If we keep up the neocon/Likud policies we will be just like Israel.

Just because a country is a democracy it doesnt mean it is perfect, or that it is free oppressive activities.

 

I am convinced that if the Jewish people had not gone through the holocaust that they would have nuked Syria by now.

DD

 

Here
are some common rules of logic.

Step 1: If A then B If I am a goat, I am a hoofed creature.
Step 2: B I am a hoofed creature.
Step 3: Therefore, A Therefore, I am a goat.

That is what's known as a non-sequitur. I really enjoy these leaps of faith that attempt to disprove the assumption democracies are perfect. Ok? Has anyone attempted to make that statement?

Our friendly Aggie asked a question why the US continues (and will continue) to support Israel. I gave the simple answer- The US is a democracy which wishes to protect democratic interests abroad. Israel is the sole democratic interestic. Therefore, the US wishes to protect Israel. See? If A, then B; A, therefore B.

Thank you though for informing that democracies may not be perfect.

 

ok nike, i got it... thx for that explanation.

 

That is one of the most well thought an eloquent posts regarding the war in Iraq I have come across. That is exactly the argument I have made before to the pro-war, conservative crowd.

I have asked them, if Iraqi tanks were rolling through your neiborhood to "protect" you from an evil Dictator and terrorism and in the fog of battle, they blow up your home, run-over your wife, or accidently shoot your kid brother-whatever, you would be PISSED. Regardless if the Iraqi tanks and soldiers are there for your "benefit" or not.

I know myself, yes a gull-dern Lib-rural, would quickly find a partisan group and fight back if they shot MY mother or MY child--MY rational thought would fast disappear if that happened to ME. Surely, the right can understand this. Maybe I'm an oddball, but it seems pretty clear...

 

Mommas, don't let your babies grow up to be Aggies!

 

Why dont you actually respond to the post with something that can actually debunk what he said, rather than just posting one of these

 

Because his post is so ridiculous I can only respond to it with ridicule.

 

I think what happens with some depressing regularity in Iraq is an air strike, by one of our variety of options, that kills civilians who happen to live in proximity to the target, or perhaps in the same building. Or are walking down the street, perhaps on a sidewalk, if there is one. We hit a target, or at least it's hoped that the target is hit, and the "collateral damage" takes out people who have nothing to do with that target, and very well may not even be aware this "target" is nearby. Innocents are killed, and we have just made a possible enemy of the relatives and friends of the innocents. It truly is depressing. I know those casualties are not "intended", but the possibility has to be known that they are very possible, even likely.

That's what you face in urban warfare. Our military had to be aware that, if we faced resistance in Iraq, that this would happen. And, that if we faced a well-organized insurgency, that this would happen a great deal. I would be willing to bet that these concerns were made known to the President and his advisors before we ever invaded and, most importantly, occupied Iraq. It's why there were very strong reservations about doing it, and, if we were, to go in with far more troops and much more international support, concerns which appear to have been dismissed. And why the situation is growing worse, not better, as more and more Iraqi's, not connected to the insurgency, are hurt or killed by the "collateral damage."

That damned beaurocratic phrase, collateral damage, which refers to dead and wounded civilians killed during warfare by this country, ticks me off no end. They are people, not a phrase some policy wonk came up with. And if this was happening in your town, to your streets, to your homes and businesses, your reaction to this war would probably be similar to that of the growing insurgency. You would want to fight. Not in support of whichever lunatic is using his "religion" to foment unrest and violence, but to get the foreign power, occupying your country, and killing those you know, the hell out.

We have entered a nightmare war, of Bush's choosing, that is one we cannot wake from and thank god it was a dream. And, for the common civilian, it is the same nightmare, peopled with different monsters. Before, they had a monster they knew, Saddam. Now, they have a whole host of monsters. We are just one of them. Those like al-Sadr are another. The multitude of insurgents fighting us are a host of others. I think the average Iraqi wishes the nightmare would just go away. And, for the life of me, I can't imagine how this is all going to end.

The fact that we put our military in this situation, when we didn't have to, when it was an option, in short, because it was something Bush decided we should do, and made the decision, is plenty reason enough to vote him out of office. The idea that, because we are in the middle of this, and "need" Bush to "see it through", when he placed us in this situation to begin with, beggars the imagination. How the man who put us into this voluntary war, which has weakened us when there are so many dangers we need to face, so much possible conflict that could very well be on the horizon, with Iran and North Korea, for starters... how that man would be seen as a President we need, with his record, with what he has done, just astounds me.

 

Considering that you didn't give anything substantial about the Arab League - OIC - Sudan in this thread
<a HREF="http://bbs.clutchcity.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=83340">"The Painful Truth: All the World Terrorists are Muslims!"</a>, then why do you have higher expectations of others?

 

When we helped liberate Europe there were many civilian casualties, but they still understood the greater need for liberation from a deadly dictatorship. Even in Germany and Japan, where the devestation wrought by the allies was much greater, they recognize that.

 

The devistation from the dictatorships was greater as well.

 

I will definitely give you that, but WWII didn't exist in a vacum either.

Could you argue that not one additional Hitler-Youth was determined to pick up a "potato masher" and lob it at a GI after his home was reduced to cinders from allied bombs to "liberate" him?

Really, comparing WWII and this struggle with terrorism is cheap and quite inadequate to draw a comparison.

Vietnam: We had to destroy the 'ville to save it...

 

Not sure what you mean.

 

No, I don't think there were NO people that were angry over their losses, but not sure what that gets you. The argument that military action to liberate a people is inherently doomed because of collateral damage is simply false, as these examples show. French, Dutch, Italians etal were killed by allied bombing etc, and yet there was an acknowledgement that it was necessary to get rid of the nazis.

What? How is it 'cheap' or 'inadequate' to address this issue? In Iraq we are doing MUCH less damage than in any conflict in HISTORY. FAR LESS than in WWII where whole towns were levelled. If anything that is something that should work in our favor, not against us.

 

I'll flat out say that comparing the war in Iraq to WWII is ludicrous, and a brazen attempt to... beats the hell out of me, but I had to put brazen in there somewhere.

Come on, Hayes. You're better than this. I know you think invading and occupying Iraq was a good idea. Fine. I respect your opinion. But to compare what's going on now in this urban battle against the insurgency to the civilian deaths and injuries that occured then, and what happened following the end of World War II, is just rediculous and unworthy. I would put a smilie here, but the subject is just too damned depressing.

 

I disagree. Why is it ludicrous? The point being made was that a population would not support an intervention because their family etc were being hurt/killed and their neighborhoods occupied by an outside force. That is the extent of the comparison I am making with WWII. In WWII we liberated many such populations from a dictatorship but also hurt/killed local populations and occupied their neighborhoods. The local populations DID understand why that was happening, so the claim that you would fight an occupier without qualification, or that it is reasonable to do so, is false.

 

There are definitely some Vietnam era wackos posting in this thread .

In the end the fighting will only end if the Iraqi people want it to. If they don't, then it won't. Simple as that.