wart57 wrote:So, the brutality of Hussein is needed to keep peace? Thousands murdered to keep the peace? How is that peace?
It was my understanding that we took out Sadaam because he and his WMD were an immediate threat to our national security. That was the reason explained to me, and if it was indeed something else then it should have been communicated with the American public as such. The fact that he was a brutal tyrant made it even more desirable, but there just isn't enough to go around to police the world.
At the time, the people on the ground, the inspectors, as well as the CIA analysts were saying the WMD were not there. They were ignored. Those who spoke up like Wilson were silenced. When the silencing became public, the public didn't care.
You decided to trust those you shouldn't have trusted.
wart57 wrote:So, the brutality of Hussein is needed to keep peace? Thousands murdered to keep the peace? How is that peace?
It was my understanding that we took out Sadaam because he and his WMD were an immediate threat to our national security. That was the reason explained to me, and if it was indeed something else then it should have been communicated with the American public as such. The fact that he was a brutal tyrant made it even more desirable, but there just isn't enough to go around to police the world.
At the time, the people on the ground, the inspectors, as well as the CIA analysts were saying the WMD were not there. They were ignored. Those who spoke up like Wilson were silenced. When the silencing became public, the public didn't care.
You decided to trust those you shouldn't have trusted.
I didn't trust anybody.
So what is your answer, let some Tyarant take over and start brutally subjugating the people again? Then this whole thing would be for nothing. All the soldiers died for nothing. There has to be a better solution.
Joe Shlabotnik wrote:So Ironic that we, so proud of our guerilla-based independence struggle, forget the lesson of trying to subjugate a people from far away using mercenaries.
Look - they are defending their home and their traditions. Half of the too-small force we projected over there are civilian mercenaries in it for one thing only - blood money.
That comparison doesn't hold up. I don't get the mercenary comment at all. I think it might be about 10% mercenaries.
And if they want to defend their home, they just need to stop shooting.
wart57 wrote:So, the brutality of Hussein is needed to keep peace? Thousands murdered to keep the peace? How is that peace?
It was my understanding that we took out Sadaam because he and his WMD were an immediate threat to our national security. That was the reason explained to me, and if it was indeed something else then it should have been communicated with the American public as such. The fact that he was a brutal tyrant made it even more desirable, but there just isn't enough to go around to police the world.
At the time, the people on the ground, the inspectors, as well as the CIA analysts were saying the WMD were not there. They were ignored. Those who spoke up like Wilson were silenced. When the silencing became public, the public didn't care.
You decided to trust those you shouldn't have trusted.
No, I decided to accept that I didn't have access to information that my leaders had and left open the possibility that they knew more than I did, and maybe more than the UN weapons inspectors. When we went into Iraq, I was very, very concerned. I just held out hope that as things progressed that some truth would be exposed that would justify it. In my opinion, it did not, and I hold elected officials accountable for that at the ballot box.
That's a far cry from trusting those I should not have had. It appears as though your tactics are not only alienating the people you intend to, but those on your side as well.
wart57 wrote: Then this whole thing would be for nothing. All the soldiers died for nothing.
Now you're beginning to get it. The light is coming on for you. Doesn't feel comfortable does it? Now you see why I'm cranky?
Like I said, Saddam didn't just happen. He wasn't unique or the first. There is a reason why brutality rules over there. Think of it like a bunch of mafia clans vying for power.
I mean for crissake, look at how the shiites handled getting the power now that they are in charge. Positions handed out to favorites, bribes and kickbacks needed, getting rid of those who got rid of them when they were down. Why? Because that's the way they are brought up. That is how they run things. New boss same as the old boss.
That's the reality.
You want to bring democracy to these folks? Then start teaching it in their schools, start teaching a different brand of Islam. Now, how big of an army do you think you'll need to accomplish that?
ghostrunner wrote:
That comparison doesn't hold up. I don't get the mercenary comment at all. I think it might be about 10% mercenaries.
And if they want to defend their home, they just need to stop shooting.
I'm counting all the contractors over there doing the support work that should be done by regular army.
Stop shooting? While they feel their women are violated? While they see their innocent relatives blown away at check points or run over in the street by convoys? While the 'other' side is disappearing their young men and leaving their mutilated corpses in the river or on the street?
What the hell would you do in that environment?
jim wrote:
No, I decided to accept that I didn't have access to information that my leaders had and left open the possibility that they knew more than I did, and maybe more than the UN weapons inspectors.
Trusting the beaurocrats that you are comfortable with over the opinions of those people monitoring the situation in real time? You deserve what you get.
Excuse me, I'm sorry. But that to me is the definition of foolish, willful ignorance.
Last edited by Joe Shlabotnik on July 24 07, 1:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
wart57 wrote: Then this whole thing would be for nothing. All the soldiers died for nothing.
Now you're beginning to get it. The light is coming on for you. Doesn't feel comfortable does it? Now you see why I'm cranky?
Like I said, Saddam didn't just happen. He wasn't unique or the first. There is a reason why brutality rules over there. Think of it like a bunch of mafia clans vying for power.
I mean for crissake, look at how the shiites handled getting the power now that they are in charge. Positions handed out to favorites, bribes and kickbacks needed, getting rid of those who got rid of them when they were down. Why? Because that's the way they are brought up. That is how they run things. New boss same as the old boss.
That's the reality.
You want to bring democracy to these folks? Then start teaching it in their schools, start teaching a different brand of Islam. Now, how big of an army do you think you'll need to accomplish that?
But apparently you are *not* getting it. You continue to incite and polarize (light coming on, know you get it), and hurt your cause.
ghostrunner wrote:And if they want to defend their home, they just need to stop shooting.
Offering no resistance is certainly an interesting form of defense. Seeing as we're perfectly willing to use violence to achieve our goals, I don't see why we're so shocked that Iraqis would do the same.
jim wrote:
No, I decided to accept that I didn't have access to information that my leaders had and left open the possibility that they knew more than I did, and maybe more than the UN weapons inspectors.
Trusting the beaurocrats that you are comfortable with over the opinions of those people monitoring the situation in real time? You deserve what you get.
Excuse me, I'm sorry. But that to me is the definition of foolish, willful ignorance.
Foolish, willful ignorance is the inability to express your ideas in a way in which people will listen.
