What would you cut?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Well we would have had to kill them too. We are not good at occupying. Never have been never will be. Go in break it and get out. Screw the UN.

Would have had to kill who too? You're not making any sense here. We invaded to topple Saddam from power, we did that... you think that's all we should have done, and then left... but that would have caused a power vacuum, which the radical Islamics would've filled, and Iraq would've become a terrorist state. I don't knw what you're talking about "not good at occupying" we occupied Japan for 8 years, they seemed to turn out alright. I really don't know another recent occupation by the US. Now if you mean oppressive occupiers, like the Soviets, no... we've never been real good at that.

For the record, I agree with "screw the UN" and I think that is where Bush made his biggest mistake. He should have attacked Iraq by surprise, without a word to ANYONE that it was in the plans. Wham-bam-thank you mam! But some democratic force had to remain after Saddam, in order for the people to get their act together and elect a functioning government. Someone with big guns had to remain to make sure the security forces were vetted and trained. We simply couldn't just throw it all to the winds and hope for the best.

????? Since YOU are the one claiming my statement was absurd, what I said in my statement is very relevant. But thats why you work so hard to run from it.

I've not "run" from anything, last I checked, I am still posting in the thread...do you see these words? How can I type them if I have ran away? Your point was that a majority of Iraqi were "against the invasion." I challenged that with common sense, and now you want to play a semantics game. While I realize people aren't happy with bombs going off in their front yard, and dead bodies all in the streets, that has nothing to do with how they feel about being liberated from Saddam. To confuse these two points, is indicative of the mental retardation often seen in Liberalism.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I appreciate the civility.

Europe isn't demanding that the US taxpayer protect it .. and the military/industrial complex spends/wastes shitloads of taxpayer dollars on places far removed from any protection of Europe.

Nobody, not even the Iraqi's, either pushed nor asked us to attack Iraq and thus throw away countless taxpayer dollars and have billions just go missing .. all of which resulted in empowering Iran which gives us "reason" to spend trillions of dollars more chasing ghosts.

How much has Afghanistan cost? What did we get for it?

With all due respect, you're trying to blame Europe for a completely American problem.

I agree.
Let's close all of our overseas bases and bring those troops home.

But they need to bring every brick, every water pipe, every electrical wire, every section of fence, etc.
Leave nothing but dirt where the base was.

OH; and bring home every one of the US dollars that those servicemen spend there.

It will only cause our response time to our allies to increase; well, that and a further increase in the lack of funding so needed by those countries.
It's time Europe stood on their own cultured feet.

 

[dixon76710]

I've not "run" from anything, last I checked, I am still posting in the thread....

Youve run from what I actually said, to your own strawman. Yes, you are still here working diligently to slay the strawmen of your own creation.

 

[dixon76710]

To confuse these two points, is indicative of the mental retardation often seen in Liberalism.

My reliance on the national polls conducted in Iraq to determine the sentiments of the Iraqi people, and your rejection of those polls, choosing instead to rely upon the views of 4 Iraqi families who dont even live in Iraq, has nothing to do with liberalism. It is my attachment to reality and your detachment from it.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Youve run from what I actually said, to your own strawman. Yes, you are still here working diligently to slay the strawmen of your own creation.

My reliance on the national polls conducted in Iraq to determine the sentiments of the Iraqi people, and your rejection of those polls, choosing instead to rely upon the views of 4 Iraqi families who dont even live in Iraq, has nothing to do with liberalism. It is my attachment to reality and your detachment from it.

Your point is to try and claim Iraqi sentiment was in opposition of our invasion, and subsequent toppling of Saddam. That is false. You cite polls which are dubious at best, and very carefully worded to ascertain the response desired. Even someone well-versed in English has trouble determining if you mean the sentiments regarding the damage and devastation to infrastructure and loss of life, or the actual liberation from Saddam and realization of democracy for the first time in their history. IF what you are trying to say is, Iraqis are upset that dishes were broken, then I agree, probably a majority of Iraqis are sad for the damage. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the action to remove Saddam Hussein from power and establish Democracy in his place.

