Would you prefer we lose the war in Iraq?

Heineken Helen

mookie blaylock 10 wrote:

i haven't been able to get to sleep yet HH, so i came lingering around again. thanks for the laugh on this one helen ...so true

Anytime!

NCfan

I think it is both funny and telling that nobody has responded with a simple yes or no that the thread starter asked for.

Granted I haven't read the whole thread, but nobody in the first few pages could boil their answer down to yes, or no.

That's pretty revealing!

Milhouse VanHouten

The Illinoisemakers wrote:

Is your area considered pretty conservative in general? For me it's not hard to figure why I see so many Kerry/Edwards stickers. Seattle is blue through and through.

I'm also curious if you know, how are the people you know who are disillusioned with Bush going to vote in the coming elections? Are they so fed up that they are changing parties?

They're probably going to vote based on the candidate. They won't change parties. As long as neither Jeb nor Cheney decide to run in 2008, they will still vote Republican. They're disappointed with Bush, not the GOP as a whole.

The only way they might vote Democratic in 2008 is if Senator Obama somehow decided to run.

rightondude

Win the war?....uhm hmmm no...how about fuck war...

SundaySilence

NCfan wrote:

I think it is both funny and telling that nobody has responded with a simple yes or no that the thread starter asked for.

Granted I haven't read the whole thread, but nobody in the first few pages could boil their answer down to yes, or no.

That's pretty revealing!

revealing of the lousy question

Without a clear mission to win, lose is ill-defined.

Lose was defined in the original leading question as more US lives taken, more Iraqi lives surely lost as well.

catefrances

NCfan wrote:

I think it is both funny and telling that nobody has responded with a simple yes or no that the thread starter asked for.

Granted I haven't read the whole thread, but nobody in the first few pages could boil their answer down to yes, or no.

That's pretty revealing!

i said i didn't care if the US lost. doesn't that count?

but if you want a more definitive answer, then i say yes.

Abuskedti

consider the human fecal matter we are dealing with in Iraq and that they would do the same to you if they had a chance. Regardless of any war, political action, or President

REGARDLESS OF ANY WAR, POLITICAL ACTION OR PRESIDENT

This war is already won. guess alot of people believe this. explains the 2004 election and the daily failure of American citizens to stand up against this slaughter in their name.

WindNoSail

Abuskedti wrote:

consider the human fecal matter we are dealing with in Iraq and that they would do the same to you if they had a chance. Regardless of any war, political action, or President

REGARDLESS OF ANY WAR, POLITICAL ACTION OR PRESIDENT

This war is already won. guess alot of people believe this. explains the 2004 election and the daily failure of American citizens to stand up against this slaughter in their name.

I will start with you Abuskedti....

If fanatical Muslims groups, peoples, religious leaders had nothing to deal with but an uninterested US, would they still desire to control the world or at least as much of it as possible via Islam? That is a serious question...no joke. Give me an example where they were promoting freedom or human rights somewhere in the world? I will give you ten examples where they are creating conflicts in the world. VIA TERRORISM!

Terrorism is not just a word that dings alarm bells in mind small conservative mind and causes me to vote w/o thought for Republicans. It is a fact of life in modern times.

WindNoSail

NCfan wrote:

I think it is both funny and telling that nobody has responded with a simple yes or no that the thread starter asked for.

Granted I haven't read the whole thread, but nobody in the first few pages could boil their answer down to yes, or no.

That's pretty revealing!

Good point, I was thinking the same thing. Hey, I realize it is complicated but anyone should be able to boil it down to yes or no. You can say you want the US to prevail, overcome, succeed and still want the Iraqis to have freedom and peace. Those two are not mutually exclusive.

If you want the US to loose, I think it is more likely to take away Iraqi freedom and peace. I say this with some reservations because obviously it is a cluster @#$# right now if you are an Iraqi wanting freedom. But yet, who is causing security problems in Iraq? Who's has the job of bringing security to Iraq? The terrorists?

WindNoSail

SundaySilence wrote:

revealing of the lousy question

Without a clear mission to win, lose is ill-defined.

Lose was defined in the original leading question as more US lives taken, more Iraqi lives surely lost as well.

I was taught there are no stupid questions, just stupid people who don't like the questions

WindNoSail

catefrances wrote:

oh i didn't dismiss it cause king george said it. i dismissed it cause it sounded fucking ridiculous. and more so coming out of his mouth. he totally dismissed the US's imperialist agenda. he made absolutely no correlation between terrorist attacks against the US and terrorists attacks the US has been a part of throughout history. maybe like a lot of americans he just doesn't know. state sanctioned terrorism is stll terrorism. the united states is not a peaceful nation.

I don't buy your analysis of state sponsored terrorism. If Iran funds terrorists, that is state sponsored terrorism. If the US goes to war for the removal of a Sadam, that is a military action. If the US tries to establish a free govt, that is nation building. When people try to equate the two I wonder if they understand how the world has defined terrorism vs a govt military. Historically there is a big difference. Just because the IRA has the word Army in it doesn't make it Irelands military.

