Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2006-09-05 at 00:47:43
QUOTE(DT_Battlekruser @ Aug 17 2006, 09:54 PM)
The war? The Iraq war? Just begin withdrawing US troops.
Job is done? What job? To remove Saddam from power? Done. To give the Iraqis a constitution? Done. To give the Iraqis a permanent democratic government? Done. To completely secure American oil interests in Iraq? Maybe not, but are you sure that's "the job"?
If you mean "end all war", It's simply impossible unless there is a global confederate government with the military authority to stop local conflicts and enforce order. And such a global government just won't happen.
[right][snapback]546735[/snapback][/right]
Job is done? What job? To remove Saddam from power? Done. To give the Iraqis a constitution? Done. To give the Iraqis a permanent democratic government? Done. To completely secure American oil interests in Iraq? Maybe not, but are you sure that's "the job"?
If you mean "end all war", It's simply impossible unless there is a global confederate government with the military authority to stop local conflicts and enforce order. And such a global government just won't happen.
[right][snapback]546735[/snapback][/right]
Perminante? The Goverment is not perminante simply becuase right now it cannot enforce it's laws and barely regulate the constant voilence in the Bagdad region. The rest of Iraq is pretty peaceful besides Basra. (Source: Brad Jenison Army Ranger Assistant 60 Gunner)
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Veeger on 2006-09-19 at 07:10:18
Some of the ignorance in this topic disturbs me. Greatly.
The Iraqis do not want us to 'get the f*ck out'. They cry for our soldiers to remain, they fear we will back out and leave them to their own devices. The majority are glad that we removed Saddam for them, and are geniunely happy when they see American troops. The problem is that they are not the people you hear screaming in the streets with weapons in their hands, which is the only thing the news reports. For this very reason, alone, we must defend them.
Women are allowed in public school for the first time in centuries, they are (slowly) gaining the respect and equality that they deserve, and the men are no longer the sole dominant force in the region. I think with some good woman intuition, a lot of the violence will quell on its own. Women do not change, no matter what religion they practice or culture they grew up in: when they are as free to express their opinions and wishes as our women are here in the US the violence will stop. Mark my words.
Let me begin my official dissertation by stating that the war is over. We are still fighting, but it is not a war front -- it is a security issue, now. It is going to be slow and painful, but I dare anyone to show me a democracy that did not start with a slow and painful beginning. Remember France . . . It's been 200 years since they began their revolution, and their government still evolves every few decades. A wise man once said that if you ever watch democracy and/or sausage being made in the process, you'll never want either. Even though in the end they are both very good.
Now, how do we end the conflicts and fighting? Well, we can't. I want to say that slowly and clearly. WE CANNOT. The only people who can stop the violence in Iraq are the Iraqis. They must stand up for themselves, begin policing themselves, and start becoming the men and women of a free nation. This is going to take a long time, and I doubt it will happen in our lifetimes. We are not just fighting an idea, here. We are fighting an idea that has been ingrained into this society for centuries upon centuries. And it is going to take more than a few years to overcome that.
Try to imagine how the US reacted back in the 50s and 60s when it was learned that smoking really did kill you. It had been suggested for a while up to that point, but when the actual studies proved it, how did we react? First comes denial, then resentment, and after a few more emotional conflicts, we finally accepted it.
Now, smoking cigarettes is not nearly as common. It is looked down upon by society, as a whole (not all -- I smoke, too, but as a general whole it is), but it didn't happen overnight. It took 50+ years of having the message beat into our brains before we finally began to see it.
How do we stop the violence? We need to stay in there until this generation grows old and dies, and the new generation who grew up in this environment rises up and declares with one voice, "we want a better life".
That is the only way.
The Iraqis do not want us to 'get the f*ck out'. They cry for our soldiers to remain, they fear we will back out and leave them to their own devices. The majority are glad that we removed Saddam for them, and are geniunely happy when they see American troops. The problem is that they are not the people you hear screaming in the streets with weapons in their hands, which is the only thing the news reports. For this very reason, alone, we must defend them.
Women are allowed in public school for the first time in centuries, they are (slowly) gaining the respect and equality that they deserve, and the men are no longer the sole dominant force in the region. I think with some good woman intuition, a lot of the violence will quell on its own. Women do not change, no matter what religion they practice or culture they grew up in: when they are as free to express their opinions and wishes as our women are here in the US the violence will stop. Mark my words.
Let me begin my official dissertation by stating that the war is over. We are still fighting, but it is not a war front -- it is a security issue, now. It is going to be slow and painful, but I dare anyone to show me a democracy that did not start with a slow and painful beginning. Remember France . . . It's been 200 years since they began their revolution, and their government still evolves every few decades. A wise man once said that if you ever watch democracy and/or sausage being made in the process, you'll never want either. Even though in the end they are both very good.
Now, how do we end the conflicts and fighting? Well, we can't. I want to say that slowly and clearly. WE CANNOT. The only people who can stop the violence in Iraq are the Iraqis. They must stand up for themselves, begin policing themselves, and start becoming the men and women of a free nation. This is going to take a long time, and I doubt it will happen in our lifetimes. We are not just fighting an idea, here. We are fighting an idea that has been ingrained into this society for centuries upon centuries. And it is going to take more than a few years to overcome that.
