gmac17 Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 The mere fact it is being considered shows the failure of the mission in Iraq under their direction. You said Bush authorized death squads, I was simply stating that's not the case. As far as the point made about Escobar it's moot since we are still losing the drug war even after his death. So in reality hundreds died in vain. I have a feeling that the people of Columbia would strongly disagree with you regarding Pablo. We may still be losing the drug war, but he was one of the worst criminals the world has seen in the past 25 years, and although the vaccuum was filled Columbia is a much better place without him.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 First and foremost I am a Christian. If one can argue in favor of this they are not. If they don't agree I'll pass on that debate and let you ask your own pastor and see what he or she tells you. I guess we should have known this was coming since we put the same person who organized and directed death squads in Central America (The same ones that killed the three Catholic nuns). "What to do about the deepening quagmire of Iraq? The Pentagon's latest approach is being called "the Salvador option"--and the fact that it is being discussed at all is a measure of just how worried Donald Rumsfeld really is. "What everyone agrees is that we can't just go on as we are," one senior military officer told NEWSWEEK. "We have to find a way to take the offensive against the insurgents. Right now, we are playing defense. And we are losing." Last November's operation in Fallujah, most analysts agree, succeeded less in breaking "the back" of the insurgency--as Marine Gen. John Sattler optimistically declared at the time--than in spreading it out." It goes on to say -- "Now, NEWSWEEK has learned, the Pentagon is intensively debating an option that dates back to a still-secret strategy in the Reagan administration's battle against the leftist guerrilla insurgency in El Salvador in the early 1980s. Then, faced with a losing war against Salvadoran rebels, the U.S. government funded or supported "nationalist" forces that allegedly included so-called death squads directed to hunt down and kill rebel leaders and sympathizers. Eventually the insurgency was quelled, and many U.S. conservatives consider the policy to have been a success--despite the deaths of innocent civilians and the subsequent Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages scandal. (Among the current administration officials who dealt with Central America back then is John Negroponte, who is today the U.S. ambassador to Iraq. Under Reagan, he was ambassador to Honduras.) Following that model, one Pentagon proposal would send Special Forces teams to advise, support and possibly train Iraqi squads, most likely hand-picked Kurdish Peshmerga fighters and Shiite militiamen, to target Sunni insurgents and their sympathizers, even across the border into Syria, according to military insiders familiar with the discussions. It remains unclear, however, whether this would be a policy of assassination or so-called "snatch" operations, in which the targets are sent to secret facilities for interrogation. The current thinking is that while U.S. Special Forces would lead operations in, say, Syria, activities inside Iraq itself would be carried out by Iraqi paramilitaries, officials tell NEWSWEEK. " My son died in Iraq in November and he had told me that things there were detrioriating so rapidly that he and his unit had considered the war all but lost. I guess this is a sign that things really are getting desperate over there if has to come to this. This President is destroying everytihng Reagan, his father and all the came before him accomplished for my party. What a sad day this that we must become what we despise, what we ourselves are fighitng -- murderers. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6802629/site/newsweek/ 199036[/snapback] Good, it takes a rat to kill a rat. And furthermore: I think we OUGHT to use Shiites and Kurds to wipe out the Sunni resistance. It's THOSE people that stand in the way of a democratic Iraq. Note that the overwhelming majority of suicide bombers and resistance people come from Sunni-controlled areas. Maybe we should let the Shiites repay the debt of half a century to the Sunnis. Let em run rampant in Sunni neighborhoods. Note that El Salvador is a MUCH better place today by using such a bloody strategy. Iraq can be too.
Mickey Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 My son's "sacrifices"? He didn't sacrifice, he died. What his widow is goign through with our grandson is a sacrifice. What our family is going through is a sacrifice. Unfortunately I am unable to not be a Christian as easy as it may be for you to not be one so it's difficult for me to endorse the "kill everybody" line of thinking. Winning wars has and always will be about winning hearts and minds. My son had said many times that due to catastrophic failures of the DOD (Rumsfeld is the most hated man in the military nad has been for some time) we had lost the Iraqi people. 199106[/snapback] I am amazed that even though you have lost your son, a tragedy for which you have all my sympathy and prayers, you are against the idea of death squads. Some would be so angry over their incredible loss that they would be willing to support any measures taken against the enemy, no matter how violent or likely to kill innocent people. That you have been through such a tragedy and still kept your ability to reason and to honor the tenets of your faith is inspirational.
RkFast Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 I am amazed that even though you have lost your son, a tragedy for which you have all my sympathy and prayers, you are against the idea of death squads. Some would be so angry over their incredible loss that they would be willing to support any measures taken against the enemy, no matter how violent or likely to kill innocent people. That you have been through such a tragedy and still kept your ability to reason and to honor the tenets of your faith is inspirational. 200074[/snapback] I dont think anyone's arguing that. Its very notable and commendable and worthy of praise and sympathy, even though this person told me to take MY sympathies and shove them, which is not a very "Christian" thing to do. Whatever. The problem here is that this person thinks that A) the mere thought of using the strategy in question means its going to happen B) that the decision to use them is solely a partisan issue C) the way to win the war is to "make nice" Those are my issues with this person's thoughts on the issue.
