More Troops???!!

[peanuts]

Demonizing others because they are different from us is folly and ignorant.

You have to admit, and unfortunately many leaders submit to, the power of demonizing groups in order to motivate the masses.

Different levels of any societal group have different views of how they personally apply to a much larger perspective, and different roles to play in the direction and implementation of a society's plan. Few control the lives of many, and this is strengthened by uniting them in a common theme. Once united, a society is more easily guided. Whether that guidance is right or wrong, only history can tell.

Fear is one of the most easily manipulated emotions.

[New-born baby]

I'll answer your question with a question. If you took three 6 yr old boys from the USA, Iran and North Korea and put you put those 9 boys in a room together with no adults, what do you think they would do? Would they try to kill each other?

If there was some aggression, which group would you predict would start it?

MM,
You never give me a straight answer to a straight question when I ask you about this subject (you always give me a straight answer on stock questions). I don't think that is a realistic way to talk politics or lead a nation as vast as the USA.

But here is my opinion, and I'll give it to you straight. In 1939 the issue was dealing with Adolf Hitler, or letting him alone. You could have put 3 French, 3 British, and 3 German six year olds in the same room then, too. But what would it prove? Adolf Hitler was not six years old. Nor was Himmler, Goering, Goebbels, Haydenrich. Six year old children do not command armies, terrorist cells or rogue nations. Now the Brits had a Prime Minister named Neville Chamberlain. He wanted to leave Adolf alone. He sat down with Adolf and made an agreement with him. Chamberlain declared after Adolf signed the document that "we have peace in our time." Very shortly thereafter the entire world was at war, and some 53 million died. Europe was destroyed (think about what that cost to fix up the continent).

Now which is worse: losing 3,000 soldiers (very regrettable), or losing 53 million people? And if you want to talk about cost, . . . .

[mrmarket]

MM,
You never give me a straight answer to a straight question when I ask you about this subject (you always give me a straight answer on stock questions). I don't think that is a realistic way to talk politics or lead a nation as vast as the USA.

But here is my opinion, and I'll give it to you straight. In 1939 the issue was dealing with Adolf Hitler, or letting him alone. You could have put 3 French, 3 British, and 3 German six year olds in the same room then, too. But what would it prove? Adolf Hitler was not six years old. Nor was Himmler, Goering, Goebbels, Haydenrich. Six year old children do not command armies, terrorist cells or rogue nations. Now the Brits had a Prime Minister named Neville Chamberlain. He wanted to leave Adolf alone. He sat down with Adolf and made an agreement with him. Chamberlain declared after Adolf signed the document that "we have peace in our time." Very shortly thereafter the entire world was at war, and some 53 million died. Europe was destroyed (think about what that cost to fix up the continent).

Now which is worse: losing 3,000 soldiers (very regrettable), or losing 53 million people? And if you want to talk about cost, . . . .

War should be the last, not the first, option. If Chamberlain had not negotiated with Hitler, Hitler still would have done what he wanted.

Why do people oversees think that Americans are the "bad guys" when we think we are not? Why do Americans think governments of the "axis of evil" are bad guys, when they think they are not?

Do you really think that people raise their children to be knowingly evil?

[New-born baby]

War should be the last, not the first, option. If Chamberlain had not negotiated with Hitler, Hitler still would have done what he wanted.

Why do people oversees think that Americans are the "bad guys" when we think we are not? Why do Americans think governments of the "axis of evil" are bad guys, when they think they are not?

Why did the Germans consider the Jews, Poles, Russians, Czechs, and all other nations to be evil? Answer: they had a polluted world view. Did Neville Chamberlain help change their world view with a warm hug? Answer: he made matters worse by giving Hitler more time, resources and capitol to commit his crimes across the world. That warm hug put many millions more people in the grave.

Do you really think that people raise their children to be knowingly evil?

The issue is not "knowingly evil;" the issue is "evil." Evil is evil--knowingly or not. Case in point: go to Israel and listen to the Palestinians teach their children (at age 5) to sing, "We shall kill the Jews. We shall push them into the sea." Now maybe those Palestinians don't think that killing Jews is evil. Like Hitler who wrote on page 82 of Mein Kampf, "I believe I am doing the Lord's Work by ridding the world of the Jews." Nevertheless it is still evil.

MM, you need to come to grips with this reality: the way to make an enemy a friend is to defeat him completely. Britian, Japan and Germany are excellent examples.

If America lets the Iranians or the North Koreans have the bomb, there will be a day they will use it against us. And then it will be too late.

[Tatnic]

Exactly...perhaps we can learn a little from them.

The blunt force sledgehammer approach of smash the ant hill doesn't work anymore. Demonizing others because they are different from us is folly and ignorant.

Mr. B...you indeed are huge and should consider running for office..if Arnold can do it, so can you.

[mrmarket]

Why did the Germans consider the Jews, Poles, Russians, Czechs, and all other nations to be evil? Answer: they had a polluted world view. Did Neville Chamberlain help change their world view with a warm hug? Answer: he made matters worse by giving Hitler more time, resources and capitol to commit his crimes across the world. That warm hug put many millions more people in the grave.


The issue is not "knowingly evil;" the issue is "evil." Evil is evil--knowingly or not. Case in point: go to Israel and listen to the Palestinians teach their children (at age 5) to sing, "We shall kill the Jews. We shall push them into the sea." Now maybe those Palestinians don't think that killing Jews is evil. Like Hitler who wrote on page 82 of Mein Kampf, "I believe I am doing the Lord's Work by ridding the world of the Jews." Nevertheless it is still evil.

MM, you need to come to grips with this reality: the way to make an enemy a friend is to defeat him completely. Britian, Japan and Germany are excellent examples.

If America lets the Iranians or the North Koreans have the bomb, there will be a day they will use it against us. And then it will be too late.

I don't disagree with what you say and this whole thing really doesn't bother me that much. There are only two things in the world I should never worry about:

#1 Things I can't control
#2 Things I can control

[Websman]

Is this guy on crack?

I'm not sure Bush is on crack, but I do honestly believe that he's an alcoholic...and an idiot.

It seems to me that our soldiers are nothing more than pawns and the Iraq war is nothing but a game to him.

We got Saddam and it only cost us 3000 of our finest soldiers. I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound like a very good deal to me.

Oh yea...I forgot to mention the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi cilvilians that have been caught in the cross fire, who probably knew nothing about politics or even cared.

[lemonjello]

You can't make this stuff up

Not to mention if Daddy Bush had followed thru on this promises to support the Kurds and Shiites in Southern Iraq after Gulf War I, they would eventually have overthrown or contained Saddam themselves instead of ending up in mass graves. The incompetency and/or stupidity is amazing (giving them the benefit of the doubt here).

You wonder why the Shiites don't cooperate with Baby Bush? Would you after what Daddy Bush did to them?

I'm not sure Bush is on crack, but I do honestly believe that he's an alcoholic...and an idiot.

It seems to me that our soldiers are nothing more than pawns and the Iraq war is nothing but a game to him.

We got Saddam and it only cost us 3000 of our finest soldiers. I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound like a very good deal to me.

Oh yea...I forgot to mention the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi cilvilians that have been caught in the cross fire, who probably knew nothing about politics or even cared.

[New-born baby]

Not to mention if Daddy Bush had followed thru on this promises to support the Kurds and Shiites in Southern Iraq after Gulf War I, they would eventually have overthrown or contained Saddam themselves instead of ending up in mass graves. The incompetency and/or stupidity is amazing (giving them the benefit of the doubt here).

You wonder why the Shiites don't cooperate with Baby Bush? Would you after what Daddy Bush did to them?

Gulf War I: Another example of being too soft. Had Saddam on the run, the US Army between the Iraqi army and Baghdad/Saddam, and they stopped. Liberal softness. So now we have another 3,000 casualties.

[riverbabe]

The issue is not "knowingly evil;" the issue is "evil." Evil is evil--knowingly or not. Case in point: go to Israel and listen to the Palestinians teach their children (at age 5) to sing, "We shall kill the Jews. We shall push them into the sea." Now maybe those Palestinians don't think that killing Jews is evil. Like Hitler who wrote on page 82 of Mein Kampf, "I believe I am doing the Lord's Work by ridding the world of the Jews." Nevertheless it is still evil.

Ah, what and/or which and/or who is more evil? Your story begs an answer to that Palestinian/Jewish question. I have been on the ground in Israel/Palestine many times. I personally know many Palestinians from old wealthy and illustrious families who lost everything and live in silence, but send their sons and daughters to "summer camp" and donations to charitable organizations that provide immense charitable help to a desperate people but that also have military wings.

Have you ever heard of the first intafada that took place in 1947-48 because the Zionist Jews in Israel confiscated all the land, farms, pastures, houses, flocks, possessions, they could from the rightful Palestinian owners? The Palestinians decisively lost that intafada to try to retrieve their rightful land and possessions. They fled to Jordan, to Lebanon, to the West Bank. They were totally displaced. They have never recovered. Most still live in squalid refugee camps. The unfortunate mantra they teach their children is because to admit that they have lost their land forever is unbearable. They can't admit this defeat. Therefore, they teach their children to never lose hope that eventually they will recover what was wrongfully (evily?) taken from them by force and destruction. The only way to peace is a plan that includes at least some restoration and resettlement of the displaced Palestinians. They will not and cannot forget this humiliation.

Now, whether or not I agree with what they teach their children is not the issue here. In fact, I don't think it is productive in a path to peace, but rather is a delusion and, eventually, reality must prevail. But that reality could take generations to take hold. What is happening there will not go away in the near future, regardless of what we "enlightened ones" perceive must happen. Riverbabe

[mrmarket]

Gulf War I: Another example of being too soft. Had Saddam on the run, the US Army between the Iraqi army and Baghdad/Saddam, and they stopped. Liberal softness. So now we have another 3,000 casualties.

NBB...if we had "occupied" Iraq after Gulf War I we'd still be in the same predicament we are in now, only it would have been going on for the last 15 yrs instead of the last 3 yrs.

[Runner]

Bush gets my support because the stakes are higher if we put our tails between our legs and pull out. In this type of war our greatest defense is a strong offense!

[mrmarket]

Ok...I'm going out on a limb here. Today is January 10, 2007 and I'm going on record for all of the world to see and I'm going to say that sending 20,000 more troops to Iraq will not solve the problem.

I hope I'm wrong.

[skiracer]

Bush gets my support because the stakes are higher if we put our tails between our legs and pull out. In this type of war our greatest defense is a strong offense!

He would get my support too if he would go in and do it right from the beginning. They can't and they won't and more will die and nothing will change. Before this is over and after his new plan is implemented they'll be asking for more troops and more money and the death toll will have increased to 6000. I wish you were right Runner but I'm not buying into it.

[grebnet]

The real question

If your son/daughter is old enough , are you willing to let them die for Iraq ?? I am not convinced that terrorism will slow down when that war is over.If Iraqis want us there than this Government should be doing a better media job convincing americans that our sacrifices are worthwhile. We will always be viewed as the wealthy powerhouse that others want to knock down,the terrorism floodgates have been opened.

OK enough of this non stock blah blah which is taking over this whole site.

p.s. FRPT builds armored vehicles for protection against IEDs