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

We all know about the controversies with Irans nuclear program. Atleast i hope you know about it, if you don't you can stop reading this right now :P

So here is the thing. There are lots of sanctions on Iran by a number of countries,and Irans relations witht he west are strained at best. Obviously none of this is dettering iran and they are cho choing their way to being part of the Nuclear club with the USA/UN/EU muttering in the background saying you cant do that. In large part because of the international uproar about irans nuclear program the nuclear issue has become part of pride for iranians and if they were to back out of it now they would look like pussies and their collective egos would be smushed atleast in the eyes of irans citizens.

Now the USA hasn't ruled out a pre emptive strike or some sort of military action against Iran, but says it wants to exhaust all other possibilites which doesn't look likely. Now let me mention Iran learned well from Iraqs failed attempted nuclear profileration. Iraq concentrated all their facilities into one building which israel consequently bombed...that was the end of that.

Iran has its nuclear facilities spaced out in the east of the country in bunkers,which if not out of range of israeli bombers atleast the facillities are harder to get to.

Now here is why the USA will not bomb Iran. Or atleast why i think so.

Irans largest trading partner is China. China as you know is an energy starved nation needing lots of gas,oil and coal. Some examples of these are in china every week 1 coal plant is built. Remember the bad weather china just had? Well China has to halt all coal exports for 2 months because some plants were running out of coal if not already out of coal because of the transporation problems. see how energy starved they are?

Imagine if China lost its imports from Iran or if the imports were threatened.
What would that do china and the worlds economy if China lost that valuable energy source?

Imagine how pissed of china would be at the USA meddling with one of its major trading partners ?(not to mention russia which does good business with iran to)

And if thats not all there is more icing on the cake, Bejing and Tehran are negotiating placing a chinese military base within Iran. If the USA bombs Iran will that be seen as an agresion on China? Not to mention the USA is heavily in debt to china over the iraq war and other things but the USA needs China and China needs the USA to. China has a large market to export to and the USA has a place to get cheap goods. Its a match made in heaven why would they want to potentailly fuck up the world economy and cause World War III with each otehr who are both major trading partnets with one onother?

I know i know like no one read my rambling post. So be it!!! For those of you who did if there is anyone.

Comments/ideas would be welcome, discuss!!

We are already fighting Iranians in Iraq, and they are being funded by the Iranian government. If it comes down to extreme necessity, we will invade Iran and overthrow their government. What is China going to do about it? Commit suicide?

Dragon, you seem to be overwhelmingly obsessed with my country. Most of the posts I have read from you on this site have been about my country, where you do not even live. I hope you know that such obsessive preoccupation gives us Americans the idea that we are a big deal. Do you really want to drive that image into us like that? Maybe you should wrap your life up in your own country.

From what I've read (some articles from Seymour Hersh), the primary reason that the US will not attack Iran is that the SecDef, Robert Gates, has been winning a behind-the-scenes turf battle with the Vice President, who has been gunning for war among top officials in the Pentagon (who, presumably, inform the president and congress that war is/is not necessary).

Cheney has his own reasons for pursuing war with Iran, but it wouldn't surprise me if Gates has been reminding top Pentagon officials of what you've mentioned. The Chinese government would be furious, as would most other countries around the world, and China's economic status is an excellent reason to keep relations warm.

I suppose this is why Cheney gave the nod to Israel that they should strike first, though they're apparently not as eager for the conflict as he is. That said, I'm not that sure that nothing will happen before the next president takes office.

UN Inspector Scott Ritter: Only Fools Would Nuke Iran(2.5 minute video)

That, is why the US won't invade Iran.

I definitely don't think we need to nuke Iran, but we might end up having to invade them. Then what? Is China going to invade us? Hell no. We have enough nukes to blow up the entire world dozens of times over, and we have an armed citizenry. That means our country is one big military.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I definitely don't think we need to nuke Iran, but we might end up having to invade them. Then what? Is China going to invade us? Hell no. We have enough nukes to blow up the entire world dozens of times over, and we have an armed citizenry. That means our country is one big military.

---

Relying on effectively an untrained militia? Whilst numbers might be impressive, in reality, it'll mean shit. A professional soldier is far superior in terms of ability (even the common grunts), so that 'militia' comment doesn't really hold.

First of all, the army has a chain of command and a communications system which allows all troops to be directed... the armed people don't have that. At most, they would form small pockets of resistance, but in the face of an organised assault, they simply won't do much.

So if anything, relying on a large pool of armed citizens will not stop an invasion. May make it a little harder in places, but it won't stop it. An organised army with good supplies and a good chain of command will always be able to defeat larger militias or armies, as long as they have weaknesses to exploit.

One thing you could say is that the militia has knowledge of the terrain. That in itself can provide a big advantage to any resistance, if it is used properly. Now, modern warfare may not exactly happen in the same way ancient warfare was conducted, as discussed in great detail in The Art Of War by Sun Tzu, but there are many principles in that book that can still be applied to great effect in this day and age.

Providing the Chinese generals aren't well-versed in their own famous piece of literature on Warfare, then you can expect the militia to cause some annoyance towards any invading army. However, any such militia would need to have knowledge of terrain, be well supplied, and need to know guerilla tactics and warfare in order to make themselves useful, and I doubt that all armed citizens would have or know these three things.

