POL - Is attacking Iran in our best interests?

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I agree at least one of us does.

You stole the words right out of my mouth.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I agree at least one of us does.

I've noticed on this board that when someone has difficulty refuting an opinion, they turn snarky.

So, you're saying that if you had the unfortunate choice of seeing an American soldier or an innocent Iraqi die, you would choose the Iraqi?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

I've noticed on this board that when someone has difficulty refuting an opinion, they turn snarky.

So, you're saying that if you had the unfortunate choice of seeing an American soldier or an innocent Iraqi die, you would choose the Iraqi?

I would say either is unfortunate, and I'd definitely be concerned either way.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

I've noticed on this board that when someone has difficulty refuting an opinion, they turn snarky.

So, you're saying that if you had the unfortunate choice of seeing an American soldier or an innocent Iraqi die, you would choose the Iraqi?

You're making a flawed argument here.

I think what GD is saying (not to speak for him) is that if he heard a report of an American Soldier dying and an Iraqi civilian dying, both would be upsetting.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by wade moore

You're making a flawed argument here.

I think what GD is saying (not to speak for him) is that if he heard a report of an American Soldier dying and an Iraqi civilian dying, both would be upsetting.

That's not what I'm asking. I'm asking that if one had to CHOOSE between the life of an innocent Iraqi or an American soldier, which would you choose.

Not talking about which one would be "unfortunate" or "upsetting", I'm directly asking which one is more important to you? I'm being direct and saying, to me, the American soldier is more important. MUCH more important.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

That's not what I'm asking. I'm asking that if one had to CHOOSE between the life of an innocent Iraqi or an American soldier, which would you choose.

Not talking about which one would be "unfortunate" or "upsetting", I'm directly asking which one is more important to you? I'm being direct and saying, to me, the American soldier is more important. MUCH more important.

*BUZZ* WRONG...

You specifically stated that Iraqi deaths are UNimportant, inconsequential, whatever you want to say...

I'm sorry to hear that 6 Americans died. Out of the 118 people that died, the 6 Americans are all that we should be concerned about.

You are specifically stating that we should not be concerned in anyway shape or form the death of Iraqi's. That is what GD (and I) is questioning. You have now trumped it up and turned it around to be "Picking between an individual soldier and an individual Iraqi...." which is totally different than this statement you made above, which is what the "monster" label is being thrown around for.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

That's not what I'm asking. I'm asking that if one had to CHOOSE between the life of an innocent Iraqi or an American soldier, which would you choose.

Not talking about which one would be "unfortunate" or "upsetting", I'm directly asking which one is more important to you? I'm being direct and saying, to me, the American soldier is more important. MUCH more important.

You said:

I'm sorry to hear that 6 Americans died. Out of the 118 people that died, the 6 Americans are all that we should be concerned about.

Absolutely. I've said time and time again the lives I am concerned about is American ones. American soldiers who die are tragedies -- others are acceptable losses.

That is what this discussion is about. It is not an either/or, it is that both should be our concern. We are not at war with the Iraqi people, remember? Or was that just rhetoric.

[wade moore]

At least i know I was referring to the right quote, although I forgot the 2nd one.

[st.cronin]

See, rexall starts a lot of useful threads.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

That's not what I'm asking. I'm asking that if one had to CHOOSE between the life of an innocent Iraqi or an American soldier, which would you choose.

Not talking about which one would be "unfortunate" or "upsetting", I'm directly asking which one is more important to you? I'm being direct and saying, to me, the American soldier is more important. MUCH more important.

Some motherf*ckers are always trying to ice skate uphill...

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by wade moore

*BUZZ* WRONG...

You specifically stated that Iraqi deaths are UNimportant, inconsequential, whatever you want to say...



You are specifically stating that we should not be concerned in anyway shape or form the death of Iraqi's. That is what GD (and I) is questioning. You have now trumped it up and turned it around to be "Picking between an individual soldier and an individual Iraqi...." which is totally different than this statement you made above, which is what the "monster" label is being thrown around for.

And I stand behind what I said. Personally, I don't care about the lives of Iraqis. When I see notes on TV about XX Iraqis died today, it doesn't affect me AT ALL. Much like when I watch TV about World War II I don't care about the Germans who died, or the Japanese who died. In a war, I'm only concerned about the lives of OUR soldiers.

I would rather see 1000 Iraqis die than 1 American soldier. Again, if that makes me a "monster", so be it.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

And I stand behind what I said. Personally, I don't care about the lives of Iraqis. When I see notes on TV about XX Iraqis died today, it doesn't affect me AT ALL. Much like when I watch TV about World War II I don't care about the Germans who died, or the Japanese who died. In a war, I'm only concerned about the lives of OUR soldiers.

I would rather see 1000 Iraqis die than 1 American soldier. Again, if that makes me a "monster", so be it.

And therefore the statement that someone indeed DOES need to re-evaluate their priorities.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

And I stand behind what I said. Personally, I don't care about the lives of Iraqis. When I see notes on TV about XX Iraqis died today, it doesn't affect me AT ALL. Much like when I watch TV about World War II I don't care about the Germans who died, or the Japanese who died. In a war, I'm only concerned about the lives of OUR soldiers.

I would rather see 1000 Iraqis die than 1 American soldier. Again, if that makes me a "monster", so be it.

Hearts and minds, hearts and minds.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by wade moore

And therefore the statement that someone indeed DOES need to re-evaluate their priorities.

My priorities are with our troops. Where are yours?

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

My priorities are with our troops. Where are yours?

My priorities are with the troops, but the Iraqi people are actually ON my list, unlike you.... relatively high on the list at that.

[wade moore]

Dola:

Believe it or not, feeling mournful for dead Iraqi civilians, feeling it should be avoided, etc. is not mutually exclusive from wanting for zero deaths to US Soldiers.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

My priorities are with our troops. Where are yours?

I never thought hoping for the safety of the troops precluded you from having any sort of compassion for other human beings who were born in a different country.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

My priorities are with our troops. Where are yours?

Being concerned about our troops does not preclude one from being concerned about the lives of Iraqi civilians in any, way, shape or form. You can be concerned about both.

It's only human nature to be more concerned about people who are your "own" than "other people." That's just the way people are. If I hear my friend got into a car accident with a stranger, I would be more concerned about my friend than the other guy/girl. I would still be concerned for that other person, but not as much, at least initially.

But being wholly, 100% uncocerned about the lives of other people, in this case Iraqi civilians, (see, eg, "the 6 Americans are all that we should be concerned about" and "American soldiers who die are tragedies -- others are acceptable losses") is what makes one a "monster."

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by wade moore

My priorities are with the troops, but the Iraqi people are actually ON my list, unlike you.... relatively high on the list at that.

So we differ on this subject -- doesn't make me a monster. To me, in a war you don't feel sorry for the enemy. Casulties happen, to which I shrug my shoulders and hope for the safe return of our soldiers. There's much more important things to worry about than Iraqis. Americans come first above all else.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

What can you use to back this up? When only one side gets them yes, but when two sides opposed to each other get them they have a history of turning straightforward conflict into proxy wars and perpetuating them because each side is free to fund proxies and irregular militias at will because both sides are unwilling to confront the other head on. USA/USSR spawned Korea and Vietnam in addition to numerous other smaller conflicts. India/Pakistan are still fighting over Kashmir, only now they are funding terrorists and irregular groups instead of skirmishing with each others military. Considering Iran's Pasdaran has already worked against us in at least 6 countries (Lebanon, Palestine (or Israel if you prefer), Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan (actually in this case, it seemed they were helping us more than hurting us), Colombia, most notably Iraq) I don't see how they are going to go away or suddenly get less aggressive with a nuclear shield.

A cold war is a step back from a hot war. India/Pakistan fighting through irregular groups is a step back from all-out war, which happened several times prior to them getting nukes. So in both of the instances you provided, things simmered down.

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Saudi-funded Wahhabist madrasas are responsible for producing most of the foot soldiers in our current war on terrorism and are currently sowing the seeds of future conflict in Pakistan, Thailand, Indonesia, and Nigeria at the least. That the US government chooses to turn a blind eye to this because we want cheap oil doesn't mean that the situation is actually any better.

