Not learning from our mistakes

[sirs]

And when will the U.S. have won the war? The actual war part of this conflict was won.

Excellent point, Prince.  Ironically, it's the folks like Brass, who just agreed with your post, that claims the "mission accomplished" part was not in reference to the "war part" having been won.  But to answer your query, it's been the same answer, since the the inception of the taking out of Saddam.....when the Iraqis are able to handle their own security

As for not learning from our mistakes, indeed we are not. Apparently we still think we can fix the world if we just use enough military force, never realizing that the desire to fix the world is where we are going wrong in the first place.

Keeping in mind, that's NOT why we went in, in the 1st place..... to supposedly "fix the world", or fix Iraq for that matter.

Excellent points, UP.

So, the "Mission Accomplished" WAS referencing the actual taking out Saddam, and not the supposed overal Iraqi conflict.  Or are you going to find some way to rationalize both?

[Universe Prince]

But to answer your query, it's been the same answer, since the the inception of the taking out of Saddam.....when the Iraqis are able to handle their own security

[...]

Keeping in mind, that's NOT why we went in, in the 1st place..... to supposedly "fix the world", or fix Iraq for that matter.

We didn't go into Iraq to fix Iraq? We went in as liberators, saving Iraq and ourselves from the threat of the regime of Saddam Hussein. Did we not? And if the Iraqis being able to handle their own security was the winning goal from the beginning, how can it be that we did not go in to fix Iraq?

[sirs]

We didn't go into Iraq to fix Iraq? We went in as liberators, saving Iraq and ourselves from the threat of the regime of Saddam Hussein. Did we not?

Close, which should be in no way confused with trying "to fix the world" or to even "fix Iraq".  Specifically, it was to "fix the WMD threat" that Saddam/Iraq posed, according to the intel.  The nation building (fixing Iraq) that followed was a necessary consequence, as a result of why we went in, "in the 1st place"

[Universe Prince]

Close, which should be in no way confused with trying "to fix the world" or to even "fix Iraq".  Specifically, it was to "fix the WMD threat" that Saddam/Iraq posed, according to the intel.  The nation building (fixing Iraq) that followed was a necessary consequence, as a result of why we went in, "in the 1st place"

To fix the WMD threat... from here you appear to be playing semantics. We didn't go into Iraq to fix Iraq or the world, but we did go in to fix the WMD threat, and the won-the-war-in-Iraq scenario has been when the Iraqis are able to handle their own security and has been since the the inception of the idea of taking out of Saddam, but we didn't go in to fix Iraq. This is kinda like saying the plumber isn't there to repair the leaky pipe, he's just there to repair the leak in the pipe. The words are slightly different, but the action and intent are exactly the same either way.

[sirs]

Close, which should be in no way confused with trying "to fix the world" or to even "fix Iraq".  Specifically, it was to "fix the WMD threat" that Saddam/Iraq posed, according to the intel.  The nation building (fixing Iraq) that followed was a necessary consequence, as a result of why we went in, "in the 1st place"

To fix the WMD threat... from here you appear to be playing semantics. ....The words are slightly different, but the action and intent are exactly the same either way.

Not at all.  It's called "cart....horse"......."intentions" --> "consequences".  The fact we're having to "fix Iraq" now was in no way why we went IN to Iraq in the 1st place.  Never has been. 

[Plane]

Close, which should be in no way confused with trying "to fix the world" or to even "fix Iraq".  Specifically, it was to "fix the WMD threat" that Saddam/Iraq posed, according to the intel.  The nation building (fixing Iraq) that followed was a necessary consequence, as a result of why we went in, "in the 1st place"

To fix the WMD threat... from here you appear to be playing semantics. ....The words are slightly different, but the action and intent are exactly the same either way.

Not at all.  It's called "cart....horse"......."intentions" --> "consequences".  The fact we're having to "fix Iraq" now was in no way why we went IN to Iraq in the 1st place.  Never has been. 

sirs
Hero Member

Posts: 1000




Congratulations !


Get a job.

[sirs]

sirs
Hero Member
Posts: 1000
Congratulations !
Get a job.

     Wow, I didn't realize what a blabbermouth I was

[Universe Prince]

It's called "cart....horse"......."intentions" --> "consequences".  The fact we're having to "fix Iraq" now was in no way why we went IN to Iraq in the 1st place.  Never has been.

As I said before, you're playing semantics. If the winning objective from the beginning was, as you said, to have the Iraqis handling their own security, then the goal, from the beginning, has been to fix Iraq. If the goal was to deal with the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and his supposed WMD, then the goal was to fix Iraq. Yes, I get that you don't want to call it "fixing" Iraq, but whatever you want to call it, my point remains. Apparently we still think we can fix the world if we just use enough military force, never realizing that the desire to fix the world is where we are going wrong in the first place.

[Plane]

I credit the war in Iraq as being an attempt to tackle terrorism at its root causes.


Yep , I think that a lot of terrorists lost a freind in Saddam.


Perhaps not the same ones we are fighting in Iraq now but none of our freinds eitherway.

[sirs]

It's called "cart....horse"......."intentions" --> "consequences".  The fact we're having to "fix Iraq" now was in no way why we went IN to Iraq in the 1st place.  Never has been.

As I said before, you're playing semantics. If the winning objective from the beginning was, as you said, to have the Iraqis handling their own security, then the goal, from the beginning, has been to fix Iraq. .

No, no, no, I'm playing reality.  You're the one trying to blurr intentions.  We did not intend to go into Iraq to "fix it".  We went into Iraq to specifically take out the WMD threat that existed (per the global intel), and as a result of THAT action, now we do have a moral & geopolitical obligation to fix it.  Horse --> cart....Intentions --> Consequences

[Universe Prince]

No, no, no, I'm playing reality.  You're the one trying to blurr intentions.  We did not intend to go into Iraq to "fix it".  We went into Iraq to specifically take out the WMD threat that existed (per the global intel), and as a result of THAT action, now we do have a moral & geopolitical obligation to fix it.  Horse --> cart....Intentions --> Consequences

I'm not blurring anything. You can say we didn't go into Iraq to fix Iraq but to take out the WMD, but that's like saying we're we're digging a retention pond rather than a drainage ditch. Taking out WMD, fixing Iraq, essentially the same thing. There was a perceived problem, and the solution decided upon was to fix the perceived problem by military force. That is the reality.

And if you really want to talk about moral obligation, then frankly America, or rather the U.S. government, has a moral obligation to start leaving other people alone. That means here at home and everywhere else. Yes, there are people in the world who want to kill us, but we are not going to solve that by a continuation of the policies and attitudes that have gone before. Clearly those policies and attitudes have not stopped the emergence of terrorism and hatred toward the U.S. And so just as clearly, the government needs to adjust to different policies and different attitudes. No, there is no need to see if America can negotiate with terrorists or to appease them. But the government also has zero business letting them define for America what American foreign policy is supposed to be. And if the government insists that America has some obligation to do the opposite of what they demand, then the government is letting them define the terms of the situation, and that is wrong (to put it politely). America has little reason to worry about appeasing them, because we cannot actually do so. But the U.S government should be concerned about doing what is right, and if doing what is right means something the terrorists claim to want happens, the U.S. government still has a moral obligation to do the right thing.

One can argue that not using SWAT units with no-knock warrants to storm into people's houses to look for drugs just appeases the drug dealers, but that doesn't make using the SWAT units in that fashion a course of action that needs to continue. One can argue that not raising taxes just appeases the wealthy, but that does not make raising taxes a proper course of action. But, but, but, the "war on terrorism" is about saving lives, yes, I know. I'm not saying don't go after the terrorists. I'm the U.S. government needs to stop trying to fix the world by force. It's not going to happen. Why? Because Intentions-->Actions-->Consequences, that's why. Good intentions are not enough to justify wrong actions. Everyone claims good intentions. The Nazis claimed good intentions. Racists claim good intentions. Intentions, schmentions. If the actions are wrong, then the actions are wrong regardless of the intentions. And when bad consequences arise after wrong actions, it is asinine to insist that further wrong actions are the way to deal with those consequences. The way to get Good Intentions-->Good Consequences is through Good Actions. And if what you have is Good Intentions-->Bad Consequences, then you really need to rethink the Actions between the two. That is where we are, and that is reality.

[Universe Prince]

I credit the war in Iraq as being an attempt to tackle terrorism at its root causes.

Of course it was. That does not, however, mean remaining there is the best course of action.

[BT]

That does not, however, mean remaining there is the best course of action.

What is the best course of action. Float a proposal.

[sirs]

I'm not blurring anything. You can say we didn't go into Iraq to fix Iraq but to take out the WMD, but that's like saying we're we're digging a retention pond rather than a drainage ditch....And if you really want to talk about moral obligation, then frankly America, or rather the U.S. government, has a moral obligation to start leaving other people alone.

That's all fine and dandy, as long as they don't pose a threat to our way of life, our existance.  Ironically, you helped teach me that, way back when.  When the threat is deemed valid, we then are obligated to do something about it....<Horse>

Taking out WMD, fixing Iraq, essentially the same thing.

No, they're not.  And that's the problem we're having here.  You're making them out as nearly analogus, (in other words, blurring the 2), and I'm pointing out how they're NOT. <Cart>  We could have taken out the WMD threat and then just left.  How would that have been "fixing Iraq" then, if they're "essentially the same thing"??

[Universe Prince]

That's all fine and dandy, as long as they don't pose a threat to our way of life, our existance.  Ironically, you helped teach me that, way back when.  When the threat is deemed valid, we then are obligated to do something about it....<Horse>

That depends on what you mean by "pose a threat". Anyone with a gun may pose a threat to my existence. That doesn't mean I have an obligation to threaten the existence of anyone with a gun. In any case, defending oneself does not need to involve preemptively beating down others.

No, they're not.  And that's the problem we're having here.  You're making them out as nearly analogus, (in other words, blurring the 2), and I'm pointing out how they're NOT. <Cart>  We could have taken out the WMD threat and then just left.  How would that have been "fixing Iraq" then, if they're "essentially the same thing"??

No, I'm saying that the taking out of WMD and fixing Iraq are essentially the same thing. That's not blurring them. That's pointing out that they're essentially the same and that using different words doesn't alter the reality. So far your protestations that such was not "fixing" Iraq amount to saying that it just wasn't. So how would making war on Iraq to take out the Iraqi government and the WMD not be "fixing" Iraq since that was the perceived problem in the first place? Yes, I know it might have left the Iraqis without our help in the aftermath, but that particular bit of "fixing" Iraq does not mean that making war on Iraq to take out the Iraqi government and the WMD was not an attempt to "fix" Iraq. So please, explain it to me.