By the way, this thread was not about GW, but about the US in Iraq. We will continue to go on after GW, he isn't the issue I am focused on. My country is bigger than just one President. If the libs want to assaninate him (figuratively or literally) for political purposes and are using Iraq as the lightening rod, and YOU hate us because of GW (as if he was the source of all policy for the past 50 years) that doesn't help me and my country in the future. It is a 'tear down' vs a 'correction' of my country. Hence the point of this thread.

catefrances wrote:

then you have to find out. you have to know what your government has been doing in your name. you have to make your government accountable. we all do. democracy is about the people. what has your government done for you lately besides make you a terrorist target?

Okay, what else do I need to know about that you think I don't know?

It is obviously easier to be Ireland, which I think is a very cool country and is top of my list of European countries to visit. I just wonder how much of your peaceful lifestyle is directly attributable to the fact that there was this nation called the United States of America that happened to come on the scene during a time when freedom of the common person wasn't really respected or pursued. And who after all these years has tried pretty hard to keep the standard for the rest of the world. Yes, we have mistakes too. But, we are not inherently evil, there are many things we do every day to assist the world, but no one says thank you.

catefrances wrote:

see here's the problem. the united states are so ingrained in the fabric of the world that the changes that occur if they decided to mind their own god damn business could surely be construed as negative. a country's foreign policy should not make the rest of the world beholden to it. a country's foreign policy should not be an economic policy in disguise. a foreign policy is a policy that should spell out how that country deals with the rest of the world. not how it can manipulate the rest of the world in order to be the dominant power. the united states has the power to do so much good in tandem with the rest of the world but they don't want to. they say they do, but their actions say otherwise. they see as a threat any country that tries to adopt a policy contrary to capitalism. they equate democracy with the free market and are so blinded that they either don't see the damage they are doing or they just don't give a shit. that is my problem with the united states.

I agree with that statement in the spirit of how things should be. But we do alot with the rest of the world, you lead others to believe we do nothing with the rest of the world, that part I take issue with.

catefrances wrote:

the business of war
say that three times. does it sound as ridiculous to you as it does to me?
if the united states got out of the 'business of war', their economy would almost likely collapse. but on the plus side we could perhaps move closer to real peace and find some real alternatives for the problems that plague our world.

Our economy would collapse if we had no military at all, no defense contractors, etc is true. Not because of what you say though. We would be taken over by some other nation in the past 200 years, and would no longer exist.

You understimate our economy. We aren't all walking around making money off of the military here. Most people don't have any affiliation with any defense companies or the military, that is a fact.

Later Cate

Abuskedti

WindNoSail wrote:

I will start with you Abuskedti....

If fanatical Muslims groups, peoples, religious leaders had nothing to deal with but an uninterested US, would they still desire to control the world or at least as much of it as possible via Islam? That is a serious question...no joke. Give me an example where they were promoting freedom or human rights somewhere in the world? I will give you ten examples where they are creating conflicts in the world. VIA TERRORISM!

Terrorism is not just a word that dings alarm bells in mind small conservative mind and causes me to vote w/o thought for Republicans. It is a fact of life in modern times.

You use the word they loosly. So you really believe "they" are hungry to kill and the violence in Iraq is enough to satisfy them?

How many examples can you come up with of the US creating conflicts in the world.. or France, England or Italy?

Don't we desire to control the world?

I'm sorry but I totally disagree. The only difference between terrorist and the United States is the color of the combatants and the weapons each uses.

I don't think there has been one American killed by a "terrorist" in the United States since 9-11. Nobody believes that is because of beefed up security. They do have guns and knives - and there surely are muslims in America sympathetic to Al Qaeda... If their desire was to kill us - they would do it. Clearly it is not.

WindNoSail

Abuskedti wrote:

You use the word they loosly. So you really believe "they" are hungry to kill and the violence in Iraq is enough to satisfy them?

How many examples can you come up with of the US creating conflicts in the world.. or France, England or Italy?

Don't we desire to control the world?

I'm sorry but I totally disagree. The only difference between terrorist and the United States is the color of the combatants and the weapons each uses.

I don't think there has been one American killed by a "terrorist" in the United States since 9-11. Nobody believes that is because of beefed up security. They do have guns and knives - and there surely are muslims in America sympathetic to Al Qaeda... If their desire was to kill us - they would do it. Clearly it is not.

Sorry, not buying it. We aren't the same. We don't behead, have suicide bombers that target civilians, kill Iraqis that are trying to go forward (not backwards like the terrorists), kidnap, etc.

As for domestic terrorists, well if you honestly think that the only reason they have not attacked again is because they choose not too, that is also incorrect. I would say two things: 1-intellegence and finance have had an impact 2-they will do it again and at their chosing

They tend to try and outdo themselves, so I expect the next big attempt to be on a larger scale than the WTC. So, yeah they aren't bombing our malls and concerts (god forbid), but if they decide to use that as a tactic you won't be able to say no one else has been killed. And if they go BIG, same result.

I have seen for thirty years what a terrorist act is, you don't need to try and undefine it for me. What Al-queda does in Iraq is the same, no freedom fighters here, no minutemen. It (terrorism) is easy to spot, clear what the motives are, has nothing to do with freedom, and has nothing to do with our military. Nope.

