Will W meet Cindy Sheehan

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

Who the fuck gives a fuck what I think. I voted for Kerry.

Um, you said that politics shouldn't prevent the administration from doing the right thing, so what would THAT be?

1. Take out Saddam.
2. Make USA think we sure done good.
3. Oh shit oh shit oh shit, damage control, spin, spin, thank God *I'm* not actually over there in harm's way!
4. Check the polls. Announce that we "don't pay attention to polls".
5. Shell the fuck out of insurgent controlled areas.
6. Duck and cover.

something like that... only designed by committee.

Nevermind. You're dismissed.

[ziggytrix]

You saying you don't think there's a disconnect between the think-tanks and the boots on the ground?

You're delusional.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I'm saying it's ridiculous to assume that the entire war plan is derived from the wishes of these ambiguous "think-tanks."

I think the "think-tanks" saw/see very good strategic reasons for democratizing iraq and establishing a friendly Arab regime in the middle east. As selfish as those desires may be, THAT ISN'T NECESSARILY A BAD GOAL!

I think this president would like to see a democratized and free Iraq. I think we certainly have selfish reasons for that, but again, it's still a worthy goal (considering we already went in and bombed the country, don't ya think?).

Saying the whole war was simply about toppling Saddam is in fact delusional, and it's almost a moot point. We went in there, we did this, and we need to clean it up. We owe it to these people.

Take back Congress in '06, and bring up impeachment charges on Bush and WMDs for all i care. That'd be fine with me. But we're in Iraq, and we need to help Iraq.

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

I think the "think-tanks" saw/see very good strategic reasons for democratizing iraq and establishing a friendly Arab regime in the middle east. As selfish as those desires may be, THAT ISN'T NECESSARILY A BAD GOAL!

Sure, but we are not physically capable of "democratizing" a society - not using guys with assault weapons and artillery support. That's my opinion, anyway. I guess this whole ordeal has been an experiment to the effect of proving whether or not it can be done.

We didn't have a realistic goal going in if it was to "democratize Iraq and establish a friendly regime." Setting up our forces in Qatar was a realistic goal, and we did that (long before the Senate voted, I might add). Taking out Saddam's regime and imposing martial law was a realistic goal, and our troops did that. Handing a measure of control over to Iraqis was a realistic goal, and we've achieved that.

But you can't have democracy when there's an assault rifle pointed at you. At least, that's no kind of democracy I'd want any part of.

BTW, calling them "ambiguous think-tanks" makes me think that you think organizations like PNAC have no influence in Washington. Is that so? I think they have more influence than the DNC right now.

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

Take back Congress in '06, and bring up impeachment charges on Bush and WMDs for all i care. That'd be fine with me. But we're in Iraq, and we need to help Iraq.

Oh yeah, I forgot to add: I've never had Congress, so how can I take it back? You think because I voted for Kerry that I'm a party-line Democrat? Those fuckers are hardly better than party-line Republicans.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

But you can't have democracy when there's an assault rifle pointed at you. At least, that's no kind of democracy I'd want any part of.

I think tihs is an over-statement. I don't thin all Iraqis are being herded like cattle at gun point. I think we are pointing the barrels at a lot of people who deserve it, the very same people who would like to harm innocent iraqi people for the sake of their "insurgency."

BTW, calling them "ambiguous think-tanks" makes me think that you think organizations like PNAC have no influence in Washington. Is that so? I think they have more influence than the DNC right now.

I think they have influence, but the fact is overblown. Politicians fear money and voters. If a PAC/think tank can hurt them with money and attack ads, then they fear them. There are SO MANY think tanks in DC alone, and they all release studies and disertations on policy. Some have clout, i think, because they do good research. Others have clout because they are financed by the right people, and yes, are on the ears of certain politicians.

My point is that i think all of this fearmongering over Karl Rove, the "neo-cons," and "think tanks" can dilute the substance of the argument.

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

I think tihs is an over-statement. I don't thin all Iraqis are being herded like cattle at gun point. I think we are pointing the barrels at a lot of people who deserve it, the very same people who would like to harm innocent iraqi people for the sake of their "insurgency."

Nah, we got em pointed at good guys and bad guys cause they all LOOK the same. Go to my "War On Drugs" thread, watch the video, and tell me you think the assault rifles were pointed at more drug dealers than innocent partygoers. Then tell me you think we use a lighter touch on foreign soil.

Give me a fucking break.

[ItalianStereotype]

Originally Posted by mburbank

And as thugish as sadaam was, his death toll is starting to look paltry compared to what they've got now.

I'm not being flip, I don't know. I would think the average Iraqi might well be developing a certain nostaligia for Sadaam.

I've tried to stay the hell away from this thread because this is all somewhat, well, completely retarded.

Max, I expect more of you than this. there's simply no comparison between the occupation body count and that of Saddam's thirty year dictatorship. the IBC, which I think is overestimating, is currently at a minimum of 23,000. in a single campaign, Saddam murdered 100,000. paltry my ass.

as much as we're hated by some Iraqis, I'm sure we'd be more warmly welcomed than Saddam any day of the week.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

Go to my "War On Drugs" thread, watch the video, and tell me you think the assault rifles were pointed at more drug dealers than innocent partygoers. Then tell me you think we use a lighter touch on foreign soil.

Give me a fucking break.

You're ridiculous.

Oh yeah, I forgot to add: I've never had Congress, so how can I take it back? You think because I voted for Kerry that I'm a party-line Democrat? Those fuckers are hardly better than party-line Republicans.

I don't care, that wasn't my point. I'm saying that if people want to get themselves into a position to call out Bush, then do it!, and that'll be ok!

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by ItalianStereotype

Max, I expect more of you than this. there's simply no comparison between the occupation body count and that of Saddam's thirty year dictatorship. the IBC, which I think is overestimating, is currently at a minimum of 23,000. in a single campaign, Saddam murdered 100,000. paltry my ass.

as much as we're hated by some Iraqis, I'm sure we'd be more warmly welcomed than Saddam any day of the week.

I think his overall point could be compared to the way guys like Stalin often still poll well in the countries they terrorized, particularly during times of turmoil and economic instability. These people offered fear, murder, and terror, but they also offered a twisted form of stability and normalcy that people can perhaps get "nostalgic" over.

[mburbank]

Kev; I don't think we can "Democratize" anyone. I do not think Democracy, as worthy a goal as it is, can be imposed from the outside. I especially think a country that invaded another under false pretenses can them.

Eye Tai, I'm not calling Sadaam's evil paltry. I am saying that a prepetual state of civil war can eventually (key word) be even worse than brutal dictatorship. No one should take this as an endorsement of brutal dictatorship. I believe our presence is a garantour of a prepetual state of civil war.

Kev; On the broke vs. fixed front, again, what would fixed look like, and how much in terms of lives (ours and theirs) dollars and years are you willing to think it terms of as worth our laudabile goal of democratizing Iraq? Take into concideration that as long as we're there we are far less effective as a hedge against other countries (Iran, Korea, and whoever else may decide now is as good a time as they're going to get to pursue various objectives counter to our interests) and that eventually we'll cripple our economy.

Maybe I'm being overly pessemistic, but I think if we really intend to be there until Iraq is 'fixed' we are there from now on. I don't think Iraq will ever be fixed with us there.

"We can't set timetables" is a reasonable statement. but it begs the question how long are we willing to stay, and what's a ballpark estimate of how long we're talking about. It avoids the entire discussion. They govt. obviously won't engage the topic, but will any of you? Are you willing to stay in Iraq forever? And if that's too tall and order, you're already saying that at some point it woud be worth it to pull out, fixed or not.

There was a time when getting out of Vietnam was unthinkable, the ramifications were too huge, what kind of a message would it send? And as far as messages being sent goes, what kind of a message does it send that America is now the arbiter of wether a government is Democratic enough? What are the ramfications of a US policy of "Do as we say or well topple your government and occupy your country until it's fixed."

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

You're ridiculous.

WTF? You clearly either have no clue or are in denial of how the world really works outside of the political game. The first thing a soldier does when encountering someone he does not know is point his gun at them. Doesn't matter if they're a good guy or a bad guy.

Whatever, I'm done trying to talk to you. I don't know what you're doing in DC, but I'm guessing you are so embedded in the world of politics that you are already an expert on everything. Let me know if you ever decide to run for office so I can vote for the most brilliant cog in the system.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by mburbank

Kev; I don't think we can "Democratize" anyone. I do not think Democracy, as worthy a goal as it is, can be imposed from the outside. I especially think a country that invaded another under false pretenses can them.

I think you're right, but we invaded. We went it, we bombed it, we toppled the regime, and now the country is in turmoil.

Also, if we were truly forcing these people to democratize, there wouldn't be this issie over constitution deadlines and agreements and stuff. There'd be a constitution. It'd be done.

We're not taking that route though, we're being deliberative, we're providing security services, and we're letting them sort out the kind of government that they want to build. I figure it's the least we owe them.

On the broke vs. fixed front, again, what would fixed look like, and how much in terms of lives (ours and theirs) dollars and years are you willing to think it terms of as worth our laudabile goal of democratizing Iraq? Take into concideration that as long as we're there we are far less effective as a hedge against other countries (Iran, Korea, and whoever else may decide now is as good a time as they're going to get to pursue various objectives counter to our interests) and that eventually we'll cripple our economy.

This is why and where I think the wrong man is in the White House (well, just one of several reasons). You're right, we can't carry this burden alone, and the longer we are there, the harder it'll be to focus on other things. This is why I think we need a president and a state department that creates a coalition of the realized rather than a coalition of the "willing." We need to impress on other thew nations the fact that this war is coming to all of them too, and that helping the Iraqis succeed isn't just in their interest, it's in the interest of the planet to have a democratized Arab republic of sorts in the middle east. It's in the world's interest to see these people succeed, rather than falling to radical Islam and oppression.

Maybe I'm being overly pessemistic, but I think if we really intend to be there until Iraq is 'fixed' we are there from now on. I don't think Iraq will ever be fixed with us there.

You keep saying this, but i don't really see you appropriately explaining it. How Iraq POSSIBLY be better when we leave, when the likely outcome could be complete collapse and civil war???

"We can't set timetables" is a reasonable statement. but it begs the question how long are we willing to stay, and what's a ballpark estimate of how long we're talking about. It avoids the entire discussion. They govt. obviously won't engage the topic, but will any of you? Are you willing to stay in Iraq forever? And if that's too tall and order, you're already saying that at some point it woud be worth it to pull out, fixed or not.

I again think that you show little regard or faith in the Iraqi people. This is a nation with a shit ton of oil, it's an ancient culture rich in heritage, art, and music. Baghdad is a swinging hot spot potentially. This is a country that already had one of the larger middle-classes in the middle east. This is a country that can succeed, and I think wants to succeed.

They do however have in their way the obstacle of terrorism and extremism. You seem to see us as the root of those things, I see us as the barrier against it. I guess we just differ there.

I'm personally willing to see it through in Iraq because it is our responsibility to see it through. Again, you see us as an impediment to that goal, whereas isee us as a necessary component and partner in achieving it. If we withdraw from iraq, it will most certainly fall to radicla fundamentalism. it will most certainly fall into internal conflict, and it will most certainly become another hotbed for terrorism.

The same criticism was brought against Bush for invading Afghanistan-- it was our mistake, we pulled out after the war with the Soviets, etc.

I don't think that we should make that mistake again.

There was a time when getting out of Vietnam was unthinkable, the ramifications were too huge, what kind of a message would it send?

I think we're talking about two different scenarios here. All "quagmire" parallels aside, Vietnam is a poor comparison.

The assumption was that if Vietnam fell, other countries would fall, and like dominos, the world would fall under Communism. This is different. Instead of communism, we're talking about extremism, specifically radical islamic extremism. We don't need to fear that nations will fall to this, because they already have. We're not this time scared of a growing ideolgy being exposed to a weak and vulnerable country.

We're instead the ones, this time around, exposing the new kind of ideology. We're the ones trying to bring something to the Arab world that makes them uneasy and shakes things up. The threat is very clear and very obvious, because they flood over the Iraqi border every day, targeting anybody who will help them push their agenda.

We're not fighting something political, or even necessarily rational and well-planned like global Communism. We're essentially fighting chaos and destruction. We're fighting people who absolutely hate us, and would be willing to kill themselves, along with innocent people, in order to succeed.

[mburbank]

You're still unwilling to even begin to get at years dollars and lives. I agree with you on a lot, but until we can at least look at the reality it's all platitudes.

If things aren't better a year from now can we talk about leaving?
Probably not.

How about two years? Seven? Seventeen? Thirty? One hundred and fifty? Why is this undiscussable?

I'll tell you what, if this constitution gets voted on and passed by the people of Iraq, I'd certainly do some rethinking and say maybe we're helping. And if the next administration is WAY different than this one. That's a lot of ifs and I'm willing to admit their possability. How do so many people get away with saying anything is is 'unthinkable' and leave it at that? That's how we got hip deep in this bullshit. "Defeat is not an option". Swell, that means there are a whole lot of scenarios we absolutely refuse to think about. We were a nation with it's fingers in it's ears when we went into Iraq and we still are.

Why is it a forgone conclusion that Iraq would collapse if we left? Is it in the interests of the region to let that happen? And what about the rest of the world? If we said "Listen, we screwed this up, and we are so tainted we can't do anything but make things worse. We aplogize, we'll give folks money and technical support, but our military is going home." that the rest of the world would just sit there? You all accuse me of being arrogant 'cause I think the Iraqis can't do democracy (which I haven't said and which is a republican talking point made available for self hypnosis), how arrogant are all of you to say "No one on earth can be in charge of helping the Iraqis but us." We are so used to playing God we think of it as jes' plain bein' Amurican.

Just so you know, I am not advocating alll american troops leave tomorrow. I'm advocating an immidiate, actual plan to get us out as soon as possible. I'm advocating new strategies that actually work toward getting us out because if we don't make those plans, constitution or no the real power in Iraq will be us and they'll be a protectorate.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

Whatever, I'm done trying to talk to you.

YOU SAY THIS ALL OF THE TIME! KEEP YOUR PROMISES!!

Oh, and as for my "embedded DC life"....

I dismissed your point because it was a ridiculous comparison. Do people who haven't done bad things get yelled at and have guns pointed at them and stuff sometimes? YES! You said yourself (slightly in jest) that it's hard to distinguish who are the bad guys and who are just civilians, particularly if it is this "urban guerilla" warfare everyone keeps saying.

Once again, this doesn't mean that we are specifically there to terrorize these people and rule over them like some evil hegemon.

Originally Posted by mburbank

You're still unwilling to even begin to get at years dollars and lives. I agree with you on a lot, but until we can at least look at the reality it's all platitudes.

Because I don't work at the fucking Pentagon Max, and i could throw numbers out there if you like, but neither one of us is on the ground there, neither one is involved in the war strategy, and neither one of us knows truly the actual nuts & bolts that are being arranged by the new government. Do you want me to say I'd commit bunches and bunches of soldiers and tons and tons of money? Ok, I would.

If things aren't better a year from now can we talk about leaving?
Probably not.

Right.

How about two years? Seven? Seventeen? Thirty? One hundred and fifty? Why is this undiscussable?

I don't think that it is, and I think Sen. Feingold (see his proposal) might be on the right track. As I told you, I'm a goals sort of guy. I like the idea of saying we want X to be done by this point, and Y amount at this point. I don't entirely agree with the prez on his strategy here, which is again one of many reasons I didn't vote for the man.

But, I am a believer that we need to be unequivocal and firm to a certain extent. If we allow these people to think that we'd buckle under at the slightest sign of pressure, then you will just see the terror more and more and more.

Why is it a forgone conclusion that Iraq would collapse if we left? Is it in the interests of the region to let that happen? And what about the rest of the world? If we said "Listen, we screwed this up, and we are so tainted we can't do anything but make things worse. We aplogize, we'll give folks money and technical support, but our military is going home." that the rest of the world would just sit there? You all accuse me of being arrogant 'cause I think the Iraqis can't do democracy (which I haven't said and which is a republican talking point made available for self hypnosis), how arrogant are all of you to say "No one on earth can be in charge of helping the Iraqis but us." We are so used to playing God we think of it as jes' plain bein' Amurican.

What proof do YOU have to indicate that the chaos would improve once we left? PLEASE don't say it would appease the so-called insurgents, because I think that's 1. the wrong goal to have in the first place and 2. not even necessarily the truth. I outlined what I think would happen if we left above.

Just so you know, I am not advocating alll american troops leave tomorrow. I'm advocating an immidiate, actual plan to get us out as soon as possible. I'm advocating new strategies that actually work toward getting us out because if we don't make those plans, constitution or no the real power in Iraq will be us and they'll be a protectorate.

And I don't think we're in total disagreement here. I think what you just said is a perfectly rational expectation, however i think both sides of the argument are far away from it. Bush just likes to talk in hyperbolic statements and use abstract language, which does leave us in a sort of limbo-like state there.

But I also think the Left on this debate isn't in the right place necessarily either. A lot of these anti-war groups and Dem. blogs are screaming "BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW!" I don't think they're talking about creating a feasible plan either, which leaves this serious discussion you'd like to have off the table completely, IMO.

[Ant10708]

Aren't people afaid that if we just up and left Iraq that it could easily become how Afghanstan was in the 90s? The Base's philsophy is pretty much an Arab/Islamic version of Hitler's. Isn't anyone afriad that if these people ever gained real military power that they would be more than willingly to inflict a Holocaust style killing on anyone they deem to be an infidel or apostate instead of blowing themselves up in a car on some street in Bagdhad. Our occupation is defiantly adding to recruitment and terrorism but I can only imagine how many more people would sign up if it looked like they drove us out of Iraq like they did to the Soviets in Afghanstan. Bin Laden has in the past commented that our biggest weakest is not being able to finish things through and put up with causualties of our own men. Leaving Iraq now would prove him right 100%. The extremists consider the fight in Iraq to be the equilvant to fighting the Soviets in Afghanstan. The foriegn fighters from all over the globe are coming to fight US in Iraq. Its terrible that the Iraqi civilians and Iraqi police/soldiers and our serivcemen and woman and other international soldiers are the ones being killed but I see fighting the flood of foriegn fighters coming into Iraq because of our occupation as better than them all chilling in their home countries planning ways to win matrydom.

Just sucks that our invasion of Iraq has created a new network of terrorists and taught a new era of people the techniques just like the Soviet war in Afghanstan did, but leaving now wouldn't stop that and I personally think Iraq's future would be much grimer if we left within the next year. I'm a conservative and the amount of money Bush has spent in his years as president is truly disgusting but leaving now before Iraq is somewhat stable I think would be costlier for us and the world in the long run.


Max you want years? I'd say we will have to still have some type of prescense in Iraq for another 5 years atleast and another 10 years at the most. But deciding when to end a conflict based on loss of life is never a good idea. I think if we did that we would never of even entered WW2, let alone ended it.

The invasion of Iraq was obviously not helpful to the world or our 'war on terrorism' but I don't think leaving prematurly will solve any of the problems we created and I think with the amount of extremists in Iraq now, there is more reason to stay than when we thought/lied about Saddam having WMDs.

[Ant10708]

Jonah Godlberg's take on Cindy:


Playing “Chickenhawk”
Left-wing platitudes.

"Cindy Sheehan, the mother of Casey Sheehan, an American soldier who was killed in Iraq . . . "

That's the sentence Cindy Sheehan and her increasingly lugubrious p.r. machine want every news story about her to begin with. Nobody likes the idea of criticizing a woman who's lost her son in such circumstances. The hope has been that the high wall of Mrs. Sheehan's "moral authority" will allow her to say whatever she pleases and that nobody will say boo about it for fear of seeming insensitive to what must be unimaginable anguish. Still, even some of her supporters must realize that her anguish has caused her to find meaning in a wildly partisan, orchestrated publicity stunt.

What's interesting, to me at least, is that Mrs. Sheehan represents simply the latest installment in a long, nasty, desperate ideological campaign — and one that demonstrates the logical limits of identity politics.

Anybody who's been on the receiving end of the "chickenhawk" epithet knows what I'm getting at. Various definitions of chickenhawk are out there, but the gist — as if you didn't know — is "coward" or "unpatriotic hypocrite." The accusation is less an argument than an insult.

It's also a form of bullying. The intent is to say, "You have no right to support the war since you haven't served or signed up." It's a way to get supporters of the war in Iraq, the war on terror, or the president simply to shut up.

But there's a benefit of a doubt to be given. There are many people — I know because I've argued with lots of them — who don't believe the "chickenhawk" thing is intellectually unserious.

Obsessed with "authenticity" and the evil of hypocrisy — as they see it — they think the message and the messenger are inextricably linked. Two plus two is four only if the right person says so. We hear this logic most often from adherents of identity politics, who give more weight to the statements of women, blacks, Jews, and others for the sole reason that they were uttered by people born female, black, Jewish or whatever. People who grew up poor are supposed to have a more "authentic" perspective on economic policy than people who didn't, and so on.

Don't get me wrong — experience is important and useful, including the experiences that come from being black or gay or otherwise a member of the Coalition of the Oppressed. But valuable experience confers knowledge; it doesn't beatify. And identity isn't an iron cage: It is not insurmountable. And, at the end of the day, arguments must stand on their own merits, regardless of who delivers them.

Indeed, the notion that there is a single, authentic black perspective strikes me as fundamentally racist in its essentialism. And the idea that women adhere to a female logic unique to them strikes me as by definition sexist. But the Left doesn't care, because this perspective is indispensable for attacking "inauthentic" blacks or other supposed traitors. What was it that Harry Belafonte said the other week? That blacks who work for the Bush administration are, in effect, "house slaves," akin to the high-ranking Jews in the Hitler regime (never mind that no such Jews existed).

The chickenhawk charge is the misapplication of the same faulty logic. There are war heroes who oppose the war, and there are war heroes who supported it. John Keegan is the greatest living military historian, and he never saw a day of battle. George McGovern flew 35 combat missions in World War II. I'll take Keegan's guidance on military matters over McGovern's any day.

Recently, desperate Democrats championed the campaign of Paul Hackett, an Iraq-war veteran running for Congress in Ohio, because he opposed the war and called the president an S.O.B. Just as others had done before with Wesley Clark and Max Cleland, Hackett's supporters suddenly declared that their hand-picked veteran had the indisputable, irrefutable moral authority to say what other anti-Bush liberals had been saying all along. But how does that make the content of those charges any more — or for that matter, less — accurate?

Maureen Dowd wrote of Sheehan in the New York Times this week that "the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute." This is either a sincere but meaningless platitude or it's a charge made in grotesquely bad faith. Surely Dowd recognizes that there are a great many mothers of fallen soldiers who believe the war was worthwhile. Is their moral authority absolute, too? If so, then moral authority can't really be very relevant to public debates. Or does Dowd claim that only those moms-of-the-fallen who say things critical of George Bush have absolute moral authority?

If that's the case, does Dowd truly believe — as Sheehan seems to — that this war was fought to line the pockets of Texas oilmen and to serve the interests of a treasonous Zionist cabal inside the United States? I think that's batty, and I'd need proof to believe it. Mrs. Sheehan's word isn't good enough for me on anything — save the fact that she loved her son.

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

YOU SAY THIS ALL OF THE TIME! KEEP YOUR PROMISES!!

I meant about this particular issue. If you think it's no big deal that innocent people have their houses raided, family incarcerated, beaten, tear gassed, etc because our policy is to round up anyone suspicious, since it's better to imprison an innocent than leave a suicide bomber loose... if you can't see how we're generating as much ill will as any good we've done over there, well then we're just not going to see eye to eye on this issue. I think it's a lose-lose situation, you don't. I'm fine with that, but don't expect me to stay out of every thread you start or post in because I've disagreed with you in the past on this or other issues.

Perhaps I should have said "I'm sick of trying to talk to you" - since here I am still typing shit at you when I should know you don't give a fuck.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

If you think it's no big deal that innocent people have their houses raided, family incarcerated, beaten, tear gassed, etc because our policy is to round up anyone suspicious, since it's better to imprison an innocent than leave a suicide bomber loose... if you can't see how we're generating as much ill will as any good we've done over there, well then we're just not going to see eye to eye on this issue.

1. Do you think these innocent people are being targeted, or are they being targeted due to reasonable suspicion or cause?

2. Do you happen to have any numbers on the frequency of this behavior? How often exactly are we "raiding houses, beating innocent people, tear gassing, etc."??? Is this something you've seen heavily documented, or is it something you just assume is going on?

I think it's a lose-lose situation, you don't. I'm fine with that, but don't expect me to stay out of every thread you start or post in because I've disagreed with you in the past on this or other issues.

I think war sucks, and i didn't vote for the guy who started it. I protested the war in NYC during the largest public protests against this war around the world. I was sick when we invaded.

With that being said, I don't think this is a lose-lose situation. I think it's a difficult one, but one that could have outstanding strategic possibilities for us, as well as for the middle east. I've already talked about why I think Iraq can and will succeed if given the necessary support, so I'm not getting into that again.

[mburbank]

Kev; I think we can find common ground in the desperate hope that the next administration is nothing like this one. I think this one is tainted, stupid, egotistical and hamfisted, a very bad combo platter.

"1. Do you think these innocent people are being targeted, or are they being targeted due to reasonable suspicion or cause? "

Dude... (and I hate to say dude, but you made me) how about neither? Almost no one from soldier on the ground to policy maker ever thinks of themselves as a supervillian. Of course they are not being targeted. That in no way means that our causes and suspicions are reasonable. In our fairly recent history we trained, funded and in some cases fought alongside right wing death squads all over south and central America. We engineered a coup in Argenina and at very least turned a blind eye to the assasination of their president. Why in the world would you think we've gotten over that kind of behavior? We didn't do all the evil shit for the sake of being evil, we talked ourselves into thinking we had reasonable suspicions and causes. Any time we send soldiers to places where they don't get intense media scrutiny should send up red flags, not because we are evil, but because the nature of unfettered, unobserved power is abusive.

[kellychaos]

If this is a country with a rich heritage worthy of effort (I agree with that, btw), then why didn't we put forth the appropriate amount of commitment from the beginning when U.S. generals were begging and screaming for it? It kind of makes you question the present administration's motives in the whole affair, don't you think?

[Ant10708]

I think we all understand that Bush and his cronies don't have the best things motivating them. But that still doesn't mean we should leave immiediately.

[Ninjavenom]

NARM NARM NARM DERP DERP DERP

BIG PEOPLE TALK

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by mburbank

Dude... (and I hate to say dude, but you made me) how about neither? Almost no one from soldier on the ground to policy maker ever thinks of themselves as a supervillian. Of course they are not being targeted. That in no way means that our causes and suspicions are reasonable.

Again, while this isn't necessarily unwarranted, I'd have to see some actual PROOF that this is so clearly widespread.

In our fairly recent history we trained, funded and in some cases fought alongside right wing death squads all over south and central America. We engineered a coup in Argenina and at very least turned a blind eye to the assasination of their president. Why in the world would you think we've gotten over that kind of behavior? We didn't do all the evil shit for the sake of being evil, we talked ourselves into thinking we had reasonable suspicions and causes. Any time we send soldiers to places where they don't get intense media scrutiny should send up red flags, not because we are evil, but because the nature of unfettered, unobserved power is abusive.

I agree about the unchecked power, but I think you are comparing two very different situations. You're talking about a CIA that had a great deal of autonomy from a pretty aloof president. I suppose you could draw similar comparisons between the Contras and say the "private contractors" in Iraq, but i think it's a loose one.

[mburbank]

Substitute the word 'army' for CIA, and I think you'll get my message. Or didn't we hide prisoners from the Red Cross and reduce Fallujah to a big heap of rubble? Since there's virtually no reporting outside the greenzone, I'd say anything taking place out there is 'unfettered'.

This Bush adminsitration isn't as chummy with the CIA as the first one. That's why Donny has created paralell, creepy ass functions within the Pentagon, and it's why we use military advisors in Columbia.

The 'proof' you are looking for usually comes a lot of miles down the road. I'm a believer in transperancy and agressive watchdogs, because this shit almost always gets out of control. Couple that with the fact that this administration views secrecy as being next to Godliness and I hate to think of all the stuff that's going to under our national rock when it finally gets tuned over.