Iraqi Freedom

[Babak]

Quote from alfonso:

In any case, I wasn't talking about some Arabs supporting this invasion, I was talking about Arab sentiment towards having American troops indefinitely (even if only from their perspective) stationed on their soil. So yes, if you could provide some Arab viewpoints, preferably from Arabs actually living in the Mid East, that support an American occupation, then yes, I sure would like to read them.

Might want to track down the Iraqi attorney that risked his life and those of his family to tell the Marines about the POW Lynch. Although I doubt that words would elucidate how he feels better than his courageous actions.

 

[alfonso]

Quote from dbphoenix:

To Kymar and dga:

I'm not going to get involved in all of this. Just wanted to let you know how much I enjoy your posts.

Just think. If the Ottoman Empire had been left whole, would things be better, or worse?

--Db

Db, I'm glad you're not going to get involved. Because if you can't see the difference between the Ottoman Empire and Iraq today then you're not going to have much value to add.

 

[alfonso]

Quote from Babak:



Might want to track down the Iraqi attorney that risked his life and those of his family to tell the Marines about the POW Lynch. Although I doubt that words would elucidate how he feels better than his courageous actions.

Babak, how can you take one isolated (or even a dozen isolated) case of human compassion (which I have never suggested Iraqis are incapable of) and exptrapolate that to mean the Iraqis are just gonna love having an American military "presence" -- or "occupation", it amounts to the very same thing -- on their soil? How?

 

[alfonso]

Quote from KymarFye:



Let's be precise: "Occupation" is much different from presence, though I believe that in extreme situations, such as the situation in Iraq, many consider occupation by American forces to be preferable to the available alternatives.

As previously, I would refer you to Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE, and even Yemen and Saudi Arabia. I'm not informed as to what other Arab countries may currently host US troops in any significant number on an indefinite basis. Qatar's evidently popular, reformist leader openly affirms American protection as essential to his efforts and to his country's long-term interests. It's reasonable to assume that even the most pro-American members of these countries' leaderships would probably prefer a world in which there was no need for them to host a foreigner's troops. Almost all Americans would also prefer such a world. Unfortunately, we are doomed to live in the real world, not a world of utopian fantasy (whether Euro-utopian or Islamic fascist utopian).

Anyway, though there is certainly opposition in all of these countries, to varying degrees, it is evident that it is nowhere near "universal."

Just how is occupation "much different" from presence Kymar?

I was obviously overzealous in describing Arab resentment of American troops on their soil as "practically universal", so I apologise for that.

However, the instances of acceptance you cite are different from the Iraq case because the troops present there did not spend weeks (and maybe months) bombing buildings, killing civillians (unintentionally, but it still builds resentment) and barking orders -- or "liberating" if you prefer -- prior to establishing their presence. A significant difference don't you think?

And why does any suggestion that your policy could, or should be, different have to be described as seeking "utopia"?

 

[dbphoenix]

Quote from alfonso:

Db, I'm glad you're not going to get involved. Because if you can't see the difference between the Ottoman Empire and Iraq today then you're not going to have much value to add.

And where did I say I couldn't see the difference?

Good example of why I'd rather not join this "debate".

--Db

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Quote from dbphoenix:



And where did I say I couldn't see the difference?

Good example of why I'd rather not join this "debate".

--Db

It is only a debate when you have a debate moderator who can point out when one party is out of line, illogical, using inflamed language, bias, non sequiturs, logically fallacious arguments, strawman arguments, ad hominem arguments, etc.

Here it is just a shouting match by those who have an axe to grind against the USA, those who are ultra right wing in their statements, and those like Kymar, DG, Babak and others who are simply, and can calmly employ the rational process to present a position, and then demonstrate the ability to argue from premise to conclusion, rather than argue from hate the Bush administration first and then gather anything in the world, logical or not, factual or not, to support that bias.

It becomes a flame war at some point, as the more it becomes apparent that fact is overcoming conjecture in the current situation in Iraq, there is little else to do but flame or admit defeat.

I suspect the handles like MSFE, Iceman and Alfonso will become martyrs for their cause and flame out in some spectacular, if unsuccessful display of anger, bitterness, powerlessness and hatred.

 

[alfonso]

Quote from dbphoenix:



And where did I say I couldn't see the difference?

Good example of why I'd rather not join this "debate".

--Db

You didn't say it. I inferred it because you sarcastically suggested that the Ottoman Empire was a good thing.

Yes, what I said was a "flame", but then I regard your interjection that Kymar, Babak, dgabriel et al were making "great arguments" (!) as extraneous to the "debate" also. (And, it seems to me, not based on any examination of the arguments put forward at all.)

 

[alfonso]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:



It is only a debate when you have a debate moderator who can point out when one party is out of line, illogical, using inflamed language, bias, non sequiturs, logically fallacious arguments, strawman arguments, ad hominem arguments, etc.

Here it is just a shouting match by those who have an axe to grind against the USA, those who are ultra right wing in their statements, and those like Kymar, DG, Babak and others who are simply, and can calmly employ the rational process to present a position, and then demonstrate the ability to argue from premise to conclusion, rather than argue from hate the Bush administration first and then gather anything in the world, logical or not, factual or not, to support that bias.

It becomes a flame war at some point, as the more it becomes apparent that fact is overcoming conjecture in the current situation in Iraq, there is little else to do but flame or admit defeat.

I suspect the handles like MSFE, Iceman and Alfonso will become martyrs for their cause and flame out in some spectacular, if unsuccessful display of anger, bitterness, powerlessness and hatred.

Optional, here's a "flame" for you. It is YOU who has had every one of his "logical arguments" overturned, defeated and shown the door, yet still pretends he has some rational foundation to stand on.

How about using some "rational process" moving from the premise to the conclusion that what I say is logically unsound, rather than deciding a priori that there is no way you will accept that your exalted leadership or beloved America might not be everything you go to sleep believing it is and thus smugly hiding behind the pretense of "ignoring" me.

 

[dbphoenix]

Quote from alfonso:

You didn't say it. I inferred it because you sarcastically suggested that the Ottoman Empire was a good thing.

Did I? Hmmm. Where did I say that?

Quote from alfonso:

Yes, what I said was a "flame", but then I regard your interjection that Kymar, Babak, dgabriel et al were making "great arguments" (!) as extraneous to the "debate" also.

And where did I say that?

--Db

 

[msfe]

re: Operation Iraqi Freedom

As occupying powers, the US and Britain will have a legal obligation to secure the welfare of all Iraqis once the shooting stops. But allied forces that are already stretched thin, battle-weary and largely untrained in stabilisation, policing and humanitarian duties may be overwhelmed by this enormous task. There are just too few of them. In this immediate context, the idea of a retired US general, with baseball cap replacing pith helmet, calmly sitting down in Baghdad to sagely administer a united, grateful nation looks utterly absurd. Here is evidence of the final irresponsibility of the Rumsfeld plan. By minimising the number of troops on the ground, the US has maximised the chances of a rapid, chaotic descent into post-war mayhem