Abuskedti

WindNoSail wrote:

Sorry, not buying it. We aren't the same. We don't behead, have suicide bombers that target civilians, kill Iraqis that are trying to go forward (not backwards like the terrorists), kidnap, etc.

As for domestic terrorists, well if you honestly think that the only reason they have not attacked again is because they choose not too, that is also incorrect. I would say two things: 1-intellegence and finance have had an impact 2-they will do it again and at their chosing

They tend to try and outdo themselves, so I expect the next big attempt to be on a larger scale than the WTC. So, yeah they aren't bombing our malls and concerts (god forbid), but if they decide to use that as a tactic you won't be able to say no one else has been killed. And if they go BIG, same result.

I have seen for thirty years what a terrorist act is, you don't need to try and undefine it for me. What Al-queda does in Iraq is the same, no freedom fighters here, no minutemen. It (terrorism) is easy to spot, clear what the motives are, has nothing to do with freedom, and has nothing to do with our military. Nope.

I won't address these issues further.. they've been beaten to death...


However there is no amount of security or lack of funds to stop a terrorist from stabbing an innocent with a knife. If there are 50 terrorists in the US - surely they can all afford knives, and all have the capacity to find an innocent in a secluded area, stab them and leave a note. They can do that often.. but they don't and that is by choice alone.

I'm sure you believe you've thought this through, and surly there are millions that will reinforce your belief... but it is flat wrong.

miller8966

Abuskedti wrote:

I won't address these issues further.. they've been beaten to death...


However there is no amount of security or lack of funds to stop a terrorist from stabbing an innocent with a knife. If there are 50 terrorists in the US - surely they can all afford knives, and all have the capacity to find an innocent in a secluded area, stab them and leave a note. They can do that often.. but they don't and that is by choice alone.

I'm sure you believe you've thought this through, and surly there are millions that will reinforce your belief... but it is flat wrong.

lol at his belief being wrong because YOU think its wrong.

kenny olav

WindNoSail wrote:

Sorry, not buying it. We aren't the same. We don't behead, have suicide bombers that target civilians, kill Iraqis that are trying to go forward (not backwards like the terrorists), kidnap, etc.

You have some valid points, but will you also condemn the use of depleted uranium?

WindNoSail

Abuskedti wrote:

I won't address these issues further.. they've been beaten to death...


However there is no amount of security or lack of funds to stop a terrorist from stabbing an innocent with a knife. If there are 50 terrorists in the US - surely they can all afford knives, and all have the capacity to find an innocent in a secluded area, stab them and leave a note. They can do that often.. but they don't and that is by choice alone.

I'm sure you believe you've thought this through, and surly there are millions that will reinforce your belief... but it is flat wrong.

I guess beating this subject to death is what happens when you have different opinions. I don't wholeheartedly dismiss your opions - just see them as not correctly balanced with facts from each side. If you or anyone else wants to see in black and white, ie the US is bad, then so be it. I am just providing my own brand of resistence to the pervasive left.

cinredzfan47

Pegasus wrote:

Can't say I feel particularly for the soldiers on the other hand; there's no draft, they have a bloody choice.

That is an ignorant statement. They have a choice to join the armed services, they do NOT choose where they are deployed. There are plenty of soldiers who do not agree with this war. As I've said before, hate the war, not the soldier.

Abuskedti

WindNoSail wrote:

I guess beating this subject to death is what happens when you have different opinions. I don't wholeheartedly dismiss your opions - just see them as not correctly balanced with facts from each side. If you or anyone else wants to see in black and white, ie the US is bad, then so be it. I am just providing my own brand of resistence to the pervasive left.

I am not left.. I am apolitical. This is what I consider an extremely important issue, and my opinion only incidentlally coincides with the left. The politicalicizing of this issue is largely the reason we are paralized and continue to act badly. In addition, I'd like to think the US is not bad. But I always figured human lives took president over politics and economics. I have learned that is not only false in our government, it is not even a priority of the will of the people.

I feared we'd act this way beginning precicely on 9-11. On the day we invaded Iraq, I was suprized. On the day we re-elected the man responsible, my faith was distroyed.

my thoughts are growing into what many prematurely judged it to be long ago. We are bad. in addition, apparantly not interested in learning about ourselves or about what we are doing.

Heineken Helen

WindNoSail wrote:

Good point, I was thinking the same thing. Hey, I realize it is complicated but anyone should be able to boil it down to yes or no. You can say you want the US to prevail, overcome, succeed and still want the Iraqis to have freedom and peace. Those two are not mutually exclusive.

If you want the US to loose, I think it is more likely to take away Iraqi freedom and peace. I say this with some reservations because obviously it is a cluster @#$# right now if you are an Iraqi wanting freedom. But yet, who is causing security problems in Iraq? Who's has the job of bringing security to Iraq? The terrorists?

Well if the US winning is prevailing, overcoming and succeeding at what they're doing... then yes, my straight answer would be 'I would prefer the US to lose the war'. I would like the Iraqis to have their OWN freedom - not one that's economically linked to YOUR country cos that's not real freedom.