What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

Bill White · 2003-11-12 12:00:22

If it's just that, put Iraq under british admisnistration.

I had been thinking precisely that same thing. No United Nations, no France, just Tony Blair.

A British general is named supreme leader of occupied Iraq and all coalition forces answer to him. And US officers start attending British training schools.

dickbill · 2003-11-12 12:58:39

If it's just that, put Iraq under british admisnistration.
I had been thinking precisely that same thing. No United Nations, no France, just Tony Blair.
A British general is named supreme leader of occupied Iraq and all coalition forces answer to him. And US officers start attending British training schools.

It might be true that the brits have more experience as occupant than the US, but still, don't expect that a messianic british general with magic powers will find a solution to the US problems so easily. I don't buy 100% of the story brits = smart, US = american pie. Tony Blair is not superman, he spun his case too, proving that he can be as wrong as any neo-cons supremacist/whatever. The brits might very well have an easy part of Irak while the US have the toughest. Will the british troops do better than the US in Bagdad ? maybe.
But if switching administration US/UK/(Spain also maybe) relieves a little bit against american anger, do it.
Maybe the US neo-cons prefer to stay in absolute control in Iraq, that's stupid since Tony Blair is at least 50% responsible for the situation, he should enjoy 50% of the burden too.

Alt2War · 2003-11-12 13:33:43

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/printp … 98,00.html
CIA warns of defeat

13nov03

A TOP-secret CIA report warns that growing numbers of Iraqis believe the US-led coalition can be defeated and are supporting the resistance.

The report paints a bleak picture of the political and security situation and cautions that the US-led drive to rebuild the country as a democracy could collapse.
Paul Bremer, head of the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, who arrived unexpectedly in Washington for strategy sessions yesterday, endorsed the CIA's findings, a senior administration official said.

The report's tone and Mr Bremer's private endorsement differ sharply from public assessments.

President George W. Bush, chief aides and Mr Bremer are giving upbeat public pronouncements in an attempt to counter rising anxieties at home over US casualties in Iraq.

The report landed on the desks of senior US officials on Tuesday. The speed of the leak suggested that senior policymakers want to make sure the assessment reaches Mr Bush.

Some senior policymakers have complained of being frustrated in their efforts to provide Mr Bush with analyses that are more sombre than the optimistic views of Vice-President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld.

The CIA analysis suggests US policy in Iraq has reached a turning point, as the Bush administration moves to escalate the war against the guerillas and accelerate the transfer of power.

In Baghdad, the US military announced yesterday it would become more aggressive against former Saddam Hussein loyalists, foreign and Iraqi Islamic extremists and Iraqi nationalists.

The top US general in Iraq, Lieutenant-General Ricardo Sanchez, said: "The most important message is that we are

all going to get pretty tough, and that's what is needed to defeat the enemy, and we are definitely not shy of doing that when it is required."

Such a campaign, however, could cause more civilian casualties and drive more Iraqis to the side of the insurgents.

The CIA assessment also warns that none of the postwar Iraqi political institutions and leaders have shown an ability to govern or even preside over drafting a constitution or holding an election.

US officials have become deeply frustrated by infighting, nepotism and inaction within the 25-member Iraqi Governing Council.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap … 2_785.html

Bomb at Italian Base in Iraq Kills 25
Truck Bomb Explodes at Headquarters of Italy's Paramilitary Police in Iraq, Killing 25 People

The Associated Press

NASIRIYAH, Iraq Nov. 12 ? A suicide truck bomber attacked the headquarters of Italy's paramilitary police in this southern city on Wednesday, killing 25 people including 17 Italians and possibly trapping others in the debris.
It was the deadliest toll suffered by non-American coalition forces since the occupation began in April, and the first such attack in Nasiriyah, a relatively quiet Shiite Muslim city. The bombing appeared aimed at sending a message that international organizations are not safe anywhere in Iraq.

Col. Gianfranco Scalas said 17 Italians were killed: 11 Carabinieri paramilitary police, four army soldiers, an Italian civilian working at the base and an Italian documentary filmmaker. A spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition said at least eight Iraqis were also killed. About 15 people were wounded, although their nationalities were not known, Italian officials said.

"Unfortunately, it's not possible to exclude the presence of other fatalities," Defense Minister Antonio Martino told parliament.