Mickey Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 This person's never even heard of the term "Ultimate Sacrifice" and thinks winning wars is done by making nice with the man trying to kill you. I wouldnt expect much, Darin. 199905[/snapback] Am I not reading this right or did you just say that Losman-McGahee-Evans, who lost his son in Iraq, doesn't understand sacrifice? He also didn't say anthing about "making nice with" people trying to kill you. He did say he was against death squads and killing innocent people. He also said that winning the support of as many Iraqi's as possible was important. These are not radical positions and though you may disagree, they are not so off the wall crazy so as to deserve being mocked. Translating those arguably reasonable positions into something else which he never said, "making nice" with the enemy, is just wrong.
RkFast Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 Am I not reading this right or did you just say that Losman-McGahee-Evans, who lost his son in Iraq, doesn't understand sacrifice? He also didn't say anthing about "making nice with" people trying to kill you. He did say he was against death squads and killing innocent people. He also said that winning the support of as many Iraqi's as possible was important. These are not radical positions and though you may disagree, they are not so off the wall crazy so as to deserve being mocked. Translating those arguably reasonable positions into something else which he never said, "making nice" with the enemy, is just wrong. 200088[/snapback] "Winning wars has and always will be about winning hearts and minds." This person's words, not mine.
UConn James Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 Good, it takes a rat to kill a rat. And furthermore: I think we OUGHT to use Shiites and Kurds to wipe out the Sunni resistance. It's THOSE people that stand in the way of a democratic Iraq. Note that the overwhelming majority of suicide bombers and resistance people come from Sunni-controlled areas. Maybe we should let the Shiites repay the debt of half a century to the Sunnis. Let em run rampant in Sunni neighborhoods. Note that El Salvador is a MUCH better place today by using such a bloody strategy. Iraq can be too. 200011[/snapback] I guess some people just love the smell of civil war in the morning. 2005 Iraq is not 1970s-80s El Salvador or Columbia. Vive le difference.
UConn James Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 Am I not reading this right or did you just say that Losman-McGahee-Evans, who lost his son in Iraq, doesn't understand sacrifice? 200088[/snapback] I was thinking the same thing, but yaknow, it's kind of pointless to talk to a brick wall. Surprisingly similar to the one in F9/11 who slunk away after indignantly asking "Who do you know who's fighting over there?" Thing is, she probably has that same indignation today even tho her and her loved ones' butts aren't on the front lines. Say what you want about the movie, I'd probably join you in much of the criticism, but that scene went to the heart of things.
RkFast Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 I was thinking the same thing, but yaknow, it's kind of pointless to talk to a brick wall. Surprisingly similar to the one in F9/11 who slunk away after indignantly asking "Who do you know who's fighting over there?" Thing is, she probably has that same indignation today even tho her and her loved ones' butts aren't on the front lines. Say what you want about the movie, I'd probably join you in much of the criticism, but that scene went to the heart of things. 200133[/snapback] And again....THIS person's words, not mine: "My son's "sacrifices"? He didn't sacrifice, he died. What his widow is goign through with our grandson is a sacrifice. What our family is going through is a sacrifice." Its well known what the words "Ultimate Sacrifice" means. I used this term to show my appreciation and sympathies, thats all. Then went to retort the heart of the post that this person put forth. So if saying "Im sorry for your loss, now lets discuss/debate the rest of your post" makes me a "brick wall" then so be it.
Mickey Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 "Winning wars has and always will be about winning hearts and minds." This person's words, not mine. 200101[/snapback] "making nice with the man trying to kill you", your words, not his. Among the civilian population there are three kinds of people, your friends, your enemies and those in between. Winning the "hearts and minds" of those in between seems like a good idea to me and translating that to "making nice with the man trying to kill you" is unfair beyond description. Given the loss of his son, I thought you might actually at least respect his actual words rather than debate him with made up straw men. Was his actual argument too strong to be argued with leading you to make one up that was easier to poke fun at?
RkFast Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 "making nice with the man trying to kill you", your words, not his. Among the civilian population there are three kinds of people, your friends, your enemies and those in between. Winning the "hearts and minds" of those in between seems like a good idea to me and translating that to "making nice with the man trying to kill you" is unfair beyond description. Given the loss of his son, I thought you might actually at least respect his actual words rather than debate him with made up straw men. Was his actual argument too strong to be argued with leading you to make one up that was easier to poke fun at? 200195[/snapback] My connection between "winning hearts and minds is the war to wage and win war" and "making nice to wage and win war" is a shitload LESS of a straw man than "changing words=trying to turn an argument in my favor". And even if it is a misuse of words, saying its "unfair beyond description" is pretty much an overreaction beyond description. Talk about splitting hairs.....Calm down.
