Final analysis: We'll probably be in a much better position to improve the world later if we withdraw from Iraq now. Chaos will ensue, but the alternative is to let our country's future be crushed under the weight of a burden we helped create, but can't afford to bear alone.
best arguement against the "We should win the war title yet."
Even though I disagree with a bit of your conclusion (I agree it is a burden US could not bear alone).Chris you get an A.
Mainly for staying on topic. (unlike that fool sir Kaikillah, rambling about nineteenth century Europe.)
|
Not counting the new car that I jsut got, I owe around $32,000. I know just how hard it has been to pay that off and it is causing me no end of troubles. All I can say is Damn!
Indeed!
Out of curiosity, does the $32,000 figure include your share of the national debt? The estimated population of the United States is 303,219,080, so each citizen's share of this debt (now at $9,055,595,160,101.80) is $29,864.86.
This factoid brought to you by the aforementioned National Debt Clock website, and the letter "S". (For "screwed".) :)
Chris you get an A.
Mainly for staying on topic. (unlike that fool sir Kaikillah, rambling about nineteenth century Europe.)
LOL! Thanks. :)
No. That figure does NOT include the $30k that I would have to pay to meet my share of the national debt.
Amen.
|
|
Final analysis: We'll probably be in a much better position to improve the world later if we withdraw from Iraq now. Chaos will ensue, but the alternative is to let our country's future be crushed under the weight of a burden we helped create, but can't afford to bear alone.
You forgot to note the costs of the chaos.
If they are greater that the costs of continuing the war, then you must reconsider your analysis as well as your conclusion.That is a common error in such things; people are often penny wise and pound foolish.
|
|
You forgot to note the costs of the chaos.
If they are greater that the costs of continuing the war, then you must reconsider your analysis as well as your conclusion.
That is a common error in such things; people are often penny wise and pound foolish.
I thought I was pretty clear that the cost of continuing the occupation, in my assessment, can't be paid. The chaos left in our wake will certainly be significant, but knowing the cost of that chaos wouldn't make staying more affordable. We simply lack the resources needed to pull off a decades-long occupation and peacekeeping mission, and nothing short of that is going to create a lasting peace.
When the economy implodes under the weight of the deficit, and the military's budget for the Iraq mission evaporates (it's actually already vapor...), will our soldiers stay on voluntarily, without pay, to see the mission through? Will their equipment stop breaking down and last forever without upkeep? Will the people of Iraq donate ammunition to our troops in order to keep them armed?
We have been placed in the middle of a no-win situation. No "good" choices are left to us. The occupation is not sustainable: If we try to stay in Iraq, America's economic and military power will dry up long before the hatred does. We will have martyred our nation on the altar of lost causes. If we withdraw, on the other hand, Iraq will be forced to reconcile its cultural divisions on its own, almost certainly with a bloody civil war fraught with terroristic strife.
The best we can reasonably hope for in this situation is to get our men and women home with as few further casualties as possible. We owe it to the Iraqis to stay, but it's a debt we can't possibly pay--and trying to do so by passing the debt on to our children isn't fair to them.
We need to live within our means, as individuals but also as a nation. Until we control our spending and keep it in line with our tax revenue, an operation like this can not be maintained. The money simply does not exist in our nation to pay for it, and we don't have enough allies chipping in to share the load.
|
|
By the way, I'd like to share a bit of dialogue dating back to 1994 regarding the occupation of Iraq. This addresses the issue of whether or not this war was a good idea. (So it's a moot point, but still interesting and remarkably accurate in the long run.) See if you can guess the speaker.
Q: Do you think the U.S., or U.N. forces, should have moved into Baghdad?
A: No.Q: Why not?
A: Because if we'd gone to Baghdad we would have been all alone. There wouldn't have been anybody else with us. There would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq. None of the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq.Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off: part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it -- eastern Iraq -- the Iranians would like to claim, they fought over it for eight years. In the north you've got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey.
It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq.
The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action, and for their families -- it wasn't a cheap war. And the question for the president, in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad, took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth?
Our judgment was, not very many, and I think we got it right.
|
|
This is Wiki US :How about checking the history of Lebanon?
Let me see . . .
Crisis in 1958
PLO Substate
Civil War
Syrian OccupationYou call that stble?
I can guarantee that when a country is considered unstable, investments are MUCH much lower than investments put by Europe, USA & other countries from 1949 to 1975.
26 years of (close) stability is very much for such a recent country.Alright, I won't argue over this...
Too much energy !To acknowledge your lack of knowledge on the topic?
That does not require much energy.
The problem is that we can not convince each other, since we have very different points of view & opinions.
I intimately think that part of what you write is right & correct from a certain point of view (yours), and so is what I do think & write from another point of view (mine).A little bit like the half-empty / half-full glass.
Or, since I like metaphors, if we both watch the sky, you would see the moon and the lights of a plane passing by, and I would see the stars
and the moonlight through the clouds passing by, and so, none of us could be able to say : the sky is so or so, because we would not have watched the same things...
So, we could have our own thread in which we could discuss 'til the end of time, but that would be useless !
Darfur is a problem, right now, just because China is mass-investing in Africa, and there is a rich soil in southern Sudan...
On this matter, France hold the same position (more or less) as UK and USA.However...the USA did not go into Irak because of money... (2nd gulf war) ?!
Given how much the US is spending in Iraq, if it was done for money, it was done poorly.
I note however you want to suddenly change the subject of the issues with the Security Council veto now that I have pointed out the venality of other nations that have it.
What I mean : if the USA are spending lots of money, on the other hand, many US companies are making LOTS of money (security, oil, building & construction companies...).
And by controlling Irak, the USA can almost guarantee that the cost of oil will not increase as fast as if Saddam was still there : it makes huge savings for the country.And I do not say that ONLY the USA are using their veto when it comes to ressources / investments / money or so on.
That is not what I wrote.
I just say that Russia, france, UK, China and the USA (and maybe other countries in the future) use their veto not for humanitarian reasons, usually. But for their own interest.
China is still trying to have a "light UN decision" about Myanmar, because :
- they are neighbors,
- Myanmar buys lots of weapons to China,
- China is paid with rare woods, oil, gold, precious stones, agricultural products and so on...
It is very cynical, but that is how the world has been working for quite a while.
And I would like to see better life conditions all over the world.
But today, economical & political matters are way ahead of human matters, unfortunately.
I mean, yes, in most of european coutries, it took days or months to have stable governments, afetr their liberation.
But hey, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Nederland, Luxembourg, France, Greece were all able to have a quick return of democracy, when not political stability (I am not speaking for France, here...).Greece was unstable for years.
Denmark, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxemburg recovered faster, primarily because of the conditions of their occupation.
Again, all of this must be taken into consideration when making a comparison.
Wow !
I hope that some people from those countries do read this.In Belgium, the Netherlands Luxemboug, Greece, Denmark & France, occupation was no Disneyworld.
And I did not mention eastern countries, for their recovery was a little bit "special", with various communist's coups.
Living (in the cities mostly) was harsh, food & clothing was rare, part of the production was going to Germany...
I think (but not for sure) that it was a little bit easier in Norway, but it was no fun either !
Lots of people of jewish culture and religion were deported then killed in every of those countries ("Ann Frank's diary" reminds us of this fact).
No, I do not think that the conditions of occupation were very nice
Because of how the government has been directed to organize.Saddam Hussein's dictatorship collapsed more than 5 and a half years ago.
It's been about 2 years and a half that Irak has chosen its representatives, and it is still very unstable.
Who has directed the goverment to organize ?
Who helped the country to write its new constitution ?Also, what about liberation of Irak ?
I do not think that Irak was occupied !?
So you're trying to compare countries occupied by the german army under the nazis' rule, and the Saddam's...
(your message was cut when replying).
I may be a little bit naive, and I know I am, but I always think that sooner or later, a tough, severe & dangerous dictatorship becomes too harsh for the people to live with, and that the people finally revolts against its rulers or dictators...
Or (very few of) the dictators do begin to see that they need to soften their regime or they'll be thrown away !
I think Sadam's power would have come to an end sooner or later, and I think that the 1st gulf war gave him a new surge of power & influence when he came with strongly nationalist speeches (like he had done before when launching his war vs Iran).
For instance, I do indeed have great expectations about a united Korea, in a free and democratic Iran or Myanmar. And just think about Vietnam : it is slowly becoming a much more open country, and just like China, it slowly evolves toward a "capitalistic" economy.
We'll have to wait quite a while, but sooner or later other countries will come, with their own culture and beliefs, toward democracy !
About Iran, their leader Ahmadinejad (whom I think dangerous for its people) has lost elections past year, and it seems that he will lose again next year, in the cities, I mean.
Students or intellectuals want more freedom, and it will come... and I hope it'll be soon !!
Iran is a country not to be underestimated and I do hope I live to see this country as a democracy, since it is a country I would love to visit with my wife (but I would like her not to have to wear the hijab), among other countries.
|
|
Final analysis: We'll probably be in a much better position to improve the world later if we withdraw from Iraq now. Chaos will ensue, but the alternative is to let our country's future be crushed under the weight of a burden we helped create, but can't afford to bear alone.You forgot to note the costs of the chaos.
If they are greater that the costs of continuing the war, then you must reconsider your analysis as well as your conclusion.
That is a common error in such things; people are often penny wise and pound foolish.
I second Christopher.
The cost is not ONLY a matter of money.He says the cost is also human and that, on a long term, war will hurt the youth of the USA.
As of today, the casualty list for the USA is :
- 3.820 deceased,
- over 27.700 wounded
you can find the datas here :
casualties count in Irak
This is really awful.
That was is meant when someone wrote : "wars can't be won."
For me, it means that technically, you can win, but the price is always too high...
But moreover, how many soldiers will develop psychological problems or traumas ?
The cost will be much higher than the financial cost...
This may seem desesperately shocking, but this is what war can result in :
War is awful
I sincerely hope the human cost (even more than the fateful bodycount) will not be too high ...
|
Wars can't be won. Period.Which of course is why Carthage is still the rival of Rome for control of the Mediterranean.
Oh wait . . .
The Problem with that Sam is the reality that the USA is not prepared to burn down all their villages and temples, rape their women, and sell their children into Slavery so they can die in the Arena.
If you can Stand up and declare you will burn their cities, and rape their women, and let their children die in sporting stadium for the entertainment of a fickle populace, and win an election on that...you will be ready to rule the world.
|
|
Ack, a sea of hyperbole! :)
Objectives can be obtained through war, certainly, but the loss of life is tragic nonetheless. Every victory comes with a terrible cost, so even if you "win", you also lose.
I think this is what Mr. Shiny was getting at.
A couple of quotes I've always admired:
War does not decide who is right, war decides who is left.
- Bertrand Russell
War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other's children.
-Jimmy Carter
|
|
Final analysis: We'll probably be in a much better position to improve the world later if we withdraw from Iraq now. Chaos will ensue, but the alternative is to let our country's future be crushed under the weight of a burden we helped create, but can't afford to bear alone.
best arguement against the "We should win the war title yet."
Even though I disagree with a bit of your conclusion (I agree it is a burden US could not bear alone).Chris you get an A.
Mainly for staying on topic. (unlike that fool sir Kaikillah, rambling about nineteenth century Europe.)
This is to Mr. West: Amen, brother.
Thank you Paizo, for allowing us a forum to put our hearts and minds out there for discussion and rebuttal.
|
|
Yeah, can't be won at all.
Now I am gonna take my american arse down to the pub and sing along with god save the queen.
What, the americans won that war, and without burning down their houses and raping their women? Can't be. Internet people told me that can't be done.
O Canada! Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!
From far and wide, O Canada,
We stand on guard for thee.
God keep our land
Glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee;
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
|
|
War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other's children.
-Jimmy Carter
Yeah.
Quote Carter.The man primarily responsible for the chaos in the Middle East.
Of course he wants to find a way to pass the blame to anyone else.
|
|
The Problem with that Sam is the reality that the USA is not prepared to burn down all their villages and temples, rape their women, and sell their children into Slavery so they can die in the Arena.
If you can Stand up and declare you will burn their cities, and rape their women, and let their children die in sporting stadium for the entertainment of a fickle populace, and win an election on that...you will be ready to rule the world.
The problem with that is that it is quite possible to win a war without such extreme methods.
War is not a choice between ubi solitudinem caiunt pacem appellant and quagmire.
It is a choice of political will and political expedience.
If you choose political expedience, you will inevitably lose.
If you stick with political will, victory is quite attainable.
In the case of Iraq, political expedience has been chosen to date. Only someone as venal as Captain Renauld could be shocked, shocked I say, to discover the policy has failed miserably to produce a stable government.
|
|
I thought I was pretty clear that the cost of continuing the occupation, in my assessment, can't be paid. The chaos left in our wake will certainly be significant, but knowing the cost of that chaos wouldn't make staying more affordable. We simply lack the resources needed to pull off a decades-long occupation and peacekeeping mission, and nothing short of that is going to create a lasting peace.
And your assessment is wrong.
By failing to consider the costs of the chaos, you are committing to paying those costs without even considering them.Yes, it will cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars to revise the mission in Iraq and stabilize the country. What if it will cost millions of lives and trillions of dollars to deal with the chaos? Is that really better?
You also make a considerable jump, obviously based on rather poor assessments of the situation, about how hopeless the situation is.
The Kurdish north is thriving, the Shiite south is at least stable. If those were separated from Iraq, things would be much different.
As for the military actions, despite perceptions, the surge has worked. The terrorists are increasingly cut off from their outside suppliers, and increasingly alienated from the locals. Cutting and running is the only thing that could possibly ensure defeat, but that is what happens when people decide on political expediency to win elections rather than win a war.
|
|
I can guarantee that when a country is considered unstable, investments are MUCH much lower than investments put by Europe, USA & other countries from 1949 to 1975.
26 years of (close) stability is very much for such a recent country.
Yes it is.
Until it ends.The problem is that we can not convince each other, since we have very different points of view & opinions.
No, the problem is that despite your claims to knowing history, you really do not seem to know all that much, and your analyses reflect that.
What I mean : if the USA are spending lots of money, on the other hand, many US companies are making LOTS of money (security, oil, building & construction companies...).
And by controlling Irak, the USA can almost guarantee that the cost of oil will not increase as fast as if Saddam was still there : it makes huge savings for the country.
So the companies are making money, but the US is spending money.
You seem to have a problem with your conclusion that the US went to war for the overall benefit of the US. Indeed, looking at other posts, it seems that claim is strongly contradicted.As for controlling the price of oil, apparently it has escaped your notice that oil prices are soaring ever higher. So again it seems your analysis is fatally flawed.
And I do not say that ONLY the USA are using their veto when it comes to ressources / investments / money or so on.
That is not what I wrote.
I just say that Russia, france, UK, China and the USA (and maybe other countries in the future) use their veto not for humanitarian reasons, usually. But for their own interest.
Which would be relevant if every country that voted in the UN made every vote solely on the basis of humanitarian reasons rather than for their own interest.
If you expect such things you have only your idealism to blame for your disappointment.Wow !
I hope that some people from those countries do read this.
In Belgium, the Netherlands Luxemboug, Greece, Denmark & France, occupation was no Disneyworld.
And I did not mention eastern countries, for their recovery was a little bit "special", with various communist's coups.
You really need to actually read what I write and reply directly to it rather than your own misperceptions.
Relatively speaking, the occupations of Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxemburg, and Denmark were significantly less onerous than those of France and Greece.
France and Greece were partitioned, and Greece had a major domestic insurgency leading to massive slaughter of civilians. That did not happen in the others.
You did not list any eastern European country in your initial post, so I did not list any either. However, I will note that most of those countries have produced significantly more stable governments following the end of their 40+ year occupations than other nations liberated immediately after WW II. Again, that is telling.
Because of how the government has been directed to organize.
Who has directed the goverment to organize ?
Who helped the country to write its new constitution ?
No. Because the government was formed so quickly.
Had it waited until the country was stable, the constitution would have been better, and the government organized around it more inclined to cooperation.I may be a little bit naive, and I know I am, but I always think that sooner or later, a tough, severe & dangerous dictatorship becomes too harsh for the people to live with, and that the people finally revolts against its rulers or dictators...
Or (very few of) the dictators do begin to see that they need to soften their regime or they'll be thrown away !
I think Sadam's power would have come to an end sooner or later, and I think that the 1st gulf war gave him a new surge of power & influence when he came with strongly nationalist speeches (like he had done before when launching his war vs Iran).
You are a lot naive if you believe that.
Stalin died of old age, as did Mao.Pol Pot and Idi Amin were displaced by outside invasions, not popular revolts.
And apparently you feel it is better to let all the people who will be brutalized by those regimes be left to their fate rather than involve yourself. Of course that means there is no reason to care about something like Darfur. When those people get tired of being abused, they will stage a popular revolt. until then, we should just wash our hands of the whole thing.
I guess I just feel differently.
The cost is not ONLY a matter of money.
He says the cost is also human and that, on a long term, war will hurt the youth of the USA.
How much more will it hurt the people of Iraq to be surrendered to the chaos?
How much more will it hurt the people of the US to turn away now, then watch the events that will unfold knowing we could have done something?Brethren, how must it fare with me,
Or how am I justified,
If it be proven that I am
For whom mankind has died-
If it be proven that I am he
Who, being questioned, denied?
- Rudyard Kipling, The Question
War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other's children.
-Jimmy CarterYeah.
Quote Carter.
The man primarily responsible for the chaos in the Middle East.
Of course he wants to find a way to pass the blame to anyone else.
yeah lets blame an ex presedent for the conflicts in the middle east. I'm sure the people who live thier aren't responsible at all.
|
|
War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other's children.
-Jimmy CarterYeah.
Quote Carter.
The man primarily responsible for the chaos in the Middle East.
Of course he wants to find a way to pass the blame to anyone else.yeah lets blame an ex presedent for the conflicts in the middle east. I'm sure the people who live thier aren't responsible at all.
I'd take Carter in a New York minute over our current leader. He had a lot more dignity and respected the people that he represented.
|
|
I thought I was pretty clear that the cost of continuing the occupation, in my assessment, can't be paid. The chaos left in our wake will certainly be significant, but knowing the cost of that chaos wouldn't make staying more affordable. We simply lack the resources needed to pull off a decades-long occupation and peacekeeping mission, and nothing short of that is going to create a lasting peace.And your assessment is wrong.
By failing to consider the costs of the chaos, you are committing to paying those costs without even considering them.
Yes, it will cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars to revise the mission in Iraq and stabilize the country. What if it will cost millions of lives and trillions of dollars to deal with the chaos? Is that really better?You also make a considerable jump, obviously based on rather poor assessments of the situation, about how hopeless the situation is.
The Kurdish north is thriving, the Shiite south is at least stable. If those were separated from Iraq, things would be much different.
As for the military actions, despite perceptions, the surge has worked. The terrorists are increasingly cut off from their outside suppliers, and increasingly alienated from the locals. Cutting and running is the only thing that could possibly ensure defeat, but that is what happens when people decide on political expediency to win elections rather than win a war.
That's your OPINION (not a fact). I think Christopher's assessment is right on the money (forgive the pun).
I think the time has come to cut and run.
And that is MY opinion.
I'd take Carter in a New York minute over our current leader. He had a lot more dignity and respected the people that he represented.
Yeah.
Quote Carter.
The man primarily responsible for the chaos in the Middle East.
Of course he wants to find a way to pass the blame to anyone else.yeah lets blame an ex presedent for the conflicts in the middle east. I'm sure the people who live thier aren't responsible at all.
Amen to that brother.
Live long and make plenty babies.|
|
The problem is that we can not convince each other, since we have very different points of view & opinions.No, the problem is that despite your claims to knowing history, you really do not seem to know all that much, and your analyses reflect that.
The truth is, history is not an exact science, as maths...
For example, Napoleon may be seen as a despot.That is partially true.
On the other hand, he brought to France an organization and rules that are still applied, so he may be seen as a good ruler, despite the fact that many french died under his rule.
It is not how history is, it is how you analyse it and draw your conclusions. And we do not analyze things the same way.
As for Staline or Mao, the rulers that came after them did change things, and both of them have been at least partially desacralized in their own country.
So, what you see as green, I may see it as yellow, and a third person as purple.
That is what I was saying : neither of us is totally right or wrong.
But if you think everything you wrote is absolutely and ultimately right, I guess other readers (than me) would not think so.
And I don't share your opinions.
I guess this is the end, for me, since I disagree from you, and I see this as useless.
|
|
War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other's children.
-Jimmy CarterYeah.
Quote Carter.
The man primarily responsible for the chaos in the Middle East.
Of course he wants to find a way to pass the blame to anyone else.
Did you find his quote to be untruthful, or do you just take issue with it because he's the one who said it?
He seems quite right to me.
By failing to consider the costs of the chaos, you are committing to paying those costs without even considering them.
You seem to assume that I haven't considered the costs because I didn't outline them for you. I don't see the point in doing so, because A) they seem obvious to me, and B) they don't affect my point.
If you can't afford to sustain an occupation, analyzing the cost of withdrawal doesn't fill your pockets with the resources you need to stay and be successful, no matter how much you might wish you could.
|
|
yeah lets blame an ex presedent for the conflicts in the middle east. I'm sure the people who live thier aren't responsible at all.
Carter wants to claim responsibility for saving the world from violence in the Middle East for so long.
Unfortunately, when one considers all the evidence he cites for that, we really see that all of his initiatives failed miserably. Rather than place the blame on the various terrorist groups themselves, or accept that his plans were all flawed from the outset, he wants to blame everyone who followed him for messing things up.So yes, I will blame an anti-semitic ex-President with a Messiah Complex for a great deal of the chaos in the Middle East because it was very much his flawed policies that led to things getting so bad, and because he loves trying to blame others.
Unfortunately for him, some of us thought of blaming him before he blamed Canada.
|
|
I'd take Carter in a New York minute over our current leader. He had a lot more dignity and respected the people that he represented.
Carter had and continues to have a Messiah Complex.
He is willing to absolve murderers, foolishly thinking it will not encourage others to commit worse crimes. As such, he has a lot less respect for people in general than any President who has followed him.As for dignity, he lost that when he started trying to pass the buck and whitewash himself, as well as when he let his anti-semitism loose.
|
|
That's your OPINION (not a fact). I think Christopher's assessment is right on the money (forgive the pun).
I think the time has come to cut and run.
And that is MY opinion.
The difference is, my opinion is one that is educated and based on the evidence of events, as opposed to his and yours.
Not every opinion is of the same value.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
The difference is, my opinion is one that is educated and based on the evidence of events, as opposed to his and yours.Not every opinion is of the same value.
Dude. That one busted me up. That's freaking hilarious.
You're right. Your opinion is more valid. You win the internet!
Hooray!!!
yeah lets blame an ex presedent for the conflicts in the middle east. I'm sure the people who live thier aren't responsible at all.So yes, I will blame an anti-semitic ex-President with a Messiah Complex for a great deal of the chaos in the Middle East because it was very much his flawed policies that led to things getting so bad, and because he loves trying to blame others.
Unfortunately for him, some of us thought of blaming him before he blamed Canada.
Brilliant!!!!
Let's blame one guy for all the problems in the Middle East. We can disregard 1000s years of history, Crusaders, Muslims,Zionists, Ottomans, Hezbellah and Yasar Arafat.
War in Iraq? Jimmy Carter fault.
I'm sure George W. Bush would be glad to hear that. Poor guy been taking to much heat as the current president for something Jimmy Carter is responsible for.
It's so simple. Why it's
Brilliant!!!
|
|
The truth is, history is not an exact science, as maths...
For example, Napoleon may be seen as a despot.
That is partially true.
On the other hand, he brought to France an organization and rules that are still applied, so he may be seen as a good ruler, despite the fact that many french died under his rule.
And despite that, Napoleon was not removed by a popular uprising of liberal democrats.
So once again, you are desperately short of an actual point.It is not how history is, it is how you analyse it and draw your conclusions. And we do not analyze things the same way.
As for Staline or Mao, the rulers that came after them did change things, and both of them have been at least partially desacralized in their own country.
Which does not change that they were not removed by popular uprisings of liberal democrats as you assured us all dictators inevitably are, nor does it change the fate of the millions of their victims.
So, what you see as green, I may see it as yellow, and a third person as purple.
And what you see as moral I see as moral.
That is what I was saying : neither of us is totally right or wrong.
And what I am saying is: you are totally wrong.
Your history is wrong.Your analysis is wrong.
Your moral judgements are wrong.
But if you think everything you wrote is absolutely and ultimately right, I guess other readers (than me) would not think so.
And I don't share your opinions.
As I said, not every opinion is of equal worth.
I must wonder though, if you do not believe everything you wrote is right, why exactly did you write it? Just to dissent?
I know it is a popular internet absurdity to believe in this concept that people would not believe in what they write, but the concept is easily exposed as the ludicrous conceit that it is.
Yes, I do believe what I wrote. I will not change my mind just because you do not agree.
The difference is, my opinion is one that is educated and based on the evidence of events, as opposed to his and yours.Not every opinion is of the same value.
Dude. That one busted me up. That's freaking hilarious.
You're right. Your opinion is more valid. You win the internet!
Hooray!!!
Hehehehe!!!!
No wait, were you serious?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Hehehehe!!!!No wait, were you serious?
Yup. I'm sorry to say it, but those arguments are unassailable. It's really only a matter of time before everyone accepts them. Then, we will enter a new age of harmony and glory, under the mighty crown of our new Philosopher King.
|
|
Did you find his quote to be untruthful, or do you just take issue with it because he's the one who said it?
He seems quite right to me.
I find it to be hypocritical.
A man so willing to forgive mass murderers has little standing to ever condemn anyone for executing a mass murderer.You seem to assume that I haven't considered the costs because I didn't outline them for you. I don't see the point in doing so, because A) they seem obvious to me, and B) they don't affect my point.
If they are so obvious, then there should be no problem in explaining them.
And as they are a critical element of any such analysis, they must affect your point, even if they do not change your final decision.If you can't afford to sustain an occupation, analyzing the alternative doesn't fill your pockets with the resources you need to sustain it, no matter how much you might wish you could.
If collapse is inevitable, you can still choose which way you will collapse.
By not analyzing the alternative, you can never truly understand your choices.For comparison: People who fear global warming say we must change the US economy to save the world. People who do not fear global warming say that such changes will destroy the US economy. By your logic, since we can not sustain the economy with such changes, we must do nothing about changing ecological policy.
Do you hold to that standard?
|
|
Brilliant!!!!
Let's blame one guy for all the problems in the Middle East. We can disregard 1000s years of history, Crusaders, Muslims,Zionists, Ottomans, Hezbellah and Yasar Arafat.
War in Iraq? Jimmy Carter fault.
I'm sure George W. Bush would be glad to hear that. Poor guy been taking to much heat as the current president for something Jimmy Carter is responsible for.
It's so simple. Why it's
Brilliant!!!
Once again:
If Carter wants to blame everything on the Presidents who followed him, then I can certainly blame it all on him.
And yes, the War in Iraq is Carter's fault.
If he had not sold out the Shah of Iran in such a holier-than-thou manner, the region would be significantly more stable.
Having done so, if he had not blown the Iranian Hostage Crisis so spectacularly, the region would be significantly more stable.
Carter was and remains a total incompentent in foreign affairs.
You may feel secure in giving him a pass on his stupidity and bigotry, but I see no reason to let him escape his share of the blame for the death his actions and lack of actions have caused.
Brilliant!!!!
Let's blame one guy for all the problems in the Middle East. We can disregard 1000s years of history, Crusaders, Muslims,Zionists, Ottomans, Hezbellah and Yasar Arafat.
War in Iraq? Jimmy Carter fault.
...
Once again:
....
And yes, the War in Iraq is Carter's fault.
...
Great thanks for clearing things up for me. I'll just disregard the rest of the middle easts history and blame the whole thing on Jimmy Carter.
Since we don't have to worry about history anymore, what other problems can we blame on one guy?
Boy it's so simple and easy.
So whats your point of view: "Should we win the war" or not? That is what the thread is about, I think. At least that is why I started it.
|
|
Yup. I'm sorry to say it, but those arguments are unassailable. It's really only a matter of time before everyone accepts them. Then, we will enter a new age of harmony and glory, under the mighty crown of our new Philosopher King.
As opposed to what Sebastian?
"I have a different opinion."
"OMG! Dude! I am so sorry. I will stop disagreeing with you and posting rebuttals to you immediately. I am sorry I was so rude as to actually express a different opinion from yours, with the same forcefulness as you did. I can not believe I did that!"
If claiming something is just one person's opinion and that you have a different one is enough to stifle any opposition, then what is the point of replying to messages?
If I claim I have an opinion first does that mean nobody gets to disagree with me next time?
The whole practice of trying to dismiss someone by saying what they write is just an opinion is obnoxious in the extreme. It ignores that yes, in fact, not every opinion is of equal worth. I doubt you would give equal consideration to the opinion of someone who asserted the moon landings never took place. Why then would you give the same credence to opinions based on obviously flawed historical knowledge?
No, "That's just your opinion!" is in fact nothing but the equivalent of telling someone else to shut up because you are unable to actually rebut their comments, and do not want to accept their position.
Of course, that is just my opinion.
But since it is, you can not contradict me because it would just be your opinion, and both are of equal worth.
Well, not unless you replace as Philosopher King of the Internet.
|
|
Great thanks for clearing things up for me. I'll just disregard the rest of the middle easts history and blame the whole thing on Jimmy Carter.
Glad to help.
Since we don't have to worry about history anymore, what other problems can we blame on one guy?
That depends.
What else does he wish to blame everyone else for?Boy it's so simple and easy.
Yes it is.
One would hope he someday learns that the blame game is a bad one to play, but with his Messiah Complex, I doubt he will.So whats your point of view: "Should we win the war" or not? That is what the thread is about, I think. At least that is why I started it.
Be more direct about the choice.
The "or not" is "lose the war/surrender."What is my choice between winning and losing?
Winning. We should always try winning any war we are in.
And we should consider a lot more options than we have to date before surrendering.
Losing is a very bad habit to get into, particularly in the Middle East.
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Yes, I do believe what I wrote. I will not change my mind just because you do not agree.
In fact (and I say this from long experience and with a great deal of love and affection), Sam will not change his mind for any reason whatsoever.
So there's really not much point in this whole discussion.
--Erik
Be more direct about the choice.
The "or not" is "lose the war/surrender."
What is my choice between winning and losing?
Winning. We should always try winning any war we are in.
And we should consider a lot more options than we have to date before surrendering.
Losing is a very bad habit to get into, particularly in the Middle East.
In my opinion the choice is win or lose? Others have varying opinions on what "we should win the war?" means, all worth something to me. that's why I opened up this thread. If I didn't feel others opinions were valid then why open up such a discussion. The way I was reared "Other opinions are valid."
All sarcasm aside I do agree with you. I think it's a personal point of view. In a fight I always fight to win. Back off in a fight and you can expect your opponent to press forward to finish it. In an all out brawl, to lose is to put your fate in the hands of another.
Fighting is stupid. But if your stupid fight to win.
War is stupid. But if you make war, make war to win, losing should never be an option.
Peace and ALoha from that thrilla Sir Kaikillah
The thread, the thread, the thread is on fire!
|
|
That's your OPINION (not a fact). I think Christopher's assessment is right on the money (forgive the pun).
I think the time has come to cut and run.
And that is MY opinion.
The difference is, my opinion is one that is educated and based on the evidence of events, as opposed to his and yours.
Not every opinion is of the same value.
Man, you really are something else. Fortunately, I live in a country where all men are created equal (at least in theory). That is one privilege that even the current administration cannot take away. Since we are created equal; all our opinions carry equal weight. So MY opinion is as valid as yours, even if you are too pompous to acknowledge it. But that is the last I have to say on the topic; you can return to your own fantasy realm where only YOUR opinion counts. This IS a D&D-based board so fantasy is encouraged!
Enjoy your self-delusion Sammy!
And thanks for the smiles, Sebastian. I love me some good sarcasm. :)
|
|
I find it to be hypocritical.
So then you do take issue with it because he was the one who said it. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose--I just wanted to make sure you were attacking the speaker and not the truth of his statement.
If they are so obvious, then there should be no problem in explaining them.
There's also no need to do so. If you want to do an in-depth analysis of the costs of leaving Iraq, knock yourself out--and may no logic get in your way. You've already declared your own opinion to be more valuable than mine, so reasonable discourse is no longer possible here. When your high horse gets a little shorter, perhaps we can talk.
And as they are a critical element of any such analysis, they must affect your point, even if they do not change your final decision.
Nope. My point is the same. We can't afford to stay in Iraq. Wishing we had the resources to do so doesn't fill the war chest.
People who fear global warming say we must change the US economy to save the world. People who do not fear global warming say that such changes will destroy the US economy. By your logic, since we can not sustain the economy with such changes, we must do nothing about changing ecological policy.
Do you hold to that standard?
Nice straw man. Unfortunately, it doesn't stand up. I feel our environmental problems are reversable without destroying the economy.
Seriously, Samuel: Antagonizing people who hold a different opinion from your own is not going to win you any debates--it's just going to cause others to dismiss your opinions as quickly as you dismiss theirs. My understanding is that we're all gamers here, sharing our views out of a sense of community--like friends around a gaming table. That's the sort of discourse that would be a positive thing to see here, at any rate, and I think most folks here have contributed in that light.
I don't speak for anyone else, but I'm not trying to change your mind, or anyone elses. I've simply shared my opinion on the subject, and clarified it as best I can. 'Nuff said.
In my opinion the choice is win or lose?THIS IS THE GAME OF RASSILON!*
--Erik
• (To win is to lose, and to lose is to win.)
I LOSE.
In my opinion the choice is win or lose?THIS IS THE GAME OF RASSILON!*
--Erik
• (To win is to lose, and to lose is to win.)
Damn I just lost.
Damn I did it again.
I quite.
Never let it be said that I was never a quiter.