Iconoclastic

I went to the web site, but was unable to find the number of Iranian lives saved due to the overthrow of Sadam. Or the number of American Civilians still alive because Al Queda has been tied up trying to fight a war in Iran. Look at the casualties from one day at Normandie in 1944. Did their Sacrafice make no defference? Did those men die in vain? No, and their country had the good sense to honor and more importantly appreciate, the sacrifice those men made.
I don't see this as a good point at all. It seems extremely short sighted.

I also noticed that no one ever asks, "Who would Mohammed bomb?" I guess we have all seen the answer to that one. I wonder if you will post either of my responses?

"I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent."
-- Mohandas K. Gandhi

I wonder John, if you could not find the statistics because there is some sort of conspiracy on the part of liberal non-patriots attempting to make the American government look evil - as you so slyly implied... or could it be because we are fighting a war in Iraq... not Iran... hmmmm...

As for the statistics on Iraqi lives saved, I'm not sure you could find an accurate statistic, what you can find is that the death rate in Iraq has more than tripled since our occupation, but you make a good point, there is the possibility that civilian lives have been saved... I am saddened by all the lives that have been lost though.

On American civilians lives being saved by Al-Qaeda being tied up in a war overseas. Well, all I can really say is that if you honestly think we are fighting Al-Qaeda in Iraq then you are drastically underestimating their intelligence and cunning. If there was ever an element of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and that is one darn big IF, then they would not be silly enough to stick around and get caught in the middle of a war that dose not benefit them one way or the other. Al-Qaeda is an international alliance of terrorist organizations, and therefore dose not claim allegiance with any one country. What I wonder is how many American civilian lives would be saved if Al-Qaeda had not received funding through Operation Cyclone, which gave them the boost they needed to solidify their group. I guess we all have unanswered questions.

I also wonder what you would say if I compared Bush's acts to Hitler's. Since you found it accurate to compare this war to the Normandy invasion. I also wonder, 100 years from now, who will be named the tyrant, and who the victim. It is a question we should all think about.

Who would Jesus bomb is a question. A question that can have many different and diverse answers. I think it is a good question. And I think your confrontational response is fulled by the dislike of being faced with a question you are not comfortable answering. I am not sure that a question can even be short sighted, but I am sure this question is not. I would also like to know who Mother Teresa would bomb, who Gandhi would bomb, who Buddha would bomb, and most importantly, who I would bomb. These are questions we should ask, and even if we only answer them in the deepest darkest spaces of our own minds, they deserve answers.

As for you question who would Mohammad bomb. well I feel the best response to ignorance and hate, is no response at all, so that is what you will get from me on this point. but thanks for commenting all the same!

John,

I wanted to respond to you personally, and let you know I will not be posting your last two comments - or any further comments you choose to make - on my blog. I am not trying to foster an environment of hostility and negativity. I would prefer to promote open discussion and idea sharing. Your accusations and comments are baseless and off topic and don't really make sense.

Thank you for your time.

meagan dixon
http://www.norcalblogs.com/iconoclastic/

i missed something here..

Hi Meagan

Well Meagan, in all fairness if asking "who would Mohamed Bomb?" Is an example or "ignorance and hate" than can i make the same accusation concerning the question "Who would Jesus bomb"?

Neither one of them are good questions Meagan, they are loaded questions. One could just as easily ask the question "Who would Jesus abort"? If we are going to go along this line of questioning it will only get personal, and that was really the intent of the person who coined the phrase. I don't know, but Im willing to bet that the person who phrased this question probably doesn't care about what Jesus has to say on allot of social issues of our day.

The frustrating part of the reference to blood soaked uniforms is that someone is using the sacrifice of volunteers to undermine a mission, that the vast majority of soldiers polled seem to support. Especially at this point in the war where EVERYONE who is serving enlisted or reenlisted while we were at war.

There almost isn't anyone left who can even really claim that they had no idea that they would be going to Iraq.

As far as Al Qaeda in Iraq Meagan, I can personally tell you that there is Al Qaeda in Iraq. I know because Zarcawhi was killed while I was in country, and he was the then chief of AL Qaeda operations in Iraq.

Meagan I'm not sure were your getting your info on the source of combatants in Iraq, but they seem to be somewhat unreliable. Foreign fighters, to include AL Qeada make up the most radical fighters we face in Iraq.

