We must leave Iraq

[VTA]

Not true. The american people knew what was going on in Iraq and Iran. In fact, there were hearings in the US senate where they talked about Saddam's use of chemical weapons on the Kurds, as well as Saddam's genocidal Anfal campaign. So it wasn't like we didn't know this, our own senators debated and talked about this. We knew what Saddam was capable of, we knew what kind of man he was. We knew what was going on, we are not acting in hindsight like you say. All this talk was done in 1983 BEFORE Kuwait.

In 1990, about 6 weeks before Saddam invaded Kuwait, Bush Sr's Administration gave hundreds of millions of dollars in credit to Iraq. On top of that, Bush Sr actually defended the US-Iraq relationship, saying that "Saddams presence was a moderation influence in Iranian agreesion" (or something like that).

So don't say we are acting in hindsight. Many people already knew what was going on at the time.

I'd like to hear more about this side of the story as well.

The Anfal campaign began in 1986... and came to it's head in 1987-1988 in a 6 month period of extermination.

I'll have to defer to you on the Bush Sr/Credit to Iraq, since I know nothing about it.

As for Somalia, it's no secret that it was overrun by Islamists, who were attempting to instill a Shariah state in that are. bin Laden and Al Zawahiri have said on a number of occasions that the horn of Africa is an integral part of the war against the West. The intsallation of a Shariah state was a step in that direction. With the fall of the Islamists, it's a blow to the overall strategy of shifting global power.

From the Far East the actions of Islamists and the recent victory in Thailand to the events in the Horn of Africa, a common thread exists, where Islamists are trying to set up Islamic states within host countries.

In most cases trying to play the minority card and claiming human rights abuses, while they completely disregard their host countries laws.

 

[MSgt]

But you do think that we went into Iraq to replace a bad dictator (that we knew was bad for 20 years) instead of the PSA's that are about to be cashed in by the major oil company's after the signing of Iraq's new energy law.

Enjoy...


New Oil Law Means Victory in Iraq for Bush

Why would we "replace" a bad dictator? Our sins of the past has been our "support" of dictators. Seems to me that we have shattered that role and are moving forward as parts of the world still seek to defend the tyrant that encourages "stability" by any means. Isn't this what you have stated enough times before Billo? You want your old America back?

And does the oil factor mean that all other aspects are absent? This is what I have always stated. It is only because Bush made the amature mistake of using an "immediate threat" as the only reason Americans would rally for a cause that so many now have their exhonerations from good morality. Further, we have played into the hands of cynics everywhere (read this thread) when we decided to hide oil as an aspect.

Commentaries that are determied to celebrate the negativity in this reality is not truth. It is part truth. And part truth is where the lost linger.

 

[MSgt]

again your concept of "powerful" is misleading. Being "powerful", as I have stated before, does not allow you all avenues. And I think you may have misunderstood when I mentioned Kennedy.

I was talking about "Bay of Pigs" a document that actually has CIA reports about attempts to kill Castro, and the failed attempt to invade Cuba. When I said it is no surprise that Kennedy tried to kill Castro, this is what I meant. I guess I should have said, it is no secret that Kennedy has tried to kill Castrol.

Yet, he failed, being the "most powerful man" and all. You bring up Ghudafi and Escobar, but remember I said that some people are easier to kill? That thier ties to thier own armies are not as strong as others (and thus less protected)? and some are untouchable because of thier strong ties. Castro and Chavez are untouchable because their military is very connected with thier leader.

As for evidence, what I am looking for is something that says that our military intelligence is so vast and so power, as you say, that we have access to things beyond our reach. Because this is what this is essentially. Chavez and Castro are out of reach, and the US has failed to kill them. Yet, your only response to that is that the US isn't trying hard enough. That there is no determination. But "Bay of Pigs" kind of says otherwise.

I have no idea what you are trying to get across. Are you trying to imply that America is less than perfect? That our great power is not a perfect power? If so, then what is the point in stating the obvious? The Bay of Pigs was an operation that failed. We have other operations in our history that has failed. The reports of Castro assassination was mostly reports of plans or tactics, which included exploding shells or cigars and such. If Castro was a target of determination, he would be dead. A determination to assassinate doesn't involve exotic nonesense of exploding parlor tricks. The only thing that keeps American organizations from getting rid of the scum of the earth through assassination is the political ramifications of such activity.

But this is going to change.

 

[MSgt]

Where did I deny Iraqi suffering or ME region for what it is? The fact that I disagree with the proposition that if we don't like the way a country is being run we have the right to jump in and start a war does not mean that I deny the situation.

However, now that we all agree that the US did not start a war in Iraq because of humanitarian purposes is relevant to what we should do now that we are there.

I'm just going to cut your post right here and address. I am tired of the blatant disregard for what I have written in favor of the argument. I will summerize in simplest terms so that all should be able to understand and I will place them in some sort of logical sequence of importance and without the partisan slavery so many seem to need to cling to......

1) The NeoCons wanted their war. They wanted a war to prove that their fix for the world has credibility. When 9/11 happened, the opportunity presented itself. Throughout the 90's, the "Rumsfelds" of Washington armed with President Clinton's rediculous sense of bloodless wars sought to re-create the military into a technological juggernaut without human interference. This not only fed into the NeoCon vision, but also encouraged the Defense Industry's need to build toys at rediculous expense. Bush very much mindlessly carried it forward, because like Congress, the term "nothing is too good for our troops" was the ultimate slogan of deceit by the vampires that sucked off of the American tax payer and troop.

2) Of all the places in the world to test their NeoCon theory, they chose Iraq, which happened to be very logical and over due and so happened to be the right place to spark change in the ME. They stumbled into this on accident. However, through "Shock and Awe" they proved their ideas for a technological military without the soul was a failure. Further, they proved that the NeoCon plan, which completely disregards the human factor of these cultures, is flawed in detail. What is not flawed is the recipe for success, but because such a recipe would encourage a plan that mentions the many dangers involved, the OSD and the Bush administration didn't want to hear it. And there we went straight to Baghdad compensating for every single willful sin along the way of our leaders in Washington.

