Why, oh why, are we still in Iraq?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
What will have been accomplished at that stage in the war against terror?

[/ QUOTE ]
My opinion:
1) A friendly (or friendlier) nation in an area where terrorism breeds.
2) A nation that will pursue terrorists instead of paying them.
3) Like it or not Cyrus, Iraq would (and is) set an example for other tyrannical regimes, especially in the Middle East. It seems like everytime I hear about a car bomb going off, there's a dozen or more civilians killed in the blast. Now that's pretty bad PR for the terrorists, wouldn't you agree? I think other nations will notice how terrorism affects the populations it manifests in and will begin to reject it (slowly to be sure).

I'm sure there are others that smarter men than I can think of. I hesitate to even answer the question because I know you don't agree with your own premise and I doubt anything will convince you.

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
I've never read Orwell. Plz elaborate.

[/ QUOTE ]

....as lastchance suggested in his last post. Get and read both Animal Farm and 1984.

Orwell was a visionary and had a way with allegory that really strikes to the heart of many issues.

short version:

Doublespeak - To say the virtual opposite of what one means.

Doublethink - hmmmm....to be able to take two contradictory positions on the same issue. (been a long time....I'll take any clarification from others)

....Do these sound familiar these days?

[img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[lastchance]

1984 is a truly awesome book. The vocabulary in there is just brilliant.

[SpearsBritney]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems like everytime I hear about a car bomb going off, there's a dozen or more civilians killed in the blast. Now that's pretty bad PR for the terrorists, wouldn't you agree?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but what if weren't the "terrorists" to begin with? But then again, who could possibly benefit from that? And what if the word "terrorist" itself wasn't the clearly defined definition of an evil-doer, but instead some arbitrary term used to propel political agenda. What a crazy world that would be.

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems like everytime I hear about a car bomb going off, there's a dozen or more civilians killed in the blast. Now that's pretty bad PR for the terrorists, wouldn't you agree?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but what if weren't the "terrorists" to begin with? But then again, who could possibly benefit from that? And what if the word "terrorist" itself wasn't the clearly defined definition of an evil-doer, but instead some arbitrary term used to propel political agenda. What a crazy world that would be.

[/ QUOTE ]

DANGER WILL ROBINSON!!!! doublespeak alert!!!

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

aka.....who be doin da talkin & who be doin da listenin?

[BCPVP]

You're supposed to wrap the tin foil around your head, not your teeth. That won't protect you from the evil mind-control rays!

[SpearsBritney]

[ QUOTE ]
You're supposed to wrap the tin foil around your head, not your teeth. That won't protect you from the evil mind-control rays!

[/ QUOTE ]

No no, you just have to turn your TV off

[hurlyburly]

[ QUOTE ]

Are we going to keep the terrorists off our soil?

[/ QUOTE ]

My theory, based on the simplicity of the current administration, is that this is the ONLY reason we went there to start and are still there now.

It provides targets that can be attacked more easily and cheaply than a US target. Instead of civilian casualties, trained military personnel (with a better than even chance) are involved. This is what I thought about a year ago, when it was primarily military being targeted.

That the terrorists are what they are and go for softer civilian targets is really the icing on the cake for us, as it will ultimately put the general populace on our side. I don't agree that this is true, but I think the administration has convinced itself that it can happen.

[SpearsBritney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Are we going to keep the terrorists off our soil?

[/ QUOTE ]

My theory, based on the simplicity of the current administration, is that this is the ONLY reason we went there to start and are still there now.

It provides targets that can be attacked more easily and cheaply than a US target. Instead of civilian casualties, trained military personnel (with a better than even chance) are involved. This is what I thought about a year ago, when it was primarily military being targeted.

That the terrorists are what they are and go for softer civilian targets is really the icing on the cake for us, as it will ultimately put the general populace on our side. I don't agree that this is true, but I think the administration has convinced itself that it can happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you have officially replaced me as resident nutjob

[lehighguy]

Ok, I have read Orwell, I'm bad at remembering authors attached to books.

Doublethink, its an amazing thing to observe. So commonplace, yet so absurd.