There were fears of others trapped beneath the debris, and bulldozers worked to clear rubble. As night fell, however, soldiers said rescue efforts had ended.

Italian President Carlo Azeglio Ciampi called the bombing a "terrorist act," while Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi pledged that it wouldn't derail his country's commitment to helping Iraq.

Witnesses said the truck driver got past guards after a car ran a roadblock, distracting the sentries.

The truck rammed the gate of the Italian compound and exploded in front of the Carabinieri building, which was the former chamber of commerce building, a coalition spokesman, Andrea Angeli, said.

He said the force of the explosion blew out windows in another building across the Euphrates River. All the vehicles parked outside the stricken building exploded in flames.

Angeli said secondary explosions from ammunition stored in the compound rocked the area moments after the main blast.

Also Wednesday, U.S. troops in Baghdad accidentally fired on a car carrying a member of the Iraqi Governing Council. The council member, Mohammed Bahr al-Uloun, escaped injury but the driver was wounded.

And a roadblock in Fallujah, a restive city west of the capital, U.S. troops fired on a truck carrying live chickens Tuesday night, killing five civilians.

"They went to bring chickens ... and they came back at 9 or 10 at night and we were waiting for them," said Khalid Khalifa al-Jumaily, whose two nephews were killed on the truck. "The Americans fired on them."

The U.S. military said it no immediate information on the shootings.

In separate attacks, an American soldier was killed when a roadside bomb exploded near a U.S. patrol by the town of Taji northwest of Baghdad, the U.S. military said. A 1st Armored Division soldier died of wounds suffered in a roadside bombing in Baghdad on Tuesday.

Their deaths bring to 153 the number of soldiers killed by hostile fire since President Bush declared an end to active combat May 1.

The truck bomb in Nasiriyah, about 180 miles southeast of Baghdad, went off at about 10:40 a.m. in front of base of the Carabinieri's multinational specialist unit, the Italian paramilitary police said.

Italy has sent about 2,300 troops to help rebuild Iraq. About 340 Carabinieri are based in Nasiriyah, along with 110 Romanians.

Alice Moldovan, a spokeswoman for Romania's Defense Ministry, said there were no reports of Romanian victims.

Carabinieri are paramilitary police under the Defense Ministry, and frequently serve in international missions such as in Afghanistan and the Balkans.

Since August, car and truck bombs have targeted several international buildings in Baghdad, including the United Nations headquarters, the offices of the international Red Cross, the Al-Rasheed Hotel and the Turkish and Jordanian embassies.

Although Nasiriyah has been quiet in recent months, it was the scene of heavy fighting during the war. It was where the 507th Maintenance Company was ambushed in March and where a number of Americans were captured, including Jessica Lynch.

Italy had suffered no combat deaths during the occupation. The Italian official heading U.S. efforts to recover Iraq's looted antiquities, Pietro Cordone, was in a car that came under mistaken U.S. fire in September in northern Iraq. His Iraqi interpreter was killed.

Earlier Wednesday, a member of the Iraqi Governing Council said the body was not to blame for the lack of progress in drafting a constitution that would enable democratic elections and a return to Iraqi independence.

The comments by Mahmoud Othman, a Sunni Kurd member of the U.S.-appointed body, follow reports that Bush's national security advisers are frustrated by the council's performance and are consulting with Iraq's top American administrator, L. Paul Bremer, over how to break the deadlock.

"Such accusations are unreasonable and do no good for the country," Othman said. "The Governing Council should not alone bear the responsibility of any inefficiency."

Othman acknowledged the constitutional process was moving too slowly but said Iraq's U.S.-led administration bore much of the blame.

"This is supposed to be a partnership based on equality," Othman said in an interview. "But when Americans want to find solution for their problems, they do it in any way that suits them."

Bremer said Wednesday after meeting with administration officials in Washington that he believed the Iraqis were becoming "more and more effective in their assumption of authority."

"I don't think it's fair to say the IGC is failing," Bremer said.

Bremer attended a White House meeting Tuesday with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and other key officials.

Administration officials expressed disappointment in the council's work but said Bush was not about to disband it.

"The notion that we are about to throw the council to the wolves is exaggerated," a senior administration official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. "But there is a need to put some energy into the political transition."

