Top-Ten Reasons to Get Out of Iraq. Now!

[Gunny]

There arent any semantics here by a long shot. You just want people you dont agree with to be silenced by the law.

Then you just moved onto a partisan "liberals are bad" routine....sorry, thats just plain weak and certainly isnt dealing with the merits of the issue.

You would be incorrect in your assumptions on both statements, as seems to be the case with you.

I said NOTHING about silencing only those who don't agree with me, and the accusation is bullshit.

There's nothing weak about any of my arguments. You're just doing what you accuse me of doing .... trying to call me partisan to dismiss and deflect from an issue you don't wish to address.

I believe I made a specific allegation, not some "liberals are bad" statement. Myabe you ought to try doing a little homework on my stances rather than blindly running off at the mouth. There're 3 years worth of posts on this board. Feel free to browse.

 

[Ruby]

You would be incorrect in your assumptions on both statements, as seems to be the case with you.

I said NOTHING about silencing only those who don't agree with me, and the accusation is bullshit.

There's nothing weak about any of my arguments. You're just doing what you accuse me of doing .... trying to call me partisan to dismiss and deflect from an issue you don't wish to address.

I believe I made a specific allegation, not some "liberals are bad" statement. Myabe you ought to try doing a little homework on my stances rather than blindly running off at the mouth. There're 3 years worth of posts on this board. Feel free to browse.

I am not gonna sit and study your posts or view you as homework...amazing amount of ego there. If its too much trouble to discuss for you, then simply dont. Your few sentences arent complicated nor hard to understand.

You want to silence the voices that are anti-war and are not in agreement with the administration..its not all that complicated. You want the US to have a harmonious public voice so no one hears us disagree, that is most definitely silencing ONE SIDE of the political debate and I doubt you are trying to silence the side you AGREE with.

You sure did make a very partisan "liberals are bad" statement. Here it is again

The short version is, y'all do not hold yourselves accountable for the consequences of your actions as manifested by most of your political ideology

Just a jab at liberals and support of the idea that dissent over the war should be silenced (using a rationale that it "helps" our enemies). Honestly, we are own worst enemy.

 

[Gunny]

I am not gonna sit and study your posts or view you as homework...amazing amount of ego there. If its too much trouble to discuss for you, then simply dont. Your few sentences arent complicated nor hard to understand.

You want to silence the voices that are anti-war and are not in agreement with the administration..its not all that complicated. You want the US to have a harmonious public voice so no one hears us disagree, that is most definitely silencing ONE SIDE of the political debate and I doubt you are trying to silence the side you AGREE with.

You sure did make a very partisan "liberals are bad" statement. Here it is again



Just a jab at liberals and support of the idea that dissent over the war should be silenced (using a rationale that it "helps" our enemies). Honestly, we are own worst enemy.

Not ego, ma'am ... simply tired of repeating my every stance for every new liberal that wants to roll in with the tide.

The statement is far from a "liberals are bad" partisan jab. It's supported by the liberal stance on quite a few issues. That would make it fact, not a jab.

You're only half-right about who I would silence and why. It damned-sure isn't to support this administration. That's your failure to do your homework talking.

If ti makes you feel any better, I didn't agree with conservatives doing it when Bill Clinton involved us in another nation's civil war anymore than I agree with liberals doing it now when Bush has done the same exact thing.

But I DO wonder where all you naysayers and anti- folks were THEN, as opposed to now.

 

[dilloduck]

We made Saddam the central key to fighting terror in this "after 9/11 world".

We sure did--it's about time you accept some responsibility instead of this "we were lied to" mantra.

 

[jodylee]

I'll give you one good reason to stay. You havn't finished the job yet. and as the whole world said 'don't attack iraq' its on americas head to finish it.

 

[Ruby]

Not ego, ma'am ... simply tired of repeating my every stance for every new liberal that wants to roll in with the tide.

The statement is far from a "liberals are bad" partisan jab. It's supported by the liberal stance on quite a few issues. That would make it fact, not a jab.

You're only half-right about who I would silence and why. It damned-sure isn't to support this administration. That's your failure to do your homework talking.

If ti makes you feel any better, I didn't agree with conservatives doing it when Bill Clinton involved us in another nation's civil war anymore than I agree with liberals doing it now when Bush has done the same exact thing.

But I DO wonder where all you naysayers and anti- folks were THEN, as opposed to now.

I repeat, if you find it too tiring to discuss it, then dont but dont expect me to sit up and study your posts and make a project out of you.

At least now you are admitting you want to silence people you disagree with.

