New (old) Thoughts On Iraq

[JerrySeinfeld]

I will predicate these comments by saying this: this forum is for thought and debate. I may not agree with this position, but I am putting it out there for discussion sake - as many positions I take. So before certain forum-obsessed junkies (sorry Black Dog) start scouring the archives for evidence that I have made arguments to the contrary in the past (how pathetic a use of your time is THAT?), hold onto your panties and let's have a new chat.

Here are some premises:

1. The middle east is largely an uncivilized, savage society. For a good example you need not look any further than the execution of Saddam Hussein. Whereas one might have expected to see an appeals process or at least some pomp and circumstance surrounding the affair, it wasn't to be. Instead, within days of getting their hands on him, they hurried him into a dark, makeshift gallows and slung him over the edge (so to speak) - in an..er, unceremonious ceremony complete with cellphone cameras and harassment of the condemned man. This example doesn't even scratch the surface and ignores the execution of women for minor offenses, cutting off of hands, self-detonation, opression of women, gang raping, shameless racism and other basic forms of savagery and lack of civilization.

2. As we all know, our ultimate goal in the mid-east is to defeat and kill the enemy: Radical Pan-Global Islam, which declares war on our peaceful, western way of life with each suicide attack, london bombing, madrid bombing, 9-11, plots to behead primeministers etc. etc. etc.

3. The enemy, Radical Islam, originates and has it's base in the middle east. There could be some debate as to the true "home" of Terrorism - ie. Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria etc. However borders don't mean a whole lot in this part of the world.

4. There are presently some very dangerous trends in the mid-east. Iran is developing nukes. Iran and Syria continually supply Hezbollah with weapons, which Hezbollah stockpiles then shamelessly uses on Israeli Civilians. Iran is headed up by a guy who thinks the coming of the 12th Imam can only occur after armageddon takes place.

5. The Iraq war is a good start at trying to teach the savages about the lighter side of life, a goal which will ultimately undermine the basic tenets of radical Islam. But it's going to take a long time.

Based upon these premises, should we go back to the "he may be a son of a bitch, but he's OUR son of a bitch" system?

Now lefties, before you get all excited about revealing the SHOCKING fact that Saddam USED to be our sonofabitch (gee thanks for the bulletin), hold your fire. First of all, this isn't a very big revelation. Throughout history, allegiances shift and change - it's not news. Heck, before the second world war ended we were friends with the soviets, then we hated eachother, then we were friends again and today...well, it looks like we're well on the road to hating eachother again, what with the bankrupt Russians selling enriched uranium to Iran and all... can you say WWIII?

But I digress...

If we're to get this situation under control, perhaps the old fashioned line up your tanks and planes and go at it war isn't the way to do it? After all we're dealing with a sneaky, stab you in the back, cowardly enemy who won't show their face.

Perhaps the old "proxy war", "CIA Coup", "Assasination" game the USA perfected during the cold war is even put to BETTER use today against foes like Ahmedinejad or Syria?

The left seems really upset that we abandoned that system by toppling Saddam. But maybe he just turned into the WRONG SON OF A BITCH?

So the question: should we just install a new, ruthless, west-friendly SON OF A BITCH to keep these savages under control, then use him as a base of operations to subvert the rest of the Idiots in the region?

I thought this might refresh the old Bush sucks / No he doesn't debate with a new angle.

[August1991]

Based upon these premises, should we go back to the "he may be a son of a bitch, but he's OUR son of a bitch" system?

For the sake of argument, I'll manage to take my lower lip and wrap it over my head and accept your premises.

Given that, my answer is: Hosni Mubarak. A policy of our sonofabitch is a policy of the status quo. And the whole problem is that the status quo (or stability) doesn't work (if it ever really worked).

Among other things, Bush's Iraq policy is an attempt to do things differently.

[M.Dancer]

1. The middle east is largely an uncivilized, savage society. For a good example you need not look any further than the execution of Saddam Hussein.

I agree.

Any nation that practices state executions is largely uncivilized.

[JerrySeinfeld]

1. The middle east is largely an uncivilized, savage society. For a good example you need not look any further than the execution of Saddam Hussein.

I agree.

Any nation that practices state executions is largely uncivilized.

Way to miss the point. This is typical of these forums. I put forth a debatable idea and some idiot loses the forest for the trees.

