Debate and Discussion

Who wants an American victory in Iraq?
Vindibudd at 4:34PM, Aug. 12, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
Is there ambivalence to this? Does anyone really care? There is a lot of back and forth over whether America can or can not win in Iraq, and by that I define a stable democratic country which is a U.S. ally, that has its security under control and does not need a huge American force to rely on civil stability. Any takers?
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
Aurora Moon at 6:20PM, Aug. 12, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
Vindibudd
Is there ambivalence to this? Does anyone really care? There is a lot of back and forth over whether America can or can not win in Iraq, and by that I define a stable democratic country which is a U.S. ally, that has its security under control and does not need a huge American force to rely on civil stability. Any takers?

by your defitions of “winning Iraq” in that manner…

Then I would have to say that seems so competely unlikely to me. That's gonna take DECADES to even sucessfully put down democratic roots in that country. Why?

Because from the people who lives in that country's viewpoint, it'd feel like Americans are seeking to “conquer” Iraq and make them a poltical puppet for America. So it's gonna be forever for the people of Iraq to even feel any differently (as in being repctive to the idea of Democracy).
Why? Because hard as it is to believe, not everyone is made for Democracy and or Freedom….there's some people who are actually much more comfortable living by competely rigid rules, such as having to hide thier faces and other body parts expect for their eyes. Espeically if they've been used to it for ages… born into such things, so to speak. So of course they're gonna feel very strongly about such changes made against such rigid rules, laws, etc…
After all, if people are proud of their country, then they don't want it to be exactly like America. espeically if they believe that America has a lot of undesirable things going on (such as women not wearing veils to hide thier hair, etc). Snice they believe that a woman's hair and face is the source of sexual exictment in men, so of course they conidser revealing hair and face to be competely indecent. So, if they think that Demorcy is gonna change all that, then they're gonna be competely against that… and it'd proably take over 100 years to even change their mind.

And then condiser our resources. We can't keep on sending troops in and whatnot forever… We've already lost a lot in terms of lives, and money. So to me an American Victory would be this:
To finally get and kill OSAMA BIN LADEN (Hello, does anybody even remember the bastard?? he was the one who started this whole mess!)
To get out of this whole mess without losing anymore troops and money.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
Vindibudd at 6:46PM, Aug. 12, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
Aurora Moon
So to me an American Victory would be this:
To finally get and kill OSAMA BIN LADEN (Hello, does anybody even remember the bastard?? he was the one who started this whole mess!)
To get out of this whole mess without losing anymore troops and money.


So would you be willing to support what it takes to accomplish your definition of victory is there a cost that is too high in your opinion?
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
imshard at 6:49PM, Aug. 12, 2007
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
Is there ambivalence? There certainly is.
A lot of people simply don't care anymore or refuse to take the situation into their minds. It is something that is very easy to do. All they have to do is watch a movie, turn on a football game, follow stories about celebrities, or just ignore the news on the TV. People have enough diversions in their lives to ignore having a limb chopped off.
Others actually want us to fail. Whether because it would suit their political agenda or they simply hate America. The majority seems to simply not care one way or the other, by means of a determined ignorance.

Those like me, who have friends and family over there certainly want it to be over soon, one way or another just so the soldiers can come home.

I think Iraq CAN be won. I don't think we'll ever completely leave though.
History teaches us that occupied nations are hard to pacify. A decade after WWII saw resistance and rock hard resentment in Germany and Japan. We still have forces in those countries whose assigned missions are to maintain peace and security. Even though these countries are now considered some the U.S.A's closest allies.

We will probably never get to leave Iraq completely like so many desire, or even partially as would be more reasonable. For the foreseeable future the best hope is that the stability will increase, and fatality rate decrease.
A significant troop reduction is at least 15 years off even if Iraq were to become totally safe tomorrow.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:57PM
ozoneocean at 7:12PM, Aug. 12, 2007
(online)
posts: 25,050
joined: 1-2-2004
Aurora makes some good points generally, but the one about being used to wearing veils can't be applied to Iraq. That's only really happened since after the invasion, Iraq was a very secular country (for the middle East) under the previous regime. Infact the meaning of the name of the political party that was in charge “Ba'ath” is something like “Renaissance”, it's aims were basically to get away from the more religious leanings of countries like Iran and to try and prosper through secular means… All in all, pretty good aims considering.

I don't think you can talk about “Victory” in Iraq in those terms, not at all. That sounds creepy. There has already been a US victory in Iraq and that's the only one you'll get in this cycle. As for weather the situation under occupation will settle down or spiral out of control and weather we want that or not, I'd say almost everyone would like a stable Iraq! I'd hope that everyone would.

These are a couple of “optimistic” possibilities that I foresee given the current situation:

1: Anarchy getting worse gradually, until strict restrictions on freedom of movement and mass sectarian segregation become mandatorilly and permanently enforced, leading to the breaking up and portioning of the country into pseudo-states in all but name, all permanently garrisoned with their own contingents of UN “peacekeeping troops” which would be almost entirely made up of US and US supporting allies. –Very large permanent US bases with massive contingents of troops and equipment will remain, but not ostensibly be involved in any “peacekeeping” duties.

2: If some of the violence can be broken down: A limited “democratic power sharing government in place that represents sectarian ”states" within the country, which is mostly divided down those lines apart from the Kurds which are completely autonomous. And this continues to be helped along by a very large force of US troops who have permanent bases there.

Not too hopeful, but realistic at this stage.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:27PM
Aurora Moon at 8:16PM, Aug. 12, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
The veil thing was just a example. Maybe I should had picked something else, eh? That's just it was all I could think of at the time as a example of a traditional practice that people are used to, that America could see as “wrong and or oppressive”.

imagine America saying to all Muslim women for instance: “Oh no!! You're all so poor and oppressed!! Forced to hide your face and stuff….I won't stand for this, I'll do all I can do to free you!!”
And then the some of the Muslim women is all like: “Huh? I wasn't aware that I was oppressed. I used to be Indian Hindu/whatever, and I choose to become Muslim just because I wanted to. I like the idea of my face and hair being hidden, only for my loved one to see. So who says I need help?? Crazy Americans!!”

I think there could easily be a similar happening/feeling going on in Iraq right now as in my example.

And the fact that Most Americans seem to Associate this war as an “war on terrorism” still and that they still associate it with muslims…. it's even worse.
There was even a guy on another board that basically said: “We need to stay in until it's all done! until all the terrorists are wiped out….even if it means that ALL the Arabs and Muslims have to be wiped out. Even if it means killing all the Muslim children so that there's no future terrorists!!!”
And even more shocking, there was even a few other people that agreed with him. They were supporting Murder of a race and also a whole religion. And of course if they couldn't have that, then they would settle for the next best thing–Highly Religious Republicans reigning supreme over the Muslims and having them under compete control!!

So imagine if a Muslim were to read such a viewpoint on that board… then that Muslim might feel that America is just pretending to do things “for the sake of Muslims” when really they're just being bigoted.

So I just feel that too many people are supporting this war for all the wrong reasons. I'm not saying that all the troops need to leave right away… just use better Tactics that gives us the least resentment from the middle east, and start leaving gradually.

Yes, there need to be a way to track any possible dangers to America, and so on forth… to give humanitarian aid IF THE PEOPLE ASK FOR IT… but the current situation is just escalating out of control in my opinion. plus the war keeps on bouncing all over.
First it was all about osama bin Laden…then all of a sudden, Afghanistan, Then Iran… then Iraq. Then Pakistani/Lebanon(or whatever that one country was), then back to Iraq. somewhere along that track, people just started getting lost on what the original point was all about.

You guys may not agree with me, but this is just how I feel.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
Vindibudd at 10:51AM, Aug. 13, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
I would have to reject the religious oppression premise, they did not invade Iraq because of religious oppression, they did it because of political oppression (among other things that I am sure plenty of people will rush to point out that I am omitting).

The war in Iraq was not handled properly, whatever the motivations of it in the first place. I am an unabashedly “proud to be an American we have the best country in the world” type of guy and I can readily admit as much about this war. They should have gone in with overwhelming force, not a quick fast force. When a country goes to war, it needs to go to war with as much power as it possibly can field, and we sort of phoned it in and didn't lock it down and let these lunatics like Al Sadr run around with their gangs trying to suck up power.

Not every country can be the U.S. Heck, I am not sure even this country could be the U.S. anymore, but this sort of thing needs to be taken into account. Is there a will in the people of Iraq to get rid of Saddam? Even if they are not able to do it themselves, there has to be that will there. I think they have that will. I also think that Bin Laden's homies are running around killing as many people as indiscriminately as possible to try to get American and Iraqi public opinion turned against the war there. The If It Bleeds It Leads and Anything To Make George Bush Look Bad media here are happily reporting every death that happens and ignoring the good that happens, and yes there are good things happening in Iraq. Good things that aren't reported because they are unremarkable to us, even though they are incredibly amazing to the Iraqis, you know, like being able to have a satellite dish without having the government randomly shoot you, or being able to go to school, or apply for a job without having to worry about getting thrown in prison for it.

Some would say that hey, at least there were not as many bombings when Saddam was around, well, here is the difference between violence then and violence now.

Now, the perpetrators are being hunted down by the government instead of being sanctioned by the government. Everyday in the United States people are murdered but there is no outcry about how it would be so much better if we had a dictator in charge to “protect us” so why should it be that way for the Iraqis? Why should they have to just “deal with it” as so many here would like to say? Saddam was a strategic problem for the U.S. and that is the real reason they went in there. Like it or not, that was the point.

Oh, but they can't handle democracy, they are not ready for democracy. That is a really arrogant thing to say. Hey you people are not ready for cake! So you can't have any! Keep eating dirt! That pretty much sums up that argument.

last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
mlai at 11:18AM, Aug. 13, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,035
joined: 12-28-2006
Vindibudd
they are incredibly amazing to the Iraqis, you know, like being able to have a satellite dish without having the government randomly shoot you, or being able to go to school, or apply for a job without having to worry about getting thrown in prison for it.
Right, now you don't have to do anything to have someone randomly shoot you!

Saddam was a strategic problem for the U.S. and that is the real reason they went in there. Like it or not, that was the point.
The US will always have strategic problems everywhere in the world. Saddam was a poor choice of “problem to tackle first.” Result: N. Korea and Iran, and the US not being able to do jack about them. Wait, add Afghanistan. And the US.

Oh, but they can't handle democracy, they are not ready for democracy. That is a really arrogant thing to say. Hey you people are not ready for cake! So you can't have any! Keep eating dirt! That pretty much sums up that argument.
Somehow you equate democracy with cake, and everything else with mud. I hated American cake and pastry when I 1st came to the US, btw. It made me retch. All fat and sugar, no cake.

FIGHT current chapter: Filling In The Gaps
FIGHT_2 current chapter: Light Years of Gold
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:05PM
Aurora Moon at 12:51PM, Aug. 13, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
Vindibudd
I would have to reject the religious oppression premise, they did not invade Iraq because of religious oppression, they did it because of political oppression (among other things that I am sure plenty of people will rush to point out that I am omitting).

That was just a example though. But a vaild one regardless. after all, Muslims worship Allah, and so on forth. Bin Laden is a muslim…and ever snice people have been assocating the Mulism's religion with terrorism.
A lot of Americans seem to think that the beliefs of Muslims are backwards and oppessive. So a lot of Americans seem to feel that the middle east needs to be “free” from the muslims' religion so that they can go on to be a much more “progessive” country/or Countries.
or as that one guy on that other board said: “To kill every muslim so that there's no more terrorists!!!”
So that is why I said that at times I feel that some people are just supporting the war for the wrong reasons.
Granted, there's a lot of people with poltical reasons, proably more vaild reasons, who supports this war. But don't you dare pretend that religion doesn't have anything to do with it. When it does.

The war in Iraq was not handled properly, whatever the motivations of it in the first place. I am an unabashedly “proud to be an American we have the best country in the world” type of guy and I can readily admit as much about this war.

Something we can agree on at least.

The If It Bleeds It Leads and Anything To Make George Bush Look Bad media here are happily reporting every death that happens and ignoring the good that happens, and yes there are good things happening in Iraq. Good things that aren't reported because they are unremarkable to us, even though they are incredibly amazing to the Iraqis, you know, like being able to have a satellite dish without having the government randomly shoot you, or being able to go to school, or apply for a job without having to worry about getting thrown in prison for it.

I can agree that the Media is pretty bad when it comes to being competely biased in certain matters like this. But…. I have to say you're competely ingorant on the Middle east. Not every corner of the Middle east is a land full of poverty, without eletricity, without schools, etc.
They have cars there, they do have electrity, and most of all the kids go to school all the time even without random acts of terrorism happening, etc. They had all that even before the war in the major cities and towns. Are you sure you weren't somehow brainwashed by of the “pro-war” media to think that terrorism and shootings happens everyday there? Because I hate to break it to you, it doesn't.

And Saddam was proably the only decent thing to happen ever snice the War. But what about Bin Fucking Laden?! The whole point of the war in the start was to go find him and get him on trial for his crimes. Yet people is letting him get away with it, and he's proably laughing with glee at how he sucessfully made it so that America VS Middle East. A way for him to competely justfity his attack on New York, by gathering up all the negative aspects of this war as proof that Americans are “Evil”.


