• silverwhisper said on May 07, 2007....

  OK, even though i think bush is an incompetent moron, that's a pretty strong way to put it, kelly.
  
  ed

• bloc said on May 07, 2007....

  "in a free society people are free to stone girls for seeing the wrong boys"
  paraphrasing rumsfeld
  

• Daniel68 said on May 07, 2007....

  Iraq is the middle ages. Hitchens has it right, it is a brutish society with little to recommend it to the modern world. The world must band together and help sit on top of it, but Bush and his cohorts (what's left of them), want to go pick a fight with Iran now. Most of the competent generals have resigned, only the narcissistic and warmongering ones are left.
  
  As for paraphrasing Rummy - " you go to war with the army you have, not the army you want." and then spend nothing to help send armor to the troops against IEDs. He should be tried for war crimes and treason.
  
  
  

• flytimes said on May 07, 2007....

  Personally i think its obviously the oil which is the major factor but secondly i cant help thinking there using this war to perfect and improve and test new millitary products...

• ALIENated said on May 07, 2007....

  The evil president Bush was sitting around the White House one day and some 
  Muslim freedom fighters hijacked a few of our commercial jets and flew them into
  a couple of big buildings in a place called New York City. Upon hearing the news, 
  the evil president just sat there, wondering how he too could kill that many people
  himself, which evil Christians love to do, you know. So he got the poor, naive
  congress to allow him to amass an army and off they went to kill and torture poor
  innocent Iraqis. They killed the great leaders of Iraq including the beloved Saddam
  Hussein and his sweet and lovable sons. Many of the honorable and esteemed
  members of Mr. Hussein's staff were also butchered by the evil president and his 
  army of evildoers. All the wonderful things that Saddam had done were wiped away
  almost over night. It is the Crusades all over again. Evil Christians forcing their will
  on fine upstanding Muslims just because they choose to strap bombs to themselves
  and walk into crowded areas, or steal jets and kill thousands of innocent people 
  for no apparent reason. How dare the evil president Bush impose his Christian 
  values of no bombing in public on people of other nations. They are fighting evil
  Americans and evil Christians in Iraq. That is what they are fighting for. Thanks 
  be to Allah for the help of the American Democrats that have been newly elected 
  by the American Islamic sympathizers. Thanks to them, the evil American Christians
  will be out of Iraq soon, tail between their legs, and Iraqis will be free once again
  to blow up whatever they please, wherever they please. They will again be a free
  people. And thanks to the newly elected Democrats, America's borders are also
  free, which makes it even easier for them to come into our evil country and blow
  up whatever they want, whenever they want. It does not matter what we are
  fighting for in Iraq. Thanks to the American Democrat's hatred of the evil
  president Bush, which rivals Muslim's hatred of him, there will be no money to fight
  a war anymore and the evil American Christian army and the evil president Bush
  can go home. I wonder if the honorable and wise congress will fund the war 
  when it resumes here. Or will they at least allocate money to clean up the next
  9/11 style attack. Ah, who cares as long as the evil president Bush and his
  evil Christian army have been expelled from Iraq like a bunch of losers.
  
  

• kelly said on May 08, 2007....

  Silver, I don't think it's strong enough.  What is going on when a nation under Saddam Hussein is better for the people than a nation occupied by the United States?  
  
  
  I'm just disgusted.  By human beings in general at the moment.

  
  

  And yes, I'm going to leave ALIENated's ramblings up.  It's not for me to keep him from looking foolish.

• silverwhisper said on May 08, 2007....

  define "better".
  
  ed

• bloc said on May 08, 2007....

  they weren't getting blown up every single day in mass numbers. They had electricity, water, and some semblance of stability. This doesn't mean that saddam wasn't a brutal dictator. It means that the current situation is more brutal on the whole. 

• silverwhisper said on May 08, 2007....

  bloc, that question wasn't addressed to you. :>
  
  ed

• bloc said on May 08, 2007....

  i know, but I thought I could answer it :)
  
  In all seriousness isn't it truly sad that we're now known for torturing people in Saddam's old torture chamber?
  

• silverwhisper said on May 08, 2007....

  of course it is. it's reprehensible and shameful, when you come right down to it.
  
  ed

• ALIENated said on May 08, 2007....

  Do you have some evidence of that? In all seriousness.  From some source
  other than your gay "conservative" friend.
  

• bloc said on May 08, 2007....

  are you talking about the torture at abu ghraib? I've linked many many sources for that, and it's been well documented many times over.
  
  you really are living on a different planet if you are talking about abu ghraib.
  

• ALIENated said on May 09, 2007....

  Sorry, I have paid so little attention to that. I thought abu ghraib was in Cuba.

• kelly said on May 11, 2007....

  Sorry silver, I haven't been paying too close attention to SC this past week.  By better I am alluding to the fact that 3,000 or more Iraqis are showing up in the morgues each month.  That's right, they are experiencing a 9/11 of their own every month of the year.
  
  
  In addition, by the time we leave Iraq the government we jokingly call a democracy over there will have deteriorated into sharia (sp?) law which gives them such things as "honor killings."  At least when Saddam was in charge women where able to go to school and have careers.

  
  

  This is not to be construed as a defense of Saddam Hussein, but rather pointing out that the Iraqi people were better off in terms of raw numbers of people dying and what women in general were able to do.  That's what I mean by better.  It wasn't great, but now it's horrific.

• silverwhisper said on May 11, 2007....

  number of deaths isn't the only metric whereby one can measure things, kelly. if there's an earthquake, number of deaths will skyrocket. is that still a meaningful metric then?
  
  and we still don't know how many people were being killed during hussein's watch or how often, do we?
  
  ed

• bloc said on May 11, 2007....

  @sw
  That's a disingenuous argument you make. They have the VT tragedy every single day in Iraq.
  
  "It's up 150 percent since 1990. Adult mortality has increased as well - a lot since the invasion." source
  
  "if there's an earthquake, number of deaths will skyrocket. is that still a meaningful metric then?"
  
  YES. Show me the earthquake in Iraq!
  

• silverwhisper said on May 11, 2007....

  no, it isn't disingenuous, bloc. while i'm certainly no friend of bush or his iraq policies, let's not be silly. if all you do is take the number of deaths--from all sources, irrespective of cause--i say that's disingenuous, because it isn't an apples: apple comparison.
  
  that 150% is for child mortality, not adult mortality, and in a place that's having the infrastructure issues that are present in iraq, that is a tragically unavoidable consequence.
  
  ed

• bloc said on May 11, 2007....

  "and in a place that's having the infrastructure issues that are present in iraq, that is a tragically unavoidable consequence."
  
  This makes kelly's point.
  
  "if all you do is take the number of deaths--from all sources, irrespective of cause"
  
  It isn't irrespective of cause. We see the executions every single day in Iraq. we know what the cause is. Ignoring this is disingenuous. Are you suggesting that the increase in mortality is a result of something other than violence due to the invasion? If so please make that argument for us.
  

• cotteralladams3 said on May 12, 2007....

  The U.S. is fighting for what?  I have always wondered.  Why kill innocent people?  There are no 'weapons of mass destruction'.  I do not appreciate the idea of ruining Iraq for the sake of handing out contracts to foreign corporations that are aligned with countries in support of Bush's agenda.  Creating chaos, displacement, infighting and anarchy only creates conditions that are suitable for the proliferation of terrorism. Granted, at some point, a militant chooses to support this type of activity, in the name of whatever goal he wants to achieve (skewed notions of atonement for sins, fanaticism, hate, racism, anti-Americanism, love of violence, political protest, social conditions, etc.).  There's no doubt all these suicide bombings are occurring because of the failure of the war--and money and troops won't solve it.  It's time for America to pull out of Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia.

• kelly said on May 12, 2007....

  Let me make it clear.  The 3,000 deaths are directly from murders related to the war.  The morgues are literally overflowing.  That's one reason I think things are far worse than under Saddam.  If they had been accustomed to this sort of thing they'd have morgues capable of larger capacities.

• silverwhisper said on May 12, 2007....

  bloc: no, that isn't my argument, and frankly, i think you're engaging in a bad faith reading of my comments.
  
  kelly: OK, that point isn't contestable. so the question then is what does better actually mean? when we push for benchmarks/milestones to withdraw from iraq, these are the same kinds of questions that need answers.
  
  ed

• ALIENated said on May 12, 2007....

  Let me try one more time.
  
  http://www.soulcast.com/post/show/65222/The-War-Against-Terrorists---101#

• bloc said on May 13, 2007....

  @sw
  you may be right. I tend to read quickly when at work, and I often miss some subtle distinctions.
  

• kelly said on May 13, 2007....

  "when we push for benchmarks/milestones to withdraw from iraq, these are the same kinds of questions that need answers."
  
  
  Um, OK.  I'll take a stab at it.  How about defining "better" as getting the political assasination/torture/murder rate down to pre-war levels?  It'd be a good start.  But it was never my intention to define benchmark criteria, merely to point out that the vast majority of Iraqis were better off under Hussein, oddly enough.

• ALIENated said on May 13, 2007....

  That is like saying America was better off under British rule. It is always
  darkest before the dawn. Look at Vietnam. Lost to communism. But I
  thinking that may just make you happy instead of sad.
  

• bloc said on May 13, 2007....

  "Look at Vietnam. Lost to communism. But I thinking that may just make you happy instead of sad."
  
  I have this odd belief that we should let people in countries decide what they want for themselves. you know, they call it democracy. We shouldn't have invaded vietnam to stop democracy from happening because we didn't like the likely outcome.
  
  Your analogy with early america doesn't hold because we weren't invaded by the french in order to kick out the british. We kicked out the british for ourselves.
  

• kelly said on May 13, 2007....

  "But I thinking that may just make you happy instead of sad."
  
  
  It makes me happy in the same way that torture and constitutional subversion makes you happy.

• silverwhisper said on May 14, 2007....

  kelly: yes, but for your assertion to be valid, you have to define the scope of how you evaluate "better", don't you think?
  
  ed

• bloc said on May 14, 2007....

  @sw
  less violence, more stability.
  

• silverwhisper said on May 14, 2007....

  bloc: that's a good sound bite but what does it really mean? does it mean restoring the electrical gride, ensuring that services such as sanitation are working properly, law enforcement is preventing crime (by how much?)...you see how this can go?
  
  ed

• bloc said on May 14, 2007....

  some things can be left to the smell test. It's clear as day. 

• silverwhisper said on May 14, 2007....

  if you leave it to the smell test, you leave room for subjective interpretation. i would have thought that's something to be avoided, no?
  
  ed

• bloc said on May 14, 2007....

  that's a profound question that I can't answer concisely if at all :)
  
  I think that in this case it's fine to leave it at that because popular opinion is with me. That's why your question in this thread threw me off. I wasn't sure what you were getting at. Did you disagree? Did you want to have an academic debate?
  
  

• silverwhisper said on May 14, 2007....

  ah, bloc...if we allow popular opinion to shape our stances, have we any positions or stances that can truly be called principles, then? :D
  
  as to whether or not to have an academic debate: i leave that decision in your hands, bloc. i just felt that if we're going to pillory someone, let's at least have some solid ammo rather than shooting chaff, you know? :>
  
  ed

• bloc said on May 14, 2007....

  "ah, bloc...if we allow popular opinion to shape our stances, have we any positions or stances that can truly be called principles, then?"
  
  You misunderstood me. I didn't say that we should let popular opinion shape anything. I said that the burden of convincing people isn't on the person that they already agree with :)
  
  "let's at least have some solid ammo rather than shooting chaff"
  
  I'm not shooting chaff. I think it's clear as day that iraq is less stable and more bloody now. the sky is blue. I can give you detailed scientific analysis of why and how the sky is blue, but do I need to?
  
  
  

• silverwhisper said on May 14, 2007....

  right, and now that i'm asking for what that means, you appear to be resistant to providing a basis for that statement. if i say to you the sky is instead some form of white and point to a cloud...
  
  ed

• bloc said on May 14, 2007....

  fewer iraqi's blowing each other up. Better infrastructure (water, electricity, roads, etc). The ability to do business.
  
  However, I find this tiring. If you disagree with my point of view then say it. If you think the opposite then tell me why.
  

• silverwhisper said on May 14, 2007....

  it's not that i disagree: it's that i'm undecided, bloc. there's obviously legitimate points to be made here, but i'm not so sure it's possible to make the statement--that iraqis were better off then than now--and simply by so saying, gain universal accord.
  
  ed

• bloc said on May 14, 2007....

  every single day there is the equivalent of the VT massacre. There wasn't before.

• silverwhisper said on May 14, 2007....

