Re: OT: Repuglicans are disgusting, 11/10/05 edition

In article <11o3vrfrqr23ecc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Frank Berger <frank.d.berger@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>"Andrys Basten" <andrys@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:dls2v4$jra$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>> May you never have to defend your family, tell them to leave
>> while you defend your home against intruders from another country
>> and be seen as having a CHEAP LIFE because you are now a
>> "combatant."
>
>Fighting Islamo-Fasicists "over there" reduces that likelihood.

You're one of the few who believe that now. I know
you're not reading because most people know that it's
hard to recruit, the boys you keep sending to protect
you here over have often been there 2 or 3 times already
so that we can sit on forums and talk while they face
death (or worse, in my view) each day and the way the
war was entered into and is being conducted (thanks to
the blind acquiescence of folks like you) is building
up the number of terrorists with fresh reasons for
feeling the way they do.

If you don't think that invading and then battling
a town over there, for reasons we know didn't exist,
is not attracting more people over there to terrorism
and anti-American feeling, then you obviously are
not doing much reading.

Most Americans according to, um, mainstream polls,
no longer feel (they notice what is happening in
Iraq) we are safer here now than we were in 2001.

Remember that the WTC were first attacked earlier
and it took them another 5 years to attack again.

Unfortunately, when people feel no hope
except in the next life, they get even more
destructive. And if there are even more of
them, it's not good for anyone.

>> God, it's really sick how easily you accept this scenario knowing
>> as the rest of the world knows now, our reasons for invading
>> were found not to even be real.
>
>You referred to multiple reasons earlier. Were none of them real? Were they
>all lies? What do you think the argument is for not simply pulling out
>immediately?

Because we destabilized the region and the people who
decided to go along with us (while wishing we would leave
according to the polls taken there, about 80%) would be
in grave danger.

There always were intensely split factions there,
and a dictator kept the place from chaos. What happened
there was their responsibility, but now what will happen
in the near future will be our responsibility.

Also due to our stupidity in going in there, without
support and without enough troops, borders unsecured,
and not understanding the strife there between
factions (not to mention for false reasons), once
we have to leave it becomes obvious we failed to
stabilize the country.

As others explained we are failing now to stabilize
it (to understate it) and Chalabi who helped mislead
us is sympathetic to Iran. America is losing as it
is, both in the great outpouring of sympathy we had
during 9-11 and in respect. Bullies are not
respected. You may call this Anti-American thinking
but to me it's anti-American to allow this kind of
behavior.

America or the concept of it was never this.
And the freedom we say we want to export is the
right to protest the most self- and other-
destructive actions of our leaders.

>There you go again.
>
>> We are breaking them left and right
>
>Not also up and down? What Geneva conventions are we breaking?

Google
"geneva conventions" "united states"
or
"geneva conventions" and "america"

to get a fix on it.

>>and Cheney is asking for more and suddenly you care about that.
>
>Are you referring to torture? I have been against torture as long as I can
>remember.

Well, that sort of has a lot to do with the Geneva Convention
agreements.

>> But mainly I am really sickened tonight by your
>> easy acceptance of violence to to an entire city
>
>Not an entire city. Only those who sympathize with the bad guys.

Not an entire city? When 10,000 homes were utterly
destroyed and about 40,000 damaged? When all the civilians
were told to leave their homes and their city?

"The bad guys" -- I see, anyone who is living there.

Anyone who is living there, where we invaded and started
telling them what to do. Is it any wonder they attack
checkpoints? Wouldn't you do something similar with a
country that did this to ours?

Maybe not. Maybe you'd decide to just cooperate
with them as they'd be existing authority, whatever
country they came from.

>The Iraqi government and the majority of the people in Iraq would be opposed
>to our sudden and immediate withdrawal. Does that concern you in any way?

Yes, and that's another reason I'm upset at Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld
- Cheney was the one who said they'd welcome us with flowers.

That has nothing to do with your easy acceptance of using
WP (with its known terrific effects on all within a certain
area, in a city) which was the subject of this thread.


>> and now our throwing
>> WP at them because, as you've decided, it's just fine
>> if they stay and become "combatants."
>
>They didn't do it because I decided it was OK. They did it because THEY
>thought it was OK.

There's the rub. That kind of thing is done WITH
your consent. You've justified it constantly in this
thread by calling the residents "combatants."

Our government will do what it has convinced the
citizenry is ok to do, and we 'authorize' certain
actions by not protesting them. Things are changing
though.


>About eliminating Saddam Hussein's murderous regime and replacing it with a
>Democracy. Not a good reason?

