Law School Discussion

Off-Topic Area => Politics and Law-Related News => Topic started by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 02, 2006, 12:16:29 PM

Title: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 02, 2006, 12:16:29 PM
dearest dwindling shortsighted liberals:
dearest blinded conservatives:

In 1861 Abraham Lincoln led what was left of his country to war to restore "the Union as it was," to use the popular phrase of the time. Free navigation of the Mississippi River, the right to collect customs duties in Southern ports, the status of a pair of coastal forts in South Carolina and Florida--these were the issues over which young American men got down to the business of killing one another that sad summer.

It was all a pipe dream. "The Union as it was" was gone, forever. Events proved William Tecumseh Sherman--the prophet of that war--right, and everyone else wrong: An ocean of blood would be required to reunite the United States, and once that blood was spilled, the country over which James Buchanan had presided was as dead as the soldiers whose corpses littered the battlefields of Shiloh and Gettysburg, Antietam and Cold Harbor.

But there was a much bigger, much better, and above all much nobler dream waiting in the wings: "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom" (to use Lincoln's own words)--that the chains of four million slaves might be shattered forever, that freedom and democracy might prevail against tyranny and aristocracy in a world still full of tyrants and aristocrats.

 
 
The loss of hundreds of thousands of American men--a lost generation comparable to the generation of young French, German, and British men lost in Flanders fields a half-century later--for the sake of a few Southern forts and ports would have been a tragedy as great as the senseless killing at the Somme and Passchendaele. World War I was senseless, both because it was fought over territory and because it settled nothing. The Civil War that Lincoln and Jefferson Davis set out to fight would have been no different. If control of America's rivers had remained the war's object, then whoever won the day in the early 1860s would have had to defend that object again a generation later, just as World War II saw a generation of British and American men fight for the same territory their fathers won a generation after their fathers won it.

Freedom and democracy, justice and the equality of all men before God and before the law--those causes were very different. Shedding an ocean of blood for them was terribly sad but not tragic: The essence of tragedy is waste, and the blood shed on the Civil War's battlefields was not wasted. Horrible as its killing fields were, those young men accomplished something profoundly good: Their deaths ensured that (to use Lincoln's words again) "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." That is why the Civil War has gone down in history not as America's own World War I, but as the war of America's true "greatest generation," the generation that preserved freedom and democracy for us and for the rest of humankind.

In 1861 neither Lincoln nor Davis could have won a fair vote for the war they wound up fighting. Lincoln nearly lost his office, and hence the war, over his decision to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. In 1861 the North could not imagine the suffering of the next four years--and had Northern voters done so, they would have bid the South go in peace and left slavery's chains intact. Thankfully, no one guessed the future (well, almost no one--Sherman came close), and the future was better because of it.

What does this history teach us? Three things: First, that Victor Davis Hanson is right--wars often change purposes after they begin. Second, that sometimes the new purpose is vastly better than the one it replaces. Few nations choose up front to sacrifice their sons for the sake of others' freedom. When such sacrifices are made, they usually flow not from design but from accident and error--just as the North's military blunders prolonged the Civil War, and thereby made it a struggle to bring that new birth of freedom to the war-torn land over which the soldiers fought.

The third lesson is the most important. Brief wars rarely produce permanent results, but long wars often do. Had McClellan's army taken Richmond and ended the war early in 1862, slavery and secessionism would have survived, and "the South shall rise again" would have been a prediction rather than a slogan. Hitler conquered most of Western Europe--Denmark, Norway, the Low Countries, and France--in a two-month campaign in the spring and early summer of 1940. It took five years to undo the conquest. But the long, hard slog to Berlin worked: The Thousand-Year Reich was ended centuries before its self-proclaimed expiration date. Napoleon's marshals occupied Spain in a few months in 1808. It took Wellington and Spanish guerrillas six years to dislodge the French. But the dislodging lasted: In the 19 decades since, no French government has ruled an acre of the Iberian Peninsula.

CONTINUED


Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 02, 2006, 12:18:05 PM
CONTINUED

What would have happened had the second Iraq war turned out like the first, as the White House apparently expected? Saddam would have been toppled, the Iraqi people would have celebrated, order would have been restored quickly, followed by a speedy exit for British and American troops. Then what? Maybe the rule of Iran-style Shia mullahs, perhaps another brutal Sunni autocrat to take the place of the last one, possibly an endless civil war between the two. Today, there is a real chance of a vastly better result--precisely because the insurgency survived, because it wasn't quickly defeated. Sunni intransigence needed to be crushed slowly; a quick in-and-out war was not enough to kill the dream of forever tyrannizing Iraqi Kurds and Shia. More important, thousands of senseless murders over the past 32 months have taught Iraqis--Sunni, Shia, and Kurd alike--just how vicious Zarqawi and his allies are. That lesson will have very useful consequences for the long-term health of the region.

Today's fighting in Iraq bears little resemblance to Pickett's charge or the Union assault on Marye's Heights in Fredericksburg. For one thing, the Civil War was infinitely bloodier: Its worst battles killed more American soldiers in a day than have died in two-and-a-half years of fighting in Iraq. And the purpose for which our current war was begun--capturing Saddam Hussein's supposed stash of WMDs--seems nobler than the fight over who held Fort Sumter. Still, some key parallels remain. Toppling Saddam and seizing his chemical and biological weapons probably wasn't worth the sacrifice of 2,000-plus American lives (as long as nuclear weapons weren't in the picture). Similarly, control over the Mississippi wasn't worth the bloodletting across the length of the Confederacy's border that took place in Lincoln's first term.

Thankfully, Lincoln saw to it that the war's purpose changed. George W. Bush has changed the purpose of his war too, though the change seems more the product of our enemies' choices than of Bush's design. By prolonging the war, Zarqawi and his Baathist allies have drawn thousands of terrorist wannabes into the fight--against both our soldiers and Muslim civilians. When terrorists fight American civilians, as on September 11, they can leverage their own deaths to kill a great many of us. But when terrorists fight American soldiers, the odds tilt towards our side. Equally important, by bringing the fight to a Muslim land, by making that land the central front of the war on Islamic terrorism, the United States has effectively forced Muslim terrorists to kill Muslim civilians. That is why the so-called Arab street is rising--not against us but against the terrorists, as we saw in Jordan after Zarqawi's disastrous hotel bombing. The population of the Islamic world is choosing sides not between jihadists and Westerners, but between jihadists and people just like themselves. We are, slowly but surely, converting bin Laden's war into a civil war--and that is a war bin Laden and his followers cannot hope to win.

We see the fruits of that dynamic across the Middle East. Democracy is rising, fitfully to be sure, but still rising: in Lebanon, in Palestine, in Egypt, in Iran, even in Saudi Arabia--not just because it is also rising in Iraq, but because its enemies are the same as our enemies. That is a war very much worth fighting.

Today our forces and Iraqis are fighting together and, slowly, winning a good and noble war that holds the hope of bringing to millions a measure of freedom they never knew before. And yet today, America seems ready, even eager, to concede defeat and withdraw: a sad twist on the famous George Aiken formula for extricating American soldiers from Vietnam. It sounds bizarre--why would anyone want to throw away the chance of such a great victory, when victory seems within reach? But it isn't bizarre. On the contrary, it has happened before.

Again, consider the politics of the Civil War. In 1863 the Northern street--the term didn't exist then, but the concept did--rose, and New York saw the worst rioting in our nation's history. The rioters' cause was ending the draft on which Lincoln's war depended. A year later Lincoln seemed headed for electoral defeat, even as Grant's and Sherman's armies seemed headed for decisive military victories. Victory often seems most elusive to civilians when it is most nearly within soldiers' grasp. And noble causes often do not sound noble to the nation whose sons must fight for them. (Those who do the fighting understand: Lincoln had the overwhelming support of soldiers in the field, and I would bet my next paycheck that today's soldiers overwhelmingly support fighting through to victory in Iraq.) In many American towns and cities, then as now, the cause of freedom for others did not seem a cause worth fighting and dying for.

But it is, partly because--as Lincoln saw better than anyone--others' freedom helps to guarantee our own. A world where Southern planters ruled their slaves with the lash was a world where Northerners' rights could never be secure; if birth and privilege and caste reigned supreme in the South, those things would more easily reign elsewhere, closer to Northern homes. Lincoln had it right: Either democracy and freedom would go on to new heights or they might well "perish from the earth." So too today. A world full of Islamic autocrats is a world full of little bin Ladens eager to give their lives to kill Americans. A world full of Islamic democracies gives young Muslim men different outlets for their passions. That obviously means better lives for them. But it also means better and safer lives for us.

None of this excuses the bungling and bad management that have plagued the Iraq war. The administration has made some terrible mistakes that have cost precious lives, both among our soldiers and among Iraqi civilians. But bungling and bad management were far more evident in Lincoln's war than they have been in Bush's. Most wars are bungled; battle plans routinely go awry. Sometimes, error gives rise to larger truths; nations can stumble unawares onto great opportunities. So it was in the 1860s. So it is today in the Middle East.

Two-and-a-half years ago, our armed forces set out to fight a small war with a small objective. Today we find ourselves in a larger war with a larger and vastly better purpose. It would be one of history's sadder ironies were we to turn away because that better purpose is not the one we set out to achieve. Either we fight the fight our enemies have chosen until they are defeated or (better still) dead, or millions of Muslim men and women may lose their "last, best hope"--and we may face a mushroom cloud over Manhattan, the work of one of the many Mohammed Attas that Middle Eastern autocracies have bred over the last generation. The choice belongs not to the president alone, but to all of us. Here's hoping we choose as wisely as Lincoln's generation did.

William J. Stuntz is a professor at Harvard Law School.




px.o.rsta.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 02, 2006, 12:25:32 PM
any responses are welcome...but only naive responses are expected...

good luck though. ;)

As an Indigo...Aye stand!

Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Julie Fern on January 02, 2006, 01:52:25 PM
bush 0 not worthy to wipe lincoln's ass.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: lp4law on January 02, 2006, 04:13:01 PM
Good find blue.  That definitely represents a fresh perspective around these parts.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Julie Fern on January 02, 2006, 04:15:27 PM
lincoln would've given anything for shorter war.  he not interested in murder in order to pursue grandiose ideas.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 02, 2006, 07:37:31 PM
Good find blue.  That definitely represents a fresh perspective around these parts.

thankyou.  glad you understand.  some do not.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Julie Fern on January 03, 2006, 02:29:58 AM
warmongers have special bond, eh?
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: bigtree on January 03, 2006, 07:31:28 AM
More than 140 years ago, Lincoln sought to reassure a gathered group of faithful that he would not take them to war to end the scourge of slavery in declaring that there would be "no bloodshed unless it be forced upon the Government, and then it will be compelled to act in self-defense. "Shortly thereafter, he would nonetheless, lead the country into war to, as he proclaimed, ". . . to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of the National Union, and the perpetuity of popular government; and to redress wrongs (of slavery) already long enough endured."
    In his inaugural, President Bush wasted no time, after a quick nod to the "noble" surrender of his rival Gore, to declare that in his view America was, ". . . one of a new world that became a friend and liberator of the old, a story of a slave-holding society that became a servant of freedom, the story of a power that went into the world to protect but not possess, to defend but not to conquer."
    In two years however, he would abandon all restraint and warning to zealously persuade an insecure nation to engage in a war with Iraq; admonishing Americans that the "peace of a troubled world and the hopes of an oppressed people" now depended on them.
    He sought to reassure a skeptical opposition and world community in his declaration that he had no ambition to possess Iraq. He proclaimed: "We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization and for the religious faiths they practice. We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people."
    So dubious was the threat posed by Iraq, so tenuous was the distinction between the enemy and those "oppressed" who were to be liberated, that President Bush was compelled to profess respect "for Iraq's citizens, for their "great civilization" and for the "religious faiths they practice," and at the same time, scorn them as enemies who had "no regard for conventions of war or rules of morality."
    Lincoln's justification for war did not require any rhetorical hedge. He insisted that in his opposition to slavery, an adherence to the principles of liberty and individual rights which are embodied in the Declaration of Independence, would more than provide for the preservation of the Union.
    "In my hands," he spoke, "is the task of restoring peace to the present distracted condition of the country. It was not the mere matter of the separation of the Colonies from the motherland," he said, "but that sentiment in the Declaration of Independence which gave liberty, not alone to the people of this country, but, I hope, to the world, for all future time."     
   "It was that," Lincoln continued, "which gave promise that in due time the weight would be lifted from the shoulders of all     men."
    But, our current president's war was not waged in defense of any lofty ideals of democracy or liberty.
     This war with Iraq was the invention of a banished ruling class - enriched by the selling of the influence of their positions in government - who had nursed their broken ambitions in exile, and had instinctively constructed their sympathetic webs of wealth to obstruct the remedies of the reformers and hatch the next generation of world capitalists who would inherit the patronage of the next conservative presidency.
    The invasion of Iraq was a clumsy attempt by President Bush to usurp the power from a vanquished nation of innocents; a suffering class of people who were already devastated by the bombing of the first war, and by the economic sanctions imposed by the U.N. at the insistence of the U.S., which served to enrich Saddam Hussein and steadily impoverish and starve everyone else.
    This administration pulled the nation into war to compensate for, and to draw attention from, their failure to apprehend the ringleader of the attack on the World Trade Center. President Bush made the appeal to the nation in a manner which exploited our deepest fears as he warned the nation about the potential for a future Iraqi assault on our country, or on our allies, of a magnitude that would far exceed the devastation of the horrendous suicide attack in New York.
        Lincoln once remarked: "A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, "Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!"
        Also, Lincoln spoke to the notion of divinity's mandate to vigilance when he remarked on the violence of the abolitionist, John Brown in his Cooper Union address. He said, "An enthusiast broods over the oppression of a people till he fancies himself commissioned by heaven to liberate them."
        Lincoln believed that adherence to the principles of democracy would distinguish any victory in a manner that would provide for the durability of the Union and foster a national affirmation of the rights of the individual. "It was that," he said, "which gave promise that in due time the weight would be lifted from the shoulders of all men."
        And, finally, at Edwardsville, Illinois, on September 11, 1858, Abraham Lincoln said, "What constitutes the bulwark of our own liberty and independence is not our frowning battlements, our bristling seacoast, the guns of our war steamers, or the strength of our gallant and disciplined army. These are not the reliance against the resumption of tyranny in our fair land. All of them may be turned against our liberties without making us stronger or weaker for the struggle."
    "Our reliance is in the love of liberty, which God has planted in our bosoms. Our defense is the preservation of the spirit, which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands everywhere." Destroy this spirit and you have planted the seeds of despotism at your down doors."
         "Familiarize yourselves with the chains of bondage," Lincoln warned, and you prepare your own limbs to wear them. Accustomed to trample on the rights of others, you have lost the genius of your own independence and become the fit subjects of the first cunning tyrant who rises among you."

    This government and this administration have become accustomed to trampling, and bondage. And we have allowed them to skirt accountability for their sly justifications for their attacks on our civil liberties; demagogic appeals to patriotism and to our nationalism; the deliberate inflaming, and careful stoking of the sparks of fear that flashed from the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center; and the mortgaging of ours and our children's future toil and tribute to the subsidizing of both of the Bush president's bloody and costly wars of opportunity.
    We are not any safer for our invasion of the sovereign nation of Iraq. In our occupation, we contradict the most basic of our nation's values of freedom, liberty, and democracy.
    With our theft of the industry and resources of Iraq, our country has joined the long line of oppressors and brutal opportunists who have sought to dominate that region for greed and power. History will wonder at our arrogance, and at our inability to restrain our military and its agents from pursuing ambitions far outside of the mandate of our constitution or conscience.

This reply contains exerpts from my book 'Power of Mischief'
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Julie Fern on January 03, 2006, 09:20:08 AM
lincoln made clear that his objective to preserve union, whether with or without slavery.  eventually, he believed ending slavery would provide fundamental solution to problems that led to war.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 03, 2006, 10:03:47 AM

    We are not any safer for our invasion of the sovereign nation of Iraq. In our occupation, we contradict the most basic of our nation's values of freedom, liberty, and democracy.


your whole argument hinges on the idea that iraq was a "sovereign nation".

the notion of a "sovereign nation" when the indigenous peoples are subjugated to "strongman regime" oppression is naive and incongruous.  husseins' brutal grip on the tribes cast aside this "lofty expression".  the baath party regime with its hussein family leadership was carving bloody marks...deep punctures...suffocating any thought the iraqi people may have of freedom, liberty or democracy...

when your side has a gaping hole torn into it and your life blood is pouring out it is impossible to think of yourself as a whole person...let alone one who has rights and liberty...the bloodletting needed to be stopped.  let us see what the people of iraq have to say...shall we?  their outcome is watched by the world.

(A world where Southern planters ruled their slaves with the lash was a world where Northerners' rights could never be secure; if birth and privilege and caste reigned supreme in the South, those things would more easily reign elsewhere, closer to Northern homes. Lincoln had it right: Either democracy and freedom would go on to new heights or they might well "perish from the earth." )

-prev.pst.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Freak on January 03, 2006, 07:26:29 PM
I agree with the gist of Stuntz's article, though Fullwood has some points as well. They are not completely antagonistic pieces.

If you study Lincoln you'll realize he made some pretty horrible decisions as well (illegally suspending habeas corpus etc.). The Lincoln's best defense is that he was dealing with a larger crisis.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 03, 2006, 08:57:55 PM
I agree with the gist of Stuntz's article, though Fullwood has some points as well. They are not completely antagonistic pieces.

