 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.
|
|
Bookmarks