NationStates Jolt Archive

Have you ever had a friend that knows absolutely nothing about politics, and yet keeps on ranting, oblivious to the fact that just about everybody in the room knows they are a moron? Whose response to welfare problems is: "i'm not paying my hard earned money to some drunk that's too lazy to work". Whose conception of government is that is should provide all of the services it currently provides while halving taxes?

This brings me to the topic of the post: what exactly can you say to these people? This friend recently sent me a rather incohesive chainmail, and I sent back what I thought was a fairly well thought out reply until I realized that I was talking to a person who skips over almost every sentence not containing the keywords America, terrorism, or freedom.

I would be greatful if people could post some general impressions or ideas to help me explain to this guy where he went wrong. And yes, I about fell out of my chair when I realized the implied assumption behind the '39 casualties' statistic in Iraq: that Iraqi's don't count as people. Without further ado, here it is.

Quick edit: since some readers have asked to see my responses, I posted the gist of them on about post five of this page, I understand that they in no way encompass the entire subject matter nor were they supposed to, but if you want to use them as a basis for discussion feel free.

Things that make you think a little:



There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January. In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January. That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq.



When some claim that President Bush shouldn't have started this war, remember the following:




a. FDR led us into World War II.



b. Germany never attacked us; Japan did.

From 1941 - 1945, 450,000 lives were lost ...

an average of 112,500 per year.



c. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea.

North Korea never attacked us. From 1950 - 1953, 55,000 lives were lost ... an average of 18,334 per year.



d. John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.

Vietnam never attacked us.



e. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire.

From 1965 - 1975, 58,000 lives were lost ...

an average of 5,800 per year.



f. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.

Bosnia never attacked us.

He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times

by Sudan and did nothing.

Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.



g. In the years since terrorists attacked us,

President Bush

has liberated two countries,

crushed the Taliban,

crippled al-Qaida,

put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, and North Korea

without firing a shot,

and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.



The Democrats are complaining about

how long the war is taking.

But

It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno

to take the Branch Davidian compound.

That was a 51-day operation.



We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons

in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find

the Rose Law Firm billing records.



It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the

Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard

than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his

Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.



It took less time to take Iraq than it took

to count the votes in Florida!!!!



Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a Great Job!

The Military Morale is high!



The biased media hopes we are too ignorant

to realize the facts.



If you can read this, thank a teacher.

If you are reading it in English, thank a Veteran.



It might not be a bad idea to keep this circulating.

More Russians fell in the Battle of Kharkov than the total of:

1. Iraqis killed by Saddam
2. US soldiers killed by insurgents
3. Iraqis killed by US soldiers
4. Iraqis killed by insurgents

I think what he's saying is that in terms of scale, and what used to be considered "acceptable losses" to another generation, the Iraqi occupation is comparatively bloodless, and we shouldn't get so excited about it.

I would tend to agree, but times change, and people in Western countries are far more sensitive to battle casualties, especially amongst civilians, than we were in the past.

Rather than complain that all neo cons are morons, and you obviously know what's best, how about you post your "fairly well thought out reply" and we can discuss that.

Well you can tell him that Germany Declared war on US. In World War 2. Not the other way around.

Here's what you write back to that self righteous neocon bastard that will really get into his skin, AND it is 100% true!

"Damn dude, your're right. Sorry I was a whiny Liberal ass. It won't happen again."

(many of) the arguements in that seem to be based on two premises:

1. things done in the past are ok. if we keep doing bad things that makes it even more ok.

2. linking (seemingly) unrelated events somehow consitutes an arguement. then again i'm not an american and i don't have a full grasp of your political history or current political landscape.

oh and remember that statistics can be manipulated to suit any purpose (just look at that iraq/detroit nonsense for a start), so if you really care enough to bother writing a reply to this, do your own research into the data presented in the chainmail.

Rather than complain that all neo cons are morons, and you obviously know what's best, how about you post your "fairly well thought out reply" and we can discuss that.