I have never concerned myself wiht just ONE particular admin and it was YOUR assumption that its my focus. We have decades of predatory foreign policy and that spans many administrations and covers both of our puppet parties.

There isnt much Clinton did that I agree with and I wasnt supportive or silent about his actions either or his bombings or his assistance to get NAFTA done. His welfare to work program was nothing more than handing large corps cheap labor and giving them corporate welfare (shifting part of those low wages onto tax payers) etc.

So I will tell you that I wasnt silent nor supportive of Clinton, I wont tell you to go study previous posts of mine or try to get you to study me as if I were homework!

Bottomline, you just like to support us going around and bullying other nations and want the public to be silent about any disagreement they have with it or any steps they take to STOP IT. Ok have it your way, but eventually we will self combust and crumble from it all...

 

[Ruby]

We sure did--it's about time you accept some responsibility instead of this "we were lied to" mantra.

I do accept responsibility for what we as a nation have become and what we do. Its you who keep trying to defend the indefensible, I dont.

I want to be clear, MANY realized the WMD was a lie when the Bush admin was so busy telling it...we saw inspectors there and they werent coming up with a smoking gun...we knew what was up when the US told the inspectors to leave...we new about PNAC. I dont think the american people get a pass because they were "lied" to, it is our responsiblity to control our own govt and not allow it to wage wars of aggression. We, as an american public have failed miserably and we are 100% responsible for waging a war of aggression and violating some of the principles we hold in very high esteem.

 

[Ruby]

I'll give you one good reason to stay. You havn't finished the job yet. and as the whole world said 'don't attack iraq' its on americas head to finish it.

I would say its on americans to PAY for it but for Iraqis to finish because Iraqis shouldnt be denied their rights to self determination or sovereignty because of the crimes of the US. That would be punishing the victims.

 

[maineman]

We sure did--it's about time you accept some responsibility instead of this "we were lied to" mantra.

and as someone who has spoken out since the very moment Bush&Co. started talking about "Saddam" and "9/11" and "Al Qaeda" and "weapons of mass destruction" and "gassed his own people" "blah blah blah" INSTEAD of focusing on Osama bin Laden and the guys who really DID attack us, I will not be counted among those in the "we" who made Saddam so artificially urgent. And...I take no pleasure in saying "I told you so", but I will definitely say it nonetheless.

 

[Gunny]

I repeat, if you find it too tiring to discuss it, then dont but dont expect me to sit up and study your posts and make a project out of you.

At least now you are admitting you want to silence people you disagree with.

I have never concerned myself wiht just ONE particular admin and it was YOUR assumption that its my focus. We have decades of predatory foreign policy and that spans many administrations and covers both of our puppet parties.

There isnt much Clinton did that I agree with and I wasnt supportive or silent about his actions either or his bombings or his assistance to get NAFTA done. His welfare to work program was nothing more than handing large corps cheap labor and giving them corporate welfare (shifting part of those low wages onto tax payers) etc.

So I will tell you that I wasnt silent nor supportive of Clinton, I wont tell you to go study previous posts of mine or try to get you to study me as if I were homework!

Bottomline, you just like to support us going around and bullying other nations and want the public to be silent about any disagreement they have with it or any steps they take to STOP IT. Ok have it your way, but eventually we will self combust and crumble from it all...

Not even a nice try. Nothing in my post indicates I want to silence sloely people who disagree with me. Quite the opposite, as a matter of fact.

Your "bottomline" is as incorrect as the rest of your assumptions.

 

[maineman]

Not even a nice try. Nothing in my post indicates I want to silence sloely people who disagree with me. Quite the opposite, as a matter of fact.

Your "bottomline" is as incorrect as the rest of your assumptions.

you DID say, however:

When what you call public debate is detrimental to the overall good of the Nation, then it's time to put one's nation above one's personal politics. So far, I have seen no good and much harm come from this so-called "public debate."

 

[Gunny]

you DID say, however:

When what you call public debate is detrimental to the overall good of the Nation, then it's time to put one's nation above one's personal politics. So far, I have seen no good and much harm come from this so-called "public debate."

That does not say one word about me silencing anyone. It doesn't say anything about legislating anything, nor using force. It's an opinion.

I believe if you look at the statement closely, it puts the onus on the individual to think about the consquences of what they are saying before saying it.

So the accusation that I want to silence only those who disagree with me is just partisan bullshit by someone who thinks she already has all the answers to what I think.

 

[Ruby]

That does not say one word about me silencing anyone. It doesn't say anything about legislating anything, nor using force. It's an opinion.

I believe if you look at the statement closely, it puts the onus on the individual to think about the consquences of what they are saying before saying it.

So the accusation that I want to silence only those who disagree with me is just partisan bullshit by someone who thinks she already has all the answers to what I think.

Firstly, I dont have all the answers and have never claimed to so thats just an incorrect statement on your part.

When you said this to maineman....

I doubt we disagree much on the right of freedom of speech itself. Where we disagree is in the regulation of freedom of speech.

...it lead me to believe that you would like to see different regulations put into place since its the REGULATIONS you dont currently agree with. You also made it clear that the PUBLIC criticism HARMS the nation and thats the speech you want to be more regulated. You felt we could write our reps and vote but that the the disagreement shouldnt be in major publications (like newspapers).

To me, it is your opinion and you are supportive of any measures that would tighten regulations on free speech to silence those things you feel shouldnt be said publically OR are you saying that while you hold the opinion we should have tougher regulations on free speech you wouldnt actually support those tougher regulations becoming a legal reality?

 

[jodylee]

I would say its on americans to PAY for it but for Iraqis to finish because Iraqis shouldnt be denied their rights to self determination or sovereignty because of the crimes of the US. That would be punishing the victims.

Its all very well letting the iraqi's do it for themselves but this needs to be done when they are ready. leaving before this point is cut and run, and will plunge the country into even deeper civil war. The fact that you guys voted bush back in after the invasion, shows the world you wanted the war and thought it was right, you need to pay the price for this misjugement and finnish the job.

 

[ReillyT]

Its all very well letting the iraqi's do it for themselves but this needs to be done when they are ready. leaving before this point is cut and run, and will plunge the country into even deeper civil war. The fact that you guys voted bush back in after the invasion, shows the world you wanted the war and thought it was right, you need to pay the price for this misjugement and finnish the job.

Fair assessment. We did vote him back into office (although only about 25-30% of the population actually voted for him). However, it is not clear that our continued presence will improve the situation in the long-run. I think this is where a very large area of disagreement exists.

Nonetheless, I can appreciate the "You broke it, you have to fix it" line of thought.

Just curious, where are you from?

 

[maineman]

I am curious as to why anyone would believe that the eventually well trained Iraqi Army will not rapidly devolve into (well trained) sectarian militias the minute America leaves, whether that is in six months or six years or six decades?

 

[ReillyT]

I am curious as to why anyone would believe that the eventually well trained Iraqi Army will not rapidly devolve into (well trained) sectarian militias the minute America leaves, whether that is in six months or six years or six decades?

Well, it certainly could be possible that given a sufficient amount of time with decent security, a reasonable power sharing arrangement and effective reconstruction that the country could hold together. It may not be likely, but it is possible. Nigeria is really just a collection of competing ethnic and religious groups, and it still exists as a country.

 

[Gunny]

Firstly, I dont have all the answers and have never claimed to so thats just an incorrect statement on your part.

When you said this to maineman....



...it lead me to believe that you would like to see different regulations put into place since its the REGULATIONS you dont currently agree with. You also made it clear that the PUBLIC criticism HARMS the nation and thats the speech you want to be more regulated. You felt we could write our reps and vote but that the the disagreement shouldnt be in major publications (like newspapers).

To me, it is your opinion and you are supportive of any measures that would tighten regulations on free speech to silence those things you feel shouldnt be said publically OR are you saying that while you hold the opinion we should have tougher regulations on free speech you wouldnt actually support those tougher regulations becoming a legal reality?

I think I clarified myself as to "what I think." "Regulation" can be "SELF-regulation" just as well as from an outside source.

And yes, public criticism DOES harm the nation's efforts. Obviously, some people are too caught up in "self" to see that.

 

[maineman]

And yes, public criticism DOES harm the nation's efforts.

you may be correct, but I would argue that a lack of public criticism hurts the very fabric of our democracy much much more. I am standing on a soapbox in the public square. If you don't want to listen, go away. If you think my message is wrong, stand on a soapbox nearby and speak more convincingly than I do. But don't EVER suggest that the act of public discourse about how and what our country does is somehow wrong.

 

[Gunny]

you may be correct, but I would argue that a lack of public criticism hurts the very fabric of our democracy much much more. I am standing on a soapbox in the public square. If you don't want to listen, go away. If you think my message is wrong, stand on a soapbox nearby and speak more convincingly than I do. But don't EVER suggest that the act of public discourse about how and what our country does is somehow wrong.

I am not only suggesting it, I'm saying. If it is divissive during a time of war or emergency, it is wrong.