Hail the liberators!Follow

What do you suggest, Leiany? No re-evaluation of our foreign policy at all? Just ignore the fact that people are dying, things aren't working, put our heads down and trudge on without trying to make conditions better for all the people that still have a chance?

The contractors are not the first civilians to die. That's what war is, and the fact that they were U.S. citizens doesn't make their life more valuable.

Hm. Forgive me, I was still asleep when I answered that. After reading' Gbaji's post and dismissing any of his arguments as valid, I realize that I reacted without thought solely to your blatant tugging of heartstrings and lack of detail.

My bad.

Edited, Fri Apr 2 07:38:22 2004 by Atomicflea

"... I realize that I reacted without thought..." --Flea

No need to apologise, that's what we do around here. Otherwise this place would start to resemble a Chip 'n' Dale cartoon. And where's the fun in that?

:D

Totem

If anyone is interested, here is a link to some video. It is quite graphic. this is not something that you are going to be seeing on CBS, that's for sure.

http://news.yahoo.com/p/v?u=/ap_av/20040331/av_ap_wl/310a6260f8da191dec9927158f82f777&cid=452&f=53746348",650,450);.com

kundalini

Whoops, forgot, if you have trouble with that link, try this -

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=index&i=index.20040331&cid=1033

scroll to the bottom of the page, go to archived stories by date, choose Wed, March 31st. It is listed as "Warning: Graphic Content -- Iraqis Drag Corpses of 4 Americans Through Streets" near the middle of the page.

Edited, Fri Apr 2 12:54:47 2004 by kundalini

Um... Actually. I didn't make the initial comparison. The article that Smash quoted did (the part in bold in the first post in this thread. You know, which we presumably are supposed to respond to).

I was merely pointing out that in Somalia, we had American's drug through the streets and brutalized while accomplishing nothing, wheras in Iraq, we're seeing the same reaction but at least did something.

I think that's a pretty relevant point. Don't you?




I don't know about re-evaluation of US foreign policy. I was just making an observation. Smash seemed to be saying in a backhanded (and smug) way that the dragging of US citizens through the streets of a foreign nation by angry crowds was some sort of "accomplishment". Presumably a "bad" accomplishment. I was just pointing out that we achieved that "goal" in Somalia while not really doing anything other then putting big targets on ourselves.

Call it what you will, but the fact is that a death is a death. While no one wants anyone to die, you can certainly place a valuation after the fact as to whether someone died needlessly or not. Purely after the fact, we can say with some certainty that the US soldiers who died in Somalia died for absolutely nothing. We achieved no political or military objective in Somalia. Not one. In Iraq, we have toppled an unfriendly government, captured the primary leadership of that government, and have made great strides towards rebuilding a new one that hopefully will be a better representation of the people of Iraq, and also hopefully will be a bit more friendly towards us. You can argue whether you agree with the actions taken in Iraq all you want (I've done it myself), but you can't deny that we've at least done *something*. You can disagree with the goals of the current administration, but you have to agree that they have achieved those goals. We did not in Somalia.


Smash. I'm well aware of the role of pointing out differences between parties. That's not what I was talking about (although admittedly I didn't make myself very clear). I was commenting on the fact that Kerry's campaign (and really the thrust of the entire Dem party lately) has been almost entirely about pointing out each little flaw they see in the current administration. There has been very little coming from the Dems about how exactly they would do things differently if they were in power. I was making the observation that it's always easier to armchair quarterback a situation then to jump in the game and do the whole thing yourself. You can easily sit back and point out the mistakes another makes, but that does not guarantee that you would not make the same mistakes (or worse mistakes) if you were in charge.

That's what's really bothering me with the Dem platform right now. It doesn't seem to have a whole lot of "this is what we're going to do", but instead has a ton of "this is what the other guy is doing wrong". I think that'll work for awhile, but as we get closer to election time, people are going to want to hear a more concrete platform coming from the Dem party. Who knows though? Maybe Kerry can keep all the balls in the air and not actualy have to take a stand on anything? It's possible...

Edited, Fri Apr 2 18:09:18 2004 by gbaji

Edited, Fri Apr 2 18:10:14 2004 by gbaji

We work with Blackwater Security Consulting fairly often, and in my experiance they don't seem to be a CIA front company. They could be I suppose, but the size of their operation, the locations they operate in, and the amount of information sharing they are willing to do with private sector civilian companies with no governmental security clearances makes me think that is rather unlikely. But maybe that is part of the front.

"Excuse me! these fries are way too salty, and they are too cold. I want to talk to your manag..." <URK!>

That could be fun to watch.


oooooohhhh lot's o 7's

"We're aligning ourselves with Kerry," Zapatero proclaimed to the International Herald Tribune. "Our alliance will be for peace, against war, no more deaths for oil, and for a dialogue between the government of Spain and the new Kerry administration

“Maybe John Kerry does not know – but I am happy to explain it to him – that my commitment to withdraw the troops goes back before the tragic, dramatic terrorist attack,” Zapatero said.





“If the United Nations does not take over the situation and there is not a rethinking of this chaotic occupation we are living through, in which there are more dead in the occupation than in the war phase, the Spanish troops are going to return to Spain”, Zapatero said.

He also pledged to be relentless against terrorism.

“Terrorists have to know that (in Spain) there is going to be a government that is inflexible with terrorism and that wherever they are, they will be hunted down. This has been my policy since I was leader of the opposition.”


Im sorry, I find all of this a little fishy. Needless to say I will NOT be voting for Kerry any time soon. Any country weak enough to back down from the terrorist is just that, weak.
Gabji, give em hell!


Edited, Sat Apr 3 21:25:42 2004 by Cherrabwyn

Seeing as how thats all you had to come back with...

I must have hit a sore spot? Terrorist link for Kerry? Hmm... Well, if Smash can over look a blotch like that... ********* Sorry, Kerry will fall, and all the world will be better for it.

This, from you smash? The great debater? Falling short of a sudden, are we not? Figures. If you must lose, and knowing that you do almost repeatedly root the wrong guy. I mean who can forget the white male that was suppossedly the dc shooter, and he was suppossed to be all alone. That is what you predicted, is it not?

Your slipping, losing your grip even. The grease from the fry-O-later getting in your eyes? Or maybe that head of yours needs to be deflated so you can hear better?

Kerry will not win this election. Bush's ratings are still up there, and like I pointed out earlier, the ties between Kerry and Spain with this whole terrorism thing is all a little fishey. Bush will win, you will moan, *****, and whine about him again.

I really think this war on terrorism is the first step towards some kind of united front, a united world democracy even. It will happen, not in my life time of course, but maybe in our grandchildren's. I think it best that this happens, the sooner the better. How else will we progress as a "world" than to work together? To come to term with our diffrences? By this I do mean, there will be war, lots of it, many deaths, and many sissy dems to protest all of it. But, in the end, I do believe what ever united front we bring about, I think (and hope) the U.S. will have the biggest hand in its making.

Okay... Revisionism is alive and well I see...






Smash. The only two words in your original post were "Mission Accomplished". I say that your post is a backhanded (and smug) way of saying that our "accomplishment" in Iraq has been merely to get US soldiers killed, specifically in a way reminiscient of Somalia. And you respond with this garbage?

Wow. That's sad even for you. Look. If you can't take the time to post more the two words, then don't start crying if people happen to interprete that two word post in the most sensible way. If you meant to say something else, then why the heck didn't you just say it?

What's even more amusing is that you then go on a tirad where you essentially confirm that I did understand exactly what you were trying to say. You're arguing a position but unwilling to allow anyone to draw any conclusions based on that position.


Sure. We were "feeding the hungry" in Somalis (didn't I already say that too? Wow. I'm 2 for 2 on figuring out what the hell Smash is talking about). We failed dismally at that. Why? Because the various warlords in Somalia did exactly what the Iraqi government did when we tried the same thing in Iraq. They confiscated the food and sold it on the world market for weapons.


See a pattern here? The only difference is that the Clinton administrations response was to attempt feebly to deal with the warlords, and when that failed miserably (resulting in US soldiers being drug through the streets and a film made about the event), we pulled out. End result: Nothing accomplished at all except that we got a number of US soldiers killed.

The Bush administrations response to a similar (but much larger scale) problem in Iraq was to remove the "warlord" in power. Whether you agree with that decision or not, that administration did accomplish that goal. Yes. The death toll has been higher. But then again, Iraq is significantly larger then Somalia, and we actually accomplished something there.


It's a matter of conviction Smash. Nothing else. Clinton wanted to kinda work around the edges of the puzzle. That's nice. But when you look at it in an absolute way, you simply have to make the following comparison:

18(?) lives in Somalia: zero accomplishment

600ish lives in Iraq: Regime toppled. Kurds protected. Food being made available to the people. Potential for a "better" government in Iraq. Heck. You can add in "potential for better bargaining position on oil in the future" in there as well.

The math is really simple Smash. You've got a zero in the first case. Thus, no matter how many lives are lost in Iraq, we accomplished more per dead US citizen in Iraq then we did in Somalia. Now I'll admit that's not the best way to figure things, but if you're going to compare the two cases right accross, you have to do that sort of valuation.


As to long term value? That's really hard to say. None of us have the ability to see into the future. But there's a saying that's appropriate here:

In for a penny, in for a pound.

Heck. Here's another one:

If you're going to do something. Do it right.


There's probably a hundred sayings that apply and all proclaim the "wisdom" of one basic idea. Wasting resources (money, lives, whatever) in a penny-ante way, with no plan or commitment to success is almost always a waste. You either decide to do something, or you don't. Yes. In the short term, it costs you less doing it penny-ante, but this is not blackjack we're playing here Smash. It's not "fun" to sit at the table stretching our stake out as long as possible so we can get free drinks and flirt with the waitresses. I think it's an insane policy to spend US lives that way. Sure. You lose fewer per year that way, but you don't ever get anything back (ok. very rarely you do).


I've said many times that I'm not convinced the Iraq war was absolutely necessary. I think we might have been able to accomplish what we needed diplomatically (stress on "might"). But I do accept that there are/were enough variables that there was no way to be sure which was the "best" path. The point here is that it was not my decision to make. It was the President's and the Congress. They made that decision. In this case, they made the decision to do it "right", and not half-assed. I may not agree with the decision to go to war, but I respect that at least they chose to go all the way with it.


I find it amusing that you compare Iraq to Vietnam, in the same thread where you were making parallels between Somalia and Iraq. Vietnam was the result of exactly the same sort of President ordered "police action" that we were engaging in in Somalia. The difference is that Clinton pulled us out at the first sign of organized resistance (not sure that sent the best message out to the world either). Honestly though, I saw Somalia as a confirmation that that sort of politics just doesn't play well. I think it was at least semi smart of the Bush administration to avoid that "scaled police action" that has been disasterous every time we've used it in the past.


Interesting partisan side note: It's been all the Dem run military actions that have been that way like Vietnam and Somalia, as opposed to Rep run ones like Granada, Panama, Afghanistan and Iraq. Pop quiz: Which of those actions actually resulted in the successful completion of a military goal? Pop quiz number two: If you're using miltary forces, shouldn't you *have* a military objective?

What's the military objective in Iraq? I must have missed that press confrence.

I know that major hostilities were over months ago, Mission Accomplished! Bush landed on an aircraft carrier to proclaim victory.

I know that resistance would decline greatly after Saddam's capture. Bush told me so. The military leadership told me so. Mission Accomplished!

I know that the Iraqi people wanted nothing more than to have Saddam removed from power and the US put in control of the country. Bush told me so. They're so happy they burn the bodies of US citizens. Mission Accomplished!

The military enagements you've listed show only that the Republican's will never get involved militarily unless it's the equivilent of Mike Tyson fighting a 2 year old child. Grenada? You and I and 2x4 with a nail in it could have taken Grenada. Panama? There was military action in Panama? I remeber there was loud radio playing action...

What your argument essentially shows is that anytime the Republican's get involved in any conflict that can't be resolved in a weekend, they **** themselves and run away. I imainge we'll see the same happen here.

Right. So we removed Saddam, and now have...What? Instead of Iraqi's being killed, we have Americans.

Oh god, I just realized it, we HAVE accomplished our mission! The Iraqi people are now rising up against their opressors... But hey, they're killing us now!


gbaji, what's going on in Iraq is a charlie foxtrot, and if you don't know what that means, look it up. Saddam was killing the Iraqi's, and now they're in "control", and killing us. What's the point of all of this? Nothing!


We ****** up. We did this WRONG. Hell, I don't claim to know how to do it right, but I'm not the one saying I do, and having to do so.


This war was built on lies. The main reason we fed to the public had to do with WMD, and even Powell is saying that was wrong. Then, when it came apparent we wouldn't find **** there, it was about saving people - Which, I assure you, I do think is a noble goal... But the situation isn't going to improve. Just different innocents will be killed.

Edited, Sun Apr 4 22:07:24 2004 by Chtulhu