  [sigh]
  
  yes, i get that people are dying over there, bloc. for pity's sake, i already said that! b/c your response implies that # of death is your sole yardstick. Y/N?
  
  ed

• bloc said on May 14, 2007....

  it's not the only yardstick, but the real threat of being killed every single day is a big deal. 

• silverwhisper said on May 14, 2007....

  so what are the other yardsticks? are there any that trump # of deaths?
  
  ed

• bloc said on May 14, 2007....

  i listed others earlier. They don't trump # of deaths. I care about being alive more than I care about having a job or electricity.
  
  Feel free to stop beating around the bush ;)
  

• bloc said on May 14, 2007....

  iraq in it's present form is the 'state of nature' that hobbes' refers to in leviathon;  "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short"
  

• silverwhisper said on May 14, 2007....

  who's beating around the bush? i'm trying to develop a sense of the priority of the other indicators.
  
  ed

• bloc said on May 14, 2007....

  sorry, it seems you're trying to get at something indirectly.
  
  I think the real fear of death is near the top of most peoples list.
  

• silverwhisper said on May 14, 2007....

  bloc, if i wanna make a point, i'd have made it by now. :>
  
  seriously: i'm just trying to get a handle on all of it.
  
  ed

• bloc said on May 14, 2007....

  there are also a lot of reports that woman are losing ground very rapidly in Iraq. Remember that it was fairly secular before. Now they are having honor killings and many other kinds of brutality towards woman. 

• bloc said on May 14, 2007....

  http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5043032

• kelly said on May 15, 2007....

  " Now they are having honor killings and many other kinds of brutality towards woman. "
  
  
  Exactly.  That was the inspiration for this post.  Silver, you can count that as a metric as well, in addition to the likelihood of being abducted, tortured and murdered.
  
  

• silverwhisper said on May 15, 2007....

  still thinking things over here, guys.
  
  ed

• bloc said on May 15, 2007....

  http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/05/higher_educatio.html

• silverwhisper said on May 15, 2007....

  holy crap, now that is something i haven't heard before!
  
  ed

• kelly said on May 15, 2007....

  I've been thinking I'm just plain missing silverwhisper's point.  Sorry if I am.  :-)

• kelly said on May 15, 2007....

  bloc, that is so depressing.  I'm sure it's just my impression but it seems as if the world is headed toward the dark ages.
  
  
  How weird.  We have evolved these fairly incredible brains, but what still rules the world is plain old primitive behavior.

• silverwhisper said on May 16, 2007....

  no, i really don't think you are, kelly.
  
  ed

• tientonpoint said on Aug 22, 2007....

  I can't believe i read all this!!!!!!!!! First of all, these honor killings that seem so inspiring to you have nothing to do with the U.S involvment in Iraq. These poor woman live in a world of hate (extremists,muslims) and their husbands beat them rape them and mentally abuse them. They don't have any freedom to themself what so ever. One day they try to flee away from that life style, and that is when members of there own families are sent to do honor killing. As far as Mr.ALIENated, you explain that you live in a country where everybody's the devil (U.S), or even "evil christians". Now, why in the world do you live in this country? You define Sassam Hussein, ""A GREAT BELOVED LEADER AND HIS SWEET LOVABLE SONS"". This great belovin murderer of yours killed 'millions', just testing his own weapons. His two mentally disturbed sons, commited murder, torture, rape, and they did those things out of PURE PLEASURE. As far as my opinion, If we do nothing about Al quaita (terrorist), they will keep trying to bring more hatred to anyone who dosen't bow to Ala.

• bloc said on Aug 22, 2007....

  i think you misunderstood alien. He was being sarcastic. 
  You say that they don't have anything to do with the US involvement in Iraq. Maybe not directly, but one fear is that we removed secular leader and that he will be replaced by a theocracy that will further encourage such things. 
  btw, iraq had nothing to do with al qaeda or 9/11.

• leretourfamal said on Aug 22, 2007....

  Not if the people,(which are the ones whom suffered), choose there leader!

• bloc said on Aug 22, 2007....

  I wouldn't be so sure about that. Wouldn't all the people that do the honor killings vote for the theocracy?

Comment on "What Are We Fighting For In Iraq?"

Currently tagged	iraq politics brutality Sociopaths Iraq war war in iraq Enemies within flaws (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment
	Comment Anonymously