Fundamentalism is Destroying us all

reply to post by semperfortis


You and I my friend, we were cut from different stones.

Needless to say, I respect your beliefs.. but who is to say we can't have a little bit of fun going back and forth over them?

I disagree with the comparing of the invasion of Iraq to the previous world wars. WWII is an example of the Americans doing everything they can to ignore what was happening and watching the innocent men and women of Europe be slaughtered, only to finally react when they were touched up themselves. While there was a choice in the matter, there really wasn't much of a choice. The USA needed to get in the war when they did. Iraq however, not the same.

Here's the kicker.. in my opinion.

Bin Laden was roaming free in Afghanistan while a few troops went off looking. After a few months of inactivity and little to report, the Administration turned their attention to Iraq and went after Saddam. This fundamentalist view point that they felt they were right and they were going to tell the whole country that they will do things the "American" way, meanwhile leave Bin Laden continue to wander around.

Attacking Osama for 9/11, a justified response. Going into Iraq when they did? Pushing one's own fundamentalist mindset onto a country that may or may have not wanted it.

I appreciate that a democratic state has and is being created. But the timing of the move is suspect as Saddam is now sucking back dirt while Obama roams free.

Afghanistan was a losing battle, so they did the cowardly thing and gave up. Iraq was a chance to spread their fundamentalism and they went with all guns blazing. The innocent women and children slaughtered in the mean time are merely a side note.

I'm not saying I know what the answers are.. but having this government tell the world that they do.. it's a little much.

[edit on 6-8-2008 by chissler]

reply to post by chissler


Now you want it both ways....

I disagree with the comparing of the invasion of Iraq to the previous world wars. WWII is an example of the Americans doing everything they can to ignore what was happening and watching the innocent men and women of Europe be slaughtered, only to finally react when they were touched up themselves.

You complain that we were too slow to act in WWII and you complain that we acted too quickly in Iraq.

The USA needed to get in the war when they did. Iraq however, not the same.

Except that the Military Analysts all disagree with you as do I. When I was in Lebanon in 83, we needed to be there then in more of an aggressive capacity; then in 01 the only fault I saw was not going in aggressive enough at the outset.

As for the rest, I have no trouble considering Saddam and OBL as two separate situations; I know that some do, I just do not. Comparing the two to me, is apples and oranges.

Saddam needed to go and we needed to take action. OBL needs caught and we have yet to do that.

that may or may have not wanted it.

I think that has been proven time and again. You are also aware that we are currently still there in the capacity we are at the specific request of the Democratically Elected Government of Iraq?

Semper

Originally posted by semperfortis
I think that has been proven time and again. You are also aware that we are currently still there in the capacity we are at the specific request of the Democratically Elected Government of Iraq?

You are there at the "request" of a government you helped to install Semper.

Back in the old days, the Soviet Union used to do that in places like Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Romania.

Not only that but the government that "specifically requests" you has also "specifically requested" a definitive timetable for the withdrawl of foreign troops, something the Whitehouse has stonewalled on.

So if its all free an fair, as the Iraqi's have asked for your folks to go home - you'll be backing their request 100%, and demanding to know why its not happened yet?

Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki demands US withdrawal timetable

President Bush has long resisted a schedule for pulling his 145,000 soldiers out, arguing that it would play into the hands of insurgents.

In a rebuff to the Mr al-Maliki the Pentagon said any timetable would be articifical and withdrawal would depend on conditions on the ground.

[edit on 6/0808/08 by neformore]

reply to post by neformore


As the majority of your post centers around this...

You are there at the "request" of a government you helped to install Semper.

Allow me to address this..

With all of Iraq considered one voting district, between 10 and 14 million eligible voters in Iraq will chose either an individual, party, or coalition list of candidates to represent them in the 275 seat National Assembly, which will be distributed by proportional representation. The assembly in turn will appoint the new leadership and draft a new constitution before new elections a year later.

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

The United Nations you seem to support was very involved... I assume you using them as a rebuttal means you support them.

At the request of the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) and Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) the United Nations was requested to assist in the formulation of the electoral system for Iraq . Between March and May 2004, the UN undertook wide ranging discussions with political, academic, religious and social actors throughout Iraq , as well as the Electoral Committee of the IGC.

Electoral Observation

* Several international electoral observer delegations have been accredited with a total of 122 international observers to observe the process. As, if not more important however, is the role of national observers and political agents. In this regard, 18,052 national observers and 23,015 party agents have been accredited as of 25 January to observe the election.

Iraq Election Facts

With so much hyperbole and unsubstantiated opinions floating around about what really transpired, it is no wonder the truth is covered up. The emotions involved in a conflict such as this also tend to discourage truth.

As for us being there...

The Iraqi president said that a long-term presence of two US bases and 10,000 soldiers would help deter Iranian and other interference

Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, in an interview published yesterday, asked for a long-term US military presence in Iraq, saying his country will need two permanent US air bases to deter "foreign interference."

Alshiatalk

More? Sure...

Recognizing the request from Iraq, the Security Council today decided to extend the mandate of the multinational force in that country -- “for the last time”, according to its Permanent Representative -- until 31 December 2008.

UN Security Council

There are tons more, but you get the idea...

Regardless of the hyperbole and opinion, and there is plenty of that to be found, the FACT is we have been asked to stay by the legitimate government. Now it is ever so easy to claim the government is not legit, or that they are a puppet, but all of that is of course just opinion masking as political agendas and is of no real intellectual value.

Semper

reply to post by semperfortis


Oh My Lord!! Woodrow Wilson is well know to be one of the worst Presidents of the last century....until, of course, the shrub....a person NEVER ELECTED to any office higher than Governor....but nevertheless, it was installed in 2000. Too bad, so sad, that Karl Rove didn't run, since he's the one responsible for BOTH of these current failed administrations.

It's a sham, I tells ya!! A sham....and the American Electorate needs to wake up, and smell the coffee!!

reply to post by weedwhacker


It's a study group...

Woodrow Wilson died in 1924

Semper

Originally posted by semperfortis
Now it is ever so easy to claim the government is not legit, or that they are a puppet, but all of that is of course just opinion masking as political agendas and is of no real intellectual value.

If you subscribe to a fundamentalist, one sided mentality, then yes.

See, Semper, you are only seeing this from the US-led side of the story. You aren't seeing anyone else's viewpoint - which in a lot of respects is perfectly understandable - but by describing them as you have done, and dismissing them as being "of no intellectual value" you are actually applying as fundamentalist a viewpoint as - say - a radical muslim who dismisses anything and everything to do with western culture, and would say exactly the same about your viewpoint.

Theres more to the world than a US-centred point of view, in the same manner that theres more to the world than a fundamentalist Islamic point of view.

Interestingly, you have just dismissed the entire Cold War, because what you're saying is that the governments in the former Soviet block were perfectly legitimate, and you can't argue with that, because to do so would just be opinion masking as political agendas and would be of no real intellectual value Don't get me started on Cuba, where the people rose up and untook regime change......

Two sides of the same coin.

There needs to be middle ground, and an acceptance of failings on both sides before progress can be made. Is that happening? Nope.

reply to post by neformore


Not so fundamentalist Nef, as pragmatic..

Remember that "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar"

"Sometimes there is no conspiracy"

"As a general rule, things really are exactly as we see them"

and

I have met the Iraqi people, gotten to know some of them, I trust my judgment because of that.

Semper