What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

DonPanic · 2004-05-27 11:23:37

LO

Bushs]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1521&e=1&u=/afp/20040527/pl_afp/iraq_us_prison_pentagon_040527133734]Bushs]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1521&e=1&u=/afp/20040527/pl_afp/iraq_us_prison_pentagon_040527133734]Bushs]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1521&e=1&u=/afp/20040527/pl_afp/iraq_us_prison_pentagon_040527133734]Bush's surprise announcement
*I'd say this is a positive idea with a "Bastille-like" flair.
--Cindy

Good intention, but another awkwardness : looks like another masters' decision taken out of Iraqi's consulting. Not the good way to make Iraqis feel free.
Why don't ask Iraqis if these buildings cannot be reshaped at any useful aim such as an university, housing program, dockhouses ?

That does it DomPanic! Enough is enough!
If the friggin' EU intends to eradicate junk food - this means war!

As weapons, I choose tomatoes ( with half an onion, olive oil, a little fresh lemon juice, a little garlic, thyme, basil, tarragon, mustard, three slices of goat milk cheese, salt and pepper, and a quarter of a baguette just taken out of the oven)
En Garde, l'ami :;):

dicktice · 2004-05-28 16:11:32

Bad idea: That prison should have been demolished immediately as a symbol of ridding irak of tyranny: There was too much horrific baggage attached to that place. To have kept it for use, after liberation, to jail Irakis for whatever reason--for what, to save the cost of a new institution?--was stupid and insensitive, to say the least. And then what did they do in there? The liberating GI's who have to patrol the streets will pay for that fould-up mess.

DonPanic · 2004-05-29 03:55:28

LO
Democracy in Iraq is supposed to be what Iraqis choose to destroy or to build up, either, it's US diktat

Palomar · 2004-05-29 07:38:35

LO
Democracy in Iraq is supposed to be what Iraqis choose to destroy or to build up, either, it's US diktat

*I see your point. However, Iraqis "as a people" should make the decision to tear down the prison or leave it standing? Is there such a thing as Iraqi unity? The religious factions (some very intense), the tribal discord (pre-dating U.S. invasion), etc. Without wishing to sound arrogant or whatever, I doubt there is enough Iraqi unity currently, to decide as a nation. Which makes me cynical about other related issues...

http://www.spacedaily.com/2004/04052822 … c.html]Not "new" news, but...

check out the refrence to the UN being the center of the global village.

Morality seeming to be generally relative, I wonder which of these nations would love to be in our shoes...and how *they'd* handle the power. It's easy to be nice and benevolent when you don't have real power. (I feel like playing devil's advocate today)

--Cindy

Bill White · 2004-05-29 08:21:28

http://www.spacedaily.com/2004/04052822 … c.html]Not "new" news, but...
check out the refrence to the UN being the center of the global village.
Morality seeming to be generally relative, I wonder which of these nations would love to be in our shoes...and how *they'd* handle the power. It's easy to be nice and benevolent when you don't have real power. (I feel like playing devil's advocate today)
--Cindy

Of course "they" would love to be in our shoes.

That is why we must act in a way that does not give "them" incentive to unite against us.

By holding ourselves to a higher moral standard (no "Abu Ghraibs", whether or not we suffer "Nick Bergs" we can better persuade the average non-American that our power does not threaten them.

Otherwise, we will face world coalitions forming against us to take away our shoes, so to speak.

Palomar · 2004-05-29 08:33:58

http://www.spacedaily.com/2004/04052822 … c.html]Not "new" news, but...
check out the refrence to the UN being the center of the global village.
Morality seeming to be generally relative, I wonder which of these nations would love to be in our shoes...and how *they'd* handle the power. It's easy to be nice and benevolent when you don't have real power. (I feel like playing devil's advocate today)
--Cindy
Of course "they" would love to be in our shoes.
That is why we must act in a way that does not give "them" incentive to unite against us.
By holding ourselves to a higher moral standard (no "Abu Ghraibs", whether or not we suffer "Nick Bergs" we can better persuade the average non-American that our power does not threaten them.
Otherwise, we will face world coalitions forming against us to take away our shoes, so to speak.

*Yes, I agree.

Didn't _Animal Farm_ end with the lead pig standing upright on its two hind legs, dressed in human clothing?

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

I'm not fooled (-not- implying anyone else here is, either) by the self-righteous yapping of the powerless is all I'm saying.

--Cindy

DonPanic · 2004-05-29 09:44:38

LO

*I see your point. However, Iraqis "as a people" should make the decision to tear down the prison or leave it standing? Is there such a thing as Iraqi unity? The religious factions (some very intense), the tribal discord (pre-dating U.S. invasion), etc. Without wishing to sound arrogant or whatever, I doubt there is enough Iraqi unity currently, to decide as a nation. Which makes me cynical about other related issues...

I'm afraid that the more the occupation will last, the more Iraqis will unite against USA

Of course "they" would love to be in our shoes.

Sure not ! Iraqi shoes are tremendously expensive, undersized and hurt

That is why we must act in a way that does not give "them" incentive to unite against us.
By holding ourselves to a higher moral standard (no "Abu Ghraibs", whether or not we suffer "Nick Bergs" we can better persuade the average non-American that our power does not threaten them.
Otherwise, we will face world coalitions forming against us to take away our shoes, so to speak.

Looks obvious that UNO will back USA only if US administration agrees with an every 6 monthes renewable mandate for the troops.
By now, none of the US claims that invading Iraq wasn't led by Oil greed is trust worthy.
That's not "higher moral standard" behaviour, but pure cynism

Palomar · 2004-05-29 09:59:27

LO
*I see your point. However, Iraqis "as a people" should make the decision to tear down the prison or leave it standing? Is there such a thing as Iraqi unity? The religious factions (some very intense), the tribal discord (pre-dating U.S. invasion), etc. Without wishing to sound arrogant or whatever, I doubt there is enough Iraqi unity currently, to decide as a nation. Which makes me cynical about other related issues...
I'm afraid that the more the occupation will last, the more Iraqis will unite against USA...
Looks obvious that UNO will back USA only if US administration agrees with an every 6 monthes renewable mandate for the troops.

*Agreed.

Can't wait to see the world's reaction if and when Bush gets re-elected.

Every 6-month renewable mandate for U.S. troops. Think that'll be "go" with the administration (even if Bush not re-elected)?

Did anyone else see the news that even Polish troops have been accused of horrific abuse of Iraqi prisoners?

Nice world we live in.

--Cindy

DonPanic · 2004-05-29 10:31:18

Lo
Well, Bush or Kerry, there will come a time when troopers will be tired of Iraq, when US opinion will be tired paying billions bills for overarmament, will want the boys back,
When US travellers will want to be abble to travel the world along without being endangered just being Americans...
Then, even the most stutborn neocons will turn to Real Politic with no threat on friends.

Palomar · 2004-05-29 16:31:37

Lo
Well, Bush or Kerry, there will come a time when troopers will be tired of Iraq, when US opinion will be tired paying billions bills for overarmament, will want the boys back,
When US travellers will want to be abble to travel the world along without being endangered just being Americans...
Then, even the most stutborn neocons will turn to Real Politic with no threat on friends.

*Hi DonPanic:

I see your points. And that's why I'm voting for Voltaire.

Seriously, I would love to visit his chateau in Ferney; but I would be afraid to travel overseas currently.

***
All this political discussion, the war, my attempts at trying to be as fair as possible to everyone/nation concerned (I hope) while keeping "the bigger picture" in mind is wearing me down.

I'm sorry if any sentiments I've expressed lately have sounded snide or unnecessarily divisive. It's just time to let this thread "ride" for a while, where I'm concerned.

Best wishes to all my friends here, *regardless* of where you reside on the globe.

--Cindy

Euler · 2004-05-29 18:59:39

Seriously, I would love to visit his chateau in Ferney; but I would be afraid to travel overseas currently.

Why? I know relations between the USA and France aren't that good right now, but I don't think that the French will start attacking random American tourists.

Palomar · 2004-05-29 21:58:48

Seriously, I would love to visit his chateau in Ferney; but I would be afraid to travel overseas currently.
Why? I know relations between the USA and France aren't that good right now, but I don't think that the French will start attacking random American tourists.

*That's -not- what I meant (the possibility of French people attacking Americans); sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear.

I am concerned about terrorists abroad -- especially hijackings of airliners, etc.

It's not the French I'd be concerned about (in fact, a French lady who is also an artist and a member of my "Age of Voltaire" group extended a personal invitation for me to be her guest, should I ever visit).

--Cindy

DonPanic · 2004-05-30 01:47:51

LO
To tell the truth, we have some hot suburbs where Jews wearing a kippa and may be american tourists wouldn't be safe;
out of these places, which sure are touristical places for nobody, actual american tourists are not supposed to be those who boycott France, and are very friendly welcome.
We are preparing D Day anniversary, and landing beaches are visited by a crowd of french citizens who are not in the mood for being hostile at USA.
Except for Bush for whom antiwar demonstrations are being prepared, for the general opinion here is that he stinks death.
Don't travel by coaches in France, french undiscipline on the roads make them unsafe, travel by train, you will get the opportunity to travel at 200 miles per hour with high speed trains.

Rxke · 2004-05-30 02:02:49

Yup, the TGV/Thalys is an experience you just have to love!

Though the trains are a bit more cramped than regular ones, zooming through Europe at that speed is exhilarating for sure... Some months ago I traveled from Ghent (where i live) to Brussels to Paris, and despite commuting by train every friggin day, it was great! You're really moving FAST... And it's not all that expensive if you book in advance, serious price-reductions that way...

DonPanic · 2004-05-30 03:13:06

Lo

...I know relations between the USA and France aren't that good right now...

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-02 11:39:19

In response to Gennaro's post in the rapidly decomposing preceding thread:

Otherwise, what I would do if I controlled the US, would be simply to get the hell out of there and hand over power to an Iraqi regime provided they are legitimate in the eyes of the Iraqis (I'd simply let them choose), and forget all about democracy and similar nonsense.

With the impending turnover of sovereignty that becomes a very real possibility. Should the new government ask us to leave, we only have two options. Leave and watch the mayhem from afar, letting things work out as they will; or moving in direct violation of the government we helped create. Remain an occupier but without even the pretext of turning over control. In short, get Roman. Such policies, while successful if applied properly are ill-suited to republican governments. The mass is a fickle judge of progress and success, when they choose their leaders at short intervals such schemes become almost impossible to carry through.

I expect that the new Iraqi government will bow to pressure and ask us to leave well before the situation is 'stable' in our eyes, and we'll have little choice but to do so. They likely will become a reliable, if not friendly ally in the region. We may well end up with an Iraqi dictator, king or 'President' who never faces a contested election, but he'll be our stooge. Not the most idealistic outcome, but certainly not the worst.

Gennaro · 2004-06-02 11:45:38

Such policies, while successful if applied properly are ill-suited to republican governments. The mass is a fickle judge of progress and success, when they choose their leaders at short intervals such schemes become almost impossible to carry through.

It's settled then. You'll have to leave.

I expect that the new Iraqi government will bow to pressure and ask us to leave well before the situation is 'stable' in our eyes, and we'll have little choice but to do so. They likely will become a reliable, if not friendly ally in the region. We may well end up with an Iraqi dictator, king or 'President' who never faces a contested election, but he'll be our stooge. Not the most idealistic outcome, but certainly not the worst.

Sounds promising to me. Then all will be well.

Palomar · 2004-06-08 08:24:26

*Admin, you can of course delete this -- (there was a thread created for Reagan's death, so I'm not sure how much political discussion is still welcome here).

Anyway, I saw this at annecoulter.com (can read the entire article there; I'm just copying and pasting a portion of it):

***
"The invasion of Iraq has gone fabulously well, exceeding everyone's expectations – certainly exceeding the doomsday scenarios of liberals. The Bush-haters' pre-war predictions – hundreds of thousands dead, chemical attacks on our troops, retaliatory terrorist attacks in the United States, an invasion by Turkey, oil facilities in flames and apocalyptic environmental consequences – have proven to be about as accurate as Bill Clinton's "legally accurate" statements about Monica Lewinsky.

Inasmuch as they can't cite any actual failures in Iraq, liberals busy themselves by claiming the administration somehow "misled" them about the war.

As I understand it, there would be no lunatics shouting "Bush lied, kids died!" if Paul Wolfowitz had admitted before the war that Saddam "probably hadn't rebuilt his nuclear program" – the one that was unilaterally blown up by the Israelis in 1981, thank God. What Wolfowitz should have said is that "proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the way you think about law enforcement, and I think we're much closer to being in a state of war than being in a judicial proceeding."

Liberals would be all sugar and sweetness if only – instead of blathering about nukes, nukes, nukes – Wolfowitz had forthrightly conceded back in 2002 that "there's an awful lot we don't know, an awful lot that we may never know, and we've got to think differently about standards of proof here."

***

Not really sure why I bothered this a.m. with Ms. Coulter. Anyway, this is precisely the problem I have with conservatives, particularly hardliners like her. IMO, what she's saying (dragging Clinton into it of course -- same tired old right-wing tactic) is:

It was WRONG when Clinton misrepresented things.

It's OKAY when Bush & Co. misrepresented facts to lead us into Iraq.

The crux of this seems to be because Clinton KNEW whether or not he'd had a fling with Monica, whereas the Bush Admin can attempt to weasel out of their claims due to various uncertainties, etc.

Funny how Ms. Coulter doesn't hold Rummy to his claim that he KNEW where the WMD's were.

Her comment about "liberals blathering about nukes - nukes - nukes" is just plain stupid. WHO was "blathering about nukes-nukes-nukes" prior to the start of the Iraqi war?

George W. Bush, repeatedly, "weapons of mass destruction," over and over like a mantra.

But I guess WMDs *aren't* the "nukes-nukes-nukes" Anne is blathering about. Sure.

Yeah, the Repubs/Conservatives are just so high, holy and right they can't and shouldn't be held accountable. :laugh:

And when in doubt, drag Clinton's ass into the picture.

--Cindy

P.S.: If the Iraq war is going "so fabulously well" as Anne claims, I sure would hate to see it going BADLY. And since she apparently has little to zero sympathy for the war dead and thinks this war is going "so fabulously well," by all means let's ship her to Baghdad and put her on the frontlines.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-08 08:38:56

Both Conservatives and Liberals need to examine the facts and their own arguments. Within the Bush Administration mistakes were made. Claims were made that haven't panned out fully. Rumsfeld said he knew where the weapons were, so far we've found alot of documentation, some dual-use materials, and a shell full of sarin gas. WMD evidence to be sure, but not the stash most people were expecting. Overhyped intel and dubious claims, mixed with accurate and compelling reasons both about and independent of WMD. But mistakes were made and need to be acknowledged if credibility is to be restored.

Then we go to the other side, always looking for something to try and crucify the Administration with. Any setback, any resistance, any mistaken information is held up as a sign that we were lied to and fed into a meat grinder by sadistic corporate fascists who drink oil and revel in bloodshed. If it had gone of without a single shot being fired and a grateful mob of Iraqi's led us to the Death Star buried under Saddam's palace they'd still have to find something to nail Bush and the Conservatives with.

Both sides need to step back and get a good whiff of what they're standing in. After they've wiped off their shoes and sat down, then the failures and successes can be dealt with intelligently.

clark · 2004-06-08 09:55:31

Both Conservatives and Liberals need to examine the facts and their own arguments. Within the Bush Administration mistakes were made.

Funny, Bush won't fess up to making any mistakes. He's guided by God.

This administration planned a war well. They planned a peace poorly. This administration defended our land, at the exspense of truth.