U.S. officials believe key members of the Iraqi council are stalling in hopes of winning concessions from American leaders under political pressure to turn over power to the Iraqis. In contrast, Bremer wants to transfer sovereignty after the Iraqis draft a constitution and hold national elections.

Othman denied members of the body were intentionally stalling work on the new charter in order to exert pressure on Bremer.

"It is true that council members are demanding more powers, but they are not trying to use the slowness in the process of work as a weapon to gain concessions," he said.

The Iraqis have yet to agree on how to choose delegates to draw up a constitution.

Also Wednesday, Iraqi police in Qadisiyah detained several people suspected of involvement in an apparent rocket attack that brought down a U.S. Black Hawk helicopter near Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit last week, killing six soldiers, a U.S. official said.

Before dawn, nearly the entire 500-member police force of Tikrit searched door-to-door in a dusty suburb looking for weapons and insurgents.

Palomar · 2003-11-13 09:47:06

Here's some more good news from Iraq...

--Cindy

dickbill · 2003-11-13 11:20:34

Here's some more good news from Iraq...

--Cindy

Bad or good news, maybe at the end Iraq will have to be splitted in several regions. The end of Babylon. I wonder what are their plans, in the pentagon.

Palomar · 2003-11-13 11:44:53

Here's some more good news from Iraq...

--Cindy
Bad or good news, maybe at the end Iraq will have to be splitted in several regions. The end of Babylon. I wonder what are their plans, in the pentagon.

*Teehee, you'd like to be a fly on the wall inside the Pentagon, huh dickbill? Me too.

I just read another news article concerning other nations being reluctant or refusing to send more troops to Iraq. Looks like more rats deserting a sinking ship.

I wonder if Bush is starting to have sleepless nights.

"That's another fine mess you got us into, Stanley!"

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2003-11-13 19:51:28

The following comment is not directed at everyone here, but you know who you are. It occurs to me that if I were a third-world dictator flouting international law I would be truly blessed to have enemies such you. Just hold out for a few months, cause some disturbances and you'll just go away.

For the low price of one kill a day you too can drive a superpower from your lands and re-establish a brutal dictatorship.

I'm not trying to make light of the loss of even one American life nor am I trying to offend the good sensibilities of anyone on this forum. I strongly believe that going into Iraq was right, and I understand that not everyone agrees and can even at times sympathize with some of their objections. But none of that really matters now.

For all the complaining on US policy in Iraq there are very few ideas on how to improve it, particularly from the politicians voicing the loudest objections. Regardless of whether one supported the action or not, we're there now and must finish the job. Pulling out is not an option.

The bitter assaults on the war coupled with the lack of alternative ideas forces one to the conclusion that those leveling the complaints are primarily interested not in saving American lives but in removing George Bush. Yes, that's right, I am saying on the record that some people, primarily on the left, are using the Iraq war as a way to get themselves back in power. When one of the Democrat Party's nine Mondales offers a constructive suggestion on how to improve the situation I will reassess that statement, but I don't anticipate the need. This is not Bush's war and it is not a Republican war. Like it or not, this is America's war and if we falter more Americans will be killed here, and the terrorists will not make a distinction between Bush-backers and anti-war peaceniks. If America succeeds we will all be made safer, if America fails we will all be in greater danger. I know some people will smugly say "I told you so" as another building collapses around us in flames, but I hope we're better than that.

Bill White · 2003-11-13 20:50:10

The following comment is not directed at everyone here, but you know who you are. It occurs to me that if I were a third-world dictator flouting international law I would be truly blessed to have enemies such you. Just hold out for a few months, cause some disturbances and you'll just go away.
For the low price of one kill a day you too can drive a superpower from your lands and re-establish a brutal dictatorship.
I'm not trying to make light of the loss of even one American life nor am I trying to offend the good sensibilities of anyone on this forum. I strongly believe that going into Iraq was right, and I understand that not everyone agrees and can even at times sympathize with some of their objections. But none of that really matters now.
For all the complaining on US policy in Iraq there are very few ideas on how to improve it, particularly from the politicians voicing the loudest objections. Regardless of whether one supported the action or not, we're there now and must finish the job. Pulling out is not an option.
The bitter assaults on the war coupled with the lack of alternative ideas forces one to the conclusion that those leveling the complaints are primarily interested not in saving American lives but in removing George Bush. Yes, that's right, I am saying on the record that some people, primarily on the left, are using the Iraq war as a way to get themselves back in power. When one of the Democrat Party's nine Mondales offers a constructive suggestion on how to improve the situation I will reassess that statement, but I don't anticipate the need. This is not Bush's war and it is not a Republican war. Like it or not, this is America's war and if we falter more Americans will be killed here, and the terrorists will not make a distinction between Bush-backers and anti-war peaceniks. If America succeeds we will all be made safer, if America fails we will all be in greater danger. I know some people will smugly say "I told you so" as another building collapses around us in flames, but I hope we're better than that.

Heh! Didn't Bill O'Reilly say exactly the same thing last night on his Talking Points segment? Please be original, OK?

If Karl Rove had not circulated a memo about how he was going to use victory in Iraq as a club to smash the Democrats in 2004 I might have some more sympathy.

As for a solution? Partition.

Create an independent Kurdistan. Annoy the Turks, and maybe give the Kurds part of Turkey.

Create an independent Shia state with a capital in Basra.

Create a Sunni/Baath state in the middle.

Give the southern oil fields to the Shias & give the northern oil fields to the Kurds. The Baath and Sunni? Those bastards get no oil.

Declare victory. Go home.

clark · 2003-11-13 20:58:27

play god?

Bill White · 2003-11-13 21:21:43

play god?

I would prefer not, but that bridge was crossed back when the US military entered Iraq.

The Kurds have wanted their own state for a long long time and the government in Ankara (the Turks) have suppressed the Kurds with a brutality that rivals Saddam's brutality.

Part of the reason Paul Bremer is so frustrated with the Iraq council is that the Kurds are demanding more autonomy that the others factions want them to have.

The Shias in the south are relatively quiet because they figure elections will give them majority power and the ability to do unto the Baath/Sunni what was done unto them.

Its partition or indefinite occupation, IMHO.

clark · 2003-11-13 21:23:46

Dosen't this sound like what the British did?

Cobra Commander · 2003-11-14 18:34:07

We live in a time where our leaders undo the Bill of Rights in something called a PATRIOT act.

There are parts of the PATRIOT act which I have serious objections to, but overall it is not nearly the Big Brother-creating piece of legislation its opponents paint it as. I would not have voted for it, but I have to be fair to what it says. I actually read it, it mainly streamlines the processes that are already in place rather than creating anything new. It has a few points that could be intepreted in such a way as to make almost anyone a terrorist if someone really wanted to stretch it, and that is my main objection to it.

Besides, our leaders have been undoing the Bill of Rights for years.

WMD's were a pretext, and now double-speak is the language of the day. Old is New, Conservative is Compassion, Liberal is Backward, and Empire is now the Republic.

WMD's were overblown, both by the Administration and the opposition. I wouldn't say they were a pretext, I think the instigators believed that Saddam had those weapons and they had valid reasons for this. Don't be too surprised if something turns up.

Oh, Liberalism is backward

I still can't help but feel like a German in the 1930's. How can we know that our leaders are making the right decisions if we can't trust them to begin with?

These comparisons to Nazi Germany really need to be kept in check. It not only makes the climate more shrill than it needs to be, but you can only cry Nazi so many times before no one listens.

As a Fascist I probably shouldn't have pointed that out ??? but as a freedom-loving American I'm obligated to.

Bill White · 2003-11-14 18:37:46

ITALIAN Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said today he had tried to stop US President George W Bush from going to war against Iraq.
"I didn't support every action of the United States. I tried to persuade them not to intervene militarily," Berlusconi said.
"But when I saw there was no way (to prevent it), I stood by the United States."

