View Full Version : If O'Reilly ran Iraq, he would run it like Saddam
solypsist
06-22-2006, 20:39
On Monday's Radio Factor with Bill O’Reilly, he shared with us his strategy for keeping the peace in Iraq. As the title notes, it involves ruthless murder.
O’Reilly: Now to me, they’re not fighting it hard enough. See, if I’m president, I got probably another 50-60 thousand with orders to shoot on sight anybody violating curfews. Shoot them on sight. That’s me… President O’Reilly… Curfew in Ramadi, seven o’clock at night. You’re on the street? You’re dead. I shoot you right between the eyes. Ok? That’s how I run that country. Just like Saddam ran it. Saddam didn’t have explosions - he didn’t have bombers. Did he? because if you got out of line, you’re dead.
right click save as audio mp3 (http://tinyurl.com/pt69c)
I wanted to bend over backwards to be fair to Bill, but I want y’all to listen to the clip. Listen to the way he says, “I shoot you right between the eyes.”
Devastatin Dave
06-22-2006, 20:45
Did he happen to click his heels and shot his hand, saluting into the air after his little rant? What a drama queen. O'Reilly says he doesn't believe in the death penalty but he says, "Curfew in Ramadi, seven o’clock at night. You’re on the street? You’re dead. I shoot you right between the eyes." What a fool...
Well Soly, how would you run Iraq?
O'Reilly, the left's useful idiot? :laugh4:
solypsist
06-22-2006, 20:55
No, Bush is; you voted for him, right?
Bush is the cause of all other, smaller, idiots, which of course are symptoms of his choices.
O'Reilly, the left's useful idiot? :laugh4:
He was taking about an effective counter-terrorist strategy. If we continue to fight this war the same way we fought it in Vietnam, it would be impossibe to win. He's fed up with how the war's being fought, and wants ruthless measures against even more ruthless enemies. I understand where he's coming from.
Avicenna
06-22-2006, 21:27
Two wrongs don't make a right.
...and that practically is the death penalty, except no court case is required.
What part of being at war don't you understand?
Sounds like O'Reilly would like to be a Roman provincial governor, which is clearly impossible. He hasn't even been elected Aedile, much less Praetor. Let's see him work his way up the cursus honorum before we give him a province to govern. (Besides, I think O'Reilly has acquired the "Dangerously Mad" V&V.
Avicenna
06-22-2006, 21:42
I don't understand this war.
You got over the Iraq, on some kind of noble mission to install democracy and get rid of terrorism. In the end, chaos is created, terrorists can all concentrate in a certain area where it's easier to blow up Americans, and the civilians hate the majority of the militants in the area, which has few American sympathisers.
Then, to top this off, you propose to kill on sight, even if they're civilians.
Banquo's Ghost
06-22-2006, 21:45
What part of being at war don't you understand?
And what part of establishing democracy don't you understand? Isn't that what is being put forward as the reason for the invasion and occupation? You think murdering people willy-nilly is really going to improve the situation?
I thought your president said you'd won the war?
:dizzy2:
And what part of establishing democracy don't you understand? Isn't that what is being put forward as the reason for the invasion and occupation? You think murdering people willy-nilly is really going to improve the situation?
It was shoot-on-sight only after curfew, after martial law would be declaired by the Iraqi gov't in certain problem areas. There's a difference between random killings of civilians and trying to secure a place that has claimed the lives of hundereds of people.
What part of being at war don't you understand?
What part of invading another nation on false pretenses and then staying there as an occupying force do you not understand?
And if you're talking about the "War on Terror" then how is it possible to have a war against a word, with no victory conditions and no way to measure success? It's like the "War on Drugs" and we're losing that one too.
I like the John Stuart Mill quote in your sig. I prefer his one about conservatives, however. :wink:
Avicenna
06-22-2006, 22:00
Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Break the curfew, you get shot.
I'm lovin' it.
Break the curfew, you get shot.
Again, this is only is neighborhoods where people have been found dead in the street, killed execution-style. (and so on) Martial law where the gov't clearly does not have controll still seems reasonable to me.
And if you're talking about the "War on Terror" then how is it possible to have a war against a word, with no victory conditions and no way to measure success? It's like the "War on Drugs" and we're losing that one too.
Do you mean to say that none of these wars are worth fighting is they cannot be 100% acomplished? If that kind of attitude were to prevail, then where would that put our war on unemployment, our war on illiteracy, our war on aids?
What part of invading another nation on false pretenses and then staying there as an occupying force do you not understand?
You can check my posts on the "WMD's Found thread for that one.
But the US military has been staying to secure the formation of the Iraqi government. Occupying? Yes. But it's a far cry from the Soviet "occupation" of East Berlin.
If that kind of attitude were to prevail, then where would that put our war on unemployment, our war on illiteracy, our war on aids?
Actually, I would like to propose a ban on each and every "War on X" when X does not equal a nation or specific organization. So we can have a War on Al-Qaeda, but no War on Terror. And we can have anti-poverty initiatives, but War on Poverty would get kicked to the curb.
And don't get me started on the War on Drugs. I'm pretty sure drugs won that one.
No, Bush is; you voted for him, right?
Bush is the cause of all other, smaller, idiots, which of course are symptoms of his choices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
O'Reilly, the left's useful idiot?
Bush is not an idiot, he's a clever and blindly idealistic goober with precious little education who suffers from a bad case of Cindy Brady syndrome (note his expression and responses whenever someone points a camera at him).
Take a good look at the documentary "Journeys with George" before you label GW an idiot. He's a completely different person without the bright lights and TV cameras pointed at him, so much so that one can see how foolish it is to underestimate the guy. Not that GW is living embodiment of 'brilliant', far from it. But he's definitely got a head on his shoulders and knows how to charm the pants off people to get what he wants. Before you decry this documentary as being right wing biased propaganga keep in mind that "Journeys with George" was produced & directed by Alexandra Pelosi, the openly left leaning daughter of Nancy Pelosi, yes 'Nancy left-leaning-mouthpiece-of-the-radical-left&Minority-Leader-of-the-House Pelosi'.
Besides, the Air National Guard isn't in the habit of letting idiots fly F-104 Starfighters.
Do you mean to say that none of these wars are worth fighting is they cannot be 100% acomplished? If that kind of attitude were to prevail, then where would that put our war on unemployment, our war on illiteracy, our war on aids?
None of which are wars. You can't fight a war against an idea. If you need a lesson in that, study the history of the Catholic Church fighting the Reformation.
You can check my posts on the "WMD's Found thread for that one.
But the US military has been staying to secure the formation of the Iraqi government. Occupying? Yes. But it's a far cry from the Soviet "occupation" of East Berlin.
Saw the post. Too funny. We knew Saddam had WMD's prior to 1991. We even let him use them on his own people and then sent Rummy to shake Saddam's hand and smile, because at the time he was also using them against our enemy, Iran. :wink:
We shut down the WMD program completely. Saddam didn't have the capability to use those WMD's after the mid-1990's. You're welcome to try and prove otherwise. Bush's claim was that Saddam had an active WMD program in 2003. That has been proven false. Again, you're welcome to try and prove otherwise. That post certainly doesn't do it. Keep trying. The Bush administration has been trying for 3 years and hasn't managed it. Maybe you'll have better luck.
As for the part about trying "to secure the formation of the Iraqi government" I'll ask you again. What happened to Bush's claim in 2000 that he wouldn't use our troops for foreign nation building? Doesn't that constitute one of those "flip flops" the Bushistas are so fond of accusing others of doing?
Bush is not an idiot, he's a clever and blindly idealistic goober with precious little education who suffers from a bad case of Cindy Brady syndrome (note his expression and responses whenever someone points a camera at him).
Take a good look at the documentary "Journeys with George" before you label GW an idiot. He's a completely different person without the bright lights and TV cameras pointed at him, so much so that one can see how foolish it is to underestimate the guy. Not that GW is living embodiment of 'brilliant', far from it. But he's definitely got a head on his shoulders and knows how to charm the pants off people to get what he wants. Before you decry this documentary as being right wing biased propaganga keep in mind that "Journeys with George" was produced & directed by Alexandra Pelosi, the openly left leaning daughter of Nancy Pelosi, yes 'Nancy left-leaning-mouthpiece-of-the-radical-left&Minority-Leader-of-the-House Pelosi'.
Besides, the Air National Guard isn't in the habit of letting idiots fly F-104 Starfighters.
Yes! Someone who also calls Bush a goober! I knew I wasn't alone. It's the first thought I have every time I see him on TV. What a goober! Bush is clever like a fox. Yes indeed. And foxes can't add 2+2 and get 4 either.
As for the Air National Guard, records optained through the FOIA show that Bush scored the lowest possible on the flight aptitude test (25 out of 100) and still be allowed into the ANG. And as for allowing him to fly. They didn't. Not after he failed to achieve a physical and lost his flight status. In several more years with the Guard, he never - let me repeat that - never regained his flight status. So for almost half his tour of duty he wasn't allowed to fly at all. :wink:
PanzerJaeger
06-22-2006, 22:46
The obsession with Bill Oreilly some liberals have is truly pathetic.
Hes a talking head. He talks 5 days a week on both the radio and television. Anyone who has to fill that much time with his own personal opinions and observations is bound to make some odd, angry, or downright mistaken statements.
The fact that so many liberals converge on their forums and in their chatrooms in smug celebration every time the man screws up shows the dismal state of their own lives, or lack there of. The man does not speak for conservatives. He has never been elected by conservatives to anything. I seriously doubt many conservatives would list him as a any sort of intellectual when it comes to right-wing ideology.
As for his ideas stated in this thread - I agree wholeheartedly. If martial law and curfews have been put in place, I find no problem with taking appropriate action against those who ignore the rules.
This war was fought over American security and American interests first and foremost. The wellbeing and democratization of the Iraqi people has always been a secondary propaganda tool and should only be pursued as long as the attainment of those goals falls in line with American interests.
You're right. This is about us! It's our security first and our interests first! We just need a little more living space! That's all. It's our right and in our interests to get a little more living space. Just a tad more. Nothing much. We have the power; so we'll take that lebensrau... er living space. The USA is the world's hyperpower! We rule. We decide. We make the decisions because we have the power to do so. USA, USA uber alles! Er, I mean we're bringing democracy to the people of the world, whether they like it or not! Yeah, that's the ticket.
You're right. This is about us! It's our security first and our interests first! We just need a little more living space! That's all. It's our right and in our interests to get a little more living space. Just a tad more. Nothing much. We have the power; so we'll take that lebensrau... er living space. The USA is the world's hyperpower! We rule. We decide. We make the decisions because we have the power to do so. USA, USA uber alles! Er, I mean we're bringing democracy to the people of the world, whether they like it or not! Yeah, that's the ticket.
:inquisitive:
You should seriously consider eliminating processed sugar from your diet.
PanzerJaeger
06-22-2006, 23:13
You're a clever fellow, Aenlic. ~:rolleyes:
In your wonderfully insightful post you did make one somewhat cogent point, although I highly doubt you meant to make it.
We make the decisions because we have the power to do so.
That is in fact the way the world works, especially in regards to geopolitics. It is the way it worked before America's ascension and the way it will work after her fall. Humanity is the most advanced species on the planet, but cannot overcome the laws of nature just yet.
I made no moral judgement of that fact one way or the other.
By the way, your attempt to draw a comparison between my statements and the argument for living space in 1940s Germany is rather specious, as I dont know of many Americans who would be interested in moving to Iraq - regardless of the security situation. :laugh4:
Or we could just eliminate the jingoists. Reliable genetic testing will surely one day allow us to weed out those less fortunate members of the gene pool. :wink:
"I'm sorry, Ma'am. Our genetic tests have indicated a high likelihood that your fetus either suffers from anencephaly or will grow up to be a fan of Fox News or both. You'll have to abort the pregancy."
Wait a sec... I think I just discovered the real reason behind the more radical of the pro-Life movement. They're bombing abortion clinics and killing people to save people (there's a good one) for a secret reason! They want to ensure that the supply of stupid people doesn't stop.
You're a clever fellow, Aenlic. ~:rolleyes:
In your wonderfully insightful post you did make one somewhat cogent point, although I highly doubt you meant to make it.
That is in fact the way the world works, especially in regards to geopolitics. It is the way it worked before America's ascension and the way it will work after her fall. Humanity is the most advanced species on the planet, but cannot overcome the laws of nature just yet.
I made no moral judgement of that fact one way or the other.
By the way, your attempt to draw a comparison between my statements and the argument for living space in 1940s Germany is rather specious, as I dont know of many Americans who would be interested in moving to Iraq - regardless of the security situation. :laugh4:
Specious? Too funny. You're using the phrase "geopolitics" and then denying any connection? Are you serious? Maybe some here don't know the origins of geopolitik; but I do. Maybe some here don't know what the idea of geopolitik started and where it started and who it influenced; but I do. Nice, PJ. That's just about the biggest :oops: I've seen you make yet.
Specious? Too funny. You're using the phrase "geopolitics" and then denying any connection? Are you serious? Maybe some here don't know the origins of geopolitik; but I do. Maybe some here don't know what the idea of geopolitik started and where it started and who it influenced; but I do. Nice, PJ. That's just about the biggest :oops: I've seen you make yet.
Oddly enough, you and Oreilly are quite similar. Both angry, bitter people who have a habit of spouting random hostile gibberish.
:2thumbsup:
Random? Not in the least. Hostile. Absolutely. Gibberish? That would depend on whether or not you know what geopolitik is. I can't help you with that. It's up to you to educate yourself, not me. I recommend opening a book or two.
A mind is like a parachute, Joker85. It has to be open to work. That's the ground approaching you, rather fast. Better do something quick.
PanzerJaeger
06-22-2006, 23:31
Or we could just eliminate the jingoists. Reliable genetic testing will surely one day allow us to weed out those less fortunate members of the gene pool.
So you are in favor of eliminating all those who disagree with your world view?
Aenlic, buddy, you may turn out to be more fascist than I am! :laugh4:
Oh, and if you have trouble deciphering the difference between geopolitik and the modern use of the term, PM me, and I'll give you a history lesson. ~:)
PJ, shame on you. You're trying to confuse the unedumacated among us.
Let's look at the definitions, shall we?
ge·o·pol·i·tics ( P ) Pronunciation Key (j-pl-tks)
n. (used with a sing. verb)
1. The study of the relationship among politics and geography, demography, and economics, especially with respect to the foreign policy of a nation.
2.
a. A governmental policy employing geopolitics.
b. A Nazi doctrine holding that the geographic, economic, and political needs of Germany justified its invasion and seizure of other lands.
3. A combination of geographic and political factors relating to or influencing a nation or region.
Now, let's examine your use of the word in the context of the discussion in this thread, shall we? You used the term in relation to the U.S. doing what is in its best interests because it has the power to do so. You even said it was a law of nature, too. (Need I remind you how that relates to geopolitik as envisioned by people like Haushofer?). You said that what matters in Iraq is ultimately our interests and our needs. That our needs justified the invasion of Iraq.
Now...
Which definition above does your stance most closely resemble? Invasion. Check. Justified by the political and economic needs of the invading nation. Check. Sound familiar at all? :laugh4:
Or we could just eliminate the jingoists. Reliable genetic testing will surely one day allow us to weed out those less fortunate members of the gene pool. :wink:
I laughed out loud when I read that. :laugh4:
None of which are wars. You can't fight a war against an idea. If you need a lesson in that, study the history of the Catholic Church fighting the Reformation.
Even when the idea is the destruction of your country? :inquisitive:
Saw the post. Too funny. We knew Saddam had WMD's prior to 1991. We even let him use them on his own people and then sent Rummy to shake Saddam's hand and smile, because at the time he was also using them against our enemy, Iran.
You seem to forget the whole hostage of American students thing... Iraq was indeed a lesser of two evils at the time.
What happened to Bush's claim in 2000 that he wouldn't use our troops for foreign nation building?
I think 9/11 drastically changed his foreign policy, and he would have been foolish to not do so. There's a difference between flip-flopping and adapting to new circumstances (the deaths of over a thousand civilians in down-town New York City certainly constitutes a change on one's world view).
I laughed out loud when I read that. :laugh4:
Good, it was intended as facetious and humorous. Not as a serious statement of reality. At least we can agree that far.
Even when the idea is the destruction of your country? :inquisitive:
And the idea of the Reformation wasn't seen as the destruction of the power of the Catholic Church? They too, were fighting an idea which they thought was intended to destroy them. The Catholic Church didn't succeed and we won't succeed. Hearts and minds, remember? You don't win hearts and minds by doing exactly what the enemy accused you of doing before, even though we weren't actually doing it as such before. We made the propaganda real. We actually handed the weapon to the enemy and said "Here!" Al Qaeda accused us of wanting to destroy Islam and occupying Islamic countries and trying to force our way of life on them. So what do we do? We invade an Arab country and tell them we're not leaving until the become a functioning, western-style democracy. How insane is that?
You seem to forget the whole hostage of American students thing... Iraq was indeed a lesser of two evils at the time.
What? Are you talking about the hostages just prior to the first Gulf war? I'm talking way earlier. We knew Saddam was gassing the Kurds. We knew Saddam was gassing the Iranians after they recovered from his invasion and began to push back. And yet, there's Rummy, in the mid-80's, in Baghdad, smiling and shaking Saddam's hand as we sought to help him out.
I think 9/11 drastically changed his foreign policy, and he would have been foolish to not do so. There's a difference between flip-flopping and adapting to new circumstances (the deaths of over a thousand civilians in down-town New York City certainly constitutes a change on one's world view).
But the deaths of over 2500 US service personnel can't change one's world view? Think through to the end of your logical position, please. You're saying that the deaths of 3000 thousand US civilians was sufficient reason for Bush to change his very public stance on using US troops for nation building; but what was your position on John Kerry changing his stance on voting for the war? What was your position on Wesley Clark changing his mind? Did you agree with the characterization of it by the right as "flip-flopping" by those who initially supported the war and now don't? Do you see the problem here? You're effectively saying you only think changing one's mind is justified if the outcome is one with which you agree. That's quite a double standard, isn't it? :wink:
PanzerJaeger
06-23-2006, 00:24
Which definition above does your stance most closely resemble?
The first, obviously. Geopolitik and geopolitics are such drastically different concepts that no one I know of would use the two interchangeably, regardless of the dictionary definition.
I would assume someone such as yourself, who has supposedly read a book or two, would know that in the English speaking world the German word is used untranslated to imply the Nazi definition. I suppose I assumed wrong.. :no:
Although it is a novel correlation you made(geopolitik nazi! - panzer nazi! Score! ~:rolleyes: ), do not kid yourself. If I had meant to make a reference to nazi ideology I certainly would not have used "geopolitics" instead of the German spelling most commonly associated with it.
Hurin_Rules
06-23-2006, 00:28
Bill O'Reilly is right on. I mean, lets just take the gloves off-- worked at Abu Ghraib, didn't it? And in the same interview he also said that the real problem is not the terrorists, its the New York Times and Boston Globe and all the liberals that keep fixating on all the civilians that get killed. I totally agree with Papa Bear on this. How dare American news outlets be free to publish whatever they want. I mean what are we fighting this war for anyway... uh... freedom?
Bill O'Reilly is right on. I mean, lets just take the gloves off-- worked at Abu Ghraib, didn't it? And in the same interview he also said that the real problem is not the terrorists, its the New York Times and Boston Globe and all the liberals that keep fixating on all the civilians that get killed. I totally agree with Papa Bear on this. How dare American news outlets be free to publish whatever they want. I mean what are we fighting this war for anyway... uh... freedom?
And he is just as free to blame them for whatever he wants, correct? Or does your version of freedom only go one way.
Everyone is free to do or say anything they want. He's free to criticize and to be criticized. I didn't hear him calling for them to be imprisoned or for a law to be passed saying they couldn't report what they want, so your rant about "how dare they be free!" is misplaced. No more than your words against him just now is an attempt by you to "take away his freedom".
Soulforged
06-23-2006, 01:13
None of which are wars. You can't fight a war against an idea. If you need a lesson in that, study the history of the Catholic Church fighting the Reformation.That's what I say, but see the answers of Pindar. He gave a clear and terminant asnwer to the subject saying: Al-Qaeda. Wich means, by eliminating Al-Qaeda we eliminate terror in Iraq.
PS: Good to see you back in the Backroom.:2thumbsup:
Byzantine Prince
06-23-2006, 02:30
I think O'reilly's world view would have been normal 100 years ago, but not in the liberalized world we have today, with all the human rights and everything. To be fair to Bill though, he is right that if he was leader he would solve a lot of problems for the Americans, except he would also get hounded by pretty much every nation that cares about human rights. Which means America would be screwed in many ways.
Aenlic, buddy, you may turn out to be more fascist than I am! :laugh4:
I did not know you were fascist. You seem to present yourself as one in recent times. Odd.
Hurin_Rules
06-23-2006, 02:30
And he is just as free to blame them for whatever he wants, correct? Or does your version of freedom only go one way.
Everyone is free to do or say anything they want. He's free to criticize and to be criticized. I didn't hear him calling for them to be imprisoned or for a law to be passed saying they couldn't report what they want, so your rant about "how dare they be free!" is misplaced. No more than your words against him just now is an attempt by you to "take away his freedom".
Um, you are aware that I was responding to a post in which O'Reilly advocated martial law and shoot-on-sight curfews, right? He is most clearly NOT saying everyone should be 'free to do or say anything they want'. Kinda just blows everything you just said right out of the water, no?
And the idea of the Reformation wasn't seen as the destruction of the power of the Catholic Church? They too, were fighting an idea which they thought was intended to destroy them. The Catholic Church didn't succeed and we won't succeed. Hearts and minds, remember? You don't win hearts and minds by doing exactly what the enemy accused you of doing before, even though we weren't actually doing it as such before. We made the propaganda real. We actually handed the weapon to the enemy and said "Here!" Al Qaeda accused us of wanting to destroy Islam and occupying Islamic countries and trying to force our way of life on them. So what do we do? We invade an Arab country and tell them we're not leaving until the become a functioning, western-style democracy. How insane is that?
So in defending our nation's interests we're actually spelling our own doom? :inquisitive: That's just Al Qaeda propoganda. You know full well that we're not in there to combat Islam. However, once a strong democracy emerges, people will begin to see what they have been missing out. You of all people should know that not all democracies agree with one another, and that each maintains their own sets of values based opon the majority population. We can easily have an Islamic democracy, because *shocking information* the majority of Iraqis are Muslim! :book: It doesn't really help Al Qaeda's stance when they start to target Mosques and everyday civilians. :idea2:
What? Are you talking about the hostages just prior to the first Gulf war? I'm talking way earlier. We knew Saddam was gassing the Kurds. We knew Saddam was gassing the Iranians after they recovered from his invasion and began to push back. And yet, there's Rummy, in the mid-80's, in Baghdad, smiling and shaking Saddam's hand as we sought to help him out.
I'm talking about the one during the days of Carter from '79-'81.
But the deaths of over 2500 US service personnel can't change one's world view?
That's an amazing number by anybody's standards, and should be testiment to how well our servicemen are doing in Iraq. I thought that all TotalWar fans would understand this. :inquisitive: Need I give you statistics about the number of people lust during the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam? Such a low number of deaths this military action (which has lasted longer than WWII) can only point to sucess. 2500 soliers at war over a period of several years and 3000 civilians in the middle of New York City on a Tuesday moring are quite different things.
You're effectively saying you only think changing one's mind is justified if the outcome is one with which you agree. That's quite a double standard, isn't it? :wink:
Kerry and Clark changed their positions about a war that was pretty well-fought in my opinion. Now Kerry apologizes about voting for Iraq in the first place, but for reasons I can hardly agree with or understand, except for trying to snag the votes of his party. That is pretty different than having to react to a terrorist attack during your term that took out the grandest building in the world, wouldn't you think? I don't Bush did it for votes because if he did, wouldn't we have a lot more people agreeing with him? ;)
Well that's a habit with Kerry. Gungho support for the war when it's popular, rabid opposition for it when it becomes unpopular.
First Vietnam now Iraq.
Bandwagon much?:laugh4:
So in defending our nation's interests we're actually spelling our own doom? :inquisitive: That's just Al Qaeda propoganda. You know full well that we're not in there to combat Islam. However, once a strong democracy emerges, people will begin to see what they have been missing out. You of all people should know that not all democracies agree with one another, and that each maintains their own sets of values based opon the majority population. We can easily have an Islamic democracy, because *shocking information* the majority of Iraqis are Muslim! :book: It doesn't really help Al Qaeda's stance when they start to target Mosques and everyday civilians. :idea2:
That wasn't anywhere near my point; and I hope for your sake that you're just being deliberately obtuse.
First, where did you get out of my point that we, or the Catholic Church was doomed? That isn't the point. You can't win a war against an idea. You can't lose one either. It's nonsense. It's just propaganda to allow things to be done as if we were at war. To run up outrageous debts that our grandchildren won't be able to repay. To chip away at 220 years of constitutional rights for the sake of security. It's pure bull crap. If you can prove to me that we're winning the War on Drugs, then I'll consider that we might be able to win a War on Terror. Deal?
Second, you can't force people to form a democracy. Democratic reforms are something they must want for themselves and fight to achieve for themselves. It's beyond idiotic to think we can just point our magic wand at Iraq and say "Abracadabra! You're now a democracy!" It doesn't work like that. We've been working at it for 200 years and still haven't gotten it right. It took us the first 100 years just grant democratic rights to slaves and women!
Third, what if they decide that they want to be a theocracy? Who are we to say they can't do that? Especially when we have our own religious nut-cases prancing about here trying to turn us into a theocracy with idiotic statements like "this country was created as a Christian nation" and "the founding fathers intended this to be a Christian democracy" and other nonsense.
Just so we're clear on that point, here's a little quote from George Washington - remember him? One of the founding fathers.
"The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine."
And yet we have our little budding theocrats popping up everywhere, proclaiming the US to be a Christian nation. And this after 220 years! Small wonder then that it might be a tad more difficult in a country even more steeped in religion, and brand new at governing themselves?
Is it not possible for a democracy, as you seem to believe we're "creating" in Iraq to vote themselves out of democracy? Of course it is. Think the Bushistas will allow that to happen? Not if they can help it. So where does that put us, if we're only willing to allow them the freedom to govern themselves if they govern themselves the way we want? Where's the freedom in that?
I'm talking about the one during the days of Carter from '79-'81.
Iran held hostages in the embassy in Tehran for 444 days. I remember it well. I was in the Navy when it started and out of the Navy and had voted against Ronnie Rayguns when it ended.
I'm talking about 1983. Here's a link to a great GWU article on the whole issue, including the evidence of Rumsfeld's lies about the event after the fact.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm
And there's dear old Rummy grinning and shaking the hand of the evil evil-doer, part of the Axis of Evil, threat to humanity and so on and so forth.
That's an amazing number by anybody's standards, and should be testiment to how well our servicemen are doing in Iraq. I thought that all TotalWar fans would understand this. :inquisitive: Need I give you statistics about the number of people lust during the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam? Such a low number of deaths this military action (which has lasted longer than WWII) can only point to sucess. 2500 soliers at war over a period of several years and 3000 civilians in the middle of New York City on a Tuesday moring are quite different things.
Wow, just wow. You managed a complete non sequitur and turned that whole point into a discussion of how good our troops are at losing so few. No need to provide me with statistics. I'm a disabled vet myself. I fully understand, thank you. What I would like is for you to explain how it's OK for Bush to change his mind; but it's not OK for those who now oppose him to have changed theirs. Going off on a patriotic side debate isn't helpful.
Kerry and Clark changed their positions about a war that was pretty well-fought in my opinion. Now Kerry apologizes about voting for Iraq in the first place, but for reasons I can hardly agree with or understand, except for trying to snag the votes of his party. That is pretty different than having to react to a terrorist attack during your term that took out the grandest building in the world, wouldn't you think? I don't Bush did it for votes because if he did, wouldn't we have a lot more people agreeing with him? ;)
He did have a lot of people agreeing with him. The roads were full of people driving their gas-guzzling, terrorist-funding SUV's down the road proudly displaying the cheap plastic flags they'd allowed to shred in the wind, thus desecrating them. His approval ratings were at an all-time high. We had the world on our side. We even had the dictator of Pakistan bowing at our feet and helping us to hunt down the terrorists. We were actually succeeding! We almost had Bin Laden. Then we had to go off on our little misadventure in Iraq to prevent them from, as you'll recall the state of the union address of the time, having mushroom clouds over our cities, etc. All that political capital wasted. All that world goodwill and support wasted. Less than 7500 troops in Afghanistan looking for Bin Laden and the real terrorists, a country roughly the same size as Iraq, while 150,000+ troops were sent off to Iraq to keep us safe from... wait for it... terrorists, who were, by that time all safely over the border into the wilds of the autonomous tribal region of Pakistan.
Drop in the polls.
Mission accomplished. Remember that one? The supposedly flight-trained Bush being too stupid to undo his crotch strap? Yeah, that one. Of course, in the month following that little photo op more US service personnel died than in the all previous months from the start of the invasion to the banner on the ship saying we'd won.
Drop in the polls.
Wait, it wasn't WMD's! No, no! It was to get Saddam, because he harbored terrorists and had his agents meeting with Mohammed Atta in Prague. Well, OK, that wasn't true either. Turns out that never happened and the only terrorist training camp we ever found in Iraq turned out to be in the north, in Kurdish territory and under our very own no-fly zone. As Carlos Mencia would say... Dee dee dee!
Drop in the polls.
OK, OK! No, no, really we're in Iraq to relieve the Iraqi people from the terror and oppression of the Saddam regime which imprisoned people in Abu Ghraib and tortured them and... umm... ooops.
Drop in the polls.
OK, OK! We're in Iraq to bring democracy to the people. Well, as long as it's what we want as a democracy and the people we want are elected and they don't try to form a religious government, even though many of our own citizens are trying to that very thing right here at home. Oh, and they have to sell us all the oil we want too. Riiiight.
Drop in the polls.
Bush has been fighting for a reason for the invasion since day one. And his poll numbers have been slipping since day one of the invasion. Doesn't help that nearly everyone who signed the PNAC statement of principles way back in 1997 calling for, among other things... wait for it... an invasion of Iraq, are now working in the Bush administration or related to him. Maybe there's a real reason we invaded in there, eh? Opportunity knocked and then they had to sell it to the American people? Almost worked. The selling that is. But the tide has turned and people are finally starting to awaken from the nightmare. Some will take their medicine (pronounced propaganda) like good little boys and girls and go back to sleep. Hopefully enough will stay awake for the next episode of "The reason we're in Iraq! No really! The real reason this time!"
What's the next excuse going to be? Maybe it'll turn out that there's a rare species of really beautiful butterfly which lives only in the rare ecosystem of the Iraqi oil fields. And, by one of those strange coincidences, Dick Cheney turns out to be an avid butterfly collector!
Of course, not all of us bought into the big lie from the beginning. Can't say we didn't warn those of you who did, though. :smile:
How's that nightmare coming along? Your leg is twitching like a dog chasing a rabbit in his dreams.
Spetulhu
06-23-2006, 11:55
That's an amazing number by anybody's standards, and should be testiment to how well our servicemen are doing in Iraq. I thought that all TotalWar fans would understand this. :inquisitive: Need I give you statistics about the number of people lust during the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam? Such a low number of deaths this military action (which has lasted longer than WWII) can only point to sucess.
No, it points out that soldiers today have better body armor, better immediate medical services and better chances of medical evacuation than before. A lot of soldiers survive injuries that would have put them on the list of dead only 30 years earlier. In World War II there were 2.3 (American) wounded for every fatality, and 3.28 in Vietnam; in Iraq the ratio of wounded to killed is 9.4. The soldiers of high-tech armies just don't die as often as they used to, but almost 46% of those wounded are Not Returned To Duty.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004615.html
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf
Funny enough, this alleged proven method never really worked. Napoleon in Spain and Hitler in Europe are two experience of brutality, and no result. These methods just radicalise the populations and are used by the Guerrillas. They can even provoke the troops and just wait for the result, see Vietnam, Algeria etc.
“I think O'reilly's world view would have been normal 100 years ago”: No, even at this period it was not. Go to see some paintings of Goya.
The reality is when you start to want to kill people you came to liberate, it is a clue that something is going wrong… And when it is somebody like him who is suggesting it, it is very very concerning…
It remind me a sentence, during Vietnam about a village: To free the village we had to destroy it. I tried to remember the name of he village but I couldn’t.
It remind me a sentence, during Vietnam about a village: To free the village we had to destroy it. I tried to remember the name of he village but I couldn’t.
Mei Lai was the most famous; but there were multiple instances. As multiple instances are coming to light in Iraq, even in the Brit-controlled areas. Things are not all rosy in Iraq.
Kralizec
06-24-2006, 23:29
As for his ideas stated in this thread - I agree wholeheartedly. If martial law and curfews have been put in place, I find no problem with taking appropriate action against those who ignore the rules.
This war was fought over American security and American interests first and foremost. The wellbeing and democratization of the Iraqi people has always been a secondary propaganda tool and should only be pursued as long as the attainment of those goals falls in line with American interests.
This sort of warfare does not work anymore because nobody except a few extremists (O' Reilly, among others) would endorse it. Do it in Iraq, or Vietnam, the public backlash would be enormous. But then I suppose it would be the medias fault that said war was lost?
Even in America, assuming there's a majority who consciously or unconsciously thinks that the US' interests take priority over anything else, would not endorse killing of civilians as a method of keeping the Iraqis in line.
The only way it would work would be if the government was able to keep the US people and the international community in the dark about what is happening in Iraq. Personally I would not like to live in a country where my government has complete discretion in deciding about life and death, and can conduct war as they see fit without being held accountable for it.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
06-25-2006, 01:24
Listen to the way he says, “I shoot you right between the eyes.”
Sounds just like Splinter Cell. :laugh4:
“This war was fought over American security and American interests first and foremost.” So this war is a complete failure… It created more enemies towards USA and it makes oil supply more unstable. As we used to say in the Army: “Mission accomplished, total failure”.
And to impose curfew and killing people won’t change the basic reality.
Watchman
06-25-2006, 22:59
That's what I say, but see the answers of Pindar. He gave a clear and terminant asnwer to the subject saying: Al-Qaeda. Wich means, by eliminating Al-Qaeda we eliminate terror in Iraq.Save for the little unpleasant detail the AQ boys are small (although noisy) fries compared to the local insurgents. People's Front Of Judea all the way, and shoot the countrymen of the wrong ethnic/religious/whatever persuasion.
Save for the little unpleasant detail the AQ boys are small (although noisy) fries compared to the local insurgents. People's Front Of Judea all the way, and shoot the countrymen of the wrong ethnic/religious/whatever persuasion.
Yeah! Especially the Judean People's Front! And the Judean Popular People's Front! Splitters!
Well, we actually agree on this point, for the most part, GC.
The British and French created many of today's problems in the Middle East. The British mandate of Iraq, created out of the provinces of Mosul, Baghdad and Basra was a mess from the beginning, lumping Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds altogether as one nation. The monarchy (Faisal of Lawrence of Arabia fame) couldn't hold it together and still keep power. The military junta couldn't hold it together and still keep power. The pan-Arabists couldn't hold it together and still keep power. And Saddam barely held it together, just barely by being a ruthless dictator.
The French mandate of Syria and Lebanon was an example of the same concept. Syria is relatively stable due to being more homogenous; but the spring in Lebanon eventually unwound altogether.
Yugoslavia was another example of an artificial state holding disparate groups together like a coiled spring. When Tito died, the spring released.
India after the Brits is another example. The artificial British state there couldn't hold together, either; becoming India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. And even today, Pakistan doesn't even pretend to control the autonomous tribal region in the northwest, near Afghanistan.
We're in Iraq right now, trying to pretend that the artificial state created by the British after WWI isn't a spring that has already sprung.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.