3) Logically speaking, oil was not a key factor, because even with a perfect war, it would have been cheaper to buy it. Oil is just a spoil of this war. American companies and contracts? There are war profiteers in every war and somebody absolutely has to get rich, because someone has to do the job. Our mistake was in relying on them too much and trying to show act as the utlimate savior, when we should have highly relied upon the hard working Iraqi.

4) Through all of this petty squabbling, scheming, local errors, and rediculous individual exhonerations, we have the very real issue of Radical Islam and religious terror. This is the ultimate focus beyond the politician, the obtuse protester, and uninformed troop. The fact is that none of us knows what was in President Bush's heart when we became determined to topple Saddam. Yet, so many have decided to brand him as the ultimate evil on this earth and the ultimate game player of American lives. Is it more logical to assume that aside form the NeoCon quest that people identified Iraqi suffering and past American sins with Saddam? Is it not more logical to assume that our leadership (know matter what Party he hails from) does have a clue into this much bigger picture instead of an retarded focus on maling an American company rich at the expense of American blood? The truth is that when we strip all the ignorant voices away from this effort, we have a Middle East that is suffering and the result is terror. Much of it is directed towards us and our allies for a number of reasons. And until this changes, we are going to see worse. 9/11 sould have told us that we have to stop ignoring our willful denial that Muslims suffer under their governments for a "stable" global oil demand and stop hoping against hope that they will fix their problems on their own. They needed something. And as we can see throughout the Middle east today, Iraq was something positive despite the blood shed thus far.

Now, somewhere between number 2 and number 3 is exactly where the protester and partisan slave willfully or simply ignorantly disconnects. Somewhere in between the individual has learned about what he is with regards to his morality and his true views of global happenings. We hear all the time that "If President Bush had simply proclaimed that this is about human suffering then I would have supported it." Well this is just a lie, because regardless of the excuses of WMD, or oil, or revenge, the reality still begs attention to the human suffering element.

Our country is under attack because of neglected human suffering. Not because this country or that country may or may not have WMD and certainly not because there is oil under the sand. So, while others choose to find the excuses to protest and the exhonerations from good morality by focusing on the errors and "evils" of American action, I choose to see the world for what it is and for what the NeoCon plan stumbled into. But like I said above, no one can know what really happened. We can only make logical assumptions beyond the conspiracy garbage and the negative cynical attitude that infects some of our supposedly "moral" global population. It simply doesn't matter how we wound up there or what occurred behind closed doors that none of us are privy to. What matters is a hard look at the broken world today and where our best opportunities are to correct it. Our presence in Iraq today is an opportunity and we would be fools to throw it into the historical gamble that religious terror and dictators will bring true peace.

Now, I can expound profoundly on the above (and you know I can), but I am tired of the same old discussion.

 

[Lightdemon]

I have no idea what you are trying to get across. Are you trying to imply that America is less than perfect? That our great power is not a perfect power? If so, then what is the point in stating the obvious?

When you said that the US can assassinate so and so, and how easy it would be. I'm just pointing out that your assumption is wrong. And that's what it is, an assumption.

The Bay of Pigs was an operation that failed. We have other operations in our history that has failed.

further serving my purpose is saying that the US cannot assasinate whoever they wish.

The reports of Castro assassination was mostly reports of plans or tactics, which included exploding shells or cigars and such. If Castro was a target of determination, he would be dead. A determination to assassinate doesn't involve exotic nonesense of exploding parlor tricks.

You downplayed this quite a bit. It is fact that the Kennedy administration wanted Castro dead, Bay of Pigs says so, documents have shown this to be true. And how is that not determination enough for you? You think that this administration didn't try hard enough? That is again an assumption, unless of course you have evidence showing that the Kennedy admin saying "we didn't send over as many spies as we would have liked" or "we didn't investigate into much detail as we would have wanted", etc.

You also assume that being president of the US is a title worthy of "the most powerful man", and when they fail to kill somebody it means they didn't "try hard enough". You think the US in terms of superiority, that we are just so much better than everyone else, so much more advance. And it is perhaps this, that makes you believe that justifies for all the atrocities that the US has carried out in the ME. That is the problem I'm trying to point out.

 

[MSgt]

When you said that the US can assassinate so and so, and how easy it would be. I'm just pointing out that your assumption is wrong. And that's what it is, an assumption.

Well, given our skills and our intelligence netwrok that spreads across the globe in almost every country, I would say your assumptions that we can't assassinate anyone we are determined to get to is wrong. It's ludicrous.

You downplayed this quite a bit. It is fact that the Kennedy administration wanted Castro dead, Bay of Pigs says so, documents have shown this to be true. And how is that not determination enough for you? You think that this administration didn't try hard enough?

Yes. Are you aware of the Bay of Pigs? Where were the troop insertions upon his compounds? Where was the air support for the rebels? Where was the sniper teams in the jungles? Where was the poisons?

Nothing has been downplayed. Perhaps you don't fully appreciate what "determination" is.

 

[Lightdemon]

Nothing has been downplayed. Perhaps you don't fully appreciate what "determination" is.

There's a real difference between determination and expectation, as well as the difference between determination/expectation and reality/limits.

With these examples that you have given us:

Where were the troop insertions upon his compounds? Where was the air support for the rebels? Where was the sniper teams in the jungles? Where was the poisons?

Your assertion that our intelligence around the world is so vast, should have an answer to each an every example above. We should have overcame all this. We should have been more prepared. Yet we weren't. Yet we failed.

You can sit there and just say we lacked determination, or you can accept the fact that even the great superpower that is the US, so superior to all others, so vast an intelligence agency, has limits just like everyone else. That we cannot just march, full with determination, and do whatever we would like to do.