[GostHacked]

1 On this first point I have a problem with it. You did not hear the United States or any member states of the Coalition of the Willing pipe up and say WHOA DUDE DON'T HANG SADDAM !!

This is the new civilized Iraq brought to you by American Military Might. They now have the freedom to do what they want as a society. Is that not what the US wanted to Iraq? For them to be free and make thier own choices? Not to mention some of the members of the Coaliton of the willing have capitol punishment that may include hangings. Even some states in the United States have the death penalty. Death by haning, lethal injection, firing squad is all barbaric. All societies around this planet seem to partake in just what you call barbaric and savage.

Only thing it seems to me is the Iraqi's make no apologies about it. Saddam was tried, convicted and sentence carried out very quickly (which I found odd, no chance of appeal). Efficient.

Althought I will say the hanging was very sudden, (my thoughts on that are in other threads)

[JerrySeinfeld]

1 On this first point I have a problem with it. You did not hear the United States or any member states of the Coalition of the Willing pipe up and say WHOA DUDE DON'T HANG SADDAM !!

This is the new civilized Iraq brought to you by American Military Might. They now have the freedom to do what they want as a society. Is that not what the US wanted to Iraq? For them to be free and make thier own choices? Not to mention some of the members of the Coaliton of the willing have capitol punishment that may include hangings. Even some states in the United States have the death penalty. Death by haning, lethal injection, firing squad is all barbaric. All societies around this planet seem to partake in just what you call barbaric and savage.

Only thing it seems to me is the Iraqi's make no apologies about it. Saddam was tried, convicted and sentence carried out very quickly (which I found odd, no chance of appeal). Efficient.

Althought I will say the hanging was very sudden, (my thoughts on that are in other threads)

Again, you totally missed the point of this topic. Wether the Saddam execution was a good choice of examples for how savage these people generally are is irrelevant to the overall discussion about revisiting the son of a bitch system.

[Black Dog]

I reject most, if not all, of the premises.

August: the proxy styystem worked well enough for its purposes of maintaining political stability in key markets. The unintended consequenses (which are the source of many contemporary problems) don't change that fact, but they do show why it's not a smart policy to pursue. I don't think it's a coinky-dink that the country's where radical Islam is strongest an dmost popular are in those states with repressive western-backed regimes (Saudia Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt).

[Catchme]

There are presently some very dangerous trends that have been coming out of the USA for the last 5 years or so. They are a savage nation with savage capital punishment laws. We all know the USA wants to eradicate Muslims and control the whole Middle East. It is largely uncivilized one needs only look at the murder stats in the USA for proof, and their lying acts of aggression in Irag, Afganistan and now Iran..

[JerrySeinfeld]

There are presently some very dangerous trends that have been coming out of the USA for the last 5 years or so. They are a savage nation with savage capital punishment laws. We all know the USA wants to eradicate Muslims and control the whole Middle East. It is largely uncivilized one needs only look at the murder stats in the USA for proof, and their lying acts of aggression in Irag, Afganistan and now Iran..

OK before I unload a tirade of evidence on you I want to be clear: you are saying the USA is as savage or more so than the midle east?

[scribblet]

OK before I unload a tirade of evidence on you I want to be clear: you are saying the USA is as savage or more so than the midle east?

Sounds like it, after all, we know the U.S. uses its kids as suicide bombers, indiscriminately bombs its own people. (I could go go on) There is no moral equivalence between suicide bombings etc. and protecting our security. Personally I don't think the U.S. can win the Iraq war unless they unleash a massive bombing campaign against the whole population with no thought about the consequences, then install a dictatorship. Won't happen, we value life more than they do.

What I don't understand is the left wants America to lose the war with the terrorists in Baghdad (and elsewhere) they seem to be followers of the Che Guevara strategy which called on 'revolutionaries' all over the world "to create'two, three, many Vietnams," in order to defeat the American enemy. Why they are indifferent and ignore terrorist atrocities and why do wish to see the U.S. fall? Some are actually rooting for the US dollar to fall and thus its economy.

The left appears to admires A.Q. Taliban and other assorted Islamists while overlooking militant Islam's extremely unsocialist practices, you know, Sharia law and such, its treatment of women not to mention persecution of atheists.

he U.S. wants to eradicate Muslims

Wow, what a load of you know what. We don't know that the U.S. wants to eradicate Muslims, at least we know when these kind of statements are made, there is little credibility in much else said from the same source.

When people make that kind of malicious statements, it exposes them for what they are; at the very least they self delusional .

[Catchme]

I was actually putting jerry seinfeld's sweeping and erroneous words back at him.

[scribblet]

name='JerrySeinfeld' date='Feb 8 2007, 12:17 PM' post='183887']

I will predicate these comments by saying this: this forum is for thought and debate. I may not agree with this position, but I am putting it out there for discussion sake - as many positions I take. So before certain forum-obsessed junkies (sorry Black Dog) start scouring the archives for evidence that I have made arguments to the contrary in the past (how pathetic a use of your time is THAT?), hold onto your panties and let's have a new chat.

Forum obsessed junkies LOL some more so than others, but really who has time to sit on line waiting for someone to post, then pounce regurgitating the same old same old, could be on line all day.

Always the same arguments, the rabid hatred for Bush and the U.S. colours every post and every opinion, it skewers all perception and norms. remember BDS....(Bush derangement syndrome)

[BubberMiley]

Always the same arguments, the rabid hatred for Bush and the U.S. colours every post and every opinion, it skewers all perception and norms. remember BDS....(Bush derangement syndrome)

Always the same argument: any attempt to discredit the illegal war is "Bush or U.S. hating" or "terrorist loving." You aren't even trying to present a credible defence of the violence you support.

[BubberMiley]

Way to miss the point. This is typical of these forums.

You should read other people's posts and not just your own.

[Catchme]

Interesting, bash the posters instead of debating the subject matter. Thought Greg just made a post about this type of rule breaking yesterday, or is NOT applicable to you??

And I see you pounced pretty fast after my post, going back to Jerry's post, even though you had just posted prior to mine with nary a mention of jerry's posted words that you just use to try and cast aspersions.

[scribblet]

Always the same arguments, the rabid hatred for Bush and the U.S. colours every post and every opinion, it skewers all perception and norms. remember BDS....(Bush derangement syndrome)

Always the same argument: any attempt to discredit the illegal war is "Bush or U.S. hating" or "terrorist loving." You aren't even trying to present a credible defence of the violence you support.

I don't support violence, but I don't support the Taliban or AQ, I do believe Bush made a mistake going into Iraq, but rehashing that serves no purpose. Why do I never see any condemnation of the terorrism (not just in Iraq) why is it always the U.S. bad - terrorists good. Why are you et al ignoring the thousands of innocent Iraqis killed by the insurgents. The discussion should be about how all countries can work together and do something about stopping it - or do you all really, deep down, believe that all Iraqis are too savage and violent, pull out and let em all go at it until the best 'man' wins by killing as many people as they can.

[BubberMiley]

Why do I never see any condemnation of the terorrism (not just in Iraq) why is it always the U.S. bad - terrorists good.

I've never in my life heard anyone argue that terrorism is good. Who are you talking to? Maybe you need to make some new friends.

[Catchme]

Always the same arguments, the rabid hatred for Bush and the U.S. colours every post and every opinion, it skewers all perception and norms. remember BDS....(Bush derangement syndrome)

Always the same argument: any attempt to discredit the illegal war is "Bush or U.S. hating" or "terrorist loving." You aren't even trying to present a credible defence of the violence you support.

I don't support violence, but I don't support the Taliban or AQ, I do believe Bush made a mistake going into Iraq, but rehashing that serves no purpose. Why do I never see any condemnation of the terorrism (not just in Iraq) why is it always the U.S. bad - terrorists good. Why are you et al ignoring the thousands of innocent Iraqis killed by the insurgents. The discussion should be about how all countries can work together and do something about stopping it - or do you all really, deep down, believe that all Iraqis are too savage and violent, pull out and let em all go at it until the best 'man' wins by killing as many people as they can.

Because the Bush admin launched an illegal invasion of a country based upon lies, and destroyed a country, what do you not get about that? Why are you NOT discussing how many innocent Iraqis died at the hands of the uSA, and who will die for generations to come?

Funny I have never seen you discussing how countries should work together and do something about stopping it? And what is IT BTW?

[BubberMiley]

do you all really, deep down, believe that all Iraqis are too savage and violent, pull out and let em all go at it until the best 'man' wins by killing as many people as they can.

I deep down believe that the Iraqis will fight the U.S. invasion until it is over, just like any self-respecting people will fight a foreign occupying force. Therefore, to eliminate the violence you have to eliminate the U.S. presence. The U.S. will never, ever secure peace there. I honestly would be thrilled if they could. I wish them well. But I think it is totally and completely a lost cause, especially under the present leadership. It has nothing to do with hating. Sadly, that crippled argument doesn't work for you very well with this topic. You might want to return to the federal politics forum and use it again against anyone who criticizes Harper.

[scribblet]

Why do I never see any condemnation of the terorrism (not just in Iraq) why is it always the U.S. bad - terrorists good.

I've never in my life heard anyone argue that terrorism is good. Who are you talking to? Maybe you need to make some new friends.

Strictly gleaned from discussion groups, where there is no actual argument per se that terrorism is good, it is simply that anything the U.S. or Bush does is bad - no matter what. My argument is no more 'crippled' than one that refuses to acknowledge that the terrorists are killing thousands of their own people indiscriminately.

As for this thread, there is little difference between this and any of the other countless threads on Iraq. I can't say that I have read any liberal type person or 'left winger' condemn the insurgency or the thousands of innocent Iraqis they are killing. The violence will not stop when the U.S. eventually leaves, it will get worse, until one or the other wins and imposes its own dictatorship.

Somehow, there has to be a way, but it will take a lot more troops and a lot more countries getting involved and that won't happen, so maybe some type of peace will only be possible under a theocracy which the majority appear to want anyway.

[Catchme]

Why do I never see any condemnation of the terorrism (not just in Iraq) why is it always the U.S. bad - terrorists good.

I've never in my life heard anyone argue that terrorism is good. Who are you talking to? Maybe you need to make some new friends.

Strictly gleaned from discussion groups, where there is no actual argument per se that terrorism is good, it is simply that anything the U.S. or Bush does is bad - no matter what. My argument is no more 'crippled' than one that refuses to acknowledge that the terrorists are killing thousands of their own people indiscriminately.

As for this thread, there is little difference between this and any of the other countless threads on Iraq. I can't say that I have read any liberal type person or 'left winger' condemn the insurgency or the thousands of innocent Iraqis they are killing. The violence will not stop when the U.S. eventually leaves, it will get worse, until one or the other wins and imposes its own dictatorship.

Somehow, there has to be a way, but it will take a lot more troops and a lot more countries getting involved and that won't happen, so maybe some type of peace will only be possible under a theocracy which the majority appear to want anyway.

What has Bush done thats right?

The US has certainly done something good. that many here have taked about, and that is get rid of the Republicans from control of Congress, and try to stop Bush from his war mongering expansions.

Why do you want us to condemn an insurrgency in Iraq?

[Canadian Blue]

Why do you want us to condemn an insurrgency in Iraq?

Market bombs, suicide bombs, etc. You know, unless that's much more unjustified then a military action which seeks to limit civilian casualties. [Yes that's right, even though due to the civil war the casualties have jumped, American's for the most part seek to have as few civilian deaths as possible]

I think the only solution at this point is to split the country into three seperate states. At this stage I don't see the situation getting better in the foreseeable future.

[Catchme]

That is not why that is what.

[Canadian Blue]

You need to know the "what" in order to condemn it.

If you feel the need to condemn the American's, yet fail to condemn violence by another group then that obviously show's a huge bias. It's hypocritical to blast the American's who will often attempt to minimize civilian casualties, yet turn a blind eye to those who seek to inflict as many civilian casualties as possible.

Sure disagree with the invasion, however when complaining about illegal actions, violence, and death, don't turn a blind eye to the same activities simply because it is being used by the other side.

[BubberMiley]

...where there is no actual argument per se that terrorism is good, it is simply that anything the U.S. or Bush does is bad - no matter what. My argument is no more 'crippled' than one that refuses to acknowledge that the terrorists are killing thousands of their own people indiscriminately.

No, it's not that Bush's actions are bad no matter what. Bush's actions are bad because he has consistently made the wrong choices. I would be happy to praise him if he would do something right for once.

I also don't think it's necessary to state the obvious--terrorists are cold-blooded murderers and bad--every time I criticize Bush. Impugning that, by criticizing Bush, one is saying that terrorism is good is not only intellectually dishonest, but morally reprehensible as well.