As far as Al Qeada being in Iraq before we invaded. That is kind of a moot point. Our battle is not just against one terrorist organization but Islamic fascism as a whole.

Anyway, take care talk to you later.

Nick

Nick,

First of all I would like to clarify, as I stated in my earlier response. I think the QUESTION who would Jesus bomb is a good question. Along with the questions who would Mohammad bomb, who would Gandhi bomb, who would Buddha bomb, and most importantly who would I bomb. It was not the question that I found ignorant, it was his response. And I am sorry, but only an ignorant and hateful person would think Mohammad – a man who worked towards peace and enlightenment his entire life – was behind the bombing of the United States on September 11th.

I could not find any information on the person who coined the phrase “Who would Jesus bomb” – but I disagree that they didn’t care about what Jesus would think, or that they are ignorant to many of our social issues today. I do agree that their intent was to get personal, and I think it’s about time we all got a little personal with regards to our politics. These are the things that directly affect our lives every day – no matter how badly American’s like to think we are not effected by what is going on in the world around us.

As for your frustration with the blood soaked uniform reference – I do have mixed feelings. Because you are a member of our countries armed forces, and I think what you do is very honorable – my first response is to kowtow to you and apologies. But upon further consideration, I am just angry. I really am sick and tired of people – mostly conservatives – telling me that because I am a liberal I do not understand what goes on in the military, and that I should blindly follow the commander in chief, because otherwise I am being disrespectful. It’s ridiculous! You are right, the brave men and women who are serving our country right now all knew they were going to war. Which makes them even more commendable in my eyes – it dose not, however, mean that I am supposed to say, “Because you chose this, I am happy to send you over to die in a war I think is complete bulls*i@!” We impeached a president because he lied about a blow job… a blow job! The only person that act really effected was his wife, and she forgave him – it was none of our damn business. We have not even brought charges against a man who took us to war under false pretenses. This president lied, and many people – whom you claim allegiance too – have died from this lie. You find it offensive that people are using these deaths to make a point – and I find it offensive that we have too!

Lastly Nick, my information on Al-Qaeda comes from many different sources, but I would be happy to explain it too you here. Al-Qaeda in Iraq is a term used by the media to describe a salafi terrorist (a radical Sunni Islamic school of thought) group which is playing an active role in the Iraqi insurgency. The group claims an allegiance to the al-Qaeda. Although this group is among Iraq’s most feared militant organizations, and are regarded as our most formidable enemy – al-Qaeda has never claimed them as an ally – which seems odd considering what a thorn in the side they are being to the United States. Al-Qaeda in Iraq’s operations are predominately Iraq-based, but the US State Department alleges the group maintains an extensive logistical network throughout the Middle East, North Africa, Iran, South Asia, and Europe – but these allegations have never been proved. But – and this is one darn huge but – even if this group is a part of the al-Qaeda, and are working in conjunction with Osama bin Laden himself – there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this group connected themselves with al-Qaeda before the United States waged war on Iraq. In fact, they did not claim allegiance with al-Qaeda until October 2004 – more than three years after September 11th. So if there is al-Qaeda in Iraq, and I am not convinced, then they are a prime example of the backlash that can be incurred when waging war on a country for corrupt reasons – and most definitely not the reason we entered the country to begin with – and this is not a moot point/

This line of thinking is much the same as a search warrant gone bad. If the cops issues a search warrant on a house to look for a gun, and they found cocaine instead, should we pat them on the back for finding the cocaine and forget that they never found the gun? Or would the search warrant be thrown out? Bush entered Iraq swearing they had weapons of mass destruction, and now that he’s found some fanatical insurgents who are causing some trouble are we really supposed to believe this is a just war? Or should we throw the search warrant out?

The war in Iraq wasn’t about squashing an Islamic fascist group, until it became convenient for our government to say it was. The war in Iraq was a smoke and mirror way to get the American people to pay attention to something other than the failing War on Terrorism. And America didn’t fall for it for long. The smoke has dissipated, the mirror is cracked, and now that American’s – along with the rest of the world – are asking serious questions about why we are fighting this war, the government has resorted to a switch and bait tactics. Telling me our battle is not just against one terrorist organization doesn’t answer my questions, and telling me it’s a moot point isn’t going to stop me from continuing asking. It’s all a cop-out for failed reasoning.

Nick, I love debating with you, and I hope you continue to come back and comment – you always keep me on my toes!

Great to be back Meagan..

Firstly, I have never suggested that you should blindly follow anyone regardless of their political position or military experience. I have merely suggested that more attention should be paid to the opinions of people who repeatedly volunteer to serve in a war that has really little effect on most of the population. I think you have to admit that many prominent people on the left seem to openly disregard the opinions and feelings of the people most involved and with the most to lose in this conflict.

I mean "General Betray Us"? That was an uncontionable move by MoveOn!

As far as Al Qeada in Iraq, Im afraid I don't know what else to say to you Meagan, it is a reality. I don't know what you will except as suitable evidence. Al Qeada admits being involved in Iraq..what more do you want? What exactly would you consider "proof" regarding Al Qeada in the regions mentioned? I seem to recall that you suggested I except as proof the analysis of a couple of authors regarding Iraq, but you are willing to disregard the State Department, DOD, Rand Corporation and a plethora of analysts concerning Al Qeadas global ties. If you truly desire proof, then give me your version of acceptable proof, and I will see what I can do to satisfy it.

As far as getting personal about politics, I think were there. Believe me, when I hear Sen. Reid say we have already lost when we have troops in action as he is saying it, I take that very personally. And as far as taking it personally, to be honest Im not quite sure what John said that would make you ban him from posting, although I respect the fact that it is your site.

As far as the history of Muhammed, I would argue that he was not a man of peace nor does history, or the Koran suggest that he was. Nor did any of the Arabs, Kurds, or Turkoman that I worked with in Iraq.

As far as your allegations as to why we entered Iraq, I must once again emphasize that these are your opinions. They have evidence to support them, but I would argue, far less evidence than that which supports my original statement. You are declaring why we went into Iraq, but I feel you are ignoring the fact that many reasons were given. If some of them have proven inaccurate, it does not discount the others.

as to your position on search warrants. What would you prefer, that we allow the crack dealer to continue to sell crack to kids, because the initial warrant proved inaccurate in its entirety? You have to be fair here Meagan, WMD was the biggest reason given for going to Iraq, it was NEVER presented as the only reason. And that is a verifiable fact. If you do not believe me, you need look no further than the statements given by the democrats who spoke on the Senate floor before casting their vote to approve use of force against Iraq.

I know a little something about Intel Meagan. It is not easy. It often gives you sketchy and conflicting reports. The problem is that many on the left seem to desire a level of specificity that is either not attainable, or completely unrealistic given the restrictions they wish to place on its collection.

Again Meagan, I am not questioning the purity of your convictions or their intent. I do wholeheartedly question your presentation of the historical facts.

And once again Meagan I encourage you to continue to question until you have found satisfaction, but you must understand that the positions and solutions you espouse are not without consequence. And it is a consequence that I feel would be dire.

As for myself, I have no doubt that you are working for what you believe to be the best for our country and our troops. I believe your heart has always been in the right place since we have debated this topic, regardless of how I feel about your conclusions.

Thanks again, and I look forward to posting again in the future.

Meagan, I realize you have banned me from your site, so I realize this will not see the blog. But for your own information, in your response to Nick, you wrote,

"This line of thinking is much the same as a search warrant gone bad. If the cops issues a search warrant on a house to look for a gun, and they found cocaine instead, should we pat them on the back for finding the cocaine and forget that they never found the gun? Or would the search warrant be thrown out? Bush entered Iraq swearing they had weapons of mass destruction, and now that he’s found some fanatical insurgents who are causing some trouble are we really supposed to believe this is a just war? Or should we throw the search warrant out?"

As long as there was "Probable Cause" to believe a gun was in the house, the warrant would not be thrown out on the basis that you did not find it. And any other evidence of illegality would be siezable and admissible in court. As long as you didn't find the cocaine in and area, where a gun could not be reasonably stored

e.g. In a small drawer of a jewelry box, where a gun would not fit.

I know this, because I have actually investigated crimes, written search warrants, taken them to Judges for review, had them issued, and served them. I have also served warrants where the main Items I sought were not at the location searched. That did not make my probable cause deficient.

Based on your analogy, if a policeman had a warrant to search a house, for say a gun, he went in, did not find the gun, but found a 100,000 murdered people, is it your contention the search is bad? No, I can tell you from experience, he would act on the evidence found and be justified, and more importantly, within the law.

I don’t know where you get your legal training, but it is seriously flawed. Oh and the reasons that the warrant is not deemed bad, is because the items sought are movable. Just because the gun isn’t in the house at the time of the search, doesn’t mean it wasn’t there yesterday. After all, unless the crime the gun was sought for was committed in the house, it had been moved at that time, so it is reasonable to believe it is movable. When you look at the law, there are a lot of “Reasonable Man” tests or common sense applied.

You really need to study up, on well a lot of things, but particularly on the law oh and possibly the actual actions of Mohammed. You know the Peaceful man you referred to.

John

John,
I had to think long and hard about whether or not I wanted to respond to you. Obviously, I decided I did. In fairness, I will post your comment, but I seriously have to wonder why I would trust your authority in matters of legal knowledge, or why I would find your suggestion that I study up on my law knowledge legitimate, when you were not even aware the war we are engaged in was going on in Iraq, and not Iran. Your comments have been brash and baseless, and as I stated before, I want to promote discussion and thought exchange, not the harsh tone you bring to your posts. And I am not opposed to ideas different than mine. Nick, for instance, has free reign to discuss whatever he would like, but that's because his comments are on topic, informed, and discussion provoking. If you would like to change your approach, I would be more than happy to post what you have to say.

As for the whole probable cause argument, I spoke with a police officer before making this post to make sure my argument was valid, and he assured me it was. I do not know of your experience or knowledge, but I feel you are completely missing my point, as did Nick - my point was, we have a system of checks and balances set up in our country to protect against abuse of power. Sometimes we think it is ok to bend this system, because we are working towards the greater good - a perfect example would be thinking, well I am getting a drug dealer/addict off the street. But every step we take against this system we have is a step in the wrong direction, it compromises us - as a country - morally and integrally, and these are not compromises I am comfortable with. The war in Iraq, much like the search warrant, is working against what America has stood for since it's inception, and is turning us into the cop who bends the rules "in the name of good" without thinking about the long term consequences - like compromising the Constitution and the foundation of our country.

So before you snarkly suggest I study up on my law, I suggest you study up on your history, and please remember that if you want to bring facts and discussion to the forum, you are more than welcome. If not, please find another blog to frequent.

"[L]aw is best understood, not as a set of rigid rules but rather as a set of institutional mechanisms and procedures designed to correct the mistakes that even exceptionally talented executive officials are bound to make and to facilitate midstream readjustments and course corrections. If we understand law, constitutionalism, and due process in this way, then it becomes obvious why the war on terrorism is bound to fail when conducted, as it has been so far, against the rule of law and outside the constitutional system oc checks and balances." Stephen Holmes

Nick,
You have asked me what I would accept as suitable proof of al Qaeda in Iraq. And it has really got me thinking, what would I accept as proof. And so I started reading about other things and got sidetracked. But the questions has been sitting in the back of my mind, unanswered, bothering me. Tonight I found my answer. I would have to hear it from a source that I consider trustworthy. I know this sounds simple, and I am sure you will cite a number of sources that you find trustworthy espousing the existence of al Qaeda in Iraq. But Nick, I need a source that I can find trustworthy.

When former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan says in his memoir, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." I find that statement trustworthy.

When Gen. John Abizaid, former CENTCOM commander (who oversaw 3 1/2 years of occupation in Iraq) says, "Of course it's about oil, we can't really deny that." I find it trustworthy.

When President Bush parades a dead Marines family in front of the cameras ans says to Congress, "Our men and women on the front lines should not be caught in the middle of partisan disagreements in Washington DC. I often hear that war critics oppose my decisions, but still support the troops. Well, I'll take them at their word -- and this is the chance to show it." My skin begins to crawl and there is a sense of dishonesty that surrounds me.

One may say, Nick, that I am being biased, that I am only finding trustworthy the sources that push my political agenda, the sources that I agree with. Well, they would be right (no pun intended). One of the ingredients I need to facilitate my feeling like a source is trustworthy is being able to understand their morals, values, and thought processes - and feeling like they fit with mine. I also like someone who is intelligent, well spoken, and has had first hand experience with the topic they are discussing - which is why I sometimes wonder why people read what I write - but I digress, for me to be able to feel comfortable accepting someone else's view of things I do not have first hand knowledge of, I have to feel like they would see the world in the same manner I see it.

I understand this may not be a fair explanation of what I would find trustworthy. But I can assure you the government in it's current state would not fit my list of qualifications.