OT - US War in Iraq: Two years going - AQMB Classics & Archive - All - Greg Muskewitz Online Memorial Forum - Message Board

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

OT - US War in Iraq: Two years going

Author	Comment
Cal	OT - US War in Iraq: Two years going	Lead	[-]
Posts: 5265 (11/12/03 13:25:33) iceskater Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Tags : None I'm updating this thread's title as the War continues with no easy end in sight...... ------------- Time for a new Iraq thread, although I'd like to know if people who fully supported the war still think it was a good idea to attack Iraq in the way it was done (with limited ground troops, limited international support, invading before all the evidence was in, no plan for the occupation and rebuilding, no plan to fight a guerrilla insurgency, etc). NOW WHAT?? It's been seven months since President Bush declared the end to major combat operations in Iraq, yet today the administration is urgently meeting again to "map a strategy" for the rebuilding of Iraq. While certainly the outster of the Hussein regime is a good thing, and while there has been great progress in some areas, the violence is obviously escalating. The US is engaged in a low level guerrilla war. Now more troops have been killed since combat ended than during the major military effort. Sadly, so far 400 US troops have been killed in Iraq, and just today 17 Italian troops were killed. Thousands of Iraqi's have been killed (although the US refuses to officially count Iraqi deaths ) . This site IRAQ BODY COUNT counts civilian deaths. QUESTIONS: Now that the US has 130,000 easy targets in-country (to be picked off one by one ), what can be done for the US to "bring democracy to Iraq" and for the US troops to come home? What are the problems (political, security, etc ) , and how can they be resolved? related articles: US in urgent talks on Iraq (NY Times - register for free) *Quote:* excerpt: The White House meeting came as the top American military commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, spoke of a "turning point" in the conflict. General Sanchez outlined a new get-tough approach to combat operations in areas north and west of Baghdad, strongholds for loyalists of Saddam Hussein. Dispensing with euphemisms favored by many officials in the Bush administration in recent months, he described what 130,000 American troops were facing as a "war." In Washington, Mr. Bremer was to meet with Mr. Bush once or twice later to continue what officials described as an urgent effort to review the administration's options for showing faster progress in Iraq. and: Bush, advisors ready to map Iraq strategy (AP story)
x Delilah x	Re: rhetoric	#1	[-]
Posts: 1113 (04/24/04 13:38:53) the forever enigma Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I wish I could, Cal. But I can't, and I think you know why (it's not you). $:\$ -Dee "Old incisions refusing to stay Like sun through the trees on a cloudy day ... You brighten my life like a polystyrene hat But it melts in the sun like a life without love But I've waited for you so I'll keep crying out Without You"
Amazing Andy	Re:	#2	[-]
Posts: 1065 (04/24/04 16:13:28) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Dazza:"did you ever see this bit they did on the Daily Show? They had clips of President Bush saying very pro war things and then from Senator Bush, obviously before he became prez, saying the exact opposite. And they cut it together like it was a debate. Was pretty funny stuff but also damn scary. Senator Bush made a lot of sense." Naw, sorry Daz, haven't seen it yet. Sounds kind of funnyt though. Jon Stewart likes to do stuff like that, lol. And you are right about some of it making sense and being scary at the same time....that's a trademark of most American politicians, lol. They try and scare people into voting for them. I think all candidates do this from time to time. But that is interesting. Thanks for sharing that with me.
