Symmetrical_Argument said:But Iraq was just a dictatorship with thugs loyal to Saddam & they'd probably be shot if they were loyal to anyone else like Al Queda.
Iraq is not the right place to fight a war on terror.
Symmetrical_Argument said:I can only say that for a huge a huge Soviet army, Afganistan became their Vietnam, so what's different now ?
Iriemon said:Jeez you almost sound logical. I concur.
POLITICAL JEDI said:1. How did we get from ""Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists and every government that supports them," "And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism." to a place that lets hundreds of thousands march in the streets of a country we liberated, shouting: "Death to America" "Death to Israel"?
2. And can someone please tell me how we got to a place that allows Iran and Syria to fund and arm their client, terrorist group Hezbollah, and then have hezbollah attack democratic Israel with Katusha rockets without a response on Iran and Syria?
From the reports I've read, hezbollahs leader enjoys the shelter of the Iranian embassy while planning his next attack. Syria's Assad, and Iran's Ahmadinejad are enjoying comfort rather then bombardment.
3. If this is the best Bush has got in the "war on terror" then 3 more years in Iraq is a waste. It's a waste because the ideology of hate, wrapped up in religion, martyrdom, and fascism remains. This is what needs fighting. This is what must be brought to it's knees.
GySgt said:A "War on Terror" (I do not like the name, because it is too vague) has to start somewhere. It is not and has never been about chasing down single terrorists. The path to Middle Eastern reform had to start somewhere. Saddam's Iraq gave us our best place to start.
1) Iraq was secular as compared to the rest of the Middle East
2) Saddam's loss in the Middle East would not be something the rest of the Middle East would rally to fight to prevent.
3) Iraq's symptoms of failure were identical to the failures in surrounding Islamic countries.
4) Iraq is strategically placed in the Middle East.
Like it or not, Iraq is the best chance the Middle East has at reform. Saddam's fall was very symbolic to the Middle East. It scared the hell out of every tyrant and religious fanatic throughout the region. He was the number one offender of Islam and worst oppressor in the area....and we finally removed him. However, we did not think we could defeat the spread of Soviet communism by attacking Moscow, nor will defeat Radical Islam by attacking the Arab heartland. Iraq will not be the deciding factor. Our efforts need start on the fringes of Islam. We have to employ a tactic called "roll back." We have to counteract the Arab fundamental spending from Africa to Europe to Asia and even onto North America.
We are not trying to rule Iraqis. We merely toppled a thorn in our side and a ruthless dictator. We are currently supporting the vast majority in the security of their newly elected government. Iraq belongs to Iraqis.
The comparison of Iraq to Vietnam is sophomoric. It's very Rambo.
Stop using my name in your moronic posts, Yank.RightOfCenter said:... volker ...
Hoot said:I think this is part of the problem. Many of us believe the solutions to the Mid East do not lie on the battleground.
Symmetrical_Argument said:Oh no, not 'sophomoric' again. It could be argued that people that need to resort to the word sophomoric all the time are sophomoric themselves :roll:
Symmetrical_Argument said:1) Iraq is riddled with religion.
Symmetrical_Argument said:3)I don't think rich countries like Suidi, Egypt, Lebanon, the gulf states etc are that similiar to Iraq.
Symmetrical_Argument said:4) Now that may be the real reason you showed so much concern for liberating the people of Iraq from a dictator when you've spent so much time in the past installing them !
Symmetrical_Argument said:I hadn't noticed. It seems to have made them hell bent on a fight.
Symmetrical_Argument said:The Muslim heartland is everywhere. Even in British mosques !
Indeed it is everywhere that there are people willing to surrender their ability to think freely by substituting religious gobbdly gook for the process of thought.
What ?!GySgt said:If you stop stooping to such sophomoric simple sentiments, then you might stop seeing the word "sophomoric." I see you responded to three of my four points. Here's a hint...if you have to pick apart the point to find the argument...then you may want to step back and re-evaluate your sentiment.
I didn't say Iraq was secular. You did. I said it was riddled with religion.GySgt said:...your point is? Welcome to the Middle East. "Secular" was a word you brought up and labeled upon Iraq. I merely responded to it with further explanation. I referenced "Secular" to the running of the government as compared to the rest of the Middle East. In Iraq....it was all about Saddam's law...not Allah's law. That was secondary. But all that pent up frustration, rage, and passed down racism bent on revenge came right out after we removed their dictator. Say's something doesn't it? America has freed two countries of their oppressive and brutal sponsership, but the people are unable to sustain a peace without that tyranny as the rest of the world sits back and uselessly criticizes.
Culture is fate.
GySgt said:3) Inability to accept responsibility for individual or collective failure.
4) The extended family or clan as the basic unit of social organization.
5) Domination by a restrictive religion.
6) A low valuation of education.
7) Low prestige assigned to work.
Iraq was different under Saddam compared to other arab countries in the extreme degree of his dictatorship.GySgt said:Still desperately looking for ways to seperate Iraq from the entire Middle East?
Or is your point just to criticize for the sake of criticizing? Anything real to contribute at all?
I think we know all this.GySgt said:..."hell bent on a fight"....Which is their reaction to fear. Since Saddam went down, the Radical element has done everything possible to cling to their passed down traditions. They have pushed their societies further into failure and cling even tightly to their religious roots. Even Al-Queda has gone to desperate lengths to "prove" to the Muslim world that they are still a force to fear. They have gone from attacking legitimate military targets to the slothfullassassination of civilians - even their own Muslims. Change in the Middle East scares the hell out of our enemies and many of our critics. "Stability" in the Middle East has given the world (and our hypocritical and cowardly "allies" in Europe) their oil supply as it endangered American lives, because we are the ones that provided it. "Stability" has ensured that Radical Islam had a purpose and a struggle. Without this status quo "stability," our "allies" are scrambling and Islamic Radicals are desperate and lashing out. Islam as a mundane organizing tool is failing all over the world and unfamiliarity scares them.
The Muslim heartland is everywhere. So trying to swat Muslim flies in Iraq is doing nothing whatsover to make the UK safe. It's making the Muslim flies in our country angry & so some turn into London tube & plane bombers.GySgt said:Well, that is a sweet sentiment....but I didn't say "Muslim" heartland. I said "Arab" heartland. The "Arab" heartland is the Middle East, specifically Saudi Arabia. It is the birth place of Islam. If you are determined to discuss these things with me, at least try to keep up.
I said Afganistan, not Iraq. Though you could compare Iraq to Nam also.GySgt said:We are not trying to rule Iraqis. We merely toppled a thorn in our side and a ruthless dictator. We are currently supporting the vast majority in the security of their newly elected government. Iraq belongs to Iraqis.
The comparison of Iraq to Vietnam is sophomoric. It's very Rambo.
Symmetrical_Argument said:What ?!
The easiest & most methodcal & orderly way to deal with points is separately & one at a time.
Symmetrical_Argument said:I didn't say Iraq was secular. You did. I said it was riddled with religion.
Symmetrical_Argument said:3) As per a typical US government failure to act on intelligence pre 911 & then accept is was not acted on.
Symmetrical_Argument said:4) What's wrong with that ?
Symmetrical_Argument said:5) Middle America ????
Symmetrical_Argument said:6) One of the latest liquid bomber terrorists being investigated is a brillaint maths lecturer. There are plenty of educated academic religious idiots. I know , I work with some of them. It's not education that is needed. It's less religion that's needed
Symmetrical_Argument said:7) There's plenty of that attitude in the west.
Symmetrical_Argument said:Iraq was different under Saddam compared to other arab countries in the extreme degree of his dictatorship.
Symmetrical_Argument said:I think we know all this.
Symmetrical_Argument said:The Muslim heartland is everywhere. So trying to swat Muslim flies in Iraq - (Hello pobinr, robin, etc..) is doing nothing whatsover to make the UK safe. It's making the Muslim flies in our country angry & so some turn into London tube & plane bombers.
Symmetrical_Argument said:I said Afganistan, not Iraq. Though you could compare Iraq to Nam also.
picking the points out that you can argue while dismissing the points you can't usually means a re-evaluation of your sentiments.
Middle America does not conduct it's government by the rule of the Bible. Middle America does not oppress the masses based on a single dogmatic religion and call it the will of "God."
Navy Seal Patriot said:You do it all the time; don't pull that phony baloney that you don't; tell me smart one is this nation a Democracy or a Republic? :shock:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?