|
|
Post by UncleVinny on Oct 22, 2004 18:50:49 GMT -5
Agreed, it would really be a beacon of hope if we could set up a democracy there. Given their history, a benevolent cleric might be all we could hope for. Cheers.  |
|
|
|
Post by scrap on Oct 22, 2004 20:19:03 GMT -5
DID WE ACTUALLY COME TO A MEETING OF THE MINDS OR WERE YOU TRYING TO BREAK THE GLASSES OF THE SMILEYS  |
|
|
|
Post by UncleVinny on Oct 23, 2004 12:18:50 GMT -5
"He already had a track record against the Kurds, not to mention all the mass graves found.
Still you seem to think we did the wrong thing.
A democracy in the middle east what a pipe dream huh??"
Good points scrap.
But the arguement is "why America as policeman of the world?" Why not other Arab nations or NATO or something.
As for democracy - yes, agreed - it would be a beacon of hope and stability if one existed in Iraq - it would be a model for other Arab nations. But these people have a centuries old history of tribal and clerical rule. They don't even know how to imagine a democracy - it would deteriorate into factional conflicts, and warlords, just like Afghanistan was.
They don't even have the equivalent of (who was it?) Russeau - who established the principle of "The Social Contract" in Western countries - a principle that says, if you want to live in a civilized society, you have to give up 'rights' such as killing your neighbor if you don't agree with him, or killing political opposition leaders. They haven't even gotten that far in their tribal wars, so how do you expect them to SUDDENLY evolve into a democracy. Western egocentrism can imagine it, replete with Dems & Repubs, but for the Iraqis it would be totally foreign.
|
|
|
|
Post by UncleVinny on Oct 23, 2004 12:30:04 GMT -5
DID WE ACTUALLY COME TO A MEETING OF THE MINDS OR WERE YOU TRYING TO BREAK THE GLASSES OF THE SMILEYS Outrageous as it may seem, I am honestly trying to curtail the hostile partisan remarks - we will sooner or later have to come to an agreement once the election is over, and rally behind the president, no matter which one it is. On a cosmic level, the peace amongst ourselves is the same peace as that abroad between armies. |
|
|
|
Post by BOLO on Oct 23, 2004 20:40:11 GMT -5
I too fear a Military Draft. Some one please close the doors at the Pentagon this December. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by scrap on Oct 25, 2004 18:53:18 GMT -5
"He already had a track record against the Kurds, not to mention all the mass graves found. Still you seem to think we did the wrong thing. A democracy in the middle east what a pipe dream huh??" Good points scrap. But the arguement is "why America as policeman of the world?" Why not other Arab nations or NATO or something. As for democracy - yes, agreed - it would be a beacon of hope and stability if one existed in Iraq - it would be a model for other Arab nations. But these people have a centuries old history of tribal and clerical rule. They don't even know how to imagine a democracy - it would deteriorate into factional conflicts, and warlords, just like Afghanistan was. They don't even have the equivalent of (who was it?) Russeau - who established the principle of "The Social Contract" in Western countries - a principle that says, if you want to live in a civilized society, you have to give up 'rights' such as killing your neighbor if you don't agree with him, or killing political opposition leaders. They haven't even gotten that far in their tribal wars, so how do you expect them to SUDDENLY evolve into a democracy. Western egocentrism can imagine it, replete with Dems & Repubs, but for the Iraqis it would be totally foreign. Like I said the journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step (or was that Grasshopper) We can't give up hope because it seems hopeless. That's a very pessimistic outlook. Is that a liberal characteristic or a personal one  Living without beheadings and mass slaughter is foreign to them also but I think they will adapt |
|
|
|
Post by UncleVinny on Oct 27, 2004 11:56:51 GMT -5
Pentagon Contradicts General on Iraq Occupation Force's Size
By Eric Schmitt
New York Times
February 28, 2003
In a contentious exchange over the costs of war with Iraq, the Pentagon's second-ranking official today disparaged a top Army general's assessment of the number of troops needed to secure postwar Iraq. House Democrats then accused the Pentagon official, Paul D. Wolfowitz, of concealing internal administration estimates on the cost of fighting and rebuilding the country.
Mr. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, opened a two-front war of words on Capitol Hill, calling the recent estimate by Gen. Eric K. Shinseki of the Army that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in postwar Iraq, "wildly off the mark." Pentagon officials have put the figure closer to 100,000 troops. Mr. Wolfowitz then dismissed articles in several newspapers this week asserting that Pentagon budget specialists put the cost of war and reconstruction at $60 billion to $95 billion in this fiscal year. He said it was impossible to predict accurately a war's duration, its destruction and the extent of rebuilding afterward
"We have no idea what we will need until we get there on the ground," Mr. Wolfowitz said at a hearing of the House Budget Committee. "Every time we get a briefing on the war plan, it immediately goes down six different branches to see what the scenarios look like. If we costed each and every one, the costs would range from $10 billion to $100 billion."
So now they have spent $200 billion and are asking for another $75 billion.
Is this the kind of leadership you want?
|
|
|
|
Post by UncleVinny on Oct 27, 2004 11:58:00 GMT -5
Before the war, the Pentagon's top generals (Tommy Franks and General Shinseki) estimated that we would need "several hundred thousand" troops to invade and occupy Iraq. General Shinseki estimated we would need 480,000 to do the job right. A fellow named Newt Gingrich introduced an Iraq (Lt. Colonel?) to Rumsfeld - this Colonel suggested he could do the job with only about 50,000 commando style troops. That is, invade Baghdad and topple Saddam. Tommy Franks and Shineki protested. Tommy Franks eventually convinced Rumsfeld to go in with 140,000 troops.
Tommy Franks allowed his arm to be twisted, despite his better judgement (based on years of military experience about these matters). General Shinseki was fired.
Meanwhile, forget about the aftermath - they expected democracy would just spread out and blossom!
So now, the Pentagon has instituted a "Stop Loss" program to keep even the 140,000 troops in Iraq, many of them National Guardsmen, who SHOULD be in places like Florida to clean up storm damage.
So
- Major chaos in Iraq.
- Best estimates proven valid: 480,000 troops (over 3X increase)
- Declining recruitment
- Major offences being planned for Falluja and other areas
AND DO YOU STILL THINK THERE WON'T BE A DRAFT?
Get real! The politicians will SAY anything to get elected,
but believe me, there WILL be a draft.
|
|
|
|
Post by BOLO on Oct 27, 2004 19:54:07 GMT -5
ECHO Echo, Echo. Echo.
Vinny. did you say something?
|
|
|
|
Post by UncleVinny on Oct 29, 2004 13:01:04 GMT -5
I've seen war.
I guess people who support war but have never lost a son, a friend, a relative, must learn what it's like to suffer such a loss before they realize how wrong it is. I hope some will believe without having to see for themselves.
You don't want to die or be beheaded in Iraq.
Blessed are those who without seeing believe.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vagrant on Oct 29, 2004 13:14:26 GMT -5
Sorry pal I don't buy that.
War is a horrible thing I agree, I knew that before I went. But you have to understand that there are people on this planet that don't like us simply because we are Americans. I've seen the enemy face to face and I can tell you there really isn't much time for hugs and cookies when they are more interested in SAWING my head off.
The terrorists dont like us. American people are afraid of terrorist attacks. Moderate Muslims are afraid because if they aren't considered 'Muslim' enough they will fall victim to the same attacks. There are bad people in this world and sometimes war is justified.
I've lost friends, hell, I've even buried one but that only soldified my feelings for being over there.
That being said I really admire your courage UncleVinny. Not a lot of people would be able to come to a webpage hosted by the 'opposition' and remain calm and mature. <Salute>
|
|
|
|
Post by UncleVinny on Oct 29, 2004 14:03:05 GMT -5
I agree with what you said, but I don't think that justifies going overseas to kill others.
There are other ways - economic sanctions, support for the moderate clerics, world opinion, etc.
This "kill or be killed argument" is way lame.
|
|
|
|
Post by scrap on Oct 29, 2004 14:31:41 GMT -5
Yea maybe we should have waited a little longer. We could be rebuilding some other piece of America besides the towers and the Pentagon. How many sanctions have to be tried, how much talk in the U.N. This guy was a dictatorial megalomaniac with ties to terrorists who would like nothing more than to kill more Americans. Keep up the good work Vagrant it sounds like were on the same side Back to the old adage Vinny " War is hell" but sometimes necessary I salute the  |
|
|
|
Post by UncleVinny on Oct 30, 2004 12:43:13 GMT -5
" War is hell" but sometimes necessary " Yes, but it was NOT necessary in this case, not in Iraq. The senate report found no firm links between Saddam and terrorist networks. Meanwhile, Hearst Newspaper today reports on an April 2003 meeting where the draft was discussed. They (Rumsfeld gang) looked into using a PR firm to see how it could be foisted on the public. They eventually decided it was a "third rail" issue - you touch it and you die, so they fell back on this "Stop Loss" program. Here's one issue where I hope I am wrong. I don't want to see my opponents here on an Al Qaeda film getting their head chopped off - it would be no fun to say "I told you so!"  |
|
|
|
Post by BOLO on Oct 30, 2004 16:03:53 GMT -5
|
|