Amazing Andy	Re:	#3	[-]
Posts: 1065 (04/24/04 16:30:05) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Patton:"Also, all the other quotes which Andy uses are pre-9/11 quotes." I should have mentioned that but I forgot to. I think 9/11 was something that got many Americans angry at our enemies. But what I was trying to show was that before Sept. 11, it was like our Administration was thinking clearly and then it went into some sort of a paranoid justice mode....which I personally believe was justified for the war in Afghanistan. But I think there are members of Bush's cabinent who are a little too Hawkish for their own britches if you know what I mean and they took the War on Terrorism one step to far and obsessively stated links to terrorism that weren't necessarily there.(like the supposed meeting in Praque between on of the 9/11 hijackers and the head of Iraqi intelligence that a certain pro-war member of family always babbles about....) While I think Saddam of course probably enjoyed seeing us attacked, I doubt he had the balls to actually be a member in it. He knows the CIA and MI6 are too hot on his ass. I don't think he's that stupid. "Before anyone goes and accuses me of connecting Al-Qaeda and Saddam, that's not at all what I'm doing. What I am saying is that after 9/11, the administration decided it would take pre-emptive steps to prevent something like that from ever happening. And I'm not trying to justify the administration's actions or their general attitude of this decision, but rather am trying to explain why such statements are not necessarily direct contradictions." I see what you are trying to do but I think your accessment of the situation isn't correct. Woodward has members of the Administration on record talking about how they planned the war almost immediately after 9/11. I heard on Fox News the other day that Gen. Myers was asked by Rumsfeld to draw up plans for an invasion in Nov. 01'. The administration's actions on pre-emptive attack have set a dangerous precedent for American foreign policy. **If we are consistent with our logic (and I'm sure our Administration won't be) then we should also invade Iran, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan**(who harbored Osama for a number of years), Yemen, Algeria, Libya, and scores of other countries for allowing "terrorists" to occupy freely within their borders. And what about N. Korea or China? They have nuclear weapons pointed at our military bases in the area as well as pointed at Hawaii, Alaska, our Pacific Island territories, and our West Coast metropolises. N. Korea is and was more of a threat to us and to world stability than Saddam's regime every was. "An analogy that one could draw would be President Wilson and the Zimmerman Telegram in 1917." Bad analogy IMO. Wilson was of English descent and was paid off by the British prime minister at the time. I took a history class last semester and I had to write a paper on this topic. There is still great debate among contemporary historians to the legitimacy of that telegram. Many believe that it was falsified by the British intelligence to try(and successfully) get the US into the war. Most forget that the "Americans" that were killed on the Cruise ships were English immigrants going back to their original homeland. This technically was the 1st time in history that we have launched a war on a pre-emptive basis.
Amazing Andy	Re:	#4	[-]
Posts: 1065 (04/24/04 16:40:28) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Mr. Moore:"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win. Get it, Mr. Bush? You closed down a friggin' weekly newspaper, you great giver of freedom and democracy! Then all hell broke loose. The paper only had 10,000 readers! Why are you smirking?" Wrong Mr. Moore, these are murderers and killers who are killing our boys.(and Bush sent them over like lambs to the slaughter I might add) They are not the "REVOLUTION," they are the slaves and followers of a kooky Shia cleric in Najaf who just wants to make a political name for himself among his fellow Shia so that he can one day replace his elder Sistani. And we haven't brought "democracy" yet. But the paper was calling for the murder of American troops, and thus is a threat. In this country, if such a thing happens and it poses "a clear and present danger" as the Supreme Court has noted, then it must be silenced. After all, you can't shout fire in a crowded theatre.
ORIONSAINT	Re: rhetoric	#5	[-]
Posts: 2787 (04/24/04 17:26:16) Artistic (Mod) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	There's no point in responding to a person that always thinks they're right and loves to assume.
ORIONSAINT	Re: rhetoric	#6	[-]
Posts: 2787 (04/24/04 21:00:24) Artistic (Mod) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	*Quote:* Orionsaint > Just because people put counter-arguments against Bush doesn't mean they are bashing him. If people read it and not just dismiss as bashing, they might get to the truth. I agree that Michael Moore says some stupid and bashing things about Bush. But that doesn't mean everybody who disagrees is bashing Bush. That's the big problem with O'Reilly - he labels anything that is just facts that are against his ideology as "anti- Bush" or "bush-bashing." It's not Bush bashing to disagree. Its called a debate of the issues. So far, that debate has not been allowed in the US. I'm responding to Cal, no one else respond to me. I don't care what you have to say, so it'll just be ignored. I can't stand how arrogant some of you are when it comes to politics. Oh and your opinion about me? I don't give a fuck! You make some good points Cal. I can respect where you're coming from. You're right Cal, but it's so one sided that Bush debate. Almost everyone here is against him, so anything I say about him, will quickly be debunked and you get attacked from every angle. It's all done in such a smug manner. It's all to try and make you look bad, not you in particular Cal. You're a cool person, just some. There's another board I visit, which I won't mention here, where the discussion is more fair and balanced, lol. Yeah Fox news kicks ass! I can get my point across there and the discussions don't get so personal. It's fun. This board is like Liberal headquarters, anti-bush land. That's why I usually stay out of politics in here. Oh and who's ever bothering Delilah, leave her alone, she's a nice person, most of the time. I'm glad you don't agree with that hypocrite Moore. He's a disingenuous danger to this country, and his assumptions and assertions should not go unchallenged. The collective expertise and research abilities of the entire Internet are more than enough to debunk most of the nonsense Moore regularly puts forth as fact. O'Reilly's a realist. He's the real deal, sometimes he goes a little overboard to get his point across, but his heart's in the right place. He's only telling you the facts and that bothers some of you.
Twig	hello pot, meet mister kettle	#7	[-]
Posts: 5572 (04/25/04 01:21:57) Britney's 3rd Husband Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	"There's no point in responding to a person that always thinks they're right and loves to assume"--ORIONSAINT Just thought I'd put that here again for all to see.
ORIONSAINT	Re: hello pot, meet mister kettle	#8	[-]
Posts: 2787 (04/25/04 02:44:18) Artistic (Mod) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Thanks Twig,
guido411	Re: Re:	#9	[-]
Posts: 652 (04/25/04 06:46:16) intimidating misbegotten spawn Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	amazing andy, i believe what mr. moore was referring to was how they are seen in their own nation. regardless of what we think of them (rightly or wrongly) it becomes clear that many iraqi's feel that they are a "revolution" of sorts against a perceived american occupation force (something that we have already admitted that we are now). as for whether or not they will win in their goal of expelling u.s. forces from iraq is something that will be determined by future events (my hope is that we some how can help the iraqi people in a peaceful manner by building a trustful relationship with both parties being respectiful toward the other). but that's really neither here nor there because they already have succeeded in a way (and i don't personally see this as a good thing mind you)... they've brandished their message (and so some folks who can't think of anything better don't get all confused it does not mean that i agree with it it simply means that i'm at least being realistic and realizing that the iraqi perspective is probably not going to be similar to my own) to the public. they've made their argument not about politics but are now mixing it with religious radicalism. they've swayed some public opinion toward their own which, in my opinion, is dangerous not just for us but them as well (most religious regimes turn into oppressive soceities). mr. moore is correct when he says that no matter what we do in iraq there will be a significant number of iraqi's who will see it as something bad... again regardless of the intention or outcome. and again for the record i don't agree with mr. moore's assertion that we should pull out of iraq. i think we're there already, it would only be worse for us in the long run if we turned around and ran away so we might as well try to work it into something positive. i think if you're going to look at mr. moore's comments with a predetermined perspective (that of "michael moore is anti-american and so is anyone who opposes the war" or "everything he says are lies and there's no truth to it" especially when you don't bother to find out if that opinion is fully correct) then yes you'll see it as a message of support for terrorists. but if you look at mr. moore's letter objectively (again stating that you don't have to agree with every fine point of his opinion or agree at all with it but at least look at it in an open manner) you see that he really is talking about perspective. perspective like opinion is something that's subjective to the individual... which is completely different from fact which isn't beholden to any one perspective (which seems to be mixed up a lot). some people have stated that they hate the fact that their opinions get debunked so quickly and blame this all on some liberal bias and some muted smuggness on the part of others. all the while though they bait and load their responses with personal jabs but expect none in return? then when someone responds in their same manner they become the victim of some personal plot and are not willing to admit any arrogance in their own statements... given to the fact that they don't like their opinions challenged and get rather upset when it happens (i.e. the afore mentioned original complaint on their part). i make no apologies and am not responding to anyone in particular... because there's just no room for any type of discussion with someone who simply doesn't want one. guido
dazzazzad	Re: Re:	#10	[-]
Posts: 1950 (04/25/04 12:29:25) Paranoid Android Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	DAZZA
x Delilah x	Re: Re:	#11	[-]
Posts: 1113 (04/25/04 17:50:29) the forever enigma Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Psshh. That looks nothing like Bush. -Dee "Old incisions refusing to stay Like sun through the trees on a cloudy day ... You brighten my life like a polystyrene hat But it melts in the sun like a life without love But I've waited for you so I'll keep crying out Without You"
ORIONSAINT	Re: Re:	#12	[-]
Posts: 2787 (04/25/04 20:52:54) Artistic (Mod) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	"John Kerry is saying that he doesn't think America's one-time allies France, Germany and the rest - will decide to help us out in Iraq until we change presidents. If he means until we change to President Kerry, he should read more of the European press. Although they say they would prefer a President Kerry to a President Bush, the Euros are already teeing Kerry up for a bashing as a typical American. And besides, is that really a way to appeal to Americans: Tell them that the French and Germans don't like the president, so we should hop to it and change the guy at the White House? This is really silly. Of course our former friends are angry with us. We thought we should do certain things to secure the safety of Americans and our former friends opposed what we wanted to do and were angry we did it anyway. These are the people who said Sept. 11 was our fault and Bush is worse than Saddam and actually hoped the Iraqis would win the war. Doesn't it sound like a certain level of irrationality has overtaken the thinking of our former friends? Doesn't it sound as though our friends thinking has been so tainted by anti-Americanism that maybe we should be careful about taking their advice? At this point, it just might be that the advice of Western Europe would be dangerous for the U.S. to follow. Our former friends appear to be in a fevered state -- sick in bed with the sweats. Let's wait till they recover before we pay much attention to what they have to say."
Cal	......	#13	[-]
Posts: 5265 (04/26/04 00:18:52) iceskater Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Hi Ryan. I can see there is a big rift in communication on this board that is indicative of the rift in commincation across the USA. lol I am convinced after all of these years there is no way over the hurdle. $:\$ I think one problem on the board is that it seems like things are misunderstood sometimes, because people don't actually read what the other person writes. They assume it is some kind of bashing just because it disagrees with what they believe. I also don't think guido is attacking you, just by disagreeing. That's just discussing the facts and trying to get to the truth, or trying to find some common ground. But I guess it always feels better to reaffirm your beliefs and thinking by only talking about issues with people who agree with you or have the same point of view. But we'd all be better off (on this board and in America) if people actually tried to understand the other side of the argument. I've started watching FOX news (not when my husband is nearby because he might shoot the TV it makes him so angry). O'Reilly used to be the guy at Hard Copy (or Inside Edition ? ) , right? The tabloid show that used to follow ice skater-turned boxer Tonya Harding's ex-husband around for the inside story on their sex life. What's shocking now, is that on Fox, O'Reilly is a news guy who presents actual newsworthy issues in the same way -- like a sensationalized tabloid show. Since I've been getting the FOX news channel, I've been watching. Also Geraldo and some of the other shows. I can't believe all that flag-waving can be presented as the news. lol Oh well. Now I understand where the gap in understanding comes from. The viewers of FOX news are told "America's only fair and unbiased news source" and what follows is full of ideological propaganda. Any other point of view that does not agree with the War and the Bush admin is called "liberal Bush-bashing." I remember during the initial part of the Iraq War, FOX news would report on the discovery of WMD in Iraq. But when it was proven to be another false alarm, FOX news would never come back on and correct the story. They left it out there as if it was the truth. No wonder so many Americans believe we found WMDs in Iraq and that Saddam was behind 9-11. What's funny, is O'Reilly's always dogging the "elites" and the "liberals" as having so much power and evil influence, yet he himself is the top rated tv cable news guy! He brags about it on the show, and brags about his best selling books. O"Reilly and Fox news says the opposite of reality and I guess half of the people in America believe it. Cal
Cal	opinions	#14	[-]
Posts: 5265 (04/26/04 00:36:42) iceskater Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I'm glad you don't think of me in a bad way, Dee. I do hope you'll change your mind and say more. Hi Amazing Andy. I'm glad you are reading some of the Woodword book. I'd like to point out that people like myself were arguing against the dangers of Bush's pre-emptive war policy, back during the build up to the Iraq invasion. People were pointing out the miuse of the intelligence to make a case for war at the time it was happening. I'm encouraged that with hindsight people are able to see some of the problems and flawed thinking, and paranoia that has lead to what seems to be a military quagmire in Iraq. It's unfortunate that at the time any dissenting view of Bush's flawed policy was disregarded.
