1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"It's a number"

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by JR, Jun 15, 2006.

  1. JR

    JR Well-Known Member

    Re: "Its's a number"

    Right and some crazy Columbian soccer fans shot one of their country's players. What's your point?

    By your logic you should have invaded the Soviet Union during the Cold War and should probably be ramping up to invade China right now.

    The preservation of human rights has never been high on the list of priorities when the U.S decides to invade a country.
  2. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    Re: "Its's a number"

    No matter how bad a disease is, sometimes the cure is worse.

    Between 30,000 and 100,000 Iraqis have died since our invasion and the resulting chaos.

    There is no way 30,000-100,000 Iraqis died violent deaths at the hands of Saddam between 2000 and 2003.

    I feel for the Olympic athlete.

    I also feel for the child who had a bullet put through her skull in Haditha.
  3. SCEditor

    SCEditor Active Member

    Re: "Its's a number"

    I don't know if comparing a crazy Columbian soccer fan with the son of the country's leader is very fair. There are crazy people all over the place who will do absolutey appalling things. I just prefer they not run countries.
  4. buckweaver

    buckweaver Active Member

    Re: "Its's a number"

    Interesting comments, and I agree with most of the rest of them. Here's where I disagree.

    My problem is not WHY we *actually* went to war, because there's not one reason and there's not just one good reason. My problem is that this administration lied to us -- and then kept lying, and kept changing the reasons to suit their political purproses -- about why THEY went to war. And they did it unilaterally, in a time when we were NOT in grave and imminent danger, and they did it without any kind of serious debate with our incompetent Congress or with the public.

    And it looks suspiciously like this was NEVER a war to "protect America" or to "spread democracy" as much as it was a war for the oil barons, a large majority of them having ties to this administration, to profit from it. Gas prices have never been higher here, all the no-bid contracts are going to Halliburton and other such companies, and there seems to be no end in sight. It's a "1984" dream-world -- a constant war-like state, with ever-changing enemies, ever-changing fronts, ever-changing reasons for fighting -- but one thing constant: the government is always right, and the people don't hold them accountable when they're wrong.

    I'm NOT glad I live in THAT country. With all due respect.
  5. SCEditor

    SCEditor Active Member

    Re: "Its's a number"

    As do I. I wish nobody had to die. I wish we could make sure no civilians died. I wish that everybody in our military exmplified the morals our military is supposed to represent. But that's not ever going to happen. Freedom isn't free, there are costs, sometimes extreme costs. But the end result will hopefully bear fruit for the Middle East in the future. And if it doesn't, I'm at least proud that we tried.

    And to go back to another point, I'm glad Saddam had become a model citizen from 2000-2003. If I killed a man 20 years ago and I got caught today, do I deserve to go unpunished for my crimes, because I've been "tolerable" since. I sure hope not.
  6. jgmacg

    jgmacg Guest

    Re: "Its's a number"

    Your arrest probably wouldn't have cost $300 billion and 2500 American lives. Neither should Saddam's.
  7. SCEditor

    SCEditor Active Member

    Re: "Its's a number"

    And I agree with much of what you said. I don't like many things this administration has done, which is why I think everybody has been a little bit tolerable with my posts. I'm not like a few others who simply say, "Bush, good. Democrats, bad." Our administration screwed this war up in a monumental way. But ... but ... but I believe we should go to Iraq for the above stated reasons. Now, what we said and did when we got there (aside from blowing up or catching most of the people with the last name Hussein and his cronies), I've been very disappointed. And I'm disappointed in what we're doing now to an extent.

    But we're fighting a war against an opponent unlike any other. We're not fighting against people who are willing to die. We're fighting against people who want to die, because in their culture and religion, dying for the cause is celebrated.
  8. Re: "Its's a number"

    SC -- Admire your idealism, sir. (US troops to the Sudan? They'll run you out of SC on a rail.) However, you can't apply your idealism to the current bunch who went haring off to Iraq ex post facto. There is nothing worse in this democracy that a president can do than lie the country into a war. It changes the nature of so many things, most especially the relationship between the people and their government, the government and its military, and the people and their military. This was not a humanitarian intervention because the people in charge are not humanitarians and because they didn't trust the American people through their representatives in Congress to make the decision to go to war based on honest information regarding the casus belli. Humanitarianism doesn;t allow for 13 permanent bases, and a fortified embassy the size of Rhode Island.
    I leave you with the words of Abraham Lincoln --Republican, combat veteran (of "cosmetic" combat, according to some observers), and, apparently clairvoyant. He's talking about JK Polk.
    Or...is he?

    I shall be fully convinced of what I more than suspect already—that he is deeply conscious of being in the wrong; that he feels the blood of this war, like the blood of Abel, is crying to Heaven against him . . ., and trusting to escape scrutiny by fixing the public gaze upon the exceeding brightness of military glory, that attractive rainbow that rises in showers of blood—that serpent's eye that charms to destroy, ... he now finds himself he knows not where....

    As I have before said, he knows not where he is. He is a bewildered, confounded, and miserably perplexed man. God grant he may be able to show there is not something about his conscience more painful than all his mental perplexity.
  9. SCEditor

    SCEditor Active Member

    Re: "Its's a number"

    Yeah, because if we told Saddam we were going to arrest him, he was going to meet us at the courthouse with his attorney to post bail.
  10. SCEditor

    SCEditor Active Member

    Re: "Its's a number"

    Don't tell anybody about my secret location in S.C., and I think I'll be safe. But you never know, we may try to secede from the union again.

    I don't agree with Bush lying, and I can apply my idealism anyway I want. President Bush had made a strong push throughout his time as governor, in the campaign and in his presidency about his Christian beliefs. And, while I'm certainly not an outstanding Christian, I like to think Bush had the best intentions. Maybe he wasn't smart enough to handle it the right way. Maybe his staff wasn't smart enough to handle it the right way. Maybe, like you said, he didn't look at Iraq the same way I do. Maybe he saw oil and dollar signs and daddy's revenge. You can hate the president all you want (and I'm sure you do), but I still stand by our war in Iraq. I hope it ends soon. I hope we fix the problem. But I'm glad to know that we went over there, knocked off the bully and helped save some lives. In the long run, I think it's worth it.

    P.S. Isn't Lincoln from the era where basically republicans back then would be democrats now and vice versa?
  11. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    Re: "Its's a number"

    And if it DOESN'T bear fruit for the Middle East in the future? If Iraq becomes the new Afghanistan, a lawless, terrorist playground?

    "Well, we tried" just doesn't cut it with me.

    You see, we have a history of this kind of shit.

    We thought we would help a group in 1980 fight the Russians who were invading Afghanistan.

    The person we helped? Osama bin Laden.

    We were friends with a terrible Shah in Iran and fueled the nation's hate for us when we helped him after his exile.

    We helped put Saddam in power. We GAVE HIM Weapons of Mass Destruction, which he used on Iran. "Saddam, meet Rummy. Rummy, meet Saddam."


    Notice a pattern here?

    If you don't know the eventual outcome of what you are undertaking . . . stay the hell out!! The cure might be worse than the disease.

    Sir, you are 100% correct. And general after general has stated that our military simply was not trained to fight a counterinsurgency. We can do a lot of great things militarily. Fighting an insurgency is NOT one of them. How can you possibly succeed at something at which you have not been trained?
  12. SCEditor

    SCEditor Active Member

    Re: "Its's a number"

    George W. Bush, by the way, wasn't the president during any of those examples you offered. So we should not try to solve problems previous presidents have caused?
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page