the notion that Americas involvement in Iraq is "creating" terrorists

[Iriemon]

Ignoring facts??? Did you not read my post about how the media's over-reporting of the bad news is what creates terrosists. Thier demonization of the poeple who are sacrificing thier lives is what is creating terrorists, not our presence there. The good Major likes to throw out stats about how many Iraqis want us out, but he he never goes beyond the stats to root cause of this attitude. We have been unfairly demonized by a press that is willing to put profit above people's lives. They believe that the bad news sells better than th egood news and are going out of thier way to make as much bad news as possible. EVERY "boots on the ground" source I have says the same thing - the Iraqi people are glad we are there today. Yes, they want us home tomorrow, but today they are glad we are there. Our presence is what is stopping the terrorists from taking over their country and returning it to the days of the rape rooms and death factories. The Iraqis know this and they accept that fact. What is fueling the terrorists efforts is the unremitting over-reporting of the problems and the under-reporting of the successes. If we opened 50 new schools tomorrow, but 10 people were killed by IED the same day, which one would get the front page? Which one is more important to Iraqs future? This is THE key issue in Iraq, the failure of the press to report objectively and honestly about the reality of Iraq. Yes, I know that can find all kinds of bad reports about Iraq, because that's what the media generates and what feeds your desire to paint Iraq as a failure.

People like yourselves are the kind of people who would be joining the terrorists. Now before you get all riled up about this statement, let me explain... People who look for the best in a situation see a future for themselves and work towards it. People who look for the worst in a situation, see no future and will do anything to change things so that they have a chance at a better future than what they see. It's these people that are the recruitment base for the terrorists: the people who choose to ignore the good and focus on the bad. The poeple who are looking for the good and the successes are the ones who are going to be the future of mankind, not the naysayers and "negative Nellies" as my 5th grade teacher called them. You choose to look at the negative and ignore the positive, the same as the people who are joining the terrorists. You have the same mindset of "everything's bad, so I might as well do anything I can to change it" that a suicide bomber has. Like them, you see no hope, no future; like them you can only see the problems and refuse to work for the betterment of your society.

This is a bunch of crap. Let's pretend everything is just hunky dory and don't pay attention to the "bad" news.

Fine. Everything's great in Iraq. Then why the hell our our troops still there? Bring them home now.

 

[faithful_servant]

I don't wallow in anything. News is news. Whether it is good or bad depends on your view. You say there's lots of great news. I asked you to share it with me, you won't and call me lazy. Whatever.

NO, NOT WHATEVER, IRIE. It's a fact. You are too lazy to find out the truth. You would rather sit around being spoonfed than make the effort to find out truth. IMO, this is because the truth might cause you to have to admit that you are wrong. I know, I had to do it myself. I thought that going back to Iraq was a waste of time and money, until I started talking to people who were there - my nephew and a good friend of mine's sone who were both top-gunners on humvees. They told me that what we heard on the news was so foulded up and wrong that it was unbelieveable. They told me about people walking up to them and telling them the only two words they knew in English - "Thank you". I had to admit that I was wrong and I didn't like it, but I did it and am better for it. You want real news try these folks for starters Michael Yon and Chrenkoff, both have since returned from Iraq are in other areas, but their posts are still there and the news they have reported is still accurate. How about www.blackanthem.com? How about taking a look at DOD press releases?

I'm sure you can find some examples of schools being built. That's great. As we are spending $100 billion a year in Iraq, three times more than the amount our govt spends on foreign aid to the rest of the world combined, I'd hope there is something being accomplished with it.

It's so nice of you to put a spending limit on people's freedoms, such compassion for other people, such empathy, it almost brings me to tears to hear you decide that the cost of people's lives is too high a price to pay and that you'd rather have new big screen TV and let a few more rape rooms open.

 

[::Major_Baker::]

Faithful Servant--since you are the only one on your side who knows how to debate, what do you make of my link about the makeup of the insurgency?

If the insurgency is 90% iraqi, isn't the whole premise of this thread basically wrong?

The iraqis lived there prior to our invasion.
We invaded.
Now they are fighting us.
Whether you call them terroists or insurgents, our occupation is certainly stirring the pot that is Iraq and creating hostile militants that are taking up arms. That is common sense, isn't it?

Love to have your answer on this.

 

[faithful_servant]

This is a bunch of crap. Let's pretend everything is just hunky dory and don't pay attention to the "bad" news.

Fine. Everything's great in Iraq. Then why the hell our our troops still there? Bring them home now.

How about some FACTS Irie??? C'mon now. Instead of just spewing how about some actual intelligent conversation. Refute my ideas all you want, but trying to dimiss them out of hand is pathetic.

 

[Iriemon]

Originally Posted by Iriemon
This is a bunch of crap. Let's pretend everything is just hunky dory and don't pay attention to the "bad" news.

Fine. Everything's great in Iraq. Then why the hell our our troops still there? Bring them home now.

How about some FACTS Irie??? C'mon now. Instead of just spewing how about some actual intelligent conversation. Refute my ideas all you want, but trying to dimiss them out of hand is pathetic.

FACTS about what? If everything is swell in Iraq do you support withdrawing the troops, and if not why not?

 

[Iriemon]

NO, NOT WHATEVER, IRIE. It's a fact. You are too lazy to find out the truth. You would rather sit around being spoonfed than make the effort to find out truth. IMO, this is because the truth might cause you to have to admit that you are wrong. I know, I had to do it myself. I thought that going back to Iraq was a waste of time and money, until I started talking to people who were there - my nephew and a good friend of mine's sone who were both top-gunners on humvees. They told me that what we heard on the news was so foulded up and wrong that it was unbelieveable. They told me about people walking up to them and telling them the only two words they knew in English - "Thank you". I had to admit that I was wrong and I didn't like it, but I did it and am better for it. You want real news try these folks for starters Michael Yon and Chrenkoff, both have since returned from Iraq are in other areas, but their posts are still there and the news they have reported is still accurate. How about www.blackanthem.com? How about taking a look at DOD press releases?

Great. Iraq is peaceful and prosperous thanks to the hundreds of billions we spent. So you must support bringing the troops home now.

It's so nice of you to put a spending limit on people's freedoms, such compassion for other people, such empathy, it almost brings me to tears to hear you decide that the cost of people's lives is too high a price to pay and that you'd rather have new big screen TV and let a few more rape rooms open.

Typical conservative. Let's borrow lots more money so we can play nation builder and pretend how good we are. At least where the country has tons of oil.

 

[oldreliable67]

Those advocating that the proposition that America's involvment in Iraq is "creating terrorists" are focusing a too-small portion of the GWOT. It is most probably true that terrorist wannabes are being attracted to Iraq to fight Americans, partly because one, thats where the largest numbers of Americans happen to be at present, and two, Iraq is reasonably convenient for them to get to, as compared to Afghanistan.

But that probable truth doesn't change the fact that jihadis from various countries were pouring into Afghanistan well before 1998, but especially following the bin Laden fatwa of that year, to attend the bin Laden training camps there. In "Jawbreaker", former CIA field commander Gary Berntsen writes,

By the year 2000, al-Qaeda had established terrorist cells in as many as sixty countries around the world and had attracted thousands of young jihadists to its terrorist training camps and bases in eastern Afghanistan.

Source: "Jawbreaker", Gary Bernsten, p 67.

Berntsen writes of occassions when his team studied satellite imagery and intel reports of Arab fighters crossing from Pakistan into Afghanistan by the hundreds. In late 2001, US special ops forces in Afghanistan tracked thousands of aspiring jihadis scrambling to get into Afghanistan to kill Americans.

According to other works by Gary Shroen ("First In"), another CIA operative with many years experience in Afghanistan, and by Steve Coll, author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning "Ghost Wars", the training camps established by bin Laden were funded largely by the Saudis and the Pakistani intelligence service. Trainees were recruited from the Saudi and Pakistani madrassahs established and funded largely by Saudi radical Islamic groups.

Consequently, those that focus on Iraq and only Iraq "creating" terrorists are missing the underlying reality. Perhaps Iraq is attracting more of them because it is somewhat more accessible than Afghanistan, but it isn't that Iraq is "creating" terrorists at all. The jihadis responding to US involvement in Iraq are responding to the same call to jihad as were those thousands who flocked to Afghanistan. The venue has changed, but the motivation remain the same: to kill Americans.

