PDA

View Full Version : Local Iraqis weigh in on the withdrawal.


Direckshun
09-03-2010, 02:43 PM
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/31/iraqis-judge-americas-seven-years-in-their-country/

Worth a read.

ForeverChiefs58
09-03-2010, 02:56 PM
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/31/iraqis-judge-americas-seven-years-in-their-country/

Worth a read.

I think it would have been better if the people of iraq simply said "thanks" and move on.

BucEyedPea
09-03-2010, 04:53 PM
I think it would have been better if the people of iraq simply said "thanks" and move on.

I think the Shi'a should thank us. The Sunni have nothing to thank us for....they were ousted from power by us. We should leave and let them kill one another anyway.

ForeverChiefs58
09-03-2010, 05:09 PM
I think the Shi'a should thank us. The Sunni have nothing to thank us for....they were ousted from power by us. We should leave and let them kill one another anyway.

Holy crap! I agree with you. I think I need to check my temp.

Iowanian
09-03-2010, 05:25 PM
Yeah, the Shiite's who were supporting militias that bombed and killed Americans are going to be really, really thankful.

"KARRADA, Baghdad

Khalid Al-Okaidi, 35
Civil servant

How Things Changed: “Nothing has happened from 2003 until now, and there is no kind of development in our life. We are facing problems on all levels. We have terrorist cells here in Iraq because of Iran, and our infrastructure has collapsed. We have seasonal problems: in summer there is a lack of water, and electricity is also very rare and only provided to the neighborhoods of government members."

What?! Impossible!

BROWN FOR IRAN!!!

ForeverChiefs58
09-03-2010, 05:41 PM
I wish Sam Kinison could have interviewed the iraqi's
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vN7ehccspao?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vN7ehccspao?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

HonestChieffan
09-03-2010, 05:44 PM
I think the Shi'a should thank us. The Sunni have nothing to thank us for....they were ousted from power by us. We should leave and let them kill one another anyway.

damn.

BucEyedPea
09-03-2010, 06:41 PM
damn.

I don't think you really understand my positions as a Republican.
I don't support our FP in the post-Cold War world.
I agree with what Ronald Reagan said in his autobiography—which is getting involved further than we already were in the Middle East is a "mistake." That goes for PGWI forward. Look where that has led.

This is a very different world than the West. They do not have our values and we can't shove our values down their throats. They don't have a 2000 year background that we have with things like he Magna Carta, liberty, John Locke, Jefferson etc etc.

They also have a lot of clan vendettas against each other. It's just not worth more loss of American life and it really is fiddling while Rome burns when we can't even control our own border and we go bankrupt. While everyone is looking 5000 miles over in foreign lands, the socialists are taking over our country.

You support a progressive FP under the false notion it's a defense. You support Empire. I don't. This is my problem with today's conservatives and Republicans. It's not part of traditional conservativism and as such, is not good for America. Nor do I support the constant demagoguery over petty statements from Iran in order to incite people for war on their civilians. So this is where we part ways.

HonestChieffan
09-03-2010, 09:00 PM
I don't think you really understand my positions as a Republican.
I don't support our FP in the post-Cold War world.
I agree with what Ronald Reagan said in his autobiography—which is getting involved further that we already were the Middle East is a "mistake." That goes for PGWI forward. Look where that has led.

This is a very different world than the West. They do not have our values and we can't shove our values down their throats. They don't have a 2000 year background that we have with things like he Magna Carta, liberty, John Locke, Jefferson etc etc.

They also have a lot of clan vendettas against each other. It's just not worth more loss of American life and it really is fiddling while Rome burns when we can't even control our own border and we go bankrupt. While everyone is looking over 5000 miles over in foreign lands the socialists are taking over our country.

You support a progressive FP under the false notion it's a defense. You support Empire. I don't. This is my problem with today's conservatives and Republicans. It's not part of traditional conservativism and as such, is not good for America. Nor do I support the constant demagoguery over petty statements from Iran in order to incite people for war on their civilians. So this is where we part ways.

Cool. For your safety and well being be glad there are those who see threats as very real and very dedicated. Its nice and fun to live in the world where we can have nice compact and neat theories, put labels on all we see, and not recognize the reality of what the world is. Its dangerous and there are a lot of people who want us dead. They hate our success, they hate our potential and they envy our future.

You are right regarding the border. Its criminal how we have allowed that to happen and will take a real leader to restore the border and our commitment to protect it.

Its where we draw the line in the sand.

BucEyedPea
09-04-2010, 07:19 AM
Cool. For your safety and well being be glad there are those who see threats as very real and very dedicated.
Again, this is the crux of the matter—you see it as defense. I don't. ( save for breaking up the camps in Afghanistan originally to deal with AQ) Starting wars of offense is not defense. It antagonizes other peoples, the kind I don't want to mess with. That's what German did circa 1930's. That's not Americanism.

Its nice and fun to live in the world where we can have nice compact and neat theories, put labels on all we see, and not recognize the reality of what the world is.
If you can't see beyond the "label" then you don't understand the concept the label stands for. This whole "label-is-bad" line is nothing but a red-herring. The label simply shows the demarcation points on the right. It's needed for to clarify the realities so there is differentiation of what one believes and supports. If you prefer vague language and legerdemain of the politician ( a sign of manipulating you to shape your opinion) or that marks today's politics, then that's your choice but I find it intellectually dishonest and lazy. Here in this context, it's an empty argument, especially when I went out of my way to clarify where I differ from other wings of the right with specifics to show you what I meant: There is a traditional Old Right view of foreign policy that differs from today's modern right. Even the guy who invented the label "freedom fries" is from that camp. He thoroughly reverse his stand on Iraq later once he had the cognitive ability to realize he was lied to.

Its dangerous and there are a lot of people who want us dead. They hate our success, they hate our potential and they envy our future.
That's called fear mongering by relying on a generality of "they." Who is "they"? This tactic is designed to create chaos and confusion. You want to avoid a specific "label" so you can do whatever you want to whoever you want despite any specific facts in order to justify it. If you believe this then you've allowed yourself to be manipulated by such fear. There are dangers in the world but it's not everywhere all around us as promoted here. That's irrational fear. Of course, fear can stem from hate that already existed.

The enemy is Al Qaeda, it is not a big amorphous "they." Surveys in the ME show that Arabs do like our institutions but they do not like our policies in the ME.

If you believe propaganda such as "they hate us" that's your choice but I don't find it to be intelligent. It's emotional knee-jerk reaction. Of course that's the intent of those who use it.

You are right regarding the border. Its criminal how we have allowed that to happen and will take a real leader to restore the border and our commitment to protect it.
It won't happen if we're too busy fighting the world or trying to engineer it by destroying rogue states or the world.* That's bankrupting us. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't rail against Obama and still try to have big govt for what you want. Wars, including ours, even the American Revolution, was followed by bad economies. You simply have to choose and choose wisely. Only thing, now that we've gone after nation states not connected to 9/11 based on lies told by NeoCon politicians, we've lost sight of handling AQ and made things worse including here at home.

Its where we draw the line in the sand.
We draw the line where RR said to. He was a FP realist. He knew how to choose his battles.


* Don't kid yourself on this Bush said he was going to make over the world in his second inaugural address. Obama is NO different. They are both progressives.
Just listen to the left support Obama's war now. It is his war now.

No offense HCF, but I don't understand how you can accept govt farm subsidies while you rail on the left for big govt and socialism. You support big govt too.

HonestChieffan
09-04-2010, 08:48 AM
Well, thats the good part for you. While those who defend us do their job you can speculate about if it is or is not defense. And as long as they are successful, you can continue to question and theorize safely. Thats why a good defense works.


What farm subsidy do you refer to?

BucEyedPea
09-04-2010, 09:09 AM
Well, thats the good part for you. While those who defend us do their job ...
You're not getting my message. I am not trying to persuade you, mind you, I was just trying to clarify my position for you to understand because your recent responses to my posts show being baffled by mine.

I wouldn't recommend trying to persuade me with a lecture on how big govt and the state is trying to defend me when I just told you I do not see what has happening as a defense but an offense that is making the problem worse while bankrupting us. We are bankrupt you know. Bush stimulated to pay for his ME wars.

...you can speculate about if it is or is not defense.
It has nothing to do with speculation. It has to do with a point of view that differs from yours. One that, never mind your disagreement with it, you can't even understand accurately enough to see it as a point of view because you think your pov of view is a fact. It's not. It's a point of view.
Facts used to base a pov is another matter. You choose to believe what the govt tells you when conservativism is about being deeply skeptical of govt.

I am just saying we disagree and as a courtesy taking the time to explain why I have my point of view.