We have less liberties now, and it is harder to ascertain the truth. I have no love for Kerry, but I fear Bush. [shrug]

Bill White · 2004-06-08 11:04:50

http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004_06 … 16085]Read this, then we can discuss winning and losing and what those words mean.

clark · 2004-06-08 14:49:43

I read it. Looks like Saudi Arabia is having a succession problem. The thing though that stands out is either Prince needs the West for the monetary funds to maintain the social stability. It seems they are taking sides on the two issues (West versus Islam) to vie for supremacy after the King dies.

Nothing much new here.

I think "winning" would be to succeed in some of our goals related to establishing long term stability within the region and thereby reduce the opportunities for outside elements to exploit disenfranchised individuals into acts of violence. This requires the erstablishment of alternative means to voice dissent, and make changes in their community so as to prevent the need for violent acts.

I think losing is simply maintaing the status quo for the sake of political expediency.

Palomar · 2004-06-15 13:40:45

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u … ism_4]Bush campaign desperate

*The WMD's Mr. Vice President? Where ARE they? Ask Rumsfeld, he "knows." And why should we believe anything you assert -now-.

Oh, I know...Anne Coulter is right (pardon the pun). It's only the Left screaming now about nukes; it was -never- you.

Keep trying, GOP losers. :laugh:

--Cindy

P.S.: Not that I have any love for Saddam either...because I don't.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-15 14:07:00

*The WMD's Mr. Vice President? Where ARE they? Ask Rumsfeld, he "knows." And why should we believe anything you assert -now-.

But it's not so simple. First, we have the sarin-filled shell-turned-EOD found a few weeks back. I'd consider sarin, a nerve agent, to fit the definition of WMD. It was certainly prohibited by UN resolution.

One of countless links:
http://www.freedomofthought.com/archive … 01050.html

But there's more murky greyness present, for starters check this out:

http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/05/ … ...0.shtml

So we have found all kinds of goodies, just not in the big yellow skull-and-crossbones 'Haha fooled you!' packaging some people seemd to be expecting. Chemical weapons aren't that complex, they don't look real impresssive when you stumble into a stash.

clark · 2004-06-15 14:14:36

But it's not so simple. First, we have the sarin-filled shell-turned-EOD found a few weeks back. I'd consider sarin, a nerve agent, to fit the definition of WMD. It was certainly prohibited by UN resolution.

If I recall, and please do me the favor of correcting me if I am mistaken, but didn't the President tell the American public that the reason we needed to invade Iraq, and that we needed to invade now, against the advice of our allies, and without credible international support, and without hard factual data, was because Iraq, under the leadership of Saddam Huissen posed a credible and immediate threat to the entire Western Civilization, including America, by his possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction capable of being launched within an hour and also capable of reaching our friends and allies, if not our own shores.

So I guess finding one old mortar shell with unknown origins or history is cause for a preemptive strike upon another nation and reason enough to spend our politcal and goodwill capital with the world.

I say, "Well done Mr. Bush. Well done indeed." :laugh:

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#126 2004-05-27 11:23:37

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#127 2004-05-28 16:11:32

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#128 2004-05-29 03:55:28

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#129 2004-05-29 07:38:35

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#130 2004-05-29 08:21:28

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#131 2004-05-29 08:33:58

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#132 2004-05-29 09:44:38

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#133 2004-05-29 09:59:27

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#134 2004-05-29 10:31:18

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#135 2004-05-29 16:31:37

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#136 2004-05-29 18:59:39

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#137 2004-05-29 21:58:48

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#138 2004-05-30 01:47:51

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#139 2004-05-30 02:02:49

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#140 2004-05-30 03:13:06

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#141 2004-06-02 11:39:19

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#142 2004-06-02 11:45:38

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#143 2004-06-08 08:24:26

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#144 2004-06-08 08:38:56

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#145 2004-06-08 09:55:31

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#146 2004-06-08 11:04:50

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#147 2004-06-08 14:49:43

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#148 2004-06-15 13:40:45

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#149 2004-06-15 14:07:00

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

#150 2004-06-15 14:14:36

Re: What if we Lose III? - The thread that wouldn't die

Board footer