Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.

User avatar
Bill Sikes
Posts: 5515
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am

Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.

Post by Bill Sikes »

lynny wrote: Were you saing that the people of Iraq won't be able to run the country ? Otherwise I don't see how your using "naive " unless it is intended as an insult?


Have you any comprehension of conditions there? Who "the people of Iraq" are made up of?

lynny wrote: :-2 :-2 :-2


"Smileys" are all very well when they have meaning.
kensloft
Posts: 2793
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 1:37 am

Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.

Post by kensloft »

Bill Sikes wrote: Have you any comprehension of conditions there? Who "the people of Iraq" are made up of?


Is this the part where America liberalism questions your ability to think for yourself?

Bill Sikes wrote: "Smileys" are all very well when they have meaning.


I thought the smilees said, "Huh. Huh. Huh."
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.

Post by gmc »

posted by lynny

figures lie if you twist them around to lie, that's one reason I have no use for the demos or libs , they seem to think if you lie & lie often enough you'll change the truth.

That's rich that is, the Bush administration tell you saddam was behind 911 and you believe despite all the evidence to the contrary. You have a senate commission tell you he had no connection but you still choose to believe he was behind the terrorists. They tell you he is evil and forget to mention they used to support him and gave him actual military aid in the form of intelligence in his war with Iran, after he had used chemical weapons against Iran and his own people.

Personally I wish they had taken him out after the first gulf war, there would have been a better justification for the action, especially when he want after the marsh arabs and put down the revolt in the south there might have been a chance for more moderate muslims to take control.

What will you do if fundamentalists get voted in in Iraq, stay on and kick them out or leave once they are established? I can't foresee how this will work out I have severe doubts it will be for the better.

Any terrorist action is designed to get an over reaction. Osama bin laden has now got the US to remove civil rights preventing people being held without trial and abrogate the Geneva conventions. Yet anyone that says this is wrong gets dismissed as unamerican. It's not just the buildings he was attacking and it seems it is not just the buildings he is bringing down either.

We have a government here that is trying to do the same thing only to have the courts rule holding people without trial is illegal. This in a country that had the first habeas corpus law on the planet and managed to survive years of terrorist attacks without going to quite that length. Mind you the US did complain when the UK government brought in internment for irish terrorists.

As to whether Bush did a good thing, only time will now tell. I rather think you will see a civil war in Iraq and a split between north and south along religious lines, eventually the fighting will stop. maybe there is a case for just pulling out after the election and let them get on with it.

You now have a president that advocates pre-emptive warfare when it is in america's interests as he sees them so no doubt he has other good things planned.

posted by kensloft

Is this the part where America liberalism questions your ability to think for yourself?


I am not american but since you are a citizen of a liberal democracy where individual freedom is valued one would hope you can think for yourself and have the common sense to question what you are told by politicians whatever their stamp. As a rule of thumb they are all self seeking liars until they demonstrate otherwise and if they tell you it is in your best interests perhaps it isn't, and if they say it is unpatriotic not to agree tell them to get stuffed as is your right as a free citizen in a liberal democracy.
kensloft
Posts: 2793
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 1:37 am

Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.

Post by kensloft »

gmc wrote: posted by lynny

Any terrorist action is designed to get an over reaction. Osama bin laden has now got the US to remove civil rights preventing people being held without trial and abrogate the Geneva conventions. Yet anyone that says this is wrong gets dismissed as unamerican. It's not just the buildings he was attacking and it seems it is not just the buildings he is bringing down either.

I am not american but since you are a citizen of a liberal democracy where individual freedom is valued one would hope you can think for yourself and have the common sense to question what you are told by politicians whatever their stamp. As a rule of thumb they are all self seeking liars until they demonstrate otherwise and if they tell you it is in your best interests perhaps it isn't, and if they say it is unpatriotic not to agree tell them to get stuffed as is your right as a free citizen in a liberal democracy.


In times of war people do funny things. I am sure that the rules that have been assailed by many as being removed are the same rules that were forgotten during WW2 in Britain and the Allies homelands.

America is at war. It is not playing footsy with Osama. Osama rubbed the lamp the wrong way and now the genie is wreaking havoc on him and his followers. No one wants to see liberties be removed but what they like even less is rummaging through rubble looking for survivours and the remains of those that didn't. Anyone that thinks that the politicians are not being raked over the coals doesn't understand democracy very well.

When any tin pot dictator thumbs his nose at democracy then you had better believe that they had better think twice before trying the free world's patience with their bizarre ideas of what they think makes the world tick. When all is said and done the fact remains that if there was only one Al Quaeda that had made contact with his regime, then he was in contravention of the UN. There is no certain number of people that there has to be in order to qualify for being in contravention of his constraints.

If there was one rocket that exceeded the ban on the range of flight that was breeched then he is in contravention. His nit picking, like yours, brought upon him a wrath like he could never have imagined because he, not being in the theatre of war, never understood the rules of being on the battlefield. While he was safely sequestered behind the lines, and out of range of the guns that were going off around everybody else and killing them, he didn't give a care about what was happening. All he wanted to do was pose for the photographs that depicted him as a hero of the people.

The people that should have been enraged and vociferously speaking out against his war can't because we still haven't figured out how to bring people back from the dead. Until then it is all moot.

Everybody wants scads of proof. What proof there is is always not enough. He was in abrogation and that was it. Any you said, I said, he said conversations are just lips moving.
User avatar
Bill Sikes
Posts: 5515
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am

Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.

Post by Bill Sikes »

Originally Posted by Bill Sikes

Have you any comprehension of conditions there ? Who "the people of Iraq" are made up of?



kensloft wrote: Is this the part where America liberalism questions your ability to think for yourself?


I've no idea what you are on about. It was a simple question, to which the answer is apparently "no".



kensloft wrote: I thought the smilees said, "Huh. Huh. Huh."


"Huh. Huh. Huh."? WTF does that mean? Hollow laughter? Doltish agreement?

Lack of understanding and confusion? Simple mirth? Indifference?
User avatar
Bill Sikes
Posts: 5515
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am

Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.

Post by Bill Sikes »

Bill Sikes wrote: Have you any comprehension of conditions there? Who "the people of Iraq" are made up of?


Well, you sent me a "private e-mail" responding to this. Why not simply post a reply? Who are these "dems" of which you speak? Why are they significant?
kensloft
Posts: 2793
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 1:37 am

Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.

Post by kensloft »

Bill Sikes wrote: "Huh. Huh. Huh."? WTF does that mean? Hollow laughter? Doltish agreement?

Lack of understanding and confusion? Simple mirth? Indifference?


"Huh" is disbelieving unknowing-ness about what is being said.
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.

Post by gmc »

posted by kensloft

America is at war. It is not playing footsy with Osama. Osama rubbed the lamp the wrong way and now the genie is wreaking havoc on him and his followers. No one wants to see liberties be removed but what they like even less is rummaging through rubble looking for survivours and the remains of those that didn't. Anyone that thinks that the politicians are not being raked over the coals doesn't understand democracy very well.


You have suffered one terrorist attack it's hardly a war is it? war against terrorism is not warfare in the normal sense of the word. You cannot fight terrorism with a conventional army as there is no clear enemy in to fight. There is a very real danger that by overreacting you gain the terrorists support. It's ironic, the US supported terrorists in afghanistan-the mujahadeen, you ignored warning that if they gain power they will create an islamic fundamentalist state and spread trouble throughout the muslim countries and then when that is exactly what happens and terrorists from a country whose undemocratic regime you support attacks you you ignore the culprits, convince yourselves iot was alldue to Saddam and attack the wrong country lining up even more problems for yourselves.

You are now putting pressure on Iran to an extent that any chance more moderate voices might be heard is being quashed. Whatever the people may think of their regime, and there are clear signs that most want change, if you attack it they will rally round.

posted by kensloft

In times of war people do funny things. I am sure that the rules that have been assailed by many as being removed are the same rules that were forgotten during WW2 in Britain and the Allies homelands.


It's hardly the same kind of situation is it, we were fighting for our very survival. At no time during the second world war did germany, Britain or the US turn round and say that the Geneva Conventions only apply when they decide it does. Unlike George Bush and the present administration.

I don't know about the US but the only occasion I can find when habeas Corpus was suspended was in 1893. In ww2 the govt passed special powers acts to deal with the situation. Irish terrorist suspects were interned but an act of parliament was in place for that purpose and has since been repealed.

The home secretary here has just been told that holding terrorist suspects without bringing them to trial is illegal as there has been no legislation to give the police that kind of power, we await with interest to see what the government does now as a government minister ignoring the law could lead to fun and games if our spineless MP's start doing their jobs properly. We too have a leader that believes he is doing the right thing and ignores anything that points in any other direction.

It's a ludicrous idea that you can bomb people to democracy.
kensloft
Posts: 2793
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 1:37 am

Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.

Post by kensloft »

gmc wrote: You have suffered one terrorist attack...


There have been numerous attacks by the terrorists. Let us not forget the first attempt at bringing down the towers from a car bomb. Let us not forget the other attacks against the different Embassies in the African region. How about the ship that was attacked killing a number of service people. The attack on the towers was the last straw. They wanted Allied attention. They got it. Now all the bleedoing hearts are saying "Don't be so rough on them."

It's ironic, the US supported terrorists in afghanistan-...


The Americans provided armaments to get the Russians out of Afghanistan. They didn't give a whit about the religious government taking over. It was when they became a safe haven for those that would attack America that they received the "Bum's rush". The Taliban would still be there because it was none of America's business as to who ruled the region.

You are now putting pressure on Iran to an extent that any chance more moderate voices might be heard is being quashed. Whatever the people may think of their regime, and there are clear signs that most want change, if you attack it they will rally round.


One of the reasons that there are so many states in the region of the Middle East is because early in the history of the region there was the pan -arabic dream of one nation under Muslimism. We are not talking rational people when we talk of the Iranian government. We are talking people that use their religious powers to stir up their people against the Great Satan. If they are looking for Satan then they don't have to go further than looking in the mirror.

There is no need to trust that the right thing will occur because they should be trusted. Their intent is to destroy the Jewish State, aka, Zionism, by whatever means necessary. If the British had listened to certain people, rather than believeing the right thing would happpen, then there would never have been a Second World War.

It's hardly the same kind of situation is it, we were fighting for our very survival. At no time during the second world war did germany, Britain or the US turn round and say that the Geneva Conventions only apply when they decide it does. Unlike George Bush and the present administration.


The Geneva Conventions first came into existence in 1864 and dealt with the treatment of wounded. The following Conventions of 1906 were ratified and had to do with extending the conventions to war on the seas. the third round applied to the treatment of prisoners during war. This was ratified in 1929. Finally the conventions to which you allude, were all ratified under the 1949 agreement, which was specifically aimed at civilians in enemy hands during war.



It's a ludicrous idea that you can bomb people to democracy.


Not wanting to sound silly I would, though, remind you that Europe bombed itself to hell in order to arrive at the point that they are now. It is a little pretentious to forget about that aspect of evolvement to the modern European life.

Hopefully, when the allies leave the war theater, they will not have to come back because the regime has turned into another safe haven for terrorists. Misguided or what have you, if they are training terrorists they will feel the wrath of their victims. This is not a game of hide and seek. When people die, on both sides, it is war.
Der Wulf
Posts: 721
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 10:18 am

Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.

Post by Der Wulf »

Bill Sikes wrote:

'Kinell. I am somewhat shaken by the naivety of that paragraph.”

gmc wrote:

“You still haven't answered my question. Why do you think Iraq had anything to do with 911 and alqueda? What ever reason for going in to iraq you care to choose that can't be one of them as there is little or no substance to the belief.”





Did’ja ever notice the paucity of original thought, and how closely the truly closed minded, stick to a particular sound byte that is so narrowly parsed as to defy answering? Or really special, is the cheap shot tactic of branding someone naïve in lieu of presenting a cogent argument to support the accusation.



I am by no means foolish enough to expect the smug, and shallow thinkers among us can be dissuaded from their brain challenged behavior. They are happy with their narrow mindedness, not stupid people but most likely, afraid to face the truth of their own vulnerability. The shame is they’ve been here before. They ignore history at their own peril. To embrace denial, and acquiescence is dangerous and shameful. Neville Chamberlain would be proud.



To declare that Iraq did not attack us is to state the obvious, but then, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Yemen, etc., didn’t either. Lets get beyond the juvenile absurdities of “name that country”. Fact is, we were attacked by the same people that have for 20+.years made a career, of killing Americans for fun and sport.



Geographical descriptions of countries, [largely the result of the UK’s misadventures over the last century], are basically irrelevant, religious, tribal, and ethnic origins are the important distinctions. The reality of middle eastern governments is that in addition to the “official” governments, there is an unofficial regional entity of fundamental Islam, sort of an Islamic EU. Often the “official” govt. is in reality just a thin veneer of officialdom masking the real power. Truth is the Kohbar towers, the marine barracks in Lebanon, the USS Cole, the World Trade Center [Both attacks], the current hostilities in Iraq, and Israel, all are of the same genesis. That Saddam Hussein, and Osama Ben Laden didn’t like each other, has about as much significance as two department chiefs in the same company having a spat, they still work together for a common goal.



Finally, for the record, the 911 committee was much more concerned with forging political unanimity, than determining the truth about disputed facts, or establishing specific and personal responsibility for the events of 911.



So, did Saddam issue the orders, plan the attack, or provide the personnel for the 911 attack?, of course not. Was he complicent in providing aid, comfort, money, and weapons to the “middle eastern enterprise of Islamic extremists [Islamic EU?] dedicated to killing Americans”, absolutely. :-5











Old age and treachery, is an acceptable response to overwelming youth and skill :D
kensloft
Posts: 2793
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 1:37 am

Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.

Post by kensloft »

Der Wulf,

What can I say? I got it! This war was really started by a bunch of religious fundamentalists from New York City because they lost a tax base for the city coffers. They forced Bush to go to war to recoup their losses.

Like the Middle East, the U.S. is really a bunch of tribal states that are loosely affiliated by economic ties... Do you think it could be a best seller? :confused:

kensloft.
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.

Post by koan »

Der Wulf,

Wow. It's like you have a thesaurus or something. ;)
Der Wulf
Posts: 721
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 10:18 am

Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.

Post by Der Wulf »

koan wrote: Der Wulf,



Wow. It's like you have a thesaurus or something. ;)
It's just that there are times when i wish to be absolutely clear, then there is a 40 year career heavily invoved with technical writing, unfortunatly, i tend to speak the same way, that is until my grandkids give me a verbal slapdown. :-6
Old age and treachery, is an acceptable response to overwelming youth and skill :D
Der Wulf
Posts: 721
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 10:18 am

Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.

Post by Der Wulf »

kensloft wrote: Der Wulf,



What can I say? I got it! This war was really started by a bunch of religious fundamentalists from New York City because they lost a tax base for the city coffers. They forced Bush to go to war to recoup their losses.



Like the Middle East, the U.S. is really a bunch of tribal states that are loosely affiliated by economic ties... Do you think it could be a best seller? :confused:



kensloft.
Only if we can get some lascivious sex in it :D :rolleyes:
Old age and treachery, is an acceptable response to overwelming youth and skill :D
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.

Post by gmc »

posted by kensloft

One of the reasons that there are so many states in the region of the Middle East is because early in the history of the region there was the pan -arabic dream of one nation under Muslimism.


There are also many different tribes and most of the countries have borders that are artificial thanks to the actions of imperialist powers, france and britain have been fighting over it for years. Which is pretty much what der wulf said except he forgot the french germans and turks and we were all after oil.

posted by der wulf

Geographical descriptions of countries, [largely the result of the UK’s misadventures over the last century], are basically irrelevant, religious, tribal, and ethnic origins are the important distinctions.


also posted by der wulf

To declare that Iraq did not attack us is to state the obvious, but then, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Yemen, etc., didn’t either. Lets get beyond the juvenile absurdities of “name that country”. Fact is, we were attacked by the same people that have for 20+.years made a career, of killing Americans for fun and sport.


The reality of middle eastern governments is that in addition to the “official” governments, there is an unofficial regional entity of fundamental Islam, sort of an Islamic EU. Often the “official” govt. is in reality just a thin veneer of officialdom masking the real power. Truth is the Kohbar towers, the marine barracks in Lebanon, the USS Cole, the World Trade Center [Both attacks], the current hostilities in Iraq, and Israel, all are of the same genesis.


In that I would agree with you, where i disagree is the simplistic idea that you can go in mob handed and sort it all out by flattening any government you don't like and expect that to solve the problem. While at the same time supporting regimes whose policies towards their own people have gone a long way to encourage the rise of extremism. The action is seen as hypocritical to put it mildly.

How you deal with Israel will also make a difference. They are a nuclear power and occupying territory that is not theirs, it is hypocritical to invade one country for ignoring UN sanctions and ignore another that consistently does the same.

Terrorists have been supported when it suited US interests.

The Americans provided armaments to get the Russians out of Afghanistan. They didn't give a whit about the religious government taking over.


The taliban were terrorists that were getting nowhere till the west started funding and supplying them with arms. Osama bin laden was one of those trained in afghanistan that decision came home to roost on september the eleventh. The nature of islamic fundamentalism was very clear as what the type of government regime they were to be. Even the Russians when they were pulling out were trying to warn of the consequences of letting a fundamentalist regime get power. Although perhaps their motives were not whooly altruistic but the neither were the US's.

Iraq was persuaded to fight a proxy war against Iran on behalf of the west, the US provided intelligence when it was quite clear what manner of ruler he was.

Yes I would agree all these attacks have the same genesis.Where I disagree is that conventional warfare and attacking Iraq (I still think it a pity saddam was not removed after the first gulf war) and working up to invade Iran is likely to make things worse and do little to help the situation. The iranians may not like their rulers but if you attack them they will rally behind them and the situation will escalate. It's a continuation of the same policy that got in to this mess in the first place, inconsistent short term actions to gain a short term tactical victory without thinking through the consequences.

posted by derwulf

I am by no means foolish enough to expect the smug, and shallow thinkers among us can be dissuaded from their brain challenged behavior. They are happy with their narrow mindedness, not stupid people but most likely, afraid to face the truth of their own vulnerability. The shame is they’ve been here before. They ignore history at their own peril. To embrace denial, and acquiescence is dangerous and shameful. Neville Chamberlain would be proud.


I am fed up with that one, what is as bad as people who ignore history is those who don't know it. Yes chamberlain appeased Hitler, I find americans keep mentioning it as if we didn't know about it and need reminded. After having a generation wiped out in the first world war nobody in their right mind wanted another, you hope against hope that somone like hitler can be talked out of it, in 1938 we were not ready for war, the extra year gave us the time to equip our squadrons with the spitfires and hurricanes we were going to need. Just remember it was the British who after europe had surrendered and we had no allies that took the decision to continue fighting regardless of the possible consequences. Yes it was nice of the US to get involved, took you long enough to realise you had a stake in it as well.

I'm not petty so I won't point out all the prominent americans that admired hitler and the very real peace movement in the US that wanted absolutely nothing to do with another war, or the US ambassador that advised his givernment that britain could not survive and should not be supported in any way.

Viewing warfare as a last resort is perfectly normal. On the other hand pre-emptive warfare has always ended badly for those who practice it-at least in modern times. warfare should be a last resort not the first. To quote Churchill,"jaw jaw is better than war war" That's not appeasement but when you go to war don't convince yourself the consequences will be limited.

Terrorists do not make war they are murderers and should be dealt with as such. They are just murdering thugs who would rule by force however you dress it up. Deal with them the wrong way and they become martyrs and heroes.

posted by der wulf

So, did Saddam issue the orders, plan the attack, or provide the personnel for the 911 attack?, of course not. Was he complicent in providing aid, comfort, money, and weapons to the “middle eastern enterprise of Islamic extremists [Islamic EU?] dedicated to killing Americans”, absolutely.


At least you do not suffer the delusion that he had anything to do with 911.

How about your earlier question?

posted by der wulf

How about a simpler questian like "will the war in Iraq yield any benefit to the United States". If I were seeking a more thoughtful answer, I would list some "things" of value like monetary, moral, status, etc.


How much money will you make?. what moral standing do you think it has gained you? What status.?

posted by lynny

I'm take it your a liberal dem? The libs love to say oh you guys just aren't educated on the topic , it's hard to see people disagree with you , but that doesn't make it wrong. The people of Iraq will use their freedom just as we do. You can't take people that cringed at the sight of the killer that ran their country & expect them to know right out of the gate how to run their own country, the younger people there have never even known a country without saddam. Also , to say that they aren't better off without him , you are forgetting the 1 million human beings he murdered , but at the risk of being rude , I've noticed over the years that forgetting the facts is something the dem's are very fond of ... I just hurts too much to admit Bush did a good thing (& again I know most of the credit goes to the troops) but he & Blair (along with others) helped make it possible


I take it that means you are not in favour of liberal democracy? Why then do you support a war to export its virtues around the world?

When did the word liberal meaning someone who believes in individual freedom and free speech become so perverted in american parlance? Calling someone a liberal is hardly an insult. The most aggressive fighters for freedom throughout history have been liberals of one sort or another what do you think the writers of the constitiion were when they said all men are created equal etc etc. leaving aside the exclusion of women and blacks as not being particularly germane at this point.

The only reason I can think of is that in order to remove the necessity of having to cope with free thinkers it is easier to demonise them so that you don't have to answer you just say oh you must be a *((*whatevr so I can ignore what you say and by the way prevent others listening while i am at it. It's a way of changing he subject away from what makes you uncomfortable.

it's hard to see people disagree with you , but that doesn't make it wrong.


No it's not hard lots of people disagree with me so I get plenty of practice. There would be no fun on a forum like this if I couldn't find somebody to disagree with. Your intellect is like a martial arts skill, if you don't practice constantly it becomes useless. I only find it irritating when they resort so smug comments like I take it you are a liberal dem. I also wear glasses and had a bacon roll for tea, your point is?

Tell me would you want to live in a country that isn't a liberal democracy? Better hurry up and emigrate GW wants everybody living in one before the next four years are up. Mind you by then you might end up in a theocracy, god help you and save you from the unco guid because you seem to have given them the power controls.

As to whether Bush did a good thing? The motives may have been good and I hope it does turn out he has done a good thing. But I think if he now attacks Iran it will be a whole different ball game, only time will tell. When is he going to pull the troops out? At some point, unless the cause of making Iraquis free was a lie, you will have to walk out and leave 20%of the world's oil in the hands of non americans. What if thy elect the wrong type of government and decide to nationalise the foreign oil companies.

Tony Blair on the other hand is a lying self seeking hypocritical git who I would trust as far as I could throw him. A prime example of why Public Schoolboys should be kept out of politics and away from the corridors of power. Liberal democracy you see. I can say things like that without being accused of being unpatriotic because I am entitled to my opinion and can express it whenever I want.

He too comes out with I believe I did the right thing. Two good christians leading the world to war against the evils of islam.
User avatar
Suresh Gupta
Posts: 1172
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:29 pm

Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.

Post by Suresh Gupta »

War is always a mistake. But when there is no alternative left to avoid the war, one has to go for it and it becomes an unavoidable mistake. Now the question is whether all alternatives were tried before USA went for war in Iraq. If not then it was certainly a mistake.
Spread love not hate

Suresh Gupta

http://www.betterlife4all.com
kensloft
Posts: 2793
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 1:37 am

Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.

Post by kensloft »

Suresh Gupta wrote: If not then it was certainly a mistake.


:confused: Who decides when all the alternatives have been tried? Who decides what all the alternatives are that are to be tried? Who decides when the attacker becomes the attacked. When you are thinking about war it is not the same as being in war, so, anything that you can or may say doesn't really count. Does it?
User avatar
Suresh Gupta
Posts: 1172
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:29 pm

Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.

Post by Suresh Gupta »

kensloft wrote: :confused: Who decides when all the alternatives have been tried? Who decides what all the alternatives are that are to be tried? Who decides when the attacker becomes the attacked. When you are thinking about war it is not the same as being in war, so, anything that you can or may say doesn't really count. Does it?


First of all those who create gronds for war, both the attacker and the attacked. War can not be avoided if both parties are not sincere in their efforts to avoid it. If they work to avoid a war it can be avoided, but if they work to engage in war there will certainly be a war.

Then the people. It is unforunate that they do not really count. But they are the sufferers. People on both sides suffer.

If we talk of Iraq war, can we say who has actually won? Iraqis have been killed and so are Americans and Britishers. Saddam has been captured and Bush has been re-elected. Bush, on his inaugration, said the war was justified as American people have re-elected him. But opinion polls are showing that majority Americans feel that war was a mistake. Rice also says that it was a mistake. Will bush learn from it? Will other countries learn from it?
Spread love not hate

Suresh Gupta

http://www.betterlife4all.com
A Karenina
Posts: 968
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:36 am

Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.

Post by A Karenina »

gmc wrote: I only find it irritating when they resort to smug comments like I take it you are a liberal dem. I also wear glasses and had a bacon roll for tea, your point is?
Points for this one! :) No matter what the label, shoving anyone into a pre-defined box so that you can ignore their thoughts is a rotten thing to do.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.

Aristotle
kensloft
Posts: 2793
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 1:37 am

Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.

Post by kensloft »

Suresh Gupta wrote: First of all those who create gronds for war, both the attacker and the attacked. War can not be avoided if both parties are not sincere in their efforts to avoid it. If they work to avoid a war it can be avoided, but if they work to engage in war there will certainly be a war.


It only takes one of the two to make the decision to not bargain in good faith. That being done means that war is inevitable. Saddam did not bargain in good faith, therefore, while snubbing the free world, he got a wake up call.

Then the people. It is unforunate that they do not really count. But they are the sufferers. People on both sides suffer.


War is filled with losers. Both sides take the losses. Unfortunately, people that don't pick up the gauntlet to free themselves leave the problem to the invaders. In this case it is the Allies that are posing as the sitting ducks for the insurgents because the people can't trust themselves or the Allies to protect an/or fend for themselves. The longer it drags on the more that the insurgents are going to claim that it is their heroics that is winning the day.

The losses mount every day on both sides. The suicidal maniacs are taking quantative losses but they are not commented upon because the media is focused on the body count and they are only counting Allied losses.

If we talk of Iraq war, can we say who has actually won? Iraqis have been killed and so are Americans and Britishers. Saddam has been captured and Bush has been re-elected. Bush, on his inaugration, said the war was justified as American people have re-elected him. But opinion polls are showing that majority Americans feel that war was a mistake. Rice also says that it was a mistake. Will bush learn from it? Will other countries learn from it?


It would be nice to get out tomorrow but it won't happen. If it did, then you know that Bush would get his comeuppance because of the way that he is treating his poor and underserviced little guy. The job losses. The Social Security debacle that seems to be fending off the rich guys from looting the little guys pension. There is much more to make him take notice when the people that you lead are not letting you hide behind behind the militaristic aspects of your office.

As to the majority of Americans being against the war? You are using the statistics to support your side of the issue. Have you forgotten that the liars figure to use the figures in statistics to their advantage?
Der Wulf
Posts: 721
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 10:18 am

Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.

Post by Der Wulf »

Suresh Gupta wrote: War is always a mistake. But when there is no alternative left to avoid the war, one has to go for it and it becomes an unavoidable mistake. Now the question is whether all alternatives were tried before USA went for war in Iraq. If not then it was certainly a mistake.SG leads into the next point i intended to make. The gulf war was, in my opinion, ended inappropriately. A cease fire was declared on condition that Saddam destroy his biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons, shut down his development programs, and destroy his equipment dedicated to production of the same. All of which was to be verified by the UN.

Fast forward to 12 years, sanctions, and 17 resolutions later. No one with a functioning brain could deny the inherant evil, [yah, I dared to use the E word], of this SOB. He had attacked Iran, Kuwait, and Israel. If you doubt the fervency of his govt. to radical Islam, or continued defiance to the international community, read his response to resolution #1441 http://www.c-span.org/iraq/IraqLetter.asp .



The US & UK spent approx 6 months attempting to convince the UN to move against Iraq only to be rebuffed in the security counsel by France, backed up by Russia and China. Why ?, because all three were involved in a criminal enterprise with Iraq. http://examiner.com/article/index.cfm/i/120304op_antrim (just one of many)



So let me pose a few questions: After providing Afghanistan with it's first ever opportunity at a democratic self governance, how long do you think it would have lasted if our troops had left the region? Given no proof of divesting itself of WMD, convince me of the wisdom, or morality of leaving Saddam/Iraq intact. The argument having been made to "let the UN handle it", do you really want to align yourself with the corrupted govt's. of China, Russia, France? Tell me your vision of how much better off the world would be if we hadn't invaded Iraq and removed Saddam.

Finally, what's the benefit to the US ? We've helped establish one democratic government, and are working on a second. If these survive, the region cannot help but become more stable. The more stability there, the less risk here. What seems to so confound the Euro's, and domestic leftest's is that we would actually risk our people and fortune in the pursuit of our security, and freedom for others without a hidden agenda of domination, land grab, or financial gain. The real pity is we seem to be so alone in holding these principals. :(
Old age and treachery, is an acceptable response to overwelming youth and skill :D
kensloft
Posts: 2793
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 1:37 am

Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.

Post by kensloft »

One of the problems with trying to inculcate some sense of morality on other governments is that the people don't understand what is going on around them.

If America, or Canada for that matter, were able to airlift a few thousand Iraqis into the country where they could stay for a couple of months, and have the freedom to move about then, you could be sure that when they went back they would, quite vociferously, demand that their country be just like the ones they left.

You can't imagine what it is like to live here. You have to be here to apprecaite it. Any ideas that you could have about the way it is are merely fanciful. :-5
User avatar
Suresh Gupta
Posts: 1172
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:29 pm

Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.

Post by Suresh Gupta »

Dear Kensloft,

The problem is people develop a closed mind. They think that what they have been told is the only correct thing to do because it has been decided by the God. Anybody having a different point of view is the enemy of their faith. Imagine that a person feels that he will be graced by God if he kills another person following a different path. They can not think of any other way except the one which they have been told to accept as right. Let me tell you a story.

A fisherman had to spend a night in a five-star hotel. He could not sleep as the room was not having the smell of fish. He felt that he has been tortured by the host. In the middle of the night he came out and slept soundly in the open wrapping himself in the fishnet.
Spread love not hate

Suresh Gupta

http://www.betterlife4all.com
User avatar
Suresh Gupta
Posts: 1172
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:29 pm

Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.

Post by Suresh Gupta »

Der Wulf,

I do not know the answers. I am a simple person not a politician.

I think that any action through the body of UN would have been better. But again I think that if US is not supported by other UN members then what is the alternative left before US? 'Should US leave these rogue people and states to their designs in absence of a UN initiative?' is one questiion to which I am not able find an answer.

No body can deny that Saddam or Laden or earstwhile Afgan rulers were evil, and it is the duty of all who belive in freedom to stop such evil forces. But I feel disappointed that the evil is still there even if Saddam has been captured and Laden is on the run. If only all frredom loving governments unite in their fight against these evil forces under UN. From where these evil forces get weapons? Who give them shelter? Laden must be hiding in some country. It is a very complex issue.
Spread love not hate

Suresh Gupta

http://www.betterlife4all.com
kensloft
Posts: 2793
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 1:37 am

Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.

Post by kensloft »

Suresh Gupta wrote: Dear Kensloft,

The problem is people develop a closed mind. They think that what they have been told is the only correct thing to do because it has been decided by the God. Anybody having a different point of view is the enemy of their faith. Imagine that a person feels that he will be graced by God if he kills another person following a different path. They can not think of any other way except the one which they have been told to accept as right. Let me tell you a story.

A fisherman had to spend a night in a five-star hotel. He could not sleep as the room was not having the smell of fish. He felt that he has been tortured by the host. In the middle of the night he came out and slept soundly in the open wrapping himself in the fishnet.


It was Baba Ram Das, Richard Alpert(?), that told the story of the pickpocket. If a pickpocket sees a holy man the only thing that he sees are the pockets.
Der Wulf
Posts: 721
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 10:18 am

Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.

Post by Der Wulf »

Suresh Gupta wrote: Der Wulf,



I do not know the answers. I am a simple person not a politician.



I think that any action through the body of UN would have been better. But again I think that if US is not supported by other UN members then what is the alternative left before US? 'Should US leave these rogue people and states to their designs in absence of a UN initiative?' is one questiion to which I am not able find an answer.



No body can deny that Saddam or Laden or earstwhile Afgan rulers were evil, and it is the duty of all who belive in freedom to stop such evil forces. But I feel disappointed that the evil is still there even if Saddam has been captured and Laden is on the run. If only all frredom loving governments unite in their fight against these evil forces under UN. From where these evil forces get weapons? Who give them shelter? Laden must be hiding in some country. It is a very complex issue.
We agree completely.

Because they have no representation on this forum, I have not, until now, brought up the issue of France. I suppose that little moral courage, or support of democratic ideals, should be expected of China, and Russia.

As an "independant observer" [neither European nor American], what are your thoughts about the French refusal to allow UN action, and their "under the table" deals that supported Saddam in violation of the UN sanctions? :(
Old age and treachery, is an acceptable response to overwelming youth and skill :D
kensloft
Posts: 2793
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 1:37 am

Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.

Post by kensloft »

Der Wulf wrote: As an "independant observer" [neither European nor American], what are your thoughts about the French refusal to allow UN action, and their "under the table" deals that supported Saddam in violation of the UN sanctions? :(


Does this apply to Canadians? After all we do have a province full of French people in the country. The apple never falls far from the tree. Besides I'm half French.

I'll listen in and when I think I have something to say, will do so.
Der Wulf
Posts: 721
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 10:18 am

Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.

Post by Der Wulf »

kensloft wrote: Does this apply to Canadians? After all we do have a province full of French people in the country. The apple never falls far from the tree. besides I'm half French.

I'll listen in and when I think I have something to say, will do so.Aha, you've kept hidden your special talent :-2



If you can find some more Frenchy's, bring em along :sneaky:
Old age and treachery, is an acceptable response to overwelming youth and skill :D
kensloft
Posts: 2793
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 1:37 am

Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.

Post by kensloft »

The french in Quebec are in two dimensions. Those that want to believe that the Motherland is France, so, they should have their own country to be part of the French countries of the world.

The others are Canadians and they're happy being Canadians. They are throughout the country and are accomodated by the federal government when it comes to interacting with the government. Federally, English and French are the languages that the government uses.

I am, needless to say, the Canadian French. For years I was considered English but recently people from Quebec, when they hear me talking French, effuse how my French has no accent. It is, thereby, Quebecois French.

I was never into politics when I was younger and living in Quebec. What turned me off of Quebec politics happened within the first year of living there.

The parks in the city of Montreal would elect a youth representative to discuss the recreation etc. I was approached by the candidate and told that if I voted for him then I would be allowed to partake of the festivities that would happen after he was elected. I was an irate 8 year old. Didn't make it to the party but it gave me an inkling of what politics were about in that province. Buying votes was the name of the game.

It was the French that were, ostensibly, in control of the political structure. They cut deals for their family and friends that made a few of them wealthy and well off.

At every level of politics this was the S.O.P.. Integrity to them was a 9 letter word.

The almost 400 years of living away from the Motherland created a proud, hard-working, honest culture that were the Habitants. They were ruled by the Roman Catholic Church and we all know where they were coming from with their Good Book interpretations. In reading historical documentation of these people they were the Americans of the French in that they weren't subjugated to the Motherland's whims after 1763 when they were brought under British Rule by General Wolfe.

They were a hearty, healthy people that spoke the language better than you could find in France's cities at that time. The hard life in Canada turned into a boon for them.

Once political domination began to pass through into their hands they began to become known as the most corrupt governors in Canada. They cried racism and foul but reality says that they were using that as a red herring to keep them solidly in the first row of the trough eaters. One would think that it was a trait but reality, once again, seemed to come from their looking to the France French for how they conduct politics in their province.

They are still governed by the Napoleonic Civil code. Civil code=money in local politics. This being the criteria for law put them in the same mold as the France French. The politics are not the same today as they were in the recent past, but cleaning up your act takes more than overnight landslide in the political landscape. From the people that I met in Quebec politics today they are dominated by people that know the meaning of integrity. It makes me hopeful for the future of this country.

It is from this perspective that I offer my 2 cents on French politics and their underhanded ways of conducting business. I read, write and speak French. Not Parisian French but Quebecois French. I don't focus on reading the French papers as I don't focus on reading the British press.

Let me know how it's going while I get ready for the next spurt.
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.

Post by koan »

I was married to an Acadian. Very big on history and links to France. He wished he was from France and had not much patience with Quebecois. As it turned out, I didn't have much patience for him and never really understood the French version of "humour". I guess jokes don't translate well.

Very interesting about the French politics in Canada. As I don't speak it very well, they don't have much patience with me.
kensloft
Posts: 2793
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 1:37 am

Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.

Post by kensloft »

I was married to an Acadian. Very big on history and links to France. He wished he was from France and had not much patience with Quebecois.


The Acadians as you well know were the people that were deported to Louisiana by the British. They are known as the Cajuns.

As it turned out, I didn't have much patience for him and never really understood the French version of "humour". I guess jokes don't translate well.


If a culture enjoys pulling the wings off of flies then they will have humour that is based on the observations that they make while they are being wing pluckers. The French life of the poor and the English contemporaneous life of poverty were quite different. The abuse that the French suffered under in their country was far more sadistic than the English take on things. From this perspective one could see that the Acadians saw the greed that was in Quebec politics and, hence, they dreamt of the France French as being the true personification of the French soul. Can't say that I blame them much.

Very interesting about the French politics in Canada. As I don't speak it very well, they don't have much patience with me.


It is par for the course because you are an outsider. My mother, when she came to Canada after the war, met the in-laws and was learning French but one of the in-laws upset her and she refused to speak French ever again. She can understand it perfectly but she, until she died, wouldn't speak the language.

At a funeral of a great uncle he showed up and I could see that he just enjoyed a sadistic sense of humour. I told him, in French, what he had done to my mother and reminded him that he shouldn't even think about being his smart a$$ self with me. The rest of the family members did a communal gulp.

Quebec politics is wierd but getting better.
User avatar
Suresh Gupta
Posts: 1172
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2004 11:29 pm

Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.

Post by Suresh Gupta »

Der Wulf wrote: We agree completely.

Because they have no representation on this forum, I have not, until now, brought up the issue of France. I suppose that little moral courage, or support of democratic ideals, should be expected of China, and Russia.

As an "independant observer" [neither European nor American], what are your thoughts about the French refusal to allow UN action, and their "under the table" deals that supported Saddam in violation of the UN sanctions? :(


Support of democratic ideals is expected from every country. In my opinion it is their duty to support these ideals. If any country is not supporting (may be France) then it must clarify its reasons which override its duty to the people represented by UN. If France did not do it then it is wrong and its credibility at global level comes into doubt. Supporting rogue states and their governments with "under the table" deals, such as, supplying arms, is a crime against the people. They are proxy-killers of anybody killed by such arms.
Spread love not hate

Suresh Gupta

http://www.betterlife4all.com
User avatar
flopstock
Posts: 7406
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 2:52 am

Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.

Post by flopstock »

A Karenina;15150 wrote: I respectfully disagree. It seems crucial to be able to understand opposing viewpoints. That doesn't mean trying to change anyone's mind, nor does it feed into the notion that there is only one way to accomplish something.



If people can't talk and listen and undestand one another, then we will never reach resoutions of any value. We will merely become increasingly polarized until we can't even see the "other side", much less recognize it as human. JMHO.


This is solid.:thinking:
I expressly forbid the use of any of my posts anywhere outside of FG (with the exception of the incredibly witty 'get a room already' )posted recently.

Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6

User avatar
Omni_Skittles
Posts: 2613
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 2:10 am

Poll shows most Americans now think war was a mistake.

Post by Omni_Skittles »

:rolleyes::rolleyes: I'm not one of them.
Smoke signals ftw!
Post Reply

Return to “Warfare Military”