in case you thought Patraeus was apolitical ...

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by diamond
I hear ya gf!

Stalin, Hilter and Mao was such better philanthropists!

snap!

dbs

Not only is this irrelevant, but I'm sensing a bit of a trend here.

[AEON]

Originally posted by kellyahern
^ Funny that you mention Korea.




Wtf?

I think the point is that the US suffered over 33,000 combat deaths to keep Korea free. The result has been a thriving, globally competitive democracy.

[kellyahern]

nevermind, I give up.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by AEON


I think the point is that the US suffered over 33,000 combat deaths to keep Korea free. The result has been a thriving, globally competitive democracy.

and the creation of the biggest nuclear threat since WW2. and things in iraq aren't nearly as clear as in Korea. Baghdad isn't Seoul. and this isn't a penninsula in the Pacific; this is the heart of the Middle East.

but if you're willing to do this, to sacrafice 5,000+ Americans and perhaps 50x that many Iraqis, just go ahead and say so.

but tell me what you hope to achieve.

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by Irvine511
and the creation of the biggest nuclear threat since WW2. and things in iraq aren't nearly as clear as in Korea. Baghdad isn't Seoul. and this isn't a penninsula in the Pacific; this is the heart of the Middle East.

but if you're willing to do this, to sacrafice 5,000+ Americans and perhaps 50x that many Iraqis, just go ahead and say so.

but tell me what you hope to achieve.

Exactly.

As I said earlier:

Originally posted by phillyfan26
What have we accomplished in Iraq, what are we going to accomplish in Iraq, and how does it make America safer? Those are important questions.

[AEON]

Originally posted by Irvine511



and the creation of the biggest nuclear threat since WW2. and things in iraq aren't nearly as clear as in Korea. Baghdad isn't Seoul. and this isn't a penninsula in the Pacific; this is the heart of the Middle East.

Which makes the mission even more important, not less.

Originally posted by Irvine511




but tell me what you hope to achieve.

What the US Army achieved with the deaths of 33,000 in Korea and 290,000 in World War II - the spread of democracy.

This is a good thing - unless you somehow think the Middle Easterners are genetically challenged therefore incapable or not worth having such a system.

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by AEON
What the US Army achieved with the deaths of 33,000 in Korea and 290,000 in World War II - the spread of democracy.

This is a good thing - unless you somehow think the Middle Easterners are genetically challenged therefore incapable or not worth having such a system.

1. Isn't it anti-democratic to force a system upon a group of people?

2. When did someone infer that they are "genetically challenged?"

3. What happened to the safety of our country?

4. Didn't Bush state that this had something to do with terrorists from al-Qaeda, the war on terror, and the safety of America?

[BVS]

Originally posted by AEON


Which makes the mission even more important, not less.

Originally posted by AEON

What the US Army achieved with the deaths of 33,000 in Korea and 290,000 in World War II - the spread of democracy.

This is a good thing - unless you somehow think the Middle Easterners are genetically challenged therefore incapable or not worth having such a system.

Genetically challenged? 290,000 deaths a good thing? Your arguments are so "left field", detached, and down right bizarre, that it's hard to discuss anything with you...

[Diemen]

Originally posted by AEON
What the US Army achieved with the deaths of 33,000 in Korea and 290,000 in World War II - the spread of democracy.

So the spread of democracy is worth it regardless of the cost?

[Infinity]

Originally posted by phillyfan26


1. Isn't it anti-democratic to force a system upon a group of people?

2. When did someone infer that they are "genetically challenged?"

3. What happened to the safety of our country?

4. Didn't Bush state that this had something to do with terrorists from al-Qaeda, the war on terror, and the safety of America?

Don't ask questions like that, you are being unpatriotic and not supporting the troops.

[AEON]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar

290,000 deaths a good thing?

No - the spread of democracy is the good thing these men and women died for.

[Infinity]

Personally I think the idea of bombing a country in order to "spread" democracy is the biggest load of bullshit i've ever seen.

The idea of forcing a democracy onto the people kills the whole idea of democracy. What neo-cons fail to understand is that a democracy is a government made by the people, not by the world police (U.S.).

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by AEON


Which makes the mission even more important, not less.

but does that make it more achievable or less?

are you ready to see an old school draft implemented? are you ready to sacrafice all these kids, our best and brightest, in order to force one country to adopt our government? didn't this already happen before, didn't the UK already try this, a good 100 or so years ago?



[q]What the US Army achieved with the deaths of 33,000 in Korea and 290,000 in World War II - the spread of democracy.[/q]

you haven't even defined what the US achieved in Korea. yes, Seoul is one thing, but we got North Korea as well. is this really a good thing?

This is a good thing - unless you somehow think the Middle Easterners are genetically challenged therefore incapable or not worth having such a system.

it's funny when conservatives play the race card in reverse. you'll moan about affirmative action, but then call me a racist when i say that i'm not terribly encouraged by the ability of Arab culture to adopt liberal democratic values. can we have a democracy? sure. there was voting in Iraq last year and the year before. but is it a liberal society? (and by liberal i mean the toleration of differnet points of view) no, not by any means. in fact, in Iraq, as in Gaza, all democracy has done is legitimize thugs. Hitler was elected, never forget that. simply because there's a democracy in place doesn't mean that it's suddenly going to become Canada. it's far, far, far more complex than that, and i'm disappointed that after 4 years and exactly ZERO progress you're still playing the whole "you're a racist if you think that Iraqis can't be like Canadians" card.

[AEON]

Originally posted by phillyfan26


1. Isn't it anti-democratic to force a system upon a group of people?

2. When did someone infer that they are "genetically challenged?"

3. What happened to the safety of our country?

4. Didn't Bush state that this had something to do with terrorists from al-Qaeda, the war on terror, and the safety of America?

1. I know of a few Southerners circa 1861 that would answer "yes"

2. By somehow thinking that the Middle East is incapable of democracy.

3) The entire Global War on Terror is about the safety of our country and democracies around the world. Petraeus is in one theater out of many.

4) In Iraq we are indeed fighting al-Queda, GWOT, and preserving US safety. The president and the congress are the right people to speak about the overall success GWOT, not Petraeus. I don't see why this is so difficult for people to understand.

[BVS]

Originally posted by AEON


No - the spread of democracy is the good thing these men and women died for.

Really? Can you honestly give me a detailed reason, how it worked here, and why democracy is the only government that works and therefore needs to be spread throughout?

[AEON]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Really? Can you honestly give me a detailed reason, how it worked here, and why democracy is the only government that works and therefore needs to be spread throughout?

Give me an example of a government that is NOT a democracy that you consider "working" (I presume you mean working to mean good for the overwhelming majority of the citizens).

Do you prefer totalitarianism? communism? oligarchy? monarchy?

[BVS]

Originally posted by AEON


Give me an example of a government that is NOT a democracy that you consider "working" (I presume you mean working to mean good for the overwhelming majority of the citizens).

Do you prefer totalitarianism? communism? oligarchy? monarchy?

Nice detail of how it worked in Korea...

So are we to invade Canada next?

[namkcuR]

Originally posted by AEON


Give me an example of a government that is NOT a democracy that you consider "working" (I presume you mean working to mean good for the overwhelming majority of the citizens).

Do you prefer totalitarianism? communism? oligarchy? monarchy?

That's not the point. We're not talking about the effectiveness(or non-effectiveness) of democracy. We're talking about the idea of forcing ANY governmental system on ANY country. Going from a totalitarian dictatorship to a democracy(or any governmental shift of that magnitude) is a revolution, and more often than not in world history, revolutions start within, not externally. This is not about whether democracy works or not, it's about why America feels like it has the right to force any governmental system at all on anyone. What gives us that right? Why do we think it's our place? Some of us think it is our place, and some of us think we have absolutely no right. That's what this is about.

[AEON]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Nice detail of how it worked in Korea...

So are we to invade Canada next?

Do I really need to say that South Korea is "working" and North Korea is not?

[BVS]

Originally posted by AEON


Do I really need to say that South Korea is "working" and North Korea is not?

yeah, you do, when you say the loss of that many lives is a "good thing" then yes you better back it up with something, it's apparant you can't...

You still haven't told me why democracy HAS to be spread...