And as long as they are successful, you can continue to question and theorize safely. Thats why a good defense works.
They are not being successful.The facts belie that claim. It's been nearly ten years. Winning through force alone, but not the peace, is not success to me. Everyone has their own standards I guess. This matter is spreading into other countries while our operating basis creates more recruits for the so called "enemy" even if they're vaguely defined. Furthermore, once the big govt guys get all of "them" our own freedom will be gone. They already are. We are next. That's what you don't see—the long view. Permanent warfare will only bring a destruction to this country and it's principles of limited govt. This has been the fate of every empire.

What farm subsidy do you refer to?
The ones we discussed a year or so ago. As I recall you supported them as necessary. There's a search here for that.

patteeu
09-04-2010, 09:23 AM
I don't think you really understand my positions as a Republican.
I don't support our FP in the post-Cold War world.
I agree with what Ronald Reagan said in his autobiography—which is getting involved further than we already were in the Middle East is a "mistake." That goes for PGWI forward. Look where that has led.

Liar.

He said his deployment of marines to Lebanon for a mission in which they were unable to adequately defend themselves was a mistake. Your extrapolation of that statement to the present day situation is completely unjustified.

For an accurate version of what Ronald Reagan really said, see the Ron Paul Deceived. BucEyedPea Believed. (The Fabricated Reagan Quote) (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=223334) thread or read the chapter in Reagan's autobiography, An American Life, that discusses the mission in Lebanon.

HonestChieffan
09-04-2010, 09:29 AM
There are a number of farm subsidies as you call them that are quite important. I do support those that have merit and would kill a bunch off that don't. What that has to do with the tread is beyond me but there you have it.

The Mad Crapper
09-04-2010, 09:40 AM
BROWN FOR IRAN!!!

ROFL

BucEyedPea
09-04-2010, 10:30 AM
There are a number of farm subsidies as you call them that are quite important. I do support those that have merit and would kill a bunch off that don't. What that has to do with the tread is beyond me but there you have it.

My point is what I stated earlier: I don't understand how you can rail against Obama on certain issues, like free-enterprise capitalism, when you think any farm subsidy is valid or "important" as you do. That's all. I think that and the way the WoT is being conducted is more a big govt scam.

Other than that, I am glad to see that you accept that we just have different viewpoints on current FP in order to just admit we disagree. You've been civil. Some of your side keep pushing that aggressively when it's no longer necessary with me and is frankly a waste of time to parse at length. The same things just get repeated. Some like patteeu like to be a broken record that continually plays though. You came here more regularly, after I had posted my positions on this. I just wanted to explain why I took that position. So let's just agree to disagree on this. At least you'll understand why I say certain things.

HonestChieffan
09-04-2010, 10:43 AM
So its either all or nothing?

For instance, a program that reduces or eliminates soil erosion that ultimately is aimed at clean water and environmental quality you would eliminate because any federal involvement in anything is bad?

Food safety programs? Would those be best tossed aside because they have an agriculture relationship and would be as bad as a sugar subsidy?

Ag exports compete in a wold market that is not free trade as we would define it. If a competitor country has subsidies that place the US in a competitive disadvantage would we be better off to lose the exports and thus have a negative impact on the balance of trade?

When you refer to subsidies do you include grain loan programs?

Are there degrees of good and bad, of cost/benefit?

BucEyedPea
09-04-2010, 11:10 AM
So its either all or nothing?
Yes.

For instance, a program that reduces or eliminates soil erosion that ultimately is aimed at clean water and environmental quality you would eliminate because any federal involvement in anything is bad?
You are expanding the argument—program or a subsidy? I said subsidies.

Food safety programs? Would those be best tossed aside because they have an agriculture relationship and would be as bad as a sugar subsidy?
What does that have to do with subsidies for price supports etc? Nothing.

Ag exports compete in a wold market that is not free trade as we would define it. If a competitor country has subsidies that place the US in a competitive disadvantage would we be better off to lose the exports and thus have a negative impact on the balance of trade?[/quote]

When you refer to subsidies do you include grain loan programs?

Are there degrees of good and bad, of cost/benefit?[/QUOTE]

I think your questions are really statements not real questions meant to be answered. I support a free-enterprise system because it's more efficient. In such a system the farmer learns to deal with financing, pricing and markets not the govt. Signals exist in the market for you to change your actions as needed. Other providers, including loan institutions, will arise to come up with services that fill your needs. Try it. It works. Despite what the left says.

I understand about other countries but doing the same because their doing it is not a good enough reason.

Now I want to ask you where our Constitution enumerates federal aid to certain industries for subsidizing them on the market while excluding other industries? I am not talking safety....but I don't see why you need funds from the taxpayers for that to survive. It's just welfare for farmers.

HonestChieffan
09-04-2010, 11:11 AM
Your answer basically demonstrates a lack of understanding of farm programs, what they do, where they apply and how they work.

BucEyedPea
09-04-2010, 11:13 AM
Your answer basically demonstrates a lack of understanding of farm programs, what they do, where they apply and how they work.

I don't need to fully understand them. I need to know three things:

• I said subsidy —not programs.
• I know what the Constitution says, which you don't understand.
• I know that free-markets are superior and more efficient.

You asked, I answered.

HonestChieffan
09-04-2010, 11:15 AM
If you don't understand them, how rational is it to want do across the board eliminate them? Wouldn't you first need to understand them, the objective and benefits as well as the negatives? What of the negative consequences of the elimination?

BucEyedPea
09-04-2010, 11:21 AM
If you don't understand them, how rational is it to want do across the board eliminate them?
Them—program or subsidy? Because when you believe in the free-market and the Constitution subsidies are not necessary. In a free-market things work out on their own between the players. You never know exactly how it works out because it's left to individuals. If you support the Constitution, well then, that says what is says—there is no authority for them.

To summarize: There's no need to.

Wouldn't you first need to understand them, the objective and benefits as well as the negatives? What of the negative consequences of the elimination?
No. See above.

You're making the same arguments the left makes for subsidizing health care including silly negative externalities argument.

HonestChieffan
09-04-2010, 11:23 AM
Thanks. At least you are honest. It helps me to understand when I see irrational across the board sweeping generalities applied to specific individual situations. Im guilty of the same things sometimes I am sure.

BucEyedPea
09-04-2010, 11:24 AM
BTW HCF, I did study the farm "crisis" of the 1980's and some of this back in an Austrian economics class. I forget the details but remembered the results. I'd have to review but I want to go for a swim now that I have cooled off from a hot walk. I am not opposed to farmers being limited by govt in exporting grain or things like that. Also, I was married to a man from the MW where part of his family lost their farm back then.

BucEyedPea
09-04-2010, 11:26 AM
Thanks. At least you are honest. It helps me to understand when I see irrational across the board sweeping generalities applied to specific individual situations. Im guilty of the same things sometimes I am sure.

Fail. Pure opinion. It's not a generality it's a belief in market dynamics at the micro level. You were arguing at the macro level which involves general.....and asked me a general question.

HonestChieffan
09-04-2010, 11:44 AM
BTW HCF, I did study the farm "crisis" of the 1980's and some of this back in an Austrian economics class. I forget the details but remembered the results. I'd have to review but I want to go for a swim now that I have cooled off from a hot walk. I am not opposed to farmers being limited by govt in exporting grain or things like that. Also, I was married to a man from the MW where part of his family lost their farm back then.


Why would you limit farmers from exporting grain if you believe in the free market you hold so dear? How does that benefit the USA? And what does that do to help farmers?

HonestChieffan
09-04-2010, 11:47 AM
Fail. Pure opinion. It's not a generality it's a belief in market dynamics at the micro level. You were arguing at the macro level which involves general.....and asked me a general question.


Do you contend the WHIP program or EQUIP are bad? This is more to your desire to discuss the micro level.

Taco John
09-04-2010, 12:11 PM
I think it would have been better if the people of iraq simply said "thanks" and move on.

Thanks! ROFL

For fucking what!?

BucEyedPea
09-04-2010, 12:14 PM
As I clarifed before I said subsidies. WHIP is voluntary but it's national—but it could and should be done at the State level then you wouldn't have the Constitutional issue at least. On the other hand, I am not for supporting too much habitat....afterall we human's need space too. I am not keen on more bears or coyote in peoples back yards harming children.

EQUP is a social psychological program for delinquents. That falls under safety, protection and law enforcement. That is a legit state function unless one wants to build bigger and more prisons. Based on what I know I don't have a problem with this one. With the caveat, if they get no results it no longer be funded.

patteeu
09-04-2010, 12:15 PM
You are expanding the argument—program or a subsidy? I said subsidies.

Good lord. The person who brought up farm subsidies in a thread about Iraqi's opinions about US withdrawal is complaining about someone "expanding the argument"? :rolleyes:

BucEyedPea
09-04-2010, 12:17 PM
Why would you limit farmers from exporting grain if you believe in the free market you hold so dear? How does that benefit the USA? And what does that do to help farmers?

Oops that's a syntax typo. ( I have those.) I am opposed to govt limiting grain exports. They should be free to sell it particularly their excess and be free to find more markets.

BucEyedPea
09-04-2010, 12:18 PM
HCF expanded the argument. He asked me a question and I answered it. Nice strawman there pat.

go bowe
09-04-2010, 12:18 PM
You're not getting my message. I am not trying to persuade you, mind you, I was just trying to clarify my position for you to understand because your recent responses to my posts show being baffled by mine. baffled is right...

pea brain leaves us all baffled... ROFL ROFL ROFL

go bowe
09-04-2010, 12:23 PM
I don't need to fully understand them. well, thank goodness for little girls...

you finally admitted that you don't understand things...

bravo...

go bowe
09-04-2010, 12:25 PM
You're making the same arguments the left makes for subsidizing health care including silly negative externalities argument.yep, you know a thing or two about silly arguments, don't you?

HonestChieffan
09-04-2010, 12:27 PM
Oops that's a syntax typo. ( I have those.) I am opposed to govt limiting grain exports. They should be free to sell it particularly their excess and be free to find more markets.

When have we limited sales of grain n any recent period of time? What limits are there to a farmer selling his grain? Im confused.

go bowe
09-04-2010, 12:28 PM
HCF expanded the argument. He asked me a question and I answered it. Nice strawman there pat.strawman? ROFL ROFL ROFL

HonestChieffan
09-04-2010, 12:31 PM
While she swims I may go to my shop and beat myself with a hand sledge.

I really did try. I swear I did.

BucEyedPea
09-04-2010, 12:35 PM
While she swims I may go to my shop and beat myself with a hand sledge.

I really did try. I swear I did.

I said we disagreed and this would go nowhere. I was just explaining my pov to you.....because you seemed baffled.
No need to beat yourself with a hand sledge. But you need to be aware, that on this issue I sit where polls show most Americans are on it—tired of the WoT and endless war in foreign lands. Other issues, not so much.

BucEyedPea
09-04-2010, 12:38 PM
When have we limited sales of grain n any recent period of time? What limits are there to a farmer selling his grain? Im confused.

Did I say there was a specific time? I just said I would be against that.

However, if you want a specific time there was Carter's grain embargo to the Soviets.

From: Foreign Affairs Fall 1980
Lessons of the Grain Embargo
By Robert L. Paarlberg

Summary:
The urge to teach someone a lesson seldom inspires sound policy. The lessons learned are too often one's own. So it is with President Carter's 1980 grain embargo. Soviet food supplies have been little affected. U.S. illusions about its own "food power" have been properly dispelled.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/34274/robert-l-paarlberg/lessons-of-the-grain-embargo

HonestChieffan
09-04-2010, 12:40 PM
The embargo was not linked to ag policy or the farm programs. It was another in the list of Carter Ideas that were a failure of epic proportion till the new epic we live in arrived.

BucEyedPea
09-04-2010, 12:42 PM
The embargo was not linked to ag policy or the farm programs. It was another in the list of Carter Ideas that were a failure of epic proportion till the new epic we live in arrived.

It doesn't matter if it was imposed on the agriculture industry for some political end just like any other program or subsidy. It's still govt intervention.
Meanwhile, we had sanctions on Iraq and now Iran. No one is allowed to do business with Iran or they get in trouble.

Taco John
09-04-2010, 08:54 PM
Cool. For your safety and well being be glad there are those who see threats as very real and very dedicated. Its nice and fun to live in the world where we can have nice compact and neat theories, put labels on all we see, and not recognize the reality of what the world is. Its dangerous and there are a lot of people who want us dead. They hate our success, they hate our potential and they envy our future.

There are also some people who don't hate how gullible people like you are. They call these people "rich."

go bowe
09-04-2010, 11:07 PM
While she swims I may go to my shop and beat myself with a hand sledge.

I really did try. I swear I did.good on you mate, you really did try...

but if you're going to use a hand sledge, hit the pea brain with it instead...