Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Jun 18, 2007.
Hmmm. Sub-contracting the use of force *cough*Blackwater*cough*, inability to provide public services *cough*Katrina*cough*, inability to interact with other states *cough*Bush/Cheney/Bolton*cough*. What am I thinking?
that we can blame the iraqis for failing to "stand up on their own"?
Yup, Iraqis are more interested in fighting each other than anything else.
Among other things.
You mean all those US troops are just getting caught in the crossfire? How incredibly unlucky!
perhaps you missed my sarcasm.
No, I just decided to ignore it.
For every US soldier that dies, some 20 iraqis are killed. By numbers alone, that would suggest to me Iraqis are more interested in killing other Iraqis than anything else.
Or, conceivably, that Iraqis on the whole represent softer targets. Also, of course, US soldiers are responsible for a certain number of dead Iraqis, which may have escaped your attention.
along with facts and reason, i see.
The only one who is ignoring the facts is you. Tell me is the kool-aid fresh where you are?
A certain number? What exactly are you implying? Yes, american soldiers have killed iraqis who try to kill and bomb other iraqis. Sometimes they get things wrong and innocents get caught in the middle. Maybe you'd rather turn the country over to Al Qaida and let them run it?
Your Statement doesn't change the fact of my earlier statement at all. At present, Iraqi insurgents and those willing to participate in sectarian violence are more willing to kill other iraqis than anyone else. How is this fact in error?
skunk, zim- Go get 'im boys.
Isn't that what we did?
The only terrorists in Iraq prior to our invasion were Zarqawi and his camp, and they were off in a DMZ that Saddam didn't control. Our fearless leader was given the opportunity to kill him more than once and didn't do it.
If we hadn't gone in there would be almost no Al Qaida presence in Iraq and we might have actually captured the guy behind 9-11.
I do not need to "imply" anything. Over half a million Iraqis have died since the illegal invasion of Iraq. 55,000 "insurgents" (aka Iraqi resistance) have been killed. The insurgents are catching up, gradually, but the US has given them some pretty stiff competition.
I don't believe Al Qaeda ever wanted to run the country. It was Bush, Blair, Cheney and Rumsfeld who thought they could do it better than Saddam Hussein. How wrong they were. Amateurs, and War Criminals to boot.
In case you didn't hear Zarqawi pledged his allegiance to Al Qaida as did all of his goons. I am not talking about why we WENT IN - there is nothing can change that now. How does finger pointing help? How does it help the thousands of Iraqis that flee the country every day? I am talking about dealing with the situation that exists now. And the reality is, the country is increasingly under the control of terrorists and intolerant sects who are more interested killing other iraqis than enything else.
Please, please provide a bonafide source as to how the US military killed 500,000 iraqis. Not the imaginary kind like in the minds of Rosie o'donnell and Sean Penn, but a real source.
I don't think posting blame about iraq will do anyone any good. we were all lied to... in any case, what is important now is finding a solution. i propose dividing iraqi up by ethnicities, reinforcing each state's military & intelligence capabilities and withdrawing 100% of the forces by 2009-10.
like vietnam, we crapped in someone else's backyard... the only thing we can do is try to clean it up as much as possible before running away. sure, its gonna smell for a long time to come, but its the best option that we've got. the alternative is another vietnam, which no one wants. and before anyone brings this point up... yes we probably could've eventually won vietnam just like we can eventually win in iraq... but it would take decades and trillions of dollars. why the heck would anyone ever pour that much money in to some other country? we should be spending that kind of money on education, scientific, medical, & social research, and legal reinforcement ...etc.
Heehee! Oh this should be fun! I'm sorry- we've just been through this one so many times. Plus, I'm feeling a bit ornery today.
Carbonmotion, I couldn't agree more in the sense that for whatever misrepresented reasons we got in the war, we are in it and we have to deal with it. Clean up the crap as you say. I think your plan has some real obstacles, but ultimately makes more sense than trying to force iraqis that hate each other to live with each other (not that I necessarily like the idea, I just think it makes a certain degree of sense).
The Lancet with John Hopkins University and M.I.T put it at 650,000 in October 2006.
It was, of course, discredited by your president.
i am clearly outmatched. my head hangs low in shame.
He's not my president, i didn't vote for him either time (gore in 2000, kerry in 2004)
So what you are saying is that military held at gun point terrorists and demanded they bomb innocent civilians? Is that what I am suppose to read out of this "report"? Those terrorists on their own set bombs and shot bullets. The american military didn't force them to do anything. Saying the military is responsible for the deaths of 650,000 is simply absurd.
I was just responding to the idea that the only options are stay the course and hand it over to the terrorists. There was virtually zero terrorist presence in Iraq before we went in, so essentially we've already taken the latter option.
I outlined my idea in another thread. Basically apologizing to the UN and begging them to help. Pulling our troops back to the borders to ensure that none of Iraq's neighbors try to take over the weakened state and/or re-enter if things completely fall appart (more than they already have).
Remove all US troop presence from the interior of Iraq and get UN forces to protect job sites/infrastructure rebuilding efforts that are handled by Iraqi companies with Iraqi workers on our dollar so that they can get the necessities of life back up and running and get Iraqi people jobs so they don't have time to blow stuff up. Hopefully without large contingents of foreign troops to target the "insurgent" Iraqis will get tired of blowing up other Iraqis and we can allow the government to police their own people as they staff up to take over our positions on the borders.
Good constructive thoughts. I disagree with the approach, but I am glad you are interested more solving the problem than assigning blame!
Your glib condescension suggests you haven't read it.
You asked for a credible source. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, John Hopkins University and The Lancet not good enough for you?
I have nothing more to say then.
No suprise there, but i would imagine that the democratic republic of the congo must also be up pretty high on that list. even though the bulk of fighting is done, isn't it still a pretty unstable country?
That's rich coming from you. You came in here with an attitude to begin with! Then you ignore credible links to prove other poster's points. Do you also believe the Earth is flat?
I'd say you owe Blue Velvet an apology as well.