Mar 26 2007 12:52 PM
="metirish"]
So you know what Iraqi people are thinking? nope. but theres no reason to think that poll numbers from there are anything but meaningless noise. they held elections, their elected leaders seem to want us to stay.
|
| holychicken Mar 26 2007 01:29 PM |
|||||
|
The funny thing is that the majority of Americans still back the ongoing operations in afghanistan and even backed starting war with Iraq. That doesn't strike me as "not liking war." I think the problem is that the American people don't like long drawn-out occupations where there is no end in sight and where the bulk of the occupied want us out. No good has come of this war and things seem to be getting worse, not better.
Exactly, and then more recently in the conflict there was an another election held that was focused on the war and they elected the opposition party. Call them wrong, call them stupid, but they are carrying out the will of the American people so to call them traitors is just toting the party line and further dividing America thus weakening her more than any terrorist organization could.
They don't want us there becuase since we have been there the country has gone to shit. Secretarian violence is up, more of the country is in disarray and, like the American people, they see our occupation as part of the problem, not the solution, and that there is no end in sight. They have plenty of reason to resent our presence there and thus there exists no reason to believe the poll is a lie. Unless, of course, it doesn't fit your view of the situation.
We held elections and our leaders want us out, and you call them traitors. Seems like a horrible double-standard to me.
|
| Nymr83 Mar 26 2007 01:34 PM |
||
|
don't use quotation marks when you're putting words in my mouth. i said "not liking THE war" and if you think leaving out or including "the isn't significant i refer you to the debate over the differing versions of security counsel reolution 242. long occupations are the way to get things done. appeasement and turning your back gets you adolph hitler, long occupations get you modern day Germany and Japan, once bitter enemies that through our long and painful efforts became great examples of democracy.
we elected our commander in chief who wants us in. if you want out feel free to vote for a dem in 2008. congress has no authority to dictate battle tactics.
|
| holychicken Mar 26 2007 02:26 PM |
|||||
|
My bad, I honestly misread it.
Arguably the best Democracy in the world, America, was won mainly through the efforts of the people who chose to throw off the reigns of tyranny and free themselves. It has lasted 5 times longer than either Japan or Germany has lasted. So I guess that is an arguement to let them do it on their own. My point is that the situations are completely different. Comparing post WWII Germany and Japan to our modern day situation doesn't make sense. I could list thousands of contrasts between the two but I imagine you already know that the situations are vastly different.
America showed that it made a mistake in re-electing Bush when it voted the Democrats into power in Congress in 2006. Seriously, i don't even get why you are harping on this point. You and I both know that if the election were held today, Bush would almost certainly lose. Regardless of when he was elected, now most people want out. Again, argue all you want that they don't have the authority to do what they are doing and that they are wrong in their choice but it doesn't take away from the fact that they are trying to ennact the will of the people and that by doing so they are NOT treasonous.
|
| Sandgnat Mar 26 2007 03:05 PM |
|
Does your "will of the people' take into account the consequences of us pulling out of Iraq?
|
| Nymr83 Mar 26 2007 03:30 PM |
|||
|
nah, he'd prefer to govern by opinion polls, bill clinton-style. (low blow i know, i really didnt mind clinton, other than his weakness on terrorism that few pointed out at the time)
ok. i thout you were trying to twist my words.
i wouldn't say arguably, we rock. i don't think the situations are fundamentally different. we have an enemy, we can choose to conquer that enemy and reform it in our own image (democracy) or we can choose to leave the job unfinished (like was done after WWI) and retreat into a shell with our fingers in our ears while the forces of tyranny (your word, not mine, but a good one) gather around us once more.
mentioning those things violates 2 principles of the television media: 1. only report news that fits the liberal agenda and 2. bad news draws ratings, good news makes customers click over to the rival news station.
|
| Kid Carsey Mar 26 2007 03:55 PM |
|
Come clean Nymr, do you have a picture of Ronald Reagan in your wallet?
|
| holychicken Mar 26 2007 04:12 PM |
|||||
|
A debate for another time, but I totally disagree that Clinton was weak on terrorism. In retrospect, he could have done more, however, he wasn't the only culprit. Remember the republicans controlled congress for a bulk of the time he was in office.
I understand why it sounded that way :)
I am not saying we should totally abandon Iraq. I was just demonstrating that just because something worked in the past does not mean it is the solution to the current problem. I believe that our strong presence there is much more of a hinderance than a help. France only helped us when throw our reigns off, we threw the reins off for the Iraqis. Very different types of involvement; they helped us, we forced them. Seriously, what kind of democracy is it if we have to force it on them down the barrel of a gun?
I am not trying to argue that Saddam was a good guy and I didn't shed a tear the day he died. But what if the situation is actually breeding more contempt for us? What if it is creating a situation where tyranny can more easily get a grip? What if our involvement starts to make US the tyranny? It's all fine and dandy to want to help, but if when you help you are really just hurting it is time to step back and stop "helping."
|
| Yancy Street Gang Mar 26 2007 04:23 PM |
|
Clinton would not have had the public support for starting an all-out war against terrorism. Like it or not, the American public pretty much shrugged off the attacks on the embassies in Africa. If September 11 had happened with Clinton (or Gore) in office, there would certainly have been a strong military response. NO president, of any party, would or could ignore an attack like that one.
As bad a guy as Saddam Hussein was, I would guess that only a small percentage of the people in Iraq actually felt oppressed by him. (They all were, of course, but we're used to the freedoms we have in America. The Iraqis don't have that as a base for comparison.) For all of the people he unjustly killed or imprisioned, there were probably many more who never even personally knew of anyone in that group. But now, with violence and danger everywhere, things are clearly worse. They might have a more benevolent government, but their day-to-day existence has taken a serious turn for the worse. If peace is restored and democracy thrives, then yes, people five or ten or twenty years from now will be better off. (Whether they're enough better off to justify all the bloodshed will be for them to ultimately determine.) But if this government is just an interim between tyrants, then this was all a horrendous waste.
|
| sharpie Mar 26 2007 04:44 PM |
|
Iraq is a ridiculous country anyway with phony boundaries drawn by the British early in the 20th century. Like Yugoslavia, Iraq was able to be held together by a strongman who managed to squelch the centuries-old hatreds within the country. With Saddam gone, like Tito in Yugoslavia, factional fighting was pretty much inevitable (and was predicted by so many people prior to the war, none of whom were listened to by the current administration). Our presence is clearly not helping anymore -- if it ever did. I don't think, however, that any government we prop up can govern the whole country. Pull a Yugoslavia or a pre-Paskistan India I say, let them divide into smaller and inevitably weaker countries. Then we don't seem like we're taking sides Sunni vs. Shia vs. Kurd. Otherwise, we're in for years of civil war.
|
| Rotblatt Mar 26 2007 05:23 PM |
|
I honestly don't know what the answer is to the problem of Iraq. On the one hand, I don't think we're doing much if any good over there, and our people are dying at an alarming rate; on the other hand, if we leave, there most likely WILL be a mass slaughtering of Shia by the Sunni majority. I don't really think leaving Iraq will make us any less safe, at least in the short term, but I DO think it would be abandoning our moral responsibility. We destabilized Iraq, and it's our responsibility to find some sort of solution. If we're positive we can't accomplish anything by being in there, then we should at least try to referee from the sidelines with the majority of our troops, and be ready to step in if/when things start to get out of control. What IS perfectly clear to me is that our government is completely and utterly incompetent. I mean, forget what party you belong to--does anyone really think our federal government is doing its job? At its fundamental level, the government exists to identify, prepare for, and respond to threats to its citizens. In the last 6 years, we've had 9/11, a threat we should have seen coming but didn't, and completely failed to prepare for; Iraq, something we misidentified as a threat, then prepared for with breathtaking inadequecy; Katrina, a threat we saw coming but did nothing to prepare for, then responded to in slow motion. And frankly, I should probably chalk global warming up there as well, beacause we've done fuck all on that front as well. Oh, and Walter Reed is another great example of our broken beaurocracy. Fuck universal health care or lower taxes or all that other ideological bullshit. I'd like our next president to focus solely on elevating the competence of the government to the point where "beaurocrat" isn't considered a dirty word. If he or she can do that, I don't care if he's Red, Blue or Green. I'm what Nymr would call a liberal, but if an anti-choice, pro-death penalty, anti-gay rights, pro-building-a-wall-between-us-and-Mexico candidate convinced me that he would do his best to accomplish the above, I'd vote for him happily. I just don't think there's anything more important than getting our government functioning at a basic level of competence again.
|
| Willets Point Apr 09 2007 03:52 PM |
|
|
| metsmarathon Apr 09 2007 08:14 PM |
|
|
the problem is that too many people vote based on who best fits into their view of what the right answers are to those issues, and ignore whether or not the candidate actually would lead the country effectively, whether or not he can build a consensus, and whether or not he would actually adhere to whatever values he projected so as to garner enough votes to win.
|