[mike777]

Heard Senator Biden, really the first time I have seen the argument by someone in power say that they, whoever they are, will not follow us home and carbomb us in Detroit if we leave Iraq.

Glad to see this debate enter the media finally.

So many candidates just say we should be or been in Rawanda or Darfur but not in a Civil war in Iraq where we are targets and make numerous mistakes. This argument of course makes no sense as presented yet so many Democrats seem to be running on it.

It sure seems we are, today, in a civil war in Aghanistan were we are targets and have made numerous mistakes. Y et I do not see these same politicians say we should leave...or stay there or why.

To repeat my point, if we should be in these places, fine, but tell us why there and not Iraq. There may be very good reasons but I do not seem them reported/discussed in the media.

[the hog]

YOU, (the US), shouldn't be anywhere. Who gave you the right to act as the world's global policeman?
In a perfect world, the UN would deal with these issues.

[kenrexford]

I waver back and forth between two theories.

Theory One: Everyone I see around me, and I myself, are really silly children in aging bodies pretending to be important. People in Washington are the same, just with more skill at pretending. They have just as little a clue what they actually are doing as I have in trying to figure out what they are doing.

Theory Two: I'm a kid in an aging body, as are many others, and being kept fed and warm, to a degree, from powerful forces I do not understand. They have some agenda I do not get, nor will I ever get, and if I ever do, I'll regret it. Maybe all of this is to set up an invasion of Iran from two fronts. Maybe the Knights Templar are calling the shots because the Holy Grail was moved to Iraq in the 80's. Maybe aliens from Alpha Centauri have taken over an area in Northern Iraq and are posing as Kurds, and we are fighting them now.

Either way, I'm inclined to grab another beer and watch my recording of the results from American Idol.

[mike777]

The_Hog, on Feb 24 2007, 12:16 AM, said:

YOU, (the US), shouldn't be anywhere. Who gave you the right to act as the world's global policeman?
In a perfect world, the UN would deal with these issues.

I think of this often.........I and I mean just me come back to what gave the convicts the right to take over Aust......or England or Canada or the Usa...but we do....real world says we do.....

[the hog]

"I and I mean just me come back to what gave the convicts the right to take over Aust......or England or Canada or the Usa...but we do....real world says we do..... "

Huh? They didn't Mike. The free settlers became more politically prominent as the colonial powers scaled down their enterprises.

[mike777]

The_Hog, on Feb 24 2007, 01:59 AM, said:

"I and I mean just me come back to what gave the convicts the right to take over Aust......or England or Canada or the Usa...but we do....real world says we do..... "

Huh? They didn't Mike. The free settlers became more politically prominent as the colonial powers scaled down their enterprises.

ok the free settlers stole the land....I know that lol....same thing...they stole..they were crooks

I assume they did not buy the land from the natives in free, unforced trade.

Even your rebuttal left out any comments on the native owners of Ausi and did not address my main point. The colonial powers owned squat...they stole it all.

As I said, but you did not comment on...English stole England.

You seem to argue that if you live on a land for x years you and your family own it forever, regardless who you stole it from?

Ok but why cannot I steal it from you now?

[the hog]

"Ok but why cannot I steal it from you now?"

Basically because I don't have any. Lol.

Anyway the actions of the past do not justify current intent. Further your analogy is flawed because the concept of "ownership" is not one present in all societies eg the Aust aborigines did not own the land in their view; they were its custodians.

But really I don't see how this argument relates to your initial post in any way or form.

[mike777]

"But really I don't see how this argument relates to your initial post in any way or form."

"....Who gave you the right to act...."


When anyone using the word "right" then you open up a whole can of worms.

You used it.

So what rights do the USA or Iraq or Aust. or England have when it comes to land, war, peace, justice, etc? Just asking

And what right do you have to define it? Just asking

[pbleighton]

"So many candidates just say we should be or been in Rawanda or Darfur but not in a Civil war in Iraq where we are targets and make numerous mistakes. This argument of course makes no sense as presented yet so many Democrats seem to be running on it."

Question: which Democratic candidate(s) for President has advocated the invasion of Sudan?

Answer: none of them have.

Mike, sometimes you make stuff up.

Peter

[mike777]

See Obama......for one
Rawanda, Darfur, yes. Iraq no.

[pbleighton]

"See Obama......for one
Rawanda, Darfur, yes."

When and where has he advocated the U.S. invading Sudan?

Links please.

Peter

[mike777]

Peter I cannot even convince you Korea is at war and has been in a state of war for 50 years despite your own links. I am not a genius at the internet, if you cannot find proof I doubt I can but it is true. Yes, he advocated for sending USA troops in the middle of the Rawanda Civil war and the current civil war in Darfur.

