Irony:

Heist

Moderator
Saddam controlls the Jihadifascists by putting them through woodchippers and ruling them with a violent, iron fist.

We take over supposedly in order to stop people from being tortured and beaten to death in captivity.

Millions of internet commandos swarm to insist that the only way to control the insurgency is to torture them for "intelligence" and rule them with a violent, iron fist. (and a widely unspoken desire to put them through woodchippers.)
 
Can I prove it? No. It's too messy even to figure out what you're tying to say.
Saddam controlls the Jihadifascists by putting them through woodchippers and ruling them with a violent, iron fist.
So you're saying there were "Jihadifascists" in Iraq when Saddam was in charge and that he kept them in line. Okay, what next?


We take over supposedly in order to stop people from being tortured and beaten to death in captivity.
I'll accept your supposition for now just for the sake of argument. Now these "Jihadifascists" are suddenly "people" who are being beated to death in captivity. Are they no longer "Jihadifascists?" Are they different people? Who are you talking about?


Millions of internet commandos swarm to insist that the only way to control the insurgency is to torture them for "intelligence" and rule them with a violent, iron fist. (and a widely unspoken desire to put them through woodchippers.)
Now they're not "Jihadifascists" or "people," suddenly they're the "insurgency" and you think it's ironic that internet commandos" want them treated like Saddam treated them.

Sheesh! :rolleyes:

"Jihadifascist" is a completely meaningless term. "People" is terribly vague and the "insurgency" is something in between, apparently. :confused:

If we're going to have a discussion, can you at least define who you are talking about?
 
I wish you would apply such keen dissection skills on the posts from the large amount of heartland AOLers that seem to be popping up willy-nilly.

Fair enough and tally-ho, here's version two:

Saddam controlled the populace by putting them through woodchippers and ruling them with a violent, iron fist. There wasn't much of a Jihadist insurgency, because he kept killing them.

We take over supposedly in order to stop the populace from being tortured and beaten to death in captivity. I believe the plan was something like "We will be greeted as liberators," until they messed it all up by not doing that.

Finally, millions of internet commandos swarm to insist that the only way to control the insurgency is to torture them for "intelligence" and rule them with a violent, iron fist. (and a widely prevalent but unspoken desire to put them through woodchippers)
 
You are talking about the population as if they are all Jihadist insurgents. Saddam tortured and imprisoned his dissenters and ethnic minorities. We are at war with terrorists and insurgents. Saddam's targets and our targets are two different groups of the population.
 
We take over supposedly in order to stop the populace from being tortured and beaten to death in captivity. I believe the plan was something like "We will be greeted as liberators," until they messed it all up by not doing that.

Finally, millions of internet commandos swarm to insist that the only way to control the insurgency is to torture them for "intelligence" and rule them with a violent, iron fist. (and a widely prevalent but unspoken desire to put them through woodchippers)

Do your homework, then try again. Again, like so many - you are attempting to apply what you think is worldly logic to what is in reality your narrow field of vision.

TBM is correct - your post represents a terribly simplistic view of a very complex problem. Your comments reflect a borderline naive point of view; that we (America) supposedly toppled the Baathist regime simply to end Saddam's mistreatment of his people and that we are now the perpetrators of such violence.

It only takes a hasty look at Georgia, Chechnya, Turkey, Libya, and the myriad of other countries whose governments seem to get by with large-scale torture without incurring direct military action by the United States to realize that perhaps whoever told you that our sole intent was to "stop the torture in the prisons" might have been a little shortsighted.

The jihadists were indeed in Iraq prior to the invation in 2003. However, unless you weren't paying attention, Saddam was an both an Arab and a muslim, if only marginally. His popularity stemmed mostly from the way he "stood up" to Israel and America - which only goes to show how deep the hatred of the West is; he was reviled for his treatment of his own people, but they respected his stance towards "The Great Satan"...

We did not invade Iraq to stop the torturing in the prisons - that was simply a bonus. And no matter what you hear from your leftist news outlets, nothing we have done to date holds a candle to the things that were done before we arrived, by his people, on his watch, under his orders. People today think that corporal punishment at school is "torture"; that allowing someone being put to death for their crimes to feel uncomfortable during their injection is "torture"; and that to endure someone yelling at you for more than a couple minutes is "torture". Get real - torture is lining a family up and killing them one by one until the father tells the police which of his friends is plotting against the government. Torture is killing the mayor and his family for working with the foriegners who are trying to coordinate with the city council the rebuilding of their hospital. Torture is what they did to Nick Berg and a dozen others.

