The War - Page 10

Wagner · #91 01-19-2007, 06:28 AM

Rebound, thanks for joining in brother

XXX, you're adding absolutely nothing to the discussion.

Eric, very able debating partner as usual

Sponsored Links

Wagner · #92 01-19-2007, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

I've heard this over and over and it's simply BS. Iraq was a parlamentary dictatorship under Saddam. What it means is that there were elections and people voted for members of the parlament and Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds all held many positions in the parlament. So the people of Iraq know exactly what democracy is. The only difference now is that instead of Saddam as "president for life", the prime minister was chosen by the Parlament. The voting process for the people was the same, except perhaps with more choices than in the past.

This whole idea is probably the fault of our own media. Those pictures of the people with the purple paint on their fingers would make you think these people had never seen a ballot box before in their lives.

The issue here is that this country should not be a country and it never should have been. It should be 2 or 3 different countries. The British drew the borders this way to "divide and conquer" -- to keep infighting going on amongst the Iraqi people so as not to allow them to unify and kick the British out.

The media and our administration made it out to be as though Iraqi's had never voted in their lives. Were their options limited, YES. Was there a free and open election process, NO. However, there was an election process. I can't recall who it was that said it but one leader said of Israel, "just because the voted, didn't make it democratic"

The whole middle east has a portion of the problems it has today because the ruling "empires" at the time thought they were smart enough to know who should live with who. A while back I made the comparison to if China, Russia and Britain decided to make a colony out of Kansas and put the Taliban there, how upset would the US be? It is similar to what happened with many of the middle easter "countries" now.

KENT4.8IS · #93 01-19-2007, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rebound

So let's get out now, is that what you're saying?

Makes sense. You say we "pushed" them into democracy too fast, so let's just leave them swinging in the breeze. Very well thought-out and mature.

By us staying there military with nothing reasonable political scenarios to offer we'll see endless stream of coffins coming home, mothers losing their sons and daughters, US being hated all-over the world. Name One country in the entire world where people consider us allies or at least do not hate us. We have no clue of who we are fighting.

The slightest chance we have is trying to put together a consortium of Arab countries to hand the country over, get out of the region completely and start paying $6-$7 a gallon- Just like the rest of the world does.

Staying in the middle of the endless, revenge fueled ethnic clensing only might slow it down but not stop it.

KENT4.8IS · #94 01-19-2007, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

I've heard this over and over and it's simply BS. Iraq was a parlamentary dictatorship under Saddam. What it means is that there were elections and people voted for members of the parlament and Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds all held many positions in the parlament. So the people of Iraq know exactly what democracy is. The only difference now is that instead of Saddam as "president for life", the prime minister was chosen by the Parlament. The voting process for the people was the same, except perhaps with more choices than in the past.

This whole idea is probably the fault of our own media. Those pictures of the people with the purple paint on their fingers would make you think these people had never seen a ballot box before in their lives.

The issue here is that this country should not be a country and it never should have been. It should be 2 or 3 different countries. The British drew the borders this way to "divide and conquer" -- to keep infighting going on amongst the Iraqi people so as not to allow them to unify and kick the British out.

We voted in the Soviet Union - would you call that democratic too?

Eric5273 · #95 01-19-2007, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KENT4.8IS

We voted in the Soviet Union - would you call that democratic too?

I think you are missing the point.

Eric5273 · #96 01-19-2007, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WagnerX5

OMG, I'll have to get tell all those dead WWII soldiers there wasn't any resistance. Eric, that comment was asinine. You're better then a xxx type war comment

I meant they had little resistance when compared to what the Russians faced on the Eastern front. And yes, I believe that the Russians would have defeated the Nazis regardless of whether or not the allies ever invaded Normandy. It would have taken them longer, but it would have happened. I think the outcome of the war was decided by early 1944.

As I said in an earlier post, over the 1943-1944 winter, Germany lost two-thirds of their army in Russia. The supply lines became too long, and over 2 million of their soldiers either starved to death or froze to death. That was too much for them to be able to overcome regardless of what happened after that.

Comparing the population of Germany back then to the United States now, that would be the equivalent of 10 million American soldiers dying. To put that in perspective, we currently have slightly more than 1 million total people in the Armed forces.

rebound · #97 01-19-2007, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

I think you are missing the point.

Actually, he's not. You are.

Just because people can vote, doesn't mean it's truly a democracy. Is anyone free to run for any office? Are people forced to vote for certain people/parties (or not to vote for same)?

Plenty of countries have elections. If you think that truly makes them democratic, you're smoking better stuff than I have access to.

Eric5273 · #98 01-19-2007, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rebound

Actually, he's not. You are.

Just because people can vote, doesn't mean it's truly a democracy. Is anyone free to run for any office? Are people forced to vote for certain people/parties (or not to vote for same)?

Plenty of countries have elections. If you think that truly makes them democratic, you're smoking better stuff than I have access to.

That was not what I said. I was not arguing that Iraq had democracy. I was saying that the people were familiar with the voting process -- it was not a new one to them.

ifly · #99 01-19-2007, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B-Line

Here is my uneducated opinion.

I think the U.S. needs to have a presence in the middle east. At least until some level of stability happens. We also need to be within arms reach of any terrorist organizations that may be fueling an attack against the US, Israel, or any other area of the Western world.
Regardless of WMD's which at the time were a great excuse. The US is on the ground in Iraq for more reasons than just Iraq.
It is my belief that having a large US army within a stones throw from other "aggressive" anti-western countries is important right now.
If we pull out of Iraq, I am pretty confident, we are going to be sending an army back to the Middle East as quickly as we can pull out.
And I would also not be surprised if Israel were to come under attack with a US withdrawl from the Middle East.

So now the question of, MORE TROOPS?
If that's what the General's need and that's what the existing troops need, then I say it's a good decision.

No, we might not be able to "win" this war. But what is "winning" a war? We beat Germany in WWII when we killed Hitler and entered Berlin. Well, we entered Bahdad and took care of Saddam.

The problem as I see it, is the war that will continue to exist between people that hate the U.S. and Israel. So if the fighting is in Iraq, it's in Iraq. If it's Afghanistan, then that is where the fighting will be. Iran, who knows... But I don't think it's time to retire the entire U.S. armed services and hope the fundamentalists start to like us.

I don't have an answer on how to win this war against the West. Except maybe, other West countries might realize we are fighting for them too. Things will probably have to get much worse before they get any better.

So, I'm sorry for the coutry of Iraq that the fighting, for now, has to be on their land. But if it's not there, it's going to be somewhere else.

B

This may have already been posted but here we go again, we do and did have a presence to strike from in the Middle East. http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...lity/udeid.htm

The biggest problem is getting permission from some of the countries in the Middle East to perform operations unless you do what the Israeli's do which only leads to pissing everyone off even more.

There is no such thing as a state for the majority of people in the Middle East, most of them are still tribal and do not even recognize borders. We are infidels in their eyes because of the difference in religions and even though the crusades were over in the 12th Century these stories are told like TV series around camp fires so we just look like the 21st Century crusaders.

My $0.02 no refunds given!

xxx · #**100** 01-19-2007, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WagnerX5

You've officially reached

status. Have fun there. And once again....Afghanistan was not to get Osama......

I guess you have it all figured out.....It seems you and Bush have allot in common, Ill be sure to bring this up again in 6 months to a year. Enjoy winning in Iraq.

Sponsored Links