You say that SA is working against us in those countries, but you also said that Iran is working against us in 6 countries, PLUS there are people that think we have to invade them. Do you see how the second is worse than the first?

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

So we differ on this subject -- doesn't make me a monster. To me, in a war you don't feel sorry for the enemy. Casulties happen, to which I shrug my shoulders and hope for the safe return of our soldiers. There's much more important things to worry about than Iraqis. Americans come first above all else.

Iraqi children are the enemy? Come on now, tell me you don't believe that garbage.

Again, Americans come first, but it doesn't mean you have to completely disregard the lives of Iraqi Civilians. There's a HUGE difference between saying Americans come first and saying that we should feel this way:

I've said time and time again the lives I am concerned about is American ones. American soldiers who die are tragedies -- others are acceptable losses.

Just completely different situations. If you feel no compassion at all for Iraqi Civilians I personally do believe that makes you at least partial monster.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

So we differ on this subject -- doesn't make me a monster. To me, in a war you don't feel sorry for the enemy. Casulties happen, to which I shrug my shoulders and hope for the safe return of our soldiers. There's much more important things to worry about than Iraqis. Americans come first above all else.

Uh, dude. Iraqi civilians aren't the enemy. In fact, last time I checked, the official (or one of the top official) reason our soldiers are in Iraq are to liberate the Iraqi people. We're there for them.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Uh, dude. Iraqi civilians aren't the enemy. In fact, last time I checked, the official (or one of the top official) reason our soldiers are in Iraq are to liberate the Iraqi people. We're there for them.

Much better response than mine.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

My priorities are with our troops. Where are yours?

Again I ask, that means you are against the Iraq war right? Being that you are for the troops, and that the only even close to reasonable excuse left to go to war in Iraq is for the Iraqi people, you must be against the war. After all, no soldiers would die if we weren't in Iraq.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Again I ask, that means you are against the Iraq war right? Being that you are for the troops, and that the only even close to reasonable excuse left to go to war in Iraq is for the Iraqi people, you must be against the war. After all, no soldiers would die if we weren't in Iraq.

Yes, I am against the war.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

But being wholly, 100% uncocerned about the lives of other people, in this case Iraqi civilians, (see, eg, "the 6 Americans are all that we should be concerned about" and "American soldiers who die are tragedies -- others are acceptable losses") is what makes one a "monster."

Indeed. While we may be concerned about our own families, friends, countrymen over others, to not be concerned about others at all is heartless. What is the difference between my brother and an innocent Iraqi man who just wants to grow up in peace? They are both humans. They both have a brain, a heart, feelings, emotions. At some point, American 'values' encompass an idea that all humans are equal. That all humans are special and have rights. The idea started from the Declaration of our independance... and even before then. It's an underpinning of liberal democracy.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Iraqi children are the enemy? Come on now, tell me you don't believe that garbage.

Again, Americans come first, but it doesn't mean you have to completely disregard the lives of Iraqi Civilians. There's a HUGE difference between saying Americans come first and saying that we should feel this way:



Just completely different situations. If you feel no compassion at all for Iraqi Civilians I personally do believe that makes you at least partial monster.

Sure I feel compassion for Iraqi civilians, just not anywhere to the level I feel for our troops. In my opinion, in a war, we need to fully support our soldiers -- the beginning of the "baby killer" thing with Vietnam is when people began to be as concerned for Vietnamese people than our soldiers -- they lost perspective. I'm looking at what's going on and can't help but feel the same thing beginning to happen again.

[KWhit]

The backpedalling begins.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

What is the difference between my brother and an innocent Iraqi man who just wants to grow up in peace?

One is your brother and one isn't. One is an American, and one isn't. That's a huge difference.

Say what you will about equality of all people regardless of where they were born -- Americans come first, first and foremost. We should be taking care of our own before anyone else. If I may tangent, one of the reasons the whole tsunami thing upset me -- all this effort and money raised for people in Indonesia when that sort of effort or money is never raised for those in this country that needs it. Really pisses me off sometimes.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by KWhit

The backpedalling begins.

Yeah, that's what I'm doing. I'm reading what I wrote earlier and it did come off as really harsh, so I'm trying to explain a little better. I'm not the greatest at editing myself sometimes. :-)

Plus some of what is written is really hard to argue with. If I'm wrong, I'd like to think I admit it, as much as it hurts my ego.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

If I may tangent, one of the reasons the whole tsunami thing upset me -- all this effort and money raised for people in Indonesia when that sort of effort or money is never raised for those in this country that needs it. Really pisses me off sometimes.

Utter bullshit. Does the word "Katrina" ring any bells for you...?

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

One is your brother and one isn't. One is an American, and one isn't. That's a huge difference.

Say what you will about equality of all people regardless of where they were born -- Americans come first, first and foremost. We should be taking care of our own before anyone else. If I may tangent, one of the reasons the whole tsunami thing upset me -- all this effort and money raised for people in Indonesia when that sort of effort or money is never raised for those in this country that needs it. Really pisses me off sometimes.

Although, more money was donated to the Red Cross for Katrina aid than for Tsunami aid...

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05261/573641.stm

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Utter bullshit. Does the word "Katrina" ring any bells for you...?

Your point? I'm saying the money raised for other countries problems should be better suited for use in this country. 883 million (amount that was raised for the Tsuinami) could have been really used in this country.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Sure I feel compassion for Iraqi civilians, just not anywhere to the level I feel for our troops. In my opinion, in a war, we need to fully support our soldiers -- the beginning of the "baby killer" thing with Vietnam is when people began to be as concerned for Vietnamese people than our soldiers -- they lost perspective. I'm looking at what's going on and can't help but feel the same thing beginning to happen again.

I really have seen no evidence of any sort of Vietnam-like backlash against the troops. None.

I actually don't know if that'd ever happen again. I mean, I'd never say never, but I think that was a peculiar time and set of events. I think people have learned from that.

[Honolulu_Blue]

The only "anti-troop" stuff I have even heard about are those nut jobs who are going around trying to ruin soldiers' funerals, but that's because the nut jobs really hate gay people. It has nothing to do with anything resembling reality.

[Daimyo]

The China/Taiwan thing probably deserves its own thread. But I'd suggest those who blindly support Taiwan should probably look into the situation a bit more. You can start with the 228 massacre and the history of Taiwanese "democracy." The Kuomintang and Chiang Kai-shek certainly weren't good guys. If you want to argue we should support Taiwan out of self interest to keep China in check, that's a valid argument... but its dishonest, or at best ignorant, to argue we should support them because they're historically "right".

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

The only "anti-troop" stuff I have even heard about are those nut jobs who are going around trying to ruin soldiers' funerals, but that's because the nut jobs really hate gay people. It has nothing to do with anything resembling reality.

Not talking about that, but rather about the amount of "human rights violations" that have been leveled on our soldiers over there -- we had a discussion about a month ago right here about an accusation that soldiers were mistreating women. This is how it begun before -- unfounded accusations of our soldiers mistreating the Vietnamese.

[Yossarian]

Do you believe there is a subset of 'bleeding hearts' who do care about US soldiers but who also care about human rights violations and abuse of women by soldiers?

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Yossarian

Do you believe there is a subset of 'bleeding hearts' who do care about US soldiers but who also care about human rights violations and abuse of women by soldiers?

No.

[Yossarian]

ok.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Your point? I'm saying the money raised for other countries problems should be better suited for use in this country. 883 million (amount that was raised for the Tsuinami) could have been really used in this country.

My point? As you originally said: "...all this effort and money raised for people in Indonesia when that sort of effort or money is never raised for those in this country that needs it." I'm pointing out that this statement is in fact incorrect - money is raised for those in this country that need it, both domestically and from abroad.

If you want to change your stance to "people in this country should only contribute charity to those within this country", that's a whole different statement (and one I also don't agree with).

We are (for most intents and purposes) the world's wealthiest nation, and not only do we provide a great deal of charity domestically, we also provide quite a bit internationally. That's due to both the ability of our citizens to do so financially and to a compassion we feel for humanity, regardless of borders. And while I'm sure that much more money goes out of this country in aid than comes in from other countries, we do receive aid from around the world in times of crisis (like Katrina).

