RE: The List (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Mercnbeth -> RE: The List (5/20/2008 8:28:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

To the frisky Merc,stop it.You`re [sm=offtopic.gif].

Sorry my friend, I just can't let the focus be on one half of your original position. Saving anyone, requires saving them from 'something'.

When I saw the 60 Minutes reporting I immediately wondered why they would raise this comparison. It seems that serves those who want to vilify and reference the 'enemy combatants' (safe reference?) as evil. What better evil comparison than raising the oft overused reference to Nazis and the Nazi atrocities?

How can you not agree that if you stipulate that the 'Schlinder's List' comparison is relevant that the 'axis of evil' wouldn't be similarly relevant? I only point out that that position is in line with the White House. In effect 60 Minutes generated a political advertisement justifying the war and keeping a large US military presence if, for no other reason, than to prevent the torture and murder of those not making the modern day 'List'.

quote:

This thread is about people we`re throwing to the wolves for no apparent good reason.(presently,here and now,today,in real time,etc) It`s not hypothetical.

Could the reason be that it would look bad to evacuate them out?
Based upon everything you say; how would pulling them out make anyone "look bad". First you say it looks bad not to pull them out, and now you say the reason they don't is for appearance? I guess being on both sides of the same issue makes it difficult to ever be incorrect.

quote:

Would you let a guy drown,if it would be politically embarrassing to save him?
If you are asking personally, sticking to my principles and integrity isn't a moving target based upon image, or as you reference above "looking bad";  whether considering a metaphorical or actual drowning,

quote:

Better yet,instead of hypotheticals,answer this. If by saving these people from sure death,the Bushies think they`re admitting defeat,should we let them die to save the Bushie`s pride?
I would think your position would be giving President Bush a victory to be proud.

Again - if your similarity position is correct, President Bush, will be considered an advanced thinker, who wanted to stop Hitler before the 'Blitzkrieg'. It's not mine. The local population and the neighboring Muslim States are great peace loving people. Why should those 'at risk' worry about their neighbors and fellow Muslims who only want to establish and enforce Muslim law? It would be as if which ever party loses in November should fear being killed by the winner. I don't think you should compare the good people who want the aggressors tossed out of Iraq to Nazis.

quote:

That`s a steep price to pay for the pride of assclown neo-cons.
Look I know it helps you to keep things organized to label and call people names; but in this case - the initial argument and "similarity" you used provided the best argument FOR maintaining the status quo. I don't know if the people you refer to as "assclowns" or "neo-cons" had thought of it before it was raised by 60 Minutes. You seem to have bought into one side of the similarity. I only point out that you also have to consider the other side. I have no need to strengthen the point by using a label or mocking.
quote:

If we abandon them,no one will ever trust us again.
So? When it comes to modern day US - there is no political "trust". Cash, or industrial investment can be "trusted" to be defended, but 'ideals'? Come now - what can you point to that represents US integrity to be trusted?

But I am amazed at the association and reference to abandonment extends to these individual people, but not the country of Iraq. How is that position rationalized? You and 60 Minutes point to a position of staying in Iraq indefinitely; does that mean you'll be looking for another Presidential candidate?







Archer -> RE: The List (5/20/2008 8:55:53 AM)

Sorry still stuck on the short view vs the long view of removing all the "goodguys" from Iraq and the result being a lack of strongly motivated freindly towards the US leadership material remaining in the population.
If we remove all the folks who we have won the hearts and minds of, then the war goes on until the country is empty.

What's the long view up side of removing all the folks who like us from Iraq, leaving an off ballance towards the anti US population.



kittinSol -> RE: The List (5/20/2008 9:01:34 AM)

Are you ignoring the idea that perhaps, these people should be given the chance to live, considering all the good work they did for you?

Or are you seeking to confirm the global image of America as a callous brainless brute?



Archer -> RE: The List (5/20/2008 9:06:35 AM)

Saving them is short term smart long term stupid.
Ignoreing the consequences to the nation as a whole is more callous than ignoring the consequences to individuals. More people will suffer longer by removing them than by leaving them. It's as valid an assumption as yours.

Stability will never be reached and thus the need to occupy will remain for 100 years if you remove all the US friendly Iraqis. If you leave them they serve as a part of the ballance that gets closer to stability and the resulting withdrawl comming sooner.



kittinSol -> RE: The List (5/20/2008 9:11:50 AM)

I understand the thought-process behind your conclusion, but it's so foreign to me to be able to think that way (that you can go in, use people, then drop them like rags hoping they'll further your interest where you abandoned them) ... Have you considered how unlikely it is they'll feel sympathetic to you after they've gone through hell because they helped you out? More to the point, how will they promote your 'interests', as you so chastely describe them, once they're dead?



Owner59 -> RE: The List (5/20/2008 9:12:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth



"Saving anyone, requires saving them from 'something'."


No Merc, just cleaning up our own mess.

You come off as an "accountability guy".Thinking that taking responsibilities for one`s self and not passing the buck is a way of life.An earner that requires no help and a citizen who is not parasitical on the system.

Would leave it to others to clean-up your mess?

Bush took us into this war, he should man-up and take responsibility for this.Yes?



LadyEllen -> RE: The List (5/20/2008 9:20:06 AM)

Can the entire situation not be put down to the sore failure of US (and UK) forces in restoring law and order?

If we had been successful in our aim, there would be little to no risk for these people. As it is, what law and order exists is present only at the barrel of the gun of former insurgents who are now in the pay of the Allies. I dont feel too confident that such a system of law and order, enforced by those who have developed in the past a dislike for fellow Iraqis helping us out against them, is going to be particularly effective in achieving anything more than the prompt execution of those who are disliked.

In short, we cant allow them to come to the US or the UK without it becoming a public acknowledgement of utter failure of the latest aims and aspirations for the "mission", possibly reopening the can of worms which are the failures of previously declared aims and aspirations in Iraq.

Whereas, if we leave them there to be executed, it supports the need for our continuing presence, which happens to coincide with the trading preferences of those who like our troops being there. And it also plays nicely to the "all Muslims are murderous scum" crowd, so important to keep on side in an election year.

So they will stay and they will die just like our troops, for the sake of a bottom line and for the sake of politicians' reputations.

E



Archer -> RE: The List (5/20/2008 9:21:41 AM)

I'm not saying drop them like used rags that is your characterization of what you think is in my thought process because you can't understand it.

I'm saying that the fighting is going to kill people as long as it goes on. (fact undisputeable)
The fighting goes on longer if you remove these folks rather than defending them as best you can in their own country. (opinion disputable)
So the options in my thoughts are
1. remove them and extend the fighting longer thus causing other people to die
2. leave them in counrty at risk but defended as best possible shortening the fighting period of time and having a net saving of lives.

My thoughts are based on the idea that all lives have value not only those who helped us as translators so i seek the lowest net cost of all lives to achieve the goal of making Iraq stable enough to leave without devolving into chaos.




Owner59 -> RE: The List (5/20/2008 9:25:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

Saving them is short term smart long term stupid.
Ignoreing the consequences to the nation as a whole is more callous than ignoring the consequences to individuals. More people will suffer longer by removing them than by leaving them. It's as valid an assumption as yours.

Stability will never be reached and thus the need to occupy will remain for 100 years if you remove all the US friendly Iraqis. If you leave them they serve as a part of the ballance that gets closer to stability and the resulting withdrawl comming sooner.



Dude,you are soooo pre surge(s).

Iraq`s been FUBR for years.Stability?lol You`re kidding, right?

The middle class and teachers,doctors and nurses,bankers/lawyers and upper middle class,ie the good guys who were modern and westernized,they`ve all left already and will never go back until it`s stable.

And these are people who lived in Saddam`s Iraq.In comparison,today`s Iraq is a civil war battle field that they moved away from.

The only good folks left in Iraq can`t afford to leave or they would`ve already.

This stinks.



Mercnbeth -> RE: The List (5/20/2008 9:30:17 AM)

quote:

You come off as an "accountability guy".Thinking that taking responsibilities for one`s self and not passing the buck is a way of life.An earner that requires no help and a citizen who is not parasitical on the system.

Would leave it to others to clean-up this mess?


Owner,
Now it appears you are hijacking your own thread. You raised the subject of a "Schlinder's List" scenario. There are, according to 60 Minutes, 100,000 people who would be on that list. Considering the past, current, and expected behavior of the 'enemy combatants' how many degrees of separation from a name on that is would be required to feel and be "safe"?

"On-Topic" - Is there a reasonable expectation that what happened to those not making Schlinder's list occur to those not making the 60 Minutes list?

As Archer correctly points out - the Iraqi patriots would better serve Iraq remaining and carrying on their fight. THEIR fight, if any, not the US. Or, as he again points out the "list" would be all inclusive. Anyone currently living in what is considered any 'secured zone' are, in effect, in 'camps'. Again, using your premise, what would have happened if 5 miles away from the Nazi camps, the allied forces stopped and returned to their countries of origin. Do the Nazi's open the gates smile and say 'sorry'? Same case for 1945 - the war was "over" US troops remained.

They still remain. It's been over 60 years and the US 'occupies' Germany and Japan supported by military bases. Less time has passed, but a similar situation exists in Korea. I'm still on the side of 100% redeployment of these troops to the US - but along with "accounting" I also advocate pragmatic positions based upon reality. 

Best way to avoid the consequences of your 'list' and making sure there is no "mess"? - Remain in Iraq indefinitely. Again, a way for President Bush to "man-up and take responsibility for this" would be to remain in Iraqi as we have in Japan, Germany, Korea, etc. You may want that result - I'm against it.



Owner59 -> RE: The List (5/20/2008 9:39:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

You come off as an "accountability guy".Thinking that taking responsibilities for one`s self and not passing the buck is a way of life.An earner that requires no help and a citizen who is not parasitical on the system.

Would leave it to others to clean-up this mess?


Owner,
Now it appears you are hijacking your own thread. You raised the subject of a "Schlinder's List" scenario. There are, according to 60 Minutes, 100,000 people who would be on that list. Considering the past, current, and expected behavior of the 'enemy combatants' how many degrees of separation from a name on that is would be required to feel and be "safe"?

"On-Topic" - Is there a reasonable expectation that what happened to those not making Schlinder's list occur to those not making the 60 Minutes list?

As Archer correctly points out - the Iraqi patriots would better serve Iraq remaining and carrying on their fight. THEIR fight, if any, not the US. Or, as he again points out the "list" would be all inclusive. Anyone currently living in what is considered any 'secured zone' are, in effect, in 'camps'. Again, using your premise, what would have happened if 5 miles away from the Nazi camps, the allied forces stopped and returned to their countries of origin. Do the Nazi's open the gates smile and say 'sorry'? Same case for 1945 - the war was "over" US troops remained.

They still remain. It's been over 60 years and the US 'occupies' Germany and Japan supported by military bases. Less time has passed, but a similar situation exists in Korea. I'm still on the side of 100% redeployment of these troops to the US - but along with "accounting" I also advocate pragmatic positions based upon reality. 

Best way to avoid the consequences of your 'list' and making sure there is no "mess"? - Remain in Iraq indefinitely. Again, a way for President Bush to "man-up and take responsibility for this" would be to remain in Iraqi as we have in Japan, Germany, Korea, etc. You may want that result - I'm against it.




It compares b/c it`s a list of people saved or being saved from certain death.And one guy`s efforts on behalf of people he doesn`t know and may never meet to do these good things.

Any other significance is in your head,not mine.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Do the people ,the politics or the circumstances really matter?

This no doubt,will happen again in the future.

How will we handle it then?



Archer -> RE: The List (5/20/2008 9:41:12 AM)

Owner you not believing that Iraq can be stablized and left eventually does not make it so. I'm still of the thought that we broke it we have an obligation to fix it. You on the other hand seem to be advocating pull out now and let them fight it out until they reach stability on their own. And many here will agree with you. I'm simply not one of them. Not neo con so save the bullcrap insults, but rather a pragmatist wanting to make the best out of a situation that was screwed up from the end of the 91 Gulf War, and continued to be screwed up by presidents from Bush Sr right up through Clinton and Bush Jr.

I'm saying starting with what we have right now, (and like it or not that's where we have to start laws of time and space being what they are) what is the fastest most humane way to leave Iraq, with the least net cost in lives Iraqi and others. Having these folks remain and continue the fight for what they want Iraq to be in another job seems the most practicle move that direction.



Archer -> RE: The List (5/20/2008 9:47:12 AM)

My more considered soltion is the Iraqi government needs to make these former translators some sort of job working for their government. Preferably replacing one of their croneys which I have no illussions about being a fact of life in Iraqi government.
Aid to a legislator or ambasador or something. that way they are not so much at risk for what they have done in the past but rather at risk for the work they are doing now to make thier country better.



Owner59 -> RE: The List (5/20/2008 10:01:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

Owner you not believing that Iraq can be stablized and left eventually does not make it so. I'm still of the thought that we broke it we have an obligation to fix it. You on the other hand seem to be advocating pull out now and let them fight it out until they reach stability on their own. And many here will agree with you. I'm simply not one of them. Not neo con so save the bullcrap insults, but rather a pragmatist wanting to make the best out of a situation that was screwed up from the end of the 91 Gulf War, and continued to be screwed up by presidents from Bush Sr right up through Clinton and Bush Jr.

I'm saying starting with what we have right now, (and like it or not that's where we have to start laws of time and space being what they are) what is the fastest most humane way to leave Iraq, with the least net cost in lives Iraqi and others. Having these folks remain and continue the fight for what they want Iraq to be in another job seems the most practicle move that direction.


It`s my opinion and it`s mine only,but we`re stuck(a couple hundred thousands GIs that is)in the middle a Arabia with no plan,no progress(political or otherwise),no friends ,no clue and bleeding out.This doesn`t compare with Gulf WarI.This is more akin to Viet-nam.

I hate to be the heavy,but Iraq is FUBR.A religious civil war that we`re just barely staving off.

We`re actually bribing the do called "terrorist"(that Maktar Sadar guy`s goons) ,not to fight.How long`s that gonna last?

It`s not a matter of whether we`ll get out,it`s a matter of when and how much army we have left when we do.

I wish it weren`t so.But just prolonging this in order to say we haven`t majorly fucked up,isn`t right.

The mission has been accomplished.

No more re-missions and no more moving the goal post.

Our guys,our GIs have done there mission.




LadyPact -> RE: The List (5/20/2008 10:04:59 AM)

I just want to thank everyone who participated in this thread.  It reminded Me to tell someone very special of how proud I am of him, for doing something that most people will never have to find the courage to do.



Mercnbeth -> RE: The List (5/20/2008 10:06:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

You come off as an "accountability guy".Thinking that taking responsibilities for one`s self and not passing the buck is a way of life.An earner that requires no help and a citizen who is not parasitical on the system.

Would leave it to others to clean-up this mess?


Owner,
Now it appears you are hijacking your own thread. You raised the subject of a "Schlinder's List" scenario. There are, according to 60 Minutes, 100,000 people who would be on that list. Considering the past, current, and expected behavior of the 'enemy combatants' how many degrees of separation from a name on that is would be required to feel and be "safe"?

"On-Topic" - Is there a reasonable expectation that what happened to those not making Schlinder's list occur to those not making the 60 Minutes list?

As Archer correctly points out - the Iraqi patriots would better serve Iraq remaining and carrying on their fight. THEIR fight, if any, not the US. Or, as he again points out the "list" would be all inclusive. Anyone currently living in what is considered any 'secured zone' are, in effect, in 'camps'. Again, using your premise, what would have happened if 5 miles away from the Nazi camps, the allied forces stopped and returned to their countries of origin. Do the Nazi's open the gates smile and say 'sorry'? Same case for 1945 - the war was "over" US troops remained.

They still remain. It's been over 60 years and the US 'occupies' Germany and Japan supported by military bases. Less time has passed, but a similar situation exists in Korea. I'm still on the side of 100% redeployment of these troops to the US - but along with "accounting" I also advocate pragmatic positions based upon reality. 

Best way to avoid the consequences of your 'list' and making sure there is no "mess"? - Remain in Iraq indefinitely. Again, a way for President Bush to "man-up and take responsibility for this" would be to remain in Iraqi as we have in Japan, Germany, Korea, etc. You may want that result - I'm against it.




It compares b/c it`s a list of people saved or being saved from certain death.And one guy`s efforts on behalf of people he doesn`t know and may never meet to do these good things.

Any other significance is in your head,not mine.


Just to be clear; you are now saying that the only similarity considered should be that there were names on Schlinder's list, and there are names on the 60 minutes list? Any other similarity, or consequence, or protagonist; isn't to be considered?

If that is the case - I agree with you. Both lists did/do have names on them.

Furthermore, without helping the names on his list Schlinder would have doomed those names to death at the hands of the Nazis.

Without helping the names on the 60 Minutes list, we are dooming these people to death at the hands of the 'enemy combatants'. 

Wow, talk about having an opinion founded in a vacuum. I think that the other considerations and circumstance are due consideration, but respect your position that they don't. I also do not agree that any other similarity between the protagonists is coincidental.

quote:

Do the people ,the politics or the circumstances really matter? This no doubt,will happen again in the future. How will we handle it then?


Start a thread if/when it happens and considering all the other relevant circumstances I'll provide an opinion. For now - I'll leave the; "What if our knees faced the other way - what would a chair look like?" speculation for those inclined to need "what if" future scenarios to rationalize what to do here, now, today.



Archer -> RE: The List (5/20/2008 10:19:12 AM)

Owner you'll falling prey to the bias yourself a little bit Sadyr's militia is generally a religious militia not qute the same as a terrorist group. although the line gets blurred sometimes.

Not recognizing the progress is not the same as not being any, progress has been made in many areas not nearly enough amd certainly we need to be holding some Iraqi governmental feet to the fire to get them on the ball. A major problem in my perspective.

I don't buy the moving goalpost argument in fact I see some goalpost moving in your perspective.
The goalpost has always been stabilize and then withdraw. The how to stabilize (pass or run game) has shifted and the other team has done a better job of shifting tactics to prevent us from reaching the goal. But the goal has never changed stabilize then witdraw. From where I sit your the one moving the goalposts, if we can't stabilize then we'll move the goal to the 50 yard line because 100 yards is just too hard.



Owner59 -> RE: The List (5/20/2008 10:35:03 AM)

  It`s not a job for youngsters in the army.

They weren`t trained for this.

It`s like having a Dr. doing carpentry.

I have no illusions about the thug called Sadyr or his ilk.Or the fact that we`re paying them not to fight.

That`s not progress.

It`s not right to make our GIs do impossible things.Straining them with shorter R&R and longer terms and making them go back for tour after tour.

It`s not right.



Archer -> RE: The List (5/20/2008 10:54:57 AM)

Longer terms??? they just cut the terms from 15 to 12 months (AP stories abound as citation)
Shorter R&R they just made them equal to the deployed time again (AP stories abound as citation)
Tour after Tour (ya got that one right can't argue)
The thing is they are generally doing their part very well it's others who are falling short civilian US government and Iraqi Government. If both of those were doing as hard a work as the military then it's be well on it's way.

They were trained for this during their first tours, and they have been training the new guys ever since. The military has been an OJT program for decades.

To go back to the football annalogy the military is the front line and they have been opening up the holes and giving the QB a pocket to pass from but the QB can't hit the recievers and the running backs are tripping over their own feet.
They can continue to do their jobs for alot longer than people think they can, but they can't do it forever I know.







Aneirin -> RE: The List (5/20/2008 12:10:15 PM)

Was this not inevitable, surely the western forces already knew that anyone who helped them would have been targets in their own country. Perhaps a way forward in future would be to deny any national any help they would offer and so save them from any retaliation they may get as being seen as a collabarator. Or is it they know full well the consequences to those who help them, but could not really give a toss as  a) they are cheap and b)they are not the countrymen of the invading /'policing' force.

Perhaps another way would be to fortify an area and ask those under threat to move to that fortified area where they can start again in relative safety, seeing as western forces are going to be in Iraq for a good few years yet.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
6.347656E-02