Cal	a little moore	#15	[-]
Posts: 5265 (04/26/04 01:06:38) iceskater Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win. guido's on to something here.... Let's look at what Moore is really saying, rather than taking it out of context to serve another purpose. I can understand the intent of that cartoon is to show Michael Moore as a dirty terrorist-lover (gee, seems like the old Vietnam propaganda, lol). But I disaree that pointing out some facts on the ground in Iraq means that a person is supporting the terrorist cause. It's offensive to me that because I'm against the stupid war, that people like this cartoonist or Orionsaint would think I'm just about as good as joining the terrorists. That's just crazy, illogical thinking. lol What Moore is pointing out is what Iraq war military anaylsts have been warning against: That the US will not be successful in Iraq if a popular Revolution grows against the US forces. Remember when Rumsfeld didn't even call them "insurgents?" lol That what Rumsfeld once labeled "dead-enders" and "hangers-on" or Saddam loyalists are actually a more formidable force than at first thought. There is evidence that Shiite and Sunnis are working together, and that all sorts of insurgents... former military, jihadis, foreign fighters, muslim extremist terror groups, al Qaeda, Hamas, AND Iraqi people who are fed up with the occupation -- are all uniting in a common cause -- to force the US occupation out as soon as possible. They've already succeeded in forcing Bush to make a number of political concessions. If the struggle in Iraq becomes a popular nationalistic revolution, it will be yet another similarity between the mess in Iraq and the mess in Vietnam.
guido411	Re: Re:	#16	[-]
Posts: 652 (04/26/04 01:30:40) intimidating misbegotten spawn Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	you're whole post was a quote from someone else right? i'm responding to whoever orionsaint was quoting, no one else respond to me because it will just be ignored. i'm kidding obviously (i probably should have put that in bold because i'm sure someone will take it the wrong way... but that's really not my problem)... feel free to respond back (anyone and everyone) that's why people post here... for discussion. "... the Euros are already teeing Kerry up for a bashing as a typical American." that's assuming that they've talked to every european and have specifically asked them their particular opinions and/or outlooks on americans. in other words i think they (who every orionsaint is quoting... as i'm assuming that's why there are quotations around the whole thing) might be making generalities about their outlook on us. but whatever... "And besides, is that really a way to appeal to Americans: Tell them that the French and Germans don't like the president, so we should hop to it and change the guy at the White House?" i don't think they're really trying to appeal to us either... i'm pretty sure both the french and german governments understand by now that the only people who will determine (or should determine) who stays or goes are the american people and that we normally don't take too much advice from outside sources on our internal politics. (besides i haven't yet received any mailers from either of these nations urging me to vote for any canidate... so until then i can't really take the above quote too seriously) the assertion that they're trying to somehow change our minds is a bit far reaching in my opinion. "Of course our former friends are angry with us. We thought we should do certain things to secure the safety of Americans and our former friends opposed what we wanted to do and were angry we did it anyway." this person makes it sound as if this whole thing were some school yard dispute over the posession of a ball. like it's no big deal... besides that the particulars are a little more complex. first the french and german goverments didn't exactly see our invasion of iraq as something we were doing to secure our nation. in fact with the nation still disputing the issue i don't think anyone could honestly say that everyone in this country agreed with the assertion that it was done for our safety... so if we can't all agree than why should we expect any foreign government to agree with it automatically? yes they're upset that our government (not we... that makes it seem like everyone in this country willing wanted to invade iraq... which isn't true as i think is apparent just from this messageboard) not only didn't listen but (and i think this was probably the most upsetting) didn't even bother to give the appearance that we were even trying to... our government literally gave a big finger to the rest of the world and said "look you either see it our way or you're wrong... and there's no room for discussion" (kinda sounds like mr. o'rielly if you ask me). perhaps this particular person doesn't mind when people talk to them like that but most people do... especially other nations in a world where it's become increasingly clear to many of them that nations have to start working together... and the best way to do that is to at least respect each other enough to listen to what the other parties have to say. which didn't happen. oh and the last time i checked... france and germany were still our friends... they just don't agree with the current administration on a number of issues. if people stopped being friends with others over disagreements then no one would have any friends. "These are the people who said Sept. 11 was our fault and Bush is worse than Saddam and actually hoped the Iraqis would win the war." okay i'm sorry... but that's simply not true. right after september 11th several of the major papers in france (i believe it was le monde... perhaps one of the french folks could tell us for sure) ran headlines that read something like "we are all new yorkers" and there was a huge out-pouring of sympathy from around the world. spontaneous memorial services sprung up in every major city of the western world all to honor the victims of september 11th in a show of support for our nation. every european government condemned the attacks and laid the blame squarely on the shoulders of the terrorists. to state that some how france or germany "blamed" us or saw it all as our fault is insulting and inflammatory... not just to their nations but to ours as well. it makes us look bad when that type of slander gets slipped by as fact. it should also be noted that there is a very big difference between questioning what our government was doing or disagreeing with our government compared to someone hoping that we'd lose the war... also pointing out mistakes our government has made or pointing out issues with which many (not just a handful) nations disagree with us on is not blaming us for september 11th. "Doesn't it sound like a certain level of irrationality has overtaken the thinking of our former friends?" um no... because what they've (the author of the quote)stated isn't true or factual... but the way this quote is going i'd say the author might be a little guilty of their own critiques. "Doesn't it sound as though our friends thinking has been so tainted by anti-Americanism that maybe we should be careful about taking their advice?" so what they're trying to say is what? if you don't vote for bush you're taking the advice of anti-american euro-trash who thinks we deserved and brought about september 11th onto ourselves? is this a quote from bill o'rielly or some other "fair and balanced"... er... "journalist" like ole' rush limbaugh? in any case i have to quote the quote itself and end with "This is really silly." guido p.s. there was one comment that i had meant to respond to earlier but had forgotten... "I'm glad you don't agree with that hypocrite Moore. He's a disingenuous danger to this country..." he's a filmmaker... the guy makes movies, writes books and runs a website. why is he so dangerous? because he poses a differing opinion? because he's outspoken about that opinion? what makes him so damned dangerous? and if michael moore is so dangerous for his beliefs then wouldn't that make someone like bill o'reilly equally as dangerous? i mean let's be honest... i haven't seen a lot of proof to mr. moore's alleged "lies" (though i'd be happy to weigh the evidence if it were presented) whereas mr. o'reilly's are well documented... even by his fellow conservative matt drudge (drudgereport.com). i mean... michael moore seems to be interested in actually starting discussions whereas bill o'reilly has an un-official catch phrase "shut up". i wonder which mentality is really the more dangerous of the two?
