Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Fred Thompson on Ghandi and "collective Suicide"
Author Message
GGniner Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,370
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 38
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #21
 
in WW2 we were fighting an idea, "global fascism" and world dominance. No different than today except for today the world is more connected in every way imaginable than it was then. the difference is we are not culturally confident anymore, a paper tiger.

the only reason Japan and South Korea have democracy(and prosperity) today is because we brought it to them, our generals wrote their constitutions. The only reason places like Hong Kong or India are as advanced as they are today is because the British brought it to them, something superior than what they had.

according to CAIR, from 9/12/01 to 11/5/01, about 40,000 americans converted to Islam. Strong horse vs. weak horse as bin laden called it.
03-17-2007 12:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NIU007 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 34,241
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 315
I Root For: NIU, MAC
Location: Naperville, IL
Post: #22
 
Ninerfan1 Wrote:
NIU007 Wrote:WWI maybe. WW2 we stayed out of until we were attacked, and we were fighting for our own freedom.

I don't know that I agree with that. Japan didn't attack us with the intention of controlling our country. They had neither the desire or the resources for such an invasion. We were attacked because of the embargo we placed on them that had crippled their side in their war with China. They felt if they destroyed the pacific fleet it would end our ability to enforce the embargo and that we'd come to the bargaining table.

As far a Germany goes I can somewhat agree that we fought them for our freedom if the assumption is that, once they defeated England, they would have set their sights on us. But it would have been many years later given the logistical problems of trying to attack us on our mainland.

Quote:After that we were worried about countries turning communist. It was still what was thought to be our own self-interest, it wasn't to maintain freedom for the affected country.

Self interest yes, our freedom possibly. Since the end of WWII I would argue that very few military operations by the US have been because of an immediate threat to our freedom.

That was my main point. We don't know what Japan would have done, maybe they would have been happy just controlling the Pacific, occupying China, etc. If the battle of Midway hadn't gone the way it did, however, they may have decided to take Hawaii, too. That would have done a lot to solidify control of the Pacific. And the people in Hawaii would not have fared very well then.
03-17-2007 02:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OUGwave Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,172
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 146
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #23
 
GGniner Wrote:according to CAIR, from 9/12/01 to 11/5/01, about 40,000 americans converted to Islam. Strong horse vs. weak horse as bin laden called it.

Yeah.

Ohhh... scary... Al-Qaeda's already converting us all from within!

You must believe in monsters under your bed too -- do you sleep with a nightlight on?

Ridiculous.
03-17-2007 07:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dwr0109 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,220
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 52
I Root For: Winning
Location: Under a Bodhi Tree
Post: #24
 
Quote:in WW2 we were fighting an idea, "global fascism" and world dominance. No different than today except for today the world is more connected in every way imaginable than it was then. the difference is we are not culturally confident anymore, a paper tiger.

I'm pretty sure most WWII vets will tell you that we were not fighting an "idea" in 1942. We were fighting the Nazi war machine and the Japanese Empire. I can't believe you would even try to make that comparison.
03-18-2007 06:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dwr0109 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,220
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 52
I Root For: Winning
Location: Under a Bodhi Tree
Post: #25
Re: Fred Thompson on Ghandi and "collective Suicide&amp
repeat
03-18-2007 06:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dwr0109 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,220
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 52
I Root For: Winning
Location: Under a Bodhi Tree
Post: #26
Re: Fred Thompson on Ghandi and "collective Suicide&amp
Ninerfan1 Wrote:
Sophandros Wrote:I don't think that destabilizing the region is worth the human cost.

Cause the region was so stable before we went to Iraq?

Quote:I don't think that Saddam was worth the human cost.

Valid opinion and I respect it.

Quote:I don't think that installing a puppet government was worth the human cost.

Installing? Perhaps you missed it but there have been a number of elections in Iraq. And in case you missed it the majority of the country comes from a section of Islam that likes Iran a hell of a lot more than us. If we somehow brainwashed all these Iraqis into voting in a "puppet" government we sure did a piss poor job of it.

Quote:Yet, there are those who do, and the ones who AREN'T getting rich off of this are the brainwashed ones.

I'm a pretty smart individual and rest assured I'm nowhere in the realm of brainwashed. To assert different is untrue and offensive.

Quote:WWII was MUCH different.

1) There was already a war going on,
2) Japan attacked us, so we fought JAPAN,
3) Hitler declared war against us and Hitler sank our ships in the Atlantic,
4) Europe asked us to be there.

You missed the point. The context of the discussion was geared around Ghandi's quote. Undoubtedly there are those in this country now, as then, who agree with that assessment. It is to that I was talking about. I was in no way comparing WWII to Iraq.

And BTW, there were many in this country that viewed Hitler declaring war on us the same way they viewed OBL declaring war on us. No big deal.

Quote:I totally agree with you there. Arguing over who is right or wrong here is a waste of time and energy. We need to just formulate our plan going forward, and we need to do it together.

Agree.

I would love to know who they are. I know I'm a little bit culturally insulated down here in Greenville, but I never heard one single person say we shouldn't go into Afghanistan.
03-18-2007 06:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GGniner Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,370
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 38
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #27
 
dwr0109 Wrote:
Quote:in WW2 we were fighting an idea, "global fascism" and world dominance. No different than today except for today the world is more connected in every way imaginable than it was then. the difference is we are not culturally confident anymore, a paper tiger.

I'm pretty sure most WWII vets will tell you that we were not fighting an "idea" in 1942. We were fighting the Nazi war machine and the Japanese Empire. I can't believe you would even try to make that comparison.

well, beleive it, Idea = ideology, the "war machine" was the tool used to spread it The Nazi's and the Japs were expansionist, so they were trying to spread their ideology around the world for world domination. Its the same type of idea that the islamo-nazi's are pursuing today.

The median age in Palestine right now is 15, many of these kids have been taught from day one about Jihad and have had the same tactics used against them that the Nazi's used against the Hitler youth. In some cases the exact same propaganda.[Image: goe2.jpg]
03-18-2007 06:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Ninerfan1 Offline
Habitual Line Stepper
*

Posts: 9,871
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 146
I Root For: Charlotte
Location:
Post: #28
Re: Fred Thompson on Ghandi and "collective Suicide&amp
dwr0109 Wrote:
Ninerfan1 Wrote:
Sophandros Wrote:I don't think that destabilizing the region is worth the human cost.

Cause the region was so stable before we went to Iraq?

Quote:I don't think that Saddam was worth the human cost.

Valid opinion and I respect it.

Quote:I don't think that installing a puppet government was worth the human cost.

Installing? Perhaps you missed it but there have been a number of elections in Iraq. And in case you missed it the majority of the country comes from a section of Islam that likes Iran a hell of a lot more than us. If we somehow brainwashed all these Iraqis into voting in a "puppet" government we sure did a piss poor job of it.

Quote:Yet, there are those who do, and the ones who AREN'T getting rich off of this are the brainwashed ones.

I'm a pretty smart individual and rest assured I'm nowhere in the realm of brainwashed. To assert different is untrue and offensive.

Quote:WWII was MUCH different.

1) There was already a war going on,
2) Japan attacked us, so we fought JAPAN,
3) Hitler declared war against us and Hitler sank our ships in the Atlantic,
4) Europe asked us to be there.

You missed the point. The context of the discussion was geared around Ghandi's quote. Undoubtedly there are those in this country now, as then, who agree with that assessment. It is to that I was talking about. I was in no way comparing WWII to Iraq.

And BTW, there were many in this country that viewed Hitler declaring war on us the same way they viewed OBL declaring war on us. No big deal.

Quote:I totally agree with you there. Arguing over who is right or wrong here is a waste of time and energy. We need to just formulate our plan going forward, and we need to do it together.

Agree.

I would love to know who they are. I know I'm a little bit culturally insulated down here in Greenville, but I never heard one single person say we shouldn't go into Afghanistan.

Congresswoman Brenda Lee (D-CA) voted against giving the president the authorization to go into Afghanistan.

Vote.com held a vote that asked the question, "Should we attack Afghanistan?" Over 20,000 voted no.
03-18-2007 06:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OUGwave Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,172
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 146
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #29
Re: Fred Thompson on Ghandi and "collective Suicide&amp
Ninerfan1 Wrote:
dwr0109 Wrote:
Ninerfan1 Wrote:
Sophandros Wrote:I don't think that destabilizing the region is worth the human cost.

Cause the region was so stable before we went to Iraq?

Quote:I don't think that Saddam was worth the human cost.

Valid opinion and I respect it.

Quote:I don't think that installing a puppet government was worth the human cost.

Installing? Perhaps you missed it but there have been a number of elections in Iraq. And in case you missed it the majority of the country comes from a section of Islam that likes Iran a hell of a lot more than us. If we somehow brainwashed all these Iraqis into voting in a "puppet" government we sure did a piss poor job of it.