[jikl]

Do you guys even know why a lot of the world hates the US?

Sean

[pbleighton]

"Do you guys even know why a lot of the world hates the US?"

I've got an idea

"Peter I cannot even convince you Korea is at war and has been in a state of war for 50 years despite your own links."

Which demonstrated that the Korean civil war is generally considered to have ended in 1953, despite the lack of a technical peace document.

"I am not a genius at the internet,"

Yeah, typing in Google.com requires 160+ IQ

"if you cannot find proof I doubt I can but it is true. Yes, he advocated for sending USA troops in the middle of the Rawanda Civil war and the current civil war in Darfur."

Here's the first thing I found whjen I googled Obama Darfur:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5122600547.html

This is a December 2005 Washington Post op-ed by Obama and Senator Sam Brownback (a conservative Republican), denouncing the genocide in Darfur, and then laying out a four point plan:

"First, the administration must help transform the African Union protection force into a sizable, effective multinational force.

In the near term, Washington must pressure Khartoum to allow more advisers from Western nations to embed within the African Union's mission so they support intelligence, logistics and communications. It must work with other nations to provide military assets to African Union forces, such as attack helicopters and armored personnel carriers, so they can respond immediately to attacks. And it must urge the African Union to be more aggressive in protecting civilians. More important, Washington must immediately spearhead efforts to create a larger multinational force. The African Union has begun discussions with the United Nations about folding itself into a follow-on U.N. mission, but because of the West's reluctance to offend African sensibilities, all parties seem resigned to muddling along. It has become clear that a U.N.- or NATO-led force is required, and the administration must use diplomacy to override Chinese and Sudanese opposition to such a force and persuade outside troops to join it.

Second, the administration must keep up the pressure on the rebels to unite their negotiating positions, and it must enlist Sudan's allies to increase the pressure on Khartoum to share power and resources.

Third, the United States and other nations must place additional pressure on key nations -- Chad, Eritrea and Libya -- to stop playing a destructive role in the conflict.

Fourth, the administration needs to place its weight behind the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act, which would impose targeted sanctions on the leading perpetrators of the genocide."

No invasion of Sudan here, just diplomacy and beefing up the existing peacekeeping forces.

Peter

[mike777]

jikl, on Feb 24 2007, 05:30 PM, said:

Do you guys even know why a lot of the world hates the US?

Sean

A lot, wow who? I am surprised. Do they hate anything else or just the USA?
I hate liver and olives but that is just me.

I guess I should hate Stalin or Hitler or Mao but I never really knew them that well. Ghengis Khan sounds like a bad guy but again I never met the fellow.

For those that love to hate I understand the KKK is really growing in the county next door to me I just do not look that good in white robes so....also I understand they have some thingy against papists or jews so ...hmmm I may not be able to join.

Anyway back to the post of will they follow us home if we leave, lose or do not fight "them", whoever they are? Glad to see Biden put it out there.

[the hog]

Mike, seriously, have you been drinking? Are you so naive that you really mean the nonsense you just posted?

[Winstonm]

There are certainly two perspectives in this debate - I spent 4 hours on the phone last night debating this and other issues with my brother, who happens to be a Major in the U.S. army.

Here is what I understand his thoughts to be: right or wrong, now that we are in Iraq we cannot afford to lose else Iran will then be able to control Iraq. The whole purpose of Iran's support of insurgency is not to topple the present Iraqi government but to drive the U.S., via public opinion, from Iraq. With the U.S. gone, Iran will not take over Iraq but Iraq would become in essence a satellite of Iran, giving Iran control over the oil in both countries. Iran cannot be allowed to possess this much money and influence in the middle east.

In response, I wondered out loud if there wasn't a parallel between the asian domino theory and present thinking - that if one country gives way to "radical Islam" then so will the next, etc. I also questioned what business was it of the U.S. if this did happen, as Vientnam and Cambodia have not threatened the U.S. since we vacated that area.

I only bring this up to point out that no one really knows what will happen - so to virtuously claim that allowing Iraq to fall will bring terrorism home to the U.S. is as disinginuous as saying the opposite - truth is, it is an unknown.

It seems the underlying issue is whether or not that attack of 9-11 was by a multi-state sponsored, multi-national force bent on the utter destruction of the U.S. and therefore an act of war or whether it was a suicide attack by a small and somewhat scattered group of terrorists who have no ability to do serious and permanent harm to the U.S.

If you believe the former, then it is reasonable to make comparisons to the cold war and imagine a 100 year war; if you view it as the latter, the U.S. action looks like imperialism.