guido411	Re: Re:	#17	[-]
Posts: 652 (04/26/04 05:02:16) intimidating misbegotten spawn Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	some interesting stories from salon.com on how civil rights have eroded since september 11th. banished from the american dream dazza, i have to agree with delilah... that cartoon really doesn't hold a lot of resemblence to bush... it still made you think though... guido
Amazing Andy	Re:	#18	[-]
Posts: 1065 (04/26/04 13:23:22) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Hi Guido. ~~i believe what mr. moore was referring to was how they are seen in their own nation. regardless of what we think of them (rightly or wrongly) it becomes clear that many iraqi's feel that they are a "revolution" of sorts against a perceived american occupation force (something that we have already admitted that we are now).~~ Well, or course there will always be people who don't want us there, I think we all understand that. But I don't know, Moore sounded a little to me like he wasn't just stating facts but more around he was stating his opinion. ~~as for whether or not they will win in their goal of expelling u.s. forces from iraq is something that will be determined by future events (my hope is that we some how can help the iraqi people in a peaceful manner by building a trustful relationship with both parties being respectiful toward the other). but that's really neither here nor there because they already have succeeded in a way (and i don't personally see this as a good thing mind you)... they've brandished their message (and so some folks who can't think of anything better don't get all confused it does not mean that i agree with it it simply means that i'm at least being realistic and realizing that the iraqi perspective is probably not going to be similar to my own) to the public. they've made their argument not about politics but are now mixing it with religious radicalism. they've swayed some public opinion toward their own which, in my opinion, is dangerous not just for us but them as well (most religious regimes turn into oppressive soceities).~~ Just making sure here bud, did you think I was accusing you of holding that position? Because I wasn't. Just trying clear that up. I try not to accuse anybody in a political debate because I know these kinds of things can get messy. And all of us here are supposed to be friends, eh? But anyway, you are correct that most religious societies turn into tyrannical societies. However, I don't believe there's much we can do about it. Islam is a more conservative religion than Christianity, and there are at least millions of die-hard Iraqis who are very religious. It's part of the culture. It's kind of like where I live in the Deep South, it's the Bible Belt. It's part of the culture, and I don't think we can just separate the people and their culture, it's a symbiotic sort of relationship. The best we can do IMO is work with these clerics, because they do legitimitally control a sizable portion of the population. And all this goes back to my opinion that we ought to carve the country up and give each group their automony....but that's a different story. We have to deal with these people. Iraq is a funky country. It's got 3 groups of people who openly dislike eachother....and it's going to be bitch-hard to make them get along. The Kurds want their own autonomy but neither the Shia nor the Sunnis want them to have it. That's why I think the entire country is fucked. Japan is a perfect example of a once 3rd world country that modernized quickly. Reason being, they had a strong cultural, religious, and ethnic unity. That's something that Iraq does not have....and that's a problem. ~~mr. moore is correct when he says that no matter what we do in iraq there will be a significant number of iraqi's who will see it as something bad... again regardless of the intention or outcome.~~ Again, I agree with you here. There will always be a small group of people who don't want us there. All we can is try and minimize that group as much as possible. And unfortunately, our ass-kissing is costing Coalition lives. So, I don't know. We're between a rock and a hard place. We have to stick the war out but our soldiers are dying daily. It's tough. But I think this will be the rock around Bush's neck in the coming election. ~~and again for the record i don't agree with mr. moore's assertion that we should pull out of iraq. i think we're there already, it would only be worse for us in the long run if we turned around and ran away so we might as well try to work it into something positive.~~ I agree with you 100%. The country would implode into Civil War if we pulled out. In fact, I personally believe that some sort of a violent, internal conflict in Iraq is inevitable because of the anger each group holds for one another. ~~i think if you're going to look at mr. moore's comments with a predetermined perspective (that of "michael moore is anti-american and so is anyone who opposes the war" or "everything he says are lies and there's no truth to it" especially when you don't bother to find out if that opinion is fully correct) then yes you'll see it as a message of support for terrorists.~~ I looked at Mr. Moore's letter with an open mind. No bias at all. I came to the conclusion that he thinks it's a hopeless effort. I disagree with him on that matter. I think if we stick with it we can at least soften the blow for when the country gains full independence. ~~ but if you look at mr. moore's letter objectively (again stating that you don't have to agree with every fine point of his opinion or agree at all with it but at least look at it in an open manner) you see that he really is talking about perspective. perspective like opinion is something that's subjective to the individual... which is completely different from fact which isn't beholden to any one perspective (which seems to be mixed up a lot).~~ I agree with you here.
dazzazzad	Re: Re:	#19	[-]
Posts: 1950 (04/26/04 13:49:40) Paranoid Android Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Errr...I didn't draw it myself. The artist isn't too concerned about accurate resemblances, I would imagine. Just the message/joke. It'd make a good Blair tho. DAZZA
dazzazzad	Re: Re:	#20	[-]
Posts: 1950 (04/26/04 13:55:42) Paranoid Android Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Hey Andy Bush vs Bush DAZZA

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

OT - US War in Iraq: Two years going

OT - US War in Iraq: Two years going

Quick Reply