Iraq, Changing my mind

on Feb 27, 2006

" I agree; I think Bakerstreet is being much too apologetic in behalf of passive Muslims."

And yet if I suggested that folks in the projects pool their arms and start ridding themselves of gangs, I doubt you'd be so quick to offer your wrestlemania "Hell Yeah!" After all, we're sick of protecting the projects, and tired of their crime spilling over into our neighborhoods. Why don't they just take care of their own problems? They've got guns, right? It would be awful there, and it would be awful in Iraq.

Anyone who reads my blogs knows that I have little sympathy for Islamic apathy, but I don't think any one of us can imaging what it is like to be trying to raise a family in Iraq right now. It's easy to say you'd take off to fight those nasty insurgents, but I don't think you're really considering how you'd feel walking out the door knowing you are leaving them unprotected and open for retaliation.

I'm desperately annoyed that Muslims around the world get outraged over cartoons and not terrorism, but these particular folks are living in a war zone. We have claimed that we were going to fix this, and the goofballs in charge of our Iraq policy aren't interested in doing what it takes. That isn't the fault of the people who have to worry about getting killed every time they leave the house.

47

stevendedalus

on Feb 27, 2006

Why is it no stations present the other side of war? How about all them schools built, how about the new hospitals? How about girls being allow to learn?

We always return to the nasty messenger; does this mean were it not for the negative press you would not have changed your mind?

The Bush administration didn't exist before taking office. You are talking about the Clinton administration. You are right though, because regime change in Iraq was already a goal under that administration.

True to a degree but definite controversy in how to go about it--Clinton surely didn't have preemptive war in mind.

We have a lot of well-armed folks in Iraq. You really think that Iraqi civilians can do something they can't?

Wow, your quote, not mine!--stay the course regardless of our deficiency--an pray that Sistani keeps the lid on.

48

stevendedalus

on Feb 27, 2006

And before you say it is apples and oranges, remember that much of inner city crime is committed by organized gangs. Many are lucrative organizations that supply their lackies with guns and fund themselves with the drug trade. What do you propose we do about that, as citizens sitting at home?

But is it naive to demand more cops on the beat to the extent that real gang-busting is in effect? Had Rumsfeld not assumed the war a cakewalk we would have done it right then perhaps more Iraqis would have placed more faith in our efforts. As I've said before we have American kids stuck in lost battalions.

Let's either drop all the PC tip-toeing and clean house or get the hell out of there. Why is this our responsibility?

Despite "changing minds" they still won't listen, Texaii, to your message that you've been giving for almost three years.

49

kingbee

on Feb 27, 2006

How about girls being allow to learn?

without diminishing for a moment any of the horrible things about hussein's iraq, women were much freer to be educated, work, drive and dress than in most--if not all--of that country's sharia-plagued neighbors.

50

kingbee

on Feb 27, 2006

The Bush administration didn't exist before taking office. You are talking about the Clinton administration. You are right though, because regime change in Iraq was already a goal under that administration.

i'm sure you thought this was a witty response...even though all you've really accomplished is providing one more reason not to take anything else you say too seriously.

51

kingbee

on Feb 27, 2006

After all, we're sick of protecting the projects, and tired of their crime spilling over into our neighborhoods. Why don't they just take care of their own problems? They've got guns, right? It would be awful there, and it would be awful in Iraq.

so much for the 'when guns are criminalized blah blah blah' argument as well as the argument that small arms ownership--much less one assault weapon per family--is the trump card guaranteeing our liberty.

your analogy is imperfect at best.

while there may be some foreign fighters, the iraqis ARE the insurgency (by definition as well as in fact). yes there are foreign fighters involved, but so few by proportion they could easily be rounded up or wiped out by the natives. for that matter, there is a nationalist insurgency (which has little room or patience with foreign islamists for obvious reasons) and a religious insurgency. there are also a lotta tribalists and criminals taking advantage of the opportunities all the chaos presents.

you seem to feel 'ordinary' iraqis are outgunned because they aren't able to get their hands on rocket launchers or mortar shells. it's only true, i suspect, for those unwilling or unable to pay for them. you must not be paying a lotta attention to whenever they show coverage of an iraqi funeral or wedding.

52

Leauki

on Feb 27, 2006

i'm sure you thought this was a witty response...even though all you've really accomplished is providing one more reason not to take anything else you say too seriously.

That's funny, because stevendedalus had no such problem with the statement. I take it you didn't know that the Clinton administration also pursued regime change in Iraq?

As for the insulting remark about not taking what I say too seriously, I recommend that you start taking it more seriously soon. While I admit that there are many readers here on JoeUser who are already fairly knowledgable when it comes to Iraq, I have never had reason to consider you one among their number.

And given most of your opinions and how you back them up, I cannot help but think that you need to do A LOT of reading still.

53

cactoblasta

on Feb 27, 2006

And given most of your opinions and how you back them up, I cannot help but think that you need to do A LOT of reading still.

Come on Leauki, kingbee is one of the best informed people on this site. Show him some respect even if you disagree with his conclusions. Apart from maybe Bakerstreet I can't think of anyone else willing to trawl through ancient senate documents in search of supporting evidence.

The Bush administration didn't appear out of nowhere - a number of the current and previous cabinet have been linked to several organisations devoted to the downfall of Saddam's Iraq. PNAC is the obvious one, but I think there were others too. It's irrevelant that the Clinton administration also plotted his overthrowing, because kingbee was merely commenting on Bush's future cabinet's plans prior to his election.

54

Leauki

on Feb 27, 2006

Come on Leauki, kingbee is one of the best informed people on this site. Show him some respect even if you disagree with his conclusions. Apart from maybe Bakerstreet I can't think of anyone else willing to trawl through ancient senate documents in search of supporting evidence.

I'm not talking about his conclusions. I have seen him display amazing ignorance on a few topics, including Iraq. How many people think he's brilliant is not a part of the equation. He doesn't get to insult me, he is not smart enough. Full stop.

It's irrevelant that the Clinton administration also plotted his overthrowing, because kingbee was merely commenting on Bush's future cabinet's plans prior to his election.

It's not irrelevant at all. If "kingbee" wants to point out that the Bush team had planned the war in Iraq before they were even elected, whether or not the previous administration had similar plans is never irrelevant.

George Bush continued the Iraq policy of the Clinton administration. That he planned to do so even before he was elected seems quite logical to me. I am hoping that Bill Clinton would have acted similarly after it was clear that Arab extremists (of any kind) should not be trusted with WMDs (and common opinion before the invasion was that Iraq had such weapons).

As for showing Kingbee some respect after he insults me: why??? He doesn't deserve it, even if he was as brilliant as you seem to think he were.

55

cactoblasta

on Feb 27, 2006

I'm not talking about his conclusions. I have seen him display amazing ignorance on a few topics, including Iraq. How many people think he's brilliant is not a part of the equation. He doesn't get to insult me, he is not smart enough. Full stop

Fine. Whatever. I'm glad you have the ability to prevent insults from those of inferior intelligence. It is an all-too-rare talent which unfortunately can only be used on one's own blog.

George Bush continued the Iraq policy of the Clinton administration. That he planned to do so even before he was elected seems quite logical to me. I am hoping that Bill Clinton would have acted similarly after it was clear that Arab extremists (of any kind) should not be trusted with WMDs (and common opinion before the invasion was that Iraq had such weapons).

As you are undoubtably well aware PNAC's plans for Iraq were rather more extreme than Clinton's, as was the rationale behind them. Several founding members of PNAC were key figures in the current US administration, as you undoubtably know. You undoubtably know that following September 11 it was Iraq that was selected as suitably extremist Arab, when Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran were all far more important sources of terrorist action. You do not feel that the Bush administration's background was in any way influential on their choice of targets?

Perhaps Clinton would have done the same, but then again perhaps Monica would have done the same to Bush were she still in office. It's far too easy to get sidetracked when we deal with vague hypotheticals.

56

Leauki

on Feb 27, 2006

Fine. Whatever. I'm glad you have the ability to prevent insults from those of inferior intelligence. It is an all-too-rare talent which unfortunately can only be used on one's own blog.

What are you talking about now?

You seem to be upset that I didn't just accept "Kingbee's" insulting remark.

Why?

You undoubtably know that following September 11 it was Iraq that was selected as suitably extremist Arab, when Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran were all far more important sources of terrorist action.

I also know that of the four, Iraq was the one with the WMD program. The UN did not have inspectors expelled from Saudi Arabia at the same time.

57

stevendedalus

on Feb 27, 2006

We have claimed that we were going to fix this, and the goofballs in charge of our Iraq policy aren't interested in doing what it takes. That isn't the fault of the people who have to worry about getting killed every time they leave the house.

Obviously, then, there is no solution but to surrender to our mistakes and endure a pointless war.

58

COL Gene

on Feb 27, 2006

I agree it is time to get out. Better now then after the country is in a real civil war. Then we will have the safety of our 130,000 troops and our equipment at risk.

59

bakerstreet

on Feb 27, 2006

lol, this, along with the UAE deal has been so enlightening. It amazes me how political the stances are, and how unattached to any ethical ideal. Those in opposition to Bush have show how deftly they can shift in order to remain on the opposite side of the discussion.

I mean, where is everyone crying for all the Iraqi children, yadda yadda? I'm amazed that people who have lamented and inflated the deathtoll in Iraq could now easily shift to not really caring if they kill each other. Now all those who threw a fit because Iraq might end up a terrorist stronghold want to hand it over to them.

I don't think Iraq is being handled well, no. Frankly I think it is a tad facetious when I hear some people on this blog who are sabre rattling and saying we oughtta be killing Mr X, or Mr Y, when they have opposed us killing ANYONE up until now. Some of us were more than willing to accept the flattening of insurgent areas, but then we were the nasty ones. Now, though, disregard of all those lamented women and children seems to be chic...

60

stevendedalus

on Feb 28, 2006

I mean, where is everyone crying for all the Iraqi children, yadda yadda? I'm amazed that people who have lamented and inflated the deathtoll in Iraq could now easily shift to not really caring if they kill each other.

It's a maddening killing field now--it's worth the chance to try a new strategy.