 

[Hoot]

Without going into great detail, terrorist attacks have increased under the Bush administration. (See link)

After the first Gulf War in 1991, the U.S. left troops in surrounding countries....such as Turkey. The prescence of our troops in foreign nations is directly attributable to the increase in Al Qaeda membership.

Please allow me to repeat this last statement...

The prescence of our troops in foreign nations is directly attributable to the increase in Al Qaeda membership.

Isn't it odd that while we combat terrorism, our prescence gives birth to more terrorists.

This is because the United States has done next to nothing to combat the root causes of terrorism...if you'll excuse the expression...we need to abort this baby at the beginning...and not look for a solution after the seed has become a menacing adult.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601623.html

 

[faithful_servant]

FACTS about what? If everything is swell in Iraq do you support withdrawing the troops, and if not why not?

I NEVER said everything is swell in Iraq, I said that the press's demonization of our efforts is the biggest problem we face. It is the root cause of most of our problems there. If people were exposed to our many successes with the same fervor as they are exposed to the problems, we would have FAR fewer terrorists to deal with.

 

[faithful_servant]

Without going into great detail, terrorist attacks have increased under the Bush administration. (See link)

After the first Gulf War in 1991, the U.S. left troops in surrounding countries....such as Turkey. The prescence of our troops in foreign nations is directly attributable to the increase in Al Qaeda membership.

Please allow me to repeat this last statement...

The prescence of our troops in foreign nations is directly attributable to the increase in Al Qaeda membership.

Isn't it odd that while we combat terrorism, our prescence gives birth to more terrorists.

This is because the United States has done next to nothing to combat the root causes of terrorism...if you'll excuse the expression...we need to abort this baby at the beginning...and not look for a solution after the seed has become a menacing adult.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601623.html

More demonization of our efforts designed to create more bad news and make more money for the press. Learn something.

 

[Iriemon]

Those advocating that the proposition that America's involvment in Iraq is "creating terrorists" are focusing a too-small portion of the GWOT. It is most probably true that terrorist wannabes are being attracted to Iraq to fight Americans, partly because one, thats where the largest numbers of Americans happen to be at present, and two, Iraq is reasonably convenient for them to get to, as compared to Afghanistan.

But that probable truth doesn't change the fact that jihadis from various countries were pouring into Afghanistan well before 1998, but especially following the bin Laden fatwa of that year, to attend the bin Laden training camps there. In "Jawbreaker", former CIA field commander Gary Berntsen writes,
Source: "Jawbreaker", Gary Bernsten, p 67.

Berntsen writes of occassions when his team studied satellite imagery and intel reports of Arab fighters crossing from Pakistan into Afghanistan by the hundreds. In late 2001, US special ops forces in Afghanistan tracked thousands of aspiring jihadis scrambling to get into Afghanistan to kill Americans.

According to other works by Gary Shroen ("First In"), another CIA operative with many years experience in Afghanistan, and by Steve Coll, author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning "Ghost Wars", the training camps established by bin Laden were funded largely by the Saudis and the Pakistani intelligence service. Trainees were recruited from the Saudi and Pakistani madrassahs established and funded largely by Saudi radical Islamic groups.

Consequently, those that focus on Iraq and only Iraq "creating" terrorists are missing the underlying reality. Perhaps Iraq is attracting more of them because it is somewhat more accessible than Afghanistan, but it isn't that Iraq is "creating" terrorists at all. The jihadis responding to US involvement in Iraq are responding to the same call to jihad as were those thousands who flocked to Afghanistan. The venue has changed, but the motivation remain the same: to kill Americans.

I don't deny there was anti-American sentiment and radical Islamists before the Iraq war, of course there was. There is a long history of American and Western adventures dating back to the crusades to modern days that give plenty of grounds for western-Muslem antagonism.

But to dismiss the effect of further action like the Iraq war is just myopic.

Put yourself in an Iraqis' shoes for a moment. Image that the US was not the most powerful nation on earth, but the United Arab States (UAS) was. They demand we disarm our WMDs and say Bush is a war criminal. When we don't, they bomb the **** out of our country, and invade the United States, purportedly for the limited reason of deposing the war criminal Bush and removing our WMDs. But they stay for years to impose a proper Muslem government that will reduce anti-Muslem threats to them.

