Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

What should happen in Iraq?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: What should happen in Iraq?

    Originally posted by Hoop View Post
    No matter what we do that is already going to happen. We've messed it up beyond repair and have nothing to show for it. We are not safer, we did not have any effect on the real problem, Ratical Islam, Bush has just created more terrorists.

    Lil Bush should have read his Dad's book on the reason he didn't go in and try to take over the country back when Desert Storm was going on, there was then and are now, no good exit strategy.
    You do realize that there were SEVEN different terrorist attacks on the US during the Clinton admin?

    1. 1993 World Trade Center Bombing
    2. 1995 US Embassy in Saudi Arabia
    3. 1996 US Embassy in al-Khobar
    4. 1998 US Embassy in Nairobi
    5. 1998 US Embassy in Kenya
    6. 1998 US Embassy in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
    7. 2000 USS Cole

    Our mere presence in the Middle East has directed their attacks on our military personel, as opposed to our regular citizens.

    And as far as Bush creating more terrorist, that's a bunch of bull****. Terrorist wanting to kill Americans have been around for decades, it's not like they just popped up when we invaded Iraq. They were being created, trained, and started killing Americans during the Clinton admin, during the first Bush admin, and they will continue well after this Pres. Bush leaves office.

    They hate all Americans, and what we stand/live for, not just who is in office. They wouldn't hesitate to kill you, yet he's the reason they're fighting? Get real.

    Muslims have been fighting in the name of Islam for centuries upon centuries. No matter who we have in office, no matter what our foreign policies are, and no matter what countries we are in, they are going to continue to hate us. They see our way of life as evil, and they believe they need to rid the world of us all together, not just for us to leave the Middle East. You have a very simplified thought on why there are terrorists.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: What should happen in Iraq?

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      Muslims have been fighting in the name of Islam for centuries upon centuries. No matter who we have in office, no matter what our foreign policies are, and no matter what countries we are in, they are going to continue to hate us. They see our way of life as evil, and they believe they need to rid the world of us all together, not just for us to leave the Middle East. You have a very simplified thought on why there are terrorists.
      I agree with you that Clinton was just as bad (for many of the same reasons), though obviously not as visibly so, but that last paragraph of yours, oh my goodness do I disagree. And your very last sentence is the clincher. The irony is almost too much for me. But it's not as bad as saying Iraq is like WWII.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: What should happen in Iraq?

        Here's some soldiers talking about their experiences (and a shameless plug for independent media!).

        http://www.democracynow.org/article..../07/12/1335208

        Most of the soldiers say similar things, and I think they are mostly right (but who am I to say so?).

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: What should happen in Iraq?

          Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
          I agree with you that Clinton was just as bad (for many of the same reasons), though obviously not as visibly so, but that last paragraph of yours, oh my goodness do I disagree. And your very last sentence is the clincher. The irony is almost too much for me. But it's not as bad as saying Iraq is like WWII.
          I really wish you were right. Unfortunately, you are not. I sincerely mean that because this war has just gotten started.

          As for the comparison, no war is exactly the same, but you are missing the point.

          One of the similarities with WWII are the attacks on our mainland. Perhaps you have never heard of Pearl Harbor and 9-11. Here is something even more recent that might get your attention with respect to attacks on the homeland:

          http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070713/..._terror_threat

          In contrast, Viet Nam was a political war contained to Asia. There was never a threat the Vietnamese would attack the US. Unfortunately, the threat to our homeland has just begun....and Al-Qaida is very happy that you're not too concerned right now.

          Another is the ideological hate involved in the war. Adolph Hitler hated Jews and burned them alive in ovens. Remember the Holocaust? Radical Islam just so happens to hate the same group of people. Whether it's Hezbollah attacking Israel from Lebanon or Hamas attacking from Gaza, radical Islam hates the Jews as much as Hitler. I consider that quite a similarity. In contrast, I don't recall the Vietnamese attacking the Jews at all.

          Another is the fact Britain is targeted. No, the attacks are not coming from the Vietnamese. Here's a little history lesson of the Blitz:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blitz

          Here is just one of the attacks on London by radical Islam:

          http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Al-Qaida...n_7/7_bombings

          No, all of London is not burning...yet....but last time I checked, the Vietnamese never touched Britain.

          There will come a day when you hear about a dirty bomb or potentially a nuclear bomb going off in London or New York City. Perhaps when the economy collapses...and it will...that will get everyone's attention including your own.

          No, this war is not like Viet Nam at all.
          Last edited by BlueNGold; 07-12-2007, 10:19 PM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: What should happen in Iraq?

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            You do realize that there were SEVEN different terrorist attacks on the US during the Clinton admin?

            1. 1993 World Trade Center Bombing
            2. 1995 US Embassy in Saudi Arabia
            3. 1996 US Embassy in al-Khobar
            4. 1998 US Embassy in Nairobi
            5. 1998 US Embassy in Kenya
            6. 1998 US Embassy in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
            7. 2000 USS Cole

            Our mere presence in the Middle East has directed their attacks on our military personel, as opposed to our regular citizens.

            And as far as Bush creating more terrorist, that's a bunch of bull****. Terrorist wanting to kill Americans have been around for decades, it's not like they just popped up when we invaded Iraq. They were being created, trained, and started killing Americans during the Clinton admin, during the first Bush admin, and they will continue well after this Pres. Bush leaves office.

            They hate all Americans, and what we stand/live for, not just who is in office. They wouldn't hesitate to kill you, yet he's the reason they're fighting? Get real.

            Muslims have been fighting in the name of Islam for centuries upon centuries. No matter who we have in office, no matter what our foreign policies are, and no matter what countries we are in, they are going to continue to hate us. They see our way of life as evil, and they believe they need to rid the world of us all together, not just for us to leave the Middle East. You have a very simplified thought on why there are terrorists.
            You seem to get it. I will quote your entire post rather than slice out a portion...

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: What should happen in Iraq?

              First off, IRAQ DIDN'T ATTACK AMERICA DURING 9/11. In fact, all wars fought between the two nations (Iraq and the U.S.) were fought in the Middle East.

              Secondly, we didn't fear Saddam Hussein or the Iraqi military, but the people they allegedly supported (al-Qaeda) - kind of like we didn't fear the Vietnamese, but the people allegedly supporting them (USSR).

              Both wars were started on fictious claims (Tonkin Gulf didn't happen as we were led to believe/Iraq + WMD - we don't need to go into that), whether intentional or not is a different story by AMERICA. We CHOSE to fight in Iraq and we CHOSE to fight in Vietnam. We started those fights, whereas the Japanese gave us no choice (although history will show we weren't totally neutral then either).

              Third, nation versus nation DOESN'T EQUAL nation versus individuals. Vietnam was a guerrilla war, where you often can't tell enemy from friend (they don't wear uniforms and atrocities against civilians are commonplace occurences - and unavoidable). Just like Iraq, but not WWII. Also, we haven't fared too well in Vietnam and Iraq, while WWII ended in our favor.

              War on Terrorism not much unlike the War on Communism.
              There are also undertones of West vs. East (like Vietnam, not WWII).

              In both Vietnam and Iraq, we fought on someone else's behalf. For the South Vietnamese people (who were they, nobody knows) and for the oppressed Iraqi people. (The argument that we were fighting for Britain and France doesn't really hold up, if you want me to expand, I will do so grudgingly) In WWII, we fought our nation against their nation. Oh yeah, and we had allies.

              A majority of Americans came to stand against both wars. Of course, American protest of the Iraq War started off a lot greater than it was during Vietnam (I guess we learned a little something from our history). WWII was never that unpopular.

              So, what I have done is refute your faulty premise (based on al-Qaeda, which was absent from Iraq when we inva...err, liberated them) and substitute my own. While the Iraq/Vietnam parallels are not perfect, your Iraq/WWII parallels are absurd. I'd like to be a lot meaner than I have been.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: What should happen in Iraq?

                Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
                First off, IRAQ DIDN'T ATTACK AMERICA DURING 9/11. In fact, all wars fought between the two nations (Iraq and the U.S.) were fought in the Middle East.

                Secondly, we didn't fear Saddam Hussein or the Iraqi military, but the people they allegedly supported (al-Qaeda) - kind of like we didn't fear the Vietnamese, but the people allegedly supporting them (USSR).

                Both wars were started on fictious claims (Tonkin Gulf didn't happen as we were led to believe/Iraq + WMD - we don't need to go into that), whether intentional or not is a different story by AMERICA. We CHOSE to fight in Iraq and we CHOSE to fight in Vietnam. We started those fights, whereas the Japanese gave us no choice (although history will show we weren't totally neutral then either).

                Third, nation versus nation DOESN'T EQUAL nation versus individuals. Vietnam was a guerrilla war, where you often can't tell enemy from friend (they don't wear uniforms and atrocities against civilians are commonplace occurences - and unavoidable). Just like Iraq, but not WWII. Also, we haven't fared too well in Vietnam and Iraq, while WWII ended in our favor.

                War on Terrorism not much unlike the War on Communism.
                There are also undertones of West vs. East (like Vietnam, not WWII).

                In both Vietnam and Iraq, we fought on someone else's behalf. For the South Vietnamese people (who were they, nobody knows) and for the oppressed Iraqi people. (The argument that we were fighting for Britain and France doesn't really hold up, if you want me to expand, I will do so grudgingly) In WWII, we fought our nation against their nation. Oh yeah, and we had allies.

                A majority of Americans came to stand against both wars. Of course, American protest of the Iraq War started off a lot greater than it was during Vietnam (I guess we learned a little something from our history). WWII was never that unpopular.

                So, what I have done is refute your faulty premise (based on al-Qaeda, which was absent from Iraq when we inva...err, liberated them) and substitute my own. While the Iraq/Vietnam parallels are not perfect, your Iraq/WWII parallels are absurd. I'd like to be a lot meaner than I have been.
                You are missing the point again. I did not support the invasion of Iraq...SO STOP USING CAPS! There's a huge difference between being against a withdrawal and being for the initial invasion. That shows your fundamental lack of understanding of what we currently face.

                Whether you realize this or not, Al-Qaida is fighting our troops in Iraq AND Afghanistan. I prefer we fight them there and ensure they don't have bases in either country. If we leave Iraq, they will grow even stronger.

                This is not about Saddam. This is not about WMD's. This is not even about Iraq. Those old, tired discussions are history.

                This is a war that we are not winning with an opponent that will come after us. I think that matters more than any of my or your comparisons of past wars.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: What should happen in Iraq?

                  Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                  You are missing the point again. I did not support the invasion of Iraq...SO STOP USING CAPS! There's a huge difference between being against a withdrawal and being for the initial invasion. That shows your fundamental lack of understanding of what we currently face.

                  Whether you realize this or not, Al-Qaida is fighting our troops in Iraq AND Afghanistan. I prefer we fight them there and ensure they don't have bases in either country. If we leave Iraq, they will grow even stronger.

                  This is not about Saddam. This is not about WMD's. This is not even about Iraq. Those old, tired discussions are history.

                  This is a war that we are not winning with an opponent that will come after us. I think that matters more than any of my or your comparisons of past wars.
                  Well, if you had any sense of history, you'd see the error in your own assessment. My using caps has nothing to do with your opinion of the war. I stated a fact that you This is a thread about Iraq - you were the first to mention Afghanistan. That is why I didn't include Afghanistan in my comparison. Obviously, "our solution" to the Vietnam War did NOT end well for the Vietnamese (or for us, really). That's part of the reason I'm not advocating the same solution - a hasty withdrawal (after a brief expansion). It's difficult to learn from the past when you don't understand it.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: What should happen in Iraq?

                    Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
                    I agree with you that Clinton was just as bad (for many of the same reasons), though obviously not as visibly so, but that last paragraph of yours, oh my goodness do I disagree. And your very last sentence is the clincher. The irony is almost too much for me. But it's not as bad as saying Iraq is like WWII.
                    I said you have a simplified thought about them, because you think that a withdrawal is just going to solve all the problems. Muslims have been waging a "holy war" for centuries. This is nothing new to them.

                    They won't just go away if we pull out of Iraq, or even if we're completely out of the Middle East. They hate us. They want you dead. They dispise everything we stand for and represent. They hate the fact women are in politics, they hate the fact that women are treated(or supposed to be) like equals. They want all western countries wiped off the face of the earth, and they think they're going to get 70virgins in heaven if they kill us.

                    Whether or not you agreed with the invasion of Iraq, it doesn't matter anymore. We're there. People are too focused on the short term profit, if you can even call it that, by just leaving the area. There's going to be another attack, and then we're right back to Sept 12 2001, looking to fight all those directly and indirectly responsible, and we're going to invade another country quite possibly Iraq again.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: What should happen in Iraq?

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      I said you have a simplified thought about them, because you think that a withdrawal is just going to solve all the problems. Muslims have been waging a "holy war" for centuries. This is nothing new to them.

                      They won't just go away if we pull out of Iraq, or even if we're completely out of the Middle East. They hate us. They want you dead. They dispise everything we stand for and represent. They hate the fact women are in politics, they hate the fact that women are treated(or supposed to be) like equals. They want all western countries wiped off the face of the earth, and they think they're going to get 70virgins in heaven if they kill us.

                      Whether or not you agreed with the invasion of Iraq, it doesn't matter anymore. We're there. People are too focused on the short term profit, if you can even call it that, by just leaving the area. There's going to be another attack, and then we're right back to Sept 12 2001, looking to fight all those directly and indirectly responsible, and we're going to invade another country quite possibly Iraq again.
                      I never said withdrawal would solve all problems (and I'm certainly not an advocate of immediate withdrawal, or even withdrawal within the next year). All I know is that our current strategy is not working, so bullying ahead is going to do nothing for us or, more importantly, for them. I'm not focused on short term profits (unless, of course, we are talking about Bechtel, Halliburton, Chevron and so many others) - I want to do what's best for American soldiers and the American people but most importantly, what's best for the Iraqi people. I mean, we are fighting for them aren't we? But then again, they're Muslims, so maybe they aren't worth it. Why are we even trying to liberate these Muslims? We should have just nuked the whole area - the ultimate preemptive strike -and saved ourselves some trouble. What if the next terrorist strike occurs while we are still there (as Chertoff recently suggested)? Wouldn't that be a kick in the ***?

                      But maybe, maybe you didn't mean to generalize and say all Muslims want us dead, but only a very small percentage of extremists (let's say 10-15%). Now, the support for these people is growing and growing. And more troops (and more bodies) in Iraq doesn't seem to be helping. An immediate withdrawal of troops wouldn't work either, obviously, but what about an immediate withdrawal of parasitic foreign corporations. I could go for that.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: What should happen in Iraq?

                        1. I never said all muslims.
                        2. Adding more troops IS working. http://usatoday.printthis.clickabili...partnerID=1660
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: What should happen in Iraq?

                          My answer isn't there but here are my feelings in a nutshell:

                          For better or worse, we have a responsibility to suppress the violence in Iraq. We won't eliminate it entirely but we need to reduce that. We enacted the state of chaos through the invasion and we have a moral responsibility to do that much.

                          Once we've reached that point we then have to assess the political situation. IF the Iraqi government is working toward reconciliation - an oil revenue sharing plan, bringing all parties - Sunni, Shia & Kurd - into the political process, etc., THEN we whould remain committed, though obviously at reduced troop levels.

                          IF the Iraqi government is nothing more than a veil for the pursuit of Shiite dominance of Iraq with little or no accomodation for the other factions, THEN we need to get out as quickly as possible - completely. In this second situation we would be doing nothing more than helping prop up a government that goes against everything America stands for.

                          And obviously, the political process should be taking place now, even with violence going on but I do feel that since our invasion removed all entities in Iraq that might have maintained order, we at least have to restore order (to a large extent, it won't be complete but Saddam had his Death and Rape squads) - whatever the political progress is. That's a moral obligation we took on in March of 2003.
                          The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: What should happen in Iraq?

                            The ironic thing is, if they'd just stop killing each other (and us), we'd leave.

                            Peace is both the end-goal and the way to get there.

                            IMO, pulling our troops out before the violence stops isn't going to stop the violence.

                            The only reason we should pull are troops out is if we decide these people - the Iraqi people - just aren't worth it. But they are, IMO. And that's regardless of our share of the responsibility of causing this situation.

                            But I can certainly see where some folks are close to (or past) the point of just saying "Screw it. Blow yourselves up. It's not worth one more life of ours."
                            You're caught up in the Internet / you think it's such a great asset / but you're wrong, wrong, wrong
                            All that fiber optic gear / still cannot take away the fear / like an island song

                            - Jimmy Buffett

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X