34 Dead as Baghdad Bombers Hit Red Cross, Police

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Okay, Ned, I see your point. But I think those protesters are representative only of a small and ill-informed minority. Of course, they make for exciting news (which, especially on TV, is about conflict and drama, not information and analysis), so we hear more from them than from more sober liberal and progressive voices.

[Ned]

Actually, if JFK was a liberal, than so am I. But today's Democrats, by in large, are far to the left of JFK. The meaning of the term has changed over the years.

[Q Classic]

ned, you're a neocon. now, a lot of conservative pundits have said that neoconservatives are merely liberals who grew up, decided to be more realistic, and then go do what they've always been doing, which is to spread american values everywhere.

bay of pigs notwithstanding, kennedy probably wasn't too interested in nation-building, just getting rid of the communist scourge, which wasn't even his idea to begin with--it was trumans.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Dissident
What's wrong with Saddam Husseing getting back into power?

Now that the war and the bloodbath has been done, and now that there is no way to resurrect the dead and have the cripples walk, we should at leastcapitalize on the little result the war has brought.

Saddam is gone. This may be only good thing that comes from the war. Let's not waste it.

[Ned]

Yeah, Truman probably felt "betrayed" by Stalin. After all, we helped him fight the NAZIs, but we believe Stalin had to know that the reason we were fighting was for the liberation of Poland (and France, etc.). When Stalin refused to pull out of Eastern Europe and allow them freedom, Truman probably was nagged by the belief that Roosevelt would never have let Stalin get away with what he did. Thus the resistance to communism became personal. Just like his later struggle with presidential-candidate-to-be, MacArthur.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Liberals right now are furious that, having proceeded with Iraq to begin with, the Bush administration has done such a half-assed job of it.

Really? What about the new currency? And how about those thousands of new businesses that are opening up in Iraq? I see nothing half assed about the job being done. The only half assed answers I see are coming from the democratic candidate debates.

Liberals are furious that they were ignored when they said "it's going to be a bloodbath," and are still being ignored when they say, "see?

That is ****ing laughable. The same idiots who said that this would be a Vietnam type of situation? Wrong. I would rather say I told you so. There has been what? Less than 400 casualities for the coalition... and the opposition to coalition troops is weak to begin with.

This should have been handled differently."

How so? I would like to hear something plausable, instead of the same BS rhetoric that comes from the left.

But we are, most of us, sensible enough to know that a US pullout at this point will just turn Iraq into that other shining star of Bush foreign policy, Afghanistan. Nobody wants that.

Idiot. The US hasn't pulled out of Afghanistan.

Still, even though we too ar committed to seeing this thing through, it doesn't chang the fact that the Bushies were wrong, wrong, wrong: wrong about the WMD, wrong about the way our "liberating" troops in Baghdad would be treated, wrong about how many troops we would need, wrong about how much it was going to cost, wrong about how long it was all going to take. We are like passengers in a plane being piloted by a drunk; of course we can't just get out, but don't expect us to be happy about the situation.

edited for typos

Do you have anything useful to say? Or is it the same old nonsense rhetoric?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Fez
There has been what? Less than 400 casualities for the coalition...

And on the other side?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Spiffor

And on the other side?

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Remember that battle at the Baghdad airport? They say 2,500 Iraqi soldiers were killed in that alone.

Anti american crap... that is what this board is full of.

[MrFun]

There is one other valid point though from those supporting Bush's policies -- a new nation is not built over night.

We need to remember that it took about 13 years from the end of the American Revolution, to the inaguaration of George Washington, before we established a new government.

Today, too many Americans seem to have this "instant gratification" attitude, in that if something takes longer than a few hours, days, or months -- depending on what that is -- then it's too much trouble to be worth it.

Nation building does not take months -- it takes years usually.


But I am opposed to the Bush's administration of misinformation and deception -- not the slow pace of making progress in Iraq.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Fez
What the hell is that supposed to mean?

It is supposed to mean you don't judge if a war is a "bloodbath" or not only by looking at one side's casualties.

According to a recent poll, 30% of the Iraqis have lost a relative / friend or neighbour in the one month of war. I say it looks like blood has been spilled. In gobs.

[Giancarlo]

Spiffor, let me ask you... who were the ones using human shields? The Iraqi troops and militias. Who were the ones using hospitals? This was no ordinary war... don't try to paint it as anything else. Saddam and his men used dirty tactics.

Also according to recent polls, most Iraqis want the US to stay in. They know if the US pulls out there will be a total anarchy.

[SlowwHand]

It isn't a "blood bath" on any side, by any standard.
"Blood bath" would be like what Hussein did to his people following Gulf War 1.

[MrFun]

I hate it when a flood of new posts come immediately after I posted my thoughts.


sigh

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
"Blood bath" would be like what Hussein did to his people following Gulf War 1.

According to the same poll, 50% of the Iraqis have lost a relative / friend / neighbour under Saddam's reign. Since Saddam's reign lasted 20+ years, whereas Gulf War 2 lasted one month, this war strikes me as being quite bloody.

Of course, no journalist thought of mentioning the thousands (tens of thousands?) Iraqi soldiers who died during the war, leaving orphans and widows. Nobody thought worth mentioning that a great many people will now be crippled for the rest of their lives because of the war.

I think the figures of the poll (the only way to approach Iraqi casualties, as there has been no body count) are striking. 50% for more than 20 years of a reign of terror. And 30% for a mere month of a "clean war". Yeah

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

It is supposed to mean you don't judge if a war is a "bloodbath" or not only by looking at one side's casualties.

According to a recent poll, 30% of the Iraqis have lost a relative / friend or neighbour in the one month of war. I say it looks like blood has been spilled. In gobs.

Cite for the poll?