Try to imagine how the US reacted back in the 50s and 60s when it was learned that smoking really did kill you. It had been suggested for a while up to that point, but when the actual studies proved it, how did we react? First comes denial, then resentment, and after a few more emotional conflicts, we finally accepted it.
Now, smoking cigarettes is not nearly as common. It is looked down upon by society, as a whole (not all -- I smoke, too, but as a general whole it is), but it didn't happen overnight. It took 50+ years of having the message beat into our brains before we finally began to see it.
How do we stop the violence? We need to stay in there until this generation grows old and dies, and the new generation who grew up in this environment rises up and declares with one voice, "we want a better life".
That is the only way.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Lithium on 2006-09-19 at 09:30:19
Or in the new generations, implant a brain device where all people think the same way, thus ending all wars.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2006-09-20 at 23:09:05
Exactly what I have been thinking Veeger! Seriously no one here really has any trust in other humans...
Report, edit, etc...Posted by HolySin on 2006-09-21 at 00:37:00
The only real war going on there now is civil war. And yes, the majority of the Iraqi people appreciate the help of the U.S. troops. But people are misleaded to thinking otherwise.
The media is the biggest reason why:
The liberals control the media. Fox may supply both sides to a situation, but despite what people say, they lean towards a liberal standpoint for ratings since naturally, humans are more interested in stories of failure than success for the most part. The media will make you believe that the war isn't doing anything that is good for Iraq, almost a brainwash. This is because they only report about car bombings, protests, etc.
Also, you have to love the statistics they give, which are misleading. Since the liberal controls the media, liberals who are frustrated with the war will participate in them. This is where you get the idea that Bush has a 32% approval rating, when realistically, he probably has around a 50% approval rating (maybe even more) since the polls have yet to include all the conservatives who didn't participate.
Last, the media will hardly, if not never, report WMDs or anything related as to gain support against the war. After some time, a member of the Democrat party will say something like, "Where are those WMDs we've been searching for? Looks like there aren't any!" That message will be reported on the news since the liberals control the media, and since people who watch T.V. never saw any reports of WMDs being found, they make the assumption that the politician is right and there are no WMDs.
Reality: There are in fact reports of WMDs being found. There are Iraqi officials who have confessed to there being WMDs. So why isn't this on the T.V.? The liberals do not want you to know since they want control over their viewers. If you recall, Bush stated that he will go to war with anybody who supports terrorism. Torture chambers have been found there, Iraqi citizens have told troops there that Sadam's officials would regularly come by and execute a handful of citizens.
Simply enough, you can listen to the media and believe every ounce of it, or you can ask people who actually went there so you know everything that is happening. I'm not saying that the U.S. is really doing everything perfectly there, but I'm pointing out that it all isn't a waste. I believe that the war won't end peacefully, hardships must be experienced, which also makes me believe that this war can't be solved through words, especially at this point.
I'm half-expecting Kashmir to come back with some reply involving 'evidence' from a forum or from some random page with an observation by a person against the war due to their belief in the media. Sorry Kashmir, it's nothing personal, but it's generally what you do.
The media is the biggest reason why:
The liberals control the media. Fox may supply both sides to a situation, but despite what people say, they lean towards a liberal standpoint for ratings since naturally, humans are more interested in stories of failure than success for the most part. The media will make you believe that the war isn't doing anything that is good for Iraq, almost a brainwash. This is because they only report about car bombings, protests, etc.
Also, you have to love the statistics they give, which are misleading. Since the liberal controls the media, liberals who are frustrated with the war will participate in them. This is where you get the idea that Bush has a 32% approval rating, when realistically, he probably has around a 50% approval rating (maybe even more) since the polls have yet to include all the conservatives who didn't participate.
Last, the media will hardly, if not never, report WMDs or anything related as to gain support against the war. After some time, a member of the Democrat party will say something like, "Where are those WMDs we've been searching for? Looks like there aren't any!" That message will be reported on the news since the liberals control the media, and since people who watch T.V. never saw any reports of WMDs being found, they make the assumption that the politician is right and there are no WMDs.
Reality: There are in fact reports of WMDs being found. There are Iraqi officials who have confessed to there being WMDs. So why isn't this on the T.V.? The liberals do not want you to know since they want control over their viewers. If you recall, Bush stated that he will go to war with anybody who supports terrorism. Torture chambers have been found there, Iraqi citizens have told troops there that Sadam's officials would regularly come by and execute a handful of citizens.
Simply enough, you can listen to the media and believe every ounce of it, or you can ask people who actually went there so you know everything that is happening. I'm not saying that the U.S. is really doing everything perfectly there, but I'm pointing out that it all isn't a waste. I believe that the war won't end peacefully, hardships must be experienced, which also makes me believe that this war can't be solved through words, especially at this point.
I'm half-expecting Kashmir to come back with some reply involving 'evidence' from a forum or from some random page with an observation by a person against the war due to their belief in the media. Sorry Kashmir, it's nothing personal, but it's generally what you do.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2006-09-21 at 01:21:12
Nope. He will ask YOU for the evidence, in which YOU must proof every single point you just made above. If ONE point isn't proven then most often then not he will disregard your whole post.
Believe me I have exprience in this field of dealing with nutcases. Also if you do provide evidence for all your claims, make sure those websites/sources are bullet proof becuase he will most likely tear those sites apart.
Kashmir, or was it Kellimus, I keep getting you guys mixed up but what ever you are all the same Im still waiting for YOU guys to support some of your outragous claims. I believe you guys have asked me for evidence roughly 3 different times and right now Im 3 for 3. Wainting on you.
Believe me I have exprience in this field of dealing with nutcases. Also if you do provide evidence for all your claims, make sure those websites/sources are bullet proof becuase he will most likely tear those sites apart.
Kashmir, or was it Kellimus, I keep getting you guys mixed up but what ever you are all the same Im still waiting for YOU guys to support some of your outragous claims. I believe you guys have asked me for evidence roughly 3 different times and right now Im 3 for 3. Wainting on you.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Lithium on 2006-09-21 at 06:42:39
But one fact is truth. The Liberals do control the media and the media actually controls YOU, which it was meant to do from the first place. The media has a large amount of propaganda every second you watch, even in dramas and movies.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Veeger on 2006-09-21 at 06:56:30
I know I'm still new here, but do y'all really think pointing out specific members is going to bring about a positive affect? There is nothing wrong with demanding evidence from points made, especially with regards to facts like WMD materials.
If I wasn't already aware of the 500+ WMD munitions we have found, old though they were, I would be doing the same.
Anyway, back to the media claims. I don't believe the media was formed with the intention of it being a propoganda machine for the left. Back in WWII it was a propoganda machine for the war -- a very different media culture than today's. But, unfortunately, it has evolved into a liberal device.
They realized that people would not, generally, come voluntarily to their rallies (because most Americans are smarter than the left wants to believe), so they turned to media knowing that almost every American (at the time this all started) trusted the news explicitly. As such, they could have the media report their side of the news, and people would accept it as truth. This worked for, what, 30? 40 years? People are starting to wake up, now, hence the rising popularity of talk radio.
My biggest problem with the hardcore liberals is their incessant need for people to be stupid, cowed people dependant upon the government. Even though social programs, such as welfare, have done nothing except cause more sorrow and more poverty. It's why they hate Walmart so much. You would think that because Walmart offers well-paying jobs to people with low and/or no educational backgrounds that liberals would love it -- but instead they lambast and criticize it every chance they get. Why? Because these people are no longer dependant upon the government for assistance! Without that dependance, they'll start thinking for themselves, and once that happens . . . they'll realize what an idiotic and suicidal philosophy they had been following.
That flirted with the edge of the topic, but I think it's still on par.
If I wasn't already aware of the 500+ WMD munitions we have found, old though they were, I would be doing the same.
Anyway, back to the media claims. I don't believe the media was formed with the intention of it being a propoganda machine for the left. Back in WWII it was a propoganda machine for the war -- a very different media culture than today's. But, unfortunately, it has evolved into a liberal device.
They realized that people would not, generally, come voluntarily to their rallies (because most Americans are smarter than the left wants to believe), so they turned to media knowing that almost every American (at the time this all started) trusted the news explicitly. As such, they could have the media report their side of the news, and people would accept it as truth. This worked for, what, 30? 40 years? People are starting to wake up, now, hence the rising popularity of talk radio.
My biggest problem with the hardcore liberals is their incessant need for people to be stupid, cowed people dependant upon the government. Even though social programs, such as welfare, have done nothing except cause more sorrow and more poverty. It's why they hate Walmart so much. You would think that because Walmart offers well-paying jobs to people with low and/or no educational backgrounds that liberals would love it -- but instead they lambast and criticize it every chance they get. Why? Because these people are no longer dependant upon the government for assistance! Without that dependance, they'll start thinking for themselves, and once that happens . . . they'll realize what an idiotic and suicidal philosophy they had been following.
That flirted with the edge of the topic, but I think it's still on par.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by HolySin on 2006-09-21 at 14:28:08
I'm not saying I have anything against Kashmir. Arguements are healthy since they give you more perspective, and Kashmir is good at excerising his opponents with his arguements. But as evidence for my argument, you just have to watch the news on different channels and then compare that perspective with at least ten people who are in the military and have been in the Middle East within the past five years.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Lithium on 2006-09-21 at 18:21:34
I see...
But one point is simple, "Ending All Wars" won't just happen in our lifetime, nor it is possible. World War I didn't end all wars didn't it? It was called "The War to End All Wars" back then.
Ending all wars is a unrealistic but highly rhetoric idea.
But one point is simple, "Ending All Wars" won't just happen in our lifetime, nor it is possible. World War I didn't end all wars didn't it? It was called "The War to End All Wars" back then.
Ending all wars is a unrealistic but highly rhetoric idea.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Gamma on 2006-09-23 at 21:27:10
I believe our best interests lie with the new leaders of Iraq and their oppinions in the matter. When you have a guest at your house it is the kind thing to wait for them to leave. In this case Iraq has a respected guest.