If you study Lincoln you'll realize he made some pretty horrible decisions as well (illegally suspending habeas corpus etc.). The Lincoln's best defense is that he was dealing with a larger crisis.

interesting...
quelling the naysayers...and shedding light on a bigger picture...that blooms satiety.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Julie Fern on January 04, 2006, 05:01:11 AM
obi-wan, you so magnificent.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 04, 2006, 09:46:58 AM
I agree with the gist of Stuntz's article, though Fullwood has some points as well. They are not completely antagonistic pieces.

If you study Lincoln you'll realize he made some pretty horrible decisions as well (illegally suspending habeas corpus etc.). The Lincoln's best defense is that he was dealing with a larger crisis.

aye like this closing passage...


(Two-and-a-half years ago, our armed forces set out to fight a small war with a small objective. Today we find ourselves in a larger war with a larger and vastly better purpose. It would be one of history's sadder ironies were we to turn away because that better purpose is not the one we set out to achieve. Either we fight the fight our enemies have chosen until they are defeated or (better still) dead, or millions of Muslim men and women may lose their "last, best hope"--and we may face a mushroom cloud over Manhattan, the work of one of the many Mohammed Attas that Middle Eastern autocracies have bred over the last generation. The choice belongs not to the president alone, but to all of us. Here's hoping we choose as wisely as Lincoln's generation did.)
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Julie Fern on January 05, 2006, 05:06:00 AM
well, warmongers have to say something to justify slaughter.

funny, though, how they hate discussing slaughter.

and remember:  kurds = turds.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 05, 2006, 07:17:34 PM
well, warmongers have to say something to justify slaughter.

funny, though, how they hate discussing slaughter.

and remember:  kurds = turds.

naive mr. fern...the kurds are the people in iraq who were  slaughtered as well as shia's.

you are childish in your remarks because you are naive to the history of the country...

hussein and his kids had been  slaughtering people who spoke out against him or organized to remove him and his brutal regime...

you apparently do not recognize this IMPORTANT bit of information...

read a history book! putz!

re read the original two posts in this thread...it should explain it all for your puny gray matter and the phlegmatic humor in which it sits.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Julie Fern on January 06, 2006, 04:34:36 AM
well, warmongers have to say something to justify slaughter.

funny, though, how they hate discussing slaughter.

and remember:  kurds = turds.

naive mr. fern...the kurds are the people in iraq who were slaughtered as well as shia's.

you are childish in your remarks because you are naive to the history of the country...

hussein and his kids had been slaughtering people who spoke out against him or organized to remove him and his brutal regime...

you apparently do not recognize this IMPORTANT bit of information...

read a history book! putz!

re read the original two posts in this thread...it should explain it all for your puny gray matter and the phlegmatic humor in which it sits.

yes, yes, you only person in whole world who know about s.h.  get over self.

just as s.h. never liked to discuss slaughter of his own people, you try to avoid discussing slaughter you advocate.  justify it if can, but can't possibly justify it if not even acknowledging it.

numbnuts.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Julie Fern on January 06, 2006, 04:36:39 AM
i cannot argue the overwhelming logic of the large italic font.

it's just devastating, really.

yes.  it truly humbled julie.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: redemption on January 06, 2006, 10:13:52 AM

yes, yes, you only person in whole world who know about s.h.  get over self.

just as s.h. never liked to discuss slaughter of his own people, you try to avoid discussing slaughter you advocate.  justify it if can, but can't possibly justify it if not even acknowledging it.

numbnuts.

Ouch. Poor naif: he tried to take on Julie. Bluewarrior now just blue.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Freak on January 06, 2006, 11:09:58 AM
What exaclty does "slaughter" have to do with a debate about the merits of the Lincoln and Bush administrations? There's no debate about whether people died (& are dying) because of those decisions. The debate is on the merit of the decisions. At least that's how this thread began.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: redemption on January 06, 2006, 11:15:47 AM
Hello smart one: I think that the idea might be that people being slaughtered is relevant to a debate on the merit of the decision(s). Well done, though. High marks for class participation.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Julie Fern on January 06, 2006, 03:06:10 PM
What exaclty does "slaughter" have to do with a debate about the merits of the Lincoln and Bush administrations? There's no debate about whether people died (& are dying) because of those decisions. The debate is on the merit of the decisions. At least that's how this thread began.

you wrong, skippy.  yes, we all "know" they dying, but we still like to pretend it really just bowl game.

that why war supporters get mad when, for example, they simply read names of dead american soldiers on nightline.  or why mad at guy who has poster with iraqi casualty statistics in window right next to recruiting station.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Freak on January 06, 2006, 04:37:30 PM
As you both change the subject again...

You're fighting for a label - slaughter. It implies that the war is wrong because people die and for that reason alone. If so then all war is wrong and all Presidents that fight wars are wrong. Thus both Lincoln and Bush made the wrong decisions.

If you have other reasons for opposing the war - which you do - then why not articulate then? You could at least add that deception occured, but both Lincoln and Bush mislead citizens.

Whay, pray tell, did Lincoln do better than Bush? (I know you're thinking at least Lincoln met Booth).
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Julie Fern on January 06, 2006, 06:21:20 PM
killing is slaughter.  julie declines to limit self to polite and antiseptic little words that you prefer.

julie has articulated her reasons for being against our dirty little war in iraq many times.

and who said lincoln did better?  julie believes lincoln should've let south go own way;  slavery on its last legs anyway.

Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Freak on January 06, 2006, 06:34:48 PM
Better.

killing is slaughter.  julie declines to limit self to polite and antiseptic little words that you prefer.

julie has articulated her reasons for being against our dirty little war in iraq many times.

and who said lincoln did better?  julie believes lincoln should've let south go own way;  slavery on its last legs anyway.

You don't believe Lincoln did better? I can accept that. I don't think he did either.

Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Julie Fern on January 06, 2006, 06:36:49 PM
well, it impossible to be worse than bush 0.  julie just saying that she not recall saying lincoln did better.  it just that he should not have resisted south's secession.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Julie Fern on January 07, 2006, 04:47:49 AM

killing is slaughter.  julie declines to limit self to polite and antiseptic little words that you prefer.

hey jules, gotta disagree with you on this one. killing and slaughter connote different degrees. i don't think the word killing is polite or antiseptic, and it does more accurately describe what's going on sometimes.


you have your opinion.  julie suspect you apply "killing" only to enemy, but "slaughter" reflect that probably more innocents are killed.  if it not slaughter to blow up babies, then what you call it?
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Julie Fern on January 07, 2006, 04:57:52 AM
and who said lincoln did better?  julie believes lincoln should've let south go own way;  slavery on its last legs anyway.

wow..... and then what would have happened? we would have shared the continent with a rival nation that had similar expansionist ambitions, right? how could this possibly have been a positive development?

also, you think it's okay for states to secede? possibly this is the right answer in terms of rights, but does not bode well for republic, no?

and how positive development was civil war?  carnage here absolutely incredible.

why it such big deal to keep u.s. united?  soviet union's 13 republics dissolved not too long ago, and sun continues to rise in east.  apparently you ok with america's secession from g.b., by way.

and spare julie your talk of expansionism.  what next, south supposedly had wmd?  warmongers always find some reason to kill, but they rarely good enough.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Julie Fern on January 07, 2006, 05:10:16 AM
hi julie :)

urplo.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: redemption on January 07, 2006, 05:16:43 AM
and who said lincoln did better?  julie believes lincoln should've let south go own way;  slavery on its last legs anyway.

wow..... and then what would have happened? we would have shared the continent with a rival nation that had similar expansionist ambitions, right? how could this possibly have been a positive development?

also, you think it's okay for states to secede? possibly this is the right answer in terms of rights, but does not bode well for republic, no?

and how positive development was civil war?  carnage here absolutely incredible.

why it such big deal to keep u.s. united?  soviet union's 13 republics dissolved not too long ago, and sun continues to rise in east.  apparently you ok with america's secession from g.b., by way.

and spare julie your talk of expansionism.  what next, south supposedly had wmd?  warmongers always find some reason to kill, but they rarely good enough.

Are you accepting any students/disciples, Julie?
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Julie Fern on January 07, 2006, 08:00:51 AM
and who said lincoln did better?  julie believes lincoln should've let south go own way;  slavery on its last legs anyway.

wow..... and then what would have happened? we would have shared the continent with a rival nation that had similar expansionist ambitions, right? how could this possibly have been a positive development?

also, you think it's okay for states to secede? possibly this is the right answer in terms of rights, but does not bode well for republic, no?

and how positive development was civil war?  carnage here absolutely incredible.

why it such big deal to keep u.s. united?  soviet union's 13 republics dissolved not too long ago, and sun continues to rise in east.  apparently you ok with america's secession from g.b., by way.

and spare julie your talk of expansionism.  what next, south supposedly had wmd?  warmongers always find some reason to kill, but they rarely good enough.

Are you accepting any students/disciples, Julie?

julie just happy if anything she say helps.  now go and spread word.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Julie Fern on January 07, 2006, 08:05:59 AM
you have your opinion.  julie suspect you apply "killing" only to enemy, but "slaughter" reflect that probably more innocents are killed.  if it not slaughter to blow up babies, then what you call it?

why, i would call it killing.

slaughter also has a connotation of intent, in my opinion.
 

we may never intend to kill any particular innocents (julie will concede this for present moment, anyway)--but we know, not we, that some will die from our intentional acts of war.  this also true of our own troops (but at least they volunteers--so far, anyway).  we also kill enemy troops, quite intentionally.

then what sort of intent you require for "slaughter"?
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Julie Fern on January 07, 2006, 08:22:20 AM
and how positive development was civil war?  carnage here absolutely incredible.

why it such big deal to keep u.s. united?  soviet union's 13 republics dissolved not too long ago, and sun continues to rise in east.  apparently you ok with america's secession from g.b., by way.

and spare julie your talk of expansionism.  what next, south supposedly had wmd?  warmongers always find some reason to kill, but they rarely good enough.

jules- you are showing a pacifist streak? we should stay out of wars because we don't want people to die? according to that logic, should we EVER go to war?

aside from the baltic states, how many of those republics are doing very well in any sense? most are marginal democracies at best, autocracies at worst, with failing economies to boot. russia is sustained pretty much exclusively by high oil prices.

but it is important to keep the us united because it would have PREVENTED carnage in the long run. if lincoln had let the south go, how long until other states want to secede? and in on a continent full of mini states that are all trying to expand (this IS relevant in spite of your sarcasm), do you expect anything other than perpetual warfare a la europe for much of its history?

i'm okay with the us "seceding" from britain because it did not create any such conditions. the dissolution of the republic on the other hand would have been a disaster.

i'm assuming that you will disagree.

damn straight julie showing "pacifist" streak, and anyone who not should admit to self that they barbarian, plain and simple.  or are you afraid to be thought girlie-man?  my my, what some little boys will do to impress their daddies.

and what your point about former soviet union, that republicans better off together?  you got some sort of consolidation fetish?  remember roman republic?

as for american situation had lincoln not fought civil war, who cares if other states secede?  where it say in constitution that states not able to opt out?  ever read preamble to declaration of independence?

as to american secession, it did create problems;  we just lucky in long run.  hell, we without national constitution of any kind for first few years, and it replaced rather quickly--and only then because issue of slavery was ignored (hence, leading, in large part, to civil war decades later).  war renewed in 1812, which we lost (and, in process, damn near also lost independence).

when these things start, you not know how it develop.  lincoln thought civil war be short and sweet, but it neither.  (now who else made that mistake lately?  hmmmmmm.)

if we'd stayed part of england, slavery might've ended here decades before it did.

by way, julie must correct self:  we revolted against england, not g.b. (which not yet formed under act of union)
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: redemption on January 07, 2006, 08:37:39 AM
you have your opinion.  julie suspect you apply "killing" only to enemy, but "slaughter" reflect that probably more innocents are killed.  if it not slaughter to blow up babies, then what you call it?

why, i would call it killing.

slaughter also has a connotation of intent, in my opinion.
 

we may never intend to kill any particular innocents (julie will concede this for present moment, anyway)--but we know, not we, that some will die from our intentional acts of war.  this also true of our own troops (but at least they volunteers--so far, anyway).  we also kill enemy troops, quite intentionally.

then what sort of intent you require for "slaughter"?

well i would say that the sort of intent required would be when civilians are intentionally targeted.  (this is all splitting hairs anyway.)


Hmm - interesting. "Civilians", "intentially", "targeted" - how convenient that that applies to one's opponents but not to one's own side. When b-52s drop atomic bombs on populated urban areas, is that "intentional targeting of civilians"? Or were there no Japanese civilians then because the whole country was "militarized, mobilized, fanatic"? What about the firebombing of Dresden? What about the attack of 9/11? What about the aerial (bunker-buster) bombing of Iraqi neighbourhoods where Saddam was believed to be hiding then or where Zarqawi is believed to be hiding now? Is knowing in advance of civilian collateral damage "intentional", or not? Who is to say what is what and who is who? You, Stanley?

Who says that each state or any confederation of states other that that wich became the United States would have been expansionist? Is it nnot plausible that the United States was expansionist exactly because there were no competing and "legitimate" occupants of the continent? The native americans, obviously, were regarded as subhuman and not really there; the Spanish/Mexicans as inferior, if not quite subhuman; the French/British as an illegitimate presence on the continent. There is nothing to suggest that the presence of two separate nations with (somewhat) common ancestry and traditions would have read to bloodshed instead of accomodation. Civil Wars, you will find, are bloodier and more intractable than wars between "countries".

When you take on Julie - be careful, be nuanced, be ready.

Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 07, 2006, 09:01:36 AM
well, warmongers have to say something to justify slaughter.

funny, though, how they hate discussing slaughter.

and remember:  kurds = turds.

naive mr. fern...the kurds are the people in iraq who were slaughtered as well as shia's.

you are childish in your remarks because you are naive to the history of the country...

hussein and his kids had been slaughtering people who spoke out against him or organized to remove him and his brutal regime...

you apparently do not recognize this IMPORTANT bit of information...

read a history book! putz!

re read the original two posts in this thread...it should explain it all for your puny gray matter and the phlegmatic humor in which it sits.

yes, yes, you only person in whole world who know about s.h.  get over self.

just as s.h. never liked to discuss slaughter of his own people, you try to avoid discussing slaughter you advocate.  justify it if can, but can't possibly justify it if not even acknowledging it.

numbnuts.

it is necessary to use force to remove a butchering regime...and that was not the point of the original post...

why don't you talk about the punctuation or meaning of some of the words of the post...that is the logical equivalent of your focusing in on the deaths in war...everyone knows that in war there is death.

sorry, hussein murdered many and a byproduct of war is death...
there is a noble purpose at hand and bloodshed will render victory for the people of iraq.

war is hell...you naive fertilizing tool. didn't you know this.
idiot.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 07, 2006, 09:03:11 AM

yes, yes, you only person in whole world who know about s.h.  get over self.

just as s.h. never liked to discuss slaughter of his own people, you try to avoid discussing slaughter you advocate.  justify it if can, but can't possibly justify it if not even acknowledging it.

numbnuts.

Ouch. Poor naif: he tried to take on Julie. Bluewarrior now just blue.

"poor naif"???  that was a clever remark. ;)

what are you...the "cracker barrel" chairman?

Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: redemption on January 07, 2006, 09:09:21 AM
Blue warrior is mad as hell and he's not going to take it anymore. Some would say the Blue warrior, given the chance, would be just like Saddam. Perhaps why he fetishizes death and relishes in words like "slaughter", "murdered" and "butcher". Maybe Blue warrior will have his own realm one day, and will act on fetish.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 07, 2006, 09:11:02 AM
and who said lincoln did better?  julie believes lincoln should've let south go own way;  slavery on its last legs anyway.

wow..... and then what would have happened? we would have shared the continent with a rival nation that had similar expansionist ambitions, right? how could this possibly have been a positive development?

also, you think it's okay for states to secede? possibly this is the right answer in terms of rights, but does not bode well for republic, no?

and how positive development was civil war?  carnage here absolutely incredible.

why it such big deal to keep u.s. united?  soviet union's 13 republics dissolved not too long ago, and sun continues to rise in east.  apparently you ok with america's secession from g.b., by way.

and spare julie your talk of expansionism.  what next, south supposedly had wmd?  warmongers always find some reason to kill, but they rarely good enough.

Are you accepting any students/disciples, Julie?

 :D :D :D :D this would be perfect union...

the shite...and the stink that follows it. :D :D :D

here is your perfect little partner for you, mr. fern.

needy :'(...naive...stupid...and anecdotally challenged.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 07, 2006, 09:13:06 AM
this thread gets better and better...
julie fern and the "shitestink" falling deeper and deeper in their "babypoo".

redemption...time to change your diaper...better give your mom a call...

 :D :D :D :D
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 07, 2006, 09:17:13 AM
you have your opinion.  julie suspect you apply "killing" only to enemy, but "slaughter" reflect that probably more innocents are killed.  if it not slaughter to blow up babies, then what you call it?

why, i would call it killing.

slaughter also has a connotation of intent, in my opinion.
 

we may never intend to kill any particular innocents (julie will concede this for present moment, anyway)--but we know, not we, that some will die from our intentional acts of war.  this also true of our own troops (but at least they volunteers--so far, anyway).  we also kill enemy troops, quite intentionally.

then what sort of intent you require for "slaughter"?

analyze all you want...eventually you may not even make the word, "slaughter" stick.

one thing for sure...hussein "slaughtered" people...NO question about it.

is your president still in office, mr. fern?  working the noble causes? ;)
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 07, 2006, 09:20:08 AM
Blue warrior is mad as hell and he's not going to take it anymore. Some would say the Blue warrior, given the chance, would be just like Saddam. Perhaps why he fetishizes death and relishes in words like "slaughter", "murdered" and "butcher". Maybe Blue warrior will have his own realm one day, and will act on fetish.

and maybe, redemption will stop shitting in his own diapers...just maybe.. :D :D :D :D :D
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 07, 2006, 09:24:37 AM
fern...ya got nothing...

someone had to chap ya...

war in iraq WILL be seen as NOBLE and "w" will get the credit in the history books...

sorry....not really

px.o.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: redemption on January 07, 2006, 09:31:00 AM
If you tickle me, will I not laugh?
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 07, 2006, 09:34:43 AM
If you tickle me, will I not laugh?

go take a bath...you stink.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Julie Fern on January 07, 2006, 09:58:51 AM
you have your opinion.  julie suspect you apply "killing" only to enemy, but "slaughter" reflect that probably more innocents are killed.  if it not slaughter to blow up babies, then what you call it?

why, i would call it killing.

slaughter also has a connotation of intent, in my opinion.
 

we may never intend to kill any particular innocents (julie will concede this for present moment, anyway)--but we know, not we, that some will die from our intentional acts of war.  this also true of our own troops (but at least they volunteers--so far, anyway).  we also kill enemy troops, quite intentionally.

then what sort of intent you require for "slaughter"?

well i would say that the sort of intent required would be when civilians are intentionally targeted. (this is all splitting hairs anyway.)

if julie runs red light and smashes into car, it not be defense that she not target that particular car, or even any car at all.  why should it be any different with war?

term "collateral damage" just not cut it.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Julie Fern on January 07, 2006, 10:01:58 AM
you have your opinion.  julie suspect you apply "killing" only to enemy, but "slaughter" reflect that probably more innocents are killed.  if it not slaughter to blow up babies, then what you call it?

why, i would call it killing.

slaughter also has a connotation of intent, in my opinion.
 

we may never intend to kill any particular innocents (julie will concede this for present moment, anyway)--but we know, not we, that some will die from our intentional acts of war.  this also true of our own troops (but at least they volunteers--so far, anyway).  we also kill enemy troops, quite intentionally.

then what sort of intent you require for "slaughter"?

analyze all you want...eventually you may not even make the word, "slaughter" stick.

one thing for sure...hussein "slaughtered" people...NO question about it.

is your president still in office, mr. fern? working the noble causes? ;)

wow, you really nailing julie with ten-thousandth rendition of "saddam hussein really, really bad man."  yes, he certainly slaughterer.  and now we've taken his place.  when we gone, civil war that already started will get into full swing.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Julie Fern on January 07, 2006, 10:03:17 AM
fern...ya got nothing...

someone had to chap ya...

war in iraq WILL be seen as NOBLE and "w" will get the credit in the history books...

sorry....not really

px.o.

history his only hope, because he sure getting nowhere in present.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Julie Fern on January 07, 2006, 10:04:55 AM
If you tickle me, will I not laugh?

go take a bath...you stink.

you stink of death.  how proud you must be!
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 07, 2006, 10:13:09 AM
you have your opinion.  julie suspect you apply "killing" only to enemy, but "slaughter" reflect that probably more innocents are killed.  if it not slaughter to blow up babies, then what you call it?

why, i would call it killing.

slaughter also has a connotation of intent, in my opinion.
 

we may never intend to kill any particular innocents (julie will concede this for present moment, anyway)--but we know, not we, that some will die from our intentional acts of war.  this also true of our own troops (but at least they volunteers--so far, anyway).  we also kill enemy troops, quite intentionally.

then what sort of intent you require for "slaughter"?

analyze all you want...eventually you may not even make the word, "slaughter" stick.

one thing for sure...hussein "slaughtered" people...NO question about it.

is your president still in office, mr. fern? working the noble causes? ;)

wow, you really nailing julie with ten-thousandth rendition of "saddam hussein really, really bad man."  yes, he certainly slaughterer.  and now we've taken his place.  when we gone, civil war that already started will get into full swing.

it not get through to fern.

fern a bit thick in the medula...testosterone on brain.

hussein not bad man...hussein "slaughterer" of people.
he ruthless...his boys...murderers...he got to go.

Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 07, 2006, 10:14:11 AM
If you tickle me, will I not laugh?

go take a bath...you stink.

you stink of death.  how proud you must be!

"death be not proud..."

my naive padwan.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Julie Fern on January 07, 2006, 10:16:28 AM
certainly julie not proud of you.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 07, 2006, 10:17:07 AM
fern...ya got nothing...

someone had to chap ya...

war in iraq WILL be seen as NOBLE and "w" will get the credit in the history books...

sorry....not really

px.o.

history his only hope, because he sure getting nowhere in present.


face it...ya got nothin'.  
time to fold...like rest of "ad-libs." nobody listens to ya anymore.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 07, 2006, 10:22:49 AM
certainly julie not proud of you.

presupposition of value of your approval is unwarranted and laughable.

satiety...with course of action counts.
ad-libs "quips" irrelevant.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: redemption on January 07, 2006, 11:33:57 AM

So, if you know ahead of time that by targeting one person (your "target") in a neighborhood with a bunker-busting bomb that will kill, let's say, 150 civiliants, and if you decide to go ahead and do it anyway - that is not intentional killing of those civilians? Interesting. Probably what Zarqawi tells himself when he blows up police-recruiting stations and kills whoever is passing by.

Hard to provide evidence for a counterfactual.

What am i looking for? I am looking for reasonably intelligent people to recognize that people are people and that they are worth just as much whether they are American, Rwandan, Iraqi or Japanese. There is no hope of any proress in the world if people like you - who are smart, who have the option to vote, who will be reasonalby influential in your community - make philosophically and practically empty distinctions between one form of terrorism and another. It is not good to kill civilians; it should not be done as casually as it is by anyone for any reason; and it should not be excused quite as casually, nor endorsed quite as enthusiastically as it is by us.

I am making a plea for a return to common sense and decency; for an end to HUAH.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Julie Fern on January 07, 2006, 12:15:30 PM
fern...ya got nothing...

someone had to chap ya...

war in iraq WILL be seen as NOBLE and "w" will get the credit in the history books...

sorry....not really

px.o.

history his only hope, because he sure getting nowhere in present.


face it...ya got nothin'. 
time to fold...like rest of "ad-libs." nobody listens to ya anymore.

you one who trying desperately to defend lack of results.  that why you have to say it'll pay off in few decades.

ha!
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Julie Fern on January 07, 2006, 12:16:59 PM
certainly julie not proud of you.

presupposition of value of your approval is unwarranted and laughable.

satiety...with course of action counts.
ad-libs "quips" irrelevant.

yo momma not proud of you either.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Julie Fern on January 07, 2006, 12:19:55 PM
damn straight julie showing "pacifist" streak, and anyone who not should admit to self that they barbarian, plain and simple. or are you afraid to be thought girlie-man? my my, what some little boys will do to impress their daddies.

and what your point about former soviet union, that republicans better off together? you got some sort of consolidation fetish? remember roman republic?

as for american situation had lincoln not fought civil war, who cares if other states secede? where it say in constitution that states not able to opt out? ever read preamble to declaration of independence?

as to american secession, it did create problems; we just lucky in long run. hell, we without national constitution of any kind for first few years, and it replaced rather quickly--and only then because issue of slavery was ignored (hence, leading, in large part, to civil war decades later). war renewed in 1812, which we lost (and, in process, damn near also lost independence).

when these things start, you not know how it develop. lincoln thought civil war be short and sweet, but it neither. (now who else made that mistake lately? hmmmmmm.)

if we'd stayed part of england, slavery might've ended here decades before it did.

by way, julie must correct self: we revolted against england, not g.b. (which not yet formed under act of union)

jules- taunting is not necessary. i'm not coming at you in a mocking tone, and i expect our interactions to remain civil. as for pacifism, i respect it if it means willing to deal with the consequences, but not if it represents a pollyannaish belief that we can all just get along.

and quite frankly i DO have a consolidation fetish. i think that it's a GOOD thing when interaction can be conducted under the rule of law and not the brute power politics of interstate relations.

if you don't see the value of consolidation, then my argument about the necessity of the Civil War to preserve the union is pretty much irrelevant.

we can move on to arguing about consolidation.

lighten up, pilgrim.

even if you believe big = better, real issue is whether big when members not compatible = better than being apart because not compatible.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Julie Fern on January 07, 2006, 12:23:50 PM

So, if you know ahead of time that by targeting one person (your "target") in a neighborhood with a bunker-busting bomb that will kill, let's say, 150 civiliants, and if you decide to go ahead and do it anyway - that is not intentional killing of those civilians? Interesting. Probably what Zarqawi tells himself when he blows up police-recruiting stations and kills whoever is passing by.

Hard to provide evidence for a counterfactual.

What am i looking for? I am looking for reasonably intelligent people to recognize that people are people and that they are worth just as much whether they are American, Rwandan, Iraqi or Japanese. There is no hope of any proress in the world if people like you - who are smart, who have the option to vote, who will be reasonalby influential in your community - make philosophically and practically empty distinctions between one form of terrorism and another. It is not good to kill civilians; it should not be done as casually as it is by anyone for any reason; and it should not be excused quite as casually, nor endorsed quite as enthusiastically as it is by us.

I am making a plea for a return to common sense and decency; for an end to HUAH.

julie with you, baby.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: pass36 on January 07, 2006, 02:59:44 PM
fern...ya got nothing...

war in iraq WILL be seen as NOBLE and "w" will get the credit in the history books...

px.o.

Bluewarrior, you must be talking about the IRANIAN history books here.  Clearly they are bigger winners so far than Americans, wouldn't you agree?
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Julie Fern on January 07, 2006, 07:47:39 PM
ha ha, julie laugh.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Julie Fern on January 08, 2006, 04:48:01 AM
north-south tensions never limited to slavery, which why civil war not just about slavery;  e.g., tariffs.

slavery was virtually absent in rest of west by 1840, and its economics were being as seriously questioned as its morality.

and julie not bite much, although she do like to gnaw little.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 08, 2006, 08:53:09 AM
north-south tensions never limited to slavery, which why civil war not just about slavery;  e.g., tariffs.

slavery was virtually absent in rest of west by 1840, and its economics were being as seriously questioned as its morality.

and julie not bite much, although she do like to gnaw little.

It was all a pipe dream. "The Union as it was" was gone, forever. Events proved William Tecumseh Sherman--the prophet of that war--right, and everyone else wrong: An ocean of blood would be required to reunite the United States, and once that blood was spilled, the country over which James Buchanan had presided was as dead as the soldiers whose corpses littered the battlefields of Shiloh and Gettysburg, Antietam and Cold Harbor.

But there was a much bigger, much better, and above all much nobler dream waiting in the wings: "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom" (to use Lincoln's own words)--that the chains of four million slaves might be shattered forever, that freedom and democracy might prevail against tyranny and aristocracy in a world still full of tyrants and aristocrats.



mr. fern...you cannot ignore the obvious...

questioning the "economics" of slavery did not gain the noble results...
whether the south was going to secede is not material.

the point is that "the war" was what it was...and it produced some long term historical consequences...

"slavery chains broken"...(to a point)
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: pass36 on January 08, 2006, 09:33:27 AM



But there was a much bigger, much better, and above all much nobler dream waiting in the wings: "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom" (to use Lincoln's own words)--that the chains of four million slaves might be shattered forever, that freedom and democracy might prevail against tyranny and aristocracy in a world still full of tyrants and aristocrats.


[/quote]

Interesting to note in this context Lincoln's executive order of July 1862 which declared the freedom of slaves belonging (sic) to southerners but said nothing about slavery in loyalist union territories.  As I believe R. W. Emerson pointed out at the time, the principle is not that one man cannot own another, but that he cannot do so unless he is loyal to the Union side.

As far as Iraq, I am still curious why you think it was a good idea to create a Shi'a dominated state, where 80% of the population is opposed to the U.S. occupation/bases (original neo-con fantasy was to move bases from Saudi Arabia to Iraq), and where Iran has a great deal of influence and is already building natural gas pipelines to sell energy to China, not America.  Leaving all questions of morality aside, what realpolitik benefits have Americans incurred for $2000 billion???
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: redemption on January 08, 2006, 09:45:54 AM



But there was a much bigger, much better, and above all much nobler dream waiting in the wings: "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom" (to use Lincoln's own words)--that the chains of four million slaves might be shattered forever, that freedom and democracy might prevail against tyranny and aristocracy in a world still full of tyrants and aristocrats.



Interesting to note in this context Lincoln's executive order of July 1862 which declared the freedom of slaves belonging (sic) to southerners but said nothing about slavery in loyalist union territories.  As I believe R. W. Emerson pointed out at the time, the principle is not that one man cannot own another, but that he cannot do so unless he is loyal to the Union side.

As far as Iraq, I am still curious why you think it was a good idea to create a Shi'a dominated state, where 80% of the population is opposed to the U.S. occupation/bases (original neo-con fantasy was to move bases from Saudi Arabia to Iraq), and where Iran has a great deal of influence and is already building natural gas pipelines to sell energy to China, not America.  Leaving all questions of morality aside, what realpolitik benefits have Americans incurred for $2000 billion???
[/quote]

Realpolitik = overrated. The world is too complicated, and the future, well, too much in the future to make foreign policy decisions based on elementary game theory. The failure of American foreign policy in the past has been in playing this Kissingeresque game; the failure of American policy in the present has been in trying to spread a narrow view of liberty, morality and political organization by force. Neither work because neither can work. The choice between your two positions is a false one.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: pass36 on January 08, 2006, 10:05:31 AM
Realpolitik = overrated. The world is too complicated, and the future, well, too much in the future to make foreign policy decisions based on elementary game theory. The failure of American foreign policy in the past has been in playing this Kissingeresque game; the failure of American policy in the present has been in trying to spread a narrow view of liberty, morality and political organization by force. Neither work because neither can work. The choice between your two positions is a false one.

Realpolitik does not necessarily have anything to do with game theory.  Think of George Kennan's famous memo: The U.S. has 8% of the world's population and uses 50% of the world's resources.  The problem is to figure out a way to maintain this disparity.  Has invading Iraq been a good strategy to that end? 

I can't figure out what choice between two positions you are talking about? I only asked a question about the cost/benefit ratio of the war and said nothing about universal theories of international politics.  I did not advance any methodology as my own, just am still curious why bluewarrior started this topic to defend an American war that has, so far, been mostly to the benefit of Iran.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: redemption on January 08, 2006, 10:40:02 AM

You'll have noticed that Blue is not altogether THERE.

Do you honestly believe that the goal of US foreign policy should be to maintain the 8/50 disparity? That's pretty retro, don't you think? Having to reach back to Kennan is an indicator of that. This type of thinking about foreign policy - often, I believe, called "hard-headed" and "realist" - simply cannot work. As China grows, say, and their demand for oil grows, do you think that Iraq or Iran or the Saudis or anyone else would sell their oil for anything less than "market price" to anyone? Control over natural resources is a question of demand and purchasing power; not a question of friendly relations.

In a situation of what economists, I believe, call "static equilibrium", and in order to maintain this disparity, the United States would have to (a) itself grow at a faster rate than the average of at least its major competitors for the purchase of various natural resources; or (b) prevent those competitors (read China) from growing so fast. Good luck with option (a).

And, as for option (b), our domestic political system is obviously not set up to withstand the pressure from  commercial interests that stand to gain very much from a rapidly increasing Chinese market and labor force. (Shareholder value is largely determined by growth, remember?). Let us assume though that we were to want to prevent China from growing - any way that you could easily see that from happening?

Again, the above is based on a steady-state equilibrium. If it were a dynamic model we were looking at, a "realist model" would suggest that as prices for a scarce natural resource rise, there would also be substitution effects brought on by technology. We would consume less gas - it would cost too much (for a peek into this future, look to Europe where prices have been artificially increased).

All this excited talk by cool-headed people about Iran and China and so on is well, I don't know what it is except the itch to smack the Other.

In any case, I do not think - as you do? - that the intent of the Iraq adventure is the achieve those goals of natural resource supremacy. I take this administration, and the K St people around them, at their word when they say that they are trying to spread democracy there.

These two options - "tough-guy, coolly rational, realism" based on competition for economic resources on the one hand, and the idealist "why can't they be just like us?" thinking on the other, has been DONE. It is a crap (and juvenile) way to run foreign policy because whatever you think of the moral merits of either of them, they just don't work.

I am glad that you do not advance either of these positions - it's not the LSE way - I'm just sayin'
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 08, 2006, 11:12:24 AM
Realpolitik = overrated. The world is too complicated, and the future, well, too much in the future to make foreign policy decisions based on elementary game theory. The failure of American foreign policy in the past has been in playing this Kissingeresque game; the failure of American policy in the present has been in trying to spread a narrow view of liberty, morality and political organization by force. Neither work because neither can work. The choice between your two positions is a false one.

Realpolitik does not necessarily have anything to do with game theory.  Think of George Kennan's famous memo: The U.S. has 8% of the world's population and uses 50% of the world's resources.  The problem is to figure out a way to maintain this disparity.  Has invading Iraq been a good strategy to that end? 

I can't figure out what choice between two positions you are talking about? I only asked a question about the cost/benefit ratio of the war and said nothing about universal theories of international politics.  I did not advance any methodology as my own, just am still curious why bluewarrior started this topic to defend an American war that has, so far, been mostly to the benefit of Iran.

pass36...

aye am focusing in on the kurdish tribes in northern iraq (or southern kurdistan)...a culture which historically has been oppressed...hussein and his sons and regime the latest of antagonists.

militarily the kurds pushed as many kurdish men through american-sponsored (and paid for) military training, forming numerous military battalions whose allegiance is not to iraq, but rather iraqi kurdistan. kirkuk, home to one of the most important oil fields in iraq, is  the key to any economic self-determination on the part of an independent kurdistan. the kurds comprise some 20 percent of the iraqi population, and were active and enthusiastic participants in the "democratic" elections of 2005.

so...while you are focusing on shia's and the south...the north is also a factor.


ps.

redemption tends to make "inane comments" to many posts rather than any real challenges or questions...he does this often...so aye now refer to him as a poster who needs a diaper change...just check his post history and you'll see the "me too" comments.

fern, on the other hand is a "radical pacifist"...and while that is inherently nice...it is not realistic...given the "crescenting guerillas" active in the world and of course "genocide regimes" which operate...fern (while naive) doesn't buy the history of the kurds...for example...and diverts to name calling...has some valid points.

basically...when you hit them with some things that touch a nerve...it becomes a pissing contest...it sadly seems to be their "one sentance comment schtick."

(the above post by redemption is RARE...aye guess he opened up a book...or actually googled to gather some information...that will probably be it from him for a while.  replacing a dictator with a democracy is not crap...idealistic...yes...dif ficult...yes...the moral merits are forthcoming.  redemption apparently is the "moral psychic" and can see into the heart of an "oppressed nation."

But it is, partly because--as Lincoln saw better than anyone--others' freedom helps to guarantee our own. A world where Southern planters ruled their slaves with the lash was a world where Northerners' rights could never be secure; if birth and privilege and caste reigned supreme in the South, those things would more easily reign elsewhere, closer to Northern homes. Lincoln had it right: Either democracy and freedom would go on to new heights or they might well "perish from the earth."   So too today. A world full of Islamic autocrats is a world full of little bin Ladens eager to give their lives to kill Americans. A world full of Islamic democracies gives young Muslim men different outlets for their passions. That obviously means better lives for them. But it also means better and safer lives for us.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: redemption on January 08, 2006, 11:31:13 AM
Blue - nothing against you, really  - it's just that I tend to save my extensive comments for people who may one day be influential. I don't think that you will, so you get my one sentence dismissal.

You can post like a grown-up, though, and stop using "aye", "mr. fern" and large italicized fonts, and you too can share in some of my thoughts. Until then, however, you'll just have to make-do with conversations with your day-care provider.

That probably sounds harsher that it is meant to. Aye'm sorry about that
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 08, 2006, 11:44:40 AM
Blue - nothing against you, really  - it's just that I tend to save my extensive comments for people who may one day be influential. I don't think that you will, so you get my one sentence dismissal.

You can post like a grown-up, though, and stop using "aye", "mr. fern" and large italicized fonts, and you too can share in some of my thoughts. Until then, however, you'll just have to make-do with conversations with your day-care provider.

That probably sounds harsher that it is meant to. Aye'm sorry about that

aye spank you in public because your inane comments do not help.

the comments are childish...

if you cannot digest text nor my writing style then you are looking toward the wrong profession...

by the way...sifting through obfuscating rhetoric is how aye make money...
and aye already am working in law...you better watch out!

using the word "aye" is SO effective that you needed to comment on it. ;)
aye shall continue...you might wish to look up ALL the definitions of "aye"...maybe then you will understand...

sorry that aye irritate you...you are just going to have to deal with...elipses and iambs.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Julie Fern on January 08, 2006, 11:52:46 AM
yes but if you look at overall institutions and culture, surely states more compatible than soviet republics for example. surely there is a level of incompatibility that one should be willing to deal with in order to build institutions that will prevent conflict.

and questionable economics and morality don't necessarily mean that a particular system will be eliminated. what is good for the collective is not always what is good for the elites, who may try to perpetuate an economically unsound and immoral system for their own benefit.

and feel free to do both. i'm game.

of course, much of soviet union simply conscripted, so it proverbial shotgun wedding.

julie not say it impossible to "do" big;  obviously, u.s. example, civil war being most obvious crack in our cement.  however, julie's point that big not necessarily better, especially if it take war to keep it big.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Julie Fern on January 08, 2006, 11:57:00 AM
north-south tensions never limited to slavery, which why civil war not just about slavery;  e.g., tariffs.

slavery was virtually absent in rest of west by 1840, and its economics were being as seriously questioned as its morality.

and julie not bite much, although she do like to gnaw little.

It was all a pipe dream. "The Union as it was" was gone, forever. Events proved William Tecumseh Sherman--the prophet of that war--right, and everyone else wrong: An ocean of blood would be required to reunite the United States, and once that blood was spilled, the country over which James Buchanan had presided was as dead as the soldiers whose corpses littered the battlefields of Shiloh and Gettysburg, Antietam and Cold Harbor.

But there was a much bigger, much better, and above all much nobler dream waiting in the wings: "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom" (to use Lincoln's own words)--that the chains of four million slaves might be shattered forever, that freedom and democracy might prevail against tyranny and aristocracy in a world still full of tyrants and aristocrats.



mr. fern...you cannot ignore the obvious...

questioning the "economics" of slavery did not gain the noble results...
whether the south was going to secede is not material.

the point is that "the war" was what it was...and it produced some long term historical consequences...

"slavery chains broken"...(to a point)

learn to read, skippy:  julie say that economics were eroding slavery's hold, and presumes ultimately south would've acted rationally.  obviously, this not happen by 1861.  ironically, invention of cotton gin gave slavery new legs.

certainly julie happy to see end of slavery, but part of your "nobility" bloodiest war in american history.

again:  lincoln should've let south go own way.  julie not fan of "manifest destiny."
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 08, 2006, 02:46:08 PM
north-south tensions never limited to slavery, which why civil war not just about slavery;  e.g., tariffs.

slavery was virtually absent in rest of west by 1840, and its economics were being as seriously questioned as its morality.

and julie not bite much, although she do like to gnaw little.

It was all a pipe dream. "The Union as it was" was gone, forever. Events proved William Tecumseh Sherman--the prophet of that war--right, and everyone else wrong: An ocean of blood would be required to reunite the United States, and once that blood was spilled, the country over which James Buchanan had presided was as dead as the soldiers whose corpses littered the battlefields of Shiloh and Gettysburg, Antietam and Cold Harbor.

But there was a much bigger, much better, and above all much nobler dream waiting in the wings: "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom" (to use Lincoln's own words)--that the chains of four million slaves might be shattered forever, that freedom and democracy might prevail against tyranny and aristocracy in a world still full of tyrants and aristocrats.



mr. fern...you cannot ignore the obvious...

questioning the "economics" of slavery did not gain the noble results...
whether the south was going to secede is not material.

the point is that "the war" was what it was...and it produced some long term historical consequences...

"slavery chains broken"...(to a point)

learn to read, skippy:  julie say that economics were eroding slavery's hold, and presumes ultimately south would've acted rationally.  obviously, this not happen by 1861.  ironically, invention of cotton gin gave slavery new legs.

certainly julie happy to see end of slavery, but part of your "nobility" bloodiest war in american history.

again:  lincoln should've let south go own way.  julie not fan of "manifest destiny."

man...are really a little dense or just misguided?

this time you corrected yourself..."cotton gin"...at least aye did not have to point that one out to you.  and today..."the south will rise again" is still anthemed...so...we STILL got a long way to go.

slavery was not going to go away by itself...sorry...no matter how you try to justify.

the WAR was necessary!  somtimes force brings about noble gains. you can't get around acknowleging that julie fern...unless you want to re-write history. ;)

Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: pass36 on January 08, 2006, 03:03:03 PM
Blue W, I was proud to see you talk about the Kurds!  I have long thought of Kurdish history as one of the more tragic stories in our miserable world.  In fact, I was a big supporter of the Kurds back in the 1980's when Rumsfeld was taking Saddam presents and Reagan was shipping him mustard gas to use against the Kurds.  Rumsfeld/Cheney/et al did not seem so concerned about the Kurds then (read: they did not care a whit) which makes me highly suspicious of the claim that they are spending $2000 Billion ($2,000,000,000,000) to help them now.  And, as we all know, that was certainly not the original rationale for this war.

There was a very revealing interview with Wolfowitz where he basically said that WMD was the lowest common denominator argument; the easiest thing to sell to the public.  I suspect the same is true of the argument that the Americans are there to forcefully create democracy.  Redemption, why on earth would you take these people at their word on this when they lie about everything else?

And Hussein was certainly not alone in the world as far as being a vicious oppressive evil dictator.  I can think of (Rwanda, Congo, Chad, Somalia, Sudan, Angola, Liberia, Cuba, Haiti, Myanmar, North Korea, Kazakstan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Israel/Palestine, Yemen, Libya, Indonesia/East Timor, China/Tibet, Morocco/Western Sahara, Syria, Albania) over 20 countries without too much trouble of which many are in many ways equally bad places as Kurdish Iraq under Hussein.  Yet I think we can all agree that the Americans are not going to invade any of these countries any time soon!

So, how do you explain the Americans' strike?
(a) Domestic political concerns?  Bush had a great deal of support for his action in Afghanistan.  He risked a lot in shifting the military focus to Iraq, but also made for a larger war.  Some would argue that Bush actually benefits from NOT catching Osama bin Laden and making the "war on terrorism" a long lasting huge global big war instead of a short police action against 2000 - 5000 criminals.  So this might be a factor.
(b) "He tried to kill my daddy!"  I have seen several articles about how reformed alcoholics and drug addicts live in a world of artificial moral clarity, where no slight is too small to forgive.  This is certainly a factor -- there is evidence Bush was ready to invade Iraq in 2000 - but it is hard to imagine how one would research or verify it.
(c) Oil and geopolitics.  Why did America continue to maintain troops and bases in Saudi Arabia after the first gulf war?  It was a continual problem for the House of Saud and they sure weren't there to make Saudi Arabia more democratic!  As I stated before, one of the neo-con plots was to install a friendly government in Iraq and shift the basis there to ease the political pressure on the Saudi rulers.  If Grand Ayatollah Sistani had not pressured for changes in the Iraqi constitution and direct elections, it might have worked.

Redemption, I am not saying I support the American effort to control the world's resources, but I think you can agree it is somewhat naive to think a hegemonic power will peacefully yield control.  I also think that many times American attempts to retain or increase control have had unintended blowback effects that decrease control.  The two classic examples:
(1)The CIA/British "assistance" in the coup against Mussedegh in Iran in 1953. Instead of nationalized oil companies, they went with the Shah.  It worked out great for 25 years, then came Khomeni and a bunch of American hostages and 25 years of hostility.
(2) The CIA support of Osama bin Laden and the rest of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980's.  Once the Soviet Union broke up, they ignored them and hoped they would stay in Afghanistan.  They didn't.

If you look at all interstate wars since 1850, you will find that much much more often than not (to a statistically significant degree) the state which initiated the war did not reap the most gains from the war.  Going to war is not often a rational act.  

So I am not sure how to explain this war, but I am sure you cannot leave oil and the geopolitical significance of the Mideast out of any viable explanation.  If Hussein had been the dictator of Bolivia oppressing the descendents of the Incas the Americans certainly would not have invaded his country.  
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 08, 2006, 03:24:41 PM
Blue W, I was proud to see you talk about the Kurds!  I have long thought of Kurdish history as one of the more tragic stories in our miserable world.  In fact, I was a big supporter of the Kurds back in the 1980's when Rumsfeld was taking Saddam presents and Reagan was shipping him mustard gas to use against the Kurds.  Rumsfeld/Cheney/et al did not seem so concerned about the Kurds then (read: they did not care a whit) which makes me highly suspicious of the claim that they are spending $2000 Billion ($2,000,000,000,000) to help them now.  And, as we all know, that was certainly not the original rationale for this war.

There was a very revealing interview with Wolfowitz where he basically said that WMD was the lowest common denominator argument; the easiest thing to sell to the public.  I suspect the same is true of the argument that the Americans are there to forcefully create democracy.  Redemption, why on earth would you take these people at their word on this when they lie about everything else?

And Hussein was certainly not alone in the world as far as being a vicious oppressive evil dictator.  I can think of (Rwanda, Congo, Chad, Somalia, Sudan, Angola, Liberia, Cuba, Haiti, Myanmar, North Korea, Kazakstan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Israel/Palestine, Yemen, Libya, Indonesia/East Timor, China/Tibet, Morocco/Western Sahara, Syria, Albania) over 20 countries without too much trouble of which many are in many ways equally bad places as Kurdish Iraq under Hussein.  Yet I think we can all agree that the Americans are not going to invade any of these countries any time soon!

So, how do you explain the Americans' strike?
(a) Domestic political concerns?  Bush had a great deal of support for his action in Afghanistan.  He risked a lot in shifting the military focus to Iraq, but also made for a larger war.  Some would argue that Bush actually benefits from NOT catching Osama bin Laden and making the "war on terrorism" a long lasting huge global big war instead of a short police action against 2000 - 5000 criminals.  So this might be a factor.
(b) "He tried to kill my daddy!"  I have seen several articles about how reformed alcoholics and drug addicts live in a world of artificial moral clarity, where no slight is too small to forgive.  This is certainly a factor -- there is evidence Bush was ready to invade Iraq in 2000 - but it is hard to imagine how one would research or verify it.
(c) Oil and geopolitics.  Why did America continue to maintain troops and bases in Saudi Arabia after the first gulf war?  It was a continual problem for the House of Saud and they sure weren't there to make Saudi Arabia more democratic!  As I stated before, one of the neo-con plots was to install a friendly government in Iraq and shift the basis there to ease the political pressure on the Saudi rulers.  If Grand Ayatollah Sistani had not pressured for changes in the Iraqi constitution and direct elections, it might have worked.

Redemption, I am not saying I support the American effort to control the world's resources, but I think you can agree it is somewhat naive to think a hegemonic power will peacefully yield control.  I also think that many times American attempts to retain or increase control have had unintended blowback effects that decrease control.  The two classic examples:
(1)The CIA/British "assistance" in the coup against Mussedegh in Iran in 1953. Instead of nationalized oil companies, they went with the Shah.  It worked out great for 25 years, then came Khomeni and a bunch of American hostages and 25 years of hostility.
(2) The CIA support of Osama bin Laden and the rest of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980's.  Once the Soviet Union broke up, they ignored them and hoped they would stay in Afghanistan.  They didn't.

If you look at all interstate wars since 1850, you will find that much much more often than not (to a statistically significant degree) the state which initiated the war did not reap the most gains from the war.  Going to war is not often a rational act.  

So I am not sure how to explain this war, but I am sure you cannot leave oil and the geopolitical significance of the Mideast out of any viable explanation.  If Hussein had been the dictator of Bolivia oppressing the descendents of the Incas the Americans certainly would not have invaded his country.  


very good point regarding the blow-back effects...kurds may press issue for their own official piece of pie...which they rightfully deserve.

and a west-friendly government in the middle of syria and iran is not far off target...oil and geopolitix...closer to truth...

some in the think tanks were worried about uday and qusay hussein...heir apparents...any thoughts on them?


...more to come...


one must also understand that beating back hussein after he invaded quwait was not the end of the war with iraq...clinton had a hand in bombing...sanctions...the war which "w" began was the continuance of what bush sr. initiated after hussein threatened to turn quwait city into a "graveyard"...

the initial interest was hussein's interference in quwait (third major oil reserve on planet).
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Julie Fern on January 08, 2006, 04:08:16 PM
north-south tensions never limited to slavery, which why civil war not just about slavery;  e.g., tariffs.

slavery was virtually absent in rest of west by 1840, and its economics were being as seriously questioned as its morality.

and julie not bite much, although she do like to gnaw little.

It was all a pipe dream. "The Union as it was" was gone, forever. Events proved William Tecumseh Sherman--the prophet of that war--right, and everyone else wrong: An ocean of blood would be required to reunite the United States, and once that blood was spilled, the country over which James Buchanan had presided was as dead as the soldiers whose corpses littered the battlefields of Shiloh and Gettysburg, Antietam and Cold Harbor.

But there was a much bigger, much better, and above all much nobler dream waiting in the wings: "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom" (to use Lincoln's own words)--that the chains of four million slaves might be shattered forever, that freedom and democracy might prevail against tyranny and aristocracy in a world still full of tyrants and aristocrats.



mr. fern...you cannot ignore the obvious...

questioning the "economics" of slavery did not gain the noble results...
whether the south was going to secede is not material.

the point is that "the war" was what it was...and it produced some long term historical consequences...

"slavery chains broken"...(to a point)

learn to read, skippy:  julie say that economics were eroding slavery's hold, and presumes ultimately south would've acted rationally.  obviously, this not happen by 1861.  ironically, invention of cotton gin gave slavery new legs.

certainly julie happy to see end of slavery, but part of your "nobility" bloodiest war in american history.

again:  lincoln should've let south go own way.  julie not fan of "manifest destiny."

man...are really a little dense or just misguided?

this time you corrected yourself..."cotton gin"...at least aye did not have to point that one out to you. and today..."the south will rise again" is still anthemed...so...we STILL got a long way to go.

slavery was not going to go away by itself...sorry...no matter how you try to justify.

the WAR was necessary! somtimes force brings about noble gains. you can't get around acknowleging that julie fern...unless you want to re-write history. ;)



what else can warmonger say to try make war sound like blessing?

numbnuts.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Julie Fern on January 08, 2006, 04:14:50 PM
Blue W, I was proud to see you talk about the Kurds!  I have long thought of Kurdish history as one of the more tragic stories in our miserable world.  In fact, I was a big supporter of the Kurds back in the 1980's when Rumsfeld was taking Saddam presents and Reagan was shipping him mustard gas to use against the Kurds.  Rumsfeld/Cheney/et al did not seem so concerned about the Kurds then (read: they did not care a whit) which makes me highly suspicious of the claim that they are spending $2000 Billion ($2,000,000,000,000) to help them now.  And, as we all know, that was certainly not the original rationale for this war.

There was a very revealing interview with Wolfowitz where he basically said that WMD was the lowest common denominator argument; the easiest thing to sell to the public.  I suspect the same is true of the argument that the Americans are there to forcefully create democracy.  Redemption, why on earth would you take these people at their word on this when they lie about everything else?

And Hussein was certainly not alone in the world as far as being a vicious oppressive evil dictator.  I can think of (Rwanda, Congo, Chad, Somalia, Sudan, Angola, Liberia, Cuba, Haiti, Myanmar, North Korea, Kazakstan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Israel/Palestine, Yemen, Libya, Indonesia/East Timor, China/Tibet, Morocco/Western Sahara, Syria, Albania) over 20 countries without too much trouble of which many are in many ways equally bad places as Kurdish Iraq under Hussein.  Yet I think we can all agree that the Americans are not going to invade any of these countries any time soon!

So, how do you explain the Americans' strike?
(a) Domestic political concerns?  Bush had a great deal of support for his action in Afghanistan.  He risked a lot in shifting the military focus to Iraq, but also made for a larger war.  Some would argue that Bush actually benefits from NOT catching Osama bin Laden and making the "war on terrorism" a long lasting huge global big war instead of a short police action against 2000 - 5000 criminals.  So this might be a factor.
(b) "He tried to kill my daddy!"  I have seen several articles about how reformed alcoholics and drug addicts live in a world of artificial moral clarity, where no slight is too small to forgive.  This is certainly a factor -- there is evidence Bush was ready to invade Iraq in 2000 - but it is hard to imagine how one would research or verify it.
(c) Oil and geopolitics.  Why did America continue to maintain troops and bases in Saudi Arabia after the first gulf war?  It was a continual problem for the House of Saud and they sure weren't there to make Saudi Arabia more democratic!  As I stated before, one of the neo-con plots was to install a friendly government in Iraq and shift the basis there to ease the political pressure on the Saudi rulers.  If Grand Ayatollah Sistani had not pressured for changes in the Iraqi constitution and direct elections, it might have worked.

Redemption, I am not saying I support the American effort to control the world's resources, but I think you can agree it is somewhat naive to think a hegemonic power will peacefully yield control.  I also think that many times American attempts to retain or increase control have had unintended blowback effects that decrease control.  The two classic examples:
(1)The CIA/British "assistance" in the coup against Mussedegh in Iran in 1953. Instead of nationalized oil companies, they went with the Shah.  It worked out great for 25 years, then came Khomeni and a bunch of American hostages and 25 years of hostility.
(2) The CIA support of Osama bin Laden and the rest of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980's.  Once the Soviet Union broke up, they ignored them and hoped they would stay in Afghanistan.  They didn't.

If you look at all interstate wars since 1850, you will find that much much more often than not (to a statistically significant degree) the state which initiated the war did not reap the most gains from the war.  Going to war is not often a rational act. 

So I am not sure how to explain this war, but I am sure you cannot leave oil and the geopolitical significance of the Mideast out of any viable explanation.  If Hussein had been the dictator of Bolivia oppressing the descendents of the Incas the Americans certainly would not have invaded his country. 

julie not think anyone seriously dispute that much of u.s. motivation involve oil, despite bush 0 lies about this.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Julie Fern on January 08, 2006, 04:15:57 PM
Blue W, I was proud to see you talk about the Kurds!  I have long thought of Kurdish history as one of the more tragic stories in our miserable world.  In fact, I was a big supporter of the Kurds back in the 1980's when Rumsfeld was taking Saddam presents and Reagan was shipping him mustard gas to use against the Kurds.  Rumsfeld/Cheney/et al did not seem so concerned about the Kurds then (read: they did not care a whit) which makes me highly suspicious of the claim that they are spending $2000 Billion ($2,000,000,000,000) to help them now.  And, as we all know, that was certainly not the original rationale for this war.

There was a very revealing interview with Wolfowitz where he basically said that WMD was the lowest common denominator argument; the easiest thing to sell to the public.  I suspect the same is true of the argument that the Americans are there to forcefully create democracy.  Redemption, why on earth would you take these people at their word on this when they lie about everything else?

And Hussein was certainly not alone in the world as far as being a vicious oppressive evil dictator.  I can think of (Rwanda, Congo, Chad, Somalia, Sudan, Angola, Liberia, Cuba, Haiti, Myanmar, North Korea, Kazakstan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Israel/Palestine, Yemen, Libya, Indonesia/East Timor, China/Tibet, Morocco/Western Sahara, Syria, Albania) over 20 countries without too much trouble of which many are in many ways equally bad places as Kurdish Iraq under Hussein.  Yet I think we can all agree that the Americans are not going to invade any of these countries any time soon!

So, how do you explain the Americans' strike?
(a) Domestic political concerns?  Bush had a great deal of support for his action in Afghanistan.  He risked a lot in shifting the military focus to Iraq, but also made for a larger war.  Some would argue that Bush actually benefits from NOT catching Osama bin Laden and making the "war on terrorism" a long lasting huge global big war instead of a short police action against 2000 - 5000 criminals.  So this might be a factor.
(b) "He tried to kill my daddy!"  I have seen several articles about how reformed alcoholics and drug addicts live in a world of artificial moral clarity, where no slight is too small to forgive.  This is certainly a factor -- there is evidence Bush was ready to invade Iraq in 2000 - but it is hard to imagine how one would research or verify it.
(c) Oil and geopolitics.  Why did America continue to maintain troops and bases in Saudi Arabia after the first gulf war?  It was a continual problem for the House of Saud and they sure weren't there to make Saudi Arabia more democratic!  As I stated before, one of the neo-con plots was to install a friendly government in Iraq and shift the basis there to ease the political pressure on the Saudi rulers.  If Grand Ayatollah Sistani had not pressured for changes in the Iraqi constitution and direct elections, it might have worked.

Redemption, I am not saying I support the American effort to control the world's resources, but I think you can agree it is somewhat naive to think a hegemonic power will peacefully yield control.  I also think that many times American attempts to retain or increase control have had unintended blowback effects that decrease control.  The two classic examples:
(1)The CIA/British "assistance" in the coup against Mussedegh in Iran in 1953. Instead of nationalized oil companies, they went with the Shah.  It worked out great for 25 years, then came Khomeni and a bunch of American hostages and 25 years of hostility.
(2) The CIA support of Osama bin Laden and the rest of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980's.  Once the Soviet Union broke up, they ignored them and hoped they would stay in Afghanistan.  They didn't.

If you look at all interstate wars since 1850, you will find that much much more often than not (to a statistically significant degree) the state which initiated the war did not reap the most gains from the war.  Going to war is not often a rational act. 

So I am not sure how to explain this war, but I am sure you cannot leave oil and the geopolitical significance of the Mideast out of any viable explanation.  If Hussein had been the dictator of Bolivia oppressing the descendents of the Incas the Americans certainly would not have invaded his country. 


very good point regarding the blow-back effects...kurds may press issue for their own official piece of pie...which they rightfully deserve.

and a west-friendly government in the middle of syria and iran is not far off target...oil and geopolitix...closer to truth...

some in the think tanks were worried about uday and qusay hussein...heir apparents...any thoughts on them?


...more to come...

oh golly!
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 08, 2006, 06:54:53 PM
north-south tensions never limited to slavery, which why civil war not just about slavery;  e.g., tariffs.

slavery was virtually absent in rest of west by 1840, and its economics were being as seriously questioned as its morality.

and julie not bite much, although she do like to gnaw little.

It was all a pipe dream. "The Union as it was" was gone, forever. Events proved William Tecumseh Sherman--the prophet of that war--right, and everyone else wrong: An ocean of blood would be required to reunite the United States, and once that blood was spilled, the country over which James Buchanan had presided was as dead as the soldiers whose corpses littered the battlefields of Shiloh and Gettysburg, Antietam and Cold Harbor.

But there was a much bigger, much better, and above all much nobler dream waiting in the wings: "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom" (to use Lincoln's own words)--that the chains of four million slaves might be shattered forever, that freedom and democracy might prevail against tyranny and aristocracy in a world still full of tyrants and aristocrats.



mr. fern...you cannot ignore the obvious...

questioning the "economics" of slavery did not gain the noble results...
whether the south was going to secede is not material.

the point is that "the war" was what it was...and it produced some long term historical consequences...

"slavery chains broken"...(to a point)

learn to read, skippy:  julie say that economics were eroding slavery's hold, and presumes ultimately south would've acted rationally.  obviously, this not happen by 1861.  ironically, invention of cotton gin gave slavery new legs.

certainly julie happy to see end of slavery, but part of your "nobility" bloodiest war in american history.

again:  lincoln should've let south go own way.  julie not fan of "manifest destiny."

man...are really a little dense or just misguided?

this time you corrected yourself..."cotton gin"...at least aye did not have to point that one out to you. and today..."the south will rise again" is still anthemed...so...we STILL got a long way to go.

slavery was not going to go away by itself...sorry...no matter how you try to justify.

the WAR was necessary! somtimes force brings about noble gains. you can't get around acknowleging that julie fern...unless you want to re-write history. ;)



what else can warmonger say to try make war sound like blessing?

numbnuts.

not a good re-write.

and thanks for lame... "one sentance ineffectual post" with namecalling at the end.

ya sound ignant'.


you can't re-write history...wars have brought about noble gains.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 08, 2006, 06:58:21 PM
Blue W, I was proud to see you talk about the Kurds!  I have long thought of Kurdish history as one of the more tragic stories in our miserable world.  In fact, I was a big supporter of the Kurds back in the 1980's when Rumsfeld was taking Saddam presents and Reagan was shipping him mustard gas to use against the Kurds.  Rumsfeld/Cheney/et al did not seem so concerned about the Kurds then (read: they did not care a whit) which makes me highly suspicious of the claim that they are spending $2000 Billion ($2,000,000,000,000) to help them now.  And, as we all know, that was certainly not the original rationale for this war.

There was a very revealing interview with Wolfowitz where he basically said that WMD was the lowest common denominator argument; the easiest thing to sell to the public.  I suspect the same is true of the argument that the Americans are there to forcefully create democracy.  Redemption, why on earth would you take these people at their word on this when they lie about everything else?

And Hussein was certainly not alone in the world as far as being a vicious oppressive evil dictator.  I can think of (Rwanda, Congo, Chad, Somalia, Sudan, Angola, Liberia, Cuba, Haiti, Myanmar, North Korea, Kazakstan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Israel/Palestine, Yemen, Libya, Indonesia/East Timor, China/Tibet, Morocco/Western Sahara, Syria, Albania) over 20 countries without too much trouble of which many are in many ways equally bad places as Kurdish Iraq under Hussein.  Yet I think we can all agree that the Americans are not going to invade any of these countries any time soon!

So, how do you explain the Americans' strike?
(a) Domestic political concerns?  Bush had a great deal of support for his action in Afghanistan.  He risked a lot in shifting the military focus to Iraq, but also made for a larger war.  Some would argue that Bush actually benefits from NOT catching Osama bin Laden and making the "war on terrorism" a long lasting huge global big war instead of a short police action against 2000 - 5000 criminals.  So this might be a factor.
(b) "He tried to kill my daddy!"  I have seen several articles about how reformed alcoholics and drug addicts live in a world of artificial moral clarity, where no slight is too small to forgive.  This is certainly a factor -- there is evidence Bush was ready to invade Iraq in 2000 - but it is hard to imagine how one would research or verify it.
(c) Oil and geopolitics.  Why did America continue to maintain troops and bases in Saudi Arabia after the first gulf war?  It was a continual problem for the House of Saud and they sure weren't there to make Saudi Arabia more democratic!  As I stated before, one of the neo-con plots was to install a friendly government in Iraq and shift the basis there to ease the political pressure on the Saudi rulers.  If Grand Ayatollah Sistani had not pressured for changes in the Iraqi constitution and direct elections, it might have worked.

Redemption, I am not saying I support the American effort to control the world's resources, but I think you can agree it is somewhat naive to think a hegemonic power will peacefully yield control.  I also think that many times American attempts to retain or increase control have had unintended blowback effects that decrease control.  The two classic examples:
(1)The CIA/British "assistance" in the coup against Mussedegh in Iran in 1953. Instead of nationalized oil companies, they went with the Shah.  It worked out great for 25 years, then came Khomeni and a bunch of American hostages and 25 years of hostility.
(2) The CIA support of Osama bin Laden and the rest of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980's.  Once the Soviet Union broke up, they ignored them and hoped they would stay in Afghanistan.  They didn't.

If you look at all interstate wars since 1850, you will find that much much more often than not (to a statistically significant degree) the state which initiated the war did not reap the most gains from the war.  Going to war is not often a rational act. 

So I am not sure how to explain this war, but I am sure you cannot leave oil and the geopolitical significance of the Mideast out of any viable explanation.  If Hussein had been the dictator of Bolivia oppressing the descendents of the Incas the Americans certainly would not have invaded his country. 


very good point regarding the blow-back effects...kurds may press issue for their own official piece of pie...which they rightfully deserve.

and a west-friendly government in the middle of syria and iran is not far off target...oil and geopolitix...closer to truth...

some in the think tanks were worried about uday and qusay hussein...heir apparents...any thoughts on them?


...more to come...

oh golly!

hey just because you do not understand the importance of the kurds don't get upset...it means you need to brush up on your history.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: pass36 on January 08, 2006, 07:27:32 PM
Blue W - I am a huge supporter of self-determination and self-governance and would personally very much be in favor of a Kurdish homeland state.  But I would favor the same option for the Navajo, the Basque and lots of other minority groups who aren't likely to get a state of their own any time soon.  If the Kurds are going to get anything, it will be under the umbrella of a federal Iraq. 

It will be interesting to see what happens with the Norwegian oil company that is drilling exploratory wells under an agreement with the Kurds, not the government of Iraq.  Also very important to see if the Kurdish Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan party can actually put their history of militia conflict aside and unify, as they claim to have done in the last week.

Regardless, if in 6 years the Kurds control their territory and resources, the Shi'a control Basra, the Shatt el'Arab and the southern oilfields, and the Sunni are left with the western desert, the federal government of Iraq is dominated by Shi'a (who are 60%+ of the population) more or less closely allied with Iran, and there are no permanent U.S. bases in Iraq, will that count as a success?  Will Bush be remembered as a great leader because he spent a trillion dollars to give the Kurds more autonomy?  Somehow I doubt it. 

If the American goal was to get rid of Hussein, then it is well past time to declare victory and get out.  As JFK said about Vietnam "In the final analysis, it is their war to win or lose."  Ten years, millions of dollars and thousands of dead kids later, America realized the truth in his words and got out.  I don't see why it has to happen again.

Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 08, 2006, 08:29:13 PM
Blue W - I am a huge supporter of self-determination and self-governance and would personally very much be in favor of a Kurdish homeland state.  But I would favor the same option for the Navajo, the Basque and lots of other minority groups who aren't likely to get a state of their own any time soon.  If the Kurds are going to get anything, it will be under the umbrella of a federal Iraq. 

It will be interesting to see what happens with the Norwegian oil company that is drilling exploratory wells under an agreement with the Kurds, not the government of Iraq.  Also very important to see if the Kurdish Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan party can actually put their history of militia conflict aside and unify, as they claim to have done in the last week.

Regardless, if in 6 years the Kurds control their territory and resources, the Shi'a control Basra, the Shatt el'Arab and the southern oilfields, and the Sunni are left with the western desert, the federal government of Iraq is dominated by Shi'a (who are 60%+ of the population) more or less closely allied with Iran, and there are no permanent U.S. bases in Iraq, will that count as a success?  Will Bush be remembered as a great leader because he spent a trillion dollars to give the Kurds more autonomy?  Somehow I doubt it. 

If the American goal was to get rid of Hussein, then it is well past time to declare victory and get out.  As JFK said about Vietnam "In the final analysis, it is their war to win or lose."  Ten years, millions of dollars and thousands of dead kids later, America realized the truth in his words and got out.  I don't see why it has to happen again.



hussein is out and that is a great victory while simultaneously being the hinge-pin.  the regime and baath infrastructure also connected the "strongman."  so while it is a victory...there is much work to do.

aye am sure you understand that the history of "strongman" regimes has stifled the iraqi people...would we be prudent to just yank out our military and let the pieces fall.  also consider the military casualties...it is hard to compare iraq with vietnam... 

one cannot rule out that the area which the kurds dominate is a very big slice...kirkuk is a huge slice...and now...now...because the oppressor has been removed and the kurds do have a say in their government the opportunities are opening.
the sunnis and shi'a now...have to allow the kurdish people their "ayes" and "nays". 

a federation is the blueprint...but the kurds really did not have autonomy...perhaps the kurdish north was granted to the tribes in words through autonomy...but now it is their vote which will count...yes the kurdish tribes do control the north...but they did not truly control it under baath party leadership...

yes...the shia's have basra and al nasyria...but the kurds have kirkuk and that is a rich economic prospective area...with development who knows. 

perhaps this faulty analogy may shed some light: imagine if the farming industry in the united states controlled a huge chunk of the federal government? would that be beneficial to the farmers?

if the region of iraq becomes western friendly...and an ally to the united states...if the shia, kurd, and sunni government maintains...
who do you think will get the credit?
note: aye am not writing who deserves the credit.

(as a side note) aye believe to a degree that many "crescenting guerillas" go to iraq to continue their war with the west...this is far better than a "crescentor" getting a pilots license...hyjacking a plane and crashing it.  or bombing the nyc subway system.  also...the mantra which "crescenting clerics" profess which advocates radical islam is backfiring in that innocent muslims are being killed by "crescenting guerillas" in iraq.  the bombing in jordan hurts the "crescentors" like, zahrquowi's operation and resolve.


(sometimes aye consider when tito was in charge of former, yugoslavia...what a fall-out after he was gone.)
 
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Freak on January 08, 2006, 09:54:06 PM
Gone for 2 days and look what I missed. I would've enjoyed participating, oh well. At least nobody contends that Lincoln performed better than W. has...
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 08, 2006, 10:38:33 PM
Gone for 2 days and look what I missed. I would've enjoyed participating, oh well. At least nobody contends that Lincoln performed better than W. has...

wow! a comment with no namecalling?  nor did aye notice any "naive" or "idiotic" anecdotal quips. how noble.  now if fern and redemption could only take a page from freak's book...they would be one appendix page closer to locating the definition of "civility."
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: pass36 on January 08, 2006, 10:51:28 PM
(sometimes aye consider when tito was in charge of former, yugoslavia...what a fall-out after he was gone.)

Blue W - This might not be the strongest example for your "STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!" position.  Imagine that Tito used chemical weapons against a bunch of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo.  In response, the Americans invade the country and arrest him as a war criminal and threat to humanity.  Could the Americans have then prevented the Serbs and Croats from fighting in Bosnia?  And isn't that basically what they are trying to do in Iraq? 
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Freak on January 08, 2006, 11:12:13 PM
If Julie doesn't want to, I'll argue against the necessity of the Union...probably lose because I haven't decided one way or the other, but what the heck.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Freak on January 08, 2006, 11:22:43 PM
Well the Constitution did not make succession illegal and if you look at it as a treaty then it can be withdrawn from with proper notice.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Freak on January 08, 2006, 11:29:21 PM
True, but I'm quite certain that if the North had let tensions cool by withdrawing completely that eventually the South would've rejoined the Union for the same reasons Texas did.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Freak on January 08, 2006, 11:40:13 PM
Ok disregard that theory it doesn't work. I had my Texas history wrong, let me think a minute here...

EDIT: Sorry didn't answer your question. Texas joined basically because they couldn't beat Mexico w/o the Union's help.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 08, 2006, 11:48:16 PM
(sometimes aye consider when tito was in charge of former, yugoslavia...what a fall-out after he was gone.)

Blue W - This might not be the strongest example for your "STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!" position.  Imagine that Tito used chemical weapons against a bunch of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo.  In response, the Americans invade the country and arrest him as a war criminal and threat to humanity.  Could the Americans have then prevented the Serbs and Croats from fighting in Bosnia?  And isn't that basically what they are trying to do in Iraq? 

perhaps...but yugoslavia was a more complex problem.

a twisting of fearful nationalisms began to destroy the country...politicians trying to tantalize tension brought back old divisions - catholics vs. muslims...serbs vs. croats...

then milosevic wanted to keep yugoslavia together...he said slovenia and croatia could leave yugoslavia but take no serb areas with them.  he was twisting the whole area into Great Serbia.

autonomous areas were no longer autonomous...

the us is trying to bring sunni and shia to the table...unsuccessful in first elections...better in the second round...but neither group is trying to secede...unless you think about the kurds.  and there are no outspoken politicians pitting one group against another.

now...your question...

an outside highly trained military already in the middle of the serb/croat conflict?  less casualties, perhaps.  aye believe that acting quickly to secure region would be square and plumb objective...tensions flaring...small uprisings...but ultimately not devestating consequences.  
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Freak on January 08, 2006, 11:56:44 PM
Ya that's why I threw out the theory  ;)

Here's another. Since the North was so against succession they could've amended the "treaty" to remove the possibility of legal succession and then enticed the Southern states back in one at a time. The war only started because the North was so intractable and IIRC not all the S. states suceded before Sumter.

EDIT: I'm a geek I looked it up. Missouri, N. Mex., N.C, S.C., Tenn, TX,  & Virginia didn't secede until after the Sumter incident. If those states hadn't seceded the others would've rejoined more likely than not.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 08, 2006, 11:58:20 PM
aye spank you in public because your inane comments do not help.

miss red- you simply cannot argue against the devastating logic of his large fonts.  it's similar to what i was pointing out to julie the other day about how every time he uses italics he automatically wins.  ;)

and i find it easier to simply ignore these threads and skip to julie's responses anyway.

um?  winning?  what is being won?   really off point, man.

anyhow...

julie has yet to prove that war does not produce noble results.

sometimes it is a noble blessing which rises out of war..."break bonds of slavery." 

ignorance is bliss...but we all know you can read. :D :D :D
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Freak on January 09, 2006, 12:14:22 AM
See my above post I edited it to include "unsaid" states. The could've enticed the others by offering consessions on tariffs; which is why they seceded in the first place.

Yes, I suppose they might would need to wait until after they enticed them back to pass the amendment (maybe after a few elections). The more I think about it though, the less I think this amendment idea would ever work politically.

So, the argument boils down to the North should've pulled out quickly to avoid a conflict. Which would've prevented many important states from seceding and that the remaining isolated states would've come to terms and rejoined eventually.

EDIT: S.C. had seceded I just rechecked the dates.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: pass36 on January 09, 2006, 12:24:06 AM
the us is trying to bring sunni and shia to the table...unsuccessful in first elections...better in the second round...but neither group is trying to secede...unless you think about the kurds.  and there are no outspoken politicians pitting one group against another.

Well, there are actually plenty of outspoken politicians, but also there are a lot of powerful militia leaders killing and slaughtering civilians because of their religious group identities.  Remember Vojislav Seselj, the leader of the Serbian Chetniks?  He would fit right in:

From the Associated Press wire Friday:
 In Sadr City, more than 5,000 demonstrators chanted slogans in favor of the Interior Ministry and against U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and moderate Sunni Arab leaders. But they reserved most of their ire for hard-liners such as Saleh al-Mutlaq, the outspoken head of the Sunni Arab National Dialogue Front. We're going to crush Saleh al-Mutlaq with our slippers," they chanted, many armed with automatic weapons. "No, no to Zalmay. No, no to terrorism." It is an insult in Arab culture to touch someone with shoes, which are considered unclean."

From the London Arabic paper Al Hayat 01/06:
  "Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, leader of the Shiite Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq [SCIRI] and head of the dominant United Iraqi Alliance in parliament, blamed Coalition forces (including, implicitly, the US) and "local political forces" [i.e. the Sunni Arabs] for the "dirty sectarian crimes" that mostly target Shiite Muslims. His outburst was prompted by a bombing on Thursday that killed some 60 Shiite devotees near the sacred shrine of Imam Husain [the martyred grandson of the Prophet Muhammad] and left a similar number wounded. "
 translator's note:For Shiite Muslims, Karbala is like Golgotha where Christ was crucified for Christians. It is the site of a cosmic, redemptive act of sacrifice by a holy figure, the Imam Husain, scion of the Prophet. They mourn Husain's unjust death ritually for several days each year, especially the 10th of Muharram, called Ashura. Most weep, some strike themselves, and some even cut or whip themselves in grief. The makers of the Islamic Revolution in Iran put forward the slogan, "Every land is Karbala, and every day is Ashura." Emotions run high about Husain and Karbala, including a sense of the truth being persecuted. Just as European Christian mobs sometimes targeted Jews, blaming them for Christ's death, Shiites often blame the Sunni Muslims. Neither sort of blame is rooted in real history (Sunnism in its present form did not yet exist in 681 A.D.) or is justified. But the Karbala bombing was designed by Sunni guerrillas to provoke reprisals against Sunnis, so as to throw Iraq into civil war, force the US out, and allow them to come to power in a coup.

From Reuters Jan. 4 - Following are security incidents in Iraq reported on Wednesday, Jan. 4, as of 1600 GMT.
MUQDADIYA - At least 36 people were killed and 40 wounded when a suicide bomber wearing an explosive vest blew himself up during the funeral of a member of one of Iraq's main Shi'ite Muslim political parties in Muqdadiya, 100 km (60 miles) northeast of Baghdad, police security officials said.
BAGHDAD - Two guards of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the leader of one of Iraq's most powerful Shi'ite political parties, were shot dead on Tuesday while attending a funeral in southern Baghdad, police said.

From A.P. wire SINAN SALAHEDDIN Jan. 4 -
‘‘We were shocked today when we heard that our brothers, who signed agreements with us yesterday to discuss just the fraudulent elections with the Kurdish leaders, instead were discussing forming a national unity government,’’ Saleh al-Mutlaq, head of the Sunni Arab National Dialogue Front, told The Associated Press.‘‘This act definitely weakens and distract our claims about the fraudulent results,’’ al-Mutlaq said of the Accordance Front’s agreement. ‘‘I believe they are capable of making a deal with the devil himself so that they can be represented widely in the coming government.’’

That is in the last four days .....

EDIT: OK, my links did not work.  The translation is by Juan Cole from the University of Michigan.  See www.juancole.com, an excellent source for Arabic language insights and reports.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Freak on January 09, 2006, 12:24:24 AM
1. I don't think so, they felt obligated to assist against "Northern aggression." If that hadn't taken place they probably wouldn't have seceded because not all the them cared much about the tariffs.

2. That's why I threw in the amendment argument, but it fell apart. A central government would have less power, no less than the EU has now and it seems to be doing alright. At least, if you only consider it in terms of compliance with its laws.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 09, 2006, 01:13:59 AM
the us is trying to bring sunni and shia to the table...unsuccessful in first elections...better in the second round...but neither group is trying to secede...unless you think about the kurds.  and there are no outspoken politicians pitting one group against another.

Well, there are actually plenty of outspoken politicians, but also there are a lot of powerful militia leaders killing and slaughtering civilians because of their religious group identities.  Remember Vojislav Seselj, the leader of the Serbian Chetniks?  He would fit right in:

From the Associated Press wire Friday:
 In Sadr City, more than 5,000 demonstrators chanted slogans in favor of the Interior Ministry and against U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and moderate Sunni Arab leaders. But they reserved most of their ire for hard-liners such as Saleh al-Mutlaq, the outspoken head of the Sunni Arab National Dialogue Front. We're going to crush Saleh al-Mutlaq with our slippers," they chanted, many armed with automatic weapons. "No, no to Zalmay. No, no to terrorism." It is an insult in Arab culture to touch someone with shoes, which are considered unclean."

From the London Arabic paper Al Hayat 01/06:
  "Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, leader of the Shiite Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq [SCIRI] and head of the dominant United Iraqi Alliance in parliament, blamed Coalition forces (including, implicitly, the US) and "local political forces" [i.e. the Sunni Arabs] for the "dirty sectarian crimes" that mostly target Shiite Muslims. His outburst was prompted by a bombing on Thursday that killed some 60 Shiite devotees near the sacred shrine of Imam Husain [the martyred grandson of the Prophet Muhammad] and left a similar number wounded. "
 translator's note:For Shiite Muslims, Karbala is like Golgotha where Christ was crucified for Christians. It is the site of a cosmic, redemptive act of sacrifice by a holy figure, the Imam Husain, scion of the Prophet. They mourn Husain's unjust death ritually for several days each year, especially the 10th of Muharram, called Ashura. Most weep, some strike themselves, and some even cut or whip themselves in grief. The makers of the Islamic Revolution in Iran put forward the slogan, "Every land is Karbala, and every day is Ashura." Emotions run high about Husain and Karbala, including a sense of the truth being persecuted. Just as European Christian mobs sometimes targeted Jews, blaming them for Christ's death, Shiites often blame the Sunni Muslims. Neither sort of blame is rooted in real history (Sunnism in its present form did not yet exist in 681 A.D.) or is justified. But the Karbala bombing was designed by Sunni guerrillas to provoke reprisals against Sunnis, so as to throw Iraq into civil war, force the US out, and allow them to come to power in a coup.

From Reuters Jan. 4 - Following are security incidents in Iraq reported on Wednesday, Jan. 4, as of 1600 GMT.
MUQDADIYA - At least 36 people were killed and 40 wounded when a suicide bomber wearing an explosive vest blew himself up during the funeral of a member of one of Iraq's main Shi'ite Muslim political parties in Muqdadiya, 100 km (60 miles) northeast of Baghdad, police security officials said.
BAGHDAD - Two guards of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the leader of one of Iraq's most powerful Shi'ite political parties, were shot dead on Tuesday while attending a funeral in southern Baghdad, police said.

From A.P. wire SINAN SALAHEDDIN Jan. 4 -
‘‘We were shocked today when we heard that our brothers, who signed agreements with us yesterday to discuss just the fraudulent elections with the Kurdish leaders, instead were discussing forming a national unity government,’’ Saleh al-Mutlaq, head of the Sunni Arab National Dialogue Front, told The Associated Press.‘‘This act definitely weakens and distract our claims about the fraudulent results,’’ al-Mutlaq said of the Accordance Front’s agreement. ‘‘I believe they are capable of making a deal with the devil himself so that they can be represented widely in the coming government.’’

That is in the last four days .....

EDIT: OK, my links did not work.  The translation is by Juan Cole from the University of Michigan.  See www.juancole.com, an excellent source for Arabic language insights and reports.

difficult question? what is the difference between an outspoken politician or civilian and a militant and political activist? ;) of course faisal husayn of iraq was all four...especially when he walked with the tribes.


even our own civil war had its outspoken politicians and civilians alike...militants plentiful...but a military was necessary for noble strife.


remnants of ireland...echo these voices...
sad that military presence is still necessary despite easiness.



(68) R. Hill 
Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA)
Injured when time bomb exploded near war memorial, during Rememberance Day ceremony, Enniskillen, County Fermanagh. He died 28 December 2000, after being in a coma since the incident.


(37) D. Hackett 
Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Ulster Freedom Fighters (UFF)
Shot while delivering bread, near Drumquin, County Tyrone.



(27) P. Cunningham   
Status: Civilian (Civ), Killed by: Irish National Liberation Army (INLA)
Found shot several months after being abducted, in outbuilding of deserted farm, near Castleblayney, County Monaghan. Irish National Liberation Army (INLA) / Irish People's Liberation Organisation (IPLO) feud.

(36) G. Seawright 
Status: Civilian Political Activist (CivPA), Killed by: Irish People's Liberation Organisation (IPLO)
Loyalist activist. Died two weeks after being shot while sitting in stationary car, Dundee Street, Shankill, Belfast.


(47) N. Cush
Status: ex-Ulster Defence Regiment (xUDR), Killed by: Irish Republican Army (IRA)
Killed by booby trap bomb attached to his car outside his workplace, Tomb Street, off Corporation Street, Belfast.


other examples of the bombings at funerals and retaliations have been documented.
imagine what was discussed at the meetings of those who carried out these acts.

quite sad. but without military presence (in ireland)...difficult to find any punctuation but a question mark.

let us hope that the bickering of all of the iraqi government does not turn to complete civil bloodshed...it is also a positive note that the kurds are represented in the government and not simply as an autonomous region...perhaps they will balance out the other groups as the dust settles...no one seems outspoken enough to become a new "strongman" leader...like milosovic was.

Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Julie Fern on January 09, 2006, 04:57:28 AM
north-south tensions never limited to slavery, which why civil war not just about slavery;  e.g., tariffs.

slavery was virtually absent in rest of west by 1840, and its economics were being as seriously questioned as its morality.

and julie not bite much, although she do like to gnaw little.

It was all a pipe dream. "The Union as it was" was gone, forever. Events proved William Tecumseh Sherman--the prophet of that war--right, and everyone else wrong: An ocean of blood would be required to reunite the United States, and once that blood was spilled, the country over which James Buchanan had presided was as dead as the soldiers whose corpses littered the battlefields of Shiloh and Gettysburg, Antietam and Cold Harbor.

But there was a much bigger, much better, and above all much nobler dream waiting in the wings: "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom" (to use Lincoln's own words)--that the chains of four million slaves might be shattered forever, that freedom and democracy might prevail against tyranny and aristocracy in a world still full of tyrants and aristocrats.



mr. fern...you cannot ignore the obvious...

questioning the "economics" of slavery did not gain the noble results...
whether the south was going to secede is not material.

the point is that "the war" was what it was...and it produced some long term historical consequences...

"slavery chains broken"...(to a point)

learn to read, skippy:  julie say that economics were eroding slavery's hold, and presumes ultimately south would've acted rationally.  obviously, this not happen by 1861.  ironically, invention of cotton gin gave slavery new legs.

certainly julie happy to see end of slavery, but part of your "nobility" bloodiest war in american history.

again:  lincoln should've let south go own way.  julie not fan of "manifest destiny."

man...are really a little dense or just misguided?

this time you corrected yourself..."cotton gin"...at least aye did not have to point that one out to you. and today..."the south will rise again" is still anthemed...so...we STILL got a long way to go.

slavery was not going to go away by itself...sorry...no matter how you try to justify.

the WAR was necessary! somtimes force brings about noble gains. you can't get around acknowleging that julie fern...unless you want to re-write history. ;)



what else can warmonger say to try make war sound like blessing?

numbnuts.

not a good re-write.

and thanks for lame... "one sentance ineffectual post" with namecalling at the end.

ya sound ignant'.


you can't re-write history...wars have brought about noble gains.

history show that killers try to find something else to call it so they can continue to preen selves.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Julie Fern on January 09, 2006, 05:00:25 AM
Blue W, I was proud to see you talk about the Kurds!  I have long thought of Kurdish history as one of the more tragic stories in our miserable world.  In fact, I was a big supporter of the Kurds back in the 1980's when Rumsfeld was taking Saddam presents and Reagan was shipping him mustard gas to use against the Kurds.  Rumsfeld/Cheney/et al did not seem so concerned about the Kurds then (read: they did not care a whit) which makes me highly suspicious of the claim that they are spending $2000 Billion ($2,000,000,000,000) to help them now.  And, as we all know, that was certainly not the original rationale for this war.

There was a very revealing interview with Wolfowitz where he basically said that WMD was the lowest common denominator argument; the easiest thing to sell to the public.  I suspect the same is true of the argument that the Americans are there to forcefully create democracy.  Redemption, why on earth would you take these people at their word on this when they lie about everything else?

And Hussein was certainly not alone in the world as far as being a vicious oppressive evil dictator.  I can think of (Rwanda, Congo, Chad, Somalia, Sudan, Angola, Liberia, Cuba, Haiti, Myanmar, North Korea, Kazakstan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Israel/Palestine, Yemen, Libya, Indonesia/East Timor, China/Tibet, Morocco/Western Sahara, Syria, Albania) over 20 countries without too much trouble of which many are in many ways equally bad places as Kurdish Iraq under Hussein.  Yet I think we can all agree that the Americans are not going to invade any of these countries any time soon!

So, how do you explain the Americans' strike?
(a) Domestic political concerns?  Bush had a great deal of support for his action in Afghanistan.  He risked a lot in shifting the military focus to Iraq, but also made for a larger war.  Some would argue that Bush actually benefits from NOT catching Osama bin Laden and making the "war on terrorism" a long lasting huge global big war instead of a short police action against 2000 - 5000 criminals.  So this might be a factor.
(b) "He tried to kill my daddy!"  I have seen several articles about how reformed alcoholics and drug addicts live in a world of artificial moral clarity, where no slight is too small to forgive.  This is certainly a factor -- there is evidence Bush was ready to invade Iraq in 2000 - but it is hard to imagine how one would research or verify it.
(c) Oil and geopolitics.  Why did America continue to maintain troops and bases in Saudi Arabia after the first gulf war?  It was a continual problem for the House of Saud and they sure weren't there to make Saudi Arabia more democratic!  As I stated before, one of the neo-con plots was to install a friendly government in Iraq and shift the basis there to ease the political pressure on the Saudi rulers.  If Grand Ayatollah Sistani had not pressured for changes in the Iraqi constitution and direct elections, it might have worked.

Redemption, I am not saying I support the American effort to control the world's resources, but I think you can agree it is somewhat naive to think a hegemonic power will peacefully yield control.  I also think that many times American attempts to retain or increase control have had unintended blowback effects that decrease control.  The two classic examples:
(1)The CIA/British "assistance" in the coup against Mussedegh in Iran in 1953. Instead of nationalized oil companies, they went with the Shah.  It worked out great for 25 years, then came Khomeni and a bunch of American hostages and 25 years of hostility.
(2) The CIA support of Osama bin Laden and the rest of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980's.  Once the Soviet Union broke up, they ignored them and hoped they would stay in Afghanistan.  They didn't.

If you look at all interstate wars since 1850, you will find that much much more often than not (to a statistically significant degree) the state which initiated the war did not reap the most gains from the war.  Going to war is not often a rational act. 

So I am not sure how to explain this war, but I am sure you cannot leave oil and the geopolitical significance of the Mideast out of any viable explanation.  If Hussein had been the dictator of Bolivia oppressing the descendents of the Incas the Americans certainly would not have invaded his country. 


very good point regarding the blow-back effects...kurds may press issue for their own official piece of pie...which they rightfully deserve.

and a west-friendly government in the middle of syria and iran is not far off target...oil and geopolitix...closer to truth...

some in the think tanks were worried about uday and qusay hussein...heir apparents...any thoughts on them?


...more to come...

oh golly!

hey just because you do not understand the importance of the kurds don't get upset...it means you need to brush up on your history.

kurds = turds.  before long, they be newest annexation of turkey.  ottomans just waiting to pounce.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Julie Fern on January 09, 2006, 05:04:29 AM
Blue W - I am a huge supporter of self-determination and self-governance and would personally very much be in favor of a Kurdish homeland state. But I would favor the same option for the Navajo, the Basque and lots of other minority groups who aren't likely to get a state of their own any time soon. If the Kurds are going to get anything, it will be under the umbrella of a federal Iraq.

It will be interesting to see what happens with the Norwegian oil company that is drilling exploratory wells under an agreement with the Kurds, not the government of Iraq. Also very important to see if the Kurdish Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan party can actually put their history of militia conflict aside and unify, as they claim to have done in the last week.

Regardless, if in 6 years the Kurds control their territory and resources, the Shi'a control Basra, the Shatt el'Arab and the southern oilfields, and the Sunni are left with the western desert, the federal government of Iraq is dominated by Shi'a (who are 60%+ of the population) more or less closely allied with Iran, and there are no permanent U.S. bases in Iraq, will that count as a success? Will Bush be remembered as a great leader because he spent a trillion dollars to give the Kurds more autonomy? Somehow I doubt it.

If the American goal was to get rid of Hussein, then it is well past time to declare victory and get out. As JFK said about Vietnam "In the final analysis, it is their war to win or lose." Ten years, millions of dollars and thousands of dead kids later, America realized the truth in his words and got out. I don't see why it has to happen again.



julie agree.  and what are odds that independent kurdistan would stay that way?  given outcome that you posit, both turks and sunni arabs going to *&^% proverbial brick.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Julie Fern on January 09, 2006, 05:08:31 AM
Gone for 2 days and look what I missed. I would've enjoyed participating, oh well. At least nobody contends that Lincoln performed better than W. has...

wow! a comment with no namecalling? nor did aye notice any "naive" or "idiotic" anecdotal quips. how noble. now if fern and redemption could only take a page from freak's book...they would be one appendix page closer to locating the definition of "civility."

hypocrites never like being called on their hypocrisy.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Julie Fern on January 09, 2006, 05:13:47 AM
of course, much of soviet union simply conscripted, so it proverbial shotgun wedding.

julie not say it impossible to "do" big;  obviously, u.s. example, civil war being most obvious crack in our cement.  however, julie's point that big not necessarily better, especially if it take war to keep it big.

okay so i agree that bigger is not necessarily better. we just have differing opinions on whether or not it was worth it to keep the union intact, i.e. how compatible do the parts have to be before it's not worth it anymore?

we could argue this one into the ground. want to? my 19th century history is a little rusty so you'll probably beat me, but i'm game.

so, take it into 21st century:  how important is it, really, that iraq stay together?  these are problems that have been brewing for many centuries.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Julie Fern on January 09, 2006, 05:18:26 AM
Well the Constitution did not make succession illegal and if you look at it as a treaty then it can be withdrawn from with proper notice.

julie add that there no serious dispute that had ban on slavery been in constitution of 1787, south clearly not sign on.  thus, south argue, they had right to secede when that prospect arose in serious fashion later.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Julie Fern on January 09, 2006, 05:24:17 AM
Ok disregard that theory it doesn't work. I had my Texas history wrong, let me think a minute here...

EDIT: Sorry didn't answer your question. Texas joined basically because they couldn't beat Mexico w/o the Union's help.

well i guess that rationale might work if the two halves of the union felt it necessary to consolidate in order to meet some external threat, but i can't imagine a viable one arising.

let's remember why texas not want be part of mexico:  texas wanted slavery and mexico not allow it.

we forget that when we "remember alamo."
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Julie Fern on January 09, 2006, 05:30:46 AM
aye spank you in public because your inane comments do not help.

miss red- you simply cannot argue against the devastating logic of his large fonts.  it's similar to what i was pointing out to julie the other day about how every time he uses italics he automatically wins.  ;)

and i find it easier to simply ignore these threads and skip to julie's responses anyway.

um?  winning?  what is being won?   really off point, man.

anyhow...

julie has yet to prove that war does not produce noble results.

sometimes it is a noble blessing which rises out of war..."break bonds of slavery."

ignorance is bliss...but we all know you can read. :D :D :D

julie has not argued against all wars.  your problem is that "noble" outcome for our dirty little war in iraq aimed is post hoc invention of desperate warmongers.  initially, it to advance american influence in long term and, in short term, make it seem as though bush 0 actually doing something about terrorism.

and it not work.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Julie Fern on January 09, 2006, 05:43:39 AM
Ya that's why I threw out the theory  ;)

Here's another. Since the North was so against succession they could've amended the "treaty" to remove the possibility of legal succession and then enticed the Southern states back in one at a time. The war only started because the North was so intractable and IIRC not all the S. states suceded before Sumter.

EDIT: I'm a geek I looked it up. Missouri, N. Mex., N.C, S.C., Tenn, TX, & Virginia didn't secede until after the Sumter incident. If those states hadn't seceded the others would've rejoined more likely than not.

how north so "intractable"?  slave states not want to become outnumbered in union due to western expansion, but it take far more than simple majority to amend constitution in order to ban slavery anyway.

fort sumter appear to be, essentially, negative response to election of 1860--but lincoln made clear that although he personally oppose slavery, he not going tear union apart by trying to ban it.  ultimately, south defending what:  its pride, dred scott?
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: redemption on January 09, 2006, 07:57:13 AM
aye spank you in public because your inane comments do not help.

miss red- you simply cannot argue against the devastating logic of his large fonts.  it's similar to what i was pointing out to julie the other day about how every time he uses italics he automatically wins.  ;)

and i find it easier to simply ignore these threads and skip to julie's responses anyway.

Yes, I skip his/her posts because aye'm bored of making sense of what he's trying to say. I skip straight to Julie and you, Stan, and occasionally to Freak (he's becoming more coherent). Pass36 is a welcome addition to this thread, too  - and I read him.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 09, 2006, 09:35:38 AM
aye spank you in public because your inane comments do not help.

miss red- you simply cannot argue against the devastating logic of his large fonts.  it's similar to what i was pointing out to julie the other day about how every time he uses italics he automatically wins.  ;)

and i find it easier to simply ignore these threads and skip to julie's responses anyway.

Yes, I skip his/her posts because aye'm bored of making sense of what he's trying to say. I skip straight to Julie and you, Stan, and occasionally to Freak (he's becoming more coherent). Pass36 is a welcome addition to this thread, too  - and I read him.

 :D :D :D :D

and you are doing a bang up job...don't read what aye wrote...god forbid you may have to do a little research.

carry on.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 09, 2006, 09:56:33 AM
aye spank you in public because your inane comments do not help.

miss red- you simply cannot argue against the devastating logic of his large fonts.  it's similar to what i was pointing out to julie the other day about how every time he uses italics he automatically wins.  ;)

and i find it easier to simply ignore these threads and skip to julie's responses anyway.

um?  winning?  what is being won?   really off point, man.

anyhow...

julie has yet to prove that war does not produce noble results.

sometimes it is a noble blessing which rises out of war..."break bonds of slavery."

ignorance is bliss...but we all know you can read. :D :D :D

julie has not argued against all wars.  your problem is that "noble" outcome for our dirty little war in iraq aimed is post hoc invention of desperate warmongers.  initially, it to advance american influence in long term and, in short term, make it seem as though bush 0 actually doing something about terrorism.

and it not work.

glad you admit the war is ours.  you are a warmonger as well...possesive plural pronoun is a dead tell...glad your joining us even though your keystone word, "warmonger" is off.  anyway you want to include yourself is fine...if it is working for you...go for it. ;)

noble ends can be desired results however they are difficult to manufacture...
sometimes battles do not have noble results...

what aye have been advocating...for quite some time...an autonomous kurdish region has stepped up gathered more political/economic clout and has a say in their own affairs...this is not an invention...this is happening.

you can't deny that is a noble result.

as far as fighting terrorism (that is your word) man you got a long way to go.
"global guerrillas" exploding bombs in iraq is better than on the streets of san francisco. aye believe air fare is cheaper to damska than to la guardia.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 09, 2006, 10:01:03 AM
north-south tensions never limited to slavery, which why civil war not just about slavery;  e.g., tariffs.

slavery was virtually absent in rest of west by 1840, and its economics were being as seriously questioned as its morality.

and julie not bite much, although she do like to gnaw little.

It was all a pipe dream. "The Union as it was" was gone, forever. Events proved William Tecumseh Sherman--the prophet of that war--right, and everyone else wrong: An ocean of blood would be required to reunite the United States, and once that blood was spilled, the country over which James Buchanan had presided was as dead as the soldiers whose corpses littered the battlefields of Shiloh and Gettysburg, Antietam and Cold Harbor.

But there was a much bigger, much better, and above all much nobler dream waiting in the wings: "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom" (to use Lincoln's own words)--that the chains of four million slaves might be shattered forever, that freedom and democracy might prevail against tyranny and aristocracy in a world still full of tyrants and aristocrats.



mr. fern...you cannot ignore the obvious...

questioning the "economics" of slavery did not gain the noble results...
whether the south was going to secede is not material.

the point is that "the war" was what it was...and it produced some long term historical consequences...

"slavery chains broken"...(to a point)

learn to read, skippy:  julie say that economics were eroding slavery's hold, and presumes ultimately south would've acted rationally.  obviously, this not happen by 1861.  ironically, invention of cotton gin gave slavery new legs.

certainly julie happy to see end of slavery, but part of your "nobility" bloodiest war in american history.

again:  lincoln should've let south go own way.  julie not fan of "manifest destiny."

man...are really a little dense or just misguided?

this time you corrected yourself..."cotton gin"...at least aye did not have to point that one out to you. and today..."the south will rise again" is still anthemed...so...we STILL got a long way to go.

slavery was not going to go away by itself...sorry...no matter how you try to justify.

the WAR was necessary! somtimes force brings about noble gains. you can't get around acknowleging that julie fern...unless you want to re-write history. ;)



what else can warmonger say to try make war sound like blessing?

numbnuts.

not a good re-write.

and thanks for lame... "one sentance ineffectual post" with namecalling at the end.

ya sound ignant'.


you can't re-write history...wars have brought about noble gains.

history show that killers try to find something else to call it so they can continue to preen selves.

and some people give the finger to the guy who cuts them off...some crazees yell out the window and even call the person a "warmonger".
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Freak on January 09, 2006, 10:16:17 AM
Ya that's why I threw out the theory  ;)

Here's another. Since the North was so against succession they could've amended the "treaty" to remove the possibility of legal succession and then enticed the Southern states back in one at a time. The war only started because the North was so intractable and IIRC not all the S. states suceded before Sumter.

EDIT: I'm a geek I looked it up. Missouri, N. Mex., N.C, S.C., Tenn, TX, & Virginia didn't secede until after the Sumter incident. If those states hadn't seceded the others would've rejoined more likely than not.

how north so "intractable"?  slave states not want to become outnumbered in union due to western expansion, but it take far more than simple majority to amend constitution in order to ban slavery anyway.

fort sumter appear to be, essentially, negative response to election of 1860--but lincoln made clear that although he personally oppose slavery, he not going tear union apart by trying to ban it.  ultimately, south defending what:  its pride, dred scott?

The North refused to remove the tariffs which hurt the Southern economy and helped the Northern, very unfair, though perfectly legal. Lincoln also refused to evacuate Fort Sumter, which should've been done. Lincoln made it clear he wouldn't tear apart the Union over slavery...did he mention the tariffs?
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: redemption on January 09, 2006, 10:33:02 AM
I think that we should all chip in and buy bluewarrior a small pet to torture.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Julie Fern on January 09, 2006, 10:38:24 AM
aye spank you in public because your inane comments do not help.

miss red- you simply cannot argue against the devastating logic of his large fonts.  it's similar to what i was pointing out to julie the other day about how every time he uses italics he automatically wins.  ;)

and i find it easier to simply ignore these threads and skip to julie's responses anyway.

um?  winning?  what is being won?   really off point, man.

anyhow...

julie has yet to prove that war does not produce noble results.

sometimes it is a noble blessing which rises out of war..."break bonds of slavery."

ignorance is bliss...but we all know you can read. :D :D :D

julie has not argued against all wars.  your problem is that "noble" outcome for our dirty little war in iraq aimed is post hoc invention of desperate warmongers.  initially, it to advance american influence in long term and, in short term, make it seem as though bush 0 actually doing something about terrorism.

and it not work.

glad you admit the war is ours. you are a warmonger as well...possesive plural pronoun is a dead tell...glad your joining us even though your keystone word, "warmonger" is off. anyway you want to include yourself is fine...if it is working for you...go for it. ;)

noble ends can be desired results however they are difficult to manufacture...
sometimes battles do not have noble results...

what aye have been advocating...for quite some time...an autonomous kurdish region has stepped up gathered more political/economic clout and has a say in their own affairs...this is not an invention...this is happening.

you can't deny that is a noble result.

as far as fighting terrorism (that is your word) man you got a long way to go.
"global guerrillas" exploding bombs in iraq is better than on the streets of san francisco. aye believe air fare is cheaper to damska than to la guardia.

julie say "we" doing it because, collectively as americans, we are.  however, you may have noticed that julie not playing along.

your only connection to nobility that you act like "noble":  endorsing sending peasants off to die to promote your sophomoric theories of world.

hypocrite.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Julie Fern on January 09, 2006, 10:43:18 AM
and some people give the finger to the guy who cuts them off...some crazees yell out the window and even call the person a "warmonger".

julie feel confident you have seen many middle fingers raised in your direction.  apparently these people also sense your hypocrisy.  and maybe you should stop cutting them off in traffic.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Julie Fern on January 09, 2006, 10:53:28 AM
Ya that's why I threw out the theory  ;)

Here's another. Since the North was so against succession they could've amended the "treaty" to remove the possibility of legal succession and then enticed the Southern states back in one at a time. The war only started because the North was so intractable and IIRC not all the S. states suceded before Sumter.

EDIT: I'm a geek I looked it up. Missouri, N. Mex., N.C, S.C., Tenn, TX, & Virginia didn't secede until after the Sumter incident. If those states hadn't seceded the others would've rejoined more likely than not.

how north so "intractable"?  slave states not want to become outnumbered in union due to western expansion, but it take far more than simple majority to amend constitution in order to ban slavery anyway.

fort sumter appear to be, essentially, negative response to election of 1860--but lincoln made clear that although he personally oppose slavery, he not going tear union apart by trying to ban it.  ultimately, south defending what:  its pride, dred scott?

The North refused to remove the tariffs which hurt the Southern economy and helped the Northern, very unfair, though perfectly legal. Lincoln also refused to evacuate Fort Sumter, which should've been done. Lincoln made it clear he wouldn't tear apart the Union over slavery...did he mention the tariffs?

just as julie has argued that north not have good enough reasons to force south to stay in union, she also say that south not have good enough reasons to secede.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 09, 2006, 11:02:14 AM
and some people give the finger to the guy who cuts them off...some crazees yell out the window and even call the person a "warmonger".

julie feel confident you have seen many middle fingers raised in your direction.  apparently these people also sense your hypocrisy.  and maybe you should stop cutting them off in traffic.

awwwww. :'(  don't get angry.

(oh...aye almost forgot...the name calling)

you...you...warmongering crybaby.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 09, 2006, 11:11:21 AM
aye spank you in public because your inane comments do not help.

miss red- you simply cannot argue against the devastating logic of his large fonts.  it's similar to what i was pointing out to julie the other day about how every time he uses italics he automatically wins.  ;)

and i find it easier to simply ignore these threads and skip to julie's responses anyway.

um?  winning?  what is being won?   really off point, man.

anyhow...

julie has yet to prove that war does not produce noble results.

sometimes it is a noble blessing which rises out of war..."break bonds of slavery."

ignorance is bliss...but we all know you can read. :D :D :D

julie has not argued against all wars.  your problem is that "noble" outcome for our dirty little war in iraq aimed is post hoc invention of desperate warmongers.  initially, it to advance american influence in long term and, in short term, make it seem as though bush 0 actually doing something about terrorism.

and it not work.

glad you admit the war is ours. you are a warmonger as well...possesive plural pronoun is a dead tell...glad your joining us even though your keystone word, "warmonger" is off. anyway you want to include yourself is fine...if it is working for you...go for it. ;)

noble ends can be desired results however they are difficult to manufacture...
sometimes battles do not have noble results...

what aye have been advocating...for quite some time...an autonomous kurdish region has stepped up gathered more political/economic clout and has a say in their own affairs...this is not an invention...this is happening.

you can't deny that is a noble result.

as far as fighting terrorism (that is your word) man you got a long way to go.
"global guerrillas" exploding bombs in iraq is better than on the streets of san francisco. aye believe air fare is cheaper to damska than to la guardia.

julie say "we" doing it because, collectively as americans, we are.  however, you may have noticed that julie not playing along.

your only connection to nobility that you act like "noble":  endorsing sending peasants off to die to promote your sophomoric theories of world.

hypocrite.

oh...now you are changing around what you meant by "we"???
okay.  hmmm...ummm...what do ya call that? :D :D :D






but you are playing along when you include yourself...

fern...technically...you are a "warmonger."

kurdish participation in their nation's government is very noble step.
and the war is bringing this new freedom to the oppressed kurdish "tribes".
you can't deny it.

that is why you keep writing kurds=turds...it is childish.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 09, 2006, 11:17:36 AM
I think that we should all chip in and buy bluewarrior a small pet to torture.

reading some of your posts aye think you overwhelmingly already are the official "pet torturer"/inane anectodal quip marker/stinky diaper wearer.   

do you ever tire of getting slapped around in public?
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 09, 2006, 11:29:33 AM
of course, much of soviet union simply conscripted, so it proverbial shotgun wedding.

julie not say it impossible to "do" big;  obviously, u.s. example, civil war being most obvious crack in our cement.  however, julie's point that big not necessarily better, especially if it take war to keep it big.

okay so i agree that bigger is not necessarily better. we just have differing opinions on whether or not it was worth it to keep the union intact, i.e. how compatible do the parts have to be before it's not worth it anymore?

we could argue this one into the ground. want to? my 19th century history is a little rusty so you'll probably beat me, but i'm game.

so, take it into 21st century:  how important is it, really, that iraq stay together?  these are problems that have been brewing for many centuries.

tribes troubles have been bubbling for centuries...iraq's problems boiling since great britain carved up iraq...and arab nationalism highlighted...

perhaps allowing kurdistan to secede is good idea...but first perhaps the peanut gallery should have patience and see what kurds can do with participation in new formed government.

mr. fern is dancing around this issue...
the music has a kurdish lilt to it...
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Freak on January 09, 2006, 01:33:57 PM
Ya that's why I threw out the theory  ;)

Here's another. Since the North was so against succession they could've amended the "treaty" to remove the possibility of legal succession and then enticed the Southern states back in one at a time. The war only started because the North was so intractable and IIRC not all the S. states suceded before Sumter.

EDIT: I'm a geek I looked it up. Missouri, N. Mex., N.C, S.C., Tenn, TX, & Virginia didn't secede until after the Sumter incident. If those states hadn't seceded the others would've rejoined more likely than not.

how north so "intractable"?  slave states not want to become outnumbered in union due to western expansion, but it take far more than simple majority to amend constitution in order to ban slavery anyway.

fort sumter appear to be, essentially, negative response to election of 1860--but lincoln made clear that although he personally oppose slavery, he not going tear union apart by trying to ban it.  ultimately, south defending what:  its pride, dred scott?

The North refused to remove the tariffs which hurt the Southern economy and helped the Northern, very unfair, though perfectly legal. Lincoln also refused to evacuate Fort Sumter, which should've been done. Lincoln made it clear he wouldn't tear apart the Union over slavery...did he mention the tariffs?

just as julie has argued that north not have good enough reasons to force south to stay in union, she also say that south not have good enough reasons to secede.

You didn't answer the question - it wasn't rhetorical. However, you have basically conceded that both sides were wrong. That's not conceding much because that's the case in most disagreements. Degree of responsibility is the real question. I haven't personally decided, but am arguing here that the North committed more egregious wrongs.

If, as Blue contends, we look at the purpose or at least the final purpose of a disagreement to determine if the actions were "noble" (i.e. in the end, what happened was for the best) then another element is added to the North/South debate. It's bascially an ends justify the means argument, though perhaps that's a bit simplistic (means can justify themselves) and certainly unrealistic because decisions are made and will be made without adequate reasons. I decline to discuss this further, as it would take the discussion out of the realm of the debate on the Civil War and into a more philosophical discussion, without the approval of Stan, and you, Julie.

Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Julie Fern on January 09, 2006, 02:57:40 PM
and some people give the finger to the guy who cuts them off...some crazees yell out the window and even call the person a "warmonger".

julie feel confident you have seen many middle fingers raised in your direction.  apparently these people also sense your hypocrisy.  and maybe you should stop cutting them off in traffic.

awwwww. :'(  don't get angry.

(oh...aye almost forgot...the name calling)

you...you...warmongering crybaby.

ah, now we come to heart of matter:  you think you big strong man and julie just peacemongering crybaby.  yet, you one who hiding from fighting war you describe as "noble."

nothing noble about bleeding, girlie-man--which, apparently, you already know, even if not admit.

Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Julie Fern on January 09, 2006, 03:00:48 PM

oh...now you are changing around what you meant by "we"???
okay. hmmm...ummm...what do ya call that? :D :D :D

clarity.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Julie Fern on January 09, 2006, 03:05:53 PM

but you are playing along when you include yourself...

fern...technically...you are a "warmonger."

kurdish participation in their nation's government is very noble step.
and the war is bringing this new freedom to the oppressed kurdish "tribes".
you can't deny it.

that is why you keep writing kurds=turds...it is childish.


oh yeah, julie really promoting this war.

Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 09, 2006, 03:26:36 PM
and some people give the finger to the guy who cuts them off...some crazees yell out the window and even call the person a "warmonger".

julie feel confident you have seen many middle fingers raised in your direction.  apparently these people also sense your hypocrisy.  and maybe you should stop cutting them off in traffic.

awwwww. :'(  don't get angry.

(oh...aye almost forgot...the name calling)

you...you...warmongering crybaby.

ah, now we come to heart of matter:  you think you big strong man and julie just peacemongering crybaby.  yet, you one who hiding from fighting war you describe as "noble."

nothing noble about bleeding, girlie-man--which, apparently, you already know, even if not admit.



namecalling is the "heart of the matter"?



kurdish participation in their nation's government is a very noble step...and the war is bringing this new freedom to the oppressed kurdish "tribes."


you STILL have not refuted this....






Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 09, 2006, 03:40:10 PM
your only connection to nobility that you act like "noble":  endorsing sending peasants off to die to promote your sophomoric theories of world.

woah there julie, you're not calling the men and women of the armed forces "peasants" are you?  that might be the type of thing that can be construed as anti-troops and not merely anti-war. 

i ask because you generally haven't given this impression and so i'm trying to remove ambiguities.

of course, bw might have used the term first.  i don't know, i don't actually wade through his stuff anymore.

please...that is pretty much all mr. fern's terminology...
his remark is not even slightly funny.

he is coming unglued...
the childish name calling has exposed his ignorance.

now we see his true feelings...

the us troops are "peasants"?

he really has no backbone because calling the troops "peasants" is disrespectful and very much the act of a coward...and is outrightly expressing an
"anti-troop" mentality.

perhaps wading is the first step to swimming, my friend. ;)



--julie fern is BAD and UN-AMERICAN.
 
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 09, 2006, 03:44:00 PM
Julie Fern...

an APOLOGY is in order! >:(

if an apology for irresponsible remarks does not happen...
aye might lock the topic.

but that is probably all we will hear from him.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: pass36 on January 09, 2006, 05:05:13 PM
Why peasant = insult?  I am the descendant of proud peasant stock.  Have you hung out with a lot of rich folks?  In many ways, peasant = compliment!  No drunken coke binges, wrecked BMWs, endless whining about everything, etc, etc.

At the same time, there is no doubt that there is an EXTREMELY high correlation between socio-economic status and service in the armed forces.  Rich folks kids ain't over there dying and anyone who thinks they are is just deluded. 

Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 09, 2006, 05:24:10 PM
Why peasant = insult?  I am the descendant of proud peasant stock.  Have you hung out with a lot of rich folks?  In many ways, peasant = compliment!  No drunken coke binges, wrecked BMWs, endless whining about everything, etc, etc.

At the same time, there is no doubt that there is an EXTREMELY high correlation between socio-economic status and service in the armed forces.  Rich folks kids ain't over there dying and anyone who thinks they are is just deluded. 



don't you think it is the careless disregard for the great and difficult job the troops perform.

and with a poor attempt at humor...it erodes the respect these men and women deserve...


why use any other name to describe the us troops?  it is denigrating.

do you understand my problem with the "naive" name calling?

if one is talking about peasant bread...fine.

but writing: (...sending "peasants" off to die...) is meant to be "belittling"...
and a hint at an "anti-troop" mentality.




 
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Julie Fern on January 09, 2006, 06:17:57 PM
and some people give the finger to the guy who cuts them off...some crazees yell out the window and even call the person a "warmonger".

julie feel confident you have seen many middle fingers raised in your direction.  apparently these people also sense your hypocrisy.  and maybe you should stop cutting them off in traffic.

awwwww. :'(  don't get angry.

(oh...aye almost forgot...the name calling)

you...you...warmongering crybaby.

ah, now we come to heart of matter:  you think you big strong man and julie just peacemongering crybaby.  yet, you one who hiding from fighting war you describe as "noble."

nothing noble about bleeding, girlie-man--which, apparently, you already know, even if not admit.



namecalling is the "heart of the matter"?



kurdish participation in their nation's government is a very noble step...and the war is bringing this new freedom to the oppressed kurdish "tribes."


you STILL have not refuted this....


no, forrest, your mine-is-bigger-than-yours mentality is heart of matter.

and freedom of kurds no more or less important than anyone else's.  julie figure that office where you fetch coffee is hired shill for kurds.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Julie Fern on January 09, 2006, 06:20:37 PM
so, take it into 21st century: how important is it, really, that iraq stay together? these are problems that have been brewing for many centuries.

too bad mechanisms for redrawing borders aren't in place. is it important to keep iraq together? not really, but you need a plan to deal with the can of worms you're opening up.

man, can already open and worms all over place.  if you want keep iraq together, you one who need plan.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 09, 2006, 06:23:26 PM
lets see...who was the democrats "anti-troop" candidate...in the last presidential election?

the flip-flop wearing john kerry continues his long legacy of public troop-smearing...

on cbs news he accused us troops in iraq of... "err...terrorizing kids and children...you know...women...breaking sort of the customs of the...of...the historical customs...religious customs."

so the "anti-troop" mentality even "in jest" festers just under the surface of "ad-libs" and this "laughable democrat representative" was the latest .

it is deranged defeatism.
the name calling is not funny.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Julie Fern on January 09, 2006, 06:24:01 PM
your only connection to nobility that you act like "noble": endorsing sending peasants off to die to promote your sophomoric theories of world.

woah there julie, you're not calling the men and women of the armed forces "peasants" are you? that might be the type of thing that can be construed as anti-troops and not merely anti-war.

i ask because you generally haven't given this impression and so i'm trying to remove ambiguities.

of course, bw might have used the term first. i don't know, i don't actually wade through his stuff anymore.

get real.  deal with metaphor in context of discussion.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: redemption on January 09, 2006, 06:26:54 PM
kurds = turds
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Julie Fern on January 09, 2006, 06:28:27 PM
your only connection to nobility that you act like "noble":  endorsing sending peasants off to die to promote your sophomoric theories of world.

woah there julie, you're not calling the men and women of the armed forces "peasants" are you?  that might be the type of thing that can be construed as anti-troops and not merely anti-war.  

i ask because you generally haven't given this impression and so i'm trying to remove ambiguities.

of course, bw might have used the term first.  i don't know, i don't actually wade through his stuff anymore.

please...that is pretty much all mr. fern's terminology...
his remark is not even slightly funny.

he is coming unglued...
the childish name calling has exposed his ignorance.

now we see his true feelings...

the us troops are "peasants"?

he really has no backbone because calling the troops "peasants" is disrespectful and very much the act of a coward...and is outrightly expressing an
"anti-troop" mentality.

perhaps wading is the first step to swimming, my friend. ;)



--julie fern is BAD and UN-AMERICAN.
  

your "concern" for troops really impressive.  after all, you one who determined to send them to their death while you enjoy comfort of castle.  that treating people like peasants.

you and those like you despicable.  of course, you insist on seeing self as patriotic.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Julie Fern on January 09, 2006, 06:30:52 PM
Why peasant = insult? I am the descendant of proud peasant stock. Have you hung out with a lot of rich folks? In many ways, peasant = compliment! No drunken coke binges, wrecked BMWs, endless whining about everything, etc, etc.

At the same time, there is no doubt that there is an EXTREMELY high correlation between socio-economic status and service in the armed forces. Rich folks kids ain't over there dying and anyone who thinks they are is just deluded.



that true.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: Julie Fern on January 09, 2006, 06:32:30 PM
Why peasant = insult?  I am the descendant of proud peasant stock.  Have you hung out with a lot of rich folks?  In many ways, peasant = compliment!  No drunken coke binges, wrecked BMWs, endless whining about everything, etc, etc.

At the same time, there is no doubt that there is an EXTREMELY high correlation between socio-economic status and service in the armed forces.  Rich folks kids ain't over there dying and anyone who thinks they are is just deluded. 



don't you think it is the careless disregard for the great and difficult job the troops perform.

and with a poor attempt at humor...it erodes the respect these men and women deserve...


why use any other name to describe the us troops?  it is denigrating.

do you understand my problem with the "naive" name calling?

if one is talking about peasant bread...fine.

but writing: (...sending "peasants" off to die...) is meant to be "belittling"...
and a hint at an "anti-troop" mentality.
 

only one julie belittling you and your ilk.
Title: Re: IRAQ: STEADY! HOLDFAST! NOBLE!
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on January 09, 2006, 06:40:37 PM
your only connection to nobility that you act like "noble": endorsing sending peasants off to die to promote your sophomoric theories of world.

woah there julie, you're not calling the men and women of the armed forces "peasants" are you? that might be the type of thing that can be construed as anti-troops and not merely anti-war.

i ask because you generally haven't given this impression and so i'm trying to remove ambiguities.

of course, bw might have used the term first. i don't know, i don't actually wade through his stuff anymore.

get real.  deal with metaphor in context of discussion.


making light of the difficult work the troops maintain...

and referring to "the troops" as "peasants" is a significant indicator of your lack of sensitivity...

also...because you are frustrated that you couldn't make it count at the ballot box...you stoop to name-calling.  

you cannot grasp the fact that an oppressed people finally have risen from a cruel dictatorship...so you point to the negative...rather than addressing the strides iraqis and our troops are making.

you are indeed a sad example of an american...

you cannot apologize for your careless inane "metaphors" which are way out of context...and childish.





mr. julie fern...

your "anti-troop" mentality is exposed.
you need to respect yourself and check yourself.

you are indeed a very UN-AMERICAN!

and you need a time out...

so...

get to steppin!