Saddam Hussein is responsible for current state of Iraq.

[Kathianne]

I appreciate what your saying Kath, and the tone of your reply.
And there's no doubt that many felt that Obama's actions/words/missteps with the addition of BLM-ish activity were an excuse to justify their own bad views and actions about race.
But is that a real good excuse for their bad reactions?

Does the fact that the feminist movement has gone over the edge mean that now i, as a man, can feel justified in treating women less politely or even unfairly. And having a 'they get what the deserve' attitude when i see real and or systematic abuses.
True, it may not make me MORE sympathetic overall but real issues that i may have ignored previously still should be an object of concern. Even if couched in a way that i don't like. If i'm really trying to be decent person myself.

And I guess overall ..in my thinking at least... I have in mind a picture of a black guy being killed over a pack of imaginary cigarettes and the police going back to the job without consequence. And a white guy whose feelings are hurt because the president made him feel excluded/blamed because the president and some loud mouth activist jumped to mistaken conclusions in black white cases a few times. So now that makes him feel justified in ignoring or making excuses for all the abused and dead black guys at the hands of cops all the other times. And minimize the seriousness of other issues like one you posted of instances in LA where , i believe, the police and prosecutors sent many to jail without good cause and used lying informants. And ignore or chalk up to "bad apples" or over statements made in many police officers testimonies of systematic unfair and abusive treatment towards minorities that they've witnessed over the course of years or decades.

While i can in fact understand the hurt feelings or outrage caused by having an issue brought up that's uncomfortable and at times overstated or miss stated. And how the REPEATED complaint can seem unfocused or personal. And how mistaken accusations can make one sincerely believe that NOTHING really is a problem. And the whole package might for some make the general air of politeness that may have been in part of most behavior less at the forefront. I have to wonder, was that air of politeness partly due to a benign ignorance of an ongoing problem?

So generally, from my POV at least, those uncomfortable feelings really don't compare to the feelings of concern low income and minorities have of the real past and potentially unfair treatment, unfair abuse and unjustified deaths of themselves or family members at the hands of the police and courts that are supposedly there to protect us all. Again it's NOT an indictment of ALL police, ALL of the Justice system or ALL whites. Many whites... maybe numerically MORE... are in fact victims of the same. But it's demonstrably MORE focused in lower income and minority communities.
And that's not to ignore all of the other issues that minorities and lower income people have to deal with internally. However, IMO, it's no excuse for the wider population to dismiss it all because of bad feelings. Or to revive or nurse new racial animosity.

But it is what it is.

Since you were responding to me, you were a bit all over the place, my fault. I bolded a couple lines I want to make some observations about:

Decent people are not the ones causing the problems, they are trying to do the right thing. In fact, regarding the feminist discussion I brought up, you applied the word 'civil.' Yeah, my guess if we met, without knowing what each other look like, we'd be civil. Many others, well they wouldn't.

When it comes to 'words' being misstated or overstated, folks should 'understand.' Yet, when it comes to the instances where bad police, which for the record I've said many times, exist in small percentages; you continue to argue that it's more common than not, at least with minorities. I'm not trying to be glib or any other type of dismissal. I do believe that while you deplore those bad cops and you're not alone by any means, you do overstate the instances at the minimum. You never seem to acknowledge that there are criminal problems in poor areas in greater percentage than wealthier areas. Yes, without a doubt, the minorities comprise a higher percentage of the poor as a ratio is a fact. Indeed, that is but one issue that leads to higher arrests. Yes, because many or most of those arrested also are forced to have public defenders, they are more likely to be arrested, incarcerated, and in the worst cases, end up on death row. Those last, important points, are not just for minorities, but for young, male, and poor in general.

Now the stickiest wicket regarding this whole issue, why the poorest of minorities are over represented by percentage regarding crime. There are numerically many more poor whites, than minorities by number. I believe that prejudice may play a role, in many locations, a large role. However that still doesn't address the problem as a whole. It's not one you nor I can answer definitely. Some has to do with the breakdown of families, which I believe has hit minority groups in general, blacks in particular, in devastating ways since 'The War on Poverty.' That doesn't mean by any means that it addressed many issues that needed attention. It was in the unintended consequences that followed by law and implementation how some of those issues were addressed. Long before 'all men' were looked at by some as superfluous, black men were first in these ways.

[revelarts]

Since you were responding to me, you were a bit all over the place, my fault. I bolded a couple lines I want to make some observations about:

Decent people are not the ones causing the problems, they are trying to do the right thing. In fact, regarding the feminist discussion I brought up, you applied the word 'civil.' Yeah, my guess if we met, without knowing what each other look like, we'd be civil. Many others, well they wouldn't.

When it comes to 'words' being misstated or overstated, folks should 'understand.' Yet, when it comes to the instances where bad police, which for the record I've said many times, exist in small percentages; you continue to argue that it's more common than not, at least with minorities. I'm not trying to be glib or any other type of dismissal. I do believe that while you deplore those bad cops and you're not alone by any means, you do overstate the instances at the minimum. You never seem to acknowledge that there are criminal problems in poor areas in greater percentage than wealthier areas.

...Again it's NOT an indictment of ALL police, ALL of the Justice system or ALL whites. Many whites... maybe numerically MORE... are in fact victims of the same. But it's demonstrably MORE focused in lower income and minority communities.
And that's not to ignore all of the other issues that minorities and lower income people have to deal with internally. ...

.....

Kath, I've acknowledged those and others several times and commented on the issues you bought up.
Especially since when people do reply to the police and race issue from the right those issues ALWAYS come up.
I've acknowledge them and posted links and stories... on more than one occasion... of various and ongoing efforts by Black churches, educators, activist and bushiness people to address those issues.

having said that ...again... and expecting that me saying it here will be FORGOTTEN or ignored again in a few days and people will assume that i never said it... because my comments on a police situation is so pointed.

But K, it still seems that you put sub par and abusive policing of some locals into the "bad apple" category.
And don't really see any police issues generally nor any having any real racial input.
And i'm drawn to concluded, if my reading is right, that you'd be one that would think that THERE IS NO serious problem to be addressed on policing justice system side of the discussion.
But that IF black neighborhoods would just straiten up, that the police would not harass, arrest, beat or kill innocent blacks so much.
Others have said as much.
If i've miss stated your position my apologies.
but I'm not sure that you've stated clearly any real police short comings.

Do you think there are any broad problems with equal and constitutional policing that needs to addressed OTHER than a random 'bad apple' issues? you've mentioned family that don't like policing as much anymore. but I don't see that you think that any police Depts have any real need to change.
Seems you do think that many blacks have problems that they need to change (some of which we agree on and i acknowledge) that are exacerbated by poverty (agreed). But there are no aspects of poor policing really on the table as a serious issue for improvement or debate. You're willing to patiently to hear complaints but you think they are exaggerated.
So i guess we just disagree here.

[Kathianne]

Kath, I've acknowledged those and others several times and commented on the issues you bought up.
Especially since when people do reply to the police and race issue from the right those issues ALWAYS come up.
I've acknowledge them and posted links and stories... on more than one occasion... of various and ongoing efforts by Black churches, educators, activist and bushiness people to address those issues.

having said that ...again... and expecting that me saying it here will be FORGOTTEN or ignored again in a few days and people will assume that i never said it... because my comments on a police situation is so pointed.

But K, it still seems that you put sub par and abusive policing of some locals into the "bad apple" category.
And don't really see any police issues generally nor any having any real racial input.
And i'm drawn to concluded, if my reading is right, that you'd be one that would think that THERE IS NO serious problem to be addressed on policing justice system side of the discussion.
But that IF black neighborhoods would just straiten up, that the police would not harass, arrest, beat or kill innocent blacks so much.
Others have said as much.
If i've miss stated your position my apologies.
but I'm not sure that you've stated clearly any real police short comings.

Do you think there are any broad problems with equal and constitutional policing that needs to addressed OTHER than a random 'bad apple' issues? you've mentioned family that don't like policing as much anymore. but I don't see that you think that any police Depts have any real need to change.
Seems you do think that many blacks have problems that they need to change (some of which we agree on and i acknowledge) that are exacerbated by poverty (agreed). But there are no aspects of poor policing really on the table as a serious issue for improvement or debate. You're willing to patiently to hear complaints but you think they are exaggerated.
So i guess we just disagree here.

I'm pressed for time, have to go to work in a few.

Yes, you have 'acknowledged' that all police aren't bad repeatedly, that there are good police. Yes, in our family there has been widespread bad feelings towards what has happened with that profession.

Those who've been at the job for many years, family wise through generations or just those that are called, do have a different perspective perhaps. Good people are getting screwed all the way around, bad triumphs. What is happening, and it is in the news just yesterday highlighting Baltimore is that the 'good cops' are leaving or at least choosing not to go to the places that need them the most. Why? They want to do 'good', they truly want to 'serve and protect' beyond the simple mantra.

There are departments, Chicago and Baltimore come to mind, where there are systemic problems in the system-though more police officers enter their positions wanting to change it, then not. They find themselves in the position of being attacked from all sides. The people hate and distrust all police, some are willing to kill them because of the uniform. The unions, the management, their political bosses are often corrupt, those that are not are gone too soon. Tough departments attract and lose the thinking cops in faster and faster fashion. It's not all the fault of the departments either.

The community leaders, the organizers if you will, many of which are no better than those corrupt leaders in the departments, though often at odds in the news, they work hand in glove together. Corruption isn't only being done on the streets. Look at what you read, who is most visible on the streets that are most needed in the communities you are concerned with? It's not the organizers or the politicians, they show up when the press does. Nope, it's the cops. Yes, the bad ones that may shake down the hustlers and the legit business owners. But also the good ones, that help out the elderly, try to keep the good kids out of trouble. Will go out of their way to help a parolee find a job-they know who will hire those with a record.

More later, I got to run.

[Gunny]

there's the edited version for you Gunny

School time. Rev. The military back in the 90s under Bush I predicted the EXACT power vacuum we have today if Saddam was taken out. It's why we didn't.

Point number 2: We were already in Afghanistan and Saddam was contained. You don't start a second front unless absolutely necessary. Iraq was not. Saddam was contained. Focus on your current fight.

Point #3: Saddam was a POS from the second his eyelids fluttered. And I've SEEN WITH MY EYES the human rights violations and I don't need a lecture from a desk jockey. If you ever wanted to see Marines with tears in their eyes. maybe you should have been in Kuwait instead of polishing that chair with your ass telling everyone else how all they're supposed to think and do things.

I play to win. Period. Game of checkers or Gulf War and everything in between. I support winning, not arm-chair quarterbacking by fools with no clue. You want to blame GWB? How about how Billybob Clinton abused us? I think he racked up to camels and a tent on his score list. Involved ys in a war in Europe that didn't have jackass sh*t to do with us.

Don't YOU come on here telling US WTF happened. We were there. Where were you?

[Black Diamond]

School time. Rev. The military back in the 90s under Bush I predicted the EXACT power vacuum we have today if Saddam was taken out. It's why we didn't.

Point number 2: We were already in Afghanistan and Saddam was contained. You don't start a second front unless absolutely necessary. Iraq was not. Saddam was contained. Focus on your current fight.

Point #3: Saddam was a POS from the second his eyelids fluttered. And I've SEEN WITH MY EYES the human rights violations and I don't need a lecture from a desk jockey. If you ever wanted to see Marines with tears in their eyes. maybe you should have been in Kuwait instead of polishing that chair with your ass telling everyone else how all they're supposed to think and do things.

I play to win. Period. Game of checkers or Gulf War and everything in between. I support winning, not arm-chair quarterbacking by fools with no clue. You want to blame GWB? How about how Billybob Clinton abused us? I think he racked up to camels and a tent on his score list. Involved ys in a war in Europe that didn't have jackass sh*t to do with us.

Don't YOU come on here telling US WTF happened. We were there. Where were you?

It's easy to play arm chair quarterback.

[aboutime]

Hey Gunny. Bout time for both pete and rev to give us all of their Military experience here? What do you think?
Of course, they know better than the President of the United States.

How many Elected positions have BOTH of them held in their lifetime?

[revelarts]

School time. Rev. The military back in the 90s under Bush I predicted the EXACT power vacuum we have today if Saddam was taken out. It's why we didn't.

exactly

Point number 2: We were already in Afghanistan and Saddam was contained.

YES, Exactly!

You don't start a second front unless absolutely necessary. Iraq was not. Saddam was contained. Focus on your current fight.

YES Agreed!

Point #3: Saddam was a POS from the second his eyelids fluttered. And I've SEEN WITH MY EYES the human rights violations

I can't disagree with that.

...and I don't need a lecture from a desk jockey. If you ever wanted to see Marines with tears in their eyes. maybe you should have been in Kuwait instead of polishing that chair with your ass telling everyone else how all they're supposed to think and do things.

...Don't YOU come on here telling US WTF happened. We were there. Where were you?

OK, I never said you needed a lecture. I'm just responding to people questioning the facts I've received from people JUST LIKE YOU. And people that worked in the field as Intel and WORKED from desk as intel people, And the politicians, leaders who made the calls as well.
seems to me that if we're honest we all get information from various sources.

you weren't there when Saddam eye's 1st fluttered open so you can't say if he was good kid or not. but you claim some authority to do so.

you weren't there during the civil war either but a while back you decided you had to tell me what REALLY happened.
not being there does not mean that you don't know anything, and being there doesn't mean you know EVERYTHING.
so please stop pretending that it does and stop trying to shut me or others down with the "you weren't there so STHU" line of BSery Gunny.
I've never claimed to be there or to experience what you've experienced But I do listen to you and people like you as PART of trying to get a complete picture. I think , on your best days, you do the same.




Tony Blair

“I apologise for the fact that the intelligence we received was wrong,” he told CNN.
“I also apologise for some of the mistakes in planning and, certainly, our mistake in our understanding of what would happen once you removed the regime.”
Asked by host Fareed Zakaria if the Iraq war was “the principal cause” of the RISE of Islamic State, he was reported by the Mail on Sunday to have conceded: “I think there are elements of truth in that.”

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...n-rise-of-isis

Not Just "elements"... it's the truth.

[Gunny]

exactly

YES, Exactly!


YES Agreed!



I can't disagree with that.


OK, I never said you needed a lecture. I'm just responding to people questioning the facts I've received from people JUST LIKE YOU. And people that worked in the field as Intel and WORKED from desk as intel people, And the politicians, leaders who made the calls as well.
seems to me that if we're honest we all get information from various sources.

you weren't there when Saddam eye's 1st fluttered open so you can't say if he was good kid or not. but you claim some authority to do so.

you weren't there during the civil war either but a while back you decided you had to tell me what REALLY happened.
not being there does not mean that you don't know anything, and being there doesn't mean you know EVERYTHING.
so please stop pretending that it does and stop trying to shut me or others down with the "you weren't there so STHU" line of BSery Gunny.
I've never claimed to be there or to experience what you've experienced But I do listen to you and people like you as PART of trying to get a complete picture. I think , on your best days, you do the same.




Tony Blair

“I apologise for the fact that the intelligence we received was wrong,” he told CNN.
“I also apologise for some of the mistakes in planning and, certainly, our mistake in our understanding of what would happen once you removed the regime.”
Asked by host Fareed Zakaria if the Iraq war was “the principal cause” of the RISE of Islamic State, he was reported by the Mail on Sunday to have conceded: “I think there are elements of truth in that.”

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...n-rise-of-isis

Not Just "elements"... it's the truth.

Crying over spilled milk solves nothing. The CURRENT situation in Iraq is the DIRECT result of Obama pulling us out. ISIS is a DIRECT result of pulling us out.