Thread: Why i think the USA won't Nuke or invade Iran

Originally Posted by bluefinger

But whether Al-Qaeda was directly sponsored at all by Saddam is the big question, one I don't think will be really answered. A big unknown in the whole Iraq conflict.

Al-Qaeda and Saddam were enemies. They hated him for being too secular.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

But whether Al-Qaeda was directly sponsored at all by Saddam is the big question, one I don't think will be really answered. A big unknown in the whole Iraq conflict.

That is an issue you brought up. I would say they probably never collaborated on anything, but the potential was there. Al Qaeda + WMD's = COMPLETELY OUT OF THE QUESTION. Even if the Hussein regime did not have WMD's at the time of the invasion, they had used them before, and they had the programs. They even had a nuclear program until Israel bombed the factory. But my point was that the Hussein regime was a terrorist government.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Not really with the whole Islamofascist thing... what this prolonged conflict is doing amongst islamic countries is merely polarising the view of muslims in respect to their view on the US. Killing and capturing 'Islamofascists' doesn't stop the perpetuation of the extremist rhetoric amongst the islamic community. You can't change the views of a community by pointing a gun at them, otherwise you are no better than Saddam! If I really believed this war was for freeing Iraq from dictatorship, and not really for ulterior motives, then I would view this war in a more positive view, and I would be agreeing with you more on certain issues.

We are killing and capturing the ones willing to die in the name of Islam. The more we kill, the merrier. We are not pointing guns at the communities. We are pointing guns at the scum that is targeting the communities. The communities are understanding that more and more as time goes on. That is why we keep winning over communities.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

I am well aware of what Iraq went through under the Saddam regime, however, now it's insurgents and Islamic terrorists that plague Iraq. Out of the Frying pan and into the Fire, figuratively speaking.

A transition phase with great hope is worlds better than Hell with no hope.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Yes, it is happening... however, if there really was a plan straight from the beginning on getting Iraq to be a shining example of a democratic nation, then it would have been evident straight from the beginning. It just seems to me a lot of what's happened in Iraq has come from ulterior motives within the US administration, such as securing the oil reserves, etc. I doubt the current US administration would have made the same move if Iraq didn't have oil.

If oil were the big issue, we would take over Canada.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

I'll wait and see with what happens in Iraq. I know that things are getting done, and that the US is in Iraq, it must finish what it started. Whilst I do want troops out, I'd rather see a progressive plan developed so to make sure the main objectives of securing the nation from insurgency are completed before ultimately removing troop presence in Iraq. Permanent occupation should not be an option, as that will only exacerbate the polarisation of opinion on the US around the world, not just within the muslim community.

I too hope we get out soon. I am not with McCain in thinking we might need another 100 years. I think we are about ready to tell the Iraqi government we are about to leave and that they better get their act together. That might end up being what it takes for them to finally really get it all together. I might even venture to say that we are ready to do it now. Maybe one more year.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Al-Qaeda and Saddam were enemies. They hated him for being too secular.

The United States and the Soviet Union were enemies.

I had seen the video before. I suppose there are different kind of tasers: http://youtube.com/watch?v=LquQWfFSteU&feature=related

What if the attackers have uzis too?

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

I had seen the video before. I suppose there are different kind of tasers: http://youtube.com/watch?v=LquQWfFSteU&feature=related

What if the attackers have uzis too?

You will definitely need more than a taser.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Al-Qaeda and Saddam were enemies. They hated him for being too secular.

Thanks for that, will take note of it.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That is an issue you brought up. I would say they probably never collaborated on anything, but the potential was there. Al Qaeda + WMD's = COMPLETELY OUT OF THE QUESTION. Even if the Hussein regime did not have WMD's at the time of the invasion, they had used them before, and they had the programs. They even had a nuclear program until Israel bombed the factory. But my point was that the Hussein regime was a terrorist government.

Hmm... but the link between Al Qaeda and Saddam was so tenuous that such an assumption of that potential would have made Iran a much more valid target than Iraq. Hell, Pakistan has enough problems with extremists and the government has nukes, so again, no invasion or troop deployment in that direction.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We are killing and capturing the ones willing to die in the name of Islam. The more we kill, the merrier. We are not pointing guns at the communities. We are pointing guns at the scum that is targeting the communities. The communities are understanding that more and more as time goes on. That is why we keep winning over communities.

You kill people willing to die for their extremist belief, but the ones who actually inspire and spread extremist rhetoric remain at large. Putting this in terms of gardening, you are simply cutting the weeds from the stem and not dealing with the root.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

A transition phase with great hope is worlds better than Hell with no hope.

True dat.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If oil were the big issue, we would take over Canada.

Again, I only mentioned one thing. To be honest, there are many reasons I think the US chose Iraq and not other places, not just to remove one dictator from his decadent palace. Reasons would include: Oil, Pressure to keep Defence Contractors happy (look up statistics for the number of people contracted in security firms for Iraq), Permanent Troop Presence in Iraq for applying direct pressure to neighbouring states, etc.

I simply doubt the sincerity of the US Administration. I don't think they've been completely honest with the rest of us, and I also point the blame at Tony Blair for being such a suck-up to Bush (Even us brits are to blame). Plus, at the moment, we are having our own scandals which are rocking our own government left to right.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I too hope we get out soon. I am not with McCain in thinking we might need another 100 years. I think we are about ready to tell the Iraqi government we are about to leave and that they better get their act together. That might end up being what it takes for them to finally really get it all together. I might even venture to say that we are ready to do it now. Maybe one more year.

I think Obama has the right idea to set a date, but it shouldn't be too early. Too early, and the chance for things to simply fall apart back into chaos is just too much. I think he needs to listen to Colin Powell on the matter, as what I heard him say on the Iraq conflict on a CNN interview pretty much nailed things exactly on the spot on what had to be done. Even his comment on how to deal with Iran was similar to what I had mentioned earlier.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Hmmm... so in other words, you'd put your country before your loved ones? Not exactly something I understand myself, since if any sort of invasion occurred where I'm at, I would primarily focus on protecting family and friends.

Are you serious bluefinger? Or are you not reading anything I'm posting? How can you generate that assumption it's really beyond me. I specifically stated " I could give a damn about this country!" what does that statement mean to you? Or is it that you just don't really understand?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Are you serious bluefinger? Or are you not reading anything I'm posting? How can you generate that assumption it's really beyond me. I specifically stated " I could give a damn about this country!" what does that statement mean to you? Or is it that you just don't really understand?

Grammatically, the positive connotation that "could" implies (as opposed to the use of the negative "couldn't") means I translate the quoted sentence as you saying "you give a damn" as opposed to "you not giving a damn". This could be due to difference in colloquialisms, but otherwise I think that's why I didn't read what you said correctly.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You will definitely need more than a taser.

And certainly no gun would help either.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Grammatically, the positive connotation that "could" implies (as opposed to the use of the negative "couldn't") means I translate the quoted sentence as you saying "you give a damn" as opposed to "you not giving a damn". This could be due to difference in colloquialisms, but otherwise I think that's why I didn't read what you said correctly.

Well since you're referring to the grammatical usages of words then I guess you already knew that I was using a negative polarity item which is used only within the scope of semantic negation of some sort; i.e. not, never, only, rarely, few, etc. Hence the perceived strangeness to you of the statement, I could give a damn, which has no overt negative, but means the same thing as the same phrase with a negative. Thus making this statement an idiomatic intensification of a negative but doesn't require a negative connotation to intensify it's meaning. You know you never know what you may learn watching TLC.

You have wisdom beyond your years.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Well since you're referring to the grammatical usages of words then I guess you already knew that I was using a negative polarity item which is used only within the scope of semantic negation of some sort; i.e. not, never, only, rarely, few, etc. Hence the perceived strangeness to you of the statement, I could give a damn, which has no overt negative, but means the same thing as the same phrase with a negative. Thus making this statement an idiomatic intensification of a negative but doesn't require a negative connotation to intensify it's meaning. You know you never know what you may learn watching TLC.

You have wisdom beyond your years.

And of course, I will take note of this for future reference. The problem with mere words is that without vocal projection through variations in tone, along with body language and facial expressions to further augment the meaning of the words, it is harder to pick out the more subtle nuances of conversation and colloquialisms. But nonetheless, one learns something new every day.

Sorry if I got the wrong end of the stick with your previous posts, and thanks, you are also quite the erudite individual.

A shotgun is going to do a lot more than any taser will, if your trying to defend your home.

As for WMD, we all knew saddam didn't have anything, except maybe a couple of 20 year old weapons that everyone knew was useless. They obviously weren't making anything new.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You cannot equate China invading the United States with the United States invading Iraq. We are not an oppressed terrorist dictatorship where genocide occurs, and China would not be here to save us from such a government. They would be here to give us one. Humongous difference.

Also, the insurgents in Iraq know that we would leave if they would stop engaging in insurgency. They are not fighting to get us to leave. They could do that by not fighting. They are fighting to prevent democracy.

The USa comes in on less then legitmiate reasons and over throws the country and puts takns and soldiers in the streets and they break into peoples h ouses and walk all over people and IRaqis dont like that shit. Promises of "democracy" wont stop people from not liking being walked on like that they will fight.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Hmm... but the link between Al Qaeda and Saddam was so tenuous that such an assumption of that potential would have made Iran a much more valid target than Iraq. Hell, Pakistan has enough problems with extremists and the government has nukes, so again, no invasion or troop deployment in that direction.

Pakistan is an ally, and Musharoff does not have Hussein's record. Major difference. They also, like Iran, did not violate a ceasefire with us on several terrorism grounds for twelve years and never engaged in WMD terrorism.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

You kill people willing to die for their extremist belief, but the ones who actually inspire and spread extremist rhetoric remain at large. Putting this in terms of gardening, you are simply cutting the weeds from the stem and not dealing with the root.

Saddam Hussein does not remain at large. His government does not remain in existence. Khallid Sheik Muhammed does not remain at large. The majority of Al Qaeda's leadership does not remain at large. The scum in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib do not remain at large. The Taliban does not remain in power in Afghanistan. May I ask what you are talking about?

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Again, I only mentioned one thing. To be honest, there are many reasons I think the US chose Iraq and not other places, not just to remove one dictator from his decadent palace. Reasons would include: Oil, Pressure to keep Defence Contractors happy (look up statistics for the number of people contracted in security firms for Iraq), Permanent Troop Presence in Iraq for applying direct pressure to neighbouring states, etc.

What about the reasons I named?

Originally Posted by bluefinger

I simply doubt the sincerity of the US Administration. I don't think they've been completely honest with the rest of us, and I also point the blame at Tony Blair for being such a suck-up to Bush (Even us brits are to blame). Plus, at the moment, we are having our own scandals which are rocking our own government left to right.

I don't understand why you don't think the reasons I have listed are serious concerns.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

The USa comes in on less then legitmiate reasons and over throws the country and puts takns and soldiers in the streets and they break into peoples h ouses and walk all over people and IRaqis dont like that shit. Promises of "democracy" wont stop people from not liking being walked on like that they will fight.

Less than legitimate reasons? Invoking the stated consequence of noncompliance with a ceasefire is legitimate. Taking down an enemy terrorist government with a history of WMD terrorism is legitimate. Acting on WMD intelligence (regerding a terrorist government) from five other governments, people in the U.N., and your own CIA, Senate (Democrats included), and previous presidential administration (Clinton and Gore) is legitimate. Setting up shop to kill or capture tens of thousands of nutty terrorists is legitimate. Liberating a country from a horribly oppressive, international terrorist, genocidal dictatorship is legitimate. Most of the innocents do not have their houses broken into. If it happens, it is a mistake. We took down a terrible government and put up a far better one. The terrorists we are fighting there come from all over the Middle East, and they are opposing democracy. It is the only plausible explanation. They know that all they would have to get us to leave is stop fighting us. But they are not doing that. Are they? I would love for you to explain that. If they want us to leave, why do they not do what would get us to leave? Why do they instead do exactly what gets us to stay? I have asked that question about a hundred times now. Do you have an answer?

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

And certainly no gun would help either.

It depends on how fast the victim is with a gun. A taser, on the other hand, would be worthless.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=1a8goWjZGdo

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Pakistan is an ally, and Musharoff does not have Hussein's record. Major difference. They also, like Iran, did not violate a ceasefire with us on several terrorism grounds for twelve years and never engaged in WMD terrorism.

Indeed, but nonetheless, troops could have gone there in order to support an ally in his fight to keep terrorists at bay. Though Musharaf himself looks to be quite the inept fellow, but that's something else entirely.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Saddam Hussein does not remain at large. His government does not remain in existence. Khallid Sheik Muhammed does not remain at large. The majority of Al Qaeda's leadership does not remain at large. The scum in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib do not remain at large. The Taliban does not remain in power in Afghanistan. May I ask what you are talking about?

Everywhere else. Just because you kill a few head figures and put people into military prisons doesn't mean you are tackling extremism.

The thing with battling extremism is that it is battle of ideologies. Kill an Islamic extremist, do other extremists cower in fear as a result? No, they claim the dead one to be a martyr and then are simply spurred on to fight. So how do you change this?

By winning the hearts and minds of people from which the terrorists rely on for recruits.

You say are winning communities over in Iraq, yes, quite true, but the fact that a lot of terrorists come from neighbouring states with large Islamic communities means you cannot tackle them directly with force. The only way is to play a war of ideas, because that is the only real way of reaching out to these people. Hell, the people who tried to bomb the London tube again after 7/7 and failed were all british citizens. The fact they were inticed by the extreme ideas means that nothing has been done to tackle directly with the spread of extremist rhetoric.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What about the reasons I named?

I don't understand why you don't think the reasons I have listed are serious concerns.

Listen, I acknowledge the reasons you have provided to be serious concerns, though I simply feel that the current US administration is simply taking a chance on certain circumstances in order to profit from this. That is all.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Less than legitimate reasons? Invoking the stated consequence of noncompliance with a ceasefire is legitimate. Taking down an enemy terrorist government with a history of WMD terrorism is legitimate. Acting on WMD intelligence (regerding a terrorist government) from five other governments, people in the U.N., and your own CIA, Senate (Democrats included), and previous presidential administration (Clinton and Gore) is legitimate. Setting up shop to kill or capture tens of thousands of nutty terrorists is legitimate. Liberating a country from a horribly oppressive, international terrorist, genocidal dictatorship is legitimate. Most of the innocents do not have their houses broken into. If it happens, it is a mistake. We took down a terrible government and put up a far better one. The terrorists we are fighting there come from all over the Middle East, and they are opposing democracy. It is the only plausible explanation. They know that all they would have to get us to leave is stop fighting us. But they are not doing that. Are they? I would love for you to explain that. If they want us to leave, why do they not do what would get us to leave? Why do they instead do exactly what gets us to stay? I have asked that question about a hundred times now. Do you have an answer?

In a battle against terrorism, you aren't really fighting people, because no matter how many terrorists you kill, there will always be more. To fight terrorism, you must apply a direct attack on the very rhetoric. This means taking the conflict into a battle of ideas. So, what do the terrorists use to proliferate a lot of their rhetoric? Simple... the internet. I think more has to be done in order to play the terrorists at their own game, as opposed to simply killing them as they come. They post pictures of them training, post pictures of US troops helping people. They post videos of them showing strength, you post videos of US troops going the extra mile to make sure village A gets running water and electricity, etcetera. However, this battle extends beyond Youtube, and more needs to be spent on improving the image of the US Army.

Terrorists come because of their own rhetoric demanding it. They want an extreme theistic government/dictatorships to rule as opposed to the public choosing their secular governments, and wish to impose extremely strict Islamic law upon the masses. But if people won't join terrorist because they perceive the US as trying to make things better, as opposed to worse, then immediately you are tackling the terrorists where it hurts most, because only then does the death or capture of a fellow terrorist really hurt their operations.

I hope this answers your question.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Indeed, but nonetheless, troops could have gone there in order to support an ally in his fight to keep terrorists at bay. Though Musharaf himself looks to be quite the inept fellow, but that's something else entirely.

We do not have his consent. Musharraf is afraid he would be overthrown if he gave it to us. We don't want to oppose an ally we need, and we don't want him to lose his power. Such events would be disasters. That is why when Obama said we should invade Pakistan, I thought at that very moment that he had completely disqualified himself from being the president.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Everywhere else. Just because you kill a few head figures and put people into military prisons doesn't mean you are tackling extremism.

You said we were not going after the root figures. We are, and we are succeeding.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

The thing with battling extremism is that it is battle of ideologies. Kill an Islamic extremist, do other extremists cower in fear as a result? No, they claim the dead one to be a martyr and then are simply spurred on to fight. So how do you change this?

Scaring them is not our goal. Killing and capturing them is.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

By winning the hearts and minds of people from which the terrorists rely on for recruits.

You say are winning communities over in Iraq, yes, quite true, but the fact that a lot of terrorists come from neighbouring states with large Islamic communities means you cannot tackle them directly with force. The only way is to play a war of ideas, because that is the only real way of reaching out to these people. Hell, the people who tried to bomb the London tube again after 7/7 and failed were all british citizens. The fact they were inticed by the extreme ideas means that nothing has been done to tackle directly with the spread of extremist rhetoric.

It means nothing has been done? I think it just means you can't reach people who are so irrational. You have to lock them up or kill them.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Listen, I acknowledge the reasons you have provided to be serious concerns, though I simply feel that the current US administration is simply taking a chance on certain circumstances in order to profit from this. That is all.

I don't think that has been proven. If it is true (I don't put it past any politician.), the concerns I talked about are still there. If a cop steals money from rapists when he arrests them and that is why he arrests rapists, he still needs to arrest the rapists.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

In a battle against terrorism, you aren't really fighting people, because no matter how many terrorists you kill, there will always be more. To fight terrorism, you must apply a direct attack on the very rhetoric. This means taking the conflict into a battle of ideas. So, what do the terrorists use to proliferate a lot of their rhetoric? Simple... the internet. I think more has to be done in order to play the terrorists at their own game, as opposed to simply killing them as they come. They post pictures of them training, post pictures of US troops helping people. They post videos of them showing strength, you post videos of US troops going the extra mile to make sure village A gets running water and electricity, etcetera. However, this battle extends beyond Youtube, and more needs to be spent on improving the image of the US Army.

A lot is being done in the area you are talking about. I am one of the people doing it. However, at the same time, terrorists need to be killed, and the dysfunctional breeding grounds of terrorism need to be made civilized. That is one of the main focuses in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we hope their influence and muscle will eventually clean up the rest of the Middle East.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Terrorists come because of their own rhetoric demanding it. They want an extreme theistic government/dictatorships to rule as opposed to the public choosing their secular governments, and wish to impose extremely strict Islamic law upon the masses. But if people won't join terrorist because they perceive the US as trying to make things better, as opposed to worse, then immediately you are tackling the terrorists where it hurts most, because only then does the death or capture of a fellow terrorist really hurt their operations.

I hope this answers your question.

So you agree that what the insurgents are doing is about preventing democracy in hope of creating theorcracy? That is exactly my point. The insurgency is obviously not about getting us to leave. It has the opposite effect, and they are well aware of that. If we had left too early, the democracy would have been taken down in a hurry. We will not be ready to leave until it seems that taking down the democracy cannot happen.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We do not have his consent. Musharraf is afraid he would be overthrown if he gave it to us. We don't want to oppose an ally we need, and we don't want him to lose his power. Such events would be disasters. That is why when Obama said we should invade Pakistan, I thought at that very moment that he had completely disqualified himself from being the president.

Well, with the way things are going Musharraf in his own government is that he is likely to be forced to step down. A step in the right direction, considering all the fears of an unfair election in the country. As long as Pakistan remains dedicated to tackling extremism whilst promoting a free, fair and democratic society, then it won't matter if Musharraf is made to step down or not.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You said we were not going after the root figures. We are, and we are succeeding.

Scaring them is not our goal. Killing and capturing them is.

It means nothing has been done? I think it just means you can't reach people who are so irrational. You have to lock them up or kill them.

I don't think that has been proven. If it is true (I don't put it past any politician.), the concerns I talked about are still there. If a cop steals money from rapists when he arrests them and that is why he arrests rapists, he still needs to arrest the rapists.

A lot is being done in the area you are talking about. I am one of the people doing it. However, at the same time, terrorists need to be killed, and the dysfunctional breeding grounds of terrorism need to be made civilized. That is one of the main focuses in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we hope their influence and muscle will eventually clean up the rest of the Middle East.

I don't think you quite understood the point I was trying to put out. We need to reach out to the people who terrorists rely for recruits, not the terrorists themselves. If give people the impression that the US is trying to make things better in the region, then the extremist rhetoric will fall on deaf ears, because people won't fell threatened by the US presence, and therefore won't allow the extremist rhetoric to spread. More often than not, extremists groom people my age or younger in these countries, people who often have little hope with their lives due to severe poverty or oppression, or feel that the US is trying to suppress and eliminate their faith (which is really just terrorist propaganda). You must get a message across to as many people as possible within these communities that what the terrorists are doing is wrong, and that the US is fighting to secure freedom in a country that desperately needs it. Reaching out to these people will cut off the terrorists from the support they rely on. This is a war of not only tackling terrorists head-on, but also a war on eliminating the extremist ideology.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

So you agree that what the insurgents are doing is about preventing democracy in hope of creating theorcracy? That is exactly my point. The insurgency is obviously not about getting us to leave. It has the opposite effect, and they are well aware of that. If we had left too early, the democracy would have been taken down in a hurry. We will not be ready to leave until it seems that taking down the democracy cannot happen.

Indeed, and that's why any date to ensure troops are withdrawn from Iraq has to be evaluated carefully. If the Insurgents really wanted to make sure the US went, then they would save their offensive until the US left. But that in itself could mean their support would wane in Iraq because people would adjust towards a democratic society, and thus the situation we are in unfolds. They are trying to destabilise the region so democracy can't take root, and trying to get the different communities in Iraq to fight each other, and also to distrust the army. But again, you have to fight the battle on multiple levels, not just by killing/capturing terrorists. The fight against terrorism may be global, but it's not a battle with guns, it's a battle of perceptions and ideas.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Well, with the way things are going Musharraf in his own government is that he is likely to be forced to step down. A step in the right direction, considering all the fears of an unfair election in the country. As long as Pakistan remains dedicated to tackling extremism whilst promoting a free, fair and democratic society, then it won't matter if Musharraf is made to step down or not.

Yeah, things will be fine if that is the case. However, we are worried that a fanatical Islamofascist might take his place. It is a very unstable situation.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

I don't think you quite understood the point I was trying to put out. We need to reach out to the people who terrorists rely for recruits, not the terrorists themselves. If give people the impression that the US is trying to make things better in the region, then the extremist rhetoric will fall on deaf ears, because people won't fell threatened by the US presence, and therefore won't allow the extremist rhetoric to spread. More often than not, extremists groom people my age or younger in these countries, people who often have little hope with their lives due to severe poverty or oppression, or feel that the US is trying to suppress and eliminate their faith (which is really just terrorist propaganda). You must get a message across to as many people as possible within these communities that what the terrorists are doing is wrong, and that the US is fighting to secure freedom in a country that desperately needs it. Reaching out to these people will cut off the terrorists from the support they rely on. This is a war of not only tackling terrorists head-on, but also a war on eliminating the extremist ideology.

That is exactly what we are doing in Iraq, Afghanistan, and our international communications. The hate Bush cult is really hurting our efforts in that area, and it is terrible for the world.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Indeed, and that's why any date to ensure troops are withdrawn from Iraq has to be evaluated carefully. If the Insurgents really wanted to make sure the US went, then they would save their offensive until the US left. But that in itself could mean their support would wane in Iraq because people would adjust towards a democratic society, and thus the situation we are in unfolds. They are trying to destabilise the region so democracy can't take root, and trying to get the different communities in Iraq to fight each other, and also to distrust the army. But again, you have to fight the battle on multiple levels, not just by killing/capturing terrorists. The fight against terrorism may be global, but it's not a battle with guns, it's a battle of perceptions and ideas.

We need to do all of those things. The war on terror is being fought on many fronts and in many arenas.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Yeah, things will be fine if that is the case. However, we are worried that a fanatical Islamofascist might take his place. It is a very unstable situation.

Ummm, considering the main PPP party (which was late Benezir Bhutto's party) has the majority of seats, I doubt that would happen. Besides, it's not like Musharraf hasn't made questionable decisions leading up to the elections (double negative intended).

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That is exactly what we are doing in Iraq, Afghanistan, and our international communications. The hate Bush cult is really hurting our efforts in that area, and it is terrible for the world.

To be honest, it's the Bush/Blair duo that has done a lot of damage to the stability in the Middle East, and it mostly revolves around how they both have dealt with the Israel/Palestine issue (which ultimately, is the source of a lot of anti-Bush/US sentiment). But that's politicians. Where politicians start wars, it is the army that finishes them, and I think this fact is the most important one to highlight. The US Army is simply doing it's job. Any campaign that is done to improve the view of the US must show the Army in a more favourable light, as opposed to all the FUD the terrorists spread.

I don't feel it's entirely accurate to say the "Hate Bush" Club is hurting the progress, because some do have good reasons to dislike him. It's the ones who blame the army as well for a politician's mistakes that are the ones not helping.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

To be honest, it's the Bush/Blair duo that has done a lot of damage to the stability in the Middle East, and it mostly revolves around how they both have dealt with the Israel/Palestine issue (which ultimately, is the source of a lot of anti-Bush/US sentiment). But that's politicians. Where politicians start wars, it is the army that finishes them, and I think this fact is the most important one to highlight. The US Army is simply doing it's job. Any campaign that is done to improve the view of the US must show the Army in a more favourable light, as opposed to all the FUD the terrorists spread.

A lot of that has to do with protecting what was the only democracy in the Middle East. The Cold War had us obsessively protecting democracy, and that drive is still with us. I think protecting Israel is understandable to a major extent, but it definitely has its problems. It is the number one thing we do to piss off terrorists, not that they are legitimate in being pissed off about it. I have a lot of sympathy for the idea of protecting democracy everywhere, but I also think the Arab-Israeli conflict is a complicated and inevitable clusterfuck that we probably should not have gotten involved in. It has been going on since Biblical times, and the Middle East is going to have to be drastically altered for it to ever stop. No peace deal is ever going to work. People are fighting over land because they think God gave it to them. When war goes on for thousands of years based on an idea that is that insane, I just about say live on that land at your own risk.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

I don't feel it's entirely accurate to say the "Hate Bush" Club is hurting the progress, because some do have good reasons to dislike him. It's the ones who blame the army as well for a politician's mistakes that are the ones not helping.

Criticizing Bush is totally fair game and even necessary. When I say "Hate Bush cult", I am talking about the obsessive people who go way overboard with it and relentlessly attack Bush at every turn as if he is the villain in their religion. They hate first and fill in the blanks second. That is very hurtful to the world. It riles up the terrorists a few more notches. Criticizing national leaders even on the most vicious of levels is everybody's right, or at least should be, but it ideally should be done with complete intellectual honesty and a sense of responsibility.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

A lot of that has to do with protecting what was the only democracy in the Middle East. The Cold War had us obsessively protecting democracy, and that drive is still with us. I think protecting Israel is understandable to a major extent, but it definitely has its problems. It is the number one thing we do to piss off terrorists, not that they are legitimate in being pissed off about it. I have a lot of sympathy for the idea of protecting democracy everywhere, but I also think the Arab-Israeli conflict is a complicated and inevitable clusterfuck that we probably should not have gotten involved in. It has been going on since Biblical times, and the Middle East is going to have to be drastically altered for it to ever stop. No peace deal is ever going to work. People are fighting over land because they think God gave it to them. When war goes on for thousands of years based on an idea that is that insane, I just about say live on that land at your own risk.

Very true words, and I agree with you on on that. A lot of things can change with the mentality we take on promoting/protecting certain things, but as long as people hold claim to that land for whatever religious belief, it will only result in further mess.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Criticizing Bush is totally fair game and even necessary. When I say "Hate Bush cult", I am talking about the obsessive people who go way overboard with it and relentlessly attack Bush at every turn as if he is the villain in their religion. They hate first and fill in the blanks second. That is very hurtful to the world. It riles up the terrorists a few more notches. Criticizing national leaders even on the most vicious of levels is everybody's right, or at least should be, but it ideally should be done with complete intellectual honesty and a sense of responsibility.

Yeah, I see what you mean. Meaningless hate that is channelled in whatever direction does not help with whatever context it is applied on. In this case, it effectively hampers progress by the US Army in order to promote it's campaign in Iraq and the worldwide community.

Anyway, funny how we've come full circle with the topic. In the end, whilst we don't quite see eye-to-eye on certain issues and perspectives, overall, there's still the same consensus between us about what has to be done from now on. And as a result, I have enjoyed this debate quite a lot.

Originally posted by Universal Mind If they want us to leave, why do they not do what would get us to leave? Why do they instead do exactly what gets us to stay? I have asked that question about a hundred times now. Do you have an answer?

Ok you put alot to answer so ill answer this most important question. They are doing what is needed to get you to leave. Ie as the body count goes up the public and government are losing the will to keep up the occupation. If they weren't fighting you guys would probably stay longer but instead they fight and your country contiplates pulling out. Likely your next president will be a democrat and we all knwo they will pull out of iraq and then you will see the insurgent strategy to get rid of the occupation has worked.

There is no more public will to fight this war aswell as in the government.

Origonally posted by Universal Mind

A lot of that has to do with protecting what was the only democracy in the Middle East. The Cold War had us obsessively protecting democracy, and that drive is still with us. I think protecting Israel is understandable to a major extent, but it definitely has its problems. It is the number one thing we do to piss off terrorists, not that they are legitimate in being pissed off about it. I have a lot of sympathy for the idea of protecting democracy everywhere, but I also think the Arab-Israeli conflict is a complicated and inevitable clusterfuck that we probably should not have gotten involved in. It has been going on since Biblical times, and the Middle East is going to have to be drastically altered for it to ever stop. No peace deal is ever going to work. People are fighting over land because they think God gave it to them. When war goes on for thousands of years based on an idea that is that insane, I just about say live on that land at your own risk.

Israel is an illegitmate country and should have never been created in the first place. did you know that israels jewish population only dates back to the ailyah of 1882 and even then most of them have only bee there in the last 50 years from immigration. Barely a generation after the ailyah of 1882 in the late 1940's the European Ashakanzie immigrants demand a country in Palestine. THe UN bends to their will ignoring the fact that there was something like 700 000 arabs on the land they wanted to make into Israel. Instead they ignored the arab will and made a country for these land owners.

The whole conflict could have bene avoided if they put the will of the
700,000 arabs living on the land instead of listening to the european landowners wanting a country on ARAB LAND!

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Anyway, funny how we've come full circle with the topic. In the end, whilst we don't quite see eye-to-eye on certain issues and perspectives, overall, there's still the same consensus between us about what has to be done from now on. And as a result, I have enjoyed this debate quite a lot.

Yeah, it looks like we agree on more than we first realized. Good debate. It's good to once in a while be able to do this with somebody who does not fly off the handle, which is what most people on both sides of the issues seem to do. Not once did you compare me to Nazis.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Ok you put alot to answer so ill answer this most important question. They are doing what is needed to get you to leave. Ie as the body count goes up the public and government are losing the will to keep up the occupation. If they weren't fighting you guys would probably stay longer but instead they fight and your country contiplates pulling out. Likely your next president will be a democrat and we all knwo they will pull out of iraq and then you will see the insurgent strategy to get rid of the occupation has worked.

There is no more public will to fight this war aswell as in the government.

So you think the insurgents are what are getting closer to being ready to leave? I totally disagree. I think we would have left a long time ago if it had not been for the insurgency. I think the insurgents are completely aware of that. Also, we are not going to leave until the right time comes. We are going to stay until we think the new government is ready to stand on its own. You can bank on that. Even Obama and Clinton would not get us out of there until they think the right time has come. They do not want to be responsible for the world's biggest clusterfuck starting as soon as they get into office. It would be political suicide. Notice Hillary's language when she talks about the situation. She says she will start bringing troops home when she is in office. I don't think Obama ever names a time he is going to bring the troops home. They are slippery politicians. Don't assume that they are going to get into office and end the war that day. It is not going to happen.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Israel is an illegitmate country and should have never been created in the first place. did you know that israels jewish population only dates back to the ailyah of 1882 and even then most of them have only bee there in the last 50 years from immigration. Barely a generation after the ailyah of 1882 in the late 1940's the European Ashakanzie immigrants demand a country in Palestine. THe UN bends to their will ignoring the fact that there was something like 700 000 arabs on the land they wanted to make into Israel. Instead they ignored the arab will and made a country for these land owners.

Based on what I know, that was majorly screwed up. I agree with you on that. So what do we do all this time later? Do we kick people out next week on the basis of their religion? How prejudiced would that be? That would be like kicking most Americans out of their houses now because the Indians got screwed over so bad in the 1800's and earlier. We are not teams. We are individuals. I don't believe in giving groups preferential treatment because of what their forefathers experienced. It makes no sense. The only thing that makes sense in Israel is a democracy of some type, the only category of government that is legitimate, and letting Jews and Muslims live there equally. I have no sympathy for any other proposal. If they want to change the name of the place to something more religiously neutral, I am all for it.

Orginially posted by Universal MindSo you think the insurgents are what are getting closer to being ready to leave? I totally disagree. I think we would have left a long time ago if it had not been for the insurgency. I think the insurgents are completely aware of that. Also, we are not going to leave until the right time comes. We are going to stay until we think the new government is ready to stand on its own. You can bank on that. Even Obama and Clinton would not get us out of there until they think the right time has come. They do not want to be responsible for the world's biggest clusterfuck starting as soon as they get into office. It would be political suicide. Notice Hillary's language when she talks about the situation. She says she will start bringing troops home when she is in office. I don't think Obama ever names a time he is going to bring the troops home. They are slippery politicians. Don't assume that they are going to get into office and end the war that day. It is not going to happen.

Nah, I disagree. Hilory says she will start pulling out the soldiers within what 60 days and Obama says within 16 months. I'm pretty sure it will lead to a lessend occupation if not a total withdrawl and either way the insurgents stand to benefit. The british have already begun withdrawing soldiers to. See Casulaties and wounds add up to public disfavour with the war which ends up with a change in policy like we are seing now. Check and mate

Originally posted by Universal Mind Based on what I know, that was majorly screwed up. I agree with you on that. So what do we do all this time later? Do we kick people out next week on the basis of their religion? How prejudiced would that be? That would be like kicking most Americans out of their houses now because the Indians got screwed over so bad in the 1800's and earlier. We are not teams. We are individuals. I don't believe in giving groups preferential treatment because of what their forefathers experienced. It makes no sense. The only thing that makes sense in Israel is a democracy of some type, the only category of government that is legitimate, and letting Jews and Muslims live there equally. I have no sympathy for any other proposal. If they want to change the name of the place to something more religiously neutral, I am all for it.

The creation of Israel was the biggest mistake of the UN and it was one of the first things the UN did to when it was created from the vestiges of the League Of Nations. To boot it was one of the most undemocratice and imperalistic things on behalf of the UN and UK mainly who came up with the parition plan. It was such a huge injustice and the West wonders why Hamas and Hezbollah want to settle the score with the colonial scum that is Israel.

Anyway i would rather see Israel set up as a bi-national for Palestinians and Israelies and the law of return which grants any jew anywhere the right to come live in israel and have citizenship revoiked. I know it won't happen but i dont care. IN the next 30-50 years Israel will cease to be a jewish state just by the virtue of demographic change and high amounts of emmigration. Then the zionist dream will be over and justice will be served and the Palestinians will have their land back. All it is, is a waitiing game now...tick tock tick tock.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Less than legitimate reasons? Invoking the stated consequence of noncompliance with a ceasefire is legitimate. Taking down an enemy terrorist government with a history of WMD terrorism is legitimate. Acting on WMD intelligence (regerding a terrorist government) from five other governments, people in the U.N., and your own CIA, Senate (Democrats included), and previous presidential administration (Clinton and Gore) is legitimate. Setting up shop to kill or capture tens of thousands of nutty terrorists is legitimate. Liberating a country from a horribly oppressive, international terrorist, genocidal dictatorship is legitimate. Most of the innocents do not have their houses broken into. If it happens, it is a mistake. We took down a terrible government and put up a far better one. The terrorists we are fighting there come from all over the Middle East, and they are opposing democracy. It is the only plausible explanation. They know that all they would have to get us to leave is stop fighting us. But they are not doing that. Are they? I would love for you to explain that.

Ya i agree the Sadam Regime was horribly opresive and racist. On a side note i find it facinating the Sunni-Shia conflict. It reminds me so much of the Tutsi-Hutu conflict of Rwanda.

think about it for a sec and tell me what you think. When the Belgians i think it was in Rwanda leave they leave the Minority Tutsies with favours and more power over the Majority Hutu group. Eventually the majority Hutus anger boils over and...Genocide over that little vestige of coloniasm. I beleive it is very much the same thing with Iraq. The minority Sunnies were left in control(by the brits?) over the majority Shia's. Anyone else agree with me?

Anyway back tot he point. Iraq wasn't crawling with "terrorists" before the invasion and you got the Ummah war machine into high gear.

The intell however was not enough for an invasion you guys beleived they had WMD's and they didn't.