Oh, but they can't handle democracy, they are not ready for democracy. That is a really arrogant thing to say. Hey you people are not ready for cake! So you can't have any! Keep eating dirt! That pretty much sums up that argument.

I never said that they couldn't handle Democracy… stop putting ingorant words into my mouth! I just said that those guys might be most likely to think that with Decomorcy that meant that they would have to change everything about thier beliefs, inducding being an muslium if they ever were to be one. So as long as they think that, they're gonna reject it as long as they feel like they don't need it.
Such a mindset takes time, and it would take a while for us to make them realize that they don't have to change EVERYTHING, just only who gets to be in power over them which would happen to be their choice. Freedom of choice, they got to realize that on their own instead of us forcing it on them.

As for the whole cake/mud thing… I'll Quote Malai.
Somehow you equate democracy with cake, and everything else with mud. I hated American cake and pastry when I 1st came to the US, btw. It made me retch. All fat and sugar, no cake.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
mlai at 1:28PM, Aug. 13, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,035
joined: 12-28-2006
Someone
First it was all about osama bin Laden…then all of a sudden, Afghanistan, Then Iran… then Iraq. Then Pakistani/Lebanon(or whatever that one country was), then back to Iraq.
Wait.

Afghanistan = Because Al Quaida + Osama hid there, with the Taliban.

Iran = Enemy since the Carter admin. Because they refuse to play by USA's rules, and huggles terrorists. Shiite theocracy.

Iraq = We know about this one.

Pakistan = Ruled by a dictator who plays by US' rules. Thus, our buddy. A friend of democracy.

Lebanon = A whole other mess (involving Syria) which the US tries to stay away from, but cannot because Israel is involved. Israel's little war made things a little worse, because they failed to kick ass, and subsequently showed everybody that both the US and Israel aren't invincible like in the legends.

Timeline = Iran -> Osama -> Afghanistan -> Iraq -> Iran -> Osama when he blows up something else.

FIGHT current chapter: Filling In The Gaps
FIGHT_2 current chapter: Light Years of Gold
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:05PM
Vindibudd at 1:36PM, Aug. 13, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
mlai
Right, now you don't have to do anything to have someone randomly shoot you!

You don't have to do anything to get randomly shot anywhere. That is why it is characterized as random.

mlai
The US will always have strategic problems everywhere in the world. Saddam was a poor choice of “problem to tackle first.” Result: N. Korea and Iran, and the US not being able to do jack about them. Wait, add Afghanistan. And the US.

The U.S. is a strategic problem for the U.S.? North Korea and Iran are not results of attacking Iraq first, seeings as they were problems before Iraq. Afghanistan was already taken care of before Iraq.

mlai
Somehow you equate democracy with cake, and everything else with mud. I hated American cake and pastry when I 1st came to the US, btw. It made me retch. All fat and sugar, no cake.

No, I equated democracy with a dictatorship as it relates to the Iraqis. A quick check of the thesaurus will reveal that “everything else” is not a synonym of “dictatorship.”
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
mlai at 3:55PM, Aug. 13, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,035
joined: 12-28-2006
Someone
You don't have to do anything to get randomly shot anywhere. That is why it is characterized as random.
Iraq is a different situ. It is bad enough that the term civil war is “debatable” when applied to Iraq, rather than “false.” That's 500x worse than “randomly just like anywhere.”

Someone
The U.S. is a strategic problem for the U.S.?
Not necessarily strategic. But I would equate surplus -> trillion deficit as problem.

Someone
North Korea and Iran are not results of attacking Iraq first, seeings as they were problems before Iraq.
Problems which now cannot be dealt with adequately, but could have been had there not been a distraction by the name of “Iraq occupation.”

Someone
Afghanistan was already taken care of before Iraq.
It's not “taken care of.” Taliban is resurging now that US attention is off of Afghanistan. Not to mention the opium warlord state it is currently. Scratch 1 terrorist, add 10 drug dealers.

Someone
No, I equated democracy with a dictatorship as it relates to the Iraqis. A quick check of the thesaurus will reveal that “everything else” is not a synonym of “dictatorship.”
Reference my quip on Pakistan.

FIGHT current chapter: Filling In The Gaps
FIGHT_2 current chapter: Light Years of Gold
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:05PM
Vindibudd at 4:19PM, Aug. 13, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
Aurora Moon
That was just a example though. But a vaild one regardless. after all, Muslims worship Allah, and so on forth. Bin Laden is a muslim…and ever snice people have been assocating the Mulism's religion with terrorism.
A lot of Americans seem to think that the beliefs of Muslims are backwards and oppessive. So a lot of Americans seem to feel that the middle east needs to be “free” from the muslims' religion so that they can go on to be a much more “progessive” country/or Countries.
or as that one guy on that other board said: “To kill every muslim so that there's no more terrorists!!!”
So that is why I said that at times I feel that some people are just supporting the war for the wrong reasons.
Granted, there's a lot of people with poltical reasons, proably more vaild reasons, who supports this war. But don't you dare pretend that religion doesn't have anything to do with it. When it does.

Iraq was not invaded to convert the Muslims. Period. Would you like to show me all the churches the U.S. military has set up to force conversions from Islam?

Aurora Moon
I can agree that the Media is pretty bad when it comes to being competely biased in certain matters like this. But…. I have to say you're competely ingorant on the Middle east. Not every corner of the Middle east is a land full of poverty, without eletricity, without schools, etc.
They have cars there, they do have electrity, and most of all the kids go to school all the time even without random acts of terrorism happening, etc. They had all that even before the war in the major cities and towns. Are you sure you weren't somehow brainwashed by of the “pro-war” media to think that terrorism and shootings happens everyday there? Because I hate to break it to you, it doesn't..

I hate to break it back to you, but I have not once characterized “the entire Middle East” as “a land full of poverty, without eletricity, without schools, etc.” Iraq under Saddam, however, was full of starving people.

Aurora Moon
And Saddam was proably the only decent thing to happen ever snice the War. But what about Bin Fucking Laden?! The whole point of the war in the start was to go find him and get him on trial for his crimes. Yet people is letting him get away with it, and he's proably laughing with glee at how he sucessfully made it so that America VS Middle East. A way for him to competely justfity his attack on New York, by gathering up all the negative aspects of this war as proof that Americans are “Evil”..

The point of invading Iraq has nothing to do with getting bin Laden. Iraq is characterized as being part of the so-called War on Terror, however, that war does not end with bin Laden being caught and everyone going home. This is not a symmetric war, where 1+1=2 and bin Laden+Dead=War Over. And whatever we do does not justify his attacking New York. It's like saying that when we dropped the bomb on Japan, that justified them bombing Pearl Harbor.

Aurora Moon
I never said that they couldn't handle Democracy… stop putting ingorant words into my mouth! I just said that those guys might be most likely to think that with Decomorcy that meant that they would have to change everything about thier beliefs, inducding being an muslium if they ever were to be one. So as long as they think that, they're gonna reject it as long as they feel like they don't need it.
Such a mindset takes time, and it would take a while for us to make them realize that they don't have to change EVERYTHING, just only who gets to be in power over them which would happen to be their choice. Freedom of choice, they got to realize that on their own instead of us forcing it on them.

That was about the most incoherent thing I have read in at least the last 5 minutes. I will try to put only intelligent words in your mouth from now on and I will try to let the Iraqis know that they have freedom of choice, which is much better than they had before.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
Vindibudd at 4:31PM, Aug. 13, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
mlai
Iraq is a different situ. It is bad enough that the term civil war is “debatable” when applied to Iraq, rather than “false.” That's 500x worse than “randomly just like anywhere.”

Random is random, though in Iraq there is more of a probability of getting shot just like there is more of a probability of getting shot in Detroit than there is in Montana.

mlai
Not necessarily strategic. But I would equate surplus -> trillion deficit as problem.

Why don't we throw in domestic adolescent obesity and put that at the top of the list ahead of other problems like international security as well. Also, we need to include the incorrect change being given at the soda machine, that's a real big problem, too, in comparison.

mlai
Problems which now cannot be dealt with adequately, but could have been had there not been a distraction by the name of “Iraq occupation.”

You woefully underestimate the possibilities in the chaos of nation states in a unipolar world.

mlai
It's not “taken care of.” Taliban is resurging now that US attention is off of Afghanistan. Not to mention the opium warlord state it is currently. Scratch 1 terrorist, add 10 drug dealers.

I'm not of the opinion that the United States is incapable of multitasking.

last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
mlai at 7:20PM, Aug. 13, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,035
joined: 12-28-2006
@ Vindibudd:
Don't criticize me for failing to reply to you. I choose not to reply to your above post.

@ Everyone:
Watch this one. I don't really know how to describe this one.
Cheney's on-record POV regarding Iraq.

FIGHT current chapter: Filling In The Gaps
FIGHT_2 current chapter: Light Years of Gold
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:05PM
SpANG at 7:28PM, Aug. 13, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,105
joined: 1-1-2006
mlai
@ Everyone:
Watch this one. I don't really know how to describe this one.
Cheney's on-record POV regarding Iraq.
Well, obviously, the argument here would be the old stand by, “I never said that.”
It works so well. I don't think these guys understand the concept of “recorded on video.” Or they think the public is too stupid to care or remember.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0Odd429CsA

“To a rational mind, nothing is inexplicable. Only unexplained.”
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:52PM
Aurora Moon at 7:36PM, Aug. 13, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
Vindibudd
Iraq was not invaded to convert the Muslims. Period. Would you like to show me all the churches the U.S. military has set up to force conversions from Islam?

Yet again you miss my point. There are people who wants the army to KILL All the Muslims, NOT convert them. Converting is much different than murder…. or can't you not tell the difference? So if some people wanted the army to kill off all the Muslims, then of course they don't want the army to just set up churches since they feel that any current Muslims should be wiped off the face of earth, rather than converted. Fail.
Of course the army isn't going to kill all the Muslims in reality, nor do Bush would ever endorse such a thing (at least I hope). But some people who supports the war WANTS them to, due to the heightened tensions of the war and the hate-mongering media. So some Americans are supporting the war for the wrong reasons. That was my whole fucking' point!!! which you keep on missing!!! God, and you say I'm not smart at all? You're one to talk. (pot calling the kettle black, maybe?)

The point of invading Iraq has nothing to do with getting bin Laden. Iraq is characterized as being part of the so-called War on Terror, however, that war does not end with bin Laden being caught and everyone going home. This is not a symmetric war, where 1+1=2 and bin Laden+Dead=War Over. And whatever we do does not justify his attacking New York. It's like saying that when we dropped the bomb on Japan, that justified them bombing Pearl Harbor.

I know that killing bin laden isn't gonna end the war, okay. but it just feels like The army is just running around aimlessly the moment there's “another terrorist threat” WITHOUT ATTENDING TO THE CURRENT ISSUE FIRST. That was my whole point… it's like they should focus on Bin Laden snice he was first in triggering this whole “axis of evil” and “war on terrorism”.
Here's how I feel it should had been done in the whole begining: We get Bin Laden, put him on trial, and we send a message to all the terrorists out that eventally everyone shall be held responsbile for what they do against America. Having him run around still just sends a message to all terrorists, who's thinking of attacking america, that they can get away with it. Which of course is just bad for America.
THEN we move on to the next issue, such as some various countries having some terrorist threats and the unruly dicators. once the rest is addressed, then the troops comes home.

That way would be better–Instead of bouncing all over the whole goddamn map! It's just not orderly at all. And I think that the war dragged on than longer because they weren't that orderly or focused in fhinshing their current “project” before they took on more problems.

That was about the most incoherent thing I have read in at least the last 5 minutes. I will try to put only intelligent words in your mouth from now on and I will try to let the Iraqis know that they have freedom of choice, which is much better than they had before.
It's not my fault if you can't understand everyone's posts and keeps on missing the whole point they were trying to make, even if they keep on repeating it in an attempt for the poor feeble-minded Vindibudd to understand.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
Vindibudd at 8:26PM, Aug. 13, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
Aurora Moon
Yet again you miss my point. There are people who wants the army to KILL All the Muslims, NOT convert them. Converting is much different than murder…. or can't you not tell the difference? So if some people wanted the army to kill off all the Muslims, then of course they don't want the army to just set up churches since they feel that any current Muslims should be wiped off the face of earth, rather than converted. Fail.
Of course the army isn't going to kill all the Muslims in reality, nor do Bush would ever endorse such a thing (at least I hope). But some people who supports the war WANTS them to, due to the heightened tensions of the war and the hate-mongering media. So some Americans are supporting the war for the wrong reasons. That was my whole fucking' point!!! which you keep on missing!!! God, and you say I'm not smart at all? You're one to talk. (pot calling the kettle black, maybe?)

Unbelievable. You really think that the United States went to war to kill all muslims… It's been nice. See you in another thread.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
Aurora Moon at 8:41PM, Aug. 13, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
Vindibudd
Aurora Moon
Yet again you miss my point. There are people who wants the army to KILL All the Muslims, NOT convert them. Converting is much different than murder…. or can't you not tell the difference? So if some people wanted the army to kill off all the Muslims, then of course they don't want the army to just set up churches since they feel that any current Muslims should be wiped off the face of earth, rather than converted. Fail.
Of course the army isn't going to kill all the Muslims in reality, nor do Bush would ever endorse such a thing (at least I hope). But some people who supports the war WANTS them to, due to the heightened tensions of the war and the hate-mongering media. So some Americans are supporting the war for the wrong reasons. That was my whole fucking' point!!! which you keep on missing!!! God, and you say I'm not smart at all? You're one to talk. (pot calling the kettle black, maybe?)

Unbelievable. You really think that the United States went to war to kill all muslims… It's been nice. See you in another thread.

uh, no. I said SOME people, not THE united States.

I'm an American, yet I'm against such a mentality. So of course not everyone wants such a thing.

Yay for taking my words out of context and twisting it around to make yourself more right than others!!! >=P
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
Kohdok at 9:10PM, Aug. 13, 2007
(online)
posts: 776
joined: 5-18-2007
I honestly don't think it's possible. There has been chaos in that part of the world for millenia, and I don't think a few years of occupation is going to change that much at all.

All America is doing is trying to gain a foothold in the Middle East and all of the resources there, and what better place to start that right smack-dab in the middle?

I think most Americans have lost their taste for this whole thing and I personally feel that the government has done nothing but made Iraq its little pet project (Like Cuba, but we know how THAT ended up). We haven't made much progess in making Iraq a sovereign nation, terrorists from other countries are storming in and sniping and bombing our troops. Like so many people are saying, we've exacerbated things. Sure, we took out a dictator, but what thanks has it gotten us? Are parabellum rounds and explosives given out like chocolate in gratitude in the Middle East? Has a stable government been formed?

Not that I've heard of.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:20PM
TnTComic at 4:38AM, Aug. 14, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
Great thread title!

No…. oh no! We dirty liberal democrats don't ever want american victory!! We want to eat your babies!
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
mechanical_lullaby at 4:49AM, Aug. 14, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,905
joined: 1-7-2006

there are no winners in imperialism.

last edited on July 14, 2011 1:57PM
Vindibudd at 10:49AM, Aug. 14, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
mechanical_lullaby

there are no winners in imperialism.

Yawn.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
Vindibudd at 10:53AM, Aug. 14, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
TnTComic
Great thread title!

No…. oh no! We dirty liberal democrats don't ever want american victory!! We want to eat your babies!

Washington Post
House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Monday that a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by Army Gen. David Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war.

article
But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be "a real big problem for us."
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
TnTComic at 11:16AM, Aug. 14, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
Oh there you go again, warping what people say to suit your own purposes.

What the man is saying is that it will be harder to get our troops home if it looks like things are going very well in Iraq. He's not saying he doesn't want an American victory.

If I used your ways, your twisting and spinning, i'd say you don't want an American victory because you want our troops to stay.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
mechanical_lullaby at 11:23AM, Aug. 14, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,905
joined: 1-7-2006
mechanical_lullaby

there are no winners in imperialism.

last edited on July 14, 2011 1:57PM
Vindibudd at 1:29PM, Aug. 14, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
TnTComic
Oh there you go again, warping what people say to suit your own purposes.

What the man is saying is that it will be harder to get our troops home if it looks like things are going very well in Iraq. He's not saying he doesn't want an American victory.

If I used your ways, your twisting and spinning, I'd say you don't want an American victory because you want our troops to stay.

The problem is that the Democrats are not concerned about winning, they are simply concerned about leaving.

Do Democrats want to win or do they want to leave?

That statement by Clyburn indicates that they want to leave, BUT WAIT, we might be making progress in Iraq, DAMNIT! NOW we will have to stay! #@*&!

In other words, this is the mindset of the Democrats: if we are LOSING, then we can LEAVE! YES! That is what Clyburn is saying.

There is no way of twisting the words there. We have soldiers there for a reason and that reason is to establish a stable country, not leave as quickly as possible.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
mapaghimagsik at 2:32PM, Aug. 14, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
Winning or Leaving. Now that's a loaded Fox News Question if I ever heard it.

What Vindi hasn't indicated as to what ‘victory’ is. He blames Democrats for the failure of the administration he supports, over and over. This administration has gotten *everything* they wanted to have this war. This was a war started mostly by republicans and profiteered mostly by republicans. However, the MIC doesn't know party lines, but definitely caters to those who like the jackboot of authoritarianism at their necks. Its a fetish for them, really.

At the end of the day, there will be a few sad, lonely individuals, howling at their keyboards about how we shoudda “won” where won is … a pony…or something. As part of the noise machine, the fables will become truth, and they would have gotten their pony, if it weren't for those damn dirty hippies. They will gleefully forget the dead and wounded – the Iraqis who were ungrateful enough to be uncounted amongst the cost of this war, then the soldiers who became crippled and perished fighting this folly. Of course, they'll say the democrats hate the soldiers as they try and cut funding again and again for our fallen and their families. In the end, they have already forgotten the dead of 9/11, because these are no longer dead human beings, but a sad, lonely flag to wave in jingoistic outrage as the rest of the world passes them by.


But lets be honest, its not about war for people like that. They desperately want a spotlight. Sure, we all crave a little attention, though most of ours doesn't involve crockodile tears and a body count.

It remains to be seen if Vindi is one of these sad individuals.


last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
Vindibudd at 3:27PM, Aug. 14, 2007
(online)
posts: 416
joined: 1-29-2006
mapaghimagsik
Winning or Leaving. Now that's a loaded Fox News Question if I ever heard it.

OMG There's EEEEVIL FOX NEWS again, center of modern evil in the world. Speaking of a fetish…

mapaghimagsik
What Vindi hasn't indicated as to what ‘victory’ is.

Oh but if mapaghimagsik would have read the thread, then mapaghimagsik would have seen THE VERY FIRST POST is where I defined victory.

Vindibudd
There is a lot of back and forth over whether America can or can not win in Iraq, and by that (meaning, win) I define a stable democratic country which is a U.S. ally, that has its security under control and does not need a huge American force to rely on civil stability

But of course, mapaghimagsik can't be bothered with fact checking when mapaghimagsik can hurl baseless charges.

mapaghimagsik
He blames Democrats for the failure of the administration he supports, over and over.

Negative. I have never posted anything that said the Bush Administration can't do X because of the Democrats.

mapaghimagsik
This administration has gotten *everything* they wanted to have this war. This was a war started mostly by republicans and profiteered mostly by republicans.

Yes, God forbid that anyone get reimbursed for their services. Someone might make a profit, and holy ****, we can't have profits.

mapaghimagsik
However, the MIC doesn't know party lines, but definitely caters to those who like the jackboot of authoritarianism at their necks. Its a fetish for them, really.

I love random acronyms that nobody understands except the people that make them up.

mapaghimagsik
At the end of the day, there will be a few sad, lonely individuals, howling at their keyboards about how we shoudda “won” where won is … a pony…or something.

Actually I already defined what I meant by won, but you are too smart to read what people say because you just KNOW what they are going to say before they ever say it.

mapaghimagsik
As part of the noise machine, the fables will become truth, and they would have gotten their pony, if it weren't for those damn dirty hippies.

Because in your world people that disagree with your perfection are universally morons.

mapaghimagsik
They will gleefully forget the dead and wounded – the Iraqis who were ungrateful enough to be uncounted amongst the cost of this war, then the soldiers who became crippled and perished fighting this folly.

Gleeful forgetting is the group that wants the U.S. out of Iraq unconditionally. Who gives a damn about the hell that the people will face there when the U.S. leaves as long as we can pin it on evil George W. Bush and his profiteering Fox News Rockettes!

mapaghimagsik
Of course, they'll say the democrats hate the soldiers as they try and cut funding again and again for our fallen and their families. In the end, they have already forgotten the dead of 9/11, because these are no longer dead human beings, but a sad, lonely flag to wave in jingoistic outrage as the rest of the world passes them by.

Of course. It is JUST like that. You are prophetic! The complexity of your vision with such brilliant poignant terms like “jingoistic” and “sad” is just just….WHERE ARE THE TISSUES?

mapaghimagsik
But lets be honest,

Everything up to this point was a lie?

mapaghimagsik
its not about war for people like that. They desperately want a spotlight. Sure, we all crave a little attention, though most of ours doesn't involve crockodile tears and a body count.

Except when we can bail (like the Democrats want) on the Iraqi people and leave their country to be ripped apart by Al Qaeda, Iran, and religious zealots.

mapaghimagsik
It remains to be seen if Vindi is one of these sad individuals.

If only I could come to the Light Side of the Force, if only.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:42PM
mapaghimagsik at 3:47PM, Aug. 14, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
Isn't it fun when Vindi puts words in your mouth? Oh well, I'm sure the color of the sky is nicer there.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved