Bot: this is what george bush and his gang is trying to do.


don 'head not in the sand on this one'

Posted by Botnst: After that part is over with, we then impose democracy. It works.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So the idea is to impose something that is supposed to derive from the will of the people--even if those people have no interest in that something that we desire to impose on them? That's teaching 'em about freedom?

Joe B.

I find it ironic that people who support a president who wages wars for the purpose of securing oil supplies disguised as anti-terror wars, while the real terrorists roam about Pakistan and Afganistan preparing to deal us as vicious a blow as they can muster, call me someone with my head in the sand. Military success requires focus and econmoy of force. We will never have either while we are bogged down in the Iraqi insane asylym.

Kirk,

With all due respect, my take on the head in the sand perspective comes from your relentless, tedious, and mind numbing hatred of the Bush admin. It is your prerogative, of course, but the beginning, entire scope, and end of your many contributions seems centered around nothing but hate. Indeed, you seem buried in it.

__________________
...Tracy

'00 ML320 "Casper"
'92 400E "Stella"

it is very easy to hate bush and his gang. the most hated
guy on earth. even so work on getting over hatred for your
oun good and the good of all others.

don

Well, Lebenz pal, if my private email is any indication, there are plenty of people on this forum that think what I have to say is based on reason, not hate. Hate is the unnecessary murder of thousands of people who did not have to die. You want to see hate, take a look at what your supporting: mass murder for oil.

Here dude, here's what hate looks like:

http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

http://www.robert-fisk.com/the_evidence.htm

Good old Robert Fisk, the "journalist" (polemicist?) who inspired the contemptuous verb "fisking" from his fellow journalists in Afghanistan after he got the crap beaten out of him by some locals and filed a story saying that he not only didn't mind and completely understood the beating, but taking into account the numerous crimes of the western world against the noble poor over the years, he'd have beaten the crap out of him too, if given the chance.

I place about as much weight on Fisk's "reporting" as Kirk would on stories in the Washington Times, or either one of us would on stories in the Weekly World News.

Yeah sure dave, all those photos are fake.

Quite frankly I don't think anyone with some smarts is hating and blaming Bush. Its quite obvious that the policy of installing a passive dictatorship (passive to the US that is) has been going on for a long time and has worked well for the benefit of us Americans. If all the oil rich nations were to become true democracies fuel prices would be the least of our worries.
The trick is not to install a democracy the trick is to install a regime that can appease the people so we can get the resources we need. Case in point: Nigeria.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/04/africa_polluting_nigeria/html/1.stm

Unfortunately we've run into a little snag in the gulf called Islam. Unlike other countries where it is easy to create rebels, bribe government officials even Presidents, assasinate leaders or just plain ignore all the above, the islamic countries have a truly unique bond and strength in their religion that will be next to impossible to subdue. You can't bribe it, you can't assasinate it, and its not something tangible you can eliminate. If we're going to test their resolve against ours on their turf we will lose, its no contest. I am not saying this from a stand point of admiration, trust me if I was there i would be the first to pull the trigger on a bunch of them, I am just looking at islamic history and Israel/Palestine and its not pretty.

You can sit there and kid yourself on how righteous we are but we are there for their resources period. They are not fooled for a bit by that democracy rhetoric. If we were to pull out and the Iraqis were to vote to never give us any oil would we bow to their decision. Somehow I think not.


All Bush did was expose our policies to the world and to oblivious Americans in our SUV's. Its like catching yourself in the mirror picking your nose and thinking god you look ugly doing that, but you've been doing it for ages buddy. And once you've walked away from the mirror you'll probably do it again.

Kirk, I'm not saying the photos are fake, and I think the ones showing dead and wounded Iraqis are tragic (the ones showing, e.g., a fellow sitting in a doorway looking bored next to an American soldier in the foreground are pointless in a National Geographic sort of way). But Fisk's photos tell the real, unbiased story the same way a collection of photos of car crash victims tells the real story about the usefulness of cars to modern society.

The point of the link is to show what we are actually doing to prosecute this war. Your point on the car crash has an opposite element of truth - the only thing we get from our government is what a great SUV we are driving. The press went along with it for a long time, but I beleive that is now being turned around.

There are many, many people, and I am one, who are motivated by a visceral disgust of how the Sept 11 tragedy was hijacked by these immoral men to prosecute a war they have desired since the late 90s. I try my best to post troubling facts and difficult questions, and I try my best to post facts and news articles that support the positions I take. That is not hatred, its an attempt at reasoned argument, which I generally get in return. For those who are uncomfortable with it, your alternatives are to either post something back to support or refute it, or to attack me personally. Take your best shot either way. I believe what I am doing is what all people who love this country should be doing - pointing out that this secretive, war mongering, corrupt administration is commiting mass murder for the purpose of securing oil supplies while the actual threats to our people are ignored. We are currently living at a time when our own moral foundation is being hijacked by the corporate interests that are starting to rule this planet. This is their administration, and their war. As a citizen of this democracy, if fighting that is hate, then call me hater.

Good One

There are many, many people, and I am one, who realize that the world isn't a simple place with one set of correct answers. When you don't see the world through a rigid, dogmatic filter, actions that can be interpreted as war crimes and conspiracy can also be interpreted as well-meaning acts by imperfect people with good intentions operating in an absence of perfect knowledge. Their actions may be ill-advised - in retrospect -, and they inevitably lead to unforeseen and painful consequences for many people, but they are not the actions of Satan and his minions operating in a well-oiled conspiratorial machine invisible to anyone not privy to the "truth". I believe what I am doing is what all people who love this country should be doing, thinking for myself and taking into account a lot of data, and acknowledging that most of it can be interpreted to support any number of theories. I don't trust zealots, whether they're Birchers or Spartacists. Reasoned argument admits the possibility that that the arguer might occasionally be wrong. Anything else is just preaching, usually to a bored congregation looking at their watches; they've heard it all before.

I am hurt you don't trust me. It's hard to type thru the tears, but I'll try. I can't help but think what you are describing is not reasoned arguments, but the making up of excuses for people who seem to be getting caught in one lie after another.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Joseph Bauers
Posted by Botnst: After that part is over with, we then impose democracy. It works.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So the idea is to impose something that is supposed to derive from the will of the people--even if those people have no interest in that something that we desire to impose on them? That's teaching 'em about freedom?

Joe B.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



is that not quite the dumbest thing you've ever intentionally misconstrued?

Bot

The situation in Iraq and the situation where the "democracy" seed we nurtured in Germany and Japan after WWII thrived were vastly different. There was a vanquished population that needed and craved a form of order that was imposed by the occupying forces, and a general populace that was humbled by their shameful acts of war and subsequent loss, who were simultaneously grateful for the kindness extended to them by the US in the aftermath. They even recognized it was an act their own former leaders would not have entertained had the shoe been on the other foot. Germans actually made a national monument to their horror against the Jews in the NAZI period, and took school children in their early teens to these former concentration camps to make them aware of how their recent ancestors behaved, and how lucky they are that the Americans brought them back to a seat at the table with the rest of the human race instead of exterminating them. I went on such a field trip when I was in a German public elementary school in the early 1960's.

There is no valid parallel to the situation in Germany, and Japan, where democracy prevailed because it was embraced by the natives, and the present situation in Iraq. Not only is the population still armed and resisting, the aftermath of WWII resulted in more than thirty years of occupation in Germany. American forces still occupy a few neighborhoods over there. Granted much of it at the end was maintained under the umbrella of standing up to the Eatern Block, lead by the USSR, which was partly required by the terms of the treaty that ended WWII, and by the invitation of the German people. No one is talking of occupying Iraq for thirty years at the moment. At least not openly. And it is hard to hear the voice of anyone in Iraq asking us to stay as, if you ask them to repeat the request and elaborate, they have usually been shot dead, or blown up already.

So, while Joe's observation may not sit well with you, I believe once you overlook the fact that it does not sit well you can see the point he was making. It is not a deliberately misconstrued description. I think it is much more an intentionally bleak description of a situation without trial fitting of various rosy glasses tinted to make peripheral arguments appear larger than they are to justify sacrificing American lives in an endeavor that could be a noble cause, if that was why we were actually in Iraq, but isn't. Even you acknowledge the only justifiable reason to be there for America is for the oil, not removing the WMD that did not exist at the time we invaded, but was cited as the primary reason we needed to go there (protect America) or outing Saddam and giving the long suffering Iraqi people the wonder of democracy.

When you insert arguments for the sake of arguing that don't support your gut feelings and instincts, it dilutes your main theme so much I get lost trying to follow the logic. It is a little like making several disjointed arguments that have no common supporting logic and just keeping them going for the sake of being heard. I can understand the oil thing, but don't agree with it entirely and don't feel the need to respond to your discussing that theme because I find it a real reason, but one I just don't subscribe to. I would actually like to understand that concept more, since it seems to have some complimentary aspects to my belief we should use the Mideast's oil, all of it, before we use any more of ours. This BS about being a do gooder and that is why it is justified to be in Iraq just doesn't have the same substance or ring of truth. I see that it might sound nicer than the more believable oil incentive for being there, but that doesn't make it true. It sounds more like it is intentionally misconstruing the real point to sustain an argument for no other purpose than to sustain the argument.

No where in the document authorizing our President to use his best judgement to defend us from WMD in Iraq, which is how the President got the authority to send our troops over there, is it suggested outing Saddam and bringing democracy to Iraq was an acceptable alternate rationale. That is because most Americans believe it isn't. I agree Saddam was a bad guy, and that democracy as we practice it is a good thing. But I am not that nice a guy that I am going to support Americans being killed to bring this gift to a people that don't want it enough to die for it. I am also not in favor of the idea that occupying that country for thirty years is the only way to secure the oil. Jim

__________________
Own:
1986 Euro 190E 2.3-16 (291,000 miles),
1998 E300D TurboDiesel, 231,000 miles -purchased with 45,000,
1988 300E 5-speed 252,000 miles,
1983 240D 4-speed, purchased w/136,000, now with 222,000 miles.
2009 ML320CDI Bluetec, 89,000 miles

Owned:
1971 220D (250,000 miles plus, sold to father-in-law),
1975 240D (245,000 miles - died of body rot),
1991 350SD (176,560 miles, weakest Benz I have owned),
1999 C230 Sport (45,400 miles),
1982 240D (321,000 miles, put to sleep)