Those of you that believe in this war...

[JohnnyLingo]

Who have you helped, Mike?

[bluegoose]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I'm curious...do you wish you were there fighting?

Would you send your children? Would you encourage your children to go?

The usual response would be, "I would not encourage it, but if he/she wanted to do go, I would support them."

Well, that's just neutrality. That's not taking a stand.

I know people will have different answers. Some would feel this is a worthy cause to send their children to their death.

Me, personally, I would discourage my son from going.

I think that something is wrong in America when for people with means, this is merely a hypothetical that is far removed from reality. The idea of your child dying as a member of the military.

It's a lot easier to send others to their deaths, rather than your own blood.

All of those new recruits that I've spoken with enthusiastically enlisted in the armed forces for the chance to "kill some Iraqies or AQ members". I'm sure many have experienced some regrets once they were exposed to the horrors of war, but none that I've spoken with were evenly remotely close to being compelled to go down to the recruiters office. This is probably not a nationwide phenomenom, but it is the case in my little corner of the world.

Regarding the parents of those soldiers that I know, all of them are extremely proud of their child for their willingness to serve. All of them wish they weren't in harms way, but considering it was their decision in the first place....

btw, my parents are included with this group. My brother was in the Marine artillery from 1999-2004 and was stationed in some potentially volatile places. We were concerned for him each and every day over those 5-6 years and were so relieved when he was released from the military and allowed to return home.

With that being said, there is no way I would want my child in the military right now. If he chose to go despite my urgings to not enlist, then I would have to somehow reconcile myself with the fact that he will be in harms way and hopefully I will morally and philosophically feel in line with whatever conflict is going on.

So now what was the point of this thread? What parent would want their child in harm's way?

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

the original premise of this thread was that people who believe the fighting in the streets of Iraq would be taking place in America if we weren't in Iraq is ridiculous.

Now maybe some people actually believe this. They think that there would be a sectarian war between Shiites and Sunnis in the streets of America, that there would be thousands of IED's exploding all over American freeways.

I can't help these people. They are too far down the rabbit hole.

I think that was the premise of a different thread. However, I hear what you are saying. I don't think Sunnis and Shiites would be fighting in American streets either. If you can point to somebody saying that, as opposed to that being a strawman characterization of what was said, I will readily admit that it is absurd.

I think that the argument generally is that we are taking on militant islam in the middle east (in its many permutations) and as a result they are attacking us there because it is easier to do than coming here. Now I don't think you can really argue that there would be anywhere near the level of violence here in teh US because most of the attackers there would never have the wherewithall to get themselves over here. To do that you need money and a complex network ala Al Queda.

The next step in the analysis is to say that since we have done a lot of harm to Al Queda's infrastructure and killed or forced underground many of its operatives, that it MAY be that this is the reason IN PART we have not been attacked again. Also, since we, in some sense, are an easy target in Iraq, many of those who would like to attack us here attack us there because it is much easier to do. If we were not there, would some of them find us in places like New York City, the USS Cole or the Kobar towers? Clearly yes they would.

This where I think there is disconnect and where people begin to talk past one another. In the pre-911 world, it was much easier to look at the MANY terrorist attacks in isolation and conclude that the cost/benefit simply did not favor the large casualties involved in a large scale operation to combat such a threat. You lose a lot of people when you do that. But once it was demostrated that killing could be done on a very large scale the cost benefit changed. You can let a threat form and wait for your figurative leg to be blown off before you act.

Then we get into yet a further disconnect because even if you believe the above, you may legitimately wonder what Iraq has to do with that since we didn't find WMD. At this point, to me, previous rationales and arguments almost don't matter. We (and everyone else BTW) were wrong about WMD, but now we are sitting on a country whose country we toppled. Forget how it happened, it doesn't matter anymore. Now the only question is, what do we do now?

What is the cost benefit of pulling out as opposed to staying and hoping that we can get a stable government in place. Well we know if we withdraw Iraq will be come Iran or Afghanistan or some hybrid. That is a recipe for disaster for us, we know that. If we stay, there is no guarantee of success and we will assuredly continue to poor blood down the drain. This is not a black and white issue. Just as we did pre-war, we sit here with shitty options, imperfect information and no crystal ball. Sitting around shouting "Bush lied!" and "Traitor!" back and forth doesn't solve it.

I guess I see the choice as between some hope of salvaging the situation, and no nope of salvaging it. It may well be that there is no hope down any road and I just don't see it yet. I personally think we have to continue to try for now. You may well ask how long before we know our efforts are in vain. I don't know, but I think we need to continue to give it a shot.

I hope (seriously) in the next presidential election everyone can just agree that Bush screwed up (doesn't matter whether he did) so that we can move off of recriminations and on to solutions. I would love to here some solutions.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I think that was the premise of a different thread. However, I hear what you are saying. I don't think Sunnis and Shiites would be fighting in American streets either. If you can point to somebody saying that, as opposed to that being a strawman characterization of what was said, I will readily admit that it is absurd.

I think that the argument generally is that we are taking on militant islam in the middle east (in its many permutations) and as a result they are attacking us there because it is easier to do than coming here. Now I don't think you can really argue that there would be anywhere near the level of violence here in teh US because most of the attackers there would never have the wherewithall to get themselves over here. To do that you need money and a complex network ala Al Queda.

The next step in the analysis is to say that since we have done a lot of harm to Al Queda's infrastructure and killed or forced underground many of its operatives, that it MAY be that this is the reason IN PART we have not been attacked again. Also, since we, in some sense, are an easy target in Iraq, many of those who would like to attack us here attack us there because it is much easier to do. If we were not there, would some of them find us in places like New York City, the USS Cole or the Kobar towers? Clearly yes they would.

This where I think there is disconnect and where people begin to talk past one another. In the pre-911 world, it was much easier to look at the MANY terrorist attacks in isolation and conclude that the cost/benefit simply did not favor the large casualties involved in a large scale operation to combat such a threat. You lose a lot of people when you do that. But once it was demostrated that killing could be done on a very large scale the cost benefit changed. You can let a threat form and wait for your figurative leg to be blown off before you act.

Then we get into yet a further disconnect because even if you believe the above, you may legitimately wonder what Iraq has to do with that since we didn't find WMD. At this point, to me, previous rationales and arguments almost don't matter. We (and everyone else BTW) were wrong about WMD, but now we are sitting on a country whose country we toppled. Forget how it happened, it doesn't matter anymore. Now the only question is, what do we do now?

What is the cost benefit of pulling out as opposed to staying and hoping that we can get a stable government in place. Well we know if we withdraw Iraq will be come Iran or Afghanistan or some hybrid. That is a recipe for disaster for us, we know that. If we stay, there is no guarantee of success and we will assuredly continue to poor blood down the drain. This is not a black and white issue. Just as we did pre-war, we sit here with shitty options, imperfect information and no crystal ball. Sitting around shouting "Bush lied!" and "Traitor!" back and forth doesn't solve it.

I guess I see the choice as between some hope of salvaging the situation, and no nope of salvaging it. It may well be that there is no hope down any road and I just don't see it yet. I personally think we have to continue to try for now. You may well ask how long before we know our efforts are in vain. I don't know, but I think we need to continue to give it a shot.

I hope (seriously) in the next presidential election everyone can just agree that Bush screwed up (doesn't matter whether he did) so that we can move off of recriminations and on to solutions. I would love to here some solutions.

I agree we can't dwell too much on the past. We need to be constructive in dealing with the future. The only caveat, I think, is that we do need to hold politicians responsible for this fiasco. While I wouldn't have voted Republican before, I most certainly could not do so now.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

I agree we can't dwell too much on the past. We need to be constructive in dealing with the future. The only caveat, I think, is that we do need to hold politicians responsible for this fiasco. While I wouldn't have voted Republican before, I most certainly could not do so now.

Always a Democratic shill til the day you die.

"Hold them responsible".

Why?

Let's listen to solutions without worrying about past, unless you believe that the past is always a predictor of the future.

UtahDan hit the key question on the head. Can we find a solution? I've not heard anybody discuss real solutions, especially not Democrats and probably not Republicans.

We have no statemen, none. They are all just blamers, "who want to hold somebody responsible."

No solutions here, move along.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Always a Democratic shill til the day you die.

"Hold them responsible".

Why?

Let's listen to solutions without worrying about past, unless you believe that the past is always a predictor of the future.

UtahDan hit the key question on the head. Can we find a solution? I've not heard anybody discuss real solutions, especially not Democrats and probably not Republicans.

We have no statemen, none. They are all just blamers, "who want to hold somebody responsible."

No solutions here, move along.

Why hold them responsible? I would have thought the answer to that to be fairly self explanatory. Aren't you disenchanted with the government for, among other reasons, a lack of accountability? If people make mistakes as vast as those being made in Iraq, would your solution be to simply re-elect them and move on as if nothing happened?

