403 to 3....maybe this explains why almost nobody from the Congress showed up at the DC Anti-War rally.
I don't expect the Dems to "shut up" about Iraq, but as I have stated previously on multiple occasions, when it comes to what to do NOW to win the war, the Dems have nothing "publically" to offer.
The Dems are the party of defeat and retreat, even when they vote NOT TO WITHDRAW from Iraq. And this is why they can not be entrusted to our national security.
Marco
Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
Moderator: CHGPA BOD
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
Lie, cheat, mislead--maybe the Dems have finally stolen something from the conservative playbook, eh??Marco Zee wrote:403 to 3....maybe this explains why almost nobody from the Congress showed up at the DC Anti-War rally.
I don't expect the Dems to "shut up" about Iraq, but as I have stated previously on multiple occasions, when it comes to what to do NOW to win the war, the Dems have nothing "publically" to offer.
The Dems are the party of defeat and retreat, even when they vote NOT TO WITHDRAW from Iraq. And this is why they can not be entrusted to our national security.
Marco
How much ya wanna bet that its not going to be the Republicans who will lead the vote to start troop drawndowns in Iraq within the next twelve months?
marcoDeathMiester
The Prez does not want to keep 160K troops there indefinitely, but wants to withdraw them when Iraq is secure enough to fend for itself, which should be relatively soon, within the next 12 months or so. The elections in a few weeks hopefully will continue the historic political gains that have been achieved in Iraq.
The Dems, on the other hand, want withdrawal now so as to ensure a terrorist and Baathist victory, which is the only way the US troops can be defeated.....by the Dems abandoning them in the halls of Congress....again.
On the good news side:
DJIA is within striking distance of 11,000.
Inflation is negligible.
Home ownership is at an alltime high.
High Growth rate, Low Unemployment.
Gas prices down to $2/gallon.
Marco
The Dems, on the other hand, want withdrawal now so as to ensure a terrorist and Baathist victory, which is the only way the US troops can be defeated.....by the Dems abandoning them in the halls of Congress....again.
On the good news side:
DJIA is within striking distance of 11,000.
Inflation is negligible.
Home ownership is at an alltime high.
High Growth rate, Low Unemployment.
Gas prices down to $2/gallon.
Marco
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
I guess having unlimited access to Prozac has its advantages!Marco Zee wrote:The Prez does not want to keep 160K troops there indefinitely, but wants to withdraw them when Iraq is secure enough to fend for itself, which should be relatively soon, within the next 12 months or so. The elections in a few weeks hopefully will continue the historic political gains that have been achieved in Iraq.
The Dems, on the other hand, want withdrawal now so as to ensure a terrorist and Baathist victory, which is the only way the US troops can be defeated.....by the Dems abandoning them in the halls of Congress....again.
On the good news side:
DJIA is within striking distance of 11,000.
Inflation is negligible.
Home ownership is at an alltime high.
High Growth rate, Low Unemployment.
Gas prices down to $2/gallon.
Marco
marc
Great Googly-moo!
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
Now you're starting to make some sense! What kind of "mood elevation" can you get for me?Marco Zee wrote:<<I guess having unlimited access to Prozac has its advantages! >>
Marc,
Prozac has literally helped millions with Clinical Depression....it's a great drug that has improved the lives of many.....maybe it could help you too.....you could use some "mood elevation".
Marco
marcoIWouldNotFeelSoAllAlone--EverybodyMustGetStoned!
Great Googly-moo!
Now King George and Marco see nothing but good news and progress in Iraq. I had to look at some body counts to see for myself. One can almost see the progress. Let me share the good news.'
We lost 85 troops in November, 2005. That is an improvement over October 2005 where we lost 96 troops. Of course there is the issue that we lost less in September 49 troops but lets not dwell on these inconvient facts. So we could say it is improving by noting that we lost 137 troops in November 2004 but of course it was substantially worst than the previous November 2003 where we lost 82 troops. Then again we lost 37 troops in May 2003 when King George said that Mission Accomplished major combat operations are over.
Then there is the average weekly casualities which were about 7 troops per week in the first three months of the war in Iraq. Things have steadily improved as King George would say. We now have an average of 14 troops reported as casualties each week. We should feel so much better about everything because King George just told us we are making progress.
Not everyone is killed you know. We have 16,000 listed as wounded now. 94% of these troops were wounded after our great leader said major combat actions have been completed.
There isn't a complete list of Iraqi casualties. Just two numbers that are somewhat available from reported Iraqi deaths. First is Iraqi police/military killed this year - 2376 + 1300 from previous years for a total of 3676. Also an estimate of between 27,000 and 31,000 Iraqi civilians killed by military intervention in Iraq.
Don't you feel so much better now with King George's good news.
Joe
We lost 85 troops in November, 2005. That is an improvement over October 2005 where we lost 96 troops. Of course there is the issue that we lost less in September 49 troops but lets not dwell on these inconvient facts. So we could say it is improving by noting that we lost 137 troops in November 2004 but of course it was substantially worst than the previous November 2003 where we lost 82 troops. Then again we lost 37 troops in May 2003 when King George said that Mission Accomplished major combat operations are over.
Then there is the average weekly casualities which were about 7 troops per week in the first three months of the war in Iraq. Things have steadily improved as King George would say. We now have an average of 14 troops reported as casualties each week. We should feel so much better about everything because King George just told us we are making progress.
Not everyone is killed you know. We have 16,000 listed as wounded now. 94% of these troops were wounded after our great leader said major combat actions have been completed.
There isn't a complete list of Iraqi casualties. Just two numbers that are somewhat available from reported Iraqi deaths. First is Iraqi police/military killed this year - 2376 + 1300 from previous years for a total of 3676. Also an estimate of between 27,000 and 31,000 Iraqi civilians killed by military intervention in Iraq.
Don't you feel so much better now with King George's good news.
Joe
Joe,
OK...let's talk body counts.
What about the body counts of terrorists and old Baathists that have been killed? Most people estimate a 10:1, or even as high as a 20:1 kill ratio.
What about the number of civilians who were SAVED and NOT killed by Saddam because he was deposed?
How many American casualties were there 2 1/2 years into WWII, Korea, WWI, or the Civil War?.....they were much much greater than in the present Iraqi conflict, by a factor of 10-100.
By further comparison, there have been more than 100,000 automobile fatalities in the past 30 months.....in the USA alone. And more than 50,000 suicides and murders.
It is amazing to me that the Iraqi people are literally hours from forming their first democratically elected govenment, and these liberals keep insisting that we have to withdraw because we are "LOSING"......they cannot appreciate the historic changes that are occuring right before their jaundiced and myopic eyes.
Marco
OK...let's talk body counts.
What about the body counts of terrorists and old Baathists that have been killed? Most people estimate a 10:1, or even as high as a 20:1 kill ratio.
What about the number of civilians who were SAVED and NOT killed by Saddam because he was deposed?
How many American casualties were there 2 1/2 years into WWII, Korea, WWI, or the Civil War?.....they were much much greater than in the present Iraqi conflict, by a factor of 10-100.
By further comparison, there have been more than 100,000 automobile fatalities in the past 30 months.....in the USA alone. And more than 50,000 suicides and murders.
It is amazing to me that the Iraqi people are literally hours from forming their first democratically elected govenment, and these liberals keep insisting that we have to withdraw because we are "LOSING"......they cannot appreciate the historic changes that are occuring right before their jaundiced and myopic eyes.
Marco
Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
Now we are comparing Iraq to WW1 and WW2? Rumsfield stated at the outset
that this war would last 1 - 2 weeks, and at the outside, no more than 6
months. Now we are comparing this 'conflict' to the largest wars in the
world?
-Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Marco Zee [mailto:marcoz757@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 12:40 AM
To: ot_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
Joe,
How many American casualties were there 2 1/2 years into WWII, Korea, WWI,
or the Civil War?.....they were much much greater than in the present Iraqi
conflict, by a factor of 10-100.
that this war would last 1 - 2 weeks, and at the outside, no more than 6
months. Now we are comparing this 'conflict' to the largest wars in the
world?
-Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Marco Zee [mailto:marcoz757@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 12:40 AM
To: ot_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
Joe,
How many American casualties were there 2 1/2 years into WWII, Korea, WWI,
or the Civil War?.....they were much much greater than in the present Iraqi
conflict, by a factor of 10-100.
Islamo-Fascists have a potential recruiting base of over 1 Billion people who are Muslims worldwide.
Hitler only a had a potential base of approx 40-50 million Germans and an uncertain number of Vichy French, who were willing to "get along".
[b}Which presents, or presented, a greater threat?[/b]
Marco
Hitler only a had a potential base of approx 40-50 million Germans and an uncertain number of Vichy French, who were willing to "get along".
[b}Which presents, or presented, a greater threat?[/b]
Marco
Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
Christian-Fascists have a potential recruiting base of 2.3 Billion (compared
to 1.3 Billion Islam - http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html)
people who are Christian worldwide.
So what.
-Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Marco Zee [mailto:marcoz757@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 1:33 PM
To: ot_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
Islamo-Fascists have a potential recruiting base of over 1 Billion people
who are Muslims worldwide.
Hitler only a had a potential base of approx 40-50 million Germans and an
uncertain number of Vichy French, who were willing to "get along".
[b}Which presents, or presented, a greater threat?[/b]
Marco
to 1.3 Billion Islam - http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html)
people who are Christian worldwide.
So what.
-Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Marco Zee [mailto:marcoz757@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 1:33 PM
To: ot_forum@chgpa.org
Subject: Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
Islamo-Fascists have a potential recruiting base of over 1 Billion people
who are Muslims worldwide.
Hitler only a had a potential base of approx 40-50 million Germans and an
uncertain number of Vichy French, who were willing to "get along".
[b}Which presents, or presented, a greater threat?[/b]
Marco
Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
Also, in the World Wars, Korea and the Civil War, there was full-scale mobilization - rationing, disruption of normal economic activity, NEW TAXES! In this war, we took a big tax cut. There's something wrong when we ask troops to risk death while the richest
1-2% are taking a big tax cut that - with the added costs of the war - runs us into deficit forever...
- Hugh
>From: Mike Balk <mike@talismanenterprises.net>
>Date: Thu Dec 08 06:46:56 CST 2005
>To: ot_forum@chgpa.org
>Subject: RE: Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
>
>Now we are comparing Iraq to WW1 and WW2? Rumsfield stated at the outset
>that this war would last 1 - 2 weeks, and at the outside, no more than 6
>months. Now we are comparing this 'conflict' to the largest wars in the
>world?
>
>
>-Mike
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Marco Zee [mailto:marcoz757@aol.com]
>Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 12:40 AM
>To: ot_forum@chgpa.org
>Subject: Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
>
>
>Joe,
>
>How many American casualties were there 2 1/2 years into WWII, Korea, WWI,
>or the Civil War?.....they were much much greater than in the present Iraqi
>conflict, by a factor of 10-100.
1-2% are taking a big tax cut that - with the added costs of the war - runs us into deficit forever...
- Hugh
>From: Mike Balk <mike@talismanenterprises.net>
>Date: Thu Dec 08 06:46:56 CST 2005
>To: ot_forum@chgpa.org
>Subject: RE: Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
>
>Now we are comparing Iraq to WW1 and WW2? Rumsfield stated at the outset
>that this war would last 1 - 2 weeks, and at the outside, no more than 6
>months. Now we are comparing this 'conflict' to the largest wars in the
>world?
>
>
>-Mike
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Marco Zee [mailto:marcoz757@aol.com]
>Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 12:40 AM
>To: ot_forum@chgpa.org
>Subject: Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
>
>
>Joe,
>
>How many American casualties were there 2 1/2 years into WWII, Korea, WWI,
>or the Civil War?.....they were much much greater than in the present Iraqi
>conflict, by a factor of 10-100.
<<Christian-Fascists have a potential recruiting base of 2.3 Billion (compared to 1.3 Billion Islam) people who are Christian worldwide.
So what. -Mike >>
Hey Mike,
Thanks for bringing up this stat....It is very, very good news to know that the Christians do indeed outnumber the Muslims, although there are not Christian "Fascists" hiding and plotting to overthrow Muslim "civilization".
Who are these Christian Fascists that you are referring to? I don't know of any. Care to name a few?
Another important aspect of this statistic is that we have still have 2.299,997,900 from which to recruit....so nobody should "panic" because we have lost 2,100 soldiers (as unpleasant and tragic as these losses are). Like I said earlier, we have lost many more people in car accidents, murders, and suicides than in Iraq.
Marco
So what. -Mike >>
Hey Mike,
Thanks for bringing up this stat....It is very, very good news to know that the Christians do indeed outnumber the Muslims, although there are not Christian "Fascists" hiding and plotting to overthrow Muslim "civilization".
Who are these Christian Fascists that you are referring to? I don't know of any. Care to name a few?
Another important aspect of this statistic is that we have still have 2.299,997,900 from which to recruit....so nobody should "panic" because we have lost 2,100 soldiers (as unpleasant and tragic as these losses are). Like I said earlier, we have lost many more people in car accidents, murders, and suicides than in Iraq.
Marco
Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
Marco,
Your cavalier attitude about soldiers' (and others') lives is
disrespectful and offensive. Please read what you have written and
think about it.
Getting killed or grievously injured in a military/guerrilla
conflict is a lot different from losing one's life in a (hang-
gliding?) accident or even a civil murder.
We can't beat the terrorists by simply killing them all - as
Rumsfeld pointed out a couple of years ago, their recruitment exceeds
their casualties by a handy margin. Nor can we prevail in a
simplistic - and genocidal - "clash of cultures" (Huntington) with
the entire Muslim world (Hitler didn't even succeed in murdering all
the Jews, who were far fewer than the Muslims even 65 years ago).
America stands for community that is not based on religion or
ethnicity. Religion has been used to justify the slaughter of
innocents since time immemorial, but no true religion condones mass
killing. A game of "Christians vs. Muslims" is an absolute dead
end, with no possibility of resolution for generations.
- Hugh
Your cavalier attitude about soldiers' (and others') lives is
disrespectful and offensive. Please read what you have written and
think about it.
Getting killed or grievously injured in a military/guerrilla
conflict is a lot different from losing one's life in a (hang-
gliding?) accident or even a civil murder.
We can't beat the terrorists by simply killing them all - as
Rumsfeld pointed out a couple of years ago, their recruitment exceeds
their casualties by a handy margin. Nor can we prevail in a
simplistic - and genocidal - "clash of cultures" (Huntington) with
the entire Muslim world (Hitler didn't even succeed in murdering all
the Jews, who were far fewer than the Muslims even 65 years ago).
America stands for community that is not based on religion or
ethnicity. Religion has been used to justify the slaughter of
innocents since time immemorial, but no true religion condones mass
killing. A game of "Christians vs. Muslims" is an absolute dead
end, with no possibility of resolution for generations.
- Hugh
Marco,
Just what do the number of murders,car accidents, and suicides have to do with the war in Iraq? ANSWER: NOTHING>>>>>>.
You and your fellow right wing faithful republicans seem have no understanding of the human cost of the folly that this admistration has inflicted upon the American people and the people of Iraq. It is unforgivable that you have such a blaize attitude about soldiers and other fellow human beings who are being killed and mamed daily because of the war we started without just cause. No true belief in the sanctity of life here.
I think you need to volunteer to go to Iraq in a humanitarian capacity and help treat the wounded and pick up the body parts of our soldiers that are killed to get an appreciation of the cost of this unnecessary war.
Joe
Just what do the number of murders,car accidents, and suicides have to do with the war in Iraq? ANSWER: NOTHING>>>>>>.
You and your fellow right wing faithful republicans seem have no understanding of the human cost of the folly that this admistration has inflicted upon the American people and the people of Iraq. It is unforgivable that you have such a blaize attitude about soldiers and other fellow human beings who are being killed and mamed daily because of the war we started without just cause. No true belief in the sanctity of life here.
I think you need to volunteer to go to Iraq in a humanitarian capacity and help treat the wounded and pick up the body parts of our soldiers that are killed to get an appreciation of the cost of this unnecessary war.
Joe
Hey Mike, Hugh, & Joe,
I stand by everything I said.
I understand that you guys do not support the war in Iraq (for a variety of reasons), and therefore view the casualties there as a waste and unnecessary. If I did not support the overthrow of Saddam and the fight against Islamic terrorists, I would probably agree with you.
But I disagree with you about Iraq, and believe it is indeed a war that we needed to fight and win, and indeed will bring us longterm benefits, as well as freedom and democracy to millions of Iraqi's.
Everyday, we ask policeman and fireman to risk thier lives to battle criminals and fires, and unfortunately there are many who lose their lives performing these jobs. Should we ask them to stop fighting crime and fires because they might get hurt or killed? Of course not. Same goes for soldiers. Their job is to fight the enemies (and we certainly have enemies) of our country. That's their job and responsibility, and they do it well and heroically.
The American people, thru their elected Dem & Repub representatives, sent the these soldiers into Iraq, and this Commander in Chief will not settle for anything less than complete victory, as should any President, otherwise why even start the war.
If you guys are so concerned about wasted lives and unnecessary loss of life, I would suggest you guys go to your local trauma center or ER and see how many Americans come in shot, stabbed, or suffering from self-induced injuries......most of which are truly "completely senseless".
At least our soldiers are fighting and sacrificing for something greater than themselves....the security of the American people and the freedom and democracy of millions of Iraqi's....I certainly don't consider this a "wasted life" , but instead a very noble effort.
Marco
I stand by everything I said.
I understand that you guys do not support the war in Iraq (for a variety of reasons), and therefore view the casualties there as a waste and unnecessary. If I did not support the overthrow of Saddam and the fight against Islamic terrorists, I would probably agree with you.
But I disagree with you about Iraq, and believe it is indeed a war that we needed to fight and win, and indeed will bring us longterm benefits, as well as freedom and democracy to millions of Iraqi's.
Everyday, we ask policeman and fireman to risk thier lives to battle criminals and fires, and unfortunately there are many who lose their lives performing these jobs. Should we ask them to stop fighting crime and fires because they might get hurt or killed? Of course not. Same goes for soldiers. Their job is to fight the enemies (and we certainly have enemies) of our country. That's their job and responsibility, and they do it well and heroically.
The American people, thru their elected Dem & Repub representatives, sent the these soldiers into Iraq, and this Commander in Chief will not settle for anything less than complete victory, as should any President, otherwise why even start the war.
If you guys are so concerned about wasted lives and unnecessary loss of life, I would suggest you guys go to your local trauma center or ER and see how many Americans come in shot, stabbed, or suffering from self-induced injuries......most of which are truly "completely senseless".
At least our soldiers are fighting and sacrificing for something greater than themselves....the security of the American people and the freedom and democracy of millions of Iraqi's....I certainly don't consider this a "wasted life" , but instead a very noble effort.
Marco
Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
The soldiers' sacrifices are indeed wasted if the Commander-in-
Chief's strategy is incorrect and will not result in "victory". I'm
glad that Bush has finally recognized that he has to provide some
rationale for his policy. Repeating the slogan "Stay the course"
won't cut it anymore. "Victory" won't either. I promise to keep an
open mind and read what he has to say (sorry, can't listen to him for
more than 60 seconds before turning him off in disgust - I understand
some had the same reaction to Bill Clinton, whom I found charming.)
I need to hear an answer to how foreign (U.S.) troops can end an
insurgency against their presence. Attrition (systematically killing
them) just doesn't work. I remember watching the evening news when I
was in college during the Vietnam War. They would always give the
weekly body count vs. U.S. casualties and the exchange ratio was
always 10 or 20 to one. Someone said: "We won again!"... - Hugh
Chief's strategy is incorrect and will not result in "victory". I'm
glad that Bush has finally recognized that he has to provide some
rationale for his policy. Repeating the slogan "Stay the course"
won't cut it anymore. "Victory" won't either. I promise to keep an
open mind and read what he has to say (sorry, can't listen to him for
more than 60 seconds before turning him off in disgust - I understand
some had the same reaction to Bill Clinton, whom I found charming.)
I need to hear an answer to how foreign (U.S.) troops can end an
insurgency against their presence. Attrition (systematically killing
them) just doesn't work. I remember watching the evening news when I
was in college during the Vietnam War. They would always give the
weekly body count vs. U.S. casualties and the exchange ratio was
always 10 or 20 to one. Someone said: "We won again!"... - Hugh
Hugh stated: << I need to hear an answer to how foreign (U.S.) troops can end an insurgency against their presence.>>
Your statement raises a few interesting questions.
Who are the "insurgents" (and are they really insurgents, in the classic definition) and what and whom are they "insurging against"?
Foreign terrorists compromise between 5-10% of the "insurgents", but account for a vast majority of the bombings. Old Baathists and supporters of the Saddam regime, mostly Sunni's, are the vast majority of the indigenous "insurgents".
So what are the foreigners doing there? Supporting Saddam? Battling US imperialism? Establishing an Islamic state? Or attempting to kill Democracy in its infancy? Perhaps some combination of these positions.
The old Baathists are just trying to recapture what they once had....full control over Iraq and its wealth. What will these thugs do once the Sunni gen pop begins to fully participate in democracy? Will they continue their resistance, or join the fold and put down their weapons? I suspect that some will continue to resist, and others will join the fold. And what will the new Iraqi Government do to these thugs if they continue to resist? Hopefully they will root them out and destroy them.
And as US troops begin to draw down, will these foreign terrorists continue to attack Iraqi citizens (as they did in Jordan), and how will the new Iraqi Government deal with them as well. Or will they leave, since the US has withdraw, or is in the process of withdrawing? I suspect that they are going to continue to attack the Iraqi's, especially those who are suspected of supporting the new democratic government. I guess we are going to find out eventually.
I am basically not convinced that the "insurgents" are only "insurging" because the US troops are there, and if we depart, the insurgents will suddenly cease their insurgency.
Marco
Your statement raises a few interesting questions.
Who are the "insurgents" (and are they really insurgents, in the classic definition) and what and whom are they "insurging against"?
Foreign terrorists compromise between 5-10% of the "insurgents", but account for a vast majority of the bombings. Old Baathists and supporters of the Saddam regime, mostly Sunni's, are the vast majority of the indigenous "insurgents".
So what are the foreigners doing there? Supporting Saddam? Battling US imperialism? Establishing an Islamic state? Or attempting to kill Democracy in its infancy? Perhaps some combination of these positions.
The old Baathists are just trying to recapture what they once had....full control over Iraq and its wealth. What will these thugs do once the Sunni gen pop begins to fully participate in democracy? Will they continue their resistance, or join the fold and put down their weapons? I suspect that some will continue to resist, and others will join the fold. And what will the new Iraqi Government do to these thugs if they continue to resist? Hopefully they will root them out and destroy them.
And as US troops begin to draw down, will these foreign terrorists continue to attack Iraqi citizens (as they did in Jordan), and how will the new Iraqi Government deal with them as well. Or will they leave, since the US has withdraw, or is in the process of withdrawing? I suspect that they are going to continue to attack the Iraqi's, especially those who are suspected of supporting the new democratic government. I guess we are going to find out eventually.
I am basically not convinced that the "insurgents" are only "insurging" because the US troops are there, and if we depart, the insurgents will suddenly cease their insurgency.
Marco
Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
Ah, agreement finally: the Iraqis themselves are much better
equipped to identify and defeat the insurgents than we are - so let
them do it. Clearly, there are still problems with the Iraqi
security forces - they are too Shi'ite, for one thing. And
decreasing U.S. forces sitting inside secure bases can provide the
heavy firepower to back them up if they get in trouble. Our
conventional forces are misapplied trying to do counter-insurgency -
they just become targets for IEDs. Now if you get a situation where
the insurgents will stand and fight, like in the western provinces,
then by all means, send the Marines, as we have. But as the Iraqi
forces stand up, let them have the psychological boost of winning in
combat.
Notice that Kerry refused to set a timetable for withdrawal - what we
(still) need from the president is a POA&M (plan of attack and
milestones): if this condition is met, a portion of the troops come
home; the following is the concrete definition of "victory" which if
achieved, means they all come home. (And "a stable democracy in
Iraq" doesn't cut it as a milestone - that's like a cure for cancer -
takes five years or more to know whether it's true.) It's good that
Bush is finally offering some rationale for his policy - it's about a
18 months late - he didn't do such a red hot job three years ago when
he started, either - had to have Tony Blair come bail him out. - Hugh
equipped to identify and defeat the insurgents than we are - so let
them do it. Clearly, there are still problems with the Iraqi
security forces - they are too Shi'ite, for one thing. And
decreasing U.S. forces sitting inside secure bases can provide the
heavy firepower to back them up if they get in trouble. Our
conventional forces are misapplied trying to do counter-insurgency -
they just become targets for IEDs. Now if you get a situation where
the insurgents will stand and fight, like in the western provinces,
then by all means, send the Marines, as we have. But as the Iraqi
forces stand up, let them have the psychological boost of winning in
combat.
Notice that Kerry refused to set a timetable for withdrawal - what we
(still) need from the president is a POA&M (plan of attack and
milestones): if this condition is met, a portion of the troops come
home; the following is the concrete definition of "victory" which if
achieved, means they all come home. (And "a stable democracy in
Iraq" doesn't cut it as a milestone - that's like a cure for cancer -
takes five years or more to know whether it's true.) It's good that
Bush is finally offering some rationale for his policy - it's about a
18 months late - he didn't do such a red hot job three years ago when
he started, either - had to have Tony Blair come bail him out. - Hugh
Torture Bin Laden?
Let's say that we capture Bin Laden, or Al-Zawahiri (sp) alive......should we torture them to get vital info and save lives?
Certainly these two know dozens, perhaps even hundreds or thousands of terrorists and have "first hand" knowledge of innumerable terrorist actions plans.
So, assuming they are uncooperative and not forthcoming, should we torture them to obtain info that would certainly save innocent lives? Or should we give them three squares a day and a nice warm cell and hope that they "change their stripes" and realize what great people the Americans really are, and renounce their terrorist ways?
I would emphatically state "YES". (to torturing these two).
Marco
PS: Bush should veto the McCain Amendment....it's worthless...all show and no go.
Certainly these two know dozens, perhaps even hundreds or thousands of terrorists and have "first hand" knowledge of innumerable terrorist actions plans.
So, assuming they are uncooperative and not forthcoming, should we torture them to obtain info that would certainly save innocent lives? Or should we give them three squares a day and a nice warm cell and hope that they "change their stripes" and realize what great people the Americans really are, and renounce their terrorist ways?
I would emphatically state "YES". (to torturing these two).
Marco
PS: Bush should veto the McCain Amendment....it's worthless...all show and no go.
Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
So, if they are captured and then tortured, do you think that will encourage more Muslims to join the ranks of the terrorists or convince the prospective new recruits that they should go peacefully into the night. Yeah, right.
?
I think anyone who thinks torture is an ok way to deal with people is too full of anger to be thinking clearly.
?
I remember watching the first Dirty Harry movie and when Clint Eastwood fired at the guy in the pond, the other people in the movie theater cheared. My own reaction was that the guy who played the bad guy did a really good job of playing the bad guy in the movie, but it didn't make me think that the cop should be taking the law into his own hands. The line between cop and bad guy is very thin and too often the line is crossed by the cop. I say use the law for the reason it's there - to help us stay civilized.
Christy
Marco Zee <marcoz757@aol.com> wrote:
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
?
I think anyone who thinks torture is an ok way to deal with people is too full of anger to be thinking clearly.
?
I remember watching the first Dirty Harry movie and when Clint Eastwood fired at the guy in the pond, the other people in the movie theater cheared. My own reaction was that the guy who played the bad guy did a really good job of playing the bad guy in the movie, but it didn't make me think that the cop should be taking the law into his own hands. The line between cop and bad guy is very thin and too often the line is crossed by the cop. I say use the law for the reason it's there - to help us stay civilized.
Christy
Marco Zee <marcoz757@aol.com> wrote:
Let's say that we capture Bin Laden, or Al-Zawahiri (sp) alive......should we torture them to get vital info and save lives?
Certainly these two know dozens, perhaps even hundreds or thousands of terrorists and have "first hand" knowledge of innumerable terrorist actions plans.
So, assuming they are uncooperative and not forthcoming, should we torture them to obtain info that would certainly save innocent lives? Or should we give them three squares a day and a nice warm cell and hope that they "change their stripes" and realize what great people the Americans really are, and renounce their terrorist ways?
I would emphatically state "YES". (to torturing these two).
Marco
PS: Bush should veto the McCain Amendment....it's worthless...all show and no go.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Enough pessimism -- how about the good news
What do you think? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_Harry
Sounds like Clint could have taken care of him, without killing him. Saved him for the courts.
?
I remember the bad guy was an incredibly good actor. Much better than Clint Eastwood.
Christy
Marco Zee <marcoz757@aol.com> wrote:
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Sounds like Clint could have taken care of him, without killing him. Saved him for the courts.
?
I remember the bad guy was an incredibly good actor. Much better than Clint Eastwood.
Christy
Marco Zee <marcoz757@aol.com> wrote:
Hey Christy,
As I recall the Dirty Harry movie, the psycho killer was lunging for his gun when he got shot, wasn't he?
Nice to see ya joining the discussion !!!
Marco
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Well Marco, at least we now know how you think Americans should treat people who we consider our enemy. You would do exactly what Sadam Hussan did to people he called his enemy or terrorist. Guess you and Sadam have a lot of common values. We know how productive his tactics were. Maybe we should adopt all his methods and just exterminate everyone who opposes our world view. It is not a really big step from torture to extermination and your indorsement of torture seems so easy for you. Why is that?
Joe
Let's say that we capture Bin Laden, or Al-Zawahiri (sp) alive......should we torture them to get vital info and save lives?
Certainly these two know dozens, perhaps even hundreds or thousands of terrorists and have "first hand" knowledge of innumerable terrorist actions plans.
So, assuming they are uncooperative and not forthcoming, should we torture them to obtain info that would certainly save innocent lives? Or should we give them three squares a day and a nice warm cell and hope that they "change their stripes" and realize what great people the Americans really are, and renounce their terrorist ways?
I would emphatically state "YES". (to torturing these two).
Marco
Joe
Let's say that we capture Bin Laden, or Al-Zawahiri (sp) alive......should we torture them to get vital info and save lives?
Certainly these two know dozens, perhaps even hundreds or thousands of terrorists and have "first hand" knowledge of innumerable terrorist actions plans.
So, assuming they are uncooperative and not forthcoming, should we torture them to obtain info that would certainly save innocent lives? Or should we give them three squares a day and a nice warm cell and hope that they "change their stripes" and realize what great people the Americans really are, and renounce their terrorist ways?
I would emphatically state "YES". (to torturing these two).
Marco