Not all neo-cons are morons, nor are all morons neoconservatives, what I am saying is simply that this particular neo-con is unfortunately unable to string up a cohesive position. I won't post the full text of the reply as it is somewhat personalized, but here's the gist of it:
There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January. In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January. That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq.
This passage, as well as grossly distorting the basic facts, contains a single flawed assumption: that only Americans are people! For a more accurate list of Iraqi casualties, backed up by a very well staffed organization and a comprehensive database, visit http://www.iraqbodycount.org/. 27,000-30,000 is a bit more than 39.

a. FDR led us into World War II.



b. Germany never attacked us; Japan did.

From 1941 - 1945, 450,000 lives were lost ...

an average of 112,500 per year.



This is completely ridiculous. If somebody on these forums really wants to argue against American involvement in the World Wars, but for now I will point you to the Just War Theory - basically, don't start wars


c. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea.

North Korea never attacked us. From 1950 - 1953, 55,000 lives were lost ... an average of 18,334 per year.



d. John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.

Vietnam never attacked us.



e. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire.

From 1965 - 1975, 58,000 lives were lost ...

an average of 5,800 per year.



This is unfortunately, quite off topic, but makes the point of why I identify myself as a liberal and not as a democrat. Democrats screw up too, and there are few here that will say that these wars were justified. What is imporatant is not what happened in the past, but who is willing to learn from it. Myself, I am much more convinced that the Democrats intend to keep us out of these situations than the republicans.


f. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.

Bosnia never attacked us.

He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times

by Sudan and did nothing.

Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.



On the subject of Bosnia, just like Afghanistan, that is an example of exactly how a peacekeeping mission should be carried out. You make sure it's going to work, minimize the damage, and make sure that you can garner a reasonable amount of support so as not to jeopardize the mission. Unfortunately, in Iraq we did neither, and we turned out failing in both. Now we're stuck: go figure....

On the accusation about Clinton and Osama, I would like to compare it to the time a few decades back when a unit commanded by Ariel Sharon had Yasser Arafat within sniper range. Asked for authorization to fire, Sharon answered with a simple "no". He recognized that Arafat was no more than a figurehead, and that to martyr him would turn the situation into a much more inflammatory one than the current problem.

I have heard some conservatives compare the situation to the slaying of the Hydra, saying, "well, if you cut off the head, the body will follow". Unknowingly, they made the perfect analogy for the terrorist situation. Anyone who has studied Greek Mythology knows that with the Hydra, when you cut off one head two grow back. So it is with terrorists, if you shoot one, a pair of new ones spring up.

The best example of this would be Iraq. Sure, there were a couple of terrorists in Iraq before we invaded, but now how many are there? Thousands, and most became terrorists out of disgust at American actions inside the country. There is a very fine line between combating terrorism and wasting your money: whenever you try to take it head-on, you are wasting your money. Best to stay lower profile, occasionally coming in with well-placed surgical attacks such as Israelis successful bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor that beat Bush out by more than 20 years.

The rest of the e-mail resembles, quite honestly, bad memories from middle school debate class quite a few years back: shout out a bunch of catch phrases and hope they sound good. Since they are less than cohesive as a group, I really can't address them all unless you would like to go on for a few more pages, but I hope I’ve addressed many of the main points.

As for what I missed, that's really why I posted here. I hope I outlined my positions well enough, but I will freely admit that they are nowhere near fully developed, and this is the reason I posted the chainmail here. Any responses to the mail on either side would be fine, but please in the future, do refrain from any seemingly personal attacks against myself or any other posters.

Feel free to address any parts of this post that you find less than satisfactory, I will check back periodically for a few hours.

a. While policies were emplaced to aide Britain, no actual fighting was seen by a US military unit until Dec. 7th, 1941.

b. Hitler delcared war on the US shortly after a joint session of Congress declared a state of war existed between the United States of America and the Empire of Japan.

c. The UN Security Council voted that a unilateral Police Action be taken to stop North Korean agression, which it did.

d. Less than a hundred advisors were in Vietnam during most of JFK's presidency. Once more were in, JFK realized the war was not winnable and had plans to pull out. A car ride in Dallas prevented that. Johnson started the war after the USS Maddox was fired at by N. Vietnam gunboats. This led to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which called for 'retaliatory' actions against N. Vietnam.

e. LBJ was one serious mind-screw. We signed SEATO.

f. That was a NATO operation.

g. US troops still occupy Iraq. When a large armed force of a foreign sovereign nation operate within your border, you're not really excersising full national sovereignty.
Operation Iraqi Freedom started in '03. We're still there. 51 days is less than 2 months.
Bush withdrew the US from an arms reduction treaty w/ Russia signed since the Cold War.

I always thank Veterans (both my grandfathers were in WWII, and one was in Vietnam, where he recieved a Bronze Star), and my mom (who's an English teacher). I don't thank the Republicans who think that my mothers' profession is laughable and do everything they can to hamper the expansion of learning in my state( Texas).

Be Well and Peace be with You!

Blessed, with strong hearts that beat as one,
Watch us soar.
And with love that conquers all,
We'll win this battle, this last battle,
We will win!
We can win!
We must win!
We can win!

*Snip*

*Applause*

I was going to write something, but it looks like I've been beaten to it.

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January. In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January. That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq.
Under normal circumstances those soldiers would not have died. The difference is that we knowingly place soldiers in harms' way. They choose to be soldiers, but that cannot eliviate the guilt of the public when we know they died in service of us... and neither should it

a. FDR led us into World War II.
And the ends certainly justified the means


b. Germany never attacked us; Japan did.

From 1941 - 1945, 450,000 lives were lost ...

an average of 112,500 per year.1: We attacked Japan back
2: To compare WWII to Iraq is to compare apples and oranges. The technology, the tactics and the very nature of war has changed massively since then. The Nazi war machine was far more on par and dangerous to the Allied Forces in WWII, then the Iraqi Republican Guard.


c. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea.

North Korea never attacked us. From 1950 - 1953, 55,000 lives were lost ... an average of 18,334 per year.Whilst a great tragedy in terms of loss of life, the North Korean conflict ultimately reflected a consistent veiw of opposition to oppression that is not shown by the current administration


d. John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.

Vietnam never attacked us.Again, the ruthless tactics used by communist forces in the 50s-60s warrented US involvement.

e. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire.

From 1965 - 1975, 58,000 lives were lost ...

an average of 5,800 per year.Indeed. As did Nixon



f. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.

Bosnia never attacked us.Genocide MUST be a sufficant cause for miltary action. I am truly appauled by anyone who does not support the use of armed conflict to prevent it

He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times

by Sudan and did nothing.

Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.The proof of this is questionable


g. In the years since terrorists attacked us,

President Bush

has liberated two countries,Both of which are still torn by internal turmoil and where living standards have not improved for the average person

crushed the Taliban,In most of Afghanistan, yes

crippled al-Qaida,Not by a long shot. Stirred the hornett's nest? Definately

put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, and North KoreaResulting more in spite of the Bush Adminsitration, then because of it

without firing a shot,What...? Shots fired in Afghanistan & Iraq

and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.Suddam Hussien was/is a Head of State, not a terrorist


The Democrats are complaining about

how long the war is taking.

But

It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno

to take the Branch Davidian compound.

That was a 51-day operation.That wasn't a war. The idea there was REDUCE casualities


We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons

in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find

the Rose Law Firm billing records.Anyone who has worked in a Finance or Law Firm can atest to how long it would take to produce these documents. Especially if you don't have umpteen thousand troops helping how


It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the

Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard

than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his

Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.It also took less time then it did for me to file my taxes. What? That's not a relivant comparisson?


It took less time to take Iraq than it took

to count the votes in Florida!!!!I'm sorry, but in some places democracy is veiwed as something important

Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a Great Job!

The Military Morale is high!That means the military is loyal, not that the POTUS is doing a good job accross the board


The biased media hopes we are too ignorant

to realize the facts.Becuase Fox is neither biased nor distorting the facts? Where is this liberal media I keep hearing about..?


If you can read this, thank a teacher.I'll thank my mum. Most of us learned to read before going to school

If you are reading it in English, thank a Veteran.Or England

It might not be a bad idea to keep this circulating.I'll be right

See? This is something that can be discussed.

Not all neo-cons are morons, nor are all morons neoconservatives, what I am saying is simply that this particular neo-con is unfortunately unable to string up a cohesive position. I won't post the full text of the reply as it is somewhat personalized, but here's the gist of it:

This passage, as well as grossly distorting the basic facts, contains a single flawed assumption: that only Americans are people! For a more accurate list of Iraqi casualties, backed up by a very well staffed organization and a comprehensive database, visit http://www.iraqbodycount.org/. 27,000-30,000 is a bit more than 39.
You make a distortion yourself here. The original poster (whoever wrote that chain email) isn't saying that Iraqi's are not people, or that American's are worth more than anyone else. What he/she's doing is remarking on the uproar that is going around this country about the US casualties in Iraq. The media daily lists American body counts, events were planned to acknowledge the 2000 body count milestone etc. I believe that the originator was remarking on that hypocricy.

This is completely ridiculous. If somebody on these forums really wants to argue against American involvement in the World Wars, but for now I will point you to the Just War Theory - basically, don't start wars
Good theory. If everyone would subscribe to that theory then there wouldn't be any wars. Unfortunately human nature prevents this from ever being a reality. But again, the poster is trying to make a comparison as to what "acceptible losses" are.

This is unfortunately, quite off topic, but makes the point of why I identify myself as a liberal and not as a democrat. Democrats screw up too, and there are few here that will say that these wars were justified. What is imporatant is not what happened in the past, but who is willing to learn from it. Myself, I am much more convinced that the Democrats intend to keep us out of these situations than the republicans.
Here I think the originator is trying to parallel the starting of the Iraqi war with the Korean war. Someone posted that the Korean War was a result of UN police action. The most obvious counter is the numerous UN resolutions that Saddam broke and continued to break... but that's for some other thread.

On the subject of Bosnia, just like Afghanistan, that is an example of exactly how a peacekeeping mission should be carried out. You make sure it's going to work, minimize the damage, and make sure that you can garner a reasonable amount of support so as not to jeopardize the mission. Unfortunately, in Iraq we did neither, and we turned out failing in both. Now we're stuck: go figure....

On the accusation about Clinton and Osama, I would like to compare it to the time a few decades back when a unit commanded by Ariel Sharon had Yasser Arafat within sniper range. Asked for authorization to fire, Sharon answered with a simple "no". He recognized that Arafat was no more than a figurehead, and that to martyr him would turn the situation into a much more inflammatory one than the current problem.

I have heard some conservatives compare the situation to the slaying of the Hydra, saying, "well, if you cut off the head, the body will follow". Unknowingly, they made the perfect analogy for the terrorist situation. Anyone who has studied Greek Mythology knows that with the Hydra, when you cut off one head two grow back. So it is with terrorists, if you shoot one, a pair of new ones spring up.

The best example of this would be Iraq. Sure, there were a couple of terrorists in Iraq before we invaded, but now how many are there? Thousands, and most became terrorists out of disgust at American actions inside the country. There is a very fine line between combating terrorism and wasting your money: whenever you try to take it head-on, you are wasting your money. Best to stay lower profile, occasionally coming in with well-placed surgical attacks such as Israelis successful bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor that beat Bush out by more than 20 years.
Here, when I read your response, and then from the original chain email, I'm reminded of the criticism being heaped on Bush for "Osama Forgotten". You did a good job countering that criticism as well, thank you.

The rest of the e-mail resembles, quite honestly, bad memories from middle school debate class quite a few years back: shout out a bunch of catch phrases and hope they sound good. Since they are less than cohesive as a group, I really can't address them all unless you would like to go on for a few more pages, but I hope I’ve addressed many of the main points.

As for what I missed, that's really why I posted here. I hope I outlined my positions well enough, but I will freely admit that they are nowhere near fully developed, and this is the reason I posted the chainmail here. Any responses to the mail on either side would be fine, but please in the future, do refrain from any seemingly personal attacks against myself or any other posters.

Feel free to address any parts of this post that you find less than satisfactory, I will check back periodically for a few hours.
Again, the main jist I get from the original email was the comparison of "acceptible losses" which I feel is a valid comparison.

As to what to say to partison "hacks" who refuse to even listen, let alone acknowledge opposing viewpoints... all I can say is browse these forums.. you will find thousands of examples of just that behavior. Perhaps a reply or 2 might contain a gem of how to deal with them.

Have you ever had a friend that knows absolutely nothing about politics, and yet keeps on ranting, oblivious to the fact that just about everybody in the room knows they are a moron? Whose response to welfare problems is: "i'm not paying my hard earned money to some drunk that's too lazy to work". Whose conception of government is that is should provide all of the services it currently provides while halving taxes?
I hate those people as much as I despise those who want to give their money to those who don't want to work (as opposed to the sliver of the population who honestly can't). Both douchebags are destroying the country; neocon and flake-o liberal.

See? This is something that can be discussed.


Yep, you're right, thanks for posting. I'm not going to bog down this post with another rant on the same subject unless people really want me to, but I'm glad that now both sides have had reasonable cases posted for them. I think that's really the point of having such a discussion: obviously people such as myself would tend to criticize the circulated conservative position while others are inclined to support it, but I think you did a great job pointing out the middle ground. I would respectfully disagree with a few of the positions posted, but the post was generally well thought out, easy to follow, and going down a logical path. There's hope for this thread yet.

Yep, you're right, thanks for posting. I'm not going to bog down this post with another rant on the same subject unless people really want me to, but I'm glad that now both sides have had reasonable cases posted for them. I think that's really the point of having such a discussion: obviously people such as myself would tend to criticize the circulated conservative position while others are inclined to support it, but I think you did a great job pointing out the middle ground. I would respectfully disagree with a few of the positions posted, but the post was generally well thought out, easy to follow, and going down a logical path. There's hope for this thread yet.
Thank you :D
I try, usually fail, to be at least reasonable.

*Wonderful Message*


*Another wonderful Reply

Everyone, they won.

Yes there are many things people can point out. There is nothing I think is more worthwhile then popping someones lie bubbles.

"Damn dude, your're right. Sorry I was a whiny Liberal ass. It won't happen again."

*Sniggers*

Oh, sorry, i'm just a jealous European. I wish I lived in America, the most perfect country ever, with an obviously brilliant education system. xD

g. US troops still occupy Iraq. When a large armed force of a foreign sovereign nation operate within your border, you're not really excersising full national sovereignty.
So Germany is not a sovereign nation? :)

*Sniggers*

Oh, sorry, I'm just a jealous European. I wish I lived in America, the most perfect country ever, with an obviously brilliant education system. xD

Proper nouns=capitalization

"Fuck off, you right wing twat."
That's all that one has to say to a neocon. Why is any debate about this required?

"Fuck off, you right wing twat."
That's all that one has to say to a neocon. Why is any debate about this required?

Because some of you lefties think there is something to be gained by acheiving at least a fifth-grade level of discourse. Go figure.

Because some of you lefties think there is something to be gained by acheiving at least a fifth-grade level of discourse. Go figure.
Not with people who ignore everything they're told and roll their eyes on messageboards there isn't. :rolleyes:

Because some of you lefties think there is something to be gained by acheiving at least a fifth-grade level of discourse. Go figure.

You mean like the language and hand gestures at the recent demonstration in Denver?

You have to sugarcoat every word you say to a NeoCon with Jesus. Like for example:

"Jesus Hello Jesus there Jesus friend, Jesus How Jesus are Jesus you Jesus doing Jesus this Jesus fine Jesus day? Jesus I Jesus am Jesus doing Jesus well Jesus myself Jesus Thank Jesus you."

You have to sugarcoat every word you say to a NeoCon with Jesus. Like for example:

"Jesus Hello Jesus there Jesus friend, Jesus How Jesus are Jesus you Jesus doing Jesus this Jesus fine Jesus day? Jesus I Jesus am Jesus doing Jesus well Jesus myself Jesus Thank Jesus you."

Gosh, the video they showed in Denver was "fuck" ever other word, and the hand signal for the same, in case the viewer was deaf.

Good thing the Democrats are kind enough to include sign language for the deaf.

Gosh, the video they showed in Denver was "fuck" ever other word, and the hand signal for the same, in case the viewer was deaf.

Good thing the Democrats are kind enough to include sign language for the deaf.

What else do you expect from a right-wing authoritarian party?

Suddam Hussien was/is a Head of State, not a terrorist

State terrorism is still terrorism?

State terrorism is still terrorism?

Oh no. It's much, much worse.

So Germany is not a sovereign nation? :)

We've signed accords w/ Germany, Japan and other sovereign nations for use of facilities i ntheir coutnry for military operations. Most of this falls under NATO or SEATO or one of the various -TO organizations. So far, I have not heard of such an armed forces agreement w/ Iraq's gov't.

Peace be with YOU

The UN...because it's OUR future!
www.un.org

You shouldnt say anything to neo-cons or torture apologists or holocaust-deniers.

Some people only rate silent contempt.

You shouldnt say anything to neo-cons or torture apologists or holocaust-deniers.

Some people only rate silent contempt.
This debate WILL go on forever. Like you say, just ignore them and they go away.

Good theory. If everyone would subscribe to that theory then there wouldn't be any wars. Unfortunately human nature prevents this from ever being a reality. But again, the poster is trying to make a comparison as to what "acceptible losses" are.

An unacceptable war can have no acceptable losses.

To compare US casualties to Detroit murder rates is fallacious, as others have pointed out.

It is more appropriate to compare it to US police fatalities in the line of duty. Then you have to compare total Iraqi deaths due to terrorism, criminal murder due to chaos in the unstable nation, those caught in the fighting (shot for being in the wrong place at the wrong time), and mistaken identity issues (doing something percieved as threatening by forces).

Total fatalities in 2005 for US troops equate to 776 so far and 51 UK and other coalition forces in the year.

Iraqi police and military casualties are 2,376 for 2005 and civilian casualties are 5,317 for the same period.

This is a total of 776 + 51 + 2,376 + 5,317 = 8,520 total casualties over the first 11 months of the year. Annualized, this would be 9,294 deaths per year.

Against the estimated Iraqi population of 27,000,000, that's a death rate of about 34.4 per 100,000.

The murder rate in the US is about 16,000 annually (in 2001 - 2002). An incident rate of 5.6 per 100,000.

The highest murder rates by state were 17.5 for Louisiana and 11.1 for Mississippi. Which means you were twice as likely to get murdered in Iraq than in crime-infested Louisiana, and overall were about six times more likely to be murdered in Iraq than any average location in the US.

New Orleans (http://www.bestplaces.net/docs/studies/crime3.aspx) had a murder rate of 24.4. It was the worst metropolitan area in the nation for murder rate. Its murder rate was nearly five times the national average.

Iraq has, in certain provinces, a death rate of over 100 per 100,000 (http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2005814231422.asp). That's four times the rate of our (former) worst murder capital.

For people who shrug and say, "So? It's a warzone," you can point out that since the US-led invasion, the death rate annually in the nation due to violent causes has been around 15,000 annually, while the death rate under Saddam Hussein, one of the most brutal dictators in the world, was 15,000 annually.

In other words, all we've done is swapped one sort of hell for another.

We improved the economy for the Kurds, yet we've destroyed it for many Sunni areas. We're rearranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic.

Ask them how we're going to get the murder and death rate down. It's been years and there's still raw sewage in the streets and power outages every day in the national capital. What's the plan?

While this is not the worst case of full-scale war -- and we should thank our respective deities (if we have them) that we have not suffered worse losses -- we should not be shrugging when speaking about casualties that we caused in a war which we propagated when in fact we seem to have been grossly misled by information into being there in the first place.

What also infuriates Iraqis is that they felt, rightly or wrongly, that they had security under Saddam Hussein (obviously that depends on what tribe and religious faction you belonged to). These people argue that the United States has created a condition of lawlessness similar to what we suffer at home in the US and in the UK (http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/archive/article.php?lang=E&id=45724).

If people want to try to compare this to conditions of war to sway us, know that the Iraqis are comparing this to the state of peace that is considered "normal" for the US. Satellite TV shows them shows like COPS and America's Most Wanted. They come to believe that America is filled with gangs and thugs which we cannot even control domestically, then we hypocritically come to invade their land promising security, and we have only imported this condition of lawlessness into their country, thus necessitating our continued presence.

Now, you can argue against that, but it's not myself who holds that opinion. It's often the typical Iraqi, who is as likely or not functionally illiterate (according to WHO and UNICEF estimates) and thus only knows what they see on TV or hears on the radio often through the lens of Arabic and Muslim news sources.

In other words, don't blame Liberals for the perception that the typical Iraqi has of the war.

Nor it is entirely baseless to put forth that the Iraqi people are suffering extremely high rates of death and violence due to the political instability which we brought with us.

The only way to truly succeed in the mission is to help repair the damage done and do what we can to lower the death rate.

There are those that say that it is more important to lower the death rate and provide "safe haven" areas than to actively root out the insurgents.

Door-kicking exercises frightens the population and turns more of them against us. It also has a low rate of bagging the bad guys.

It would be far more effective to create neighborhood watch programs so that we had better tips before we simply knocked doors in, stronger police training and police auxiliaries, set up remote monitoring cameras rather than sit there in an HMMWV waiting to be a target, got road signs in Arabic telling traffic how to slow down to approach a checkpoint or to turn slowly and carefully to leave a roadblock area or detour to avoid being shot, and create violence-free areas such as markets where you inspect people going in and out to ensure no one's going to blow up their vegetable stand.

Rather than bash the Liberals, which is like kicking your dog when it barks at the pee your cat made on the carpet, we should stay focused on the problem: the mess that was made, and the clean up that's required.

Of course, most one-dimensional close-minded fascistic jingoistic xenophobic prejudiced mind slaves cannot even parse a full sound bite, so your extensively researched argument will probably fall on quite deaf tin ears.

Especially if you treat them as nothing more than that. You can also sincerely listen to the true points they make and accept when they say something valid, even if it is exagerated or taken out of context. It's best to look at what they are saying and then take it the extra step. How did it get that way in the first place?

It's easy to blame Ney for failing at Quatres Bras. The question needs to be, how did France ever get into such a widely-opposed position in the first place?

Direct back to the policy decisions that led to this current condition.

Who was the person who green-lighted Saddam Hussein's first CIA-nodded operation to attempt a political assassination? Who helped him escape to Syria when it failed? Who backed him and the Ba'athists as they rose to power? Who made the deal to get the MiG-21, putting him as a central double-agent dealing between the USSR and the US?

The failures in Iraq are not purely Democratic nor Republican. They are the culmination of four decades of secret wars and espionage games run by US intelligence and foreign service agencies gone bad. Real bad.

It's best that we take responsibility for the screw ups we made and to minimize the damage to ourselves. Infighting is not going to solve Iraq.

Focus on the way forward, and have them be prepared to put forth more than just "ditto" when they head-nod at the President's plan.

Did they note how Bush is authorizing a draw-down of forces by about a full division scheduled after the Iraqi Dec 15 elections while lambasting others for "cutting and running?"

Did they note that there's nothing wrong with this when a Republican proposes it, but suddenly it's "treason" or "cowardice" when a Democrat utters anything about military force usage? Or even more sacreligiously, averts the use of military force through diplomatic or economic engagement?

It's good to score a few points on matters that both sides can agree on. There needs to be an axiomatic principle that both sides can say, "Yes, this is true," for rational discussion to take place. Otherwise, the paradigm of the discussion continues to slip and you'll get nowhere.

So find some common ground: you are both agreed that something makes for good or bad policy.

From there, you can each say what would make better or best policy, or worse in comparison. You don't need to agree of course. But at least you now see where each other is coming from.

Also, I find that most Americans find it uncomfortable to be called fascists. But that, I find, is increasingly more appropriate to call them than neocons.

Neocon makes it sound as if a) they are new to politics, or b) conservative.

However, they are in fact good old fashioned fascists.

Propaganda-spewing xenophobes, racists more interested in amassing power and control over the state to repress individuals they disagree with than true liberty and justice.

I liken them more to Adolf Hitler or Joseph Goebbels -- given to diatribes and personal character attacks, followed by bombastic claims and then dismissal of the very life of their opponents -- than to George Washington or Thomas Jefferson, who were rational, patriotic, mild-mannered gentlemen who were given to civil discourse.

You see, I thought we fought World War II to stop fascism, not to conquer the Germans so we could claim it and make it our own toy philosophy.

Even if they disagree with me on my assertions, it certainly makes many of them think.

Want to have a civil conversation between Liberals and Conservatives? I'm all for it.

If they refuse to even think about it and unilaterally denounce me and all that I might say as treason and apostasy, well, then they seem rather lunatic, jingoistic asinine fascists to me.

Then you can give ample opportunity to step back and return to normal discourse after pointing out how far to the right some right-wingers may be swinging. Allow for retractions, corrections, clarifications, and acceptances of points of fact with a bit of good grace and rationality.

Allow for detente and stepping back from the extremes, after pointing out your objections and viewpoints.

If people do the equivalent of STFU!, then it's simply time to nod and move on. Close discussion and refuse to be baited.

Unless you have a public forum to humiliate them on. Make example of their extremism. Use good humor to expose their fallacies. But do it gently. Allow them an out and a way, again, for them to expand their views and not pin them into being "wrong."

That only retrenches the ideas that you don't want them to hold anyway.

Allow them to think in a new direction, even if it might be just another new fallacy and logical dead-end.

It also helps when your opponent is open-minded enough to not actually come off as a one-trick pony policy pinhead. Logical intransigence is often difficult to break through. Forming new lines of logical reasoning based off common ground is the only thing that works -- redirect the discussion, rather than belabouring a dead-end impasse.

I'm also not going to limit this simply to arguing with conservatives or fascists. These thought can also apply to wrong-thinking liberals, democrats, and in fact, anyone you are arguing with.

Many Liberals and Democrats lose traction when they refuse to acknowledge any valid point from the right. To be egalitarian and truthful, you should give each his due. But, of course, you are free to acknowledge that someone else believes something even if you might believe something different.

I suppose this is a fine art of discourse and rhetoric which most people never learn expressly these days, but only through natural trial-and-error. However, there are whole bodies of science in how to get your opponents to actually see your way. Without having to expressly get into an argument of right vs. wrong.