• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

They aren't cheering loud enough

I can only focus on what I focus on in the limitations of a single post. Why don't you read more of my posts for a full understanding of everytihng I have written. Do you need some sort of disclaimer on each and every post so that you don't have to continue to bring up the same common sense and already stated things?

Am I to state all about...

1) Radical Islam
2) American Intillignecia weaknesses
3) American defense spending
4) Mistakes of the Bush Administration and the former OSD
5) Symptoms of a failed civilization with regards to the lesons of history
6) The different roles individual insurgents in Iraq and the international terrorists thta push them
7) America's roles during the Cold War and our sins
8) The make up of the Middle East
9) The psycological make up of the two typoes of terrorists
10) Military tactics
11) Neglected global possibilities
12) The ignorance of the Left White House and the ineptness of the Right White House

....all in one post every single time? Will this allow you your comfort of not having to pick arguments out of everything? Perhaps I should just go ahead and write the book so that you can have it all in one sitting?


Gee Sarge, in a post where you were purporting to explain why the insurgents are fighting us, you neglected to mention the reason of resisting invaders, which you agree is common knoweldge. I just pointed it out. Sorry dude.
 
Gee Sarge, in a post where you were purporting to explain why the insurgents are fighting us, you neglected to mention the reason of resisting invaders, which you agree is common knoweldge. I just pointed it out. Sorry dude.

No, you dismiss the things I say (or don't repeat in every post) for favor of an argument. My statements were very much about their resisitance to the American presence. I mentioned a "fight for the past." As long as we sit in Iraq while the Iraqi government tries to build itself (which is in the best interests of the insurgency's children), their needs to live as they did can not be achieved.

However, if your intention was to produce some sort of fantasy that the insurgency will stop fighting and embrace their new government and hated Shi'ite and Kurd neighbors if we only up and leave, then you are fooling yourself. While this would be certainly true for a handful of them it is not for the most of them.
 
Last edited:
No, you dismiss the things I say (or don't repeat in every post) for favor of an argument. My statements were very much about their resisitance to the American presence. I mentioned a "fight for the past." As long as we sit in Iraq while the Iraqi government tries to build itself (which is in the best interests of the insurgency's children), their needs to live as they did can not be achieved.

Jeez, I'm sorry that I missed that "fight for the past" was supposed to mean "fight to expel the unjustified infidel invaders."

However, if your intention was to produce some sort of fantasy that the insurgency will stop fighting and embrace their new government and hated Shi'ite and Kurd neighbors if we only up and leave, then you are fooling yourself. While this would be certainly true for a handful of them it is not for the most of them.

No, my fantasy is that when we up and leave, the insurgency will stop fighting us. I could only speculate as to whether the shiite/sunni civil war we started will discontinue, but I wouldn't bet on it.
 
No, my fantasy is that when we up and leave, the insurgency will stop fighting us. I could only speculate as to whether the shiite/sunni civil war we started will discontinue, but I wouldn't bet on it.

I will bet if the US did up and leave the sunni and shia would explode into each other with a vengeance that started 1400 years ago.
Do you really believe the pure hate they have for each other is something new, something we stared?
 
I will bet if the US did up and leave the sunni and shia would explode into each other with a vengeance that started 1400 years ago.
Do you really believe the pure hate they have for each other is something new, something we stared?

You could be right. You could be wrong. Hopefully you are wrong. I don't think that most ME nations want to see and all out civil war between Sunnis and Shias and there is a chance that with the "great satan" out of the picture it may be that some resolution can be reached.

If you are right, and there is a humanitarian disaster, there may be an intervention required in the future. But this time one that has international approval and is done under the international auspicies so we aren't the ones responsilble and getting blamed for the whole thing.
 
You could be right. You could be wrong. Hopefully you are wrong. I don't think that most ME nations want to see and all out civil war between Sunnis and Shias and there is a chance that with the "great satan" out of the picture it may be that some resolution can be reached.

If you are right, and there is a humanitarian disaster, there may be an intervention required in the future. But this time one that has international approval and is done under the international auspicies so we aren't the ones responsilble and getting blamed for the whole thing.


"If US leaves Iraq we will arm Sunni militias, Saudis say"
If US leaves Iraq we will arm Sunni militias, Saudis say | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited

We know Iran will flood the Shia with weapons.

