Optimism in Iraq translated to the USA

Optimism in Iraq translated to the USA

Post by Eastoe Peckal » Tue, 28 Sep 2004 09:52:29




( snip )

To say that the potential for freedom means Iraq has freedom at this
time.. is ridiculous.

Who is the jackass that has said that?
____

George W Bush

Easto

I live in the hell of WebTV

 
 
 

Optimism in Iraq translated to the USA

Post by Jeffrey Dav » Tue, 28 Sep 2004 22:08:35


Quote:

> > > Are you a Baathist? Saddam's crimes had a much worse effect than this.

> > The Iraq people disagree, as far as day-to-day life is considered.  You
> > should really read some of the studies on the matter.

> Then cite a study or poll. Remember, dead people don't respond to polls.

> Are you saying that an American occupation of Iraq is less preferable to a
> dictator?

Allawi is a Baathist. Whoever comes through the way the current
election is rigged will represent a minority faced with a very
belligerent armed majority. Civil War. In other words, exactly the
same condition we have now.

Even in the most "desirable"[1] of actual outcomes, another strongman
Baathist will replace Saddam.

[1] as opposed to a continuous 20 year Ireland type civil war. Except
with more sophisticated weapons, outside infiltration, and the
presence of huge numbers of triiger-happy terrified American soldiers
with a vague mission without conviction, intelligence, or hope.

 
 
 

Optimism in Iraq translated to the USA

Post by Jefferson N. Glapsk » Wed, 29 Sep 2004 01:46:09


Quote:

> > > > Are you a Baathist? Saddam's crimes had a much worse effect than
this.

> > > The Iraq people disagree, as far as day-to-day life is considered.
You
> > > should really read some of the studies on the matter.

> > Then cite a study or poll. Remember, dead people don't respond to polls.

> > Are you saying that an American occupation of Iraq is less preferable to
a
> > dictator?

> Allawi is a Baathist. Whoever comes through the way the current
> election is rigged will represent a minority faced with a very
> belligerent armed majority. Civil War. In other words, exactly the
> same condition we have now.

> Even in the most "desirable"[1] of actual outcomes, another strongman
> Baathist will replace Saddam.

Whither WWII?

(I'm not saying Allawi is the best choice. I think reconstruction has been
somewhat of a failure, but pay attention to history.)

--
Jefferson N. Glapski
http://www.glapski.com

 
 
 

Optimism in Iraq translated to the USA

Post by xyzz » Wed, 29 Sep 2004 02:32:33

Quote:



>>Min? suojelen sinua kaikelta, mit? ikin? keksitkin sanoa, Jefferson N.

> Glapski:



>>>>Min? suojelen sinua kaikelta, mit? ikin? keksitkin sanoa, Jefferson N.

>>>Glapski:




>>>>>>>Charles Beauchamp, Extra cheese?! What do you take me for? Lorenzo
>>>>>>>DeMerichee?!


>>>>>>>>>>Does this add to the discussion, or merely divert it into yet

>>>>>>>another

>>>>>>>>>>pissing match over partisan politics?

>>>>>>>>>Anybody claiming that things are "good" or even that daily
>>>>>>>>>life is "better than under Saddam" in Iraq don't deserve any
>>>>>>>>>more than that.

>>>>>>>>>If we actually end up making life worse in Iraq than it was under
>>>>>>>>>Hussein, we'll have a lot to answer for.

>>>>>>>>>rich

>>>>>>>>Anyone who contemplates even the possibility that we could make
>>>>>>>>life in Iraq  worse then it was under Hussein has no idea how life
>>>>>>>>was like under Hussein, lacks the perspective to appreciate

> exactly

>>>>>>>>how good they have it in the USA  and likely never will.

>>>>>>>I believe that one point people appear to be missing is that the
>>>>>>>vast majority of Iraq is doing very well.  I know that a car bomb
>>>>>>>gets more ink than Achmed opening his internet cafe,
>>>>>>>but the majority of the problems that people were complaining

> about

>>>>>>>and the beginning of the year have been long resolved.

>>>>>>>-Tom Enright

>>>>>>Juan Cole, I think, did the math on the Iraqi situation. IIRC, a
>>>>>>comparative number of American dead would be around 150,000 in the

> last

>>>>>>year. The majority of Americans wouldn't be dead, sure, but you

> think

>>>>>>its hunky dory that a majority aren't killed or maimed?

>>>>>And when Fabian hit Bermuda, the comparable number of American dead

>>>would be

>>>>>15,000. From a hurricane lasting merely hours!

>>>>If you really want an analogy, and not just to score some
>>>>rhetorical points, think instead of an insurgency covering,
>>>>say, 20% of each state in the US.  Or, if you're stuck on
>>>>hurricanes, then a hurricane hitting every state.  _That's_ the
>>>>point.  This is affecting a large percentage of the Iraqi
>>>>populace every day.  Even more than Saddam's crimes did.

>>>Are you a Baathist? Saddam's crimes had a much worse effect than this.

>>The Iraq people disagree, as far as day-to-day life is considered.  You
>>should really read some of the studies on the matter.

> Then cite a study or poll. Remember, dead people don't respond to polls.

Dead people also can't help the U.S. occupation succeed.

Maybe if Daddy Bush had done this in 1991 there might have been more
people alive who would have helped us, and not been wary that we would
leave them holding the bag.  But between 1991 and now, I think Saddam
pretty efficiently eliminated those people.   And the sad truth is that
in building this nation we must deal with the Iraqis who are alive
today, not the ones who died over the last 13 years. The ones left alive
today are probably a group that skews toward Saddam collaborators and
the "keep your head down and stay out of trouble as long they don't
bother me" crowd.  And that's the crowd that's doing worse under U.S.
occupation.

 
 
 

Optimism in Iraq translated to the USA

Post by Jeffrey Davi » Wed, 29 Sep 2004 06:20:24

Quote:




>>>>>Are you a Baathist? Saddam's crimes had a much worse effect than

> this.

>>>>The Iraq people disagree, as far as day-to-day life is considered.

> You

>>>>should really read some of the studies on the matter.

>>>Then cite a study or poll. Remember, dead people don't respond to polls.

>>>Are you saying that an American occupation of Iraq is less preferable to

> a

>>>dictator?

>>Allawi is a Baathist. Whoever comes through the way the current
>>election is rigged will represent a minority faced with a very
>>belligerent armed majority. Civil War. In other words, exactly the
>>same condition we have now.

>>Even in the most "desirable"[1] of actual outcomes, another strongman
>>Baathist will replace Saddam.

> Whither WWII?

> (I'm not saying Allawi is the best choice. I think reconstruction has been
> somewhat of a failure, but pay attention to history.)

Pay attention to history? History presents a cornucopia of evidence for
whatever outcome you'd want. People always cite that Santayana gag, but
for Santayana the phrase WAS a gag. "History is always written wrong,
and so always needs to be rewritten."

Sadddam's biggest days as a butcher dreadfully came while we were
backing him. Does Ruby "Begon You" Rumsfeld ring a bell?

Bush's query that isn't it better that Saddam's dead begs the question.
The war in all its***glory is hardly over. Additionally, the result
of America getting rid of Saddam solo has announced to the Muslim war
that we are not simply an ally of Israel: we are at war with Islam. The
body count on that score is probably just begining. Hmmm. I wonder if
the Muslims noticed us selling bunker busters to Israel. Or that we've
ignored the peace process. (Mr. Sharon, tear down that wall!)

 
 
 

Optimism in Iraq translated to the USA

Post by Jefferson N. Glapsk » Wed, 29 Sep 2004 08:55:45


Quote:



> >>Min? suojelen sinua kaikelta, mit? ikin? keksitkin sanoa, Jefferson N.

> > Glapski:



> >>>>Min? suojelen sinua kaikelta, mit? ikin? keksitkin sanoa, Jefferson N.

> >>>Glapski:




> >>>>>>>Charles Beauchamp, Extra cheese?! What do you take me for? Lorenzo
> >>>>>>>DeMerichee?!


> >>>>>>>>>>Does this add to the discussion, or merely divert it into yet

> >>>>>>>another

> >>>>>>>>>>pissing match over partisan politics?

> >>>>>>>>>Anybody claiming that things are "good" or even that daily
> >>>>>>>>>life is "better than under Saddam" in Iraq don't deserve any
> >>>>>>>>>more than that.

> >>>>>>>>>If we actually end up making life worse in Iraq than it was under
> >>>>>>>>>Hussein, we'll have a lot to answer for.

> >>>>>>>>>rich

> >>>>>>>>Anyone who contemplates even the possibility that we could make
> >>>>>>>>life in Iraq  worse then it was under Hussein has no idea how life
> >>>>>>>>was like under Hussein, lacks the perspective to appreciate

> > exactly

> >>>>>>>>how good they have it in the USA  and likely never will.

> >>>>>>>I believe that one point people appear to be missing is that the
> >>>>>>>vast majority of Iraq is doing very well.  I know that a car bomb
> >>>>>>>gets more ink than Achmed opening his internet cafe,
> >>>>>>>but the majority of the problems that people were complaining

> > about

> >>>>>>>and the beginning of the year have been long resolved.

> >>>>>>>-Tom Enright

> >>>>>>Juan Cole, I think, did the math on the Iraqi situation. IIRC, a
> >>>>>>comparative number of American dead would be around 150,000 in the

> > last

> >>>>>>year. The majority of Americans wouldn't be dead, sure, but you

> > think

> >>>>>>its hunky dory that a majority aren't killed or maimed?

> >>>>>And when Fabian hit Bermuda, the comparable number of American dead

> >>>would be

> >>>>>15,000. From a hurricane lasting merely hours!

> >>>>If you really want an analogy, and not just to score some
> >>>>rhetorical points, think instead of an insurgency covering,
> >>>>say, 20% of each state in the US.  Or, if you're stuck on
> >>>>hurricanes, then a hurricane hitting every state.  _That's_ the
> >>>>point.  This is affecting a large percentage of the Iraqi
> >>>>populace every day.  Even more than Saddam's crimes did.

> >>>Are you a Baathist? Saddam's crimes had a much worse effect than this.

> >>The Iraq people disagree, as far as day-to-day life is considered.  You
> >>should really read some of the studies on the matter.

> > Then cite a study or poll. Remember, dead people don't respond to polls.

> Dead people also can't help the U.S. occupation succeed.

> Maybe if Daddy Bush had done this in 1991 there might have been more
> people alive who would have helped us, and not been wary that we would
> leave them holding the bag.  But between 1991 and now, I think Saddam
> pretty efficiently eliminated those people.   And the sad truth is that
> in building this nation we must deal with the Iraqis who are alive
> today, not the ones who died over the last 13 years. The ones left alive
> today are probably a group that skews toward Saddam collaborators and
> the "keep your head down and stay out of trouble as long they don't
> bother me" crowd.  And that's the crowd that's doing worse under U.S.
> occupation.

Exactly, Bush I ***ed up.

--
Jefferson N. Glapski
http://SportToday.org/

 
 
 

Optimism in Iraq translated to the USA

Post by Tom Enrigh » Wed, 29 Sep 2004 11:32:28

"Jefferson N. Glapski"

Quote:
>> Dead people also can't help the U.S. occupation succeed.
>> Maybe if Daddy Bush had done this in 1991 there might have been more
>> people alive who would have helped us, and not been wary that we would
>> leave them holding the bag.  But between 1991 and now, I think Saddam
>> pretty efficiently eliminated those people.   And the sad truth is that
>> in building this nation we must deal with the Iraqis who are alive
>> today, not the ones who died over the last 13 years. The ones left alive
>> today are probably a group that skews toward Saddam collaborators and
>> the "keep your head down and stay out of trouble as long they don't
>> bother me" crowd.  And that's the crowd that's doing worse under U.S.
>> occupation.
> Exactly, Bush I ***ed up.

Yes, he's the Bush who paid attention to the UN.

-Tom Enright

Quote:
> --
> Jefferson N. Glapski
> http://SportToday.org/

 
 
 

Optimism in Iraq translated to the USA

Post by Jefferson N. Glapsk » Wed, 29 Sep 2004 14:09:30


Quote:

> "Jefferson N. Glapski"

> >> Dead people also can't help the U.S. occupation succeed.

> >> Maybe if Daddy Bush had done this in 1991 there might have been more
> >> people alive who would have helped us, and not been wary that we would
> >> leave them holding the bag.  But between 1991 and now, I think Saddam
> >> pretty efficiently eliminated those people.   And the sad truth is that
> >> in building this nation we must deal with the Iraqis who are alive
> >> today, not the ones who died over the last 13 years. The ones left
alive
> >> today are probably a group that skews toward Saddam collaborators and
> >> the "keep your head down and stay out of trouble as long they don't
> >> bother me" crowd.  And that's the crowd that's doing worse under U.S.
> >> occupation.

> > Exactly, Bush I ***ed up.

> Yes, he's the Bush who paid attention to the UN.

Yep. He's also the one who said politics had no place in military decisions.

--
Jefferson N. Glapski
http://SportToday.org/

 
 
 

Optimism in Iraq translated to the USA

Post by Charles Beaucham » Thu, 30 Sep 2004 21:24:43

Quote:

> Thu, Sep 23, 2004, 10:02pm (CDT-2) From:


> ( snip )

> To say that the potential for freedom means Iraq has freedom at this
> time.. is ridiculous.

> Who is the jackass that has said that?
> ____

> George W Bush

Well then, you would be able to provide a cite for that I presume.

Quote:
> Easto

> I live in the hell of WebTV

--
v/r Beau

Karate Explosion