But maybe you're right, perhaps I do not appreciate what you call "determination" and it would do me well to understand what is it that you make it to mean.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Why would we "replace" a bad dictator? Our sins of the past has been our "support" of dictators. Seems to me that we have shattered that role and are moving forward as parts of the world still seek to defend the tyrant that encourages "stability" by any means. Isn't this what you have stated enough times before Billo? You want your old America back?

If it is as you say that USA has "move forward" they have not actually used the most trustworthy method. That atacking a dictaturship that are an enemy country can easily been seen as a war of influence. Therefor should a more reliable move forward be a drastic and well documented switch in the realtion to your allied countries that still are dictaturship.

Also does the American "move forward" including the acceptans of killed american soldiers? Just one example that USA goverment and maybee you can find it jusified to have American soldiers in SaudArabia as an example. But for the people it can easily be seen as your soliders are they to keep the stability of the oppresied goverment. So what if a democratic group emerged and they atack and kill some american soldiers as a way to get rid of as they see it support of the dictatorship. Will you see them as freedom fighters or terrorist? Until now you have gotten around that problem because it has been non democratic groups that have atacked your troops and then it's easy to get support that they are terrorist. But tomorrow the scenario I describe can be the reality. So how do you think that the USA goverment should deal with that ecpecailly if they as you say are moving forward?

 

[Lightdemon]

4) Through all of this petty squabbling, scheming, local errors, and rediculous individual exhonerations, we have the very real issue of Radical Islam and religious terror. This is the ultimate focus beyond the politician, the obtuse protester, and uninformed troop. The fact is that none of us knows what was in President Bush's heart when we became determined to topple Saddam. Yet, so many have decided to brand him as the ultimate evil on this earth and the ultimate game player of American lives. Is it more logical to assume that aside form the NeoCon quest that people identified Iraqi suffering and past American sins with Saddam? Is it not more logical to assume that our leadership (know matter what Party he hails from) does have a clue into this much bigger picture instead of an retarded focus on maling an American company rich at the expense of American blood? The truth is that when we strip all the ignorant voices away from this effort, we have a Middle East that is suffering and the result is terror. Much of it is directed towards us and our allies for a number of reasons. And until this changes, we are going to see worse. 9/11 sould have told us that we have to stop ignoring our willful denial that Muslims suffer under their governments for a "stable" global oil demand and stop hoping against hope that they will fix their problems on their own. They needed something. And as we can see throughout the Middle east today, Iraq was something positive despite the blood shed thus far.

This is actually an interesting way of looking at it, but it's not convincing. You bring up terrorism, and 9/11, but even you by this time have to realize that Iraq had little to do with the terrorism defined by 9/11. And just FYI, the US don't support Saddam's dictatorship, but that doesn't mean they do not support dicatorships at all. Ethiopia is a dictatorship that the US helped put in power in the last 2 years or so.

You acknowledge that the Iraqi people were sufferring under Saddam's dictatorship, but what about Zenawi? He was also a brutal dictator who slaughtered his own people who protested against him. Why did the US help Zenawi? Surely the US realize how much the Ethiopians was oppressed if they realized that the Iraqis was oppressed.

But back to 9/11, its so easy for us to relate 9/11 to muslims, yet it was Al-Qaeda that was actually blamed, not an ENTIRE religion. Be them radical extremists in that religion, whatever, but even you have to agree that it's easy for people to think muslim=jihadist=terrorist. You should know better, to not lump everything under the same category.

Yet people do, and this is what everyone's mom and dog thinks when they here the two words "Middle East" because there muslims over there.

It simply doesn't matter how we wound up there or what occurred behind closed doors that none of us are privy to. What matters is a hard look at the broken world today and where our best opportunities are to correct it. Our presence in Iraq today is an opportunity and we would be fools to throw it into the historical gamble that religious terror and dictators will bring true peace.

That is quite convenient isn't it? It's like your a dealer in a poker game, you fixed the deck, passed out the cards, and when your poker buddies say "hey wait a min..." then you tell them "hey don't worry about how those cards got there, just keep playing." But in your mind is probably, I'm cheating my poker buddies because I have bills to pay, I have mouths to feed, that justifies it. They don't need to know though, it's going to be for a good cause anyway!

 

[MSgt]

Your assertion that our intelligence around the world is so vast, should have an answer to each an every example above. We should have overcame all this. We should have been more prepared. Yet we weren't. Yet we failed.

And why is this? Because we weren't determined. Political niceties and diplomatic table manners have always stayed our hands from doing for the greater good when we should.

You should take some time to learn your government and it's global tools.

 

[MSgt]

If it is as you say that USA has "move forward" they have not actually used the most trustworthy method. That atacking a dictaturship that are an enemy country can easily been seen as a war of influence. Therefor should a more reliable move forward be a drastic and well documented switch in the realtion to your allied countries that still are dictaturship.

Like who? Why don't you name off these "dictators." Shall America be perfect and snub the French for the ongoing colonies in western Africa? How about our relations with Russia or China? Since they aren't exactly "pillars" of freedom and human rights, why don't we just dismiss their existence? And instead of dealing with the House of Saud, who are currently terrified at the prospect that their creations might control a bordering nation in their future, why don't we instead install the Radical and do business with them?

You see, there is noithing more trustworthy than staring at evil and slapping it. What is trustworthy about staring at evil and defendiung its existence for fear of the troubles that will come by removing it?

Also does the American "move forward" including the acceptans of killed american soldiers?

Perhaps this is because of your upbringing in your country, but accepting American troop death has been a long tradition when helping Europeans so why are Muslims in the Middle East seen as less?

Just one example that USA goverment and maybee you can find it jusified to have American soldiers in SaudArabia as an example. But for the people it can easily be seen as your soliders are they to keep the stability of the oppresied goverment.

This is fact:

Many of the Saudi people see the American forces in Saudi Arabia as protecting the "House of Saud." Out of intellectual habit, American forces ensure that the Radical Base, which ironically has been a side effect creation of the House of Saud, does not interfere with oil demands and as a base in the volatile Middle East.

Now, these people have been fooled by their Saudi leadership and the rent-a-clerics that are shoved in front of microphones about America's role in their society. We are blamed for their lack of education, their lack of employment, and their lack of freedom. But this is a lie. America is the scapegoat of these lords of terror. The Arab culture is a creation by Arabs..not Americans.

So what if a democratic group emerged and they atack and kill some american soldiers as a way to get rid of as they see it support of the dictatorship. Will you see them as freedom fighters or terrorist? Until now you have gotten around that problem because it has been non democratic groups that have atacked your troops and then it's easy to get support that they are terrorist. But tomorrow the scenario I describe can be the reality. So how do you think that the USA goverment should deal with that ecpecailly if they as you say are moving forward?

I don't deal in "what ifs." Especially when the "what ifs" are unlikely and counter historical facts. Troops in Saudi Arabia are very safe and the very few times they have been targetted it has been by acknowledged terrorists by the Saudi and American government and by the Saudi people. Are you even aware of what is going on in Saudi Arabia since 2003?

 

[MSgt]

I've heard all this "excuse" from doing what is right before...

This is actually an interesting way of looking at it, but it's not convincing. You bring up terrorism, and 9/11, but even you by this time have to realize that Iraq had little to do with the terrorism defined by 9/11.

This is another disconnect by the visionless. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. It's all in the books and in reality. There is nothing to realize. The majority of the U.S. military (at least my part of it) knew exactly what Iraq was about. There was no confusion of a relationship between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, despite the average ignorant American and Presidential vocaling. But this is where people can't seem to not understand what we are facing. The disease of Arab fanaticism runs throughout the Middle East. Americans have died from Islamic terrorists for two decades stemming from all those nations and we had decided that turning our backs was the best way to deal with it. We have seen countless Bin Laddens, dictatorships through religion, numerous Saddams from one level to the next, international embassy bombings, plane hijackings, 9/11s, London bombings, Madrid bombings, Bali bombings, etc. These happenings aren't the root of our problems. These are symptoms of a disease. And why have we seen such things from one region? Why have so many around the globe had to die so that desperate angry men can serve their vengeful god? The self-prescribed religious culture of the Arab world is strangling the life blood out of this region. And dealing with it while preserving Saddam's iron fist is not the correct solution. The ironb fist, whether through religion or through a gun is exactly why oppresion festers supreme and it must change or we are going to have to accept that we will one day be fighting another world war (one not started by Europeans for a change, but they will be guilty of encouraging) and it will include nuclear weapons.

Iraq is a means to an end.

But let's discuss Iraqi terrorism. Did Saddam Hussein not orchestarte two minor wars on his neighbors? Did Saddam not brutalize, torture, and kill millions and millions? Did Saddam not encourage Palestinian suicide bombers?

And just FYI, the US don't support Saddam's dictatorship, but that doesn't mean they do not support dicatorships at all. Ethiopia is a dictatorship that the US helped put in power in the last 2 years or so.

Never said anything different. Ethiopia? Read more about it. Dictatorships have their uses, but they are not desired. But there are places on this earth that demand a single source of governance for the greater good. Is a Radical controlled nuclear Pakistan more favorable than the current Pakistani military enforced democracy? Ethiopia is hardly cpontroled by a brutal dictator.

You acknowledge that the Iraqi people were sufferring under Saddam's dictatorship, but what about Zenawi? He was also a brutal dictator who slaughtered his own people who protested against him. Why did the US help Zenawi? Surely the US realize how much the Ethiopians was oppressed if they realized that the Iraqis was oppressed.

Maintain a measure of honesty here. Zenawi was nothing compared to Saddam and his son's on going torture and death machine. Zenawi killed the enemies of his country. Those that were in protest were the monsters of the past. And what are you suggesting? Because people suffer throughout the third world that no one is to be helped? Because a squad of U.S. Marine (without the aid of our self-apointed voices of conscience in Europe) can't help the world at once that no one is to helped? Cowards are never at a loss for good reasons to do nothing so why should we subscribe to such nonesense and exhonerations? Are we to instill Muslim opportunity for freedom and democracy in the Middle Eastern nations (which is our threat) by addressing a nation in Africa? And what about Africa? Are you aware of U.S. Marine presence in Djibouti and Chad that act to contain the violence in Sudan as the UN declares that "military presence isn't necessary?" What about our current air strikes to Al-Queda bases in Somalia which threaten Somalis? But let's just focus on Zenawi....


"Zenawi was elected Leader of the Leadership Committee in 1979 and Leader of the Executive Committee in 1983. He has been the chairperson of both the TPLF and the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) since the Derg regime was overthrown in 1991. The EPRDF is an alliance of the county's four main political parties with support coming from Amhara State, Oromo State, Southern Nations Nationalities and Peoples State and Tigray State.

EPRDF's victory was the triumph for the thousands of Ethiopians who were killed, for the millions of Ethiopians who were systematically held and hidden in poverty by the Derg regime and for the general population. Accordingly the big support it received from peasants and rural areas helped EPRDF maintain peace. The other important help it received was from OLF and many liberation fronts which ended up holding a conference to create the new united government."
Meles Zenawi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But back to 9/11, its so easy for us to relate 9/11 to muslims, yet it was Al-Qaeda that was actually blamed, not an ENTIRE religion. Be them radical extremists in that religion, whatever, but even you have to agree that it's easy for people to think muslim=jihadist=terrorist. You should know better, to not lump everything under the same category.

Yet people do, and this is what everyone's mom and dog thinks when they here the two words "Middle East" because there muslims over there.

It's only easy to the ignorant, but the truth also seems to escape the ignorant. This is so wrong and it suffers from polticial correct weakness. This is not the world we live in. We do not face rogues of Islam. We are facing a failing civilization in the Middle East. The last time we saw such a thing was in Christianity in 16th century Europe. Saddam isn't our enemy. Bin Laden is not our enemy. Iraq isn't our enemy. Al Queda isn't our enemy. The Taliban weren't our enemies. They are merely symptoms of decay.

In most wars, there's a government or core organization which you can identify as the enemy. It isn't always a single person. In World War II it was Hitler and Mussolini in Europe, but it wasn't Tojo in Japan. Tojo was deposed in 1944, but the war went on. It also wasn't Hirohito; he mostly kept his hands off of policy. Still, it was the Japanese government, and that could still be understood.

But in this war there is no single government or small group of them, no man, no organization. Our enemy is a culture which is deeply diseased (and I really don't want to get into explaining it anymore). It's really difficult to exactly delineate who our enemies are, but they number in millions. They're Arab and Muslim, but not every Arab is among them, and most Muslims are not.

The indoctrinated hate that festers in the Middle East is very real and mixed with religious oppression and brutality it is very deadly. Al-Queda is not the first international Islamic terror agency and they will not be the last. Bin Laddens will come and go.

That is quite convenient isn't it? It's like your a dealer in a poker game, you fixed the deck, passed out the cards, and when your poker buddies say "hey wait a min..." then you tell them "hey don't worry about how those cards got there, just keep playing." But in your mind is probably, I'm cheating my poker buddies because I have bills to pay, I have mouths to feed, that justifies it. They don't need to know though, it's going to be for a good cause anyway!

There's nothing convenient about it. How would you like to be charged with protecting the world from tyranny, protect the water ways for international trade, honor/dishonor the inept promises of former Presidents, rob Peter to pay Paul to get something for the greater good done, be blamed by anti-Americans throughout the world as your own join the mob, etc. and have to do it while the average American complains that the media hasn't been able to present to them every single secret that may make our military and diplomatic efforts that much more difficult?

Here's one. Should an American President go on international television and tell the world all about the great Sunni problem we face in the Middle East? Should he produce the figures and facts regarding the Sunni bases in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the insurgency to show eher the true violnece is coming from? Should he then go into how the greater propulations of Shi'ite are in Lebanon, Iraq, and Iran-all democracies, despite their social struggles and despite Ahmewnadejad's nuclear quest-and have had far few international terrorists and pose less of a threat to us therefore enforcing the root of Islamic terror?

Is this how an American President is supposed to keep the American informed as he wrecks diplomatic ties and encourages friction between already unstable "stability?" Or should he do what all Presidents have done and expect the American people to crack a few books and learn about the globe they live on as he strives to do the right thing in a confusing world?

 

[Misfit]

It is my understanding that the disease of Arab fanaticism was not really prevelent in Iraq prior to our arrival. In fact, Saddam kept it well under control. Our arrival allows it to grow and open to the air. With more freedom, fanatics are more free to move and associate, and blow stuff up.

Now, this isn't how anyone wants things to be, but of all Saddam's sins, and he has enough to burn in hell for all eternity, he was a brutal dictator and not an Arab fanaticism.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by GySgt:
This is another disconnect by the visionless. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. It's all in the books and in reality. There is nothing to realize. The majority of the U.S. military (at least my part of it) knew exactly what Iraq was about. There was no confusion of a relationship between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, despite the average ignorant American and Presidential vocaling. But this is where people can't seem to not understand what we are facing. The disease of Arab fanaticism runs throughout the Middle East. Americans have died from Islamic terrorists for two decades stemming from all those nations and we had decided that turning our backs was the best way to deal with it. We have seen countless Bin Laddens, dictatorships through religion, numerous Saddams from one level to the next, international embassy bombings, plane hijackings, 9/11s, London bombings, Madrid bombings, Bali bombings, etc. These happenings aren't the root of our problems. These are symptoms of a disease. And why have we seen such things from one region? Why have so many around the globe had to die so that desperate angry men can serve their vengeful god? The self-prescribed religious culture of the Arab world is strangling the life blood out of this region. And dealing with it while preserving Saddam's iron fist is not the correct solution. The ironb fist, whether through religion or through a gun is exactly why oppresion festers supreme and it must change or we are going to have to accept that we will one day be fighting another world war (one not started by Europeans for a change, but they will be guilty of encouraging) and it will include nuclear weapons.

You have no idea of how disconnected you are from reality if you can sit there with a straight face and pass judgement on an entire culture of people. What I find ironic is abscence of the US role in creating that hate. It is all "them". "They" are the problem. "They" hate us because their culture is "failing" compared to our standards of what a culture should be. And it is ridiculous for anyone to think that just maybe some of that hatred with US might be the resentment they have for us making sure they had 12 years of sanctions that killed half their babies. Or us bombing the s.h.i.t out of them for that period trying to provoke them into a war. Like what Bush is trying to do with Iran right now by recalling that air craft carrier and bringing in Patriot missiles to defend against terrorist organizations that have no missles. No, it's got to be their failed religion and the fact the prefer Allah to God. Sanctions and bombs, who gets angry over those.

Originally posted by GySgt:
Iraq is a means to an end.

...of a half a million people who were a "paper clip" in time or just the eggs that got cracked in order to make our Iraqi omlette.

 

[MSgt]

It is my understanding that the disease of Arab fanaticism was not really prevelent in Iraq prior to our arrival. In fact, Saddam kept it well under control. Our arrival allows it to grow and open to the air. With more freedom, fanatics are more free to move and associate, and blow stuff up.

Now, this isn't how anyone wants things to be, but of all Saddam's sins, and he has enough to burn in hell for all eternity, he was a brutal dictator and not an Arab fanaticism.

EXACTLY!!!!!!

You are looking at the situation for what it is. However, move on to the next step. We cannot afford to maintain the policies of yesterday that maintained a "stability" by keeping the brutal dictator securely in place. Fanatics exist in this region and we can no longer accept that brutality will secure us. The fix is not the dictator that encourages oppression and the use of Mullahs when necessary. We have to do what is right and deal with the immediate consequences for the greater good in the long run. Look at Somalia, Ethiopia, Chad, Lebanon. Look at the Saudi royal family. They can no longer count on America to turn a blind eye to what they have conjured up through decades of fundamental support. and they are experimenting with low level elections. Egypt's latest pharoah is desperate to secure a throne for his son and can't afford internal discord and is dealing with "free" elections (the parenthesis means that they are more than likely staged or managed). Syria has become less inclined to encourage border crossing, though it still maintains support towards Baathist renegades. The only thing that terrifies the old orders is a free Arabic/Shi'ite nation that encourages human equality to all Muslims. But, what terrifies them more is a neighboring Arab/Shi'ite nation that bases their terrorist creations and threatens them. Of course, Tehran's old mullahs would be quite happy with never ending civil war in Iraq.

The Iraqi experiment is the beacon for change in the Middle East.

 

[MSgt]

You have no idea of how disconnected you are from reality if you can sit there with a straight face and pass judgement on an entire culture of people. What I find ironic is abscence of the US role in creating that hate. It is all "them". "They" are the problem. "They" hate us because their culture is "failing" compared to our standards of what a culture should be. And it is ridiculous for anyone to think that just maybe some of that hatred with US might be the resentment they have for us making sure they had 12 years of sanctions that killed half their babies. Or us bombing the s.h.i.t out of them for that period trying to provoke them into a war. Like what Bush is trying to do with Iran right now by recalling that air craft carrier and bringing in Patriot missiles to defend against terrorist organizations that have no missles. No, it's got to be their failed religion and the fact the prefer Allah to God. Sanctions and bombs, who gets angry over those.

I'm through with your weakness and your simplicities. I am sick of your needs to pretend that you maintain some absurd sense of what is happening and your transparent Gandhi-esque needs to act like Jesus himself. I am sick of your "nu-uhs" while producing your complete ignorance of Islam and history. I have grown tired of your PC sense of respecting that which is out to destroy you and your exhonerations from reality by accusing others of judgement. I have written enough times about the problems facing us which includes our roles. It is you that refuses to see all sides of this as you maintain a sense that America has walked this Arab problem straight to hell and forced this culture to become what it has self-prescribed for itself.

REALITY is truth. And no amount of designed ignorance will allow an individual wisdom.

...of a half a million people who were a "paper clip" in time or just the eggs that got cracked in order to make our Iraqi omlette.

Still with the half a million people? Still a slave to rumor and lies?

Let's do it annually.....

"Iraq's government officials reported that 16,273 Iraqi civilians, soldiers and police died violent deaths in 2006, a figure larger than an independent Associated Press count for the year by more than 2,500."
Yahoo! News Search Results for Iraq

16,273 X 4 years = 65,092 deaths (half a million?)

But let's do it monthly..

The tally of civilian deaths in Iraq hit a new high of 1,930 in December, suggesting sectarian violence that surged in the summer remains at peak levels.FT.com / In depth - Iraqi civilian deaths hit new monthly high

1,930 X 48 months = 92,640 deaths (half a million?)

And how many of those were, in fact, insurgents mistaken for civilians?

Sucks to be a victim of culture. How dare people die for their freedoms. If they didn't want freedom, then why such a turn out for elections (which was greater than what we see in America)? With enough integrity, you could recognize that it was our OSD errors that has allowed so many to die. But instead you voice for their oppressions under Saddam and condemn them to the prospect that they will never have their freedom. Perhaps if you weren't handed yours on a golden plate you would have more understanding of the third world instead of reading about it on anti-American web sites.

I think most of all I am tired of reading your whinings which are based solely on headline sensationalism and what ever report gives you the worst possible picture. Anti-war voices always seem to ruin their own credibility.

 

[Iriemon]

REALITY is truth. And no amount of designed ignorance will allow an individual wisdom.

Right! That's what we keep trying to tell you.

 

[MSgt]

Right! That's what we keep trying to tell you.

This would be worth something if I didn't posses most of the insightful knowledge about what is going on around us without maintaining a position inside the box.

You have had plenty of opportunity to demonstrate your knowledge of this, but you still mire yourself in mundane details and Liberal fantasies. There is noo wisdom in declaring "war is bad." There is nothing profound about stating that "people are dying in Iraq."

 

[Jenin]

Hey GySgt,

Can you tell me why you think the US military had to invade Iraq?
Given the fact that Iraq was no threat to the american people or their way of life.
If it is for hegemony (control of oil, military bases, ect), do you think that is morally justifyable?
Do you honestly believe that the administration did not know that Iraq had no feasible WMD program or was much of a threat to it's neighbors at the time of invasion?

thanks

 

[WI Crippler]

Hey GySgt,

Can you tell me why you think the US military had to invade Iraq?
Given the fact that Iraq was no threat to the american people or their way of life.
If it is for hegemony (control of oil, military bases, ect), do you think that is morally justifyable?
Do you honestly believe that the administration did not know that Iraq had no feasible WMD program or was much of a threat to it's neighbors at the time of invasion?

thanks

I think you need to read this entire thread. GySgt has explained this many times. I am sure he'll be happy to tell you in one of his famous, essay like responses though :2razz:

 

[Lightdemon]

The self-prescribed religious culture of the Arab world is strangling the life blood out of this region. And dealing with it while preserving Saddam's iron fist is not the correct solution. The ironb fist, whether through religion or through a gun is exactly why oppresion festers supreme and it must change or we are going to have to accept that we will one day be fighting another world war (one not started by Europeans for a change, but they will be guilty of encouraging) and it will include nuclear weapons.

Self-prescribed? It doomed itself? You must be really delusional if you truly believe that...
The Arab world is a product of at least a century of warfare, not among itself, but internationally. We can see from the beginnings of WW2, the US was very involved in shaping of what is now the Middle East (that's how the US got their relationship with the Saudis). Before the US it was France and Britain. Everyone wanted a piece of the ME because the ME contained the world's largest reserve of crude oil, the most valuable commodity we have in the industrial world that is today. Also the fall of the Soviet Union, allowed Jews to emmigrate to Israel, which further complicated things because Israel is one of the major conflicts in the ME. And before the the Soviet fell, they tried to establish themselves in Afghanistan (again, for the oil because they were in the Cold War), but they failed, but nevertheless they certainly influenced the Arab world.

How can you say that they brought it upon themselves if there were so many involved in shaping the ME? You have to be kidding yourself. The reason for you saying that is to justify what the US is trying to do. You think that the US is so altruistic, that it is up to us to save the ME, HELL save the world even!

But whats worse is that you say its a self-prescribed "religious" culture. Given the circumstances, which is illustrated by the fact that all the industrialized superpowers want a piece in that great oil reserve. The leaders in the ME has to run thier countries in a militaristic fashion, there is no other way because its being attacked from all sides. How else is a nation going to defend itself? They certainly cannot negotiate, they dont have the proper leverages in negotiation. It would be like a mouse negotiating with a cat!

But given these circumstances, religion is very miniscule when it comes to influence. However, that is not to say that religion has no part. It is the rulers and leaders who used religion to make policies, but religion itself does not. So your attempt to make this seem like a disease that stemmed from the religion of the ME is not accurate.

But in this war there is no single government or small group of them, no man, no organization. Our enemy is a culture which is deeply diseased (and I really don't want to get into explaining it anymore). It's really difficult to exactly delineate who our enemies are, but they number in millions. They're Arab and Muslim, but not every Arab is among them, and most Muslims are not.

This seems like a good summary of your entire post. Basically:
US enemy = ME civilization

....an ENTIRE civilization? Is this like a neo-genocidal way of thought?

You fail to define who the enemy are, but you say they are in the millions. You generalize them to be mainly Arab and Muslim, but not everyone of them. This sounds like a hunter that has just entered the woods and firing at anything that moves.


And here's the highlight of your post:

How would you like to be charged with protecting the world from tyranny, protect the water ways for international trade, honor/dishonor the inept promises of former Presidents, rob Peter to pay Paul to get something for the greater good done, be blamed by anti-Americans throughout the world as your own join the mob, etc. and have to do it while the average American complains that the media hasn't been able to present to them every single secret that may make our military and diplomatic efforts that much more difficult?

How would I like it? That's a pretty presumptious question. Presuming that the US are the ones charged with protecting the entire world! That it is the US's responsiblity to govern the world. That the US should just ASSUME power over all nations, and dictate who is allowed nuclear weapons and who is not, and of course the ones who are allowed to have them will be us!

Here's one. Should an American President go on international television and tell the world all about the great Sunni problem we face in the Middle East? Should he produce the figures and facts regarding the Sunni bases in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the insurgency to show eher the true violnece is coming from? Should he then go into how the greater propulations of Shi'ite are in Lebanon, Iraq, and Iran-all democracies, despite their social struggles and despite Ahmewnadejad's nuclear quest-and have had far few international terrorists and pose less of a threat to us therefore enforcing the root of Islamic terror?

How about the US actually follow internation laws, and actually participate in international criminal court? The US is a signatory of the Geneva conventions (III), promising to uphold the laws and agreements, but the US never gets prosecuted because we dont participate in international courts. It's a a "yes, we agree to the laws, but no, you can't punish us if we don't follow them" kind of agreement. How about we agree to do this before we engage in ANYTHING international. That way we are accountable for our actions because as of now, there is no justice. No matter who "charged" you with the responsbility of protecting the world from tyranny, you cannnot do justice.

So who exactly "charged" us with this responsibility? The american people? Those who say "protect us from the world" "protect us from those who envy our liberties" "protect those who want to violate freedom"? They have no right to do so.

 

[Lightdemon]

There is noo wisdom in declaring "war is bad." There is nothing profound about stating that "people are dying in Iraq."

And on the flip side, there is no profound wisdom by stating "we justify our actions by promoting democracy" and "we are the liberators, and rightfully so."

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by GySgt:
I'm through with your weakness and your simplicities. I am sick of your needs to pretend that you maintain some absurd sense of what is happening and your transparent Gandhi-esque needs to act like Jesus himself. I am sick of your "nu-uhs" while producing your complete ignorance of Islam and history. I have grown tired of your PC sense of respecting that which is out to destroy you and your exhonerations from reality by accusing others of judgement. I have written enough times about the problems facing us which includes our roles. It is you that refuses to see all sides of this as you maintain a sense that America has walked this Arab problem straight to hell and forced this culture to become what it has self-prescribed for itself.

REALITY is truth. And no amount of designed ignorance will allow an individual wisdom.

I understand exactly what your saying. Our debates now are just reruns of the old ones. Our arguments have gone into syndication.

Originally posted by GySgt:
Still with the half a million people? Still a slave to rumor and lies?

Let's do it annually.....

"Iraq's government officials reported that 16,273 Iraqi civilians, soldiers and police died violent deaths in 2006, a figure larger than an independent Associated Press count for the year by more than 2,500."
Yahoo! News Search Results for Iraq

16,273 X 4 years = 65,092 deaths (half a million?)

But let's do it monthly..

The tally of civilian deaths in Iraq hit a new high of 1,930 in December, suggesting sectarian violence that surged in the summer remains at peak levels.FT.com / In depth - Iraqi civilian deaths hit new monthly high

1,930 X 48 months = 92,640 deaths (half a million?)

And how many of those were, in fact, insurgents mistaken for civilians?

Sucks to be a victim of culture. How dare people die for their freedoms. If they didn't want freedom, then why such a turn out for elections (which was greater than what we see in America)? With enough integrity, you could recognize that it was our OSD errors that has allowed so many to die. But instead you voice for their oppressions under Saddam and condemn them to the prospect that they will never have their freedom. Perhaps if you weren't handed yours on a golden plate you would have more understanding of the third world instead of reading about it on anti-American web sites.

I think most of all I am tired of reading your whinings which are based solely on headline sensationalism and what ever report gives you the worst possible picture. Anti-war voices always seem to ruin their own credibility.

Your sources are no more accurate or valid than mine. Why do you call it a lie, when you know and I know, nobody knows!

These are my anti-American websites:

• Amnesty International
• ICRC
• Veteran's for Peace
• Iraq Veteran's Against War
• Truthout.org
• FAIR
• Consortium News
• Empire Notes
• Cornell Law University
• Bagdad is Burning
• Juan Cole
• Right Wing News
• Mother Jones

And that's just the short list of websites.

It's not the only sources I go to for information. I get information from wherever I can get it. And that even holds true if that information comes from FOX or Al Jeezerah. Do you know how childish and immature it is to base the substance of an entire article soley on the source of that article. Philosophy calls that an ad hominum.

I can see where it is easier for you to blow me off than to spend any effort trying to understand my point. Because that, for you, would open up a can of worms from which there is no return.

You definately do not want to go there!

Although I did for you...

 

[Billo_Really]

ME reaction to Bush's speech...

Rising Regional Anger: Middle East Shaking Its Head
By Megan K. Stack and Ken Ellingwood
The Los Angeles Times Friday 12 January 2007

Bush sees a regional solution in his plan for Iraq. But Arab states say the problem is the US.

Cairo - In ordering more American troops into Iraq, President Bush said he was sending a message of hope to millions of Arabs and Afghans trapped in violence. But to many on the ground in the Mideast, the speech spoke volumes of a gaping disconnect between high-flown U.S. promises and a deadly, turbulent reality.

After long years of war and political disillusionment, Bush would have been hard-pressed to come up with any message that would please the Arab world. Analysts say public opinion of the United States has sunk to an unprecedented low, with no end in sight to the bloodletting in Iraq or the Palestinian territories.

Many here, long mired in bloodshed and sinking deeper into sectarian tensions, hold America squarely to blame for both.

Rather than sowing political progress, they say, the U.S. presence in Iraq has poisoned the mood so thoroughly that secular and moderate activists now stay silent for fear of being tarred as American agents.

"What the United States did for the region is destruction for the forces who believe in democracy, rule of law and human rights," said Raji Sourani, director of the Palestinian Center for Human Rights in Gaza City. "We are the real victims."

The Bush administration has repeatedly portrayed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq as a boost, albeit a painful one, for Arab democracy and human rights. Victory in Baghdad will bring a brighter era to the entire region, U.S. officials have promised.

But after waves of outrage over torture in the Abu Ghraib prison, the spectacle of Saddam Hussein's trial and execution, and sectarian slaughter in the streets of Baghdad, few people here seem able to articulate what, exactly, the United States is even trying to accomplish.

"The U.S. should pull out its troops from Iraq because innocent people are dying every day, including U.S. soldiers," said Karim Salhab, a 25-year-old accountant in Beirut. "I don't think it's fair for the families of these soldiers that their kids die for nothing."

Conventional wisdom here holds that, because the U.S. invasion pitched Iraq into civil war, only an American withdrawal can set the shattered nation back on the road toward stability.

Bush "mismanaged and brutalized Iraq too long to even hope for stability while the troops stay," said Mohammed Sayed Said, an analyst at the Al Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo. "The reservoir of violence and bitterness and agonies is so huge that hoping for stability in the immediate future is self-deception at best."

If the United States really wanted to boost stability, many Arabs say, the Bush administration would aggressively seek a cure for the regional sore spot of Israeli-Palestinian violence.

Foremost among the causes of bloodshed in Iraq, according to an editorial Thursday in the pan-Arab Al Quds al Arabi newspaper, "is the U.S. occupation's bias in favor of one sect at the expense of the other, and its humiliation of the members of the latter in a manner that reveals a strong desire for revenge."

"The increase in the number of American military forces can escalate insecurity and tension in Iraq and work against solving that country's problems," Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammed Ali Hosseini told reporters in Tehran. "America is trying to accuse and blame other countries for interference in Iraq to cover its policymaking mistakes in that country."

Bush, in announcing his plans to beef up the number of American troops in Iraq, spoke of "millions of ordinary people ... sick of the violence" in Afghanistan, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. They are all looking to Iraq, he said.

"They want to know: Will America withdraw and yield the future of that country to extremists?" he said.

But many Palestinians said Bush had it backward. Only by making peace between Palestinians and Israelis, they said, would stability come to the region as a whole.

"If there is peace here, there will be peace in Iraq," said Badar Salem, a 26-year-old office worker shopping in the West Bank city of Ramallah. "If Bush solves the Palestinian question first, then he will put an end to extremists, mainly the Islamic extremists, because they will not use the Palestinian question as a pretext for their activities everywhere."

Those sentiments echo the report issued in Washington last month by the Iraq Study Group, which linked stability in Iraq to progress in settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Preoccupied with the conflict with Israel and internecine fighting, many Palestinians described the war in Iraq as a bleak, remote reality. As to Bush's suggestion that their fate hinged somehow on that of the Iraqi government, many Palestinians scoffed.

"Bush should work on solving the Palestinian question peacefully first," said Muhannad Abdul Hanid, a Palestinian newspaper columnist in the West Bank city of Ramallah.

In Afghanistan, people were too focused on "survival and getting through the winter" to pay much heed to Bush's plans for Iraq, said George Varughese, the acting representative in Afghanistan for the Asia Foundation.

"What happens in Iraq is just not something that's front and center for them," he said.

Reality is not that hard to see when you look for it.

 

[teacher]

Did someone say Billo?

Ain't read one word of this thread.

But then being penned by Billo why bother?

Hear's the deal...

We gonna be shooting stupid Arabs in the head for a long time to come.

With any luck, that will keep the mushroom clouds from gracing the skies of our fair nation.

It's the way our future is folks, make no bones about it.

Pretty much it is a race between the civilizing of the freed Arab women and the reeducation of thier male children. That's all. A generation or two from now will it be the free women or the grudge holding old men that influence the young? By then they will have Nukes, plain and simple, nothing we can do to stop that. But you morons can't seem to adress that point, can you?

Better to scream...

"Bush lied".
"Nuh-uh".
"Did too".

Cause that's what the TV tells you to do.

Morons.

Miss me?