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.
Last edited by dragonoverlord; 02-23-2008 at 01:36 AM.
Bookmarks