This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Has the Burden of Proof on Iraq shifted?

edited April 2007 in Politics
People have talked a lot about burdens of proof on this forum. This article says that the burden of proof on Iraq should now be on the Iraq supporters.

What do you think?
«1

Comments

  • As soon as the writer starts talking about how there must be a "natural" as opposed "artificial" time table for withdrawal he loses me.

    I am a believer in the idea that you do not telegraph your plans to your enemy other than "we will crush you." Anything other than that is a sign of weakness.

    Timetables for retreat are a sign of weakness. All they say is that you have lost the will to fight and you are just trying to figure out a way to get your last plane out without it getting shot down.

    In fact, the only place you hear that America has lost is in Congress and the Arab stations that replay Harry Reid saying we have lost. If we have lost, who won?

    We can win and we will win if we are allowed to win. No military force on the planet can beat the American military on the battlefield, none. War is not pretty. I'm not one for genocide but nothing works better than wiping out your enemy to the point that only the dust of their bones remains.
  • edited April 2007
    I think the troops have to get out from Iraq NOW !, and the "President" have to say that he mess up, resign along with all of his "groupies" . I know is never gonna happen but a guy can dream, right?

    Anyhow, this is what I think maybe will happen on the next years:
    The president will not leave Iraq because that would mean that he failed and his party would be looked with bad eyes even by the hard core republicans, but since America is so much fed up with republicans the power will go to the democrats. Which, after reading some history (specially from before and after the great depression) all the damage done by previous presidencies will came out during the new presidency (such as Hoover, he did not cause the great depression, all the shitty business done before him caused). And the new president will not take the troops out of Iraq neither because it will make him look bad at least on the first or second year. However, eventually they will come back and there will be some problems on the administration, that is when the republicans will say "Oh, it is all the fault of the democrats, blah, blah, etc" So the next president will be republican and we might be in deep shit with the social security, and the next war that might be coming.

    It is kind of mess up that maybe history will repeat it self if a new party is not form pronto!

    P.S. I would like some hate-replies :D
    Post edited by Erwin on
  • What about the burden of proof as stated in the article?
  • edited April 2007
    By going off on his tangent his article lost all meaning to me and his burden of proof question also lost all relevancy.
    Post edited by HMTKSteve on
  • edited April 2007
    Timetables for retreat are a sign of weakness.
    I'm pretty sure they already know the American people have a lack of resolve. All they have to do is get online.
    In fact, the only place you hear that America has lost is in Congress and the Arab stations that replay Harry Reid saying we have lost.
    Or, you know, from any general or commander, media source, blog, person on the street....
    If we have lost, who won?
    The insurgency.
    No military force on the planet can beat the American military on the battlefield, none.
    Tell that to the Vietcong. And where exactly are these battlefields? There aren't any in an occupation.
    I'm not one for genocide but nothing works better than wiping out your enemy to the point that only the dust of their bones remains.
    Who, exactly, is the enemy? We can't even tell. If they were all wearing red shirts and we were all wearing blue shirts, that might be a valid statement. But an insurgency makes its play by hiding among the populace. We haven't been able to root them out for the past four years; what makes you think we can find them if we stay in Iraq for 20? Failing that, do we just kill all Iraqis? That would be stupid and barbaric.

    Steve, it's like your conception of war is 50 years old. The world isn't like that anymore.
    Post edited by Jason on
  • This is all great and everything, but I primarily wanted to see if people agreed with the author of the article about whether the burden of proof has shifted to those supporting the war and, if so, why.
  • edited April 2007
    Sorry I was a lazy asshole but I just needed to write the first thing that came to my mind without reading the actual article, apologies.

    Now with my thoughts:
    In my opinion, it will never be shifted.
    Well Bush never had strong proof that Iraq had either weapons of mass destruction or help on the attack on 9/11. Most of the people in america were in such a state of shock after 9/11 that it was used to increase the increase the popularity of the president enough in order for him to get permission from congress to invade Iraq, and then with the "support our troops" slogan to put (as we say down in south america) between the sword and the wall to the people that do not support Bush to at least support the people fighting for him. I do not think he can sustain all the stuff that he did because of lack of information. I remember one time he was giving a speech talking about the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and his answer was something like "Well, you see that happened because the CIA did not had enough resources" that was BS.

    It hurts me to see veterans from Vietnam missing limbs and that all of their suffering did not bring them anything, it will cause pain to me to think of a kid that will never meet his father because he die on a war. Sometimes I wonder what were the last thoughts of all the soldiers and marines that died in this war. Maybe some soldiers want to keep fighting in order to make the dead of the fallen not be in vain, maybe some of them will keep on fighting because they believe in their "commander in chief". But, I believe that there is a great deal on people in Iraq that just want to imagine to have a nice drink and see their loved ones around them and be safe at home.

    I recently read somewhere that they want to give residency cards to illegal aliens if they enlist to the american army. I tried to advice to anyone that I know and will be in that situation to think it twice, maybe I would have done that when I was 18, maybe because I wanted adventure and I was an inexperience kid. However, now after all that has happened on the war it would have not be worth it.

    I have never lost someone in a war, I do not think I will ever support a war that I do not really believe in. I think if I ever go to a war by my own will it will have to be because I have lost everything in the world.

    P.S. But, at the end of the day, with all the knowledge about the war that Bush gets from his "groupies" and all the visits that he does to the troops he will never really understand the true meaning of war since he have never felt what it is to be in a barrack or in fox whole during an ambush attack or the shock that is to kill someone because someone told to or because you believe that to kill that someone was the right think to do.
    Post edited by Erwin on
  • I think the whole argument is backward. The need to wage war is clearly the most extraordinary claim here, since it incurs cost, defies the will of the people, and causes death. The burden of proof has always been on the commander in chief. Nothing has changed.
  • edited April 2007
    My conception of war is turning deserts into parking lots. I don't care for all this "delicate" warfare we find ourselves involved in.

    For some reason I am reminded of the Civilization computer game. Remember that? In the early days there were only two viable forms of government; dictatorship and democracy.

    Democracy works when times are peaceful and dictatorship works in times of war. Nothing worse than a senate to get in the way of your ability to make war. Signing treaties behind your back... Grrr....

    Who was it that said, "I have been loved and I have been feared. The results were the same but being feared required less work."
    Post edited by HMTKSteve on
  • As soon as the writer starts talking about how there must be a "natural" as opposed "artificial" time table for withdrawal he loses me.

    I am a believer in the idea that you do not telegraph your plans to your enemy other than "we will crush you." Anything other than that is a sign of weakness.

    Timetables for retreat are a sign of weakness. All they say is that you have lost the will to fight and you are just trying to figure out a way to get your last plane out without it getting shot down.

    In fact, the only place you hear that America has lost is in Congress and the Arab stations that replay Harry Reid saying we have lost. If we have lost, who won?

    We can win and we will win if we are allowed to win. No military force on the planet can beat the American military on the battlefield, none. War is not pretty. I'm not one for genocide but nothing works better than wiping out your enemy to the point that only the dust of their bones remains.
    This is not like WWII where there were clear lines of territory and fronts. Do tell, how are we supposed to "win"? Kill every Imam in Iraq? Who is the enemy we are fighting against? The "terrorists"? How does one delineate a terrorist from a civilian my friend? One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. I'm sorry, but us forcing our government and beliefs upon others is total bullshit. The whole damn reason they hate us is because of that very reason.

    The word "win" is abstract at best in this situation. Conservatives say that if we pull out, the enemy will follow us home. They already attacked us at home! They were aiming for our home from the beginning. This "war" has been mismanaged from the beginning and poorly planned. To pull out is not to show a sign of weakness, it is a sign of intelligence. We are not giving up, we are just retreating and reorganizing to better deal with the issue.

    If you really want to crush the enemy to dust, why don't we just nuke the whole middle east, that way they all will die and we can just ignore the issue. [/sarcasm]
  • We can't nuke the Middle East... think of the oil fields!
  • edited April 2007
    We can't nuke the Middle East... think of the oil fields!
    No, don't even try to pull that shit on me. Coming from you, I'm not sure if that is even a joke.
    Post edited by Andrew on
  • edited April 2007
    We can't nuke the Middle East... think of the oil fields!
    No, don't even try to pull that shit on me. Comming from you, I'm not sure if that is even a joke.
    Hear, hear!

    Also, MHTKSteve, being loved is a lot more cooler that being feared!
    Post edited by Erwin on
  • I think too many people look at Iraq in a vacuum. Iraq is but one battlefield in the current crusade. Too many people are not looking at the bigger picture here and that is the problem.

    Too many "planners" are not looking at the reality of the social structures on the ground. Arabs are big on family, so big that cousins often marry cousins. Many of the redneck "if she ain't good enough for her own family she ain't good enough for mine" jokes also apply to the extremely closed social structure of the Arab world.

    If Akmed is your cousin and is a terrorist you are not going to turn him in! No amount of money will convince you otherwise because Akmed is family. The Arab social structure is not built on (enforced) diversity the way the American one is. Conformity is the rule.

    Step one of my solution involves the parties involved to take a quick step back and look at the realities on the ground in regards to social structure, clans, families, etc...

    Step two involves looking at the core problems of the populace that make then unhappy. This ranges from religious intolerance (you got your peanut butter in my chocolate!) to unemployment, to a lack of education to misguided beliefs that destroying all the jews is good because the end times can't happen if the jews are gone.

    Step three involves a carrot and a stick. Make an announcement that you are willing to accept delegates from every interested party in the area to hear their grievances. Offer blanket amnesty for those who show up with an honest interest in resolving their problems. At the same time put forth a big stick that says, "if you are involved in terrorism we will kill you and 100 of your closest relatives for every person you injure."

    Step four involves employing the populace in public works projects. Allow for a death penalty for those found guilty of fraud/waste/abuse in the management section of these projects.

    Step five needs to be done in the USA. It consists of the US Congress saying, "GWB, you have two years to fix this. We will not stand in your way or criticize you in any way shape or form that will hurt the efforts here. We will also not attempt to usurp your constitutional power as commander in chief by inserting weird shit in appropriations bills. however, we want YOU to give us your goal list and benchmarks now so that we can keep an eye on what you say. These goals will be kept under lock inside envelopes. We will each have a copy of each envelope and its contents. On a monthly basis we will each agree to open one envelope as proof that you have a plan and that the plan is working. If the envelope contents prove the plan is not working we will step in and impeach you for dereliction of duty."

    Or something along those lines.

    I want accountability but not accountability that ends up on the front page of the NYT everyday solely to embarrass the president and boost primary numbers for democrats.

    I also want off-shore drilling here in the states so we can lessen our dependence on foreign sources of oil. If the Middle East wasn't a big pit full of oil no one would care much what goes on over there.
  • /Waves his magic wand and abolishes lex rex to accomplish Steve's neo-con plans.
  • The thing is that as far as I know no one asked USA to "fix" stuff on the middle east or around the world. Also Bush does not have two years and a culture cannot change in two years not even with all the money of the world. You can see that here in the USA also, all the immigrants that come to the USA try to keep/protect their own culture. I think people just want to have free will in their own land, and if you take that we all know the consequences.
  • It's not about asking to fix before hand. The shit is broken now and it has to be fixed before we leave. what better way to fix it than asking those there what is broken?

    Also, it's not about changing their culture it's about looking at the their culture and not assuming they are us.
  • How many more lives have to be lost in both sides in order to fix something just to keep dare to say face in front of the world.
  • How many more lives have to be lost in both sides in order to fix something just to keep dare to say face in front of the world.
    The nugget of truth in that statement is large.

    Diplomacy is all about compromise. Diplomacy only works when BOTH sides are willing to compromise to reach a common goal. Right now no one wants to compromise (Bush feels he is right and the Dems feel they have a mandate) so nothing will change.

    The funny thing is that that Dems don't really have a mandate. They ran on "We are not Republicans" rather than "These are our ideas". The same thing happened back during Clintons mid-term "impeachment" election. Prior to the election it was, "This election has nothing to do with the impeachment" but after Republicans lost seats it was spun as, "see, America is against impeachment!!!" (or was it the opposite? I can't remember and I'm too lazy to look it up. I just remember that the spin changed after the election.)
  • You see I can't really comment about the Clinton administration because I was not living in america while that happened, I was just I 14 years old punk kid when that happen. Gosh I am old.
    Nevertheless, the only think that will make with right for better or worse if for Bush to have enough cojones to go Iraq and use his "diplomacy" skills to try to fix it, since he is not doing anything here anyways. If he success it will be awesome and I would be the first to stand up and clap but he has to stay there and live there and then we will see if he would like people to extent his tour in Iraq.
  • For those of us keeping score (not that it was really disputed, but now it's confirmed), a pentagon study has found that there was absolutely no link between Saddam and Al-Qaieda.

    So that must be why we're gonna end up spending about three trillion dollars to "fight them over there instead of over here."
  • edited March 2008
    For those of us keeping score (not that it was really disputed, but now it's confirmed), a pentagon study has found that there wasabsolutely no linkbetween Saddam and Al-Qaieda.

    So that must be why we're gonna end up spending aboutthree trillion dollarsto "fight them over there instead of over here."
    *sigh* I hate when I'm right. (and 100s of thousands of people die or are wounded because noone else was)
    Post edited by Cremlian on
  • For those of us keeping score (not that it was really disputed, but now it's confirmed), a pentagon study has found that there was absolutely no link between Saddam and Al-Qaieda.
    That is nothing new. However, there is a link between Iraq and Al-Qaieda now.
  • That is nothing new. However, thereisa link between Iraq and Al-Qaiedanow.
    Perhaps, but we should remember that it's our fault that they are there. Something to remember before we go gung-ho in the future. Also, the conservative movement's credibility on "national security" has now been diminished significantly.
  • I just found it a bit funny that the cost of the War in Iraq, is not included in the new bill.
  • I just found it a bit funny that the cost of the War in Iraq, is not included in the new bill.
    I have to wonder how much money in these "war cost" documents involve double counting things. For instance, whether our troops are at war or not they still draw a salary. Same with munitions, even in peace time we burn off a lot of ammunition on training exercises and range time.

    Andrew: Is it our fault they are there or our strategy?
  • Andrew: Is it ourfaultthey are there or ourstrategy?
    If by strategy you mean the current administration wants to create a reason to stay there, then yes, I suppose you can call it a strategy.
  • Andrew: Is it ourfaultthey are there or ourstrategy?
    If by strategy you mean the current administration wants to create a reason to stay there, then yes, I suppose you can call it a strategy.
    No, I mean strategy in that having them come to where our troops are makes it easier for us to confront them.

    I don't seriously believe that the current administration wakes up in the morning smiling because we are over there. I'm sure they would much rather we not be over there.
  • No, I mean strategy in that having them come to where our troops are makes it easier for us to confront them.
    If that were true, it was incredibly stupid. Destabilizing a country central to the geo-political landscape of the Middle East does not make it easier to confront a couple of terrorists. Also, finding terrorists in the mountains is probably easier than having to decided which civilian in a market is wearing vest full of C-4.
    I don't seriously believe that the current administration wakes up in the morning smiling because we are over there. I'm sure they would much rather we not be over there.
    They sure do seem to be dragging their heels on leaving though...
  • No, I mean strategy in that having them come to where our troops are makes it easier for us to confront them.
    If that were true, it was incredibly stupid. Destabilizing a country central to the geo-political landscape of the Middle East does not make it easier to confront a couple of terrorists. Also, finding terrorists in the mountains is probably easier than having to decided which civilian in a market is wearing vest full of C-4.
    Ask that question to the Russians in regards to Afghanistan. The realities of a war change every day. I was not trying to infer that original strategy was to destabilize a government in the hopes that terrorists would pour in. However, it may the strategy of today.
    I don't seriously believe that the current administration wakes up in the morning smiling because we are over there. I'm sure they would much rather we not be over there.
    They sure do seem to be dragging their heels on leaving though...
    Would you have them pack up and leave tomorrow?
Sign In or Register to comment.