The goal in Iraq was to create a self-sustaining democracy. The jihadists were there before. IIRC, 9/11 happened BEFORE we invaded Iraq, and I'm pretty sure that little episode was planned and executed by jihadists. The bombing of the USS Cole happened pre-OIF as well, as did the bombing of the US Embassy in Beruit. The list goes on.

You people think that we blundered into Iraq, then you need to do a little more research. You think that we "failed" - but in reality it is the Iraqis themselves who are failing. No amount of intelligence would have predicted that the Iraqis would rather self-destruct than live free.

And what's worse - those Iraqis who would rather self-destruct are only a minority of the population. There are 18 provinces in Iraq and all but two of them are as safe as your neighborhood. All of the "interviews" and "press" that comes out of Iraq? You guess it - comes straight out of those two provinces. Ever wonder why the media never "interviews" any educated Iraqis out of Baghdad? Ever wonder why the "media" never talks to any but the Bedouin and the rural farmers and isolated cities that see the most fighting? It's because their view is as narrow as yours - they have no idea what's really going on with their country...but their comments sure make damn good soundbites.

If the Iraqis didn't think we were necessary, then their government would not keep asking us to stay. And if you think their government is simply a group of Western puppets, perhaps you should read up on Iraq's leaders - specifically Jalal Talibani, Ibrahim Jaafari, and Adnan Pachachi.

You need to arm yourself a little better before you walk into a conversation like this. The jihadists are masters at propoganda and manipulating the media - and people here at home swallow it every time.
 
Did I say we were doing that? Man, I need to start including helpful drawings with my posts or something.

I'm talking about what some people keep bandying about as something we need to have the resolve to do. Not what we actually are doing.

Sheesh.

and that we are now the perpetrators of such violence.

See above.

perhaps whoever told you that our sole intent was to "stop the torture in the prisons" might have been a little shortsighted.

At one point it was one of many things in an ever shifting conga line of justifications. (The fact that it took so many justifications when it would have been sufficient and satisfactory to just say "We're finishing the job we didn't do last time" can come up later)

no matter what you hear from your leftist news outlets

Nice and to the point. Obviously, the only logical explanation for why I am not fawning over our glorious successes in Iraq is that I am an unwashed pinko-commie leftist who watches CNN and listens to Air America. Obviously. :barf:

People today think that corporal punishment at school is "torture";

The torture thread has hammered many, many nails into the coffin of "doing the same things that the Soviets would do to political prisoners is A-OK because we're the good guys." I don't really need to get into it here, but know that I don't consider being forced to listen to pop music or be read Harry Potter to be torture. I also don't live in a Jack Bauer fantasy world where Torture = Manly Awesome Solution to Everything. :rolleyes:

Torture is what they did to Nick Berg and a dozen others.

That's much worse than just ordinary torture and you know it.

The jihadists were there before. IIRC, 9/11 happened BEFORE we invaded Iraq, and I'm pretty sure that little episode was planned and executed by jihadists.

BRILLIANT, good sir! You have conclusively proved that Iraq was connected to 9/11- something even our own administration has denied. Why haven't they hired you as an intelligence advisor yet?

You people think that we blundered into Iraq, then you need to do a little more research. You think that we "failed" - but in reality it is the Iraqis themselves who are failing.

Once President Bush decided, bizarrely, to cast the invasion as a "liberation" -as if Saddam were a foreign occupier - the military options were limited. We didn't want to be too destructive in a country we were "liberating." And so the whole thing spiraled downward.

That word "liberation" fairly reeks of all the silly, sentimental, liberal assumptions that guided and are still guiding America's Iraq policy.

And what's worse - those Iraqis who would rather self-destruct are only a minority of the population. There are 18 provinces in Iraq and all but two of them are as safe as your neighborhood. All of the "interviews" and "press" that comes out of Iraq? You guess it - comes straight out of those two provinces. Ever wonder why the media never "interviews" any educated Iraqis out of Baghdad?