Wow! What a ringing endorsement. . .

and now a quote from agonist.org

Staying The Course
Never, in my wildest dreams, did I believe the Bush Adminstration would countenance withdrawing from Iraq before we finished the job. But that seems to be what they are considering--at least the political operatives.
There seem to be a lot of rumors floating around to that effect.
I hope they are not true.
Yes, I opposed the war in Iraq. I felt that the costs would outweigh the benefits. And to a certain degree I feel vindicated. The situation that The Agonist has documented and will continue to document is ugly, no matter the spin.
The issue of the day is not whether we should withdraw but how we win. And I believe it is still possible to win. Although I opposed the war, one immutable fact remains to keep us there until the job is finished: We broke it and now we must fix it.
Do I like it? No.
Am I happy about American boys and girls dying everyday? No.
Am I pleased with the way the Bush Adminstration has conducted operations in Iraq after May 1st? No.
Should the Bush Administration be run out of Washington for their deceit and ineptitude? Oh yeah, you better believe it.
However, all of that does not take away from the moral imperative we face in Iraq. In the words of Carol Mosley-Braun: "We blew the place up; we have to fix it back."And I agree with Chris Suellentrop that this idea is one of the primary moral repsonsibilities of those who wage war.
If this Administration decides to cut and run in Iraq they will have crossed a moral chasm that no American should allow. They will simply be beyond the pale.
Withdrawing from Iraq, no matter how attractive that option might be is simply immoral and unacceptable. And it is beneath this country to consider it.

Palomar · 2003-11-14 19:26:44

As for the WMD's, it was overblown. They're probably there somewhere, or they were smuggled into Iran and Syria while we screwed around with the UN for a year, but they'll turn up. And that is one of my big problems with Bush, telegraphing the invasion like that so Saddam had plenty of time to move his stash around while UNSCOM dutifully inspected the Baath-approved sites. Utterly inexscusable.

*I see your points.

But here's another little problem I have with Bush. Prior to the invasion of Iraq, he was riding and riding on the UN Weapons Inspectors -- get in there, find them, leave no stone unturned, hurry up; really pushing for the weapons inspectors.

For months now the UN has been offering to go back in with its weapons inspectors, despite all the violence and chaos currently there (very dangerous). And now Bush is dragging his feet, delaying them, indicating NO, DON'T go in.

What's up with that? That looks very peculiar to me.

--Cindy

Euler · 2003-11-15 13:36:19

US to End Iraq Administration by June

Cobra Commander · 2003-11-26 20:20:23

Recently have seen/heard/read that we'll be in Iraq until at least 2006. And I suppose Bush will get re-elected, now that the economy seems to be picking up again (let's just forget endless months and months of massive layoffs and unemployment -- job figures still are sluggish at best -- and the economy in the toilet).

And I suppose layoffs were Bush's fault? He personally caused the economy to tank (or accelerated it, it was already starting before he took office). The fact is that there isn't a whole lot a sitting President can do to the economy either way. I know not many people believe that, but it's true. Bill Clinton didn't cause the economic boom he was credited with and Bush didn't cause the "recession" that followed. The tax cut helped in the current recovery, but many other factors are at work.

This isn't a reflex defense either, I'm actually rather annoyed with Bush and the Republican party at the moment over that damned Medicare bill. Having a sort of Gollum reaction to them. My wife has grown a bit irate over my wandering the house muttering "filthy Republicans. Tricksy. False. Betrayed us!..."

Yeah, the more I think about it the more I miss the days when it was one big enemy ready to turn us to hot glass and Republicans actually stood for smaller government. The Red Menace was not without its uses. Besides, all that defense work was good for the economy

Palomar · 2003-11-26 20:39:36

CC: "And I suppose layoffs were Bush's fault?"

*Sure, why not? Everything was Clinton's fault!

CC: "He personally caused the economy to tank (or accelerated it, it was already starting before he took office)?. The fact is that there isn't a whole lot a sitting President can do to the economy either way. I know not many people believe that, but it's true. Bill Clinton didn't cause the economic boom he was credited with and Bush didn't cause the "recession" that followed. The tax cut helped in the current recovery, but many other factors are at work."

*Yes, I suppose you are right. But you see, my main gripe about Bush is that he hasn't seemed to care about the "average American" in all this. This, despite my own personal income having *increased* by at least 10% over the past year. I have empathy for my fellow U.S. citizens who haven't been so fortunate...Bush seems not to care. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's definitely the impression I have.

CC: "This isn't a reflex defense either, I'm actually rather annoyed with Bush and the Republican party at the moment over that damned Medicare bill."

*May I ask precisely how? Just curious. I believe our senior citizens should get help with their prescription medications.

CC: "Having a sort of Gollum reaction to them. My wife has grown a bit irate over my wandering the house muttering "filthy Republicans. Tricksy. False. Betrayed us!..."

*Ha ha. My husband and I are always damning the Republicans together. And here's hoping Bush will lose his Precious in 2004.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2003-11-26 21:13:44

I have empathy for my fellow U.S. citizens who haven't been so fortunate...Bush seems not to care. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's definitely the impression I have.

The day I believe a politician actually cares about my misfortunes is the day I'll have truly lost my mind.

CC: "This isn't a reflex defense either, I'm actually rather annoyed with Bush and the Republican party at the moment over that damned Medicare bill."
*May I ask precisely how? Just curious. I believe our senior citizens should get help with their prescription medications.

Both the general distaste for calling in government every time someone has a problem and the more specific objection that this new entitlement is projected at $400 billion. These things always go way over the projections, some have estimated the true cost to be almost a trillion dollars. The entire federal budget barely tops 2 trillion now, this will be a huge expense. And for what? It doesn't really help anyone, in fact alot of seniors could get royally screwed on this. We created an entitlement that no one wants and that we may not be able to afford, and as soon as it's in place we'll have a hell of a time killing it. It has a few glimmers of hope in it, but I'd be a fool to count on them.

Republicans creating massive entitlements, Democrats acting like they care about how much it's going to cost, I've crossed over into Bizzaro world!

CC: "Having a sort of Gollum reaction to them. My wife has grown a bit irate over my wandering the house muttering "filthy Republicans. Tricksy. False. Betrayed us!..."
*Ha ha. My husband and I are always damning the Republicans together. And here's hoping Bush will lose his Precious in 2004.

Not that I've given up damning Democrats! I'm an equal-opportunity damner. Bi-partisan damnation is the only answer left, it seems.

clark · 2003-12-01 10:21:58

You mean neither party is fiscaly responsible? You mean neither party is for 'small' government? You mean neither party is for protecting civil liberities?

All politicans are cut from the same cloth, and they buy their suits with the same money, often from the same purse.

'Party' is just branding, just like a Phillips lightbulb, or a G.E. lightbulb are just branding. Either bulb is just as dim.

Put one party in the whitehouse, another party in the Congress. Never one party in both- when that happens, well, you already see. :;):

dickbill · 2004-02-18 09:38:41

Maybe I am wrong in all of this...but this is how I see it.

who knows, only time will tell. I agree with Cindy, Alt2war etc, we all think that Saddam was bad, he could have been "impeach" or "retired" in another way, this has been said and said and said, and still, we won't be able to convince a single Bush supporter, even with facts. At this point it's not a matter of fact but more of irrationality.
What do you expect, Bush says "sorry I was wrong ?" he will never do that, never never.
You waste your saliva.

Look, I don't like to give personnal informations by here it could be relevant. My father was a regular soldier during the algerian war, from the french regular troops I mean. First, when he came back, alive, thanks God, he didn't like to talk much about it. After 10/15 years stories start to pop out. He said basically the french wins the war against the rebel in Algeria "militarily speaking". Not just fighting, they also had to maintain the 'regular life. He teached the kids at school (probably the same kids that would throw stones at them ) to replace some missing local teachers, even if he had no experience in the matter. The french army also fed these algerian kids. He said one time he was distributing breads from a truck to kids. At one moment, the kids crowd became too big and started to become chaotic. The french soldiers started to shoot up in the air and one kid came right straight in front of my father's gun, put his chest against the gun and said "go ahaid, shoot me".
I'm glad that he didn't shoot the kid by the way, even if at that moment he probably thought that "winning the war and bring' them on" will never work. Otherwise the war in Algeria was like a war of embush, much like in Iraq today.
It took my father 30 years, 30 years, to say one day "we had no bussiness to be there, it was their country not ours" and question openly why and who send him there and why it turn out to be a defeat since on the ground, he felt the french army won the war. I must precise that my father is very very conservative.
Well, "nothing new under the sun" or said otherwise "the more it changes the more it is the same".

clark · 2004-02-18 11:12:08

I play a perverse lottery every morning. Each day, as I listen to the latest buzz on political chicanery, economic slights-of-hand, or the devolving morals of, well, everyone, I go and look at a little list.

It's nothing spectacular, and I happened upon the list quite by accident. But I found it, and now I can't stop looking- I can't stop playing a game I can never win. One I can only lose.

I keep waiting for the day I will lose, trying not to think of all those who have already lost. Perhaps when I finally see a name I recognize, I can start to understand, but I certainly don't want to if that is the case.

Was sending neighbors, friends, lovers, and children off to defend and die in a land of strangers really necessary? Is each day that I, and countless others play a game we cannot win worth it? Is this sacrifice worthy of their sacrifice? Are we?

Just questions, no answers. Everyone has an answer. That's why most have stopped asking questions.

I invite you all to play the game you cannot win, and to start asking some questions.

[http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/]http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/
[http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/]List of US casulties in the War on Terror

Palomar · 2004-02-18 11:27:38

First, thank you Clark for making the point about wanting terrorists to pour into Iraq.

*Clark's post is very interesting. He seems (now) to question the validity of the war in Iraq...or at least to get others here to question the why's and wherefore's of it (I already am, have...thanks).

I was quite sure he'd chimed in repeatedly in the past, in this very thread...I wanted to re-read some of his previous posts (provided my memory served me correctly that they were there,) and see if I was recalling correctly that previously he was calling FOR war in Iraq, and in fact that it was necessary, needed, etc.

In pages 1 through 4 of this thread I see the posts of others seeming to reply to Clark (see Quote box above), seeming to address former statements made by him in the thread...but no old posts by Clark himself currently present for reading. Hmmmmm. How odd.

Are some posts missing I wonder?

Clark, is your post above this one your own words, or something you copied and pasted from an e-mail forward? Inquiring minds want to know.

--Cindy

clark · 2004-02-18 11:51:11

You don't get it Cindy, and I doubt you ever will.

It's my own fault though, since I am the one unable to make you understand. I will try harder. I will be better. I like to suffer, I guess.

I appreciate the effort you put into pointing out any missing posts of mine. It shows you care. Perhaps I deleted them, or perhaps they were deleted by moderators, since that happens from time to time, for one reason or another. Of course, in this instance, I do recall deleting some posts. I do that once in awhile, for my own reasons.

Now, a question I doubt you will answer, why do you care? Does it offend your sensibilities? Do you feel I'm playing both sides of the coin? Ah, questions. Always fun.

If you recall, becuase I note that your memory isn't always clear, I have stated numerous times that our actions in Iraq have been the right thing for the wrong reasons. My opinion of the matter dosen't shut off all my other questions related to whether or not we really needed to do it, or whether we should have done it. It's basic doubt in my own convictions. It's called trying to keep an open mind, something most independant people strive for. But you know this, as you pay lip-service to this idea now and again.

There is nothing wrong with doing right, but I prefer to do it for the right reasons. I prefer to be told the truth, even if I don't want to hear it. And I hate the fact that my expectations are unrealistic... ah, Mars, you teach me so much.

PS- There is a book you should read, I bet you would like it, it's pretty popular. It's called "Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them", by Al Franken. I don't know why I always think of you when I see it mentioned. :laugh:

Byron · 2004-02-18 13:52:37

I am registered Independent (formerly Democrat)...only because one must be registered as -something- in order to vote. There is no "my party is best" mentality with me...none whatsoever. Truth be told? I am sometimes so fed up with the b.s. (all of it, all around) that I'm almost tempted to UNregister and not vote at all, on the basis of "what's the point anyway"?
Here's my problem: I don't understand how Clinton's fling with Lewinsky and his lying under oath and trying to parse out the word "is" could generate so much hatred and animosity...while on the other hand Bush and the obvious lack of evidence of WMD's (which *he* repeatedly insisted *were* there) and the fact that hundreds of soldiers have been killed in Iraq has NOT drawn the ire, condemnation and animosity which Clinton's fling provoked.
This doesn't make sense.

Yeah, I get fed up with the b.s. too, and what gets me is the American public is allowing their own apathy to let Bush & Co. get away with the things they do. Yes, I have a cousin that is about or is already on his way to Iraq, and even though it's supposely "late in the game," I still fear for him over there. It's like, what *exactly* are we doing over there? Yes, there are many questions still unanswered. Yes, I'm thrilled that Saddam is gone. But you just have to wonder why they're blaming the lack of WMD's to "intelligence failures." How convenient it is to blame someone else for your mistakes, and like certain people who have a tendency to cover their tracks from time to time, it's interesting how things go "missing" whenever there's something like this going on.

If you recall, becuase I note that your memory isn't always clear, I have stated numerous times that our actions in Iraq have been the right thing for the wrong reasons. My opinion of the matter dosen't shut off all my other questions related to whether or not we really needed to do it, or whether we should have done it. It's basic doubt in my own convictions. It's called trying to keep an open mind, something most independant people strive for. But you know this, as you pay lip-service to this idea now and again.

Clark, why do you do this? You keep saying we did the right thing for the wrong reasons...so what do you mean by "wrong?" Yes, we did a lot of good in Iraq, like knocking off a brutal dictator. But was it a *priority* in the war against terror?? I do think that is one of the things that Cindy and I attempt to point out...yes, maybe we did need to go over there, but why did we go at the time we did? Why didn't we wait until we had rooted out Bin Laden? And the "evidence" of WMD's was just that...evidence. We have evidence that other countries are going nuclear as well, including North Korea, our most hated enemy.

I think you should really look at all this in a *common sense* fashion...knowing how people in power typically behave, especially someone with a *lot* of connections in the oil industry (and gas prices are still very high, long after we've gone in and taken over), might it make *more sense* that Bush and Co. might have chosen to go in according to their whims as opposed to the country's?

Yeah, I'd like to see some answers to a number of questions. But I think I've figured a few of them out already. And the thing is, clark, you tend to ask the questions, invite us to answer them and then twist our replies into a another series of questions, which seems to go on and on without end. Me, I see what I see, and I base my assumptions on that. If I happen to be wrong, well, I'm human like the rest of the world, and I do take responsibility for my mistakes. At least I admit it when I do, unlike *some* people...

B

Palomar · 2004-02-18 14:11:24

You don't get it Cindy, and I doubt you ever will.
PS- There is a book you should read, I bet you would like it, it's pretty popular. It's called "Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them", by Al Franken. I don't know why I always think of you when I see it mentioned. :laugh:

*No Clark, actually I think I -do- get it. I'm a bit smarter than you tend to give me credit for.

You take one side of an issue in order to stir up conversation and controversy. Right? Regardless of whether or not you intend to -sound- as though "you mean it."

But if that simply is your ploy, I can't imagine why suddenly all your previous posts are mysteriously missing.

Yes, I've seen Al Franken's book. I won't bother to ask you why you "think of" me whenever you see that book (frankly, because I really don't care about your personal opinion of me...and I doubt it could be *fair* to begin with).

At least I don't engage people in extensive conversation and then my posts do a "disappearing act"...after those other folks have spent their time and energy replying and all.

--Cindy

::EDIT:: As for this statement: "It's basic doubt in my own convictions. It's called trying to keep an open mind, something most independant people strive for. But you know this, as you pay lip-service to this idea now and again."

*Convictions, Clark? Ever read R. A. Wilson? "Convictions make convicts." I try to steer away from "convictions."

Ever heard of Bertrand Russell? I like his quote, "I wouldn't die for what I believe in...because I might be wrong."

You're entitled to your opinion of whether or not I am open-minded and an independent thinker...but then I doubt you have truly understood me to begin with, or have tried. I think I'm open-minded and an independent thinker, you do not. ::shrugs::

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2003-11-12 12:00:22

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#27 2003-11-12 12:58:39

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#28 2003-11-12 13:33:43

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#29 2003-11-13 09:47:06

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#30 2003-11-13 11:20:34

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#31 2003-11-13 11:44:53

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#32 2003-11-13 19:51:28

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#33 2003-11-13 20:50:10

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#34 2003-11-13 20:58:27

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#35 2003-11-13 21:21:43

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#36 2003-11-13 21:23:46

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#37 2003-11-14 18:34:07

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#38 2003-11-14 18:37:46

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#39 2003-11-14 19:26:44

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#40 2003-11-15 13:36:19

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#41 2003-11-26 20:20:23

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#42 2003-11-26 20:39:36

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#43 2003-11-26 21:13:44

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#44 2003-12-01 10:21:58

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#45 2004-02-18 09:38:41

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#46 2004-02-18 11:12:08

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#47 2004-02-18 11:27:38

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#48 2004-02-18 11:51:11

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#49 2004-02-18 13:52:37

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

#50 2004-02-18 14:11:24

Re: What if we lose? - Vietnam II?

Board footer