When you say you have not heard anyone discuss solutions ("especially democrats and probably not republicans") I wonder why your "solution" would be to continue voting in the very people who have already definitively messed things up. While it is a POSSIBILITY Democrats would also screw things up, Republicans have already PROVEN they will screw things up. Given the absence of arguments about how either party would make things better (your words, not mine), I would think the starting point would be to say we won't continue doing what we are doing since it most certainly isn't working.

[Archaea]

The alternative always could be worse.

The bottom line that most people ignore is the daily affect politicians have upon our lives.

Taxes is the number one influence.

To the extent government negatively impacts the economy,(truly a hard matter to measure because of the complexity of an economy such ours), it has an impact upon us. There is no hope for better, only worse.

To the extent other invasions into our daily lives they impact us.

The Democrats constanly seek raises in taxes. That is the number reason to vote against Democrats because you know they will always increase to pay for their masturbating programs, figuratively, in order to buy more votes.

We know Reps have pork as well, any party does. But the Dems are more malicious these days than the Reps. So even though the Reps have screwed up many things, inviting the Dems is inviting the government to get bigger and for even bigger screw ups. It's the axiom if you think it can't be worse, it can.

Better the devils we know than those we don't. Never ever trust a pretty word from a politician. It will cost you and worsen your life.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The alternative always could be worse.

The bottom line that most people ignore is the daily affect politicians have upon our lives.

Taxes is the number one influence.

To the extent government negatively impacts the economy,(truly a hard matter to measure because of the complexity of an economy such ours), it has an impact upon us. There is no hope for better, only worse.

To the extent other invasions into our daily lives they impact us.

The Democrats constanly seek raises in taxes. That is the number reason to vote against Democrats because you know they will always increase to pay for their masturbating programs, figuratively, in order to buy more votes.

We know Reps have pork as well, any party does. But the Dems are more malicious these days than the Reps. So even though the Reps have screwed up many things, inviting the Dems is inviting the government to get bigger and for even bigger screw ups. It's the axiom if you think it can't be worse, it can.

Better the devils we know than those we don't. Never ever trust a pretty word from a politician. It will cost you and worsen your life.

I am curious if you are aware that the biggest spikes in the national debt have always come during Republican administrations. I am also curious if you realize that as the debt climbs, a method to pay down the interest on that debt must be found. That method frequently must take the form of a tax hike.

Unless you are in the top income tax brackets, you have nothing to fear from Democrats' tax raises.

Your post epitomizes our differences. You always think things can be (and inevitably will be) worse. I tend to believe they can be better.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The alternative always could be worse.

The bottom line that most people ignore is the daily affect politicians have upon our lives.

Taxes is the number one influence.

To the extent government negatively impacts the economy,(truly a hard matter to measure because of the complexity of an economy such ours), it has an impact upon us. There is no hope for better, only worse.

To the extent other invasions into our daily lives they impact us.

The Democrats constanly seek raises in taxes. That is the number reason to vote against Democrats because you know they will always increase to pay for their masturbating programs, figuratively, in order to buy more votes.

We know Reps have pork as well, any party does. But the Dems are more malicious these days than the Reps. So even though the Reps have screwed up many things, inviting the Dems is inviting the government to get bigger and for even bigger screw ups. It's the axiom if you think it can't be worse, it can.

Better the devils we know than those we don't. Never ever trust a pretty word from a politician. It will cost you and worsen your life.

Wow Archaea... lighten up. Don't vote Republican. Hold your leaders responsible. Things might get worse with the democrats, but if you show that you are willing to hold your party's leaders responsible, then maybe the party will invest in REAL leaders. That is the painfully long and drawn out way the process works. None of us are happy with the speed of change, but the ship of state doesn't turn on a dime. The ONLY way that either of the parties will ever bring about real positive change is for all of us to hold our leaders responsible for their poor choices and poor leadership.

The tighty-white house has some serious stains. It is time to change the drawers.

[Archaea]

I couldn't vote Democrat, not unless we had a Jeffersonian Democrat, as the reason the Reps are screwing up is they are acting like wanna be Dems and the Dems will only be worse.

It's the choice between two evils with only a slightly lesser evil being the Reps. The Dems are obviously much, much worse.

If Stresenberg (sp?) of pre Nazi Germany were bad, does that mean I should choose the Nazi party just for change?