You don't read the blogs of educated Iraqis much, do you- Iraqis who support our efforts but are horrified with what the media doesn't report, and by doesn't report, I mean violence and thuggery on a level magnitudes above what the media portrays.


I think all of you are reading too much into my post. If you want to attempt to apply it to the situation as a whole, it's a flawed glass- but no more flawed than some other viewpoints I see posted around here which I could pick and choose and rip apart at my leisure.
 
Saddam controlled the populace by putting them through woodchippers and ruling them with a violent, iron fist. There wasn't much of a Jihadist insurgency, because he kept killing them.

He wasn't killing those who were against the west, he was killing those who were against him.

We take over supposedly in order to stop the populace from being tortured and beaten to death in captivity. I believe the plan was something like "We will be greeted as liberators," until they messed it all up by not doing that.

Stopping him from killing his populace was a biproduct of stopping him. I don't recall anything about anyone saying we're going there to stop him from killing his own people. The way I remember it, we went there to stop him from having the means to kill us in our own country.

Finally, millions of internet commandos swarm to insist that the only way to control the insurgency is to torture them for "intelligence" and rule them with a violent, iron fist. (and a widely prevalent but unspoken desire to put them through woodchippers)

I find it humorous that things such as underwear on the head are considered torture by some. While I find it offensive and inmature, it's not torture. Running someone through a woodchipper would not be torture, it would be murder or at a minimum cruel and unusual punishment.
Killing, bombing, destoying and interogation are all part of warfare. It is not clean or pleasant, there will always be those who don't agree with it and there will always be those who take it too far and cross the line into murder.
The only irony I see is that those who boohoo the loudest against the government engaging in war abroad are typically the same who cry that the government didn't do enough to protect them when there is an attack at home. They don't want troops abroad and they don't want troops in their neighborhood. Can't have it both ways, personally I would rather destroy someone elses neighborhood than our own.
 
Heist said:
Nice and to the point. Obviously, the only logical explanation for why I am not fawning over our glorious successes in Iraq is that I am an unwashed pinko-commie leftist who watches CNN and listens to Air America. Obviously.

Those are your words, not mine. No matter how you slice it, your original post smacks of the crap that left-leaning outlets spout on a daily basis. So if you read carefully, all I said was that it sounded like your opinion came right out of one of them.

Heist said:
That's much worse than just ordinary torture and you know it.
Really? So where is the line drawn?

Heist said:
BRILLIANT, good sir! You have conclusively proved that Iraq was connected to 9/11- something even our own administration has denied. Why haven't they hired you as an intelligence advisor yet?
Well that was pithy, wasn't it. Actually, it was a direct response to one of your previous comments:

There wasn't much of a Jihadist insurgency, because he kept killing them.

He wasn't killing the jihadists - he was killing everyone who disagreed with him.


Heist said:
You don't read the blogs of educated Iraqis much, do you- Iraqis who support our efforts but are horrified with what the media doesn't report, and by doesn't report, I mean violence and thuggery on a level magnitudes above what the media portrays.

And if it's on the internet, it must be true, right? I've seen some of their blogs, and read some of their opinions. Even THEY don't tell the whole story, only what they see, or think they see. The ones that are legit, at least. I'd be careful which of those I take at face value.

All in all; if out of my entire post those are your only points of contention, then I'll consider my point made.
 
The fact that it took so many justifications when it would have been sufficient and satisfactory to just say "We're finishing the job we didn't do last time" can come up later
Once President Bush decided, bizarrely, to cast the invasion as a "liberation" -as if Saddam were a foreign occupier - the military options were limited. We didn't want to be too destructive in a country we were "liberating." And so the whole thing spiraled downward.
Let's go back to the premise of "finishing the job" rather than "liberation." I guess that in those circumstances, things would (presumably) not have spiraled downward because our military options would not have been limited and we could have just bombed the entire country back to the Stone Age to begin with. :barf:
 
You're all forgetting the most important thing about this exercise in Iraq - to make Halliburton lots of money. As long as this remains true, the exercise will be a considered a successful venture. The Saddam/torture/democracy/other crap is just background noise designed to fill the evening news with chatter.
 
Hang on a sec....OK. I am now properly equipped to sit in on this discussion,
centurion.JPG

in the event that it survives long enough that I might find something to add to it.
 
Back
Top