And a feud that’s lasted for hundreds of years will turn Iraq into a blood bath.
No resolution will come because both sides believe Allah is on their side.......

But the good news is maybe after the war the Kurds take control?
 
"If US leaves Iraq we will arm Sunni militias, Saudis say"
If US leaves Iraq we will arm Sunni militias, Saudis say | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited

We know Iran will flood the Shia with weapons.

And a feud that’s lasted for hundreds of years will turn Iraq into a blood bath.
No resolution will come because both sides believe Allah is on their side.......

But the good news is maybe after the war the Kurds take control?

I am concerned about this as well. However, I sincerely believe that an indefinite US occupation is not going to resolve the situation, in part because we simply have no credibility to act as an arbitrator. I think the "great satan's" presence there is making things worse by serving as a motivation for insurgents and anti-American groups generally.

We need to let them (Iraqis and all Muslims) know that we meant it when we said it was not our goal to control Iraq or its oil or their religion, that we accomplished what we invaded for, and that we have done our best to get them set up with a new Govt, and that we are completely leaving in 6 months.

It is true that future intevention will be necessary, hopefully not. But again, IMO, if Iraq breaks down the only prospect for success is to have the effort overseen by an entity or organization that has some credibility.
 
TOT said:
lmfao read on and obsolve yourself from ignorance my poor diluted . . . well you're not my friend:

Obsolve? I will obsolve myself as long as I'm the decider. And what am I diluted with?

TOT said:
By John Loftus
Jewish Community News | October 4, 2004

I said the Muslim brotherhood has nothing to do with Naziism. After reading the article (not that it's anything I haven't heard before), I see no reason to alter that position. The connection appears to be that one of the founders of the Muslim brotherhood some seventy years ago had some dealings with the Nazis. That doesn't mean they have anything to do with Nazis today, or that the ideologies are connected. If you can show me that the Muslim brotherhood wants to bring about another Reich with the Nordic/ Germanic people as the master race, then I will concede the point. Until then, that's what Naziism was about, first and foremost. The Muslim brotherhood has other plans entirely.

In any case, if you think this sort of thing proves that the Muslim brotherhood are Nazis, you'd also have to think the Neocons are Nazis. Prescott Bush, the Grandfather of the current president, did handle a lot of money for the Nazis and supplied them with a large portion of their industrial materials. He was apparently quite fond of Nazi ideology. You'd also have to assume that the catholics are Nazis since then Pope Leo was quite cozy with Hitler. You'd also have to believe that Germany today is still a Nazi state, since the Germans supported Naziism. Also, the Austrians. There were quite a few Americans that thought the Nazis were pretty cool, too, some of them very prominent. So at least certain segments of our country would also be Naziis by the same reasoning.

Hopefully by now you get the point. For someone to be a Nazi, and deserve the label, they have to have some kind of present and immediate connection, not some distant connection that occurred long ago. I would bet that no current members of the Muslim Brotherhood ever corresponded with the Nazis.

TOT said:
You would.

Perhaps you could provide some kind of narrative that would explain it, then?

TOT said:
I'd like to see you say that to my face.

1) I'm usually quite willing to say something "to someone's face", as you so bravely put it.

2) But as you may perhaps have noticed, this is an internet forum where people come together to use the written word to discuss, debate, or even argue. Your insinuation that you'd like some kind of physical confrontation (violent or not) only shows what I've been saying all along--that you're obviously out of the lingua franca of this medium.

TOT said:
Ya that's definately debatable.

Only because anything is debatable.

TOT said:
I didn't run out of ammo I ran into a useful idiot.

Then why resort to name calling? If you've got something that actually backs up your position, why not just state it? Are you just being coy or something?

TOT said:
Because you make me sick.

Then the surest way to get rid of me is to beat me with sound argumentation.
 
GySgt said:
Again..I don't deal in "what ifs," especially unlikely ones.

I'm talking about something very basic here. There is moral weight to killing someone who didn't deserve to die, regardless of whether it was done accidentally or not. Heck, there is moral weight to killing someone who did deserve to die, and contrary to popular belief, it's not all such a positive thing. I would imagine you and I would agree on the notion that it is wrong to walk up to a little girl playing in a playground and shoot her in the head. I imagine you and I would agree that it's not quite as wrong (but still wrong) to drive wrecklessly and, through that recklessness, accidentally kill a child on the road. So why does the moral onus completely disappear in a time of war, especially for the invaders?

GySgt said:
Like living in oppression and under the brutalities of a monster dictator with no escape towards opportunity?

Don't get me wrong; I recognize what you're saying and I agree. I am not sorry that we knocked Saddam off--I wish he had met a far worse fate (I happen to think many of our leaders, and the leaders of most countries, deserve the same). And I certainly won't be sorry to see the cogs of democracy working in Iraq (if indeed that is what's happened; I'm a little skeptical). I just wonder if you understand what I'm saying? You seem almost to want not to.

GySgt said:
No, you are still not understanding what he is saying. We should always understand our enemy. It helps to better engage him. But, what he is saying is that the media should get in bed with our enemy and give them credibility towards their cause. There is nothing the media can give us that we don't already know about the insurgency or Radical Islam. It would only serve to embolden our enemy and encourage the desperate youth to join somehting they are already twisted about.

Their cause may have actual credibility of which we (perhaps you included) are not aware. If that's the case, or even if the possiblity exists, it ought to be examined. It certainly wouldn't require us to make ourselves vulnerable. At this point, I think there are overriding geopolitical reasons to stay in Iraq and to actually get serious control of the country. But the average American is neither aware of the overall geopolitical situation, or why the people of Iraq might be angry with us. People should know both. Right now, most people in America have a very unrealistic view of the situation.

Durretti seems to be saying that we get a very skewed view of reality presented to us here in the 'states. I agree completely...if anything, I think he may not have gone far enough in portraying just how bad it is.
 
I am concerned about this as well. However, I sincerely believe that an indefinite US occupation is not going to resolve the situation, in part because we simply have no credibility to act as an arbitrator. I think the "great satan's" presence there is making things worse by serving as a motivation for insurgents and anti-American groups generally.

I am not for "indefinite US occupation". I don’t believe anyone is...
At this point I don’t care about our creditability. The world cant think whatever it wants. As it will no matter what we do if its right or wrong.

I see things a bit differently. The attacks on our Troops are much, much lower then the attacks on the sunnia and shia. They are almost consumed with just killing each other.


We need to let them (Iraqis and all Muslims) know that we meant it when we said it was not our goal to control Iraq or its oil or their religion, that we accomplished what we invaded for, and that we have done our best to get them set up with a new Govt, and that we are completely leaving in 6 months.

They wont listen...No matter who tells them...


It is true that future intevention will be necessary, hopefully not. But again, IMO, if Iraq breaks down the only prospect for success is to have the effort overseen by an entity or organization that has some credibility.

I'm not sure I would want to send anyone back after a full withdrawal.
The more I think about it the more I would say NO to a future intervention. It would have to be for one hell of a reason. something to do with the kurds maybe?
 
Durretti seems to be saying that we get a very skewed view of reality presented to us here in the 'states. I agree completely...if anything, I think he may not have gone far enough in portraying just how bad it is.


I'm sorry but you make it sound like the only news a person can get it from our government.....:roll: I mean after all is this not the world wide web?
Durretti has a skewed view of reality as well. Did you ever think that or did you just believe him at his word?
 
I am not for "indefinite US occupation". I don’t believe anyone is...

That has been US policy for four years.

At this point I don’t care about our creditability.

No does the Administratoin

The world cant think whatever it wants. As it will no matter what we do if its right or wrong.

And that is what is happening in Iraq.

I see things a bit differently. The attacks on our Troops are much, much lower then the attacks on the sunnia and shia. They are almost consumed with just killing each other.

Don't understand the point.

They wont listen...No matter who tells them...

Go back to the credibility point.

[quotep I'm not sure I would want to send anyone back after a full withdrawal. The more I think about it the more I would say NO to a future intervention. It would have to be for one hell of a reason. something to do with the kurds maybe?[/QUOTE]

You want to stay in Iraq for the future, but would not return to Iraq in the future?

Illogical, but I suspect that sentiment will be common. The consequence of staying way to long and a gut wrenching internal revolution results that once withdrawal is accomplished, most will want to stay out, and overreact in not willing to engage in a situation where it is justified. Similar thing happened in Vietnam, where the govt wouldn't provide support to the SV after we pulled out.
 
I am not for "indefinite US occupation". I don’t believe anyone is...

That has been US policy for four years.

At this point I don’t care about our creditability.

No does the Administratoin

The world cant think whatever it wants. As it will no matter what we do if its right or wrong.

And that is what is happening in Iraq.

I see things a bit differently. The attacks on our Troops are much, much lower then the attacks on the sunnia and shia. They are almost consumed with just killing each other.

Don't understand the point.

They wont listen...No matter who tells them...

Go back to the credibility point.

[quotep I'm not sure I would want to send anyone back after a full withdrawal. The more I think about it the more I would say NO to a future intervention. It would have to be for one hell of a reason. something to do with the kurds maybe?[/QUOTE]

You want to stay in Iraq for the future, but would not return to Iraq in the future?

Illogical, but I suspect that sentiment will be common. The consequence of staying way to long and a gut wrenching internal revolution results that once withdrawal is accomplished, most will want to stay out, and overreact in not willing to engage in a situation where it is justified. Similar thing happened in Vietnam, where the govt wouldn't provide support to the SV after we pulled out.
 
That has been US policy for four years.

Can you show me where they have said this?


No does the Administratoin
And that is what is happening in Iraq.

Its not just Iraq it’s the entire region. Remember the death to America long before 9/11 or 2003?


Don't understand the point.
My point is that in Iraq right now they are busy killing each other.

Go back to the credibility point.
They wont listen because we are not MUSLIMS, We are NOT an Islamic state. Do you understand now?

You want to stay in Iraq for the future, but would not return to Iraq in the future?

I have no problem with wiping out the sunni and shia and allowing the kurds to take over country...Then we wouldnt need to go back. Will that work for you?

Illogical, but I suspect that sentiment will be common. The consequence of staying way to long and a gut wrenching internal revolution results that once withdrawal is accomplished, most will want to stay out, and overreact in not willing to engage in a situation where it is justified. Similar thing happened in Vietnam, where the govt wouldn't provide support to the SV after we pulled out.
It will be a war of Gods...
And who’s fault was that? Remember all the vietnam War protesters?
 
Can you show me where they have said this?

This administration has never set a definite date for withdrawing. It has set certain conditions. But there is no date for those conditions to occur. If they never occur we would never leave. Thus the US occupation has been and still is indefinite.

Its not just Iraq it’s the entire region. Remember the death to America long before 9/11 or 2003?

Not in Iraq. I can't even remember it in recent years in Iran, pre Iraq war I mean. I agree there was anti-American sentiment in the ME pre-Bush. It is much worse now.

My point is that in Iraq right now they are busy killing each other.

So what?

They wont listen because we are not MUSLIMS, We are NOT an Islamic state. Do you understand now?

No. Muslims have certainly listened to us in the past. Witness the Egyptian and Jordian peace accords.

You said credibility doesn't matter. Here is exactly why it does. The problem is, as you point out, is that they won't listen. They won't listen because we have no credibility.

If someone has mislead me, lied to me, acting in ways inconsistent with what they claimed, and then comes up to me with something I'm supposed to invest in, I say, "no thanks", not listening.

I have no problem with wiping out the sunni and shia and allowing the kurds to take over country...Then we wouldnt need to go back. Will that work for you?

No not sure what you mean by "wiping out the sunni and shia"?

As for the Kurds, why do you think they are so wonderful? It was the Kurds who were running the Al-Queda terrorst camps before the war. With friends like those...

It will be a war of Gods...

The God I believe isn't for war.
 
This administration has never set a definite date for withdrawing. It has set certain conditions. But there is no date for those conditions to occur. If they never occur we would never leave. Thus the US occupation has been and still is indefinite. .

So you cant provide a statement that says the US has always intended to stay in Iraq?

Not in Iraq. I can't even remember it in recent years in Iran, pre Iraq war I mean. I agree there was anti-American sentiment in the ME pre-Bush. It is much worse now.
So what? .

You didn’t see the schools in Iraq with the paintings of the planes hitting to WTC?
You don’t remember the people in the Middle East dancing in the streets after the embassies bombings in Africa? There has always been anti-American sentiment in the Middle East If you have never seen it that just means you’re blind.


No. Muslims have certainly listened to us in the past. Witness the Egyptian and Jordian peace accords. .
You mean the accords that allowed the Egypt and Jordan to save face?
So how is it going today with Israel and the Arabs?

You said credibility doesn't matter. Here is exactly why it does. The problem is, as you point out, is that they won't listen. They won't listen because we have no credibility
If someone has mislead me, lied to me, acting in ways inconsistent with what they claimed, and then comes up to me with something I'm supposed to invest in, I say, "no thanks", not listening. .


You wont get it thru your think head they wont listen because they don’t care about anything a non-Muslim has to say. But by all means go to the ME and lets see how long you live trying to work out a peace plan. You act like all this anti US bullchit is something new? Why don’t you fooking read my sig!



No not sure what you mean by "wiping out the sunni and shia"?.
Yes you do….

As for the Kurds, why do you think they are so wonderful? It was the Kurds who were running the Al-Queda terrorst camps before the war. With friends like those... .
You mean the same anti Saddam Kurds that fought against the Ansar who did trained in afghan with AQ?


The God I believe isn't for war.

And that matters how? Does it matter to the person that’s cutting your head off in the name of Allah? Will it matter as he is yelling, “praise to Allah” as he is cutting thru the soft tissue of your throat? Will it matter when he cuts thru your windpipe and into the inside of your spinal column? Will it matter you will still be alive feeling every bit of pain as he slices thru your neck until he severs your spinal cord? Will it matter even then you won’t be dead for another few seconds?
You think they care what a non-Muslim believes or thinks?
How many times have you seen this take place in Iraq?
 
So you cant provide a statement that says the US has always intended to stay in Iraq?

No I cannot, nor did I assert that. I asserted that the US occupation is indefinite.

I don't know what the US, as represented by this Administration, intends. Early on Bush made some statements about limited objectives of removing Hussein and his WMDs. I don't recall Bush ever saying we intend to permanently and fully leave Iraq. Do you?

You didn’t see the schools in Iraq with the paintings of the planes hitting to WTC?

I missed that one.

You don’t remember the people in the Middle East dancing in the streets after the embassies bombings in Africa?

I recall pictures of a few kids in Palestine doing that. Most of the people in the ME expressed sympathy, I recall.

There has always been anti-American sentiment in the Middle East If you have never seen it that just means you’re blind.

I never denied it. I contend it is a lot worse now.

You mean the accords that allowed the Egypt and Jordan to save face?
So how is it going today with Israel and the Arabs?

Save face or not, Muslims listened, in contrary to your assertion.

You wont get it thru your think head they wont listen because they don’t care about anything a non-Muslim has to say. But by all means go to the ME and lets see how long you live trying to work out a peace plan. You act like all this anti US bullchit is something new? Why don’t you fooking read my sig!

No I certainly don't agree with such a rascist stereotype. Sorry.

If I was an Iraqi or Muslim now I wouldn't listen to what the US is saying at the moment either because this administration has shown both a strong bias to Isreal and that it is not trustworthy. Hell I'll even expand that to Americans.

Yes you do….

I might speculated by what you meant by "wiping out the sunni and shia" but could be wrong, which is why I asked you to explain it. Why the dodge? Are you being PC now?

You mean the same anti Saddam Kurds that fought against the Ansar who did trained in afghan with AQ?

"Saddam Kurds"? That's a new one. But yeah I was referring to the Kurdish terrorist camp in the Kurdish section of Northern Iraq, the part Hussein didn't control. But those must have been the bad Kurds, as opposed to the good Kurds, our friends.

And that matters how? Does it matter to the person that’s cutting your head off in the name of Allah? Will it matter as he is yelling, “praise to Allah” as he is cutting thru the soft tissue of your throat? Will it matter when he cuts thru your windpipe and into the inside of your spinal column? Will it matter you will still be alive feeling every bit of pain as he slices thru your neck until he severs your spinal cord? Will it matter even then you won’t be dead for another few seconds?
You think they care what a non-Muslim believes or thinks?
How many times have you seen this take place in Iraq?

My belief matters not at all. Just commenting on your "war of Gods" comment.
 
Cherokee said:
I'm sorry but you make it sound like the only news a person can get it from our government..... I mean after all is this not the world wide web?
Durretti has a skewed view of reality as well. Did you ever think that or did you just believe him at his word?

The vast majority of people still get their news from mainstream sources, though the web is changing that. I look for more serious efforts to control the web as this continues (there have already been some aimed specifically at alternative news sites and blogs). The vast majority of people in the United States don't know about where to go to get real news; they lack the information to even know which questions to ask. That's the issue.
 
No I cannot, nor did I assert that. I asserted that the US occupation is indefinite.
I don't know what the US, as represented by this Administration, intends. Early on Bush made some statements about limited objectives of removing Hussein and his WMDs. I don't recall Bush ever saying we intend to permanently and fully leave Iraq. Do you?

No you just like to imply things.

Originally Posted by Iriemon
If they never occur we would never leave.



I missed that one.

Why am I not surprised? Not the ones in the schools I’ll have to find them again but none the less so much for the Iraqi love on 9/11.
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e324/cherokee606/3rd-infantry-saddam-911c.jpg
CNN.com - Marines discover Iraqi 9/11 mural - Mar. 26, 2003


I recall pictures of a few kids in Palestine doing that. Most of the people in the ME expressed sympathy, I recall.

You recall? I say you are a liar. I say you were just like many people who didn’t bother to pay attention to any events going on in the Middle East until 9/11.


I never denied it. I contend it is a lot worse now.

No, Not really slick. It’s just headlining the news now. You would know this if you had been paying attention since the late 1970’s. (re-read above reply)



Save face or not, Muslims listened, in contrary to your assertion.

Again it floors me how you have a lack to understand anything. They listened? What don’t you get about it gave them means of saving face? Does that translate into They listened to you? But don’t doge my question “How’s it going there now?”


No I certainly don't agree with such a rascist stereotype. Sorry.

How was the racist slick? Care to show me? After that why don’t you answer the two questions I asked you in the post?

You wont get it thru your think head they wont listen because they don’t care about anything a non-Muslim has to say. But by all means go to the ME and lets see how long you live trying to work out a peace plan. You act like all this anti US bullchit is something new? Why don’t you fooking read my sig?



If I was an Iraqi or Muslim now I wouldn't listen to what the US is saying at the moment either because this administration has shown both a strong bias to Isreal and that it is not trustworthy. Hell I'll even expand that to Americans.

Here we go…….You people have to throw Israel in the pot…
Those bad evil Jewish people…God forbid they want peace with the Arabs who wish to destroy them........:roll:


I might speculated by what you meant by "wiping out the sunni and shia" but could be wrong, which is why I asked you to explain it. Why the dodge? Are you being PC now?
I’m sorry I didn’t write it in crayon for you. It goes something like this. Eliminate the sunni and shia’s allowing the Kurds to take over the country = peace.


"Saddam Kurds"? That's a new one. But yeah I was referring to the Kurdish terrorist camp in the Kurdish section of Northern Iraq, the part Hussein didn't control. But those must have been the bad Kurds, as opposed to the good Kurds, our friends.
Did we miss the ANTI part?


My belief matters not at all. Just commenting on your "war of Gods" comment.


Maybe you’d understand if you opened your eyes. Both groups believe they are fighting Allah’s will. Both believe Allah is on their side. It’s a religious war IE.. A War of Gods.
 
No you just like to imply things.

Originally Posted by Iriemon
If they never occur we would never leave.

This is correct.

You recall? I say you are a liar. I say you were just like many people who didn’t bother to pay attention to any events going on in the Middle East until 9/11.

Could care less what you think.

No, Not really slick. It’s just headlining the news now. You would know this if you had been paying attention since the late 1970’s. (re-read above reply)

Disagree

Again it floors me how you have a lack to understand anything. They listened? What don’t you get about it gave them means of saving face? Does that translate into They listened to you? But don’t doge my question “How’s it going there now?”

So why aren't the Iraqis doing the same as the Egyptians and Jordanians.

How was the racist slick? Care to show me? After that why don’t you answer the two questions I asked you in the post?

Your statement: You wont get it thru your think head they wont listen because they don’t care about anything a non-Muslim has to say.

If you are not referring to Muslims I take it back, though your statement becomes nonsense because you are talking about the Iraqis.

Here we go…….You people have to throw Israel in the pot…
Those bad evil Jewish people…God forbid they want peace with the Arabs who wish to destroy them........:roll:

Can't make an argument without misrepresenting my statement?

I’m sorry I didn’t write it in crayon for you. It goes something like this. Eliminate the sunni and shia’s allowing the Kurds to take over the country = peace.

I see. How do you propse we do that?
 
Since we are getting to the point of just one word replies how about we just use the smilies...

This is correct.
:roll:

Could care less what you think.
:( ........:roll:

:roll:

So why aren't the Iraqis doing the same as the Egyptians and Jordanians.
Ok I'll have to break away from the smiles. Place do explain how you apply accords to Iraq.

Your statement: You wont get it thru your think head they wont listen because they don’t care about anything a non-Muslim has to say.
:roll:

If you are not referring to Muslims I take it back, though your statement becomes nonsense because you are talking about the Iraqis.

No you tell me how it was racist by any means.

Can't make an argument without misrepresenting my statement?
You said it slick not me...but please explain what you meant by your statement since I misrepresented it. I’m all ears…

Originally Posted by Iriemon View Post
If I was an Iraqi or Muslim now I wouldn't listen to what the US is saying at the moment either because this administration has shown both a strong bias to Isreal and that it is not trustworthy. Hell I'll even expand that to Americans.


I see. How do you propse we do that?

By waging a war without tying our hands behind our back, by doing whatever it takes to destroy an enemy. By allowing commanders on the ground make the calls and not idiots in DC.
 
Ok I'll have to break away from the smiles. Place do explain how you apply accords to Iraq.

You said Muslims won't listen, that is the problem in Iraq.

I said sure they do, look at Eqypt and Jordon peace accords.

You said that they did that to "save face".

So I said why didn't the Iraqis do that.

So you explain to me why accords worked with Eqypt and Jordon and couldn't work with Iraq.

Originally Posted by Iriemon
Your statement: You wont get it thru your think head they wont listen because they don’t care about anything a non-Muslim has to say.


LOL denying your own statements now?

No you tell me how it was racist by any means.

If you are saying all muslims won't listen you are stereotyping based on race.


You said it slick not me...but please explain what you meant by your statement since I misrepresented it. I’m all ears…

Originally Posted by Iriemon View Post
If I was an Iraqi or Muslim now I wouldn't listen to what the US is saying at the moment either because this administration has shown both a strong bias to Isreal and that it is not trustworthy. Hell I'll even expand that to Americans.

What don't you understand about the statement, sport?

By waging a war without tying our hands behind our back, by doing whatever it takes to destroy an enemy. By allowing commanders on the ground make the calls and not idiots in DC.

So if I understand your proposal for Iraq, the US should BE "wiping out" and "eliminate the sunni and shias" in Iraq, by doing whatever it takes to destroy them. Do I have your solution correct?
 
Doctrine Differences

"Doctrine Differences"

What does the sunni have against a democratic government whose purpose is to provide a just legal and electoral system with social support for its citizens?


If the sunni put their weapons down, obtain employment, and seek to build a new society, would the Iraqi government or US troops shoot them?
 
Re: Doctrine Differences

"Doctrine Differences"

What does the sunni have against a democratic government whose purpose is to provide a just legal and electoral system with social support for its citizens?

My guess is if you asked most they would say that is not the way they see it. My guess is many would say they see the new government as an infidel government used to depose them of their rightful place of ruling Iraq and to dispossess them of the oil.

If the sunni put their weapons down, obtain employment, and seek to build a new society, would the Iraqi government or US troops shoot them?

Probably.
 
Constructive Decisions

"Constructive Decisions"
Iriemon said:
Probably.
If that were true the US would avenge the Sunni.

My guess is if you asked most they would say that is not the way they see it. My guess is many would say they see the new government as an infidel government used to depose them of their rightful place of ruling Iraq and to dispossess them of the oil.
Affirm or reject my recollection. The Sunni wanted more (at least equal) representation in the government, eventhough they were the minority, but did not get it, which seemed to precipited, to the greater extent, the military strife.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom