Planetarion Forums

Texan · 23 Oct 2005, 18:08

“Our war on terror begins with al-Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated,” said President George W. Bush to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 20, 2001. “… Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place until there is no refuge or no rest.”

Some pundits have said Americans don’t have the patience to face a long war and are too soft to accept the hardships needed to win.

The Greatest Generation helped save Europe from fascism, but the members of that steadfast generation are either gone or just too tired to fight another war. Following in the footsteps of their mothers and fathers, the baby boomers stood firm against Communist aggression during Cold War battles such as Korea, Vietnam, China and Cuba.

Now the current generation of young people has the Global War on Terrorism to tackle, and with headlines like “Going backwards in the global war against terrorism” and “The unwinnable war against global terrorism,” many in the mainstream media have already given up the war as a lost cause.

Contrary to reports in the media, the war in Iraq is not a disaster, but nearing success. The price has been high and at times tragic, but a democracy is in place, a constitution is being hammered out with the Sunni minority, and the democratic reformist mindset is spreading into Lebanon, Egypt and other Gulf states. This has only been possible because of the steadfast courage and tremendous strength, both moral and physical, American Soldiers have shown.

Rebuilding Iraq
The Multinational Force Iraq, the U.S. government and the interim Iraqi government are working together to rebuild Iraq’s infrastructure and provide a secure environment for the people of Iraq to work and live.

More than 2,700 projects ranging from health care and water treatment facilities to electrical power generation and distribution have been started with about 1,580 completed by Aug. 1, according to a Corps of Engineers press release.

After 1st Armored Division fought battles against militias in the streets of Sadr City in 2004, U.S. government agencies moved in and began reconstruction. They funded projects to improve the electrical grid, got clean water flowing into Iraqi homes and hooked up sewers so sewage no longer ran down the middle of the streets.

Cities such as Fallujah, Najaf and Sadr City where battles occurred benefited the most from reconstruction projects, but all 18 provinces in Iraq have benefited from the projects, according to the U.S. Agency for International Development.

About 130,000 Iraqi workers are employed in reconstruction to build a better life for themselves and future generations. Corps of Engineers officials have said they hope that being part of the reconstruction will give the Iraqi people a sense of ownership for the projects and will also make them unlikely candidates for insurgent recruiters.

Training Iraqi forces
Although the exact numbers of people trained by coalition forces to take on roles as soldiers, sailors, airmen, police and special forces in Iraq are not available because of security reasons, between 100,000 and 200,000 Iraqi security forces are working together with coalition forces and in some cases independently to secure Iraq.

“We have a strategy for success in Iraq,” Bush said in a speech Aug. 3 in Grapevine, Texas. “On the one hand, we’ve got a military strategy, and we’ll continue to hunt down the terrorists, as we train Iraqi forces so they can defend their own country. As Iraqis stand up, Americans and coalition forces will stand down. And we’re making progress. More and more Iraqi units are more and more capable of defending themselves.”

Spreading democracy
“We have done this type of work before in our nation,” said Bush. “We have fought evil before. We have been through ideological struggles. Your dads and granddads fought against the Nazis and fought against the Japanese. It was an ideological struggle against an enemy that was ruthless. And we prevailed. We prevailed in more ways than one. We prevailed militarily, but we also helped spread democracy. We laid that foundation for peace for the next generation coming up.

“The spread of democracy yields peace. What you’re seeing on your TV screens today is the work of brave soldiers and diplomats and coalition partners, spreading democracy, defeating a hateful ideology with an ideology of hope, an ideology that has got a clear vision for a better tomorrow for all its citizens. We’ve seen this work before, and we have prevailed because we have been steadfast and true to our beliefs.

“And we’ll prevail again. This nation will be steadfast. This nation will be strong. And this nation, like other generations before us, will make sacrifices necessary to lay the foundation for peace for generations to come,” said Bush.

As Soldiers in the community prepare for deployment they should keep in mind the words of the commander in chief, the war on terrorism will be a long campaign, but this generation must remain steadfast.

... If I had known my opinion was so valuable to the people on this forum, I would have shared my opinions much more freely. It's nice to be appreciated. I think I don't actually need to comment on the article above, since I am the author. If you want to find it on the Internet, search on Google.

Ste · 23 Oct 2005, 18:10

http://www.rightwingnews.com/john/whyiraq.php

heh
rightwingnews...
is this where all your links come from?

Dace · 23 Oct 2005, 18:15

it kinda makes you glad to be alive

Texan · 23 Oct 2005, 18:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ste

http://www.rightwingnews.com/john/whyiraq.php

heh
rightwingnews...
is this where all your links come from?

That's not the same article. Some of the quotes from Bush are the same though.

Ste · 23 Oct 2005, 18:21

the thing is Texan, what do you want us to say after you post that article?
This is why we want a comment from you, I have absolutely no idea why I just read that. It just strikes me as standard right-wing-biased pro-war crap.

If you want people to discuss it, what exactly do you want us to discuss? What point are you trying to prove?

This is why you can't just stick an article there with no comment and expect posts other than tl;dr.

JonnyBGood · 23 Oct 2005, 18:35

War is not about spreading democracy. Soldiers or civilians people die in their tens of thousands because death has been concocted for them, morality hitched like a halter around the great warhorse so we can talk about "target-rich environments" and "collateral damage" - that most infantile of attempts to shake off the crime of killing - and watch the victory parades, the tearing down of statues and talk about the importance of peace. Governments prefer it that way. They want their people to see war as a drama of opposites, good and evil, 'them' and 'us', victory or defeat. But war is primarily not about victory or defeat but about death and the infliction of death. It represents the total failure of the human spirit on all sides.

Yahwe · 23 Oct 2005, 18:38

And you earn a living writing this poorly?

Texan · 23 Oct 2005, 18:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe

And you earn a living writing this poorly?

It's amazing isn't it? If you had known how easy it is to make a living writing crap, you could have saved yourself all of that studying in law school and all the hard work you do every day.

And to all of you with job prospects even worse than Yahwe's, consider a career as a writer. It pays well and no talent is required.

Phil^ · 23 Oct 2005, 18:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texan

and no talent is required.

Evidently, no intelligence is either

s|k · 23 Oct 2005, 19:25

tl;dr </flavius>

MrL_JaKiri · 23 Oct 2005, 19:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flavius

I did that once only, and I blatantly stole it from Nod

Who stole it from SA!

Texan · 23 Oct 2005, 19:35

Your questions don't really have questions in them, which makes them hard to answer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by horn

-we were lied too about why we went too war, while you may argue that it was for an underlying good cause, i'm afraid that's a bit too rousseauific for me. "if the public knew all the facts and were thinking rationally they would share our decision", it's not even like this could lead too immoral decisions (and police states) but too some people it already has. (i.e. terroism bill and killing thousands of iraqi's in the name of weapons that didn't exist)

I have no idea why Bush, Blair and the other 30 to 50 countries actually went to war with Iraq. The reason Hussein should have been overthrown was because he did not follow through with what he promised after the Gulf War I cease fire and continued to shoot at U.S. and British pilots enforcing the UN-mandated no fly zones. Also the 17 UN resolutions he mostly disregarded.

Quote:

Originally Posted by horn

-the legality of the war, was it legal or illegal (i haven't a clue), i also don't know enough about the UN to form a decision as to whether or not i much care

Ask Yahwe. He's a lawyer. Or ask DDA. He's a knowledgeable lawyer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by horn

- the "power of nightmares" documentary i saw which is by far the most comprehensive guide i have seen to this war so far. Arguments such as al-qaeda being far less organised and powerful than what is commonly suggested in the media and the need for an ideology for a neo con government in place of the old soviet "threat". (the ideology thing being rather ironic with your quotes of bush driviling on about his objectively virtuous ideology)

I would say that al-qaeda is at best disorganized and not particularly powerful, but they did manage to train thousands of terrorists in Afghanistan and other countries. And they have also managed to kill a lot of people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by horn

- T&F posted a link to an article by naomi klein a while ago (if anyone knows the link pls post it

)which although i didn't read all of it, seemed to have a few points about the buying up if iraq's entire infastructure. As i say i didn't read it all, but it certainly had a more feasible explanation for why iraqi civilians seem to resent the occupation of their land as opposed too the explanation that blair and bush give which is...... (i have no idea)

I did not see the article. Large corporations buy things. Much of the production in the United States is owned by non-U.S. corporations. The only way to avoid this is to have state-owned production.

Quote:

Originally Posted by horn

as for you personally, i haven't had time to read many of your posts recently (knowing that they're going to contain a fair bit of reading) but i like seeing you post here, it's not only interesting to see such debates but it's healthy. Having well informed posters who have have similar views results in little debate, a lack of educational reading for other posters and a habbit of not posting interesting content.
It's a shame some have to take it too a personal level (possibly you included i don't know)
now answer the points i raised, i'm interested

I think many of the people on this forum are not interested in seing other points of view. They already know their point of view is correct, and it irritates them that not everyone agrees with them. Also with the rep system, lots of people just post crap, because they don't want to post on controversial issues. Yes, I get irritated sometimes. I am going to continue to post what I want. If the mods want to ban me, they can. I used to enjoy this forum, but it has become less enjoyable over the last couple of years. The people also seem to be less and less interested in discussing politics, and more interested in discussing pop culture.

JonnyBGood · 23 Oct 2005, 19:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flavius

I did that once only, and I blatantly stole it from Nod

The first poster to use tl;dr on this forum was Taratang (although someone might have used it before him prior to the database being wiped).

queball · 23 Oct 2005, 19:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flavius

I did that once only, and I blatantly stole it from Nod

http://pirate.planetarion.com/showth...02#post2621002
http://pirate.planetarion.com/showth...64#post2948364

Alessio · 23 Oct 2005, 19:54

Heil Texan, thank you for our daily portion of propaganda.

G.K Zhukov · 23 Oct 2005, 19:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texan

[i]The Greatest Generation helped save Europe from fascism, but the members of that steadfast generation are either gone or just too tired to fight another war. Following in the footsteps of their mothers and fathers, the baby boomers stood firm against Communist aggression during Cold War battles such as Korea, Vietnam, China and Cuba.

It's not like the U.S won WWII on it's own, was it?

Communist aggression from Korea, Vietnam, China and Cuba....
We all know Korea, Vietnam and Cuba are great powers capable of invading USA every minute! These three countries are in fact so dangerous, that everyone else in the world thinks of them as a major threat to they're safety. My suggestion is that we increase the defence budgets with 30% per year for atleast 10 years!
China is so dangerous, Im not sure if I want to think about it. I think they are about to attack you guys Texan, the land of the free and the brave, EVERY MOMENT!

RUN TO YOUR NEAREST NUKE-PROOF SHELTHER TEXAN. RUN! RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!

JonnyBGood · 23 Oct 2005, 19:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texan

I think many of the people on this forum are not interested in seing other points of view. They already know their point of view is correct, and it irritates them that not everyone agrees with them. Also with the rep system, lots of people just post crap, because they don't want to post on controversial issues. Yes, I get irritated sometimes. I am going to continue to post what I want. If the mods want to ban me, they can. I used to enjoy this forum, but it has become less enjoyable over the last couple of years. The people also seem to be less and less interested in discussing politics, and more interested in discussing pop culture.

I entirely disagree. For one the people with views most radically different from yours, such as dante or T&F, are the people most likely to respond in detail to your posts. People do not respect what has effectively become a random link to neo-conservative articles.

I am rather concerned that my directly opposite profession of ideological misgivings in this thread has been so irreverently passed over

JonnyBGood · 23 Oct 2005, 20:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

Communist aggression from Korea, Vietnam, China and Cuba....

I think the real threat towards the US from communist countries and their aggressive natures has been best demonstrated in the history of Vietnam. It's a good thing that invasion fleet on the way towards the US was hit by those storms, we could have had a real problem on our hands.

Wait, the boats were filled with what?

Ste · 23 Oct 2005, 20:02

Texan - seeing as you still haven't answered my question:

What is it you are actually wanting us to discuss?

Phang · 23 Oct 2005, 20:02

Was the Iraq war a success? Yes. You achieved your objective; you removed Saddam Hussein and ensured your supply of Persian Gulf oil.

It's just a shame that the American spirit turned out to be such a magnificent failure.

G.K Zhukov · 23 Oct 2005, 20:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I think the real threat towards the US from communist countries and their aggressive natures has been best demonstrated in the history of Vietnam. It's a good thing that invasion fleet on the way towards the US was hit by those storms, we could have had a real problem on our hands.

Wait, the boats were filled with what?

They had boats??!?

Yahwe · 23 Oct 2005, 20:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texan

Ask Yahwe. He's a lawyer. Or ask DDA. He's a knowledgeable lawyer.

hmmm?

It was utterly in contravention of International Law. Everybody knows that. didn't you read vaughan lowe's letter to the times?

Phil^ · 23 Oct 2005, 21:10

"A Fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." - Churchill

Describe anyone we know?

IncubusGod · 23 Oct 2005, 21:36

Perhaps if we club together and get Texan a soapbox, he won't hang around here and just post random propeganda 'news' posts.

dda · 24 Oct 2005, 06:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe

It was utterly in contravention of International Law. Everybody knows that. didn't you read vaughan lowe's letter to the times?

International Law!!!!!! lol

Good one.

Radical Edward · 24 Oct 2005, 09:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by s|k

tl;dr </flavius>

this texan thread is shit, but I would like to take something good from it. what does tl;dr mean?

Radical Edward · 24 Oct 2005, 09:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe

hmmm?

It was utterly in contravention of International Law. Everybody knows that. didn't you read vaughan lowe's letter to the times?

wasn't it you who said, ages ago, that international law is a joke?

Yahwe · 24 Oct 2005, 09:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

wasn't it you who said, ages ago, that international law is a joke?

It is a joke because it is only ever subjectively enforced.

You will notice that even though the Iraq war was in controvention of international law nothing has happened to punish the US or the UK for an illegal war.

The fact is that international law is treated as a joke by the US. But even that doesn't make the war 'legal'.

Ste · 24 Oct 2005, 09:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

this texan thread is shit, but I would like to take something good from it. what does tl;dr mean?

too long; didn't read

Radical Edward · 24 Oct 2005, 10:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe

It is a joke because it is only ever subjectively enforced.

You will notice that even though the Iraq war was in controvention of international law nothing has happened to punish the US or the UK for an illegal war.

The fact is that international law is treated as a joke by the US. But even that doesn't make the war 'legal'.

good point well made, thanks

Radical Edward · 24 Oct 2005, 10:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ste

too long; didn't read

tl;dr, but thanks for replying anyway

xtrasyn · 24 Oct 2005, 14:55

God this so depresses me. Can someone please send me the list of mad Americans on this board so I can like put all of them on ignore? Thanks.

acropolis · 24 Oct 2005, 14:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texan

Some pundits have said Americans don’t have the patience to face a long war and are too soft to accept the hardships needed to win..

that's just silly. we will probably be in a war against terrorists (if that's the terminology you want to use) for the rest of our lives, and we don't have a real choice in the matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texan

Contrary to reports in the media, the war in Iraq is not a disaster, but nearing success. The price has been high and at times tragic, but a democracy is in place, a constitution is being hammered out with the Sunni minority, and the democratic reformist mindset is spreading into Lebanon, Egypt and other Gulf states. This has only been possible because of the steadfast courage and tremendous strength, both moral and physical, American Soldiers have shown. .

i don't recall any of the clueless liberal commentators saying anything like 'they'll never be able to run an election in Iraq!" i don't think anyone on the left has ever claimed that the US would be unable to topple saddam, and i don't think any of them has ever said we wouldn't be able to run elections or open schools and hospitals or get the oil flowing again. as far as i know, the only negativity on the invasion/occupying process itself has been A) as long as we stay there we will be quagmired, losing soldiers all the time and B) but as soon as we leave, it will collapse into anarchy/theocracy/terrorist haven.

For A, it's fair to say that some lefties predicted higher casualties than we've had. However, more common were predictions far lower ("we could lose hundreds!"), and were still mocked by the right before the war. I think it's pretty clear A was an accurate assessment on the whole though.

For B, I'm not so sure it's true. Certainly to some minor extent there will be more terrorists, and obviously the iraqi government will be to the right of ours, and it will be anarchical compared to Saddam's regime. But if the lives of the average Iraqis are signifiactly better because of it, so what (except for the terrorism part, but we should be more capable of fighting terrorists in Iraq than we were before). On the other hand, I ~favored the war in advance, and I've since found every optimistic thought about iraq to be dead wrong and every pessimistic one completely right.

Anyway, the real bottom line is that neither A nor B matter. If starting tomorrow no more US troops died, and the democracy worked perfectly from now until forever, the real question remains. And that question is about the opportunity cost of the great iraqi liberation: "Would there have been a more effective use of $2-400,000,000,000 and 2-3000 american lives in terms of both our safety from terrorists and the international good?"

i don't think even bush could pretend the answer to that question is 'no'

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texan

Training Iraqi forces
Although the exact numbers of people trained by coalition forces to take on roles as soldiers, sailors, airmen, police and special forces in Iraq are not available because of security reasons, between 100,000 and 200,000 Iraqi security forces are working together with coalition forces and in some cases independently to secure Iraq..

'police'

most countries have between 2 and 5 po po per 1000 people. if iraq has 30M people, that means between 60K and 150K police. and given that the 2 end is normally held by low-crime modernized countries like canada and japan, i'd guess iraq is leaning closer to 5, therefore 150K.

So that sentence now leaves the question: does Iraq have any soldiers whatsoever to date? Because we've seen that police forces in fact vaporize instantaneously as soon as an armed terrorist force comes into town.

I've heard that there are now three (3) full battalions of iraqi soldiers. One (1) of whom is combat ready. After two and a half (2.5) years. If we feel that Iraq needs 20,000 combat-ready soldiers to be ready to be on its own, then at the present rate we can leave some time in 2053. Hey, we stuck with Japan and Germany that long; why not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texan

... If I had known my opinion was so valuable to the people on this forum, I would have shared my opinions much more freely. It's nice to be appreciated. I think I don't actually need to comment on the article above, since I am the author. If you want to find it on the Internet, search on Google.

your opinion is indeed much more valuable to us than the opinion of anyone who isn't around to hear our fairly harsh criticism. which as far as i know includes most right-wing columnists.

Tactitus · 24 Oct 2005, 17:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by acropolis

most countries have between 2 and 5 po po per 1000 people. if iraq has 30M people, that means between 60K and 150K police. and given that the 2 end is normally held by low-crime modernized countries like canada and japan, i'd guess iraq is leaning closer to 5, therefore 150K.

So that sentence now leaves the question: does Iraq have any soldiers whatsoever to date? Because we've seen that police forces in fact vaporize instantaneously as soon as an armed terrorist force comes into town.

I don't think we've seen that in quite some time. Iraqi soldiers were in the front lines in Tal-Afar and reportedly did quite well. Iraqi forces are participating in something like 80% of all operations, so they're not sitting on the sidelines. Iraqi police and security forces handled primary and secondary security (with coalition forces as tertiary security) for the recent election and they seem to have done OK there as well.

I'd also recommend Michael Yon's blog and in particular his posts on the Battle for Mosul for background on the development and evolution of the Iraqi police forces.

Quote:

I've heard that there are now three (3) full battalions of iraqi soldiers.

That article was referring to the number of Iraqi battalions in category 1 (able and available to fight without any coalition help whatsoever), not to the total number of Iraqi battalions. There are now over 100 operational (not simply in training) Iraqi battalions and some additional smaller units. Most of these battalions are able to conduct operations with some coalition assistance.

s|k · 24 Oct 2005, 19:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by xtrasyn

God this so depresses me. Can someone please send me the list of mad Americans on this board so I can like put all of them on ignore? Thanks.

I'm the only alegedly 'mad' American.

acropolis · 24 Oct 2005, 20:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tactitus

[/i]
I don't think we've seen that in quite some time. Iraqi soldiers were in the front lines in Tal-Afar and reportedly did quite well. Iraqi forces are participating in something like 80% of all operations, so they're not sitting on the sidelines. Iraqi police and security forces handled primary and secondary security (with coalition forces as tertiary security) for the recent election and they seem to have done OK there as well.

despite how i may have sounded, i wasn't attacking the iraqi police. i don't think police should be on the front lines of battles, which is why i don't think they should be counted in the relevant 'security force' number.

in america, our police provide security for our elections as well. but if a serious well-armed enemy force showed up in america, i would expect our police to make way for soldiers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tactitus

That article was referring to the number of Iraqi battalions in category 1 (able and available to fight without any coalition help whatsoever), not to the total number of Iraqi battalions. There are now over 100 operational (not simply in training) Iraqi battalions and some additional smaller units. Most of these battalions are able to conduct operations with some coalition assistance.

i was indeed wrong when i said 'three.' But in terms of us finally returning home Mission Accomplished*, which is the more relevant number, how many iraqi battalions can fight without our support or how many can fight with our support?

How many battalions that can fight without our support will Iraq need to have before we could 'safely' withdraw? When will we (they) have them? Why, 2.5 years after the attack, are our security goals and progress towards neither well known nor well publicized? Why didn't we have a serious post-war military rebuilding timeline released before we invaded?

Now, maybe we can still partially withdraw and leave behind some CIA and special forces to provide the 'some support needed' for the other 99% of Iraqi battalions. Is there any such proposal on the table? Is it possible? Why not? Is it true that any sort of planning means the terrorists win?

kind of seems that our grand iraqi adventure is just another Charge of the Light Brigade writ large.

*like, for serious this time!

Yahwe · 24 Oct 2005, 21:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by s|k

I'm the only alegedly 'mad' American.

that's untrue.

there are many american posters that we allage are mad.

you are the only american poster who has both spent time in a mental home and acts in an insane manner.

acropolis · 24 Oct 2005, 21:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe

that's untrue.

there are many american posters that we allage are mad.

you are the only american poster who has both spent time in a mental home and acts in an insane manner.

why was s|k in a mental home?

i hope it wasn't depression. depression is for losers!

JonnyBGood · 25 Oct 2005, 00:33

Freedom is an intellectual achievement, which requires disavowal of collectivism and embrace of individualism. Sadly, no matter what the referendum's result, this is not what we are witnessing in Iraq.

As the world eagerly watches the Iraqi constitutional referendum, the Bush administration and its intellectual supporters herald the occasion as a historic step toward freedom in the Middle East and security for America. This view betrays an appalling ignorance of the nature of freedom and the requirements of our national self-interest.

Politically, as America's Founding Fathers understood, to be free is to possess the ability to exercise one's rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. To be free means that no other men, whatever their number or position, can coercively prevent an individual from taking the steps rationally required to support his life. It means no one can force him to accept beliefs or dogmas, control what he can or cannot say, seize the material wealth he has produced and earned, or dictate the goals he must live for.

A constitution is valuable only if it strictly delimits the power of government to that of protecting each individual's rights. History demonstrates that government is, potentially, the worst violator of man's rights. A proper constitution declares off-limits any governmental action that would trespass on an individual's rights, no matter whether that action is proposed in the name of the king, the common good, God, or public morality.

The draft Iraqi constitution, however, grants virtually unlimited power to the state.

As liberals have demanded in America for over a century, private property will be eviscerated. Although the proposed constitution nominally protects property rights, it explicitly allows that private property can be seized by the government "for the public interest." By contrast, public property "is sacrosanct, and its protection is the duty of every citizen." (In practice, this means that if the government takes a citizen's money, business or home, he must stand aside--and then defend with his life what the government has stolen from him.) The state will dictate whether an Iraqi can sell land to foreigners. It will manage the oil. It will provide to its hapless citizens "free" education and health care, "a correct environmental atmosphere," and work "that guarantees them a good life."

The government will also, as conservatives have long dreamed for America, enforce religious morality. "Islam," Article 2 declares, "is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation: No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam." Experts in Islamic law will sit on the Supreme Court. The state will guarantee protection of motherhood and the "ethical and religious value" of the family. Citizens will have freedom of speech, of press, of assembly--so long as no one says or does anything that violates "public morality," i.e., the dogmas of Islam.

And as if to leave no doubt that the state can exert total control over the individual's life, Article 45 adds that the government can restrict or limit "any of the freedoms and liberties stated in the constitution . . . as long as this restriction or limitation does not undermine the essence of the right or freedom." Of course, part of the essence of any right or freedom is that it is inviolable.

We in America had no reason to expect freedom from the drafters of Iraq's constitution. Like many of our own intellectuals on the left and the right (some of whom were advisers in Iraq), Iraqi intellectuals are either tribal or religious collectivists (or both). Whichever the case, they deny the individual and his rights. The tribalists deny material independence to the individual and seek to control his every economic step. The religionists, more numerous and powerful, deny spiritual independence to the individual and seek to dictate his every conviction and purpose in life. It is no accident that the draft constitution is both "keen to advance Iraqi tribes and clans" and eager to promote Islam. Freedom's intellectual preconditions do not exist in Iraq.

In the long term, whether Iraq's religious collectivists seize the machinery of state by a protracted, bloody civil war or by the ballot box will make no difference to America's security.

Nor did we have any reason to think that our self-defense requires, at the price of our soldiers' lives, "imposing freedom" on Iraq or the Middle East. It is true that free nations pose no threat to us. But neither do semi-barbarous nations when they and their citizens are demoralized--when they know that taking up arms against us guarantees their devastation. This is the lesson America's military should have taught the Islamic totalitarians and their legions of collectivist supporters and sympathizers in the Middle East after 9/11--indeed, after Iran's embassy takeover in 1979. But this is not the lesson conveyed by Operation Iraqi Freedom, which espouses Bush's "calling of our time": selflessly to bring freedom to those hostile to the idea.

Freedom is an intellectual achievement, which requires disavowal of collectivism and embrace of individualism. Sadly, no matter what the referendum's result, this is not what we are witnessing in Iraq.

G.K Zhukov · 25 Oct 2005, 00:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Politically, as America's Founding Fathers understood, to be free is to possess the ability to exercise one's rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. To be free means that no other men, whatever their number or position, can coercively prevent an individual from taking the steps rationally required to support his life. It means no one can force him to accept beliefs or dogmas, control what he can or cannot say, seize the material wealth he has produced and earned, or dictate the goals he must live for.

The Founding Fathers had slaves themselfs....*

*But the slaves were black, so they didnt count as human beeings ofcourse.

s|k · 25 Oct 2005, 02:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by acropolis

why was s|k in a mental home?

i hope it wasn't depression. depression is for losers!

I was too young to be depressed, I was fourteen. It was called 'Boys & Girls Mental Health Center' and I was put there for a variety of reasons including shoplifting, 'passive agressive behavior, lying, unable to sleep at night, doing poorly in school, inappropriate behavior with girls, inability to stay in a foster home for very long before getting kicked out...but not depression, I didn't get despressed until much later.

I was only there for a few months, it ended up being closed down by the country for various violations. An interesting fact: All four group homes I lived in ended up being closed down for various violations. Bonus interesting fact: Between the age of 12 and 18 I lived in 17 different homes and attended about as many schools. Talk about stability!!

Phil^ · 25 Oct 2005, 02:37

JBG, are you in danger of becoming texan?
or was that entirely your own words?

nope it seems they werent.
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=112961

:sigh:
now, go get your spankings from MM

JonnyBGood · 25 Oct 2005, 02:40

Obviously I was both parodying and surpassing texan's ability to copy and paste insane right wing rants. It was that or a pacifist-marxist view on the situation.

dda · 25 Oct 2005, 03:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by xtrasyn

God this so depresses me. Can someone please send me the list of mad Americans on this board so I can like put all of them on ignore? Thanks.

dda---please add to list

Duncan · 25 Oct 2005, 18:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

War is not about spreading democracy. Soldiers or civilians people die in their tens of thousands because death has been concocted for them, morality hitched like a halter around the great warhorse so we can talk about "target-rich environments" and "collateral damage" - that most infantile of attempts to shake off the crime of killing - and watch the victory parades, the tearing down of statues and talk about the importance of peace. Governments prefer it that way. They want their people to see war as a drama of opposites, good and evil, 'them' and 'us', victory or defeat. But war is primarily not about victory or defeat but about death and the infliction of death. It represents the total failure of the human spirit on all sides.

well despite this, new ideas and forms of government do sometimes pass on to occupied territories. in the long run, these things can have benefits. i would say this is happening in Iraq, simply because Saddam Hussein's government was utter shit and it won't be hard to improve upon (not to mention a much more efficient infrastructure which will probably benefit Joe.Q.Iraqi in the long run as well)

you also have to take into account that Saddam Hussein's tyranny resulted in a large number of unnessary deaths and suffering, but i guess that total failure of human spirit deserves a blind eye.

JonnyBGood · 25 Oct 2005, 19:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duncan

well despite this, new ideas and forms of government do sometimes pass on to occupied territories. in the long run, these things can have benefits. i would say this is happening in Iraq, simply because Saddam Hussein's government was utter shit and it won't be hard to improve upon (not to mention a much more efficient infrastructure which will probably benefit Joe.Q.Iraqi in the long run as well)

And how many lives was that worth?

Quote:

you also have to take into account that Saddam Hussein's tyranny resulted in a large number of unnessary deaths and suffering, but i guess that total failure of human spirit deserves a blind eye.

Of course it does not. However it does not justify causing more suffering and deaths that may not have occurred without intervention in the fashion that it happened.

Duncan · 26 Oct 2005, 02:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

And how many lives was that worth? Of course it does not. However it does not justify causing more suffering and deaths that may not have occurred without intervention in the fashion that it happened.

just saying some good came out of this for iraqis, and it wasn't simply about killing people

really you'd need to ask iraqis themselves if being free of Saddam was worth it or not, but i'm guessing they don't

Yahwe · 26 Oct 2005, 02:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duncan

just saying some good came out of this for iraqis, and it wasn't simply about killing people

really you'd need to ask iraqis themselves if being free of Saddam was worth it or not, but i'm guessing they don't

1,900 Panamanians died during the US invasion of Panama to get rid of Manuel Antonio Noriega. AMERICA'S ALLY

Since he was removed the columbian cocaine market has incresed and prospered.

General Noriega was the personal friend of your president's father.

The latest (most upto date) guesses guess that at least 100,000 Iraqis have died in getting rid of Mr Bush junior's enemy.

Since Saddam has been deposed over a 1,000 american troops have died.

not more than 2,000 people died on september the 11th. only a third of those that died were american citizens.

If we are going to live in a world that believes in "an eye for an eye" as america seems to want us to. Why is it that an american eye is worth more (sometimes ten, sometimes a hundred more) than any other eye?

s|k · 26 Oct 2005, 02:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahwe

Why is it that an american eye is worth more (sometimes ten, sometimes a hundred more) than any other eye?

Because Americans weigh more. Yes we're a bunch of fatties. It really ought to be called pound for pound. On my estimation, that since the average American ways about as much as 4 grown Iraqi men and 2 women and 1 child, Iraqi's still have a ways to go body count wise before I'll call it even.