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

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 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 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.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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.

Dude america is not the world police. You cant just go and invade any country you want because the government is totalarian.

Your activity was not legitimate. Iraq did nothing to the united states. They never attacked you guys they were all isolated. You guys invaded them when they had nothing to do with you at all.

The rioters are responding to an illegitimate invasion on your behalf, you invaded when iraq had nothing to do with you guys and then you take control of the country by force. The "rioters" will not stop till you are gone, you are the original agressors not them,your prescence is illegitmate.

The americans ie the burgalars started the fight now the occupatants of the house are fighting to get rid of the bugalars. Why do you think the insurgency even took up arms? cause you guys invaded the country, they wont stop till you're out and your illegal occupation. Like i said you are not the world police.

You should have only invaded with the blessing of NATO and the UN like was the case with Aghanistan. You were impatient to invade and you invaded but the proper procedure would have been to get permession would be to get a proper security clearance from the UN and NATO the decesion wether or not to invade. You guys waited and got clearance to invade Afghanistan with NATO and the UN so why couldnt you wait for the UN? They should of been the ones to decide wether or not war woudl be a choice not a country whos presdent once said Iraq was connected to 9/11 to make up a reason to invade.

Like i said there is a reason why the UN is there, its to make sure countries liek the USA dont make do imperalist things like invading countries that have nothing to do with them. Wether or not to invade Iraq should have been a decision by the UN and NATO not by a sole country.

I will make a specific post to the "bin ladesn leader to america" so dont worry that part will be adressed.

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.

If there was sufficient reason for the invasion of Iraq then the UN security council would have responded appropiately but the decision to invade didn't lye with an invidual country. The UN charter does give nations the right to self defense....

"under the UN charter, which guarantees the right of each state to self-defence, including pre-emptive self-defence"

Under this the USA would have had reason to invade or attack iraq but the problem is Iraq was not an imminent threat to the USA.

Even a washington insider who worked with rumsefeld amitted it to the illegality of the war.

"International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.
In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing"

The apporpiate thing to do would be to wait for NATO and the UN to take action and the the UN resoloution warning Iraq that their would be serious consequences if it did not comply with onother resoloution was not for the US to back up it was for the UN security Council to choose what measures or consequences would be appropiate to take in response to any iraqi non compliance.