Quote:Yet, there are those who do, and the ones who AREN'T getting rich off of this are the brainwashed ones.

I'm a pretty smart individual and rest assured I'm nowhere in the realm of brainwashed. To assert different is untrue and offensive.

Quote:WWII was MUCH different.

1) There was already a war going on,
2) Japan attacked us, so we fought JAPAN,
3) Hitler declared war against us and Hitler sank our ships in the Atlantic,
4) Europe asked us to be there.

You missed the point. The context of the discussion was geared around Ghandi's quote. Undoubtedly there are those in this country now, as then, who agree with that assessment. It is to that I was talking about. I was in no way comparing WWII to Iraq.

And BTW, there were many in this country that viewed Hitler declaring war on us the same way they viewed OBL declaring war on us. No big deal.

Quote:I totally agree with you there. Arguing over who is right or wrong here is a waste of time and energy. We need to just formulate our plan going forward, and we need to do it together.

Agree.

I would love to know who they are. I know I'm a little bit culturally insulated down here in Greenville, but I never heard one single person say we shouldn't go into Afghanistan.

Congresswoman Brenda Lee (D-CA) voted against giving the president the authorization to go into Afghanistan.

Vote.com held a vote that asked the question, "Should we attack Afghanistan?" Over 20,000 voted no.

What do both of those represent in percentage terms?

Look, I don't hold all you conservatives here accountable for the stuff that EZ says or believes ...

Yes, there are pacifists in our country. What the hell does that have to do with anything? I'm sure you don't think we should invade Pakistan -- does that make pacifism relevant to that debate?

Its a strawman to even bring it up.
03-18-2007 09:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ecu92 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 512
Joined: May 2005
Reputation: 12
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #30
 
There is a global war on Islamic extremism going on. Islamic radicals have been in a state of jihad with the U.S. for years, but we ignored them, hoping they'd just go away.

Democrats have no plan for dealing with these Islamic thugs, other than to hold focus groups on "why they hate us so much?" and beg a corrupt U.N. to pass a resolution requiring Al Quaida to play nice.

The war obviously could be going better, but we have to stay long enough to stabilize Iraq. A stable Iraq, that is relatively pro-western, makes prospects for long-term peace in the region better not worse. Heck, it took many years for Germany to stabilize and become a modern, civilized nation after WWII. Why do we expect all of this to happen overnight?

A stable Iraq provides us with diplomatic and economic leverage in the region, making a future war with Iran less likely. So if you're really anti-war, you need to suck it up and support this effort, because the alternative is a larger middle eastern war in the future costing not thousands of American lives, but tens of thousands.
03-18-2007 09:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NIU007 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 34,241
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 315
I Root For: NIU, MAC
Location: Naperville, IL
Post: #31
 
ecu92 Wrote:There is a global war on Islamic extremism going on. Islamic radicals have been in a state of jihad with the U.S. for years, but we ignored them, hoping they'd just go away.

Democrats have no plan for dealing with these Islamic thugs, other than to hold focus groups on "why they hate us so much?" and beg a corrupt U.N. to pass a resolution requiring Al Quaida to play nice.

The war obviously could be going better, but we have to stay long enough to stabilize Iraq. A stable Iraq, that is relatively pro-western, makes prospects for long-term peace in the region better not worse. Heck, it took many years for Germany to stabilize and become a modern, civilized nation after WWII. Why do we expect all of this to happen overnight?

A stable Iraq provides us with diplomatic and economic leverage in the region, making a future war with Iran less likely. So if you're really anti-war, you need to suck it up and support this effort, because the alternative is a larger middle eastern war in the future costing not thousands of American lives, but tens of thousands.

I think the problem is we took what was a secular state with Hussein and turned it into a cauldron of religious warfare. Who will win? Will it be the Sunnis? Or the Shia? When we leave they will be fighting each other, even if we temporarily stabilize it before we leave. And I don't believe that what happens in Iraq is going to make a future war with Iran less likely. We invaded Iraq under false pretenses, and without the support of the vast majority of countries. It's not surprising the Iranians want nuclear weapons so they could defend themselves if we attacked them too. And a future war in the middle east wouldn't cost us any American lives if we weren't over there.

The only good thing is that Al Qaeda might need to concentrate on defeating the numerically superior Shia in Iraq.

And the question is, are we making progress developing an Iraqi army that will be able to suppress both the Sunni and Shia militant factions? That's a tall order, IMO. Part of the reason I disagreed with the Iraq war is that I knew we would have to be in Iraq at least for several years. If we are making progress, it might still be "only" several years. But there's still too much violence going on to make much progress.

And I don't think you can compare Germany with Iraq. Religious convictions are just too deeply seated in Iraq. You can't reason or compromise with religious zealots.
03-18-2007 10:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OUGwave Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,172
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 146
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #32
 
ecu92 Wrote:There is a global war on Islamic extremism going on. Islamic radicals have been in a state of jihad with the U.S. for years, but we ignored them, hoping they'd just go away.

Democrats have no plan for dealing with these Islamic thugs, other than to hold focus groups on "why they hate us so much?" and beg a corrupt U.N. to pass a resolution requiring Al Quaida to play nice.

Thats just patently false. And you can't really be excused for not reading more about what the Democrats are proposing. Thats just sloppy on your part to just recite a talking point and not study up on their plans.

Can you all even have a debate without straw man arguements? Debate the Democrats on what their plans are -- redeploying troops to Afghanistan and the gulf bases, and implementing the Baker-Hamilton recommendations for a regional political solution.

That is what the END of this war will inevitably look like. There is no military solution possible. We're not going to be able to fight our way to stability in Iraq -- we haven't yet, only increased instability.

Quote:The war obviously could be going better, but we have to stay long enough to stabilize Iraq. A stable Iraq, that is relatively pro-western, makes prospects for long-term peace in the region better not worse. Heck, it took many years for Germany to stabilize and become a modern, civilized nation after WWII. Why do we expect all of this to happen overnight?

A stable Iraq provides us with diplomatic and economic leverage in the region, making a future war with Iran less likely. So if you're really anti-war, you need to suck it up and support this effort, because the alternative is a larger middle eastern war in the future costing not thousands of American lives, but tens of thousands.

Nobody is doubting the benefits of a stable Iraq. Again, this is a straw-man.

The question is, is the course we've been on since the day we began occupying the country working towards that end? To me, the facts point to no. And we're now entering year #5 of that occupation. It seems as if its time to start asking the question -- if this working to bring about a stable Iraq?

Or will Iraq's problems ultimately be resolved by Iraqi leaders and regional powers supporting them by proxy are able to work out their political differences for what the future looks like?

Foreign terrorists are still a relatively small part of the problem, and a manageable problem once you get all the domestically-driven violence resolved. The sunnis aren't going to stop fighting as long as the shiites have unbridled power in the country supported ostensibly by 140,000 US troops and the Iranian government. They know they are on the short end of the stick in this situation and they know the only way they can leverage the situation is to continue scorching earth. The shiite militias on the other hand, realize that they can surge to the top of the pile in the illiberal, violent system that exists in Iraq right now. With the help of Iran, they are playing long term, attempting to consolidate their power.

All sides have a stake in stability, even Iran and Syria, and definitely the Saudis. But each working alone has to look out for its own interests first and foremost, and in the aggregate, that creates instability.

Thats why the Iraq Study Group made the recommendations they did. The Balkans was a pretty bad situation as well. It took the Dayton Accords to put a framework into place that created stability. No amount of military power alone helped. You can't fight your way out of civil conflict.

Thats why the allusions to other wars are so off the mark. You can force an enemy army to submit. You cannot militarily force two ethnicities to get along with one another. The post-WW1 arrangements led to the creation of an Iraq that managed to keep Iraq's inherent conflicts stable for a long time, through patronage and in Saddam's case, brutal oppression. Our war opened that pandora's box up again. The only way to get the pieces back in the box is to bring all of the regional and domestic parties to the table and hash out an agreement that everyone can live with. If you are truly interested in stability, then you'd have to agree thats what its going to have look like at the end of the day.

The same people who have put us in this situation and have been wrong about every single aspect of this war, every step of the way, and presided over it getting worse and worse, are now telling us that more of the same will all of a sudden start working the more we do it -- all evidence to the contrary. These people have no credibility left. They have shown a chronic and distressing level of ignorance about what would emerge in Iraq -- it is time to start listening to the people who were right all along, and can the armchair captains of state in favor of a new path along the lines of what James Baker is advocating.

Its going to have to look like that at the end of the day anyway, as I said.
03-19-2007 12:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Ninerfan1 Offline
Habitual Line Stepper
*

Posts: 9,871
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 146
I Root For: Charlotte
Location:
Post: #33
Re: Fred Thompson on Ghandi and "collective Suicide&amp
OUGwave Wrote:What do both of those represent in percentage terms?

Look, I don't hold all you conservatives here accountable for the stuff that EZ says or believes ...

Yes, there are pacifists in our country. What the hell does that have to do with anything? I'm sure you don't think we should invade Pakistan -- does that make pacifism relevant to that debate?

Its a strawman to even bring it up.

Good gosh you possess an amazing ability to carry a statement about 100 miles past where it was intended to go.

drw said, "I'd like to know who they are because I never heard anyone say we shouldn't go to Afghanistan." My answer was giving him some examples of people who did.

Now note I never said afterwards "Liberals just don't get it." are "Damn those democrats!" The point was simply that there are those in this country that wouldn't approve of military force even if another country attacked their house. That was it.

I know using the term straw man gives you a "Hey look at me, I'm so educated" feel good moment, but there's no need to invent opportunities to use it.
03-19-2007 08:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GGniner Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,370
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 38
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #34
 
a poll the american media will not be citing as they create their own.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/wo...530762.ece

Quote:MOST Iraqis believe life is better for them now than it was under Saddam Hussein, according to a British opinion poll published today.

The survey of more than 5,000 Iraqis found the majority optimistic despite their suffering in sectarian violence since the American-led invasion four years ago this week.

..........

Only 27% think there is a civil war in Iraq, compared with 61% who do not, according to the survey carried out last month.

the very next day ABC rushes out their own "poll" to show negative signs

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/w...42336.html


conclusion, this is a politicized "war", the Dems do not want us out of Iraq now or a perception of a stable Iraq now. They want negative headlines in the "news". This will change quickly if they win the whitehouse in 2008 under President Hillary.
03-19-2007 10:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Sophandros Offline
Gulf Coast Elitist
*

Posts: 7,885
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 62
I Root For: Tulane/Saints
Location: ATL

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #35
 
GrayBeard Wrote:
Sophandros Wrote:
GrayBeard Wrote:
dwr0109 Wrote:I think he was refering to the American citizens who oppose the war. Not the politicans who voted for it. I'm definitely not a pacifist but to me, Iraqi freedom (if it ever happens) isn't worth what its costing our country.

What would be an acceptable cost for the freedom of millions of individuals?

Well, they aren't free right now, and the region is more unstable.

I'm tired of wasting American lives on people who hate us.

You didn't answer my question...

This war is not acceptable, and the people of Iraq are still not free and we've lost over 3,200 Americans fighting for people who hate us.
03-19-2007 01:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Sophandros Offline
Gulf Coast Elitist
*

Posts: 7,885
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 62
I Root For: Tulane/Saints
Location: ATL

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #36
 
GrayBeard Wrote:
OUGwave Wrote:
GrayBeard Wrote:
OUGwave Wrote:
GrayBeard Wrote:
Sophandros Wrote:
GrayBeard Wrote:
dwr0109 Wrote:I think he was refering to the American citizens who oppose the war. Not the politicans who voted for it. I'm definitely not a pacifist but to me, Iraqi freedom (if it ever happens) isn't worth what its costing our country.

What would be an acceptable cost for the freedom of millions of individuals?

Well, they aren't free right now, and the region is more unstable.

I'm tired of wasting American lives on people who hate us.

You didn't answer my question...

I'll answer. The only way you can determine the price, is what THOSE people are willing to pay for their freedom.

If we TRULY view the freedom of others to be "priceless", then we're in a lot of trouble.

Fortunately I don't. And I'm sure you don't either.

Hmmm...It is a quandry. Over the years, this country has sacrificed millions of lives in the name of freedom.

Mostly our own freedom though.

WWI, WW2, Korea, Vietnam....

Korea and Vietnam were NOT about the freedom of those people.
03-19-2007 01:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Sophandros Offline
Gulf Coast Elitist
*

Posts: 7,885
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 62
I Root For: Tulane/Saints
Location: ATL

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #37
 
ecu92 Wrote:There is a global war on Islamic extremism going on. Islamic radicals have been in a state of jihad with the U.S. for years, but we ignored them, hoping they'd just go away.

Democrats have no plan for dealing with these Islamic thugs, other than to hold focus groups on "why they hate us so much?" and beg a corrupt U.N. to pass a resolution requiring Al Quaida to play nice.

The war obviously could be going better, but we have to stay long enough to stabilize Iraq. A stable Iraq, that is relatively pro-western, makes prospects for long-term peace in the region better not worse. Heck, it took many years for Germany to stabilize and become a modern, civilized nation after WWII. Why do we expect all of this to happen overnight?

A stable Iraq provides us with diplomatic and economic leverage in the region, making a future war with Iran less likely. So if you're really anti-war, you need to suck it up and support this effort, because the alternative is a larger middle eastern war in the future costing not thousands of American lives, but tens of thousands.

Islamic radicals like the Taliban and the nutjobs running Saudi Arabia have been our "friends" for many years, as well...

Also, Iraq was stable when the dictator was there. It's not going to be stable now for decades.
03-19-2007 01:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NIU007 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 34,241
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 315
I Root For: NIU, MAC
Location: Naperville, IL
Post: #38
 
GGniner Wrote:a poll the american media will not be citing as they create their own.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/wo...530762.ece

Quote:MOST Iraqis believe life is better for them now than it was under Saddam Hussein, according to a British opinion poll published today.

The survey of more than 5,000 Iraqis found the majority optimistic despite their suffering in sectarian violence since the American-led invasion four years ago this week.

..........

Only 27% think there is a civil war in Iraq, compared with 61% who do not, according to the survey carried out last month.

the very next day ABC rushes out their own "poll" to show negative signs

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/w...42336.html


conclusion, this is a politicized "war", the Dems do not want us out of Iraq now or a perception of a stable Iraq now. They want negative headlines in the "news". This will change quickly if they win the whitehouse in 2008 under President Hillary.

I did find it interesting that more than half thought that security would improve AFTER multinational (read: US and British) forces leave. That would actually imply that we should leave now.

I for one hope it's true that things are better, in general, for them now than before.
03-19-2007 01:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ecu92 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 512
Joined: May 2005
Reputation: 12
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #39
 
Sophandros Wrote:
ecu92 Wrote:There is a global war on Islamic extremism going on. Islamic radicals have been in a state of jihad with the U.S. for years, but we ignored them, hoping they'd just go away.

Democrats have no plan for dealing with these Islamic thugs, other than to hold focus groups on "why they hate us so much?" and beg a corrupt U.N. to pass a resolution requiring Al Quaida to play nice.

The war obviously could be going better, but we have to stay long enough to stabilize Iraq. A stable Iraq, that is relatively pro-western, makes prospects for long-term peace in the region better not worse. Heck, it took many years for Germany to stabilize and become a modern, civilized nation after WWII. Why do we expect all of this to happen overnight?

A stable Iraq provides us with diplomatic and economic leverage in the region, making a future war with Iran less likely. So if you're really anti-war, you need to suck it up and support this effort, because the alternative is a larger middle eastern war in the future costing not thousands of American lives, but tens of thousands.

Islamic radicals like the Taliban and the nutjobs running Saudi Arabia have been our "friends" for many years, as well...

Also, Iraq was stable when the dictator was there. It's not going to be stable now for decades.

Strange alliances have to be made sometimes. Assisting the Afghan rebels in the 80's made sense; we were confronting Soviet aggression at the time. That was the pressing issue of that day. Hussein was coddled for for a while by the U.S., but that was before he gassed the Kurds, attacked Iran, invaded Kuwait.

The U.S. was allied with the Soviet Union in WWII out of necessity; I suppose you think it was hypocritical that we began confronting the Soviets immediately after WWII. Without that unholy alliance we'd all be speaking German now.

A stable Iraq, that does not harbor or finance terrorists, is good for long-term peace in the region. True, Iraq was stable under Hussein, but they were harboring and financing terrorists.

What's the democrat's plan for peace in the Middle East? Clinton tried to give Arafat everything he wanted and he still turned it down.
03-19-2007 09:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GGniner Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,370
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 38
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #40
 
actually the Taliban never were our "friends", the Northern Alliance was our ally that did all the fighting. They had the pro-western Northern Alliance leader assassinated by suicide bomber at same time as 9/11, no coincedence.

Quote:Clinton tried to give Arafat everything he wanted and he still turned it down.

Arafat murdered an Ambassodor of the US in the 1970's and the State dept. covered it up until recently. It lead to the horrible spectle of him at the Whitehouse which gave him some status. He said one thing to us, and preached Jihad in the Middle East. He is the nephew of the Grand Mufti of Jereuslem who was tight with Hitler. There is good reason Arafat wouldn't cooperate with us.
03-19-2007 10:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.