You don't know anything about the "4 Iraqi families" I cited, or where they live. You don't even know that this constitutes about 40-50 people among all the families, and probably 40% of them still live in Iraq. I'm still not claiming this is some "representative sample" but I bet it just as good as any "poll" conducted. And if such a poll concluded the people weren't happy that we toppled Saddam, I should see SOME indication of that from my 'sampling' and I don't see ANY. But now that doesn't matter, because that was never what you said... you aren't arguing that they are HAPPY to see Saddam go... just that they are unhappy we invaded.

If you knew Iraqis and spoke with them about this, you would understand. They are sad that buildings had to be blown up, people killed, infrastructure destroyed, and they are sad the radical elements of Islam have found their way into Iraq and are causing mayhem and death to innocent people. This can't be misinterpreted into being upset that the US took the action it took to remove Saddam from power. That's where you are making a fundamental mistake in your understanding. You have seen some ambiguous poll number, and you presume to understand something that wasn't stated.

 

[dixon76710]

Your point is to try and claim Iraqi sentiment was in opposition of our invasion, and subsequent toppling of Saddam. That is false.

You kicked the shit out of that strawman. You da man!

You cite polls which are dubious at best, and very carefully worded to ascertain the response desired. Even someone well-versed in English has trouble determining if you mean the sentiments regarding the damage and devastation to infrastructure and loss of life, or the actual liberation from Saddam and realization of democracy for the first time in their history.

Like I SAID, the question was whether they thought the INVASION of Iraq by the US was a good thing. I said NOTHING about the"liberation from Saddam", "realization of democracy", "damage and devastation to infastructure and loss of life". These are the strawmen you dash to for refuge because you cant or are unwilling to address what I actually said.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You kicked the shit out of that strawman. You da man!



Like I SAID, the question was whether they thought the INVASION of Iraq by the US was a good thing. I said NOTHING about the"liberation from Saddam", "realization of democracy", "damage and devastation to infastructure and loss of life". These are the strawmen you dash to for refuge because you cant or are unwilling to address what I actually said.

Again... Define "a good thing?" I would guess if you asked a farmer who's livestock was killed by a bomb, he probably wouldn't think that was a good thing. You are intentionally manipulating the sentiment to convey something that isn't a reality. These people are by-and-large ECSTATIC that we got rid of Saddam! To misinterpret the sentiments of disdain for the damage done (mainly by insurgent elements and not the US), is intellectually dishonest.

I guarantee, if you asked the same people who said they didn't think the invasion was a good thing, if they would have preferred Saddam be left in power, it would be about 98% who would laugh you out of the room for the absurdity of the question. But this question wasn't asked with the alternative, and the people who responded had no idea you would misconstrue them. The Iraqi people aren't aware of how lying manipulative liberals operate.

 

[dixon76710]

Again... Define "a good thing?"

The people taking the poll are the ones to define a "good thing", based upon their own personal preferences that vary from one individual to the next.

I would guess if you asked a farmer who's livestock was killed by a bomb, he probably wouldn't think that was a good thing. You are intentionally manipulating the sentiment to convey something that isn't a reality.

LOLOLOL!!!!!! NOOOO that would be you

These people are by-and-large ECSTATIC that we got rid of Saddam! To misinterpret the sentiments of disdain for the damage done (mainly by insurgent elements and not the US), is intellectually dishonest.

I made no assertions as to their views on getting rid of saddam. Thats another of your many strawmen. So many youve lost the ability to distinguish between my statements and the product of your fertile imagination.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The people taking the poll are the ones to define a "good thing", based upon their own personal preferences that vary from one individual to the next.

RIGHT... Which is going to, by nature, be completely different than the perspective of the typical anit-war, agenda-driven lefty.

LOLOLOL!!!!!! NOOOO that would be you

I made no assertions as to their views on getting rid of saddam. Thats another of your many strawmen. So many youve lost the ability to distinguish between my statements and the product of your fertile imagination.

That is the IMPLIED assertion when you state that "most Iraqis didn't favor the invasion." You and the anti-war, Anti-Iraq pinheads want to misconstrue what the Iraqi people are saying, based on your manipulation of context and outright intellectual dishonesty. These people are overwhelmingly grateful we liberated them, and to try and spin that as being 'undecided' by 'most Iraqi's' is just an outright lie, and distortion of the truth to suit your agenda.

The fact that you NOW want to try and pretend you weren't implying these things, is also intellectually dishonest. That was your entire intent and purpose.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Well we would have had to kill them too. We are not good at occupying. Never have been never will be. Go in break it and get out. Screw the UN.

Killing Arabs isn't a legitimate use of military force.

 

[dixon76710]

RIGHT... Which is going to, by nature, be completely different than the perspective of the typical anit-war, agenda-driven lefty.

Cant possibly imagine what relevance you see in the perspective of the typical anit-war, agenda-driven lefty to our discussion of Iraqis.

That is the IMPLIED assertion when you state that "most Iraqis didn't favor the invasion."

Aaaaand since I never said that, there is no such implied assertion

You and the anti-war, Anti-Iraq pinheads want to misconstrue what the Iraqi people are saying, based on your manipulation of context and outright intellectual dishonesty.

???? You are so full of shit, you couldnt possibly be capeable of making such assesments.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Early in the campaign, a majority of Iraqis saw the US invasion as a good thing. Sunni uprising brought it down to a majority not viewing the invasion as a good thing. I believe its about half and half now. Few more years of progress and I suspect it will be back up to a majority of Iraqis viewing the invasion was a good thing for Iraq.[misconstrued]

Yep. Still pondering. 2004, polls showed majority thought the invasion was a good thing. By the time the sunni uprising was in full swing, over 70% thought the invasion was a bad thing. Its now closer to being evenly split. A few more years of progress, I suspect upon further pondering, the majority will come to view the invasion as a good thing.
Of course the people were opposed to their brutal and ruthless tyrant dictator. Theyve paid a very high price in death and destruction to get rid of him. Much of it brought upon themselves but a very high price.

Yep, they are Iraqis as well.

Nope, they are not "Iraqis".

They were all polls conducted by western organizations. Where are you geting your info? A gut feeling?

Here are your posts, and what you said exactly, and I have noted the point at which you've misinterpreted the data. You then, reaffirm your misinterpretation, and then proceed to challenge me and my source of information. So what you are, is a dishonest little fucktard, who apparently thinks posts go away once they roll over to the next page, and no one is capable of seeing what you originally posted.

"The invasion was a bad thing" is not the same as "the invasion was a bad thing for Iraq." The two statements can mean entirely different things. Perhaps this is why the numbers are jumping around from, a majority to not a majority, and back to a majority? Perhaps it's how the interpreter translates the question which creates a misunderstanding on the part of the person being polled? Maybe they think it's "a bad thing" that Saddam failed to cooperate with the UN and cause the invasion to happen? The poll didn't ask them to explain their answer. You are the one assigning an explanation to their answer.

 

[dixon76710]

Here are your posts, and what you said exactly,

As opposed to the other quotes you simply made up and attributed to me.

and I have noted the point at which you've misinterpreted the data.

No, the polls simply contradict your gut feeling based on the views of four Iraqis who dont live in Iraq.

You then, reaffirm your misinterpretation, and then proceed to challenge me and my source of information. So what you are, is a dishonest little fucktard, who apparently thinks posts go away once they roll over to the next page, and no one is capable of seeing what you originally posted.

LOLOLOL. YOU are the one who made up the quote and attributed it to me. You the fool who thought you could get away with just making up quotes and attributing them to me.