The talk with my brother did enlighten me to one fact - those whose belief is this is a war base their assessment on a single overriding basis, and that is the religion of Islam. The botttom line is they are paranoid - rightly or wrongly - that Islam cannot tolerate non-Islaminic views and will never rest until the world is under Islamic law - the Law of God - the only true law there is.

My only response to this is that though this may be true, it is the thinking of the poor and ignorant, another example of the opiate of the masses, and although a threat the only sure way of disarming the threat is to turn poor, ignorant people into educated, middle-class people - and you don't do that with bombs.

So it is no surprise to me that no Democrat is stating openly that terror won't come home with our troops - as no one can know for sure - but to state that this will surely happen, as some Rebupblican and independents say, is simply trying to spread paranoid fear via a perceived world view that has no possible method of being proven. To the honest seeker, a simple "I don't know" can be an adequate answer.

[mike777]

The_Hog, on Feb 24 2007, 07:52 PM, said:

Mike, seriously, have you been drinking? Are you so naive that you really mean the nonsense you just posted?

What nonsense...sigh I guess you guys do not really read this posts oh well.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Feb 24 2007, 08:37 PM, said:

There are certainly two perspectives in this debate - I spent 4 hours on the phone last night debating this and other issues with my brother, who happens to be a Major in the U.S. army.

Here is what I understand his thoughts to be:  right or wrong, now that we are in Iraq we cannot afford to lose else Iran will then be able to control Iraq.  The whole purpose of Iran's support of insurgency is not to topple the present Iraqi government but to drive the U.S., via public opinion, from Iraq.  With the U.S. gone, Iran will not take over Iraq but Iraq would become in essence a satellite of Iran, giving Iran control over the oil in both countries.   Iran cannot be allowed to possess this much money and influence in the middle east.

In response, I wondered out loud if there wasn't a parallel between the asian domino theory and present thinking - that if one country gives way to "radical Islam" then so will the next, etc.  I also questioned what business was it of the U.S. if this did happen, as Vientnam and Cambodia have not threatened the U.S. since we vacated that area.

I only bring this up to point out that no one really knows what will happen - so to virtuously claim that allowing Iraq to fall will bring terrorism home to the U.S. is as disinginuous as saying the opposite - truth is, it is an unknown.

It seems the underlying issue is whether or not that attack of 9-11 was by a multi-state sponsored, multi-national force bent on the utter destruction of the U.S. and therefore an act of war or whether it was a suicide attack by a small and somewhat scattered group of terrorists who have no ability to do serious and permanent harm to the U.S.

If you believe the former, then it is reasonable to make comparisons to the cold war and imagine a 100 year war; if you view it as the latter, the U.S. action looks like imperialism.

The talk with my brother did enlighten me to one fact - those whose belief is this is a war base their assessment on a single overriding basis, and that is the religion of Islam.   The botttom line is they are paranoid - rightly or wrongly - that Islam cannot tolerate non-Islaminic views and will never rest until the world is under Islamic law - the Law of God - the only true law there is.

My only response to this is that though this may be true, it is the thinking of the poor and ignorant, another example of the opiate of the masses, and although a threat the only sure way of disarming the threat is to turn poor, ignorant people into educated, middle-class people - and you don't do that with bombs. 

So it is no surprise to me that no Democrat is stating openly that terror won't come home with our troops - as no one can know for sure - but to state that this will surely happen, as some Rebupblican and independents say,  is simply trying to spread paranoid fear via a perceived world view that has no possible method of being proven.  To the honest seeker, a simple "I don't know" can be an adequate answer.

what debate....to repeat what concerns me is one issue and one issue only.


Can we agree that to say we should NOT be in ANY civil wars but we should be in SOME civil wars is nonsense?

I have made this point over and over again. sigh

If so then we agree.

[pbleighton]

"Can we agree that to say we should NOT be in ANY civil wars but we should be in SOME civil wars is nonsense?"

If your first statement is absolute, yes. However, you're creating a straw man.

If, as many (including myself) would say, it is in general a very bad idea to be in another country's civil war, but there are occasional exceptions, no it is not nonsense, it is common sense.

Another way of putting it is that there is a very heavy burden of proof on those who would advocate getting involved (or starting) another country's civil war. A very heavy burden, but it is not impossible to meet.

For example, let's say that instead of Saddam and Bin Laden being enemies, they were very close allies, and Al Qaeda was based in Iraq, and got most of its funding and members from Iraq. Saddam was aware of and helped with 9/11. The Sunni population mostly backed Al Qaeda enthusiastically. In other words, a substantially greater involvement than the Taliban had. The Sunni/Shia/Kurd hostilities were the same as they are now, but the Sunnis were the large majority, and would obviously win any civil war. Furhter, when we (justifiably) invaded, civil war broke out.

Under those circumstances, we would have to stay.

Capice?

Peter