have they created the present but that they continue to steer our future is completely beyond me. It strikes me as being an incredibly naive proposition.

But sadly, i cant ignore the history and the reality. I wish i can.


Oh but you do. Shall we trot through the history of mankind and compare Iraqi behaviours and political assassinations to that of mankind in general. You attempt to attribute behaviours and acts that are common across all races and times to a single race of people and then go a step further to suggest its due to some genetic difficiency.

Describing them as hypocrites is not mine by the way.


Of course it is. You clearly agree with the statement and not only that you take it a step further by making into a genetic defect.

you want more proof of their hypocrisy?


MORE?? You've yet to provide ANY proof to support your claim that Iraqis are MORE genetically predisposed to being hypocritical in nature than the average human of any race. The only reason i can think of why someone would wish to claim such a thing is to make themselves feel superior and perhaps absolve themselves of any guilt or shame they may be feeling over the way this country has conducted itself over the last few years.

The Iraqis are not genetically inferior to US, they're not children and they dont need anything from US other than for US to stay out of their affairs. The fact is we need what they have: OIL. And this war is about nothing other than the control and distribution of Iraqi OIL. Nothing more. Nothing less.

For someone supposedly so concerned about how we move forward from this mess you dont seem to have a grasp on the basic mechanics of it. Rather than recognise some ugly truths you instead prefer to point to political actions some 1300 years old.
You use this as evidence that the major impedament to resolving this conflict, is not US imperialist ambitions and motivations but rather the major impediment is the the need for US to work with a country teeming with peoples of an inferior bloodline.

And you then have the audacity to suggest that you some great love for the people and cultures of the region?
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
You use this as evidence that the major impedament to resolving this conflict, is not US imperialist ambitions and motivations but rather the major impediment is the the need for US to work with a country teeming with peoples of an inferior bloodline.


I can assure you that you are mistaken in your understanding of what i said. I am not saying we are superior to them or to anyone. I also recognize our foolish policies when it comes to that region. I dont think we disagree on that.

Where we disagree on is to concentrate on what to do now. What good is it,NOW, to rehash the tragedy that we started?

As for the Iraqis, i never said they are not capable of anything or they are less than us or anyone else. However, they have different mentality among the the people of the region. may be saying in their DNA gave you the impression that i think they are inferior. That is not what i meant, what i meant was that by nature they have a violent attitudes in dealing with each other. may be it is a cultural thing but this is really true in all their history. even the recent one.

I dont know how much you know about their recent history that ended with Saddam. here is a brief glimpse of it. Check it out if you like anywhere you wish. The following is a recorded history and known to anyone who studied the area:

In 1958 they revolted against their king, Faisal (installed by Britain of course after WWII). they killed him and his prime minister (Nuri Al-Said) and dragged their bodies in the streets. The leader of that coup was Abdel Karim Kassim.

Few years later, they did the same to Kassim. they killed him and dragged his body in the streets. (they call that Sahl). The leader of that was Abdel Salam Aref.

Few years later Aref was dealt the same hand. Killed . I dont know if they dragged his body or not. His Brother Abdel Rahman Aref took over

Few years later, this second Aref and all his cabinet ministers were blown in the air. Saddam did that. And the rest we all know.

In all the countries around them, all deposed leaders were exiled ALIVE and were allowed to get out with most of their wealth. That includes, Egypt (King Farouk), Iran (Shah) Libya (King Edrees Sonossi), Morocco, Tunis, and Algeria (Ben Bella died at home i think). no one killed and mutilated the bodies of their deposed leaders except the Iraqis. Just in case you think i am biased against Iraqis, i should mention that assassination is not a rare thing in that area (Sadat of Egypt and Abdullah of Jordon and the assassinations in Lebanon are few of that) but the Iraqis have as many as the rest put together.

Now, if i tell you that is also what the Iraqis did with the bodies of Hassan and Hussain (the sons of Imam Ali) are you going to say i am biased against them?

I am not biased against anyone. But how do you explain what i just listed? is it their nature? is that the same as saying it is DNA? i dont know. May be it is none of that. but that is what they always do.

Again, i think we drifted from the main point which was: what is the appropriate time frame for the USA to get out. I think it is obvious that Now is the answer since anything else is not going to achieve anything in the forseeable future.


Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
As a Muslim themself. Sunni, aren't you, TA?


Yes i am. But that is not the problem with Iraqis, Iran are all Shia but they dont behave the same way. Iraq's Sunnis are not excluded from anything i said about Iraq. Both Sunnis and Shia of iraq have the same nature. remember, all those assassinated leaders i listed were sunnis and were assassinated and dragged in the streets by sunnis.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
History started last month for the left, because if they looked any further back they would've seen that everything they want to try to improve America was already tried and failed.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
That doesn't give you the right to speak for all Iraqis, or Sunnis, or anyone else


Did i say i speak for any of them? i speak for myself and never said i speak for any one or any group. if you dont agree with me that is fine, but what i am talking about is what i see. and i am sure you and others see what i see too. it is just you/others and I differ on how to understand it and how to deal with it.

You making it as if i am saying that about Iraq because I am a sunni, while i said Iran is not sunni but they dont behave like Iraqis and most other countries in the area are sunnis, still they dont act like Iraqis. It has nothing to do with sunni or shia. It is Iraq and Iraqis.

GWB picked the worst spot in the area for his tragic adventure, and all i am saying is this: it is the worst spot because of the nature of Iraq itself. Staying there to achieve anything of what GWB dreams of is a utopian pipe dream in my opinion.