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

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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.

Heheh, your welcome. I try to keep level-headed with debates, as flying off the handle does not help further any discussion.

I wonder what else might come next... *clicks onwards to find a new debate*

Originally Posted by UniversalMind If there had not been an insurgency, we would not have needed an occupation there for the past five years. We have about 150,000 troops there now because of the insurgency and have had them there for the past five years. So now that two politicians are talking about withdrawing some troops if they get elected, you say that the insurgency is effective in getting us to leave Iraq even though our troops have been there all this time because of the insurgency? That makes no sense. It is like saying that because somebody running for fire chief says he plans to start removing firemen from a wildfire that has gone down, the fire was effective at keeping firemen away from the area. There's your checkmate.

Nah the insurgency is getting you guys to leave, its working. Wait till the next president. The way i see it the insurgency picked up where the
Iraqi Army left off after it was defeated and later disbanded.

Originally Posted by Univeral Mind Not everybody in Israel is "colonial scum". This is 2008. Your prejudice is blinding you.

They call the creation of Israel Al Nakbah (The disaster) and i stand by what i said and i providded u with loads of evidence for why. I can back up what i beleive with sound logic, thats not irrationality or prejudice.

Are you by any chance a member of Hamas? How do you feel about a democracy where they are all equal?

I guess democracy where they're all "equal" is ok.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Nah the insurgency is getting you guys to leave, its working. Wait till the next president. The way i see it the insurgency picked up where the
Iraqi Army left off after it was defeated and later disbanded.

Why would we have 150,000 troops there now if there were not an insurgency? 150,000! The insurgency has gone down, and that is why some politicians are talking about beginning a withdrawal. They are not talking about it because the insurgency has increased. They are saying it because the insurgency has decreased.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

They call the creation of Israel Al Nakbah (The disaster) and i stand by what i said and i providded u with loads of evidence for why. I can back up what i beleive with sound logic, thats not irrationality or prejudice.

This is 2008. It is not exactly the day after the creation of Israel. What you are talking about happened in the first half of the last century. Your "colonial scum" label is very generalized and hateful against ALL Israelis. Most of the people in Israel now were born there. Most of them are the descendants of people who were born there. Are modern Americans "colonial scum" because of what the terrible pioneers did to the Indians?

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

I guess democracy where they're all "equal" is ok.

Good! Then why were you talking about revoking citizenship? Muslims and Jews need to share the land and act civilized. I do not support anybody on either side who does not favor that.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Why would we have 150,000 troops there now if there were not an insurgency? 150,000! The insurgency has gone down, and that is why some politicians are talking about beginning a withdrawal. They are not talking about it because the insurgency has increased. They are saying it because the insurgency has decreased.

But casualities are a big reason aswell. Remember when you hear anti war people talking what are they talkinga bout? Casulaties! You know once western soldiers start pulling out its only invenitable gangs and militias will roam the streets again. I think it was in Basra province? Where the british were and they pulled out again and i heard on the radio that gangs and militias took to the streets again and are once again in control or atleast
re-assuming it. Like i said on the other page the way i see it the insurgency took over where the IRaqi army left off when it was defeated and later disbanded.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

This is 2008. It is not exactly the day after the creation of Israel. What you are talking about happened in the first half of the last century. Your "colonial scum" label is very generalized and hateful against ALL Israelis. Most of the people in Israel now were born there. Most of them are the descendants of people who were born there. Are modern Americans "colonial scum" because of what the terrible pioneers did to the Indians?

Ya remember most of their families only go back less then 50 years and 150 years at the most, there was a small Palestinian jew minority who where there throughout history but they only number about 15,000. but just because some jews were living in Palestine it doesn't extend the claim to all the worlds Jewry.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Good! Then why were you talking about revoking citizenship? Muslims and Jews need to share the land and act civilized. I do not support anybody on either side who does not favor that

The middle east is like a living breathing thing, its like a human body if you will. Israel is like an organ implant. The middle east is like a body as it tries to destroy this foreign implant(Israel). You could say "Peace treaties" and The IDF(Israel Defense Force) are the anti-rejection drugs. They only work so long but eventually the body will eradicate the foreign implant that never should of been there in the first place.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

But casualities are a big reason aswell. Remember when you hear anti war people talking what are they talkinga bout? Casulaties! You know once western soldiers start pulling out its only invenitable gangs and militias will roam the streets again. I think it was in Basra province? Where the british were and they pulled out again and i heard on the radio that gangs and militias took to the streets again and are once again in control or atleast
re-assuming it. Like i said on the other page the way i see it the insurgency took over where the IRaqi army left off when it was defeated and later disbanded.

I don't see how that answers my question.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Ya remember most of their families only go back less then 50 years and 150 years at the most, there was a small Palestinian jew minority who where there throughout history but they only number about 15,000. but just because some jews were living in Palestine it doesn't extend the claim to all the worlds Jewry.

Jewry? That doesn't sound like a very nice ethnic term. Do you hate all Jews? So every Jew should have his Israeli citizenship taken away even if he/she was born there? Even in cases of people whose parents and grandparents were born there? Take citizenship away from all of them on the basis of religion? I think that would be terrible fascism.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

The middle east is like a living breathing thing, its like a human body if you will. Israel is like an organ implant. The middle east is like a body as it tries to destroy this foreign implant(Israel). You could say "Peace treaties" and The IDF(Israel Defense Force) are the anti-rejection drugs. They only work so long but eventually the body will eradicate the foreign implant that never should of been there in the first place.

It seems that way to bigotted terrorists in the region. To me, the Israelis seem like human beings. The United States, by your analogy, is a huge land of transplanted organs all over the place. I am part Native American. Should I go around killing Americans all over the place? Come on. You are talking about something terrible. There is no justification for the Palestianian terrorism. It is just bigotted, evil stupidity. There is not the first thing good about it.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I don't see how that answers my question.

Well. The Insurgentcy is being represed by the Surge. But they only moved. Last i read the insurgency has relocated farther North. But once western forces start pulling out militias and gangs will re assume controle like before. The insurgency is keeping pressure on the americans and like i said before the way i see it they left off where the Iraqi Army left off when it was defeated.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Jewry? That doesn't sound like a very nice ethnic term. Do you hate all Jews? So every Jew should have his Israeli citizenship taken away even if he/she was born there? Even in cases of people whose parents and grandparents were born there? Take citizenship away from all of them on the basis of religion? I think that would be terrible fascism.

Actually its not a slur at all. It may sound like it to you, perhaps because you haven't heard the term before? But it is no way a slur,I've even heard jews use the term themselves.

On this other place where the Palestinian/israeli conflict is talked about ive heard more extreme ideas from the Israeli side...

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It seems that way to bigotted terrorists in the region. To me, the Israelis seem like human beings. The United States, by your analogy, is a huge land of transplanted organs all over the place. I am part Native American. Should I go around killing Americans all over the place? Come on. You are talking about something terrible. There is no justification for the Palestianian terrorism. It is just bigotted, evil stupidity. There is not the first thing good about it.

Israel is more recent. Like i said they go back to 1882 at the most but most of them over 50 % cent of the population only goes back like 50 years back to the founding of Israel. For example in the 1990's Israel absored about
1 million immigrants from the Former Soviet Union.

I see "Palestinian Terrorism" as a tool of Guerilla warfare. Like i said Israel has a very poweful modern Military. H ow can a loose band of people fight soemthing like that? Suicide bombings! They are a nessecary evil to match the Israeli Goliath. It's not exactly a fair fight and such things have come about as a result. Watch the Movie "Paradise Now" Its about a Palestinian suicide bomber. You should be able to get in Subtitles. Try and see the other side.

IN the wake of the creation about 800 000 Arab Jews where expelled from the Arab nations. I actually am in favour of giving these people equal status to the Palestinians because of the way they were wrongly treated by the arab countries. When i talk about revoking citizenship and that stuff im actually talking about the Ashekanazies and other whites...Not the arab jews

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Well. The Insurgentcy is being represed by the Surge. But they only moved. Last i read the insurgency has relocated farther North. But once western forces start pulling out militias and gangs will re assume controle like before. The insurgency is keeping pressure on the americans and like i said before the way i see it they left off where the Iraqi Army left off when it was defeated.

My point was that the insurgency is what is keeping our very large number of troops in Iraq. That fact proves that the insurgency is not about getting us to leave. It would have to be for something else. Based on comments from Al Qaeda leaders and other insurgent terrorists, it is apparent that the insurgency is about preventing the success of democracy. The things you are saying completely miss that issue. I am having a great deal of trouble getting you to clear it up.

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/resea...?doc_id=258170

In a widely disseminated Internet audiotape, Zarqawi didn't merely say that he opposed the mechanics or timing of the U.S.-run elections being held today in Iraq to choose a 275-member assembly and transitional government. And he didn't say he thought Iraqis should wait and vote after U.S. occupation forces depart. No, Zarqawi said that he opposes any elections under any circumstances.

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/11-24-2002-30919.asp

(i) You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator. You flee from the embarrassing question posed to you: How is it possible for Allah the Almighty to create His creation, grant them power over all the creatures and land, grant them all the amenities of life, and then deny them that which they are most in need of: knowledge of the laws which govern their lives?

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Actually its not a slur at all. It may sound like it to you, perhaps because you haven't heard the term before? But it is no way a slur,I've even heard jews use the term themselves.

On this other place where the Palestinian/israeli conflict is talked about ive heard more extreme ideas from the Israeli side...

I have come across the term "Jewry" a few times, and I have never heard it in a positive tone. Maybe it is not negative by itself, but it seems to always be used that way. It makes me think of Eric Cartman on South Park and Archie Bunker on All in the Family.

I think it is best to see them as individuals and not sides. The "side" stuff is what keeps the conflict going. They should all live together as free individuals. Anything short of that is an ethnocentric system. Democracy of equality, which has many forms, is the only legitimate form of government.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Israel is more recent. Like i said they go back to 1882 at the most but most of them over 50 % cent of the population only goes back like 50 years back to the founding of Israel. For example in the 1990's Israel absored about
1 million immigrants from the Former Soviet Union.

I see "Palestinian Terrorism" as a tool of Guerilla warfare. Like i said Israel has a very poweful modern Military. H ow can a loose band of people fight soemthing like that? Suicide bombings! They are a nessecary evil to match the Israeli Goliath. It's not exactly a fair fight and such things have come about as a result. Watch the Movie "Paradise Now" Its about a Palestinian suicide bomber. You should be able to get in Subtitles. Try and see the other side.

IN the wake of the creation about 800 000 Arab Jews where expelled from the Arab nations. I actually am in favour of giving these people equal status to the Palestinians because of the way they were wrongly treated by the arab countries. When i talk about revoking citizenship and that stuff im actually talking about the Ashekanazies and other whites...Not the arab jews

So you do think people should have their citizenships revoked on the basis of religion, but the group you want to punish based on religious status, with no considerations of individuality, is smaller than just Jews in general. Is that right?

So you support suicide bombings that kill innocent people. Could you please explain what they accomplish, specifically? You seem to be saying that they spread misery correspondingly. I don't see how that is good at all. What good does it do exactly? It just seems like extra tragedy.

Why are you so into the Islamofascist cause? You are Canadian, right? Are you Muslim? Are you by any chance a member of one of the terrorist groups you support? That is not meant to be provocative. I think it is a totally fair question, considering the fact that you said suicide bombings in Israel are "necessary". Do you support Al Qaeda? Would you like for me to be murdered too? I can't help but wonder at this point. I mean, I know how much you hate U.S. policy. If you think killing civilians is okay strictly on the basis that their government has policies you hate, it seems you would support the actions of Al Qaeda and want American civilians, including me and including children, to be murdered. Is there a difference when it comes to getting back at U.S. policy?

Its what people do out of desperation. When people get like that, they never make wise decisions, because often they don't have many choices. Its not always about picking sides, some times you just have to say it like it is.

As for the insurgency is keeping our troops there, your logic is horribly flawed. Thats like if a bully comes up to you and start hitting you. If you fight back it lasts longer but that doesn't mean you don't want them to stop. If you roll over and just take the hits it ends quickly and the person leaves.

They want us to leave but they are not going to roll over to do it. What your really saying is we need to stay untill we break their spirit to fight. It really sounds to me like your saying we need to dominant their country untill they start behaving which is actually pretty cruel. There are far better ways of dealing with problem than, killing everyone.

Originally Posted by Alric

Its what people do out of desperation. When people get like that, they never make wise decisions, because often they don't have many choices. Its not always about picking sides, some times you just have to say it like it is.

He used the word "side", and his whole argument is about "side". As much as you have argued for libertarian government in the U.S., do you think a "Muslim state" or "Jewsish state" would have any validity?

You would be pissing fire if your government were either of those. You would be screaming that such a government has no right to exist.

Originally Posted by Alric

As for the insurgency is keeping our troops there, your logic is horribly flawed. Thats like if a bully comes up to you and start hitting you. If you fight back it lasts longer but that doesn't mean you don't want them to stop. If you roll over and just take the hits it ends quickly and the person leaves.

Overthrowing a genocidal, terrorist dictatorship that refused to comply with a ceasefire is not being a "bully". Period. Also, we would not have 150,000 troops in Iraq right now if it were not for the insurgency. Do you honestly believe we would? The insurgency is the only thing the politicians have used to argue that we need an occupation in Iraq. It is all they have to go on. The surge was all about the insurgency too. Now that the insurgency is dying down, we can talk about removing troops. Of course the insurgency is what keeps the occupation going. What do you guess it is?

Originally Posted by Alric

They want us to leave but they are not going to roll over to do it. What your really saying is we need to stay untill we break their spirit to fight. It really sounds to me like your saying we need to dominant their country untill they start behaving which is actually pretty cruel. There are far better ways of dealing with problem than, killing everyone.

Killing everyone? Uh, that is not happening. However, the insurgents are killing innocents on purpose. Stopping that would be a "roll over" situation? The insurgency is about stopping the type of government you yourself claim to be the only fair kind. It is also about pure lashing out, and that lashing out is very often targetted at the innocent. There is no excuse whatsoever for the insurgency. It is pure evil. Imagine pieces of shit blowing up your family in order to prevent democracy in your country and to lash out in irrationality toward a government that is trying to keep you free. That is the scum we are talking about.

Ya ill get to replying in a bit afew days ago i wrote a reply but then before i could finish it something happend and long story short i have to re start it again.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

My point was that the insurgency is what is keeping our very large number of troops in Iraq. That fact proves that the insurgency is not about getting us to leave. It would have to be for something else. Based on comments from Al Qaeda leaders and other insurgent terrorists, it is apparent that the insurgency is about preventing the success of democracy. The things you are saying completely miss that issue. I am having a great deal of trouble getting you to clear it up.

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/resea...?doc_id=258170

In a widely disseminated Internet audiotape, Zarqawi didn't merely say that he opposed the mechanics or timing of the U.S.-run elections being held today in Iraq to choose a 275-member assembly and transitional government. And he didn't say he thought Iraqis should wait and vote after U.S. occupation forces depart. No, Zarqawi said that he opposes any elections under any circumstances.

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/11-24-2002-30919.asp

(i) You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator. You flee from the embarrassing question posed to you: How is it possible for Allah the Almighty to create His creation, grant them power over all the creatures and land, grant them all the amenities of life, and then deny them that which they are most in need of: knowledge of the laws which govern their lives?

If someone invades your country you don't just put up with the occupation and say ok i will wait till they are good and happy and let them leave whenever they want to. Its like some fat obnoxious guys comes into your house and starts going through the fridge. You dont say okay dude stay and leave when you are satisfied i wont mind!. This is what you are suggesting the Iraqies should have done. That is a ridiculous notion.

And yes the insurgency is what makes lots of americans want to leave Iraq. It is seen as a unwinnable fight much like in Vietnam. You droped more bombs on vietnam then all of the bombs dropped in WWII, you gassed the jungle and you fought for the longest time in Vietnam killing up to a million people some estimates are higher. You also lost 50,000 soldiers of your own.

Despite all the odds stacked against them the Viet Kong outlasted you guys at a great cost to their people, their healths (ie huge amounts of the jungle were gassed with experimental chemicals.) When a people are determined to have their country free of occupation they will stop it nothing to do so. Face it Iraq is like Veitnam, unwinnable.

Remember the Insurgency is keeping up the pressure, the insurgency took over the job that the Iraqi army couldnt do. IE fight of the invaders and occupation.

I find it difficult to accept "Democracy" that is propagated by occupiers as legitimate,I also find it hard to dismiss that officials in the Gov might be USA stooges but thats just me and this is true of lots of people in Iraq to, like Zarqawi. "Democracy" propagated by occupiers is not to be accepted as legitimate in my opinion anyway. Only a trully independent country can be a democracy.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I have come across the term "Jewry" a few times, and I have never heard it in a positive tone. Maybe it is not negative by itself, but it seems to always be used that way. It makes me think of Eric Cartman on South Park and Archie Bunker on All in the Family.

Obviously we both have come across the word in two different contexts,I still maintain that is not a slur or insult in anyway although i can understand how it sounds that way. I have nothing against jews or Judaism. Actually i consider Judaism to be the secound most un arrogant relegion.(#1 is buddhism). In judaism they beleive that no matter what reelgion you are you go to heaven if you live a good life and they dont beleive in hell either. Its an interesting relegion and its interesting to see how christianity strayed from the path of its parent relegion. Like i said man the only relegion or relegious group i dont like is christianity and christians im cool with all the others including judaism and Jews. I dont usually sterotype a whole relegion or ethnic group just cause a few of the ppl did something i dont like. thats bigotry, Im only a bigot against christianity......

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I think it is best to see them as individuals and not sides. The "side" stuff is what keeps the conflict going. They should all live together as free individuals. Anything short of that is an ethnocentric system. Democracy of equality, which has many forms, is the only legitimate form of government.

Dude the whole conflict is ethnocentric. Israel is a jewish state,look at the flag read the national anthem.They look out for the interests of jews in the region althougha dmittedly israel has a large muslim-arab population. Anyway its irrrevelant to me. Rmember what i said earlier Israel will be a majority arab nation probably before its 100th birthday thanks to the high emigration rate of Sabras(native born israelies) and the low emigration rate of israeli arabs plus their high birth rates.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

So you support suicide bombings that kill innocent people. Could you please explain what they accomplish, specifically? You seem to be saying that they spread misery correspondingly. I don't see how that is good at all. What good does it do exactly? It just seems like extra tragedy.

Suicide bombings are part of a cycle of violence. A suicide bomber blows up israel destroys and bulldozes a neighbourhood in retrubition.(Im not kidding here they actually do that and its against the geneva conventions its collective punishement,in other words its a war crime. Interestingly enough no israeli generals have been tried for war crimes).

However i recognize the fact that suicide bombings are the best medium from which to conduct resistance since its not a fair fight. High tech army verse irregular guerrillas. If the Palestinians want to use them then so be it, far from me to condem them since they work relatively well but i also recognize the fact that they are part of the cycle of violence that i mentioned earlier.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Why are you so into the Islamofascist cause? You are Canadian, right? Are you Muslim? Are you by any chance a member of one of the terrorist groups you support? That is not meant to be provocative. I think it is a totally fair question, considering the fact that you said suicide bombings in Israel are "necessary". Do you support Al Qaeda? Would you like for me to be murdered too? I can't help but wonder at this point. I mean, I know how much you hate U.S. policy. If you think killing civilians is okay strictly on the basis that their government has policies you hate, it seems you would support the actions of Al Qaeda and want American civilians, including me and including children, to be murdered. Is there a difference when it comes to getting back at U.S. policy?

Nah im not canadian, I live in canada but im french/belgium i only live here but i dont considermyself canadian im actually leaving the country soon.

And no im not muslim. I have never been part of a relegion despite the best efforts of christians to indoctirnate me when i was little.

Theres a difference between the USA and Israel. Israel is totally illegitimate in my opinion and its built on arab land. The united states is a diff story you guys are only occupying iraq and attacks like 9/11 only make matters worse....to be continued.

Edit i will finish off the rest of this thing tomorow i gotta go for now!

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

If someone invades your country you don't just put up with the occupation and say ok i will wait till they are good and happy and let them leave whenever they want to. Its like some fat obnoxious guys comes into your house and starts going through the fridge. You dont say okay dude stay and leave when you are satisfied i wont mind!. This is what you are suggesting the Iraqies should have done. That is a ridiculous notion.

No, it is not just like a fat obnoxious guy coming into your house and going through the fridge. It is like a guy coming into your house and killing your hostage taker and then giving you a fridge.

The insurgents are doing what is keeping us there. If they had not been doing their irrational, pointless inurgency evil, we would not have had more than a hundred thousand troops there for all these years. What the insurgents are doing results in nothing good. They also target the innocent, and I have yet to understand why you will not condemn that.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

And yes the insurgency is what makes lots of americans want to leave Iraq. It is seen as a unwinnable fight much like in Vietnam. You droped more bombs on vietnam then all of the bombs dropped in WWII, you gassed the jungle and you fought for the longest time in Vietnam killing up to a million people some estimates are higher. You also lost 50,000 soldiers of your own.

We have 150,000 troops in Iraq BECAUSE of the insurgency. I will keep repeating that until you counter it or this conversation stops. You are not directly addressing that fact. The insurgency is our reason for being there. Therefore, the insurgency is not about getting us to leave. It is about preventing democracy. The quotes I posted show that. If you are not going to counter my point on that, then let's stop talking about this. You are not answering my questions, and you are not countering my points. You just keep repeating yourself and ignoring my major issues. Your entire argument seems to be that bad should happen if bad happens, and you are not even explaining why. I don't get it. After all of our talking, you have not told me one single good thing the insurgency does other than get Americans to want us to leave the very situation that has us staying there in the first place. Like I said, that is like saying a fire is effective at getting firemen away from it. The firemen are there because of the fire! Talk to me.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Despite all the odds stacked against them the Viet Kong outlasted you guys at a great cost to their people, their healths (ie huge amounts of the jungle were gassed with experimental chemicals.) When a people are determined to have their country free of occupation they will stop it nothing to do so. Face it Iraq is like Veitnam, unwinnable.

We were not in Vietnam because of an insurgency against us. We were there to show the Soviet Union what we were willing to go through to stand against Soviet/puppet expansionism. It was effective. It was part of the Cold War, and we won the Cold War. (I hope you are appreciative of that.)

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Remember the Insurgency is keeping up the pressure, the insurgency took over the job that the Iraqi army couldnt do. IE fight of the invaders and occupation.

Pressure to do what? We are there now in huge numbers because of the insurgency. So what is your point? I really don't get this. I have told you so many times that we are there because of the insurgency. What you are saying is that the insurgency is good (even though it results in so many innocent deaths) because it pressures us to leave the job we are performing because of the insurgency. Will you please explain that? I would like for you to address my firemen analogy, but if you don't want to, here is another one. What you are saying is like a claim that a riot is good because it pressures riot police into leaving the riot scene. Think about that.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

I find it difficult to accept "Democracy" that is propagated by occupiers as legitimate,I also find it hard to dismiss that officials in the Gov might be USA stooges but thats just me and this is true of lots of people in Iraq to, like Zarqawi. "Democracy" propagated by occupiers is not to be accepted as legitimate in my opinion anyway. Only a trully independent country can be a democracy.

This is a transition phase. Our goal is to get Iraq to run their own by the people government. This is the only way it can happen. It was not happening with the Hussein regime, and it was not going to. This is the best we can do for them. You should not judge the next ten thousand years of Iraq based on a transition phase that has been going on for a few years. Their future is very bright. That is the idea. Under the Hussein regime, they had Hell with no end in sight. That was not a better alternative.

You need to look back at what I posted about Zarqawi. I quoted an article that explains how Zarqawi's quote was not about occupation or merely democracy during American occupation. It was about democracy. He blanketly called democracy evil and said that democracy itself has to be stopped. That mentality is what the insurgency is about. I have very clearly shown that.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Obviously we both have come across the word in two different contexts,I still maintain that is not a slur or insult in anyway although i can understand how it sounds that way. I have nothing against jews or Judaism. Actually i consider Judaism to be the secound most un arrogant relegion.(#1 is buddhism). In judaism they beleive that no matter what reelgion you are you go to heaven if you live a good life and they dont beleive in hell either. Its an interesting relegion and its interesting to see how christianity strayed from the path of its parent relegion. Like i said man the only relegion or relegious group i dont like is christianity and christians im cool with all the others including judaism and Jews. I dont usually sterotype a whole relegion or ethnic group just cause a few of the ppl did something i dont like. thats bigotry, Im only a bigot against christianity......

You said Jews in Israel should have their citizenship revoked on the basis of their religion. When you say that and then use the term "Jewry", it sounds very prejudiced. Prejudice is definitely involved in wanting to evict people from the country they were born in... on the basis of their religion.

You are prejudiced against Christians? I have a terrible opinion of Christianity, but I am not prejudiced against Christians. Their teachings are just as sick as Muslims' teachings, but I recognize that most Christians are good people for the most part. Why do you hate the entire group? If you can hate one entire relgious group, you can hate another entire one.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Dude the whole conflict is ethnocentric. Israel is a jewish state,look at the flag read the national anthem.They look out for the interests of jews in the region althougha dmittedly israel has a large muslim-arab population. Anyway its irrrevelant to me. Rmember what i said earlier Israel will be a majority arab nation probably before its 100th birthday thanks to the high emigration rate of Sabras(native born israelies) and the low emigration rate of israeli arabs plus their high birth rates.

I hate the idea of "Jewish state". It is sick. I feel the same way about "Muslim state". I only believe in a "state" where all innocent individuals are equal. Anything else is bull shit.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Suicide bombings are part of a cycle of violence. A suicide bomber blows up israel destroys and bulldozes a neighbourhood in retrubition.(Im not kidding here they actually do that and its against the geneva conventions its collective punishement,in other words its a war crime. Interestingly enough no israeli generals have been tried for war crimes).

However i recognize the fact that suicide bombings are the best medium from which to conduct resistance since its not a fair fight. High tech army verse irregular guerrillas. If the Palestinians want to use them then so be it, far from me to condem them since they work relatively well but i also recognize the fact that they are part of the cycle of violence that i mentioned earlier.

None of that tells me what the terrorism accomplishes. It sounds like you are saying if bad happens, more bad should happen. I don't at all get your "so be it" comment. Do you have no compassion for the innocent? I understand that military action that gets some innocents killed is sometimes necessary, but that is only when it is very intelligently calculated to save many times more innocents. Even for those situations, my attitude is not "so be it". My attitude is, "It is very awful that that had to happen, but it was necessary for the result which had a far greater absolute value." Palestinian suicide bombings are irrational acts that get a lot of innocent babies, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, brothers, friends, sisters, grandparents, and husbands killed. It is horrifically tragic. So, what is accomplished that makes all of that worth it? Please answer that question for me. I really want to understand what you are trying to say there. I am completely lost. What do Palestinian suicide bombings against the innocent accomplish other than further tragedy? Please tell me.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

No, it is not just like a fat obnoxious guy coming into your house and going through the fridge. It is like a guy coming into your house and killing your hostage taker and then giving you a fridge.

The insurgents are doing what is keeping us there. If they had not been doing their irrational, pointless inurgency evil, we would not have had more than a hundred thousand troops there for all these years. What the insurgents are doing results in nothing good. They also target the innocent, and I have yet to understand why you will not condemn that.

Like i said in the anology the insurgency isn't gonna lay low and say ok amer€icans do whateva u want and leave when ur good and ready, heres a pie (IED!). They keep up the pressure on the americans with casulaties like in vietnam and i retiterate what you were saying they do work.

Dude remember in the 1990's (sometime around there i think) when Osama Bin Laden issued a fatwa calling on attacks on america. That fatwa was primarily inspired by the fact americans had soldiers posted in Saudi on holy land! Apparently that and distaste for USA foreign policy inspired 9/11. Now you guys go ahead and invade onother arab country full realising the fact that you had soldiers stationed in Saudi Arabia were one of hte primary motivations for the 9/11 attacks.That logic on behalf of bush astounds me.

Over 70% of atacks by insurgents are on occupying soldiers/contractors and collobrators. So the overhwhelming majority of the insurgency are fighting the good fight and not harming innocents.

I will respond to the rest later.

He probably considers contractors and collobrators as innocents. Its probably difficult to tell if someone is a collobrator or just a random person from here however. Stuff like that doesn't get reported for obvious reasons.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Like i said in the anology the insurgency isn't gonna lay low and say ok amer€icans do whateva u want and leave when ur good and ready, heres a pie (IED!). They keep up the pressure on the americans with casulaties like in vietnam and i retiterate what you were saying they do work.

That does NOT answer my question. I know that you know what my issue is by now. You are not clearing it up. You are not addressing my analogies, you are not answering my questions, and you are not countering my points. Talk to me. I want to know why the insurgency was a good thing in the first place, especially considering the fact that it is has been our reason for having so many troops in Iraq for nearly five years. Saying the insurgents should not just roll over does not answer the question. That is just a restatement of your general position, not an actual answer involving specifics. You are not explaining your position thoroughly at all. The insurgency is what gives us a reason to have so many troops in Iraq in the first place, so the argument that the insurgency is good for keeping U.S. troops away is a false argument, just like an argument that a fire keeps firemen away or that a riot is good for keepng riot police away. The insurgency is terrible and counterproductive. If you don't say something to clear up that issue, I am through with this conversation. It is going nowhere.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Dude remember in the 1990's (sometime around there i think) when Osama Bin Laden issued a fatwa calling on attacks on america. That fatwa was primarily inspired by the fact americans had soldiers posted in Saudi on holy land! Apparently that and distaste for USA foreign policy inspired 9/11. Now you guys go ahead and invade onother arab country full realising the fact that you had soldiers stationed in Saudi Arabia were one of hte primary motivations for the 9/11 attacks.That logic on behalf of bush astounds me.

If you will read the answer to Q2 of Bin Laden's letter, you will see that Al Qaeda's problem with us goes way beyond our presence in the Middle East. Also, Bin Laden's loonie land hang ups are irrational and not a legitimate reason for us to not have troops in the Middle East. We have good reasons for protecting democracy, which is the only fair form of government. We protected Israel, and now we also protect Iraq and Afghanistan. Bin Laden has also said that our withdrawal from Somalia is what made him think we are a "paper tiger". That perception is what he reported to have given him the will to pull the 9/11 attacks. Withdrawing from the Middle East then would have done the same thing to that perception of him and the irrational scum that thinks like he does. Withdrawing from the Middle East now would do the same thing, but on a much larger scale. That principle shows the counterproductive nature of their terrorism.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Over 70% of atacks by insurgents are on occupying soldiers/contractors and collobrators. So the overhwhelming majority of the insurgency are fighting the good fight and not harming innocents.

The contractors are innocent. They are building positive things in Iraq, such as roads and schools. They do not deserve to die for it. Do you honestly think they do? Also, what about that other 30%? Are you going to passionately condemn the deliberate attacks on those even you would agree are innocent? You have not done that yet. How do you feel about them?

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

I will respond to the rest later.

You have yet to clear up the issue I keep raising. You are not explaining how doing what keeps us in Iraq is a good way to get us to leave Iraq. Did you see my fire and riot analogies? If you are not going to be directly responsive to what I am saying, then why talk at all?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That does NOT answer my question. I know that you know what my issue is by now. You are not clearing it up. You are not addressing my analogies, you are not answering my questions, and you are not countering my points. Talk to me. I want to know why the insurgency was a good thing in the first place, especially considering the fact that it is has been our reason for having so many troops in Iraq for nearly five years. Saying the insurgents should not just roll over does not answer the question. That is just a restatement of your general position, not an actual answer involving specifics. You are not explaining your position thoroughly at all. The insurgency is what gives us a reason to have so many troops in Iraq in the first place, so the argument that the insurgency is good for keeping U.S. troops away is a false argument, just like an argument that a fire keeps firemen away or that a riot is good for keepng riot police away. The insurgency is terrible and counterproductive. If you don't say something to clear up that issue, I am through with this conversation. It is going nowhere.

ok ok you want to hear it. the insurgency is part of the reason that is keeping you guys there. Their activity is what is causing the surge of soldiers. Happy? But remember you guys kept soldiers in south korea,Japan and Germany long after the fighting stoped......

However i feel the anology of rioters and riot police is not suiting. the rioters are rioting in the street and the riot police come to get them under control. the analogy doesnt fit because the the "riot" didnt start in iraq untill you guys invaded then the insurgents fought the invasion. The riot and riot plice analogy implies that you were there to stop a "riot" which is analogous to a civil war or a war with a nearby country and you the "riot" police to end it. Which was no the case. Another anology could be when Germany invaded poland, in warsaw and around poland resistence fighers sprung up to repell the invaders. Iraq did have weapons, they had gass weapons but they had them for ages and the world knew about it. America is not the worl dpolice you cant go around invading nations that you choose. America should have only invaded iraq with the cooperation of NATO and the blessing of the UN like in Afghanistan. If you had this whole situation could have been averted. for more info:

Between inspections: 1998-2002


"In June, 1999, Ritter responded to an interviewer, saying: "When you ask the question, 'Does Iraq possess militarily viable biological or chemical weapons?' the answer is no! It is a resounding NO. Can Iraq produce today chemical weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Can Iraq produce biological weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Ballistic missiles? No! It is 'no' across the board. So from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq has been disarmed. Iraq today possesses no meaningful weapons of mass destruction capability."

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If you will read the answer to Q2 of Bin Laden's letter, you will see that Al Qaeda's problem with us goes way beyond our presence in the Middle East. Also, Bin Laden's loonie land hang ups are irrational and not a legitimate reason for us to not have troops in the Middle East. We have good reasons for protecting democracy, which is the only fair form of government. We protected Israel, and now we also protect Iraq and Afghanistan. Bin Laden has also said that our withdrawal from Somalia is what made him think we are a "paper tiger". That perception is what he reported to have given him the will to pull the 9/11 attacks. Withdrawing from the Middle East then would have done the same thing to that perception of him and the irrational scum that thinks like he does. Withdrawing from the Middle East now would do the same thing, but on a much larger scale. That principle shows the counterproductive nature of their terrorism.

A big reason for the 9/11 attacks was that the usa had soldiers posted in Saudi which muslims consider holy. This was a huge reason for the attacks the rest was just icing on the cake for al qaeda. Which makes me wonder about the logic bush had when he decided to invade onother
muslim middle eastern country. All that has done is make things worse.

Ok so you want the usa to stay in iraq and do what? do you think you can actually beat the insurgency? By pulling out of the middle east you would significantly reduce anti americanism and you would stop fanning the flames of terrorism. Why do you think brtian got attacked by homegrowns. From what i have read bin laden isued a mandate in the 1990's to attack the usa primarily because of the soldiers posted in the middle east and your guyses support of israel. The rest was just icing on the cake including what happend in somalia.

Originally Posted by Universal mind

The contractors are innocent. They are building positive things in Iraq, such as roads and schools. They do not deserve to die for it. Do you honestly think they do? Also, what about that other 30%? Are you going to passionately condemn the deliberate attacks on those even you would agree are innocent? You have not done that yet. How do you feel about them?

Contractors including mercenaries like blackwell,diplomats, translators plus iraqi police and army and western civilans are what i define as collobrators and i see them as fair game for the insurgency. they all propagate and give substance to the occupation.

Originally Posted by Universal mind

You have yet to clear up the issue I keep raising. You are not explaining how doing what keeps us in Iraq is a good way to get us to leave Iraq. Did you see my fire and riot analogies? If you are not going to be directly responsive to what I am saying, then why talk at all?

If you feel i have not answered what you want in the above then we can end this discussion right here and now and that'll be that.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

ok ok you want to hear it. the insurgency is part of the reason that is keeping you guys there. Their activity is what is causing the surge of soldiers. Happy? But remember you guys kept soldiers in south korea,Japan and Germany long after the fighting stoped......

We would have soldiers in Iraq without the insurgency, but not anything close to 150,000. We have nowhere near that in South Korea, Japan, and Germany. Those countries are our allies, and we are not running their countries. We could be, but we are not. That is because we got their governments up and running really well. That is exactly what we are doing for Iraq. But we have 150,000 troops in Iraq and are still having to be in control there. Do you know why? Because of the insurgency! Therefore, the insurgency is not about getting us to cut our troop numbers. It is about preventing what we did for Germany, Japan, and South Korea.

Thank you for finally acknowledging my point. The insurgency results in our high troop number, our recent increase/surge in troop number, and our need to be in control in Iraq during the transition phase. Without the insurgency, there would be no transition phase. There would just be Iraq the independent democracy. That is what the insurgency is fighting against.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

However i feel the anology of rioters and riot police is not suiting. the rioters are rioting in the street and the riot police come to get them under control. the analogy doesnt fit because the the "riot" didnt start in iraq untill you guys invaded then the insurgents fought the invasion. The riot and riot plice analogy implies that you were there to stop a "riot" which is analogous to a civil war or a war with a nearby country and you the "riot" police to end it. Which was no the case. Another anology could be when Germany invaded poland, in warsaw and around poland resistence fighers sprung up to repell the invaders. Iraq did have weapons, they had gass weapons but they had them for ages and the world knew about it. America is not the worl dpolice you cant go around invading nations that you choose. America should have only invaded iraq with the cooperation of NATO and the blessing of the UN like in Afghanistan. If you had this whole situation could have been averted. for more info:

We were originally in Iraq to arrest some criminals and help a non-criminal organization take their place. Our activity was legitimate. However, a riot started over our action and presence after the arrests were made, so now we are there for anti-riot activity. The arresting officers had to assume riot duty and had to call in a big deployment of riot police. The riot is what is keeping our riot police at the scene, and the rioters know that, so the rioters could not possibly be rioting so we will leave the scene. The rioters are rioting because they do not like the new organization we set up. You can read quotes by leaders of one of the major rioter factions, Al Qaeda, for confirmation of what their agenda really is.

We begged the United Nations to handle the situation. They would not do it. So we had to do it with our own coalition. I think the entire world should come together to handle the replacement of dictatorships. Dictatorship is not in agreement with fundamental human rights. Totalitarian regimes have no right to exist and should be internationally outlawed and overthrown by the world community.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Between inspections: 1998-2002


"In June, 1999, Ritter responded to an interviewer, saying: "When you ask the question, 'Does Iraq possess militarily viable biological or chemical weapons?' the answer is no! It is a resounding NO. Can Iraq produce today chemical weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Can Iraq produce biological weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Ballistic missiles? No! It is 'no' across the board. So from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq has been disarmed. Iraq today possesses no meaningful weapons of mass destruction capability."

That is what Ritter said. He was in major disagreement with a lot of people, such as other U.N. representatives, leaders of intelligence divisions in five other countries, people in our CIA, people in our Senate (including Democrats), and our former presidential administration (Clinton). What they were claiming was far too serious to not act on it, and that was only one reason for the invasion of Iraq.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

A big reason for the 9/11 attacks was that the usa had soldiers posted in Saudi which muslims consider holy. This was a huge reason for the attacks the rest was just icing on the cake for al qaeda. Which makes me wonder about the logic bush had when he decided to invade onother
muslim middle eastern country. All that has done is make things worse.

Read the answer to Q2 of Bin Laden's letter to America (Have you done that yet?), and you will see that Bin Laden's problem with us is very complex. It is true that he hates us and wants to kill us partly because we have "infidels" in "the holy land". Think about that! Doesn't that tell you what kind of nut case crackpot we are dealing with? Think about the insane religious bigotry it takes for Bin Laden to have that outlook. If he hates us so much for being in the "holy land" of Saudi Arabia, he is a lunatic. What if we blew up buildings in India because they have their infidel Hindu troops consentually stationed in, say, the Christian "holy land" of Norway? If that happened, would you bitch about the U.S. action or the presence of Hindu infidels in the holy land (with government permission) of Norway? We are dealing with a loonie land nutcuck burger and a large group that thinks like he does. Simply getting out of the "holy land" because that nut wants us to would have invited him to see more "paper tiger" in us as he continued to hate us for his other zillion irrational reasons that could never be catered to realistically.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Ok so you want the usa to stay in iraq and do what? do you think you can actually beat the insurgency? By pulling out of the middle east you would significantly reduce anti americanism and you would stop fanning the flames of terrorism. Why do you think brtian got attacked by homegrowns. From what i have read bin laden isued a mandate in the 1990's to attack the usa primarily because of the soldiers posted in the middle east and your guyses support of israel. The rest was just icing on the cake including what happend in somalia.

I want the USA in Iraq only for long enough to get the new and legitimate (unlike the last one) government where it can survive without our authority. If that can happen in five minutes, the war should be over in five minutes.

We support Israel because they are a democracy. Preserving their democracy status had major worldly significance during the Cold War. Because of its importance then, we now more clearly see the importance of preserving all democracy everywhere it exists. If Bin Laden wants to kill innocent Americans because he has no respect for that or even for democracy and because he is a hateful religious douche, then fuck Bin Laden. He is not going to control us with his irrational cuckoo loonie woo woo loco loco demands. We have things we have to do, and his stupid religious beliefs are not going to stop us. He would hate us viciously even if we had not one "infidel" in the "holy land". Read his "Letter to America" and see for yourself.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Contractors including mercenaries like blackwell,diplomats, translators plus iraqi police and army and western civilans are what i define as collobrators and i see them as fair game for the insurgency. they all propagate and give substance to the occupation.

I am sorry you have such ice cold feelings about very good people who are risking their lives to build Iraq up and make it successful as a nation of freedom and equality instead of demanding that it follow irrational rules of a ruthless dictator or a group of insane Islamofascists who execute people for being homosexuals and adulterers and who demand that women hide under bedspreads to go to the grocery store.

If you don't like the idea of Iraq turning into a nation just like a free Western nation where people of all races, religions, genders, and clothing style are considered equal (or at least way closer to equal than they would be under the type of government the focus of your sympathy DEMANDS), then get ready to be more and more disappointed over the next few decades. Iraq is going to become an excellent country, and Islamofascist sexist bigots who try to stop that from happening are just going to have to be destroyed.

Ill respond to everything tommorow. It will take me more then an hour to make the responses but i will do it...tomorow.

Also i took a look at bin ladens letter to america and will respond to taht to.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Um "i renounce suicide bombings and terrorism." but things that yo consider terrorism are not neccesarily so to me. Let me make that much clear.

Woes, you had me going for a second. So, what specifically are you renouncing? If you are not renouncing what we have been talking about, then you are not renouncing what I asked you to renounce.

Ok Um its clear that thread isnt goign anywher enow that is has momentum on it, making me say thingsi dont mean isnt gonna do anything about it so im gonna go on the defense and i will reply to the things in this thread to.

If i learned anything its pretending to renounce something i beleive is not a good method, i will defend my position instead.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We would have soldiers in Iraq without the insurgency, but not anything close to 150,000. We have nowhere near that in South Korea, Japan, and Germany. Those countries are our allies, and we are not running their countries. We could be, but we are not. That is because we got their governments up and running really well. That is exactly what we are doing for Iraq. But we have 150,000 troops in Iraq and are still having to be in control there. Do you know why? Because of the insurgency! Therefore, the insurgency is not about getting us to cut our troop numbers. It is about preventing what we did for Germany, Japan, and South Korea.

Now that we have that out of the way let me clearify. The insurgency will be what gets you of iraq just like in Vietnam. The Viet Kong outlasted you with huge losses n their side and also large losses on your side. If the insurgency persists they can acomplish what the VietKong did in Vietnam.

the insurgency has no moral mandate to stand down either. You agressed iraq, iraq who never attacked you guys who never threatend to attack you guys who never had the yellow cake that you were claiming. Iraq did have chemical weaons however but they did for decades and decades itw as not like it was a secret.

As far as im concerned you guys started this shit and you will have to leave. That guy mccain bitches about honour but invading a country that had nothing to do with you is not a very honourable thing. You will have to leave with your tails between your legs like vietnam. but thats what you get.

The iraqi people dont want a drawn out occupation or USA prescence and the current path iraq is going down will lead to iraq eventually being american free atleast in the same sense as vietnam.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind;716 356

Thank you for finally acknowledging my point. The insurgency results in our high troop number, our recent increase/surge in troop number, and our need to be in control in Iraq during the transition phase. Without the insurgency, there would be no transition phase. There would just be Iraq the independent democracy. That is what the insurgency is fighting against.

Look at one point the USA had 450 000 thousand soldiers in Vietnam (correct me if im wrong) but the insurgency the vietkong persisted and eventually purged their country of occupation. The vietkong had to deal with those much higher numbers and they overcame it and so will the insurgency of iraq.

Look Iraq has a right to be free of you guys, you invaded iraq. They had nothing to do with Al Qaeda they had nothing to do with 9/11 they were staying out of your faces yet you invaded them. they have a right to purge themselves of you guys with whatever manner of hellfire they see fit. You started this the insurgency will finish it.

Iraq does not have to accept any of your conditions or standards, they have the righ to be free of gringo occupiers and not to be occupied. This is not about fighting off democracy this is about being free of kuffar crusaders (their words not mine) who shot the first gun.

ugh i replied to some more stuff but it loged me out and i couldnt post i will have to re do hold on.