How's the troop surge going...

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
You happened to have been seriously misled.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think to be misled, you have to be slightly delusional, and maybe I am, but I don't know for sure. Did the United States target, nuke and kill innocent, non-combatants in Japan? Yes. Did the United States target, carpet-bomb and kill innocent, non-combatants in Germany? Yes.

Do I glorify it? No. Why? Because on a much smaller scale, I've done the same thing and made the same decisions to achieve a greater good. Am I proud of it? No. I try to rationalize it, but in the end it's just sickening. My only solace is that it's not as sickening as a women being killed by a car-bomb when she goes to the market to get food for her kids. Or the mother crying over her dead son in the middle of the street with a hole drilled through his skull.

If there's any sort of ultimate justice, I'll probably end up in a literal Hell. But just don't do me the dishonor of calling me misled. It was a choice.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I've done the same thing and made the same decisions to achieve a greater good.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is my worry and what I extrapolate from forums I read and whose members are mostly from the USA. The country is turning into an imperialist, fascist country with little, if any, morality left.

By the way, "The Lancet", a really credible publication, estimated that there have been 650,000 deaths in excess of what there would have been under Sadam, since the USA intervention.

I love your notion of greater good, by the way. We just have a different definition of it. Mine isn't US centric, it is more global.

[2/325Falcon]

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, "The Lancet", a really credible publication, estimated that there have been 650,000 deaths in excess of what there would have been under Sadam, since the USA intervention.

[/ QUOTE ]

That same Lancet report says that 69% of those deaths didn't involve US forces. How is the US supposed to stop those killings?

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry but I have to say it again: Neo-Con dreams are what the Iraq war was based on and these dreams took no account of the mindset or historical loyalties of the peoples in the region. Sure it sounded good: bring them democracy - but on what basis? Dreams and wishes of the Neo-Con and the West, not the dreams and wishes of the Iraqis. It's a very, very different world over there,and it just isn't going to change all that much in a few short years or a few decades. It's not like the average Iraqi has been secretly hankering for democracy for all these decades of Iraq's existence. Yes, many hated being oppressed, but that doesn't mean they thought democracy would be their guiding light and salvation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please don't discount the possibility that I'm getting your point, because I truly am. I just don't quite understand the newly hatched catch phrase, "neo-con pipe dreams". I've served the country and consider myself to be somewhat of a patriot, but for arguments sake, I have no problem saying, "screw the United States". To me the corporate body means nothing aside from the principles it was founded on, chief among them liberty.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems a common Neo-Con theme, but I don't buy it. Do not historical background and shared culture count for anything? The USA was founded and built by people of primarily British and Western European descent, who brought their cultural values. Those values are FAR different from the cultural values of much of the rest of the world (and especially different from Middle Eastern and Islamic values). Saying the corporate body of the USA is meaningless, ignores these major distinctions and ignores how the USA was built and ignores the cultural virtues that built it.

Perhaps more importantly, the Neo-Con dream and belief is that Western-style, human-rights-protected democracy can be spread to every region and culture of the world, that it is only the principles that matter. This completely overlooks the fact that for such democracy to take root and flourish, the host culture must be amenable to it, must be willing to provide it a fertile soil in which to germinate, sprout and grow. What in the world makes the Neo-Cons think that the Middle East is a suitable greenhouse for such an experiment? Worse, the Neo-Cons generally do not even view it as an experiment, but rather as something that will inevitably succeed. Yet they have no basis whatsoever for this other than a blind faith in the goodness of democracy itself. Thus cost is not an issue for them because they believe Western-style democracy will eventually triumph, so any great and ongoing costs are bearable. On what basis do they believe that it will succeed anywhere and everywhere irrespectiv of the soil in which it is planted?

The evidence in Iraq is not encouraging, and the culture, history and ideology of the Middle East are about as far as can be at an opposite pole from Western-style democracy. Almost all evidence points to the conclusion that the Middle East is a very hostile environment ideologically and culturally to human-and-civil-rights-protected democracy.

Yet the Neo-Cons appear to possess what is almost a blind messianic faith that such democracy will be adopted by the Middle East given the proper urging and sufficient forcible introduction.

That is what I mean by the Neo-Con pipe dream. The blind faith that Western-style democracy can be implanted anywhere regardless of many centuries of culture and beliefs that are opposed to it and to its precepts.

The Neo-Cons go on spending lives and enormous amounts of money in trying to bring to fruition their blind faith. Bush said that the human heart (or soul) everywhere longs for liberty. O RLY?? Many human hearts long to dominate others, to gain for themselves regardless of the cost to others. Many human hearts long for absolute religious rule. Many human hearts prefer security and stability and tradition over liberty. Heck even the American Revolution saw 1/3 of the colonial population siding with the Revolutionaries, 1/3 of the population loyal to the Crown, and 1/3 staying out of the way. And that was in an envirnment where the first settlers came, at great risk, to escape rreligious/state domination and persecution; thus they could reasonably be expected to be braver and more longing for liberty than most people. Yet Bush and the Neo-Cons believe it axiomatic that the human soul everywhere longs for liberty. How unrealistic.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see this as a battle between the United States and militant Islam. I see this as a battle between liberty and tyranny.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you and I see it as a battle between liberty and tyranny, but that doesn't mean our opponents, or even most of the populace of the Middle East, see it that way. The majority in fact do not. And many of them do indeed see it as a battle between the West and Islam.

[ QUOTE ]
I happen to believe that whenever, however, or wherever you confront tyranny you kill it. I believe the preservation or establishment of liberty necessities killing tyranny at every point of contact. Period.

Now you might not agree with my belief, or feel it doesn't apply to other people or other places, and that's your right. I just don't agree.

Is it a dream? Sure. But I feel I'm using what you refer to as the "neo-cons" to promote my ideals at least as much as they're using me. I can live with it. Bottom line - it's fifty-cents a gallon. Cheap price for a dream.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe liberty must be preserved, and would also like to see it spread. That doesn't mean I think it should be forcibly attempted to be spread anywhere regardless of costs or chances for success. For one thing, the West does not have the will, the resources or the staying power to do that on a carte blanche basis. For another, since when should our country gamble vast sums of money on an ongoing basis without taking into account the chances for success? A blind faith will not do, especially when most credible evidence points in the contrary direction (in the Middle East). So far the results of the experiment in forcibly introduced democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan are not encouraging. It is costing the USA huge sums on an ongoing basis just to try to hold onto any gains made so far and even the status quo is not good. How much more will the Neo-Cons baselessly gamble away in adherence to their blind faith?

[cardcounter0]

2 Baghdad car bombs kill 56, injure 127
AP - Sun Feb 18, 12:10 PM ET
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Two car bombs exploded in an outdoor market in Baghdad on Sunday, killing at least 56 people and injuring scores in the deadliest attack since U.S. and Iraqi forces began a major security push around the capital last week.
~~~~~~~~~
Too bad these 183 didn't listen to the proper news sources to find out how good things are going.

[aheravi]

[ QUOTE ]
Bottom line - it's fifty-cents a gallon. Cheap price for a dream.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this in reference to what the war costs us? 'Cause I'm pretty sure there's been $500B non-budgeted dollars thrown in as well...

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
I can live with it. Bottom line - it's fifty-cents a gallon. Cheap price for a dream.

[/ QUOTE ]
Disgusting. The "price" (for what?) also includes hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians, 3100+ dead and nearly 50,000 wounded American troops, and hundreds of billions of dollars.

Spare us your aw-shucks "idealism," which, by the way, was never presented to us as why we were invading and occupying Iraq in the first place. It didn't show up until the first few justifications proved to be utter crap, and it doesn't have any credibility left as a reason to stay. Even the hardest-line administration water carriers have moved on to a new line of justification. Come for the terrorism and WMDs, stay for the intractable sectarian conflict and shattered regional stability.

Is there nothing that could convince you that we shouldn't have invaded in the first place and that we shouldn't stay? Why do so few recognize that every negative outcome given as a result of our ending the occupation has already occurred?

[JMa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By the way, "The Lancet", a really credible publication, estimated that there have been 650,000 deaths in excess of what there would have been under Sadam, since the USA intervention.

[/ QUOTE ]

That same Lancet report says that 69% of those deaths didn't involve US forces. How is the US supposed to stop those killings?

[/ QUOTE ]

its a law of war to sustain law and order during an attack/invasion

[2/325Falcon]

[ QUOTE ]
its a law of war to sustain law and order during an attack/invasion

[/ QUOTE ]

1) The attack/invasion was over a long time ago.
2) We are in Iraq at the behest of the new government. They could tell us to leave if they wanted to. It would be suicidal for the current Iraqi government to kick us out, but they could do it.
3) Would you advocate putting in even more troops?

Not trolling, just asking.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By the way, "The Lancet", a really credible publication, estimated that there have been 650,000 deaths in excess of what there would have been under Sadam, since the USA intervention.

[/ QUOTE ]

That same Lancet report says that 69% of those deaths didn't involve US forces. How is the US supposed to stop those killings?

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither did it in any way imply that it was not caused by the US intervention, on the contrary.

The dum cowboy goes in and disturbs the cattle before he has a plan on how to settle it? I guess Bush doesn't think that far ahead. Shoot from the hip, hey!A real comedy if it wasn't this tragic.

Meanwhile lets keep using some nice young american boys as cannon fodder till we find a euphemism that will allow us to say we were victorious, as with the vietnam war.