Steve,
My take is that a majority who support the war--not all--support it because they're Reps and it's a Rep war. The converse seems true with a majority of Dems.
Best, Michael
www.ThreeMinuteTherapy.com
DrEdelstein@...
Michael,
When you use the phrase "support the war," you really mean people who support continued U.S. government involvement in Iraq, not people who support continued bloodshed in Iraq, correct? Do you concede that it is possible that bloodshed in Iraq would continue, perhaps even increase, if U.S. government forces were withdrawn? If so, then you ought to concede that this is controversy is not really about supporting or opposing the war -- it is about supporting or opposing U.S. government involvement in the war.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>
Starchild,
I don't know about Micheal, but by "support the war" I mean people who supported the military invasion of Iraq. IMO, support for the invasion + support for all US wars is sufficient evidence their pro-war position, regardless of their positions on the occupation or "continued bloodshed".
-- Steve
Dear Starchild and Michael and Everyone Else;
Some perspective on the War On Iraq.
Iraq has a land area about the size of California with a similar population of about 25 million. If there were 150,000 US military personnel stationed in California it's 1 soldier against 160 Californians per square mile.
Now compare California with what has happened to Iraq.
Force the 250,000 people living in Union City, San Leandro, Hayward and Newark out of their homes and bomb those cities into rubble. Also use chemical weapons like phosphorous on anything that moves. Kill the 100,000 men, women and children living in the city of Berkeley. This is what happened to Fallujah and the number of civilians who have died in Iraq as a result of the War On Iraq.
Take the 30,000 people living in Foster City. Kill 1,400 of them. Wound another 10,000 of them with a third suffering lost arms and legs and other permanently disabling injuries. Take the remaining 20,000 and have them suffer from other grave illnesses, injuries, diseases and psychiatric disorders. Cut back and limit the amount of medical care available to all 30,000. This is happening to US military personnel in Iraq and the US.
Have Catholic - Jesuits, Franciscans and Dominicans vehemently argue and fight over which is the True Believer sect. Have Protestant - Lutherans, Baptists and Methodists also argue and fighting. This happens with Iraqi Muslim - Sunnis, Shiites and Ba'athists and the Kurds thrown in for for good measure.
Wait in 8 hour gas station lines, have the electricity work 4 - 6 hours a day, with limited amounts of clean water and raw sewage in the streets. Go to a hospital and face used needles and IV's because medical supplies aren't getting through. Be arrested by the police and get beaten, starved, tortured and raped. Get released 6 months later as a basket case and not know why it all happened.
This is why peace could not come to California if it were Iraq. And why peace can not come to Iraq as long as the US is a military occupier. The numbers are against it.
To effectively and totally control Iraq until a duly elected Iraqi government acceptable to Iraqis can take charge the US will have to have some 300,000 to 400,000 boots on the ground. This is based on the hard reality of fighting an insurgency and fighting with terrorists using Iraq as a live-fire training ground.
Most importantly because of the Big Fat Lies some 100,000 dead Iraqi mother and fathers, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters would still be alive. So would the 900 soldiers who were parents and the other 500 who were husbands and wives, brothers and sisters. This country would not have a $500 billion deficit. And we wouldn't be preparing to go to war with Iran and Syria.
It is about opposing the US government involvement in war anywhere at anytime unless it involves a country invading US soil.
The only good thing I can say about Bush? While he was in the Texas and Alabama Air National Guard no North Vietnamese soldier or Viet Cong invaded US soil. Gol' Dang!
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:
Michael,
When you use the phrase "support the war," you really mean people who
support continued U.S. government involvement in Iraq, not people who
support continued bloodshed in Iraq, correct? Do you concede that it is
possible that bloodshed in Iraq would continue, perhaps even increase,
if U.S. government forces were withdrawn? If so, then you ought to
concede that this is controversy is not really about supporting or
opposing the war -- it is about supporting or opposing U.S. government
involvement in the war.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>
Steve,
I would submit to you that "the war" actually began in August 1990, when the Iraqi regime invaded Kuwait. The U.S. government invasion of Iraq in 2003 was effectively a continuation of that war, which had never really ceased, since hostilities were ongoing after Saddam violated the no-fly zone and various other terms under which the ground war was discontinued in 1991.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>
Ron,
You acknowledge that this is about opposing U.S. government involvement in wars outside the U.S., not opposing war in general or the war in Iraq specifically. And you do not argue that bloodshed in Iraq would cease or decrease if U.S. government forces were withdrawn from Iraq. Also, since the U.S. government appears to be committed to a role as military occupier only so long as a state of unrest persists, I will not argue with your claim that Iraq will not have peace "as long as the U.S. (government) is a military occupier."
Given that sanctions were (by the estimates of many anti-war groups) killing more Iraqis than the current conflict, I do question your assumption that Iraqis killed in the conflict would necessarily be alive if it weren't for the invasion.
However I have no argument with your analogy of what California would be like if the conditions present in Iraq existed here. War is hell, and living amongst bloodthirsty religious extremists is hell, and living in a country just coming out of 30 years of life under a regime like Saddam Hussein's is by all indications no picnic either.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>
Dear Starchild and Michael and Everyone Else;
Some perspective on the War On Iraq.
Iraq has a land area about the size of California with a similar population of about 25 million. If there were 150,000 US military personnel stationed in California it's 1 soldier against 160 Californians per square mile.
Now compare California with what has happened to Iraq.
Force the 250,000 people living in Union City, San Leandro, Hayward and Newark out of their homes and bomb those cities into rubble. Also use chemical weapons like phosphorous on anything that moves. Kill the 100,000 men, women and children living in the city of Berkeley. This is what happened to Fallujah and the number of civilians who have died in Iraq as a result of the War On Iraq.
Take the 30,000 people living in Foster City. Kill 1,400 of them. Wound another 10,000 of them with a third suffering lost arms and legs and other permanently disabling injuries. Take the remaining 20,000 and have them suffer from other grave illnesses, injuries, diseases and psychiatric disorders. Cut back and limit the amount of medical care available to all 30,000. This is happening to US military personnel in Iraq and the US.
Have Catholic - Jesuits, Franciscans and Dominicans vehemently argue and fight over which is the True Believer sect. Have Protestant - Lutherans, Baptists and Methodists also argue and fighting. This happens with Iraqi Muslim - Sunnis, Shiites and Ba'athists and the Kurds thrown in for for good measure.
Wait in 8 hour gas station lines, have the electricity work 4 - 6 hours a day, with limited amounts of clean water and raw sewage in the streets. Go to a hospital and face used needles and IV's because medical supplies aren't getting through. Be arrested by the police and get beaten, starved, tortured and raped. Get released 6 months later as a basket case and not know why it all happened.
This is why peace could not come to California if it were Iraq. And why peace can not come to Iraq as long as the US is a military occupier. The numbers are against it.
To effectively and totally control Iraq until a duly elected Iraqi government acceptable to Iraqis can take charge the US will have to have some 300,000 to 400,000 boots on the ground. This is based on the hard reality of fighting an insurgency and fighting with terrorists using Iraq as a live-fire training ground.
Most importantly because of the Big Fat Lies some 100,000 dead Iraqi mother and fathers, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters would still be alive. So would the 900 soldiers who were parents and the other 500 who were husbands and wives, brothers and sisters. This country would not have a $500 billion deficit. And we wouldn't be preparing to go to war with Iran and Syria.
It is about opposing the US government involvement in war anywhere at anytime unless it involves a country invading US soil.
The only good thing I can say about Bush? While he was in the Texas and Alabama Air National Guard no North Vietnamese soldier or Viet Cong invaded US soil. Gol' Dang!
Ron Getty
SF LibertarianStarchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:
Michael,
When you use the phrase "support the war," you really mean people whosupport continued U.S. government involvement in Iraq, not people who
support continued bloodshed in Iraq, correct? Do you concede that it is
possible that bloodshed in Iraq would continue, perhaps even increase,
if U.S. government forces were withdrawn? If so, then you ought to
concede that this is controversy is not really about supporting or
opposing the war -- it is about supporting or opposing U.S. government
involvement in the war.Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>>
> Steve,
>
> My take is that a majority who support the war--not all--support it
> because they're Reps and it's a Rep war. The converse seems true with
> a majority of Dems.
>
> Best, Michael
> www.ThreeMinuteTherapy.com
> DrEdelstein@...
>
> From: "Starchild" <sfdreamer@...>
> To: <lpsf-discuss@...m>
> Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 1:44 AM
> Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] For the pro-War folks
>
>>
>> Steve,
>>
>> I question whether the people you've talked to are really "for" the
>> current war in Iraq. I'll bet if you asked them, they'd tell you
>> they
>> want the insurgents to stop fighting so the war would end. Why limit
>> your question to "U.S. wars?" And why even define a war as a "U.S.
>> war"
>> just because a U.S. government was involved? Presumably it takes at
>> least two to tango. I think you define them this way because you're
>> not
>> really talking about the wars themselves, but rather about U.S.
>> government involvement in those wars.
>>
>> It should hardly need stating that opposing U.S. government
>> involvement in a war is not the same thing as opposing the war
>> itself.
>> If you asked these same people which wars the Soviet government was
>> involved in that they were against -- or, more accurately, which
>> wars
>> they think the Soviet government should not have gotten involved
>> in --
>> you might suddenly find that by your standard they are anti-war
>> rather
>> than pro-war! And (again by this standard) you yourself might find
>> yourself in the "pro war" camp if someone asked you, "Should the
>> U.S.
>> government send peacekeepers to stop Government X from waging war
>> against Government Y?"
>>
>> Yours in liberty,
>> <<< Starchild >>>
>>
>>>> The political debate over the current situation in Iraq
>>>> is not really about being pro- or anti- war. It's about being for
>>>> or
>>>> against U.S. government involvement.
>>>
>>> Ok. But I keep running across people who are for the war in Iraq,
>>> and
>>> when I ask them which US wars they were against, most think for a
>>> moment and say "none". I find this suggestive.
>>>
>>> -- Steve
>>
>> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
<image.tiff>
Dear Starchild,
The UN sanctions against Iraq originally started in August 1990 and the Food-For -Oil program started late in 1997. Even taking into account the enormous corruption of the Food For Oil program more people were living than starving. Over this total time period an estimated 300,000 Iraqi children died and about 200,000 adults. You end up with say 40,000 Iraqis dying a year from diseases and starvation???
Less than from the war deaths. But sadly the war deaths are all far more violent. And tend to breed more hate against the Occupiers and engender more guerillas and Resistance fighters and terrorists in the general population.
I left out the less deaths vs more from the occupation vs pull out because of the enormous variable scenarios
ie; If the US had come in quickly caught Saddam then handed him over and pulled out - Bad News. Nature abhors a power vacuum. Iran and Iraq fought a long 8 year border war. Some 1 million soldiers were killed. If Iraq had no true strong ruler at the helm Iran would have filled the power vacuum instantly. More blood shed??? Hard to say because Southern Iraq is more aligned with the Iran mullahs than Baghdad mullahs based on Muslim sect.
ie; If the US had allowed virually instant elections and a true Iraqi government came into power without involving the puppets like Chalabi or Alawi then possibly there might not have been all the bloodshed.
If the US had called together a Council of Sunnis and Shiites and Kurds and Baathists and got them to settle their differences maybe it may have worked.
Disbanding the Iraqi Army probably a bad move.
The scenarios are too difficult to say which would have been better. Although non-invasion would have been the better course.
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:
Ron,
You acknowledge that this is about opposing U.S. government
involvement in wars outside the U.S., not opposing war in general or
the war in Iraq specifically. And you do not argue that bloodshed in
Iraq would cease or decrease if U.S. government forces were withdrawn
from Iraq. Also, since the U.S. government appears to be committed to a
role as military occupier only so long as a state of unrest persists, I
will not argue with your claim that Iraq will not have peace "as long
as the U.S. (government) is a military occupier."
Given that sanctions were (by the estimates of many anti-war groups)
killing more Iraqis than the current conflict, I do question your
assumption that Iraqis killed in the conflict would necessarily be
alive if it weren't for the invasion.
However I have no argument with your analogy of what California would
be like if the conditions present in Iraq existed here. War is hell,
and living amongst bloodthirsty religious extremists is hell, and
living in a country just coming out of 30 years of life under a regime
like Saddam Hussein's is by all indications no picnic either.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>
I feel you're grasping at straws at this point. I mean, sure, if you want to play with definitions, many Arabs believe that the war between the West and the Middle East (of which, this is just one battle) began with the Crusades in the 11th century. But the fact is that a choice was made in 2003 to invade a country that was not actively engaged in any military operations. This is what I (the pentagon, the press, and most everyone I know) calls starting a real war.
-- Steve