Are you reading what is happening over there? You would
spend something like 2 billion a day to do this for any
country with a murderous regime and spend the lives of our
young people for what you consider giving them democracy?

That is ignorance of what the area is like. It's not
going to work. Whether we stay or leave, the ones in power
will ultimately suspend "democracy" to get their way.

Already something like $90 billion has been 'lost'
in their hands.

It's b&w thinking.

> Not even in principle? Don't answer, "Why
>not North Korea?" Every situation is different. N. Korea apparently
>already has nukes. Probably not a good idea to invade them.

With what would you invade? The situation is out of hand.
What the world needs to do is to protect itself. And this
kind of We'll Tell the World What to Do is not going to
work. There has to be cooperation as in any endeavor.


>>>> for the Iraqis and our own soldiers that they weren't built on
>>>> anything real, much like your recent postings here. That we
>>>> went to war and a lot of lives are gone or severely damaged is
>>>> something that upsets a lot of this world.
>
>This happens in every war. I thought you said you weren't a pacifist.

Do you know the difference (can you begin to fathom one)
between a war started for good reasons and a war started
on FALSE ones? That's why I call you "I Don't Care -- I'll just
find a new justification.

You swallowed the "We're spreading freedom!" when the
reasons given were found to be groundless.

>> It's a reality. That you don't realize it is very obvious.
>
>I think I am more in tune with my feelings than you are.

Your feelings, no doubt. Your thinking as seen in this
thread, no.

>>>Actually, you mentioned torture in the previous post. Republicans
>>>torture.
>>
>> Republicans torture ? CHENEY is asking for it as doable
>> by the CIA, but I don't think that Republicans torture. ??
>>
>>>You called me a Rebublican (I don't expect that you've changed that
>>>opinion
>>>just because I've told you I'm not). Hence I must support torture. That's
>>>the reasoning I would expect from you.

Well, you see everyone on 'another side' as the same
so that makes sense that you would be as illogical
as you've been in this thread and in this statement.

>> Huh? Republicans torture? Where are you?
>
>Cheney is a Republican, Cheney wants to torture. You don't conclude that
>Repuglicans in general approve torture? Good for you. You're not
>Harrington.

Oh, Frank finally separates individuals. Maybe read
a bit more carefully what someone is saying and you'll
note differences.

>> Your thinking has matched the thinking of the most
>> closeminded of Republicans,
>
>Does this mean that most Republicans are closeminded? Or are just referring
>to the closeminded ones? I can't tell. What about closeminded Democrats
>that support the war, like Liebermann?

No, in the simplest logic tests, you'd fail, based
on such an idiotic statement. Read it again.

There are closeminded Democrats but your
thinking would much less likely match theirs.

>> is said to make up about 38% who feel Bush can't do wrong,
>> which is sizeable but not a majority anymore), so I don't see
>> any difference. You're not certainly even close to
>> Independent (that involves more thinking and an open mind) and
>> heaven forbid you might be a Democrat.
>
>I almost always vote Libertarian. I will continue to do so, even though the
>Libertarian party would not have gone into Iraq (not that doing so is
>inherently anti-Libertarian). I often vote for Democrats for positions like
>District Attourney, since I think they may be less likey to prosecute
>"victimless crimes." But only if they run respectable campaigns.

I registered Independent most of my life until 'W' ran.

>>>> It's not just a game for someone who wants to say It's Fine
>>>> Because They're Combatants (in their own land)
>
>I never realized that combatants (no need to capitalize) always have to
>fight on neutral territory.

Normally, if another, larger, richer country had
invaded us, and had checkpoints everywhere to tell you
where you could or could not go, you might fight
that attempt to control us. If you did you'd become
a Combatant. Capitalized because of the rationale
that if one uses that word it's okay to use WP against
them in their own cities.

Iraq has not attacked us, as Japan did and didn't
have the capability that was claimed for it. There's
no reason now for our invasion. For our doing that
to so many there. For sending our kids over to
waste years in a horrible situation if they get to
survive it and all the memories of faces and limbs
torn apart while they themselves are in danger
ALL the time.

>>>Better the fight the enemy in their own land than ours.
>>
>> Exactly. And that was based on 9-11. More robotic
>> automated talk. And shallow. I can see why you would
>> see nothing wrong with tossing WP at people who live
>> there if they dare to "combat" us while we're there.
>
>Why are HP (high explosives) better?

They're not good at all in this case, but if you
read the descriptions of WP and what they do to people,
only a monster would justify using them against humans
defending their own city. I realize you may not have read the
one at the neutral emedicine site I cited.

>Right and the status quo was the murderous Saddam Hussein. Should I call
>you a Saddam-lover?

Only if you care to look even more ignorant and stupid
than you already do. That's your prerogative.


>>>>>> Most Americans are questioning.
>
>Bully for them.

Well, they reading and thinking, and caring what
happens with their own children or their neighbors'
children in a war the country at first felt was
fought for good reasons until they found the
reasons given were false.
SOME care about that. Some of you never will.

>> But you can't watch the videos being discussed, for
>> yourself, and you claim you can't use a computer at home
>> so I guess you're at work or the library this weekend.
>
>I've told you I have read everything there is to read. Doing so has
>informed be ABOUT the video, even though I haven't seen it. I also don't
>watch videos of Islamo-Fascists cutting the heads off of their victims? Do
>you? But somehow you know about it, don't you.

Yes, I did watch the one re the journalist, to see for
myself. That was enough. That those crazies want us
to see that they'll do this is clear. It's the last
one I viewed since I didn't need to know more.

As for what you 'know about' the Rai film, you know
nothing except that it's not a mainstream source so
you ignore it. But it shows what may have happened
over there in our name and the crux will be whether
in a democracy like ours, people come to care about
what's done in their/our name and whether we have
standards or morals anymore.

The reality is there are desperate crazy people
over there. One step someday will be people working
to end the desperation.

But more likely the world will all go up in smoke in our
own lifetime the way things are going.


>>>I'm supposed to have time to immediately read all your
>>>citations about the Fallujah reporting, but you don't have
>>>time to discuss the issues.
>>
>> If you want to keep going and show the world the
>> kind of foolish thinking you specialize in, be my guest.
>
>I may lose the argument in the eyes of everyone (well not everyone), but I
>have no doubt who will be viewed as more genteel.

Genteel guy who easily justifies destruction somewhere
else, on false premises, so he doesn't have to feel in
danger here, forgetting that the people who attacked us
were not from Iraq but from Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan.

>I don't want to be your friend either. Based on the issues alone, I could
>have. I have lots of friends who agree with you completely about the war.
>But they don't call me names.

I have lots of close friends who are for the world
but they don't give inane robotic responses as you do.

>> Does it make you feel really big to sit in your chair
>> to type this kind of thing about people with families who
>> are fighting a group who descended on their country?
>> You talk like some kind of mobster.
>
>No, a realist. All the things you are descibing also happen in wars that
>you, an admitted non-pacifist, would support.

You will never comprehend the difference between
fighting a war based on lies and fighting a war that
was needed.

Too complex for you, I admit.


>So it's not the harm to civilians you really care about per se, it's the
>fact that it's happening as a result of a war that you consider to be
>unjust.

Incredibly horrible logic once again. Unreal.

It's the harm to civilians IN a war that most thinking people
know was started on totally false premises.


>> And you see only 'win' 'lose' in life.
>
>Sigh. Another baseless personal attack. No longer unexpected.

But that's all you write about.

>>You're fixated on battling and winning. That's the kind of attitude that
>> is keeping us in Iraq and killing for the wrong reasons.
>
>Personal attack.

No, truth.

>> We should have picked on bin Laden and kept on the
>> groups surrounding him. And contained them.
>>
>
>Red herring. I KNOW you have heard about multitasking.

Multitasking that is failing miserably.

And again, why waste lives on Iraq when we could
have used all those forces against bin Laden instead.
Hmmm?

It wasn't a red herring, but actually the Heart of
the matter.

And here's an illustration of that:
http://andrys.com/bushchgs.jpg

Words actually spoken.

- A



--
http://www.andrys.com



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: Repuglicans are disgusting, 11/10/05 edition
    ... You referred to multiple reasons earlier. ... I have been against torture as long as I can ... This happens in every war. ... > Republicans torture? ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)
  • Re: Navy
    ... reasons. ... An illegal and rather stupidly thought out war in Iraq. ... Or some secret CIA insttallation in some "friendly" country? ...
    (rec.aviation.military)
  • Re: An Objective Look At Pelosis Lies
    ... > special prosecutor and then let the chips fall where they may. ... and preemptive war and torture, for instance, are not part of those ... war" is one in which you go to war when you have not been attacked. ... this country has not had "many" pre-emptive wars? ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: OT: Repuglicans are disgusting, 11/10/05 edition
    ... > a town over there, for reasons we know didn't exist, ... thought you against the war altogether. ... > stabilize the country. ... >>I think I am more in tune with my feelings than you are. ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)
  • Re: Future DW suggestions?
    ... amongst those reasons, all without us knowing. ... Hang on, go to war over lack of knowledge, why? ... Why would fight over something you were in ignorance of. ... that country 'down a peg or two'. ...
    (rec.arts.drwho)