DC Tom Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 My connection between "winning hearts and minds is the war to wage and win war" and "making nice to wage and win war" is a shitload LESS of a straw man than "changing words=trying to turn an argument in my favor". And even if it is a misuse of words, saying its "unfair beyond description" is pretty much an overreaction beyond description. Talk about splitting hairs.....Calm down. 200240[/snapback] That was a semantic disaster...
Losman-McGahee-Evans Posted January 10, 2005 Author Posted January 10, 2005 You said Bush authorized death squads, I was simply stating that's not the case.I have a feeling that the people of Columbia would strongly disagree with you regarding Pablo. 199999[/snapback] Unfortunately that's pure assumption on your part. If by "the people of Columbia" you include those who lost family members and friends in the effort to get Escobar who are living in a country that is more vioent than it was at that time I'd be willing to wager a billion dollars that they do not. If by "the people of Columbia" you mean those that have no direct connection to anyone who died in that effort then you are correct. That's why people on this board argue in support of the direction, execution and prosecution of this war (Notice I did not say "support of the war") much too easily.
Losman-McGahee-Evans Posted January 10, 2005 Author Posted January 10, 2005 Good, it takes a rat to kill a rat. And furthermore: So become what we despise most? I think we OUGHT to use Shiites and Kurds to wipe out the Sunni resistance. So create a larger version of Lebannon on the border of Saudi Arabia therby destabilizing the entire region? Note that El Salvador is a MUCH better place today by using such a bloody strategy. Iraq can be too. That is an apples and oranges comparsion and one that is intellectually dishonest. As a Republican who supported Reagan's effort in Central America what was effective there in a political struggle will never be effective in a religious revolution being waged to dispel an occupying imperial power.
Mickey Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 My connection between "winning hearts and minds is the war to wage and win war" and "making nice to wage and win war" is a shitload LESS of a straw man than "changing words=trying to turn an argument in my favor". And even if it is a misuse of words, saying its "unfair beyond description" is pretty much an overreaction beyond description. Talk about splitting hairs.....Calm down. 200240[/snapback] Now you are misquoting yourself, what you said was "make nice with the man trying to kill you". You did not say "making nice to wage and win war". That is restating your words to more closely match his rather than use the exact words you originally used which were an unfair translation of his remarks. I used his exact words and your exact words. You continuously rearrange the words to make the point you want, a point not necessarily supported by the actual words used. You may disagree with my judgment that your rearrangement of his words were "unfair beyond description". However, that is a judment, an opinion I rendered only after presenting the actual words used by both. Since I used the actual words, readers would be free to reach their own conclusions as to whether my opinion was warranted.
DC Tom Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 Unfortunately that's pure assumption on your part. If by "the people of Columbia" you include those who lost family members and friends in the effort to get Escobar who are living in a country that is more vioent than it was at that time I'd be willing to wager a billion dollars that they do not. If by "the people of Columbia" you mean those that have no direct connection to anyone who died in that effort then you are correct. That's why people on this board argue in support of the direction, execution and prosecution of this war (Notice I did not say "support of the war") much too easily. 200281[/snapback] Conversely, that's why they argue against it much too easily as well. It sounds like what you're saying, then, is that the real argument is which of these views is more valid: the perception "people" in the sense of mass of individuals, or as a society. Ultimately...I see you interpreting war through an individualistic perspective (understandably), whereas the very nature of warfare is societal. Ergo...I'm forced to disagree with you on the subject of hunting down and killing insurgency leaders being an appropriate and valuable tactic. Nor can I really see it as ultimately an admission of defeat - far from it, I'd say the delay in implementing such a strategy is the reason Iraq is such a mess right now. The seeds of the ultimate US defeat in Iraq are sown at a far more fundamentally basic level than the tactics used in hunting down insurgents. Discussing events on the ground is just a smoke screen for dodging the real issue of the rationally bankrupt and inherently paradoxical policy of "exporting democracy"...which nobody ever questions, to my immense amazement.
Losman-McGahee-Evans Posted January 10, 2005 Author Posted January 10, 2005 I am so sorry for the loss of your son. 199785[/snapback] It's been close to two months now so it is still rather tough for us so thank you for your words.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 I guess some people just love the smell of civil war in the morning. 2005 Iraq is not 1970s-80s El Salvador or Columbia. Vive le difference. 200117[/snapback] Better they kill each other than us, yes?
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 So become what we despise most? 200299[/snapback] I don't see it that way. SO are we to be considered arsonists when we use fire to fight forest fires? I don't think so. I prefer to think of it as giving Iraqis a stake in their own future. And why wouldn't it work?
nobody Posted January 10, 2005 Posted January 10, 2005 As a real Republican the current Democratic party is closer to Reagan-era Republican Party than this version of it. Sadly for America the top dems now believe they have to become like the current reps for them to have a chance to be elected. Soon we will have a 2 party system with 1 party ideas. Glad I don't belong to either.
Recommended Posts