Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Why I support the War in Iraq...

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Why I support the War in Iraq...
TinMan
Member
Member # 960

 - posted      Profile for TinMan   Email TinMan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://hotzone.yahoo.com/b/hotzone/blogs1444

The difference between the US as "conquerors" and any others in history. We are actually helping the people of the country rebuilt it, for themselves. Any others would rebuild or commandeer only for themselves or military purposes. Think the insurgents/terrorists will lay down their rifles and bombs and start building schools and offices if te US is driven out? This, as clearly as anything I have ever seen, demonstrates the difference between good and evil, and we, overall, are on the good side. And sometimes we have to sacrifice great things, our family, for greater things, such as correcting and rebuilding Iraq. This is the ultimate in good.

Posts: 340 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry Tinman, you are talking to a bunch of folks with unrealistic expectations.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Flydye45 -

Is it unreasonable to ask that the government of the United States act in the interests of the United States - and not those of Iraq?

As it stands I do not think that the Iraq war has been a net gain for us. None the less, now that we're there, finishing up is best.

--Firedrake

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
David Ricardo
Member
Member # 1678

 - posted      Profile for David Ricardo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am a pretty selfish guy, and the two of you guys sound like liberals when you wax eloquently about the sacrifices that America needs to make in Iraq to make that country a better place.

Then you whip up the good versus evil trash, as if that has anything to do with foreign policy. American foreign policy is about American national interest -- not your vague notion of good versus evil throughout the world.

Let the Iraqis sacrifice for their own country. It is their own country after all.

The U.S. military is not supposed to be the world's leading charity and humanitarian organization, thank you very much.

[ November 13, 2005, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: David Ricardo ]

Posts: 1429 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
David -

Being liberal isn't bad even from your professed beliefs -- heck, Cato is a self-described "liberal" organization. Being Liberal/lefty (or liberal with other people's money) is another matter.

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's in our interest to evangelize stable democracy, just as it was in the Marshall Plan. If the David Ricardos had won the day back in 1946, we'd have left Germany and Japan to rebuild themselves, and we'd have seen a result like after the first armistice.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete -

I agree that it is sometimes in our interest. However, in this particular case, I think that the issues associated with overthrowing Saddam are larger than the problems solved.

However, in the end, history will tell.

--Firedrake

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Any others would rebuild or commandeer only for themselves or military purposes.
If we were not building permanent military bases for the US in Iraq, I might believe that. If Haliburton et. al. were not making billions on no-bid contracts then I might believe it.

I agree that helping rebuild is good. But remember what Powell said about the Pottery Barn rule, you break it you buy it. Having broken much of Iraq's infrastructure and society, for good or bad, it is our responsibility to fix it. We don't get extra points for doing what we should be doing anyway.

[ November 13, 2005, 09:42 PM: Message edited by: velcro ]

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
David Ricardo
Member
Member # 1678

 - posted      Profile for David Ricardo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Whatever Pete, you can continue with your mad tirades against me all you want, since you're the worst example of closet liberals drunk with power -- aka "neoconservatives" -- who are the ones responsible for the current problems in this country.

I just don't think it wise to send our troops on crusades of "good versus evil" throughout the world willy-nilly unless serious American national interest is really at stake.

That's called pragmatism. I like it a lot more than your vaunted idealism.

Posts: 1429 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No. Instead, pragmatism is in favor of "stability". Let's leave the mass graves and testicle electrodes in place because we don't know what might happen. Know the costs of your philosophy.

But there was also a "pragmatic" reason for Iraq. We know what is coming out of the Middle East. The boil needed lancing. For a variety of good and relevant reasons, the lancet went into Iraq. You may dismiss the reasons, but that is more a matter of denial and opinion.

Results

Rosy Filter: Lebanon has had elections. The Sauds have made baby steps to representative government. Radicals in Egypt are opening dialouge unthinkable even a few years ago (you know, from the "pragmatic" Clinton years). Lybia gave up it's store of WMD. Syria is feeling a lot of pressure. Iran has an army, and more importantly, a symbol at it's door. Iraq has had two elections that "couldn't happen" according to Pragmatists, and are gearing up for a third.

Moderate Filter: Every nation in the Middle East has been put on notice that the best they can offer militarily will take us a French Vacation to destroy. We cannot make them a democracy, but we can make them an anarchy. Terrorists don't thrive in anarchy either.

Dark filter: In a few months, we'll be getting a lot of cheap oil. Our military, bloodless for a decade, has now been blooded to be ready for real military threats from China et al.

Your description of "willy nilly" is absurd. Have we attacked Iran? How about Syria? And quite frankly, you need to describe what would trigger your "serious American national interest". Is it Iran? Bosnia? Kuwait? Pakistan? Are you willing to let Taiwan and Israel hang out to dry for pragmatic reasons?

You might also see the two posts under "Realidealism"

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm the typical American. I'm all for going to war -- but once I'm in it I'm all for getting out.

And I'm now for getting out of this one!

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TinMan
Member
Member # 960

 - posted      Profile for TinMan   Email TinMan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually, my own personal definition of good vs evil has everything to do with a society advancing it's own self-interests. Because I define good to be the advancement and enhancement of a society, because that is our primal purpose. I understand this is not necessarily the common definition of good and evil, but its so functional and accurate [Smile]

It's clearly a matter of short-sightedness that we need to "get out" of Iraq. Getting out without accomplishing our goals is giving up. It is losing. We need to "win" in Iraq, which is accomplishing the goals of setting up a stable, secure, democratic government with a hefty infrastructure investment in place, and as many schools and teachers as we can possibly put in place. Such a huge difference in getting out successfully, and just plain getting out. People with long-term planning capabilities understand that this is a lengthy and expensive process.

I do not believe we are in such a bad position that we need to retreat. That's what getting out is, a retreat. Maybe if you were to use that terminology, it would be more clear to you what you are asking for. At the minimum a retreat, at the worst a full surrender. Be sure you know what you're asking for. We are all asking for this to be over as soon as possible. Some of us understand how long it might take. (We are still in Korea, remember)

Posts: 340 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
TinMan -

I agree. Well spoken.

Although Korea is not really analogous.

--Firedrake

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Joe Schmoe
Member
Member # 2640

 - posted      Profile for Joe Schmoe   Email Joe Schmoe   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TinMan:
Actually, my own personal definition of good vs evil has everything to do with a society advancing it's own self-interests. Because I define good to be the advancement and enhancement of a society, because that is our primal purpose. I understand this is not necessarily the common definition of good and evil, but its so functional and accurate [Smile]

So by this definition, how exactly is our invasion of Iraq good? We've bombed their cities back to the stone age. They've lost priceless, irreplacable pieces of their history in the process. We've killed an estimated 100,000 or so Iraqi's. Terrorists are running rampant planting bombs. We're building military bases against their best interests. We've setup a pet government that doesn't represent the majority of Iraqi's..... the list goes on. How exactly are we advancing society? We've ruined their society and spent ours near to the brink of ruin. Our deficit is at 8 trillion and climbing. Forget the terrorists. We can destroy this country ourselves. [Roll Eyes]

quote:
Originally posted by TinMan:

It's clearly a matter of short-sightedness that we need to "get out" of Iraq. Getting out without accomplishing our goals is giving up. It is losing.

Your right, it is losing and the longer we stay, the more obvious it becomes that we are losing. Call those of us who want out short sight-ed if you will, I think history will show otherwise. Would you label those people who wanted to pull out of vietnam short sight-ed? They were labeled so once, but I don't think anyone would dare say so today.

quote:
Originally posted by TinMan:

We need to "win" in Iraq, which is accomplishing the goals of setting up a stable, secure, democratic government with a hefty infrastructure investment in place, and as many schools and teachers as we can possibly put in place. Such a huge difference in getting out successfully, and just plain getting out.

If this were actually happening, I'd be all for finishing the job. But haven't you noticed that things have steadily gotten worse over there instead? The bombings and killings are up, anti-american sentiments are on the rise globally, etc. Would it not be better to cut our losses and get out before we have another vietnam like war?


quote:
Originally posted by TinMan:

I do not believe we are in such a bad position that we need to retreat. That's what getting out is, a retreat. Maybe if you were to use that terminology, it would be more clear to you what you are asking for.

I'm fine with that terminology.


I respect your position and I can see from your writing you think staying is doing the right thing, I just don't happen to agree.

Posts: 214 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So by this definition, how exactly is our invasion of Iraq good? We've bombed their cities back to the stone age. They've lost priceless, irreplacable pieces of their history in the process. We've killed an estimated 100,000 or so Iraqi's. Terrorists are running rampant planting bombs. We're building military bases against their best interests. We've setup a pet government that doesn't represent the majority of Iraqi's..... the list goes on. How exactly are we advancing society? We've ruined their society and spent ours near to the brink of ruin. Our deficit is at 8 trillion and climbing. Forget the terrorists. We can destroy this country ourselves.
Mainly because not a single one of these statements is actually true? Would you like to, I don't know, back up these statements with some verifiable facts?

[ November 15, 2005, 11:21 AM: Message edited by: javelin ]

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidA
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jav,

Aside from the debatable point about a "pet government," and the possibly inflated figure of 100,000 (I think closer to 20,000 is more accurate - depends what you're counting), these are all well-known facts. The museum in Baghdad was looted. Terrorists are planting, throwing, and detonating bombs daily. The government is not considered representative by a great many Iraqis. These are pretty well-established facts. If you want to debate them, the onus is on you to to come up with data.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KidA:
Jav,

Aside from the debatable point about a "pet government," and the possibly inflated figure of 100,000 (I think closer to 20,000 is more accurate - depends what you're counting), these are all well-known facts. The museum in Baghdad was looted. Terrorists are planting, throwing, and detonating bombs daily. The government is not considered representative by a great many Iraqis. These are pretty well-established facts. If you want to debate them, the onus is on you to to come up with data.

Bullcrap, KidA - the onus is on the one that asserts the point. And not a single statement he made didn't hyperbolize the situation out of recognition:

quote:
We've bombed their cities back to the stone age.
Common knowledge? We destroyed some buildings, is that "bombing back to the stone age"?

quote:
They've lost priceless, irreplacable pieces of their history in the process.
True, but can be considered (by some) as irrelevant.

quote:
We've killed an estimated 100,000 or so Iraqi's.
You already covered this.

quote:
Terrorists are running rampant planting bombs.
Rampant? Must be a completely different definition then the real one.

quote:
We're building military bases against their best interests.
Why is it against their best interests?

quote:
We've setup a pet government that doesn't represent the majority of Iraqi's
Outright false.

quote:
We've ruined their society
Really? The society that still exists, chugging along fine over there? Or is he talking about the "society" where Saddam and sons rape, kill and pillage their own citizens, at whim?

quote:
and spent ours near to the brink of ruin. Our deficit is at 8 trillion and climbing. Forget the terrorists. We can destroy this country ourselves.
Yes, forget the terrorists - the "war" might be contributing to our financial irresponsibility, but anyone would be hard pressed to prove it as the cause.

These statements are not only NOT "commonly known", they are the stuff you throw away your shoes because of when you step in them.

If ya'all want to back off the hyperbole, and restate these things back into being debatably true, then sure, let's do that. Until then, the onus is hardly on me to "disprove" the horsepucky.

[ November 15, 2005, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: javelin ]

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Joe Schmoe
Member
Member # 2640

 - posted      Profile for Joe Schmoe   Email Joe Schmoe   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:


We've bombed their cities back to the stone age.

Common knowledge? We destroyed some buildings, is that "bombing back to the stone age"?

We've destroyed more than "some" buildings. Crisis Pictures has some EXCELLENT pictures showing fallujah and other Iraqi cities, that have taken SERIOUS damage, unfortunately they are down right now. Also, google around. They are without water and sewer in many areas still... thats close enough to the stone age in this day and age if you ask me. For example, Sickness is rampant

quote:
They've lost priceless, irreplacable pieces of their history in the process.
True, but can be considered (by some) as irrelevant.

Oh well if "some" consider it irrelevant then it certainly is. [Roll Eyes] Take a look at Dr. Robson's website to get an idea about the historical loss.

quote:
We've killed an estimated 100,000 or so Iraqi's.
You already covered this.

The US govt officially acknowledges killing between 26k and 30k, which only counts those directly killed. It ignores those who die of sickness, disease, etc because of our invasion. The 100k figure was from an arab news site. Perhaps they exaggerate, but then again I'd bet the farm the the US govt is underestimating as well. There Are others who place the toll near 100k besides the arabs by the way. "Dr Les Roberts, who led the study, said: "Making conservative assumptions we think that about 100,000 excess deaths, or more, have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq." That quote is from: BBC report

quote:
Terrorists are running rampant planting bombs.
Rampant? Must be a completely different definition then the real one.

Perhaps a bit exaggerated I'll grant, but not an entirely unreasonable use of the word. heres a quote from a US military official as quoted from the washington post. "Many attacks have gone unchallenged by Iraqi forces in large areas of the country dominated by insurgents, according to the U.S. military." hmm.. unchallenged... rampant... yeah.. I was WAY off. [Wink] Heres another quote:

"Definitely, violence is getting worse," said a U.S. official in Baghdad, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Washington Post article There are many other articles that will back that up if you care to look further.

quote:
We're building military bases against their best interests.
Why is it against their best interests?

Do you honestly believe that forcefully stealing soverign Iraqi land to build our military bases is in their interests?? I can't believe anyone could seriously contend that.

quote:
We've setup a pet government that doesn't represent the majority of Iraqi's
Outright false.

Not according to the Iraqi's, and is their view the only one that really matters since its their government? There are many reports that indicate my statement is true.
example 1
example 2
example 3

quote:
We've ruined their society
Really? The society that still exists, chugging along fine over there? Or is he talking about the "society" where Saddam and sons rape, kill and pillage their own citizens, at whim?

No I don't know what fantasy Iraq your talking about, I'm talking about the society where people are dying from sickness and disease because their infrastructure is destroyed. I'm talking about the society where 50% of their people believe our soldiers should be shot. I'm talking about the society we've poisoned with depleted uranium so that their kids are born defective. Maybe you consider that "fine" but many of us choose not to buy into the propaganda and see the truth.
Yahoo News

quote:

These statements are not only NOT "commonly known", they are the stuff you throw away your shoes because of when you step in them.

Hyperbole. [Big Grin] Its people with your attitude that allow our government to get away with murder. Try looking at some news sources aside from the US propaganda machine. Heres a video you might find enlightening. News video

Finally. I direct you again to The Poll of Iraqi's saying 80% want us out! How can you justify unasked for, unwanted occupation?? Do you have the arrogance to suggest the US has the right to be there? [Mad]

Well, there you have it. I've backed up ALL of my statements with evidence. Can you do the same now Jav? Or will you hold with your own hyperbolic statements; that my views are "stuff you throw away your shoes because of when you step in them."

Posts: 214 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hmm. Eighty percent want us to leave? Are there any qualifiers to that statement? Do they want us gone NOW, do they want us to let them get their feet underneath them and then leave, are they for us withdrawing to only (fill in blank) areas, leaving them to their own government? Was this a Sunni, Shia or Kurdish poll?

Here is a money quote, "The survey was conducted by an Iraqi university research team that, for security reasons, was not told the data it compiled would be used by coalition forces."

If someone is randomly asking Iraqis how they feel about the Coalition, what are they supposed to answer when their reward might be a bomb. Not that this is provable one way or another.

Yep, they are devastated [Roll Eyes]

http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=44154&SelectRegion=Iraq_Crisis&SelectCountry=IRAQ

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I've backed up ALL of my statements with evidence. Can you do the same now Jav?
Of course I can. [Smile] Especially since my statements aren't hyperbolic. (well, outside the dung on the shoe statement [Smile] )

quote:
We've destroyed more than "some" buildings. Crisis Pictures has some EXCELLENT pictures showing fallujah and other Iraqi cities, that have taken SERIOUS damage, unfortunately they are down right now. Also, google around. They are without water and sewer in many areas still... thats close enough to the stone age in this day and age if you ask me. For example, Sickness is rampant
Bombing a city to the stone age is generally considered true if you've knocked out all the infrastructure, which we haven't. We have done more damage to Fallujah then any other city, but even there, the damage is relatively minor.

On the sickness subject - I haven't heard anything about that - and I'll take your word, and that of the links you've provided. I'd like to see a comparison, however, of sickness and disease before the "invasion".

quote:
Oh well if "some" consider it irrelevant then it certainly is.
Let me clarify - it's a legitimate point of view to consider the theft of these artifacts to be considered the fault of the theives, and those who abandoned their guardian duties, as opposed to that of the United States Armed Forces. Of course, I personally think it's a combination of the two, but I hardly would leave the blame with the US only on this one.

quote:
Perhaps they exaggerate, but then again I'd bet the farm the the US govt is underestimating as well.
Sure, and once you look at the hyperbole, and examine the issue with an eye towards pre-war death rates, etc. - then you get a little more reasonable. People have died. No doubt. More than anyone would like. But your number, thrown out the way you did? It's not a lie, it's just not a picture that can be well defended.

quote:
Perhaps a bit exaggerated I'll grant, but not an entirely unreasonable use of the word.
Thank you for granting that. Your quotes not withstanding, since they don't quite justify the word "rampant", I'd suggest you do a quick search of this forum alone - it'll give you some good numbers of how many attacks have been happening, and what kind of attacks they are.

quote:
Do you honestly believe that forcefully stealing soverign Iraqi land to build our military bases is in their interests??
I honestly don't understand how you can't see it being in their best interests. Are they capable of defending themselves right now? Are they a tempting target? How friendly are their neighbors going to be to a democratic nation? Are you aware that the land hasn't been stolen?

quote:
Not according to the Iraqi's, and is their view the only one that really matters since its their government?
Your reports don't actually lead to your conclusion. The MAJORITY do not feel the government is illegitimate - the majority voted in the current government.

quote:
No I don't know what fantasy Iraq your talking about, I'm talking about the society where people are dying from sickness and disease because their infrastructure is destroyed. I'm talking about the society where 50% of their people believe our soldiers should be shot. I'm talking about the society we've poisoned with depleted uranium so that their kids are born defective. Maybe you consider that "fine" but many of us choose not to buy into the propaganda and see the truth.
Who said I thought this was fine? I think it all sucks. But I was talking hyperbole and bullshyte. And saying we've ruined their society is just that. The Iraqi's, in general, have been in a lot of pain for a very long time now, and it has a lot more to do with Saddam Hussein than with the United States. Keeping perspective is important.

quote:
Hyperbole. [Big Grin] Its people with your attitude that allow our government to get away with murder. Try looking at some news sources aside from the US propaganda machine.
The regulars on this site know me. They've seen me argue, seen me change my mind, seen me look for and find sources for various positions. You clearly have not (though I hope you are becoming a regular). When you have, feel free to make statements about who I am and how I come to my opinions. At that time, if I disagree, I'll take the time to refute what you say. At this point, you don't even know what my opinion is, except that I felt what you said was hyperbolic, and thus, to be crude, bullshyte.

Hopefully, I've made it clear in this post that I don't think you are completely WRONG, just that the statements themselves are extreme enough when compared to reality that it's simplicity itself to understand how someone could have a different viewpoint. My original post was in response to this incredulity that you seem to have that anyone could support the war with all these "facts" you laid out - and my response? These aren't "facts" - they are opinions - and unless tempered, not very persuasive ones.

quote:
How can you justify unasked for, unwanted occupation?? Do you have the arrogance to suggest the US has the right to be there?
As for this, yes, I have that arrogance. It was not unasked for - and I'm really not interested in going through the same damn arguments again and again on this. There were Iraqis that asked for us to do what we did. We had our own interests and safety to consider. Whether you agree or not - it's generally a matter of how you understood the situation at the time. You keep trying to paint this as black and white - and that's not going to get you anywhere with those of us who look at things critically, and come to our understanding through deep and considered thought.

[ November 15, 2005, 02:43 PM: Message edited by: javelin ]

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Omega M.
Member
Member # 1392

 - posted      Profile for Omega M.     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I look at most of the current suffering of Iraqis as Saddam Hussein's fault. If he had just cooperated with the weapons inspectors he would still be in power and none of the current suffering would have had to take place. Now Iraq is just another war-torn Third World nation, neither more nor less intrinsically deserving of help than any other.

I've never understood why the "Pottery Barn" rule applies to a nation that overthrows another nation because the second nation was threatening the first. It may make sense to rebuild the second nation to keep it from becoming dangerous again, but I don't see the ethical imperative.

Posts: 1966 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidA
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Javelin,

Since my return to this forum after a month absence, I've been trying to take a concilliatory tone with those whom I disagree with. I do this, because I wish to give people the benefit of the doubt that they are thinking about what they post, even if it is not readily apparent to me.

I'd appreciate the same courtesy on your part.

My point was simply that no one needs to prove a fact that is established public record, such as the fact that the musuem was looted, that 20,000+ Iraqis have been killed as a result of the invasion, that unemployment is rampant and that infrastructure is badly disabled. These things have been reported endlessly in the press.

No one has to defend qualifiers like "rampant", etc, because these are by definition subjective. We have a right to our chosen adjectives.

SO, no, it's not bullcrap at all.

Flydye,

Weren't you the one who posted the Brookings report a while back? And didn't I point out that same report show that 3/4 of those polled "opposed the presence" of U.S. troops in Iraq? And that, in urban areas, the same amount do not believe that the Coalition forces can improve the situation in Iraq? That there is actually more support for the insurgency than the coalition? Look here and go to page 40.

Omega and everyone,

I hashed this out on a thread before, so I'm not going to go source chasing again today. You guys can google Hans Blix and reposrt to UN on your own. Basically, he gave two reports, and the second report noted "substantial improvement and access" almost across the board from Iraq. The inspections were going well. 10 days later we invaded.

Please folks. Stop putting "invasion" in quotation marks. Stop talking about Saddam's atrocities as if they were ongoing in 2003 - the vast majority occurred when we were shaking his neo-Stalinist paw with a smile and joining the Soviets in selling him arms to defeat Iran, becuase we wanted to stop the fundamentalists, except of course in Afghanistan, where we trained fundamentalists to repel the Soviets, because our foreign policy always is consistent and moral and rational that way. Ain't it?

[ November 15, 2005, 03:14 PM: Message edited by: KidA ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KidA:
Javelin,

Since my return to this forum after a month absence, I've been trying to take a concilliatory tone with those whom I disagree with. I do this, because I wish to give people the benefit of the doubt that they are thinking about what they post, even if it is not readily apparent to me.

I'd appreciate the same courtesy on your part.

Fair enough. I'm sorry if I got harsh - I was quite surprised, however, at the "generally accepted stuff".

quote:
Originally posted by KidA:
My point was simply that no one needs to prove a fact that is established public record, such as the fact that the musuem was looted, that 20,000+ Iraqis have been killed as a result of the invasion, that unemployment is rampant and that infrastructure is badly disabled. These things have been reported endlessly in the press.

No one has to defend qualifiers like "rampant", etc, because these are by definition subjective. We have a right to our chosen adjectives.

SO, no, it's not bullcrap at all.

As I mentioned in my previous post, it's bullcrap BECAUSE of the hyperbole - not because of what is tangentially related generally accepted fact. I pointed out the differences between the hyperbole and the "reality" (you know, the generally accepted one). And yes, when you are basically stating that you cannot understand how someone can come to a different conclusion than you have based on the following facts, which you then list with a ton of modifiers that make them untrue, you do need to back that up, or you can sit down and restate them without the hyperbole.

Lastly, the reason that "invasion" is quoted like that is not because we didn't invade Iraq - it's because when some people say invade, they mean something besides what others mean. Therefore, when quotes are used, it is to show that the person speaking is using the word in a way that they don't agree with - basically, "in this context, it's how 'the other side' would use this term."

quote:
Stop talking about Saddam's atrocities as if they were ongoing in 2003
I'd argue that they were - in the form of his part in the Food for Oil failure.

[ November 15, 2005, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: javelin ]

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Joe Schmoe
Member
Member # 2640

 - posted      Profile for Joe Schmoe   Email Joe Schmoe   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by javelin:
I've backed up ALL of my statements with evidence. Can you do the same now Jav?

Of course I can. [Smile] Especially since my statements aren't hyperbolic. (well, outside the dung on the shoe statement [Smile] )

so... when will you be showing that evidence? [Big Grin] All I'm seeing is your opinion. Is it that my opinion shouldn't even be stepped in but yours is evidence?

Bombing a city to the stone age is generally considered true if you've knocked out all the infrastructure, which we haven't. We have done more damage to Fallujah then any other city, but even there, the damage is relatively minor.
If we didn't knock out their infrastructure then why are then literally thousands of reports about our efforts to rebuild the iraqi infrastructure? Also, as far as I've read, EVERY city has basic infrastructure problems, not just Fallujah. So I stand by what I said. They have taken major damage to their infrastructure all over. Even by election time baghdad still did not have reliable electricity and water services.


On the sickness subject - I haven't heard anything about that - and I'll take your word, and that of the links you've provided. I'd like to see a comparison, however, of sickness and disease before the "invasion".

The links I provided DO compare disease and sickness rates from before the invasion. Take a look.


Sure, and once you look at the hyperbole, and examine the issue with an eye towards pre-war death rates, etc. - then you get a little more reasonable. People have died. No doubt. More than anyone would like. But your number, thrown out the way you did? It's not a lie, it's just not a picture that can be well defended.

err... my point was exactly that it could be defended. Read the BBC report.


Your reports don't actually lead to your conclusion. The MAJORITY do not feel the government is illegitimate - the majority voted in the current government.

The fact they voted does not mean they have faith in their new puppet government.

quote:

Iraqi election officials apparently decided that the election motto should be “vote or starve.” The Washington Post confirmed that some officials circulated rumors deliberately to “try to lure voters” to the polls. Khalaf Muhammed, the electoral commission official in charge of a polling station in Saddam Hussein’s hometown of Tikrit, said: “Even though we spread a rumor in the city saying anyone who doesn’t vote will be deprived of their food ration, only 10 people voted…mostly old men.”

The Post account added, “The rumor about food rations also was rife in the Sunni neighborhoods of Baghdad, gaining credence because voter registration rolls were taken from centralized records for the ration of rice, flour, oil, and other staples.”

Freelance journalist Dahr Jamail noted that during the registration period last November and December, Iraqis had to fill out registration forms to continue receiving rations. More damning evidence came on election day. Jamail interviewed numerous voters in Baghdad who described how the voting process was linked to food rations. Voters spoke of the presence of food ration agents in their polling centers and how their agent had to approve them before they could vote. One engineering student in Baghdad told Jamail: “Two of the food dealers I know told me personally that our food rations would be withheld if we did not vote.” Another Baghdadi told Jamail days before the election, “I’ll vote because I can’t afford to have my food ration cut.... If that happened, me and my family would starve to death.”


I think I'd go vote too...

quote:
Who said I thought this was fine? I think it all sucks.
er... YOU did.
quote:

Really? The society that still exists, chugging along fine over there?

So which is it? Does it suck or is it chugging along fine?


The Iraqi's, in general, have been in a lot of pain for a very long time now, and it has a lot more to do with Saddam Hussein than with the United States. Keeping perspective is important.

I agree keeping perspective is important. Lets get some perspective.

quote:

Only a third of the Iraqi people now believe that the American-led occupation of their country is doing more good than harm, and a solid majority support an immediate military pullout even though they fear that could put them in greater danger, according to a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll.

The nationwide survey, the most comprehensive look at Iraqi attitudes toward the occupation, was conducted in late March and early April. It reached nearly 3,500 Iraqis of every religious and ethnic group.

Article

Hmm.. they'd rather face more danger and get rid of us than keep us. What does that tell you about the Iraqi perspective and the wonderful aid we're rendering to them over there.

also, from the LA times, " A Gallup poll this week found that about 6 in 10 Americans advocated a partial or full withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq."

So, Most americans want out now and the Iraqi want us out. Whats wrong with my perspective?

quote:
The regulars on this site know me. They've seen me argue, seen me change my mind, seen me look for and find sources for various positions. You clearly have not (though I hope you are becoming a regular). When you have, feel free to make statements about who I am and how I come to my opinions. At that time, if I disagree, I'll take the time to refute what you say. At this point, you don't even know what my opinion is, except that I felt what you said was hyperbolic, and thus, to be crude, bullshyte.

point taken. Though I would point out that you made assumptions about me and my point of view as well.

quote:

Hopefully, I've made it clear in this post that I don't think you are completely WRONG, just that the statements themselves are extreme enough when compared to reality that it's simplicity itself to understand how someone could have a different viewpoint.

Thanks for clearing up your view. A couple things I want to point out. I never said I didn't understand how you could come to a different viewpoint. As for my statements being extreme, outside the US they would not be considered so. The rest of the world paints a very different picture on the war than we do. Go figure.
Posts: 214 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Joe Schmoe
Member
Member # 2640

 - posted      Profile for Joe Schmoe   Email Joe Schmoe   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
forgot to mention. I'm out of time. I'll be in meetings the rest of the day. If you post back I'll get to it tomorrow Jav.
Posts: 214 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
so... when will you be showing that evidence? [Big Grin] All I'm seeing is your opinion. Is it that my opinion shouldn't even be stepped in but yours is evidence?
I felt that what I was saying was generally accepted fact. Upon challenge, I will of course reciprocate with sourcing.

quote:
If we didn't knock out their infrastructure then why are then literally thousands of reports about our efforts to rebuild the iraqi infrastructure? Also, as far as I've read, EVERY city has basic infrastructure problems, not just Fallujah. So I stand by what I said. They have taken major damage to their infrastructure all over. Even by election time baghdad still did not have reliable electricity and water services.
These problems where endemic before the war, and are not easily correlated.
Source

quote:
The links I provided DO compare disease and sickness rates from before the invasion. Take a look.
Will do.

quote:
err... my point was exactly that it could be defended. Read the BBC report.
I have. It's not easily defended. I'm pretty careful with my words - that study has been pretty heavily debunked, with varying degrees of success. As it is, it's a pretty heavy guessworked answer, with a WIDE range. Feel free to search our archives here if you want a full analysis.

quote:
I think I'd go vote too...
Well, and often, debunked, same article:

quote:
“Even though we spread a rumor in the city saying anyone who doesn’t vote will be deprived of their food ration, only 10 people voted…mostly old men.”
It didn't work. The scare tactics did not work, and the scare tactics to stop people from voting did not work. This is self-evident in the numbers of people who DID get out there, and what they said about voting, same article:

quote:
"We wanted to be the first to vote here," said Amir Mahmoud Jawad, 18, a high school student. "This is our country. We have to do it. There should be no excuse for anyone not to come. These elections will decide the destiny of the country."
quote:
So which is it? Does it suck or is it chugging along fine?
The things you listed suck. The Iraqi society is chugging along just fine. These are not contradictions - would you say that things in France suck right now, for a lot of people? Do you think that their society is in imminent danger of total collapse? That it's been "ruined"?

quote:
Hmm.. they'd rather face more danger and get rid of us than keep us. What does that tell you about the Iraqi perspective and the wonderful aid we're rendering to them over there.
Your conclusions don't follow naturally from the question. Why are they ready to have our troops leave? Is it because our occupation has been horrible? Or are they feeling ready to go it alone? The question is begged, but not answered.

quote:
So, Most americans want out now and the Iraqi want us out. Whats wrong with my perspective?
Your conclusions.

quote:
Though I would point out that you made assumptions about me and my point of view as well.
Perhaps, though I'm not sure what they are - so I'd appreciate it if you pointed them out (in public or private) - I don't like making bad assumptions.

quote:
I never said I didn't understand how you could come to a different viewpoint.
I was referring to this:

quote:
So by this definition, how exactly is our invasion of Iraq good?
Rereading, my understanding of what you were saying was likely faulty.

quote:
As for my statements being extreme, outside the US they would not be considered so. The rest of the world paints a very different picture on the war than we do. Go figure.
Understood, but whether places outside the US agree or not, it doesn't really change what's true. What's true is what we are attempting to determine here, right? And so far, it looks like several of the statements I considered extreme have already been moderated some, even if not as far as I'd like.

quote:
orgot to mention. I'm out of time. I'll be in meetings the rest of the day. If you post back I'll get to it tomorrow Jav.
Kewl. Thanks for your time.
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Joe Schmoe
Member
Member # 2640

 - posted      Profile for Joe Schmoe   Email Joe Schmoe   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Interesting article you linked to Jav. One thing I did notice though. It says:

"The already deteriorated water and sanitation system in Iraq collapsed as a result of this latest war. In Baghdad, around 40 per cent of the network was damaged leading to loss or contamination of piped water."

Which does backup your point that their infrastructure was deteriorated, though it gives no real information about what is meant by that, but it does say 40% of the network was damaged by the war.

This leads me to believe that we are both wrong about the extent of the damage. If that 40% number is accurate thats certainly more than the minimal damage you spoke about. Of course it is also short of bombing them back to the stone age. [Big Grin] I would still call it some pretty heavy damage though.


Your conclusions don't follow naturally from the question. Why are they ready to have our troops leave? Is it because our occupation has been horrible? Or are they feeling ready to go it alone? The question is begged, but not answered.

I think my conclusions follow. Whats wrong with them? The survey specifically says "a solid majority support an immediate military pullout even though they fear that could put them in greater danger" To me that does not sound like they think they are ready to go it alone. Rather, they'd accept the risks of going it alone, even though they know they aren't ready because they want us gone. Remember, "Only a third of the Iraqi people now believe that the American-led occupation of their country is doing more good than harm" Which means the majority think we're harming them more than helping. I think that makes it quite clear that they want us out and think we are harming them.

As for the rest of what you said, I guess I'll have to do some more reasearch. I'll get back to you on those when I get more time.

Posts: 214 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
This leads me to believe that we are both wrong about the extent of the damage. If that 40% number is accurate thats certainly more than the minimal damage you spoke about. Of course it is also short of bombing them back to the stone age. [Big Grin] I would still call it some pretty heavy damage though.
Fair enough. It's worthwhile to note that most of the infrastructure, power, water, etc. is (a) being repaired; and (b) is largely repaired at this time (better than prewar levels)

quote:
I think my conclusions follow. Whats wrong with them? The survey specifically says "a solid majority support an immediate military pullout even though they fear that could put them in greater danger" To me that does not sound like they think they are ready to go it alone. Rather, they'd accept the risks of going it alone, even though they know they aren't ready because they want us gone. Remember, "Only a third of the Iraqi people now believe that the American-led occupation of their country is doing more good than harm" Which means the majority think we're harming them more than helping. I think that makes it quite clear that they want us out and think we are harming them.
Alternate interpretations of the two statements above:

1. Yes, they accept the risks of going it alone, and feel challenged by it, but feel ready to meet that challenge - they want to be in control of themselves - not necessarily hating their "occupiers", but feeling that they are ready to go it on their own - despite the danger.

2. The polls didn't say what the actual questions were, and how they were answered - just that only one third believe that "the American-led occupation of their country is doing more good than harm" - a loaded question in and of itself. What if 3/4ths of the remaining would say "I don't know"? Or, perhaps, say "They are making us more of a target, so while we bear them no ill will, we feel that their presence is more dangerous than helpful"? These are just as good conclusions from the facts we have as yours.

Though it is fair to say they want us out, the reasons behind that majority view are less than clear, at this point.

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Joe Schmoe
Member
Member # 2640

 - posted      Profile for Joe Schmoe   Email Joe Schmoe   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by javelin:
quote:
This leads me to believe that we are both wrong about the extent of the damage. If that 40% number is accurate thats certainly more than the minimal damage you spoke about. Of course it is also short of bombing them back to the stone age. [Big Grin] I would still call it some pretty heavy damage though.
Fair enough. It's worthwhile to note that most of the infrastructure, power, water, etc. is (a) being repaired; and (b) is largely repaired at this time (better than prewar levels)

quote:
I think my conclusions follow. Whats wrong with them? The survey specifically says "a solid majority support an immediate military pullout even though they fear that could put them in greater danger" To me that does not sound like they think they are ready to go it alone. Rather, they'd accept the risks of going it alone, even though they know they aren't ready because they want us gone. Remember, "Only a third of the Iraqi people now believe that the American-led occupation of their country is doing more good than harm" Which means the majority think we're harming them more than helping. I think that makes it quite clear that they want us out and think we are harming them.
Alternate interpretations of the two statements above:

1. Yes, they accept the risks of going it alone, and feel challenged by it, but feel ready to meet that challenge - they want to be in control of themselves - not necessarily hating their "occupiers", but feeling that they are ready to go it on their own - despite the danger.

2. The polls didn't say what the actual questions were, and how they were answered - just that only one third believe that "the American-led occupation of their country is doing more good than harm" - a loaded question in and of itself. What if 3/4ths of the remaining would say "I don't know"? Or, perhaps, say "They are making us more of a target, so while we bear them no ill will, we feel that their presence is more dangerous than helpful"? These are just as good conclusions from the facts we have as yours.

Though it is fair to say they want us out, the reasons behind that majority view are less than clear, at this point.

Doesnt wash Jav. At least not according to the surveys and non US news reports. That same survey said "Forty-five percent of Iraqis believe attacks on U.S. and British troops are justified" and "Eighty-two percent of those polled said they were "strongly opposed" to the presence of the troops."

If half of them feel justified attacking our troops I doubt they're very happy with us. [Wink]

Posts: 214 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Did you have a link to the survey, its methodalogy, and the questions asked? I might have missed it from the original post, but I WAS looking for it, to try to understand where the negativity was coming from.
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Digger
Member
Member # 2341

 - posted      Profile for Digger   Email Digger   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not to get in the middle of things, but since you guys are talking about conditions in Iraq, I thought I'd throw out the Brookings Instituation Data for your perusal. Jav, I know you've seen this before, but I wasn't sure if JS had.
Posts: 1317 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks, Digger. I was looking for that link the other day. And why not join in? We are looking for what's true, not for a knuckle dragging fight between two "men" here... [Smile]

[ November 17, 2005, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: javelin ]

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Joe Schmoe
Member
Member # 2640

 - posted      Profile for Joe Schmoe   Email Joe Schmoe   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks Digger. [Big Grin] Jav that poll I was citing was listed in the report digger linked. Heres what it reported:

quote:

BRITISH MINISTRY OF DEFENCE POLL: AUGUST 2005110
Iraqis who believe attacks against British and American troops are
justified
45% (65% in Maysan province)
Iraqis “strongly opposed” to presence of Coalition troops 82%
Iraqis who believe coalition forces are responsible for any
improvement in security
<1%
Iraqis who feel less secure because of the occupation 67%
Iraqis who believe conditions for peace and stability have
worsened
43%
Iraqis who do not have confidence in multi-national forces 72%
Iraqis who rarely have safe, clean, water 71%
Iraqis who never have enough electricity 47%
Iraqis whose sewage system rarely works 70%
Southern Iraqis unemployed 40%

As far as I can tell the original results were from Telegraph.co.uk which doesn't give as much detail as I'd like.
Posts: 214 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1