"It's a number"

[JR]

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.

 

[BTExpress]

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.

 

[SCEditor]

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.

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.

 

[buckweaver]

Re: "Its's a number"

Now you can say he went to war because of his daddy. You can say he went to war for the oil (boy, that sure has worked out lately, huh?). You can say he went to war because of false information that led him to believe Iraq had WMDs. But part of the reason, maybe even a small part, was those 300,000 people. And I'm glad I live in a country where we're willing to take the risk and some of the casualties if it's going to help provide a greater good for others. Anywhere else, and we'd call it France.

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.

 

[SCEditor]

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.

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.

 

[jgmacg]

Re: "Its's a number"

[ 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.

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

 

[SCEditor]

Re: "Its's a number"

Now you can say he went to war because of his daddy. You can say he went to war for the oil (boy, that sure has worked out lately, huh?). You can say he went to war because of false information that led him to believe Iraq had WMDs. But part of the reason, maybe even a small part, was those 300,000 people. And I'm glad I live in a country where we're willing to take the risk and some of the casualties if it's going to help provide a greater good for others. Anywhere else, and we'd call it France.

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.

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.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

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.

 

[SCEditor]

Re: "Its's a number"

[ 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.

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

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.

 

[SCEditor]

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.

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?

 

[BTExpress]

Re: "Its's a number"

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 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 ****.

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.

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.

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?

 

[SCEditor]

Re: "Its's a number"

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 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 ****.

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.

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.

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?

 

[SCEditor]

Re: "Its's a number"

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

But it's a step above, "We couldn't be bothered."

 

[JR]

Re: "Its's a number"

You still haven't answered my question.

By your logic the U.S. should invade any country where they perceive there are significant violations of human rights?

Why aren't there U.S troops heading for China right now or why didn't the U.S. invade the Soviet Union during the days of Stalin.

It's a rhetorical question.

Bottom line is, you can rationalize the invasion of Iraq all you want but it doesn't wash.

 

[alleyallen]

Re: "Its's a number"

SC, I respect your desire to protect the lives of thousands, but you're awfully quick to send American troops all over the world to fight your battles for you. The people most hungry for a war are usually the ones not actually doing the fighting, otherwise we'd have thousands of grey-haired, fat and wealthy congressman running headlong toward the Iraqi Republican Guard.

There are atrocities committed the world over, and thousands die all the time. No one is saying Saddam is a good guy and no one is denying he's murdered thousands. But who does the deciding when it becomes our business? Where's the line that was crossed that forced the U.S. to feel it necessary to invade Iraq? What number of innocent lives lost compelled us?

We can't be the world's savior, no matter how much of a superpower we are. The British Empire nearly bled itself dry trying to put out fires on nearly every continent, and with declining numbers and morale within the military, we could be heading for that same fate.

The military is there to fight, but like any smart person, you've got to choose your battles. You fight the fight that's worth fighting, not just because the pictures on the evening news tug at our conscience.

 

[SCEditor]

Re: "Its's a number"

You still haven't answered my question.

By your logic the U.S. should invade any country where they perceive there are significant violations of human rights?

Why aren't there U.S troops heading for China right now or why didn't the U.S.  invade the Soviet Union during the days of Stalin.

It's a rhetorical question.

Bottom line is, you can rationalize the invasion of Iraq all you want but it doesn't wash.

We can't invade every country that has significant violations of human rights. It's not possible. Some are more significant than others. I'm not going to talk about Stalin and the Soviet Union, because, well, I wasn't alive there. I'm not the male version of Ann Coulter. I agree with a lot of what Democrats and Republicans say and do. I've rationalized the invasion of Iraq to myself. That's all that matters to me. I'm not on this message board trying to change anybody's mind, but there is a differing view from "President Bush/U.S. dumb, stupid people." What's Canada's stance on significant violations of human rights? Down here, at least we're trying.

P.S. If it was a rhetorical question you wouldn't have asked me to answer.

 

[SCEditor]

Re: "Its's a number"

SC, I respect your desire to protect the lives of thousands, but you're awfully quick to send American troops all over the world to fight your battles for me. The people most hungry for a war are usually the ones not actually doing the fighting, otherwise we'd have thousands of grey-haired, fat and wealthy congressman running headlong toward the Iraqi Republican Guard.

There are atrocities committed the world over, and thousands die all the time. No one is saying Saddam is a good guy and no one is denying he's murdered thousands. But who does the deciding when it becomes our business? Where's the line that was crossed that forced the U.S. to feel it necessary to invade Iraq? What number of innocent lives lost compelled us?

We can't be the world's savior, no matter how much of a superpower we are. The British Empire nearly bled itself dry trying to put out fires on nearly every continent, and with declining numbers and morale within the military, we could be heading for that same fate.

The military is there to fight, but like any smart person, you've got to choose your battles. You fight the fight that's worth fighting, not just because the pictures on the evening news tug at our conscience.

I realize we can't be the world's savior. And I realize we can't fight every battle. And I realize it's important to choose our battles wisely. But Saddam didn't kill thousands of people. He killed hundreds of thousands of people. He killed in excess the equivalent of a small state in this country.

We can't be the world's savior, but there sure isn't a line of people behind us willing to step forward. It's never going to be a perfect world. There's never going to be world peace. But because that's not going to happen, do we stop trying to make this world a better place because nobody else wants to try? Do we live happily ever after in our little utopia and not worry about the rest of the people?

You asked me when we draw the line. You asked how many innocent people need to die. I don't know. What side of the line do you think 300,000 should fall on?

 

[buckweaver]

Re: "Its's a number"

You still haven't answered my question.

By your logic the U.S. should invade any country where they perceive there are significant violations of human rights?

Why aren't there U.S troops heading for China right now or why didn't the U.S. invade the Soviet Union during the days of Stalin.

It's a rhetorical question.

Bottom line is, you can rationalize the invasion of Iraq all you want but it doesn't wash.

We can't invade every country that has significant violations of human rights. It's not possible. Some are more significant than others. I'm not going to talk about Stalin and the Soviet Union, because, well, I wasn't alive there. I'm not the male version of Ann Coulter. I agree with a lot of what Democrats and Republicans say and do. I've rationalized the invasion of Iraq to myself. That's all that matters to me. I'm not on this message board trying to change anybody's mind, but they're a differing view from "President Bush/U.S. dumb, stupid people." What's Canada's stance on significant violations of human rights? Down here, at least we're trying.

P.S. If it was a rhetorical question you wouldn't have asked me to answer.

What makes Iraq more significant than, say, Iran? Or, say, North Korea? Or, say, Cuba? Or, say, China? All of whom have committed the same type of atrocities as Iraq and some of whom might actually be a threat to the USA, but none of whom we're on the verge of invading? Or, say, Angola? Or, say, Cameroon? Or any number of African nations which are just as much an imminent threat as Iraq was and who commit even worse atrocities of late, but none of whom we're on the verge of invading?

Why Iraq? Why then?

 

[JR]

Re: "Its's a number"

 I'm not going to talk about Stalin and the Soviet Union, because, well, I wasn't alive there.  .

Then I'd suggest you might want to read something about world history and international politics beginning with say, WW1. Basing your philosophy of foreign policy on the Fredo model isn't the smartest thing to do.

Bottom line is countries can't unilaterally decide to invade other sovereign countries when they're not under direct threat.

 

[buckweaver]

Re: "Its's a number"

We can't be the world's savior, no matter how much of a superpower we are. The British Empire nearly bled itself dry trying to put out fires on nearly every continent, and with declining numbers and morale within the military, we could be heading for that same fate.

We can't be the world's savior, but there sure isn't a line of people behind us willing to step forward. It's never going to be a perfect world. There's never going to be world peace. But because that's not going to happen, do we stop trying to make this world a better place because nobody else wants to try? Do we live happily ever after in our little utopia and not worry about the rest of the people?

Do you believe no one else wants the world to be a better place but Americans? Or that we're the only ones willing to try? I think we need to give the world a little credit here. The lack of impulsive military action in favor of diplomacy on the part of other countries does not mean they're not willing to try.

We're picking a fight that's not going to end. We can't forsake the assistance of the world by sending our troops everywhere in the world. It's our very own Waterloo.

And as Hitler erred in making the same mistake that cost Napoleon his empire (invading Russia, fighting a war on two fronts), we're erring in making the same mistake the British (and Romans before them) made in spreading our troops too thin around the world. It's not going to work any better for us than it did for those two fallen empires.

Then what will we have to show for it?