How do you think Americans would react? Yes, I'd be happy that Bush was out of power, but I'd be fighting against the invaders. I'd be trying to kill them and those who supported the new government. And if one of my little girls got killed because of their invasion, I'd do whatever I could to kill as many of those bastards and those who support them, even suicide missions if it meant taking a bunch of them out.

What would you do OR? Support the invaders? Or resist them? Why is it so unimaginable to think many Iraqis don't feel the same way?

Or imagine we are in Iran's situation. The UAS has invaded and occupied Mexico and Canada. Their troops are on our Northern and Southern borders. Then they demand that we eliminate all nuclear weapons. How would we react? Why would Iranians feel any different?

 

[Iriemon]

I NEVER said everything is swell in Iraq, I said that the press's demonization of our efforts is the biggest problem we face. It is the root cause of most of our problems there. If people were exposed to our many successes with the same fervor as they are exposed to the problems, we would have FAR fewer terrorists to deal with.

What you are really saying is that things are so bad there now that we cannot withdraw our troops, right? And you accuse the media of playing to bad news.

 

[faithful_servant]

Great. Iraq is peaceful and prosperous thanks to the hundreds of billions we spent. So you must support bringing the troops home now.

Show me ONE place where I said anything even remotely resembling this...
Is this the best you can do? Intentionally misquoting/misinterpretting my statements? C'mon, Irie try a little harder. Take some hints from the Major, he's a great debater that makes a sincere effort to address points and not create them out of whole cloth.

Typical conservative. Let's borrow lots more money so we can play nation builder and pretend how good we are. At least where the country has tons of oil.

Typical liberal, unwilling to pay the price for the freedoms you enjoy to be provided to other people.


Go back to watching Friends re-runs, Irie, it's more your speed.

 

[oldreliable67]

But to dismiss the effect of further action like the Iraq war is just myopic.

I didn't "dismiss" Iraq at all. Please read my post a bit more carefully. I focused on the jihadis coming into Iraq. Not the home-grown insurgents.

 

[faithful_servant]

Faithful Servant--since you are the only one on your side who knows how to debate, what do you make of my link about the makeup of the insurgency?

If the insurgency is 90% iraqi, isn't the whole premise of this thread basically wrong?

The iraqis lived there prior to our invasion.
We invaded.
Now they are fighting us.
Whether you call them terroists or insurgents, our occupation is certainly stirring the pot that is Iraq and creating hostile militants that are taking up arms. That is common sense, isn't it?

Love to have your answer on this.

It's not just our presence there that's causing the problems, it's the perception of what we are doing that's the greatest problem. If the saem effort was made to publicize our problems in Iraq was being made to publicize our successes, we would have FAR fewer terrorists to deal with. I don't believe for one second that everything would be instant perfection, but it would be far better.

Can you argue that the over-emphasis the press places on bad news creates terrorists?

Can you argue that greater emphasis on the successes we are having would give the Iraqis a greater sense of hope?

These kind of things are critical for our success in Iraq and yet they are minimized to the point of almost being unknown. 4th gen. warfare (or assymetrical warfare) should be THE topic of conversation in the press. People should be aware of the tactics and goals of the terrorists and yet these issues are only really being discussed by the military and the State dept. Are you aware of the tactics and goals of assymetrical/4th gen. warfare? Do you know what thier primary weapon is? Are you able to discern when they have made a successful 4th gen. attack?

 

[Iriemon]

Show me ONE place where I said anything even remotely resembling this...
Is this the best you can do? Intentionally misquoting/misinterpretting my statements? C'mon, Irie try a little harder. Take some hints from the Major, he's a great debater that makes a sincere effort to address points and not create them out of whole cloth.

You didn't say it you just dodged the question. Even you recognize things are so bad in Iraq we can't withdraw the troops.

Typical liberal, unwilling to pay the price for the freedoms you enjoy to be provided to other people.

Hell yeah. Let them pay their own freaking price for freedom.

Go back to watching Friends re-runs, Irie, it's more your speed.

Ow.

 

[::Major_Baker::]

It's not just our presence there that's causing the problems, it's the perception of what we are doing that's the greatest problem. If the saem effort was made to publicize our problems in Iraq was being made to publicize our successes, we would have FAR fewer terrorists to deal with. I don't believe for one second that everything would be instant perfection, but it would be far better.

Can't argue there. The first step however, is to admit that our operation in Iraq was somewhat bungled from the start. (the administrative part, not the operational--our troops are doing well.)
I believe that poor planning, and ignored advice of people who knew what they were talking about is directly tied to our problem we face today. Not to say that the press isn't exacerbating things, but perhaps if we HAD more sucesses, they would be more prevalent in the news.

Can you argue that the over-emphasis the press places on bad news creates terrorists?

Probably couldn't--hard to tell though, we don't really know what's happening on the ground to inflame Iraqis, therefore we cannot judge what is actually 'making' terrorists.

Can you argue that greater emphasis on the successes we are having would give the Iraqis a greater sense of hope?

It probably would, indeed. However, things like non-funtional infrastructure, and the disbanding of the army, also would detract from their sense of hope. Again, partly due poor post-invasion occupational planning, IMO.

These kind of things are critical for our success in Iraq and yet they are minimized to the point of almost being unknown.

I agree, but I also think that with people dying every day in a war that was thought to be all but over, is very worthy news. It should be covered, because it is real, and it (the violence) is directly responsible for our lack of tangible success in Iraq, for the big picture at least. Without decent security, a nation cannot rebuild, it is as simple as that.

When bombs go off every day, and the nation of Iraq sits on the brink of civil war, successes, however important they may be, tend to get skipped over. It is not only the nature of media, it is human nature as well.

4th gen. warfare (or assymetrical warfare) should be THE topic of conversation in the press. People should be aware of the tactics and goals of the terrorists and yet these issues are only really being discussed by the military and the State dept. Are you aware of the tactics and goals of assymetrical/4th gen. warfare? Do you know what thier primary weapon is? Are you able to discern when they have made a successful 4th gen. attack?

Could you explain that a bit more?

 

[BigDog]

Could you explain that a bit more?

If I may:

4GW -- FOURTH GENERATION WARFARE
4GW (fourth generation wafare) is the term used by military thinkers to describe conflict at the end of the 20th century. In general, 4GW is an extremely effective method of warfare that the US and its allies will find very difficult to defeat (a slow burn, rather than complete eradication, may be the best possible outcome). I have outlined the basics of 4GW warfare below to enhance your understanding of the term.

Definition
4GW can be defined as a method of warfare that uses the following to achieve a moral victory:

Undermines enemy strengths (this may seem obvious, but most of modern warfare has involved direct attacks on enemy strengths -- find the enemy army and destroy it).
Exploits enemy weaknesses.
Uses asymmetric operations (weapons and techniques that differ substantially from opponents).

(snip)

Winning a 4GW conflict
Victory in 4GW warfare is won in the moral sphere. The aim of 4GW is to destroy the moral bonds that allows the organic whole to exist -- cohesion. This is done by reinforcing the following (according to Boyd):

Menace. Attacks that undermine or threaten basic human survival instincts.
Mistrust. Increases divisions between groups (ie. conservatives and liberals in the US).
Uncertainty. Undermine economic activity by decreasing confidence in the future.

http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2004/05/4gw_fourth_gene.html

 

[faithful_servant]

You didn't say it you just dodged the question. Even you recognize things are so bad in Iraq we can't withdraw the troops.

I don't dodge questions, but I will ignore those that attempt to change the subject. Take a few minutes and review the topic of this thread.

Hell yeah. Let them pay their own freaking price for freedom.

Selfish, greedy liberal attitude. No moral responsibility, no ethics, just "Me, Me, ME". Sorry, Irie, but I was raised a little differently. When people need help, they need help (there is a difference between needing help and just not wanting to do what is necessary). To simply say that it's not your problem that people are dieing because you don't want to sacrifice for them is pure, unadulterated selfishness. We have the ability to help saves lives and free Iraq. To not use that ability would be an immoral act.

There was a lady in the community I grew up in who caught a virus that destroyed her inner ear. She not only lost her hearing, but her sense of balance, making her unemployable with her current skills. She was a single mother with 4 kids (dad left for Canada because he got a draft notice). We helped her out with free firewood for about 4 years while she got trained as a medical records technician. It cost us about $300 a year in lost income to do so (Dad sells fire wood for a living). At that time, that money was precious for us, yet we made the sacrifice to help her out. Your attitude would have been to leave her be and not make the sacrifice. It's time to do some growing up, Irie. When people are in true need and you have the ability to help them, it's immoral and unethical to not help them.

 

[faithful_servant]

If I may:

4GW -- FOURTH GENERATION WARFARE
4GW (fourth generation wafare) is the term used by military thinkers to describe conflict at the end of the 20th century. In general, 4GW is an extremely effective method of warfare that the US and its allies will find very difficult to defeat (a slow burn, rather than complete eradication, may be the best possible outcome). I have outlined the basics of 4GW warfare below to enhance your understanding of the term.

Definition
4GW can be defined as a method of warfare that uses the following to achieve a moral victory:

Undermines enemy strengths (this may seem obvious, but most of modern warfare has involved direct attacks on enemy strengths -- find the enemy army and destroy it).
Exploits enemy weaknesses.
Uses asymmetric operations (weapons and techniques that differ substantially from opponents).

(snip)

Winning a 4GW conflict
Victory in 4GW warfare is won in the moral sphere. The aim of 4GW is to destroy the moral bonds that allows the organic whole to exist -- cohesion. This is done by reinforcing the following (according to Boyd):

Menace. Attacks that undermine or threaten basic human survival instincts.
Mistrust. Increases divisions between groups (ie. conservatives and liberals in the US).
Uncertainty. Undermine economic activity by decreasing confidence in the future.

http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2004/05/4gw_fourth_gene.html

Very nice SNIP BigDog... Here's some of what was left out

Tactics
4GW is fought on the tactical level via:

Rear area operations -- 4GW warriors do not confront a nation-state's military but rather it society.
Psychological operations -- terror.
Ad-hoc innovation -- use of the enemy's strengths against itself.

Pay close attention to that last line. Our greatest strength is our freedom. The saem freedom that we so enjoy, the terrorists use against us by taking advantage of the freedom that our press enjoys. They use this freedom to create dissent within our own populace by it's selective application. The press is without a doubt their strongest ally and primary weapon.

 

[faithful_servant]

Could you explain that a bit more?

I'll start a separate topic on 4th Generation Warfare. This one is getting too long and is disintegrating into the usual junk.

 

[Iriemon]

I don't dodge questions, but I will ignore those that attempt to change the subject. Take a few minutes and review the topic of this thread.

Nice dodge. Again. Tells us some more good news about Iraq and why we need to maintain an indefinite presence with our troops there.

Selfish, greedy liberal attitude. No moral responsibility, no ethics, just "Me, Me, ME". Sorry, Irie, but I was raised a little differently. When people need help, they need help (there is a difference between needing help and just not wanting to do what is necessary). To simply say that it's not your problem that people are dieing because you don't want to sacrifice for them is pure, unadulterated selfishness. We have the ability to help saves lives and free Iraq. To not use that ability would be an immoral act.

Oh please. Save me the false moralizing. If you were concerned about saving lives you'd be arguing there are many other places on earth were our monies and efforts would be put to better use than the occupation of Iraq.

If you think spending $100 billion a year in Iraq is a moral policy, what is your plan for the rest of the world that needs help? The millions starving in Africa or genocide in Dafur. Or is it Iraq was just the neediest nation that deserves 75% of our foreign spending for assistance. Let's hear your moral plan for helping the world.

This crap about the poor people in Iraq justifying our occupation is just a cover because there is no legitimate reasons for our action there. If we were really concerned about Iraq, the best thing we could do is pull our troops out of there and stop being a magnet for every nutcase in the ME that wants to come in and take a shot at us.

There was a lady in the community I grew up in who caught a virus that destroyed her inner ear. She not only lost her hearing, but her sense of balance, making her unemployable with her current skills. She was a single mother with 4 kids (dad left for Canada because he got a draft notice). We helped her out with free firewood for about 4 years while she got trained as a medical records technician. It cost us about $300 a year in lost income to do so (Dad sells fire wood for a living). At that time, that money was precious for us, yet we made the sacrifice to help her out. Your attitude would have been to leave her be and not make the sacrifice. It's time to do some growing up, Irie. When people are in true need and you have the ability to help them, it's immoral and unethical to not help them.

What crap. Because I am against this immoral war you presume to lecture someone you no nothing about. Take your false moralizing somewhere else.

 

[BigDog]

Very nice SNIP BigDog... Here's some of what was left out


Pay close attention to that last line. Our greatest strength is our freedom. The saem freedom that we so enjoy, the terrorists use against us by taking advantage of the freedom that our press enjoys. They use this freedom to create dissent within our own populace by it's selective application. The press is without a doubt their strongest ally and primary weapon.

I gave a link. Didn't want to post the entire article.

However, you can't use what isn't there. You blame the press when the problem is the reality. As I said in you other post: Be honest, open, ethical and moral. That is the way to combat this and not manipulation or oppression of the press.

 

[zymurgy]

I don't dodge questions, but I will ignore those that attempt to change the subject. Take a few minutes and review the topic of this thread.



Selfish, greedy liberal attitude. No moral responsibility, no ethics, just "Me, Me, ME". Sorry, Irie, but I was raised a little differently. When people need help, they need help (there is a difference between needing help and just not wanting to do what is necessary). To simply say that it's not your problem that people are dieing because you don't want to sacrifice for them is pure, unadulterated selfishness. We have the ability to help saves lives and free Iraq. To not use that ability would be an immoral act.

There was a lady in the community I grew up in who caught a virus that destroyed her inner ear. She not only lost her hearing, but her sense of balance, making her unemployable with her current skills. She was a single mother with 4 kids (dad left for Canada because he got a draft notice). We helped her out with free firewood for about 4 years while she got trained as a medical records technician. It cost us about $300 a year in lost income to do so (Dad sells fire wood for a living). At that time, that money was precious for us, yet we made the sacrifice to help her out. Your attitude would have been to leave her be and not make the sacrifice. It's time to do some growing up, Irie. When people are in true need and you have the ability to help them, it's immoral and unethical to not help them.

8 trillion dollars in debt

Maybe you should let that sink in a little longer before calling people Selfish, greedy liberals.

Personally, anybody that shares your attitude that isn't currently putting their *** on the line I view as pathetic piece of trash. Hopefully you don't qualify.

 

[faithful_servant]

Nice dodge. Again. Tells us some more good news about Iraq and why we need to maintain an indefinite presence with our troops there.



Oh please. Save me the false moralizing. If you were concerned about saving lives you'd be arguing there are many other places on earth were our monies and efforts would be put to better use than the occupation of Iraq.

If you think spending $100 billion a year in Iraq is a moral policy, what is your plan for the rest of the world that needs help? The millions starving in Africa or genocide in Dafur. Or is it Iraq was just the neediest nation that deserves 75% of our foreign spending for assistance. Let's hear your moral plan for helping the world.

This crap about the poor people in Iraq justifying our occupation is just a cover because there is no legitimate reasons for our action there. If we were really concerned about Iraq, the best thing we could do is pull our troops out of there and stop being a magnet for every nutcase in the ME that wants to come in and take a shot at us.

You have to pick your fights and apply your resources to where your priorities lie. Sometimes you simply can't help everyone, so you make a choice on who to help based on the current circumstances. But then, you know all this, you just like to try to divert the discussion away from where you are losing on every point of discussion. You've tried this 3 times now and I haven't bit yet. You might want to consider steepening that learning curve a little...

What crap. Because I am against this immoral war you presume to lecture someone you no nothing about. Take your false moralizing somewhere else.

It's not false moralizing, it's what I believe in and, from the evidence I've seen from you, you don't believe in. I only base my opinions on the evidence that I have at hand and from the evidence that you given me about your attitudes, my conclusion is perfectly logical. You don't care about the freedom that other people don't have as long as you have yours.

Fare-thee-well, Irie. I've spent enough time trying to educate you in the realities of life and I'll just ahve to write you off as a "pearls before swine" type go on my merry way. :2wave: