View Poll Results: What Best Describes Your Positions?

Voters
61. You may not vote on this poll
  • I supported the invasion of Iraq and I support the Libyan Intervention

    18 29.51%
  • I opposed the Invasion of Iraq, I support the Libyan Intervention

    16 26.23%
  • I supported the Invasion of Iraq, I oppose the Libyan Intervention

    9 14.75%
  • I opposed both.

    18 29.51%
Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 103

Thread: Where Were You in 2002? Where are you today?

  1. #21
    free market communist
    Gardener's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    09-30-17 @ 12:27 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    26,661

    Re: Where Were You in 2002? Where are you today?

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    It's about a specific region for a specific reason. Pretending that they are all oh so different because a line on a map tells you it is makes no sense. .

    The influence of culture is one ignored by far too many people. Few understand that in strong patriarchal societies where so many people are married to family members and the attachment to clan forms the basis for social interactions, that the resulting political structures will be quite different than for cultures that operate differently.
    "you're better off on Stormfront discussing how evil brown men are taking innocent white flowers." Infinite Chaos

  2. #22
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,055

    Re: Where Were You in 2002? Where are you today?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Same here. The three are all different, and shouldn't be seen as exact comparisons.
    They aren't exact comparisons, but they are all more alike than you want to see. Washington does this, hence 9/11 and the idea that killing a few terrorist is the answer. Before killing a few terrorist we assumed that supporting dictators would keep the problem penned down. So what do we do now with the knowledge that these terrorists have always come from all over the region and that democracy is finally the people's cry? Still pretend that Europe's bad border creation parties of the past have carved this regional problem into nice neat packages for us to pretend? Roll the dice and hope that the consequences of living under European colonialism and then Cold War prescription foir three centuries will simply not exist? People are fond of pointing out that no terrorists came from Iraq. They will be equally fond of pointing out that they didn't come from Libya too. Of course they will always criticize America's Cold War dictator support even though these individuals monsters were quite effective in killing off religious freedom and zealousy. So, with Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi, etc. being Cold War relics that have lived past their expiration dates and with the oppresed masses getting more and more radical towards us to explain away their civilizational woes...what is the answer?

    The answer is to look at these situations are more alike than makes us comfortable and deal with them accordingly. Or does the common cry, throughout the region for democracy of late, make them oh so different also?

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  3. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    01-18-13 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,631

    Re: Where Were You in 2002? Where are you today?

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    There is no double standard. You have shown no double standard. It is not just reasonable, but appropriate to have different views on different events. You know why? Because they are different. Why are you having such a hard time comprehending this simple fact?
    If it was a simple fact you would have already defined the distinction.

    The fact that you have not done so defines the lack of a definitive distinction.

    That's as simple as it gets.



    Nowhere did I make any of those claims. That is the problem. You are so tied up into your own view that you cannot see how other people can arrive at different views. Let's look at one big difference: we have not made a large scale invasion of Libya, we did in Iraq. That is just one different, there are only dozens of others.
    Two words.

    "yet"

    "Vietnam"

    Not really, no. The justification for Iraq was WMD's and deposing a dictator who was seen as destabilizing a key region of the globe. Iraq hurt us in terms of overall foreign relations.
    Not many people really believed the WMD's existed, and the region WAS stable. Or have you failed to notice all the partying in the steets of Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Bahrain, and elsewhere in recent weeks?

    Iraq wasn't hurting us at all.

    The only plausible reason for invading Iraq was the only reason never stated...putting troops in the western edge of Iran to complement the forces on the southern edge in Afghanistan. Since that reason was never stated it cannot be applied by those defending the Bush Regimes rush to war.

    What justifies the Obama regime's rush to war? A pretense that he cares about lives? Then those military assets would be better used in Japan, where we know we have friends.

    Note that he waited until Gadhaffy's victory was assured before acting. That's indicative of Obama's desire to look presidential while playing golf and not tickin off his handlers.

  4. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    01-18-13 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,631

    Re: Where Were You in 2002? Where are you today?

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    Saudi Arabia is a part of the problem. Libya - Egypt - Iraq - Afghanistan - Yemen - Jordan - "Palestine" - Syria - Iran - Pakstan - etc. - are all about the same regional problem. It's not just about dictators. It's about a specific region for a specific reason. Pretending that they are all oh so different because a line on a map tells you it is makes no sense. Neither does creating a confused stage for the sake of keeping it simple.
    The Mayor's post was in response to some inane comment that the intrusion in Libya was about removing a dictator. The Mayor's contention is that if the US started wars with every country were there was a dictator we'd be fighting on a hundred fronts.

  5. #25
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,055

    Re: Where Were You in 2002? Where are you today?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gardener View Post
    The influence of culture is one ignored by far too many people. Few understand that in strong patriarchal societies where so many people are married to family members and the attachment to clan forms the basis for social interactions, that the resulting political structures will be quite different than for cultures that operate differently.
    People act as if lines on a map make it concrete in the real world. That lines are never re-drawn. "Yugoslavia" slaughtered its way to new more tribally friendly borders. Sudan slaughtered off, cleansed, and exported non-Sunni to make it more tribally friendly. The Sunni from the region rushed to slaughter the Shia in Iraq to keep Baghdad within the tribe. And with the entire region "Sunnified" under Islam, we pretend that they are simply different. As if we are comparing Japan to Saudi Arabia and linking them. And as if regional Muslims don't unite under very common causes. The entire West can be united under like causes in their minds. The face of Europe couldn't ever be without democracy because that's how "we think." But when it comes to the Middle East these same people want so badly for their to be a different individual mindset throughout. Take in the fact that none of the borders within the region reflect tribe and their ignorant notion of separatism is just plain stupid.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  6. #26
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: Where Were You in 2002? Where are you today?

    1) Supported Afghanistan
    2) Supported Iraq, because I was in 7th grade and didn't know jack and wuz like "**** yeah let's go kick Saddam's ass!" Later on I grew up and realized what a strategic blunder it was.
    3) I'm not outright opposed to Libyan intervention, but I don't think it's the best idea in the world.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  7. #27
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Where Were You in 2002? Where are you today?

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    They aren't exact comparisons, but they are all more alike than you want to see. Washington does this, hence 9/11 and the idea that killing a few terrorist is the answer. Before killing a few terrorist we assumed that supporting dictators would keep the problem penned down. So what do we do now with the knowledge that these terrorists have always come from all over the region and that democracy is finally the people's cry? Still pretend that Europe's bad border creation parties of the past have carved this regional problem into nice neat packages for us to pretend? Roll the dice and hope that the consequences of living under European colonialism and then Cold War prescription foir three centuries will simply not exist? People are fond of pointing out that no terrorists came from Iraq. They will be equally fond of pointing out that they didn't come from Libya too. Of course they will always criticize America's Cold War dictator support even though these individuals monsters were quite effective in killing off religious freedom and zealousy. So, with Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi, etc. being Cold War relics that have lived past their expiration dates and with the oppresed masses getting more and more radical towards us to explain away their civilizational woes...what is the answer?

    The answer is to look at these situations are more alike than makes us comfortable and deal with them accordingly. Or does the common cry, throughout the region for democracy of late, make them oh so different also?
    What you speak of is a different issue. As for when to invade, doing so on a pretext, outside the UN, and occupying is different than stopping on going killing, within the UN, and not occupying.

    The larger prolem cannot be effectively dealt with by either invading countries or ignoring the problem. There is risk in any action, but we must be true to values, and law. It is one thing when a people rise up and then we lend a hand, and another when we impose ourself on the country, as if we run the world.

    Terrorism is a huge problem, but I would look more closely at how Brittian finally made progress, and did so by decreasing violence and not esculating it.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  8. #28
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,055

    Re: Where Were You in 2002? Where are you today?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayor Snorkum View Post
    The Mayor's post was in response to some inane comment that the intrusion in Libya was about removing a dictator. The Mayor's contention is that if the US started wars with every country were there was a dictator we'd be fighting on a hundred fronts.
    Well, the Mayor is a simple fellow who seems to refuse to acknowledge this wider effort. The US doesn't start wars against dictatirs as a matter of policy. What the US does do since 9/11 is promote democracy and social change throughout a very specific region which happens to be full of dictators. Perhaps the Mayor should point this out instead of jumping and dismissing the effort for the sake of arguing what isn't even the issue. Bringing up China or Cuba or any other country, far removed from the theme of our current and future troubles, is pointless unless the point is to avoid the issue entirely.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  9. #29
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,055

    Re: Where Were You in 2002? Where are you today?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    What you speak of is a different issue. As for when to invade, doing so on a pretext, outside the UN, and occupying is different than stopping on going killing, within the UN, and not occupying.

    The larger prolem cannot be effectively dealt with by either invading countries or ignoring the problem. There is risk in any action, but we must be true to values, and law. It is one thing when a people rise up and then we lend a hand, and another when we impose ourself on the country, as if we run the world.

    Terrorism is a huge problem, but I would look more closely at how Brittian finally made progress, and did so by decreasing violence and not esculating it.
    Too many assumed that bombng out and ridding ourselves of Hussein (who's throne was preserved by the West and that wonderful peace loving UN) meant bombing out the rest of the region to affect change. I argued that this wasn't the case. You are witnessing this truth today. I don't know what your point is here.

    Also, President Clinton, along with e French handled the slaughter in Kosovo even as the UN condemned it our actions and refused to approve intervention. I don't really care about what permission or illusions people get from having the UN approve of us. The UN is not going to fix this region. It's up to nations to assume responsibility of what it helped facilitate. The UN is a late comer (and our creation) and full of dictators who are more eager with preserving their own powers than weakening them by voting to oust another.

    In the mean time, dictators are continuing to oppress and brutalize any political oppositions and thereby worsening the radical bases. Removing Saddam Hussein shouldhave shown how silent, but large the radical base was. The longer we sit by and pretend that it "isn't our business" the larger this base grows. The more they hate the West. And the more the explosion will be when the dictator finally does go away. Support ridding them now, or send your kid off to a more dangerous situation tomorrow.
    Last edited by MSgt; 03-21-11 at 01:14 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  10. #30
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Goldsboro,PA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,596
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Where Were You in 2002? Where are you today?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mayor Snorkum View Post
    Where were you standing when GW Bush decided that Saddam Hussein needed to be removed from power by US military action?

    Where are you standing now, when Obama has decided to intervene in Libya?The actual troop deployment has not happened and may never. So there is no true intervention...such as there was in Iraq.

    Are your positions consistent or blindly partisan? I am anti-conservative, but not blind.,IMO.I am strongly anti-libertarian, another word for them is isolationists, a national problem before both international wars..

    Mayor Snorkum opposed both because in neither case was a definable US interest served....In a way, President Bush did the right thing in invading Iraq.

    Mayor Snorkum is also a US military veteran. so am I, and this means ???

    Mayor Snorkum is neither Republican nor Democrat, but a Libertarian. and I am but an opinionated old fool.
    Our nation must grow, must become more civilized.. When others are in danger of being murdered, we must step in..
    Its the price one must pay if we are to be a true "world power".
    Its in the world's and our interest that people not be repressed ,that we live in peace.
    Last edited by earthworm; 03-21-11 at 01:14 PM.

Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •