Forums | MacLife

NokX wrote:

Dubya succeeds in destroying Christianity in Iraq

now you must have a reason to like him

What a jerk-off thing to say. Your character becomes clearer the more you post. You do the South proud, don't ya.

Jaligard wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

One thing that gives me pause, it's strenuously maintained that more troops were needed with little thought to what the locals would have thought if our presence was even greater than it is. I'm not altogether sure more would be better in this case.

I don't know that more troops will help now, but there was certainly a time when more troops would have helped immensely. No looting, more troops to keep/rebuild vital infrastructure, less insurgency, law and order.

It's a laundry list of of what-if's to be certain, but if we handed over a stable Iraq to a troubled and fresh government, we'd all be better off.

So, you are arguing that more troops operating as a police state in Iraq is/was the path to self-government?

I find the suggestion of a "stable Iraq" rather dubious.

Jaligard wrote:

gas huffer wrote:

Jaligard wrote:

I don't know that more troops will help now, but there was certainly a time when more troops would have helped immensely. No looting, more troops to keep/rebuild vital infrastructure, less insurgency, law and order.

It's a laundry list of of what-if's to be certain, but if we handed over a stable Iraq to a troubled and fresh government, we'd all be better off.

So, you are arguing that more troops operating as a police state in Iraq is/was the path to self-government?

I find the suggestion of a "stable Iraq" rather dubious.

It's incredibly dubious now, but we've lived through three years of mistake upon mistake. I for one am not going to wave my hand at the mistakes and say the current situation was inevitable.

Yes, you will claim the hypotheitcal one wherein there is stability... 

If "more police" means stability in Iraq, does that mean you don't think our "occupation" is a problem, then?

So, if we had 250,000 troops, it'd be just swell?

kb5zhh wrote:

resedit wrote:

The buck stops that those committing the attrocities.
You would rather have Saddam in power now, Saddam who committed similar attrocities himself, than a government committed to stomping this out and creating a stable free Iraq? That's how it would be if Saddam had been left in power.

But did Saddam actually commit most of the atrocities, or was it just his policies that got others to commit evil.  One of the common examples is an evil person because he gassed the kurds, but it wasn't saddam flying the chopper and hitting the "release deadly gas" button.  If Saddam can be morally culpable for direct results of his policies, why does that not extend to Bush?  The only difference is intended vs unintended consequences, but surely that can't be an excuse.

Can you please tell me what was Saddam's intended "policy of good" was that caused the "unintended result" of the Kurds getting gassed?

Metacell wrote:

Something similar to Andew Jackson's approach to the American Indian, perhaps?  In other words, the subjugation and obliteration of tribal dissidence in favor of ordered peace for the superior technological infrastructure.

That's actually a pretty good answer and an interesting analogy.

The best I can say at first reflection is that we never really intended to commit genocide afaik, but this was the justification for the resvervations.

Which, by any other name, are forms of concentration camps  designed to solve a perceived "racial problem."

Simply, I don't see the good "intended" to come from Saddam's use of power as being analogous to Bush and his use of power.  In other words, I don't think Saddam wishes the KURDS to benefit.

I would say that we had hoped the Indians would benefit.

I think it is safe to say the only benefit intended from Saddam's use of force was genocide, or at least the deterent effect of the threat of genocide would create a fear that would then instill so-called good behavior.  All stemming from threat of annihilation.

The fascist use of power is far different that the liberal/democratic application of power.

Is the Bush Admin threatening anyone with genocide other than those whose goal is the same as genocide?

Last edited by gas huffer (2006-07-29 12:16 pm)

bedstuy wrote:

Actually Kurds on the border were known to be supporting Iranians during the war.  I believe that's called treason and we all know what would happen to US citizens if we were in a war with, say Mexico, and Texans were caught actively aiding the enemy.

However, they should have been brought to trial and not collectively punished.  Still good to discuss this in the correct context.  Fog of war, and all.  I believe there are those on here who use that constantly as a defense for unsavory action.

I don't think that the "Kurds as local terrorists" thing really flies when we there was, clearly, a full fledged war between two Nation-states..

Also, I do believe the VX incident was a case of them gassing the village that was the home of the renegade Kurds, and that the intended victims were actually mostly women, elderly, and children.

But it's entirely likely these were the families of those Saddam would call traitors.

If someone thinks the USA is collectively punishing someone, I'd like to hear them make the case - because it will not hold water.

Last edited by gas huffer (2006-07-29 12:25 pm)

gas huffer wrote:

bedstuy wrote:

Actually Kurds on the border were known to be supporting Iranians during the war.  I believe that's called treason and we all know what would happen to US citizens if we were in a war with, say Mexico, and Texans were caught actively aiding the enemy.

However, they should have been brought to trial and not collectively punished.  Still good to discuss this in the correct context.  Fog of war, and all.  I believe there are those on here who use that constantly as a defense for unsavory action.

I don't think that the "Kurds as local terrorists" thing really flies when we there was, clearly, a full fledged war between two Nation-states..

Where did I use the word "terrorist"?

gas huffer wrote:

To the both of you,

you brought up the analogy of "unintended consequences" to Bush's War on Terror.

You have both just acknoledged the reason the analogy, and thus your point[s] is moot.

Thanks for admitting it.

Could you write that in a sentence that makes grammatical sense, cuz I have no idea what you just said?

gas huffer wrote:

kb5zhh wrote:

gas huffer wrote:

To the both of you,

you brought up the analogy of "unintended consequences" to Bush's War on Terror.

You have both just acknoledged the reason the analogy, and thus your point[s] is moot.

Thanks for admitting it.

Could you write that in a sentence that makes grammatical sense, cuz I have no idea what you just said?

For you?

No.

I cannot cuz I dont wanna.

So you have no interest in good faith debating?  Why are you here again?

gas huffer wrote:

I think my point is clear

Well, at least that's one person.

Tallgeese wrote:

gas huffer wrote:

I think my point is clear

Well, at least that's one person.

OK, since it seems people are not capable of keeping civil, we'll just can the topic.

Thanks for playing.