Re: [OT] Iraq

On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 21:12:31 -0600, LX-i <lxi0007@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

SkippyPB wrote:

But the job is done. The stated goal was to bring down Saddam and
bring democracy to Iraq. Both have happened.

But can that democracy remain if they do not have trained military and
police force? Training those groups is a large part of our mission over
there now. I personally know 3 people who are deployed to Iraq - one of
them is there for a year, going from place to place training the
military units on his job.

It is as clear as the
nose on most peoples' faces that a military solution in Iraq is not
now possible.

Of course - when all they hear are the Democrats saying that, after a
while they begin to believe it. It's called the Big Lie - repeat
something enough, and people start to believe it. With this
administration not enunciating the problems clearly (as evidenced by
Bill's question later in the thread), why would most people think otherwise?


So you believe that John Warner, Chuck Nagel, Madeline Stowe and some
other Republican senators and congress people have bought into the
"Big Lie"? I don't think you are paying close enough attention.


Not today, not tomorrow, not 50 years from now which is
how long we'll be there if current policies prevail. There must be a
political solution and that can't be driven by the US. Only Iraq's
leaders can drive that car.

Tell that to the Democrats (and some liberal Republicans) - *they're*
the ones demanding timetables of the Iraqi government. The military is
there to help the process, and give them guidance. But, the legislation
is theirs, the voting is theirs, and the enforcement is theirs.


No your boss GWB set the timetables or milestones or goals or whatever
you want to call them. He signed off on the defense spending bill
that included them and has commented on them in many speeches.
He even went to Iraq and confronted Maliqui about the slow progress
and the lack of meeting the milestones.

You ask what happened in Vietnam? Yes, there was some massive
bloodshed among the Vietnamese in the south and the north. Had we
never interfered in their affairs, that would never have happened.

You don't think there would have been bloodshed when the North took over
the South? There's bloodshed in China and Cuba *today* when we're not
there.


And North Korea and Sudan and.... We are not the world police. As
I've stated before, we (the US governement) caused the split in
Vietnam. Before we meddled in their affairs, there one Vietnam headed
by a duly elected president (Ho Chi Minh).

And
what was the stated goal of our involvement in Vietnam? It was to
prevent southeast Asia from turning communist. The domino theory, as
it was known then, stated that if Vietnam fell, Laos, Cambodia and,
more importantly, Thailand would fall as well and Chinese Communists
would have a foothold on all of Southeast Asia. As we know now, it
didn't happen. Nothing even close to that happened.

Had they been unchallenged, and not forced to spend all the resources
they did in taking over Vietnam, that very well could have happened.
Even though Vietnam is considered an American military defeat, we held
our ground long enough to slow them down.


That is just not true. You obviously do not know the history of
Vietnam and what kind of country and culture they had. I suggest you
educate yourself on that aspect of Vietnam before you go making such
blanked statements like the above.

You say, "if we fail this time" like we are actually winning
something. Sorry, we've already lost.

How can you say that? What have we lost? Saddam is out of power, there
is a democratically elected legislature, they're making huge strides,
and we're training them. The rape rooms are closed; the insurgents are
nearly gone; the rule of law has replaced dictatorial fiat.


About 5,000 American lives and countless innocent Iraqi lives. Before
long this war will account for more Iraqi deaths than occurred during
Saddam's regime if it hasn't already. I got weary of the body count.

And about the government we put in place, were there a lot of Iraqi's
calling for such reforms during their 3,000+ year history as Persia
and other names before our invasion? If so, I missed that.


What exactly have we lost again?

Socialists in the Democratic Party? Where do you get this stuff and
how do you know they've always "hated" whose success and other stuff?
Just what are you talking about?

Where in our Constitution does it say that health care is a *right*?
Where does it authorize the Federal government to run something like the
Department of Education? Where is it written that it is the
responsibility of the Federal government to bail out businesses who
don't handle their books correctly, just because they provide a service
that may have values to some Americans? Where are we authorized to pay
farmers *not* to grow things?


A person in the military that doesn't understand the basic principles
of our republic is kind of sad. Those things are in the constitution
if you took the time to look for them. More importantly they fall
under the preamble which says,

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect
union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the
common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings
of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish
this Constitution for the United States of America."

You see that part about "general welfare"? Besides isn't it a moral
imperative that we see to the health and education of our citizens?
You boss, GWB - the born again Christian, is all about moral
imperatives, you know.

All this social engineering legislation, welfare, government health
care, is *all* socialistic. The Federal government should be about
defense, infrastructure, limited guidance to states, and a
representative of our nation to the rest of the world. Past that, it's
overstepped its Constitutional charter and into socialism.


Well you were obviously born too late. You should have consulted with
Jefferson, Hankock, Franklin et. al so that they could have written a
constitution more to your liking.


And if someone sees our success, and want to enact every piece of
legislation they can to ensure it never happens again, what am I
supposed to infer about their motives? They don't think it's *fair*
that some people can afford health insurance and others can't. They
don't think it's *fair* that some people drive giant vehicles while
others drive smaller ones. And, they don't think it's *fair* that
America has been, since the early 90's, the lone superpower in this
world. They want us to give up our strength so it'll be more fair to
other countries. Sounds like hating our success to me...

Well I'm glad the military has relaxed some of its restrictions on
what you can and cannot say and to whom.

Well, they're not all gone. Basically, as long as I'm clear that what
I'm saying is my opinion, and not necessarily that of the Air Force, I'm
within regs.

But to even talk about
dropping a nuke on anything is just a sad, sad thing and indicative of
the post cold war mind set. That's really not where society needs to
go.

Talk to Iran! We're aging ours out, they're building new ones!


You have some positive proof that Iran has a nuke they can deliver on
someone? You should go to the news agencies because no one else has
that proof. I'm more worried about Pakistan and India having nuclear
capabilities than I am about Iran at this point in time.

Please. RPG's where not what GWB was going after. They were probably
left over from the ones we sold to Saddam back in the 80's anyway.

True...

The Al Qaeda that is currently in Iraq was formed there after the US
invaded and none of the hijackers trained in Iraq. Read the 9/11
commissions report.

The 9/11 commission's report is not gospel - they got some things wrong.
They had an agenda.

Yes their agenda was to get to the truth and cut through the
Bush/Cheney propaganda and lies. They did a marvelous job.

Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-

"I knew I was an unwanted baby when I saw that my bath toys were a toaster
and a radio."
-- Joan Rivers
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Remove nospam to email me.

Steve
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: [OT] Iraq
    ... But can that democracy remain if they do not have trained military and police force? ... I personally know 3 people who are deployed to Iraq - one of them is there for a year, going from place to place training the military units on his job. ... it was known then, stated that if Vietnam fell, Laos, Cambodia and, ... Where is it written that it is the responsibility of the Federal government to bail out businesses who don't handle their books correctly, just because they provide a service that may have values to some Americans? ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Xin mo+`i -do.c LichsuViet
    ... resemblance to the Vietnam War. ... Vietnam has mired its own children in the quicksand of Iraq. ... The pretexts for both wars were false, ... In Vietnam the ultimate goal was to establish a democracy as a bulwark ...
    (soc.culture.vietnamese)
  • Re: OT-From todays Opinion Journal!
    ... Never the less So Korea is a friendy democracy, Vietnam does not, nor will ... to do in Iraq) that would not be true. ... constitution provides a government just like Irans, ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Iraq and Vietnam
    ... Iraq and Vietnam ... to de-Americanize the war. ... still dicier than getting into one, as President George W. Bush can attest. ...
    (soc.culture.african.american)
  • Rewrite The History When You Goofed
    ... "Ministry of Truth", where party functionaries, among them the story's ... white in Iraq, ... conducted against North Vietnam from 1965-68.) ... suspending its search for any possible live US POW/MIAs from World War ...
    (soc.culture.china)