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

No.

Well, you're wrong.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Well, you're wrong.

Agreed. So very, very wrong...

[Honolulu_Blue]

In fact, I would think that Yossarian's "subset" pretty much describes the feelings of the majority of Americans, conservative and liberal alike. I could be wrong making that assumption, but I don't think so.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Not talking about that, but rather about the amount of "human rights violations" that have been leveled on our soldiers over there -- we had a discussion about a month ago right here about an accusation that soldiers were mistreating women. This is how it begun before -- unfounded accusations of our soldiers mistreating the Vietnamese.

Can you clarify this statement please? Are you suggesting that no U.S. soldier ever mistreated any Vietnamese citizens during the Vietnam War?

I support the troops in that I wish for them to complete their mission and stay healthy in the process, and I don't blame them for actions I disagree with that are directives from above (like, for example, invading Iraq in the first place).

However, I do hold them accountable for actions within their control and to represent themselves as best they can as ambassadors of the U.S. I recognize that they are in a very difficult situation, and that people don't always make the best decisions when this is the case. But it's also not unreasonable to expect them to try to adhere to basic human-rights standards of behavior (Geneva conventions), and when they screw-up, they should be held accountable for doing so. For better or for worse, our troops are the primary means of human contact most Iraqis (and Afghanis) have had and will have in their lives with Americans.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

In fact, I would think that Yossarian's "subset" pretty much describes the feelings of the majority of Americans, conservative and liberal alike. I could be wrong making that assumption, but I don't think so.

I agree. I would like to think the administration was in that subset. I sometimes doubt it by their actions.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

In fact, I would think that Yossarian's "subset" pretty much describes the feelings of the majority of Americans, conservative and liberal alike. I could be wrong making that assumption, but I don't think so.

Also, this probably captures the feelings of many Americans serving in Iraq, too. After all, the abuses in Abu Gharib and other places probably would not have seen the light of day if it were not for those officers and soldiers who were compelled by their professional and personal code of ethics to report improper activity.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Can you clarify this statement please? Are you suggesting that no U.S. soldier ever mistreated any Vietnamese citizens during the Vietnam War?

I support the troops in that I wish for them to complete their mission and stay healthy in the process, and I don't blame them for actions I disagree with that are directives from above (like, for example, invading Iraq in the first place).

However, I do hold them accountable for actions within their control and to represent themselves as best they can as ambassadors of the U.S. I recognize that they are in a very difficult situation, and that people don't always make the best decisions when this is the case. But it's also not unreasonable to expect them to try to adhere to basic human-rights standards of behavior (Geneva conventions), and when they screw-up, they should be held accountable for doing so. For better or for worse, our troops are the primary means of human contact most Iraqis (and Afghanis) have had and will have in their lives with Americans.

Very well said.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Yossarian

ok.

This made me laugh out loud for some reason. Just one of those "man, I feel ya" laughs...

[rexallllsc]

Scary article.

hxxp://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact

Some interesting snipets:

A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was “absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb” if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,” and “that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.”

One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.” He added, “I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, ‘What are they smoking?’ ”

“This is much more than a nuclear issue,” one high-ranking diplomat told me in Vienna. “That’s just a rallying point, and there is still time to fix it. But the Administration believes it cannot be fixed unless they control the hearts and minds of Iran. The real issue is who is going to control the Middle East and its oil in the next ten years.”

One of the military’s initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites.

What better way to tell a country they cannot have nuclear weapons than to use them on 'em!

The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror confirmed that some in the Administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among Pentagon civilians and in policy circles. He called it “a juggernaut that has to be stopped.” He also confirmed that some senior officers and officials were considering resigning over the issue. “There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries,” the adviser told me. “This goes to high levels.” The matter may soon reach a decisive point, he said, because the Joint Chiefs had agreed to give President Bush a formal recommendation stating that they are strongly opposed to considering the nuclear option for Iran. “The internal debate on this has hardened in recent weeks,” the adviser said. “And, if senior Pentagon officers express their opposition to the use of offensive nuclear weapons, then it will never happen.”