So I say this. The Chinese army is huge. The US army is technologically advanced and is generally well supplied. Now, if things did come to a crunch, I doubt nukes would be used. Secondly, The US army would be contending with a considerably larger force, and so, if it wants to be successful, it would have to initiate a different set of strategies in order to really be effective against any such invasion. This may mean losing land to the Chinese in order to lure them into strategically advantageous situations. This would require great amounts of manoeuvring and discipline, something that a militia can never hope to do.

Of course, this is all theoretical. But I do enjoy talking about stratagems. :content:

Well, no shit, the US isn't going to invade Iran. They're already fighting two fronts and their economy won't be able to handle another blow. They'll deal with the problem in more discreet ways, most likely. Cue conspiracy: Divide and conquer. They'll split the population and spark a civil war. They did it with the Black Panthers. They did it with the Sunnis and Shiate in Iraq. And they could do it again. If you can't deal with the problem from without, deal with in from within. Either that, or they'll use one of the older divisions and get a few Middle Eastern countries to do it.

Now we all know a strike against Iran is inevitable, it's just a matter of when? Iran is at the top of the (U.S. "Bad Countries" List). So a military operation in Iran is rather probable. First of all the Iraq war and Iran Tensions cross-over one another with ease. It's been revealed that al-Qaida leaders might be hiding somewhere in Iran and guess what? Tehran did not deny this. There are two justifications for an invasion to take place, supporting terrorist and the development of weapons of mass destruction. These two justifications were enough for the U.S. to invade Iraq, and it did not matter that they eventually turned out to be fake. It does not look like anyone over at the Bush's administration will try to find a good basis this time. One is left to hope the present pressure on Iran will remain only psychological. However, previous events in Iraq have proven that Washington prefers to shoot first and if thats the way it goes down then so be it.

Attacking Iran would be stupid and I think our government wants to do. I think the pressure is getting to the people higher up though. Invading Iran at the moment is just going to crash our economy.

No one is going to invade us, thats just silly. They are not going to have to when our country is just folds in on itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Now we all know a strike against Iran is inevitable, it's just a matter of when? Iran is at the top of the (U.S. "Bad Countries" List).

---

So? The US is on almost everyone's "bad country" list. I've seen polls from foreign nations, bush is almost invariably the #2 worst terrorist, behind osoma bin laden and in front of kim jong il, it doesn't make an attack inevitable

bush is both stupid and crazy, but he's not suicidal.

Something that is scary about China is how they seem to think and act as if they are in a cold war with us right now, but we don't seem to realize it. Our economies are interlocked, each depending on the other. I don't know if that is good or bad as far as aggression is concerned.

Lol @ the thought of our fat and lazy population acting as a militia, but I would hope they would rally if there were an actual invasion. I doubt a war between our countries would be fought like that except as clean-up.

China has like 10^6 or whatever excess young men that they probably consider completely expendable.

Neither the US or China could ever invade each other. China has way to many people. You really don't want to get into a war where they send 2 or 3 million troops at you. The US is just to big. At best you can invade a few states but your not going to get that far.

Which is another thing, each state has their own government as well. Even though we are relying heavily on the federal government at the moment, many of the states could still run alone. So its almost like invading 50 countries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I definitely don't think we need to nuke Iran, but we might end up having to invade them. Then what? Is China going to invade us? Hell no. We have enough nukes to blow up the entire world dozens of times over, and we have an armed citizenry. That means our country is one big military.

---

The issue is more complicated then if they get in you're way you nuke them.

Like someone else said the USA's economy and Chinas economy are intertwined. I read somwhere in the next couple decades china will surpass canada as your biggest trading partner. You could seriously cripple the chinese economy by causing such instability in Iran, which would all most certainly not be good for the world economy especially your countries econommy since you are heavily indebted to china and you both thrive off trade with eachother.

Apparently you guys are borrwing lots of money from china to finance the iraq war, i dont think china will borrow you the money to invade one of their largest trading partners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kushna Mufeed

Well, no shit, the US isn't going to invade Iran. They're already fighting two fronts and their economy won't be able to handle another blow. They'll deal with the problem in more discreet ways, most likely. Cue conspiracy: Divide and conquer. They'll split the population and spark a civil war. They did it with the Black Panthers. They did it with the Sunnis and Shiate in Iraq. And they could do it again. If you can't deal with the problem from without, deal with in from within. Either that, or they'll use one of the older divisions and get a few Middle Eastern countries to do it.

---

I agree, i dont see how the USA could invade Iran a country the size of alaska without re instating the draft and suffering serious blows to the economy ontop of the that it is unlikely they would get support from Britain, who have began pulling back soldiers from Iraq. It looks like if they do invade which is unlikely they will be going solo but who knows poland may throw in a couple hundred soldiers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Relying on effectively an untrained militia? Whilst numbers might be impressive, in reality, it'll mean shit. A professional soldier is far superior in terms of ability (even the common grunts), so that 'militia' comment doesn't really hold.

---

It does hold. Of course a trained military is much more skillful than citizens with guns. I am saying we have a nation of citizens with guns IN ADDITION to the best military in the world IN ADDITION to the ability to blow up the world dozens of times over. China will never invade us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

The issue is more complicated then if they get in you're way you nuke them.

Like someone else said the USA's economy and Chinas economy are intertwined. I read somwhere in the next couple decades china will surpass canada as your biggest trading partner. You could seriously cripple the chinese economy by causing such instability in Iran, which would all most certainly not be good for the world economy especially your countries econommy since you are heavily indebted to china and you both thrive off trade with eachother.

Apparently you guys are borrwing lots of money from china to finance the iraq war, i dont think china will borrow you the money to invade one of their largest trading partners.

---

China knows that if they invaded us they would not have a country any more. It is never going to happen. And the fact that we have borrowed money from China to fight in Iraq does not mean we wouldn't have been able to do it without them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It does hold. Of course a trained military is much more skillful than citizens with guns. I am saying we have a nation of citizens with guns IN ADDITION to the best military in the world IN ADDITION to the ability to blow up the world dozens of times over. China will never invade us.

---

That is still quite the optimistic view on the whole thing. Your best military in the world claim may be so, BUT, a mass of armed citizens is no match for a potential large Chinese Army. China does also have plenty of aircraft, armour, etc, which would lay waste to any militia. Therefore, a militia, at best, would only manage to create small pockets of resistance in the face of a Chinese invasion.

I wouldn't make the claim that such a militia would be effective... I have much more confidence in the US army in it's ability to defend the country, since they have the equipment and coordination for effective defensive manoeuvres and counter-offensive. A militia is nothing in comparison to the army.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

That is still quite the optimistic view on the whole thing. Your best military in the world claim may be so, BUT, a mass of armed citizens is no match for a potential large Chinese Army. China does also have plenty of aircraft, armour, etc, which would lay waste to any militia. Therefore, a militia, at best, would only manage to create small pockets of resistance in the face of a Chinese invasion.

I wouldn't make the claim that such a militia would be effective... I have much more confidence in the US army in it's ability to defend the country, since they have the equipment and coordination for effective defensive manoeuvres and counter-offensive. A militia is nothing in comparison to the army.

---

The armed citizenry would make a very good addition. When the Chinese military tries to go into houses, they get shot. They would have a whole lot of extra bullets coming at them every time they go into populated areas. It would add a whole new dimension to the situation. 200 and whatever million people with guns would not be a cake walk for any military, especially when they are preoccupied with fighting the U.S. military and all of our allies. I don't think the U.S. citizenry would be able to come close to defeating the Chinese military by themselves, but they would add a great deal more trouble to the Chinese military's efforts against our military and allies. More than 200 million pissed off people with guns would be a an enormous problem for any military, and I am only talking about a bonus.

Besides by the time China invades all the militia memebers in the US will be in jail for terrorism. Militia's are practically illegal in this country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

Besides by the time China invades all the militia memebers in the US will be in jail for terrorism. Militia's are practically illegal in this country.

---

Militias are legal under the right to assemble in the Bill of Rights. They are also mentioned in the Second Amendment as a justification. Also, nobody would go to jail for shooting at Chinese soldiers if they came here and tried to take over.

I am not talking about organized militias any way. I am talking about me, you, and every other citizen who knows how to shoot a gun getting guns from under our beds, from friends, or from gun stores and going out and shooting every Chinese soldier we see. It would make the insurgency in Iraq look like a few angry three year olds.

Unfortunately, whats legal under the bill of rights, isn't always the same as whats legal. Our government violates peoples rights all the time.

I know your talking about just people in general. The reason I bring up the organized people, is because they normally have bigger guns, some of which may actually help a lot if fighting an army. Except they get arrested all the time, and they get their guns stolen by the government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

China knows that if they invaded us they would not have a country any more. It is never going to happen. And the fact that we have borrowed money from China to fight in Iraq does not mean we wouldn't have been able to do it without them.

---

Im not suggesting China would try to invade you, actually thats the last thing i think china would do. Im not sure what china would if the USA nuked or bombed Iran,Its hard to guess but i don't think the USA will bomb or invade iran in the first place because a chinese military base inside its territory would be a deterent enough for america plus the fact that economically/financially america needs China. HOw much money do you guys own china again? 9 trillion dollars?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Im not suggesting China would try to invade you, actually thats the last thing i think china would do. Im not sure what china would if the USA nuked or bombed Iran,Its hard to guess but i don't think the USA will bomb or invade iran in the first place because a chinese military base inside its territory would be a deterent enough for america plus the fact that economically/financially america needs China. HOw much money do you guys own china again? 9 trillion dollars?

---

If we invade Iran, it will most likely not happen in the way we invaded Iraq. It would probably involve a bombing of key military and other government sites. We would definitely bomb a nuke facility if they ever get one going. If we have to move in and take over, I'm sure we will tell China ahead of time and leave their base alone if they ever have a base there.

Our debt to China is about 300 billion dollars. 9 trillion is our overall national debt.

China is not the only part of the picture, of course. Virtually every industrialized nation would be affected negatively by the economic fallout. Trade sanctions would be the most likely, and, I'd imagine, most effective, retaliation. Japan could be an even more worrisome economic adversary than China, though, since Japan holds ~$800 billion in US debt.

So far, however, only the immediate consequences of an attack have been considered. I can only imagine how catastrophic the US response to sanctions would be to the US,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The armed citizenry would make a very good addition. When the Chinese military tries to go into houses, they get shot. They would have a whole lot of extra bullets coming at them every time they go into populated areas. It would add a whole new dimension to the situation. 200 and whatever million people with guns would not be a cake walk for any military, especially when they are preoccupied with fighting the U.S. military and all of our allies. I don't think the U.S. citizenry would be able to come close to defeating the Chinese military by themselves, but they would add a great deal more trouble to the Chinese military's efforts against our military and allies. More than 200 million pissed off people with guns would be a an enormous problem for any military, and I am only talking about a bonus.

---

That is still the optimistic claim. You'd have to assume whole families are willing to risk their lives in order to shoot some Chinese soldiers. At most, it'll be people evacuating to safer areas, using the weapons they have as a means of defense, as opposed to acting as a resistance force. The percentage that would stick around to shoot would only be a small part of that 200 million, which is why I said that at best, they would only create small pockets of resistance.

The US military would be able to stop such a theoretical invasion, and be able to do so without resorting to nukes. However, do not underestimate the Chinese forces, because they are still formidable, in any case. That is all.

Damn... now I feel like playing a strategy game... where's my pc and games when I need them! :embarrassed:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

That is still the optimistic claim. You'd have to assume whole families are willing to risk their lives in order to shoot some Chinese soldiers. At most, it'll be people evacuating to safer areas, using the weapons they have as a means of defense, as opposed to acting as a resistance force. The percentage that would stick around to shoot would only be a small part of that 200 million, which is why I said that at best, they would only create small pockets of resistance.

The US military would be able to stop such a theoretical invasion, and be able to do so without resorting to nukes. However, do not underestimate the Chinese forces, because they are still formidable, in any case. That is all.

---

We have 300 million people living in the country. I said 200 and whatever million just to take into account that some people would not fight. An invasion would have most of the country fighting, I am pretty sure. That is how Americans think. A lot of people would retreat and have weapons as a means of defense, but they would shoot as soon as they saw the Chinese soldiers, which probably would happen on their way to whatever places they think are retreats. But more importantly, our military would drive the Chinese out in a hurry. The point is that China knows better than to invade us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We have 300 million people living in the country. I said 200 and whatever million just to take into account that some people would not fight. An invasion would have most of the country fighting, I am pretty sure. That is how Americans think. A lot of people would retreat and have weapons as a means of defense, but they would shoot as soon as they saw the Chinese soldiers, which probably would happen on their way to whatever places they think are retreats. But more importantly, our military would drive the Chinese out in a hurry. The point is that China knows better than to invade us.

---

And yet the US military is considering to invade Iran, despite being stretch enough as it is in Iraq and Afghanistan. So yeah, China knows better not invade... yet. DUM DUM DUMM!! D:

Personally, I wouldn't advocate that armed citizenry would fight like you describe. If the Chinese are clever enough with their manoeuvres, they'll simply send a good amount of armour along with any troops, in which armed citizens will stand no chance. That or aerial bombardments, a tactic used by the US quite a lot. In other words, apply just enough pressure to crack any resistance of that sort. And if they really paid attention to The Art Of War, always leave a means of escape for the enemy, which in this case would be those armed citizens. Because then the citizens are presented with the choice of either 1) Dying, 2)Escaping to live and possibly fight another day, and I'm very sure that most would pick the latter when presented with the two options. Only the most diehard of your citizens would pick the former.

However, if I were trying to get armed citizens to fight, I would present a situation were no matter where they go, they'll face death. In this situation, people become desperate and will do anything to live. This mentality would then create such a headache for any invading army, that they would have to resort to extreme measures in order to quell such resistance. Not exactly a great thing to do, but nothing is quite as dangerous as a desperate person. Something used to great effect by the Japanese in WW2 (the whole kamikaze thing).

However, yeah, the US military would probably be a very tough nut to crack for any invading force, but armed citizens would be the least of worries.

I'm sure someone has mentioned this already, but China would love for us to invade Iran. They already have the U.S. in their pockets so any financial gain the U.S. could glean from an Iran invasion would basically be handed directly over to China. Do you think they would rather buy oil from Iran or have the U.S. give it to them to pay off our debt?

Didn't the US recently fail to find any evidence of a modern nuclear weaponry programme in Iran? And didn't Bush simply refute the findings?

Edit: Mhm.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3228400.stm

It's Iraq all over again, except this time they actually know there's no WoMD. Disgusting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We have 300 million people living in the country. I said 200 and whatever million just to take into account that some people would not fight. An invasion would have most of the country fighting, I am pretty sure. That is how Americans think. A lot of people would retreat and have weapons as a means of defense, but they would shoot as soon as they saw the Chinese soldiers, which probably would happen on their way to whatever places they think are retreats. But more importantly, our military would drive the Chinese out in a hurry. The point is that China knows better than to invade us.

---

Universal Mind is absolutely correct. Like I said before, I'm trained to go. If it goes down like that, better believe I'm Cocked Blocked and ready to Rock! If I happen to go down, Oh turst me I'm taking a dozen or so with me. Thats on the Forealla!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Universal Mind is absolutely correct. Like I said before, I'm trained to go. If it goes down like that, better believe I'm Cocked Blocked and ready to Rock! If I happen to go down, Oh turst me I'm taking a dozen or so with me. Thats on the Forealla!

---

I dont think you'll do much better then a suicide bomber lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

And yet the US military is considering to invade Iran, despite being stretch enough as it is in Iraq and Afghanistan. So yeah, China knows better not invade... yet. DUM DUM DUMM!! D:

---

Don't forget about the nukes. We would rather commit suicide than be taken over. China will never take over the United States. That might be bad news for some people, but it is the truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Personally, I wouldn't advocate that armed citizenry would fight like you describe. If the Chinese are clever enough with their manoeuvres, they'll simply send a good amount of armour along with any troops, in which armed citizens will stand no chance. That or aerial bombardments, a tactic used by the US quite a lot. In other words, apply just enough pressure to crack any resistance of that sort. And if they really paid attention to The Art Of War, always leave a means of escape for the enemy, which in this case would be those armed citizens. Because then the citizens are presented with the choice of either 1) Dying, 2)Escaping to live and possibly fight another day, and I'm very sure that most would pick the latter when presented with the two options. Only the most diehard of your citizens would pick the former.

However, if I were trying to get armed citizens to fight, I would present a situation were no matter where they go, they'll face death. In this situation, people become desperate and will do anything to live. This mentality would then create such a headache for any invading army, that they would have to resort to extreme measures in order to quell such resistance. Not exactly a great thing to do, but nothing is quite as dangerous as a desperate person. Something used to great effect by the Japanese in WW2 (the whole kamikaze thing).

However, yeah, the US military would probably be a very tough nut to crack for any invading force, but armed citizens would be the least of worries.

---

Yes, armed citizens would be a much smaller worry than the U.S. military and our nukes. But you just named two things that the armed citizenry would/could greatly affect. You talked about the possibility of the Chinese turning the whole thing into an air raid. That would qualify as having a pretty big effect, don't you think? Then our military would handle them from the ground, from the sky, and from space. You also talked about how the Chinese soldiers would have to wrap themselves all up in armor. That would get pretty expensive and disrupt their efficiency. That too would be a major effect. Then they would have more than 200 million people shooting at them during an onset of mass production of armor piercing bullets, bombs, rocket launchers, you name it. There is no way that big of an citizen counterattack would not be significant. Do you think the insurgency in Iraq is something to deal with? Of course it is. Multiply that factor by about a hundred. That would be a nice bonus to the best military in the world and enough nukes to turn China into a black spot on the map the day they invade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Didn't the US recently fail to find any evidence of a modern nuclear weaponry programme in Iran? And didn't Bush simply refute the findings?

Edit: Mhm.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3228400.stm

It's Iraq all over again, except this time they actually know there's no WoMD. Disgusting.

---

I have only heard Bush say that Iran is working on nuclear technology for what they claim is energy oriented and that we can't even allow that. We are not going to invade Iran based on what is happening right now. The threat concerns what they might end up doing. Iran with nukes is out of the question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Universal Mind is absolutely correct. Like I said before, I'm trained to go. If it goes down like that, better believe I'm Cocked Blocked and ready to Rock! If I happen to go down, Oh turst me I'm taking a dozen or so with me. Thats on the Forealla!

---

I will be sniping from very unexpected places with rocket launchers and bombs. You can count on it. Imagine 200 million of us doing that while the other 100 million are armed for self-defense.

I'm still confused, where does right wing belief come from that we're going to be invaded by China? They're one of our biggest allies, our economy is tied very tightly with theirs, and vise versa. There aren't 200 million people with guns in the US, in most [northern] large cities guns are illegal and a large percentage of Americans live in those cities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

I'm still confused, where does right wing belief come from that we're going to be invaded by China? They're one of our biggest allies, our economy is tied very tightly with theirs, and vise versa.

---

I don't think it's a right wing belief. It's more like an Art Bell radio show belief, like 12/21/12.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

There aren't 200 million people with guns in the US, in most [northern] large cities guns are illegal and a large percentage of Americans live in those cities.

---

You apparently haven't read all I've said. If we got invaded by China, there would THEN be more than 200 million people with guns. There are enough guns in this country for everybody to have a few, and we have factories. The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms (have guns), so guns are not supposed to be banned in any city. There are just registration complications in a lot of places. Also, people could go to other places to buy them, including the underground markets.

I think the armed citizenry issue is being harped on way too much in this thread. I said it would be a bonus to our military power and our nuke potential. It would be a small factor compared to the other two deterrents, but it would still be signficant. I never once said it is the biggest deterrent factor. Next topic please.

Like I said earlier; in this situation, a Chinese invasion of the U.S. due to our handling of Iran is a non-issue. I see no reason why they would not back us in any military effort we may decide to make.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Don't forget about the nukes. We would rather commit suicide than be taken over. China will never take over the United States. That might be bad news for some people, but it is the truth.

---

And so make your own land inhabitable for thousands and thousands of years? Sounds like a bastion of reason here [/sarcasm]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Yes, armed citizens would be a much smaller worry than the U.S. military and our nukes. But you just named two things that the armed citizenry would/could greatly affect. You talked about the possibility of the Chinese turning the whole thing into an air raid. That would qualify as having a pretty big effect, don't you think? Then our military would handle them from the ground, from the sky, and from space. You also talked about how the Chinese soldiers would have to wrap themselves all up in armor. That would get pretty expensive and disrupt their efficiency. That too would be a major effect. Then they would have more than 200 million people shooting at them during an onset of mass production of armor piercing bullets, bombs, rocket launchers, you name it. There is no way that big of an citizen counterattack would not be significant. Do you think the insurgency in Iraq is something to deal with? Of course it is. Multiply that factor by about a hundred. That would be a nice bonus to the best military in the world and enough nukes to turn China into a black spot on the map the day they invade.

---

You are still working on assumptions that everyone is as zealously opposed any sort of invasion like you. Insurgents are actually trained rebels, not citizens here, so of course they would be effective. A citizen may have done hunting or did some shooting at a range, but when push comes to shove and that citizen, along with many others, is on the receiving end of Chinese military manoeuvre, most would flee for their lives. Not many people would stick around to cause trouble.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I have only heard Bush say that Iran is working on nuclear technology for what they claim is energy oriented and that we can't even allow that. We are not going to invade Iran based on what is happening right now. The threat concerns what they might end up doing. Iran with nukes is out of the question.

---

And yet Israel, Pakistan, and India have nuclear capability, of which the latter two don't exactly have great relations? Hmmm... something is just not right here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I will be sniping from very unexpected places with rocket launchers and bombs. You can count on it. Imagine 200 million of us doing that while the other 100 million are armed for self-defense.

---

Funnily enough, I have a marksmanship award for use of a .22 rifle, but they are really useless unless aimed at the head. 200 million is still a completely outrageous claim, and unfortunately, this is boiling down to over-zealous patriotism, something quite humorously satirised in Starship Troopers. Nukes would be out of the question as a defensive measure, and even using them in retaliation to an invasion would get Russia and other nations screaming "NUKE FIGHT!!!!1!11 LOLOLOLOLOL". Which of course, would lead to complete, worldwide obliteration.

I do hope most of that is done in jest, otherwise it is quite the disturbing revelation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

And so make your own land inhabitable for thousands and thousands of years? Sounds like a bastion of reason here [/sarcasm]

---

"Sarcasm", huh? We heard it there first. May the games begin.

No, we are all for just allowing a communist government to take us over. We'll roll over and be their bitches if they make us. Americans don't believe in dying for freedom. [sarcasm]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

You are still working on assumptions that everyone is as zealously opposed any sort of invasion like you. Insurgents are actually trained rebels, not citizens here, so of course they would be effective. A citizen may have done hunting or did some shooting at a range, but when push comes to shove and that citizen, along with many others, is on the receiving end of Chinese military manoeuvre, most would flee for their lives. Not many people would stick around to cause trouble.

---

You apparently don't know Americans very well, even if you do live "here". Where do you live? It says the UK in your profile. How is that "here"?

A lot of our population is ex-military, a whole lot of it is redneck nut job with guns, a great deal of it is ghetto gangster with guns, and most of the rest worship our country as if it is a god, and it wouldn't take a long time to learn how to shoot a gun and blow up a bomb. It's not rocket science. We have a culture that places freedom above life itself. It is like a religion here. It is what we were founded on, and it is what gave us the determination to drive England the Hell out of here with such a small number of troops and armed citizens. There would be a world record citizen backlash in the midst of a Chinese invasion of the United States. You can bet the farm on that one.

I don't understand why you are so Hell bent on the armed citizenry part any way. I said it would be a bonus. Even if only twenty million people took up their own arms, which is a vast underestimate, that would definitely be a big time bonus, as illustrated by what you said about driving the Chinese into the sky and making them all completely cover themselves in armor. You did suggest both of those, didn't you? What is many times bigger is our military factor. So is our nuke deterrent.

The Chinese will never invade us. Accept it even if you don't like it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

And yet Israel, Pakistan, and India have nuclear capability, of which the latter two don't exactly have great relations? Hmmm... something is just not right here.

---

Can they blow up an entire country within thirty minutes, and when was the last time one of them tried to completely take over one of the other ones you named? Something is not right with your analogy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

I have a marksmanship award for use of a .22 rifle

---

Holy shit. Remind me not to fuck with YOU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

but they are really useless unless aimed at the head.

---

Hopefully other types of guns will be invented some day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

200 million is still a completely outrageous claim, and unfortunately, this is boiling down to over-zealous patriotism, something quite humorously satirised in Starship Troopers.

---

This isn't France. Guns are legal and majorly abundant here, and being taken over by a government that is here to oppress us and not help us would have the masses going ape shit like nothing that has ever happened on this planet. Perhaps you should study something other than Starship Troopers to understand that aspect of reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Nukes would be out of the question as a defensive measure, and even using them in retaliation to an invasion would get Russia and other nations screaming "NUKE FIGHT!!!!1!11 LOLOLOLOLOL". Which of course, would lead to complete, worldwide obliteration.

---

We will turn China into a black spot on the map if that's what it takes to prevent being taken over by them. What Russia does is their thing. China does not want to even roll dice with the nuke fight scenario. They are not going to invade us. It is a fact. Sorry to disappoint you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

I do hope most of that is done in jest, otherwise it is quite the disturbing revelation.

---

Please say that again, but with fewer pronouns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

"Sarcasm", huh? We heard it there first. May the games begin.

No, we are all for just allowing a communist government to take us over. We'll roll over and be their bitches if they make us. Americans don't believe in dying for freedom. [sarcasm]

---

Okay, I get it, but still.. what's the point of nuking your own land just to prevent an invasion? It just isn't logical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You apparently don't know Americans very well, even if you do live "here". Where do you live? It says the UK in your profile. How is that "here"?

---

Sorry, I didn't phrase that sentence correctly. What I meant to say was that Insurgents are mostly rebels or 'terrorists' that have had training in guerilla warfare, etc, hence their current effectiveness in the Iraq war. Citizens, at most, form untrained militias, of which their effectiveness varies. I hope that clears things up. Oh, just an FYI, I simply live in the UK, my nationality is not English.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

A lot of our population is ex-military, a whole lot of it is redneck nut job with guns, a great deal of it is ghetto gangster with guns, and most of the rest worship our country as if it is a god, and it wouldn't take a long time to learn how to shoot a gun and blow up a bomb. It's not rocket science. We have a culture that places freedom above life itself. It is like a religion here. It is what we were founded on, and it is what gave us the determination to drive England the Hell out of here with such a small number of troops and armed citizens. There would be a world record citizen backlash in the midst of a Chinese invasion of the United States. You can bet the farm on that one.

---

Noted, but nonetheless... people would still try to move away from danger and peril. Of course, there would be numerous people who would stick around, but it would only be a fraction of the majority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I don't understand why you are so Hell bent on the armed citizenry part any way. I said it would be a bonus. Even if only twenty million people took up their own arms, which is a vast underestimate, that would definitely be a big time bonus, as illustrated by what you said about driving the Chinese into the sky and making them all completely cover themselves in armor. You did suggest both of those, didn't you? What is many times bigger is our military factor. So is our nuke deterrent.

The Chinese will never invade us. Accept it even if you don't like it.

---

In war, numbers confer little advantage. Considering any armed force is vastly better supplied than maybe 20 million armed citizens, even those twenty million aren't much in the face of a sustained conflict.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Can they blow up an entire country within thirty minutes, and when was the last time one of them tried to completely take over one of the other ones you named? Something is not right with your analogy.

---

I haven't seen Iran do much other than blow a whole load of smoke, of which the US administration has done nothing but respond to obvious provocations. Plus, making a comment such as "Can they blow up an entire country within thirty minutes?" is not exactly a positive thing to boast about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Holy shit. Remind me not to fuck with YOU.

---

My sarcasm meter just went off the scale... heh, I only made that as a comment, not to boast about it like a pissing contest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Hopefully other types of guns will be invented some day.

---

And now my sarcasm meter has imploded... just too much sarcasm for it to handle. :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

This isn't France. Guns are legal and majorly abundant here, and being taken over by a government that is here to oppress us and not help us would have the masses going ape shit like nothing that has ever happened on this planet. Perhaps you should study something other than Starship Troopers to understand that aspect of reality.

---

Please, don't assume ignorance just because I made reference to only one thing. I'm not assuming you're stupid, I'm just curious as to all the assertions you have made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We will turn China into a black spot on the map if that's what it takes to prevent being taken over by them. What Russia does is their thing. China does not want to even roll dice with the nuke fight scenario. They are not going to invade us. It is a fact. Sorry to disappoint you.

---

Relying on nukes as a deterrent is fairly weak, to be honest. Besides, this is a theoretical discussion on the highly unlikely scenario of a chinese invasion on the US, and China and the US have strong economic ties anyway, so neither would consider an invasion, nor nuking the shit out of the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Please say that again, but with fewer pronouns.

---

"I hope most of what is said here is said in a light-hearted fashion", if that helps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms (have guns), so guns are not supposed to be banned in any city.

---

The second amendment gives the states the right to have a militia to fight back an overbearing government, you need to look at the bill of rights.

Quote:

---

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

---

If the people want to ban guns from their city it's perfectly legal to do so, it severely drops the rate of violent crimes. There are more than this, but the following cities have gun bans: NYC, Jersey City, Newark, Albany. It is illegal to own any kind of firearm in any of them.

The bill of rights gives individuals the rights to bear arms. Everyone who is serious about studying the constitution knows it. Its only the stupid gun control people who try and argue it gives states the right to have a militia.

Its funny, the entire bill of right is written up to protect individuals rights. All of them talk about the peoples rights, yet some how the second one is different in talking about the states and not the peoples rights to have guns? Thats kind of a silly claim, especially since it says "the right of the people" in it.

Also its a pointless arguement, since the 9th amendment gives you the right to bear arms as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

The bill of rights gives individuals the rights to bear arms. Everyone who is serious about studying the constitution knows it. Its only the stupid gun control people who try and argue it gives states the right to have a militia.

---

No, it means that the government can't arrest you for being part of a militia, not necessarily a state. I mentioned state, but I meant any local government.

Quote:

---

Also its a pointless arguement, since the 9th amendment gives you the right to bear arms as well.

---

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

How exactly?


The 2nd amendment was written to allow local governments to fight off a overbearing federal government in case the government decided to become England-like. No one is denying you the right to own a gun unless they've been banned by your local government (I own a handgun,) it was written in the time of musket loaders.

I want biological weapons.

Can't have those they're too dangerous.

I have the right to bear arms. Arms is defined as any offensive or defensive weapon.

There needs to be restrictions, anthrax is only used to kill people.

What about AK-47s?

Well we can't restrict those.

You really go duck hunting with machine guns?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Okay, I get it, but still.. what's the point of nuking your own land just to prevent an invasion? It just isn't logical.

---

I was saying that we would nuke China and China would probably nuke us in return, if they were willing to kill all of the soldiers that arrived here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Sorry, I didn't phrase that sentence correctly. What I meant to say was that Insurgents are mostly rebels or 'terrorists' that have had training in guerilla warfare, etc, hence their current effectiveness in the Iraq war. Citizens, at most, form untrained militias, of which their effectiveness varies. I hope that clears things up. Oh, just an FYI, I simply live in the UK, my nationality is not English.

---

So, you are an American? I was just wondering what you meant by "here".

Trained guerillas are better at guerilla warfar than people who are not trained in it. But a person with a gun is a problem, period. 200 million people with guns are a huge problem, even if all they are doing is sitting in their houses or wherever with their guns and waiting for a problem while just a few are shooting out their windows. That is stretching things all the way to the minimum scenario. It adds a whole new factor for those who are trying to take over cities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Noted, but nonetheless... people would still try to move away from danger and peril. Of course, there would be numerous people who would stick around, but it would only be a fraction of the majority.

---

Even if they all flee, wherever they go would be much more difficult to take over. Imagine trying to take over Chicago. Think about that picture, for example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

In war, numbers confer little advantage. Considering any armed force is vastly better supplied than maybe 20 million armed citizens, even those twenty million aren't much in the face of a sustained conflict.

---

Just keep thinking about trying to take over Chicago. Then think about trying to take over Los Angeles, New York, Washington, small towns in Mississippi and Alabama, wherever. There is no way that an armed citizenry is not going to add difficulty to that when our military is already handling things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

I haven't seen Iran do much other than blow a whole load of smoke, of which the US administration has done nothing but respond to obvious provocations.

---

Only by blowing smoke back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

. Plus, making a comment such as "Can they blow up an entire country within thirty minutes?" is not exactly a positive thing to boast about.

---

The point is that China does not want to take over a country that can do that. I hope we never blow up a country, by the way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

My sarcasm meter just went off the scale... heh, I only made that as a comment, not to boast about it like a pissing contest.

---

Well, I couldn't resist such a golden opportunity to smart off after you threw the first sarcasm punch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Please, don't assume ignorance just because I made reference to only one thing. I'm not assuming you're stupid, I'm just curious as to all the assertions you have made.

---

You mean Starship Troopers isn't really your guide to history?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Relying on nukes as a deterrent is fairly weak, to be honest. Besides, this is a theoretical discussion on the highly unlikely scenario of a chinese invasion on the US, and China and the US have strong economic ties anyway, so neither would consider an invasion, nor nuking the shit out of the other.

---

Nukes are not a deterrent? They worked pretty well on Japan. Our nukes also had the Soviet Union going berzerk with its low socialist budget. It is what hurried them out of existence.

Nobody wants to invade a country that can nuke them out of existence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

"I hope most of what is said here is said in a light-hearted fashion", if that helps.

---

Nooooooooooo.... :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

The second amendment gives the states the right to have a militia to fight back an overbearing government, you need to look at the bill of rights.

---

What is most relevant is that the Supreme Court interprets it as a right to own guns. But you are wrong any way. The word "militia" is used as a justification for the right to own guns. It is not solely about a right to have a militia. It uses the right to have a militia as a reason guns have to be legal. It mentions the necessity of militias and then says...

the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That is some pretty plain English. It does not say, "... the right of the people to keep and bear militias shall not be infringed." Look really hard at the words.

Now for what "arms" means...

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
arm2 /ɑrm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ahrm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. Usually, arms. weapons, esp. firearms.

What kind of "arms" had they just used to fight the Revolutionary War? Slingshots and billy clubs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I was saying that we would nuke China and China would probably nuke us in return, if they were willing to kill all of the soldiers that arrived here.

---

Actually, if it did end up like that, I'm sure China would simply skip the invasion bit and go for the nuking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

So, you are an American? I was just wondering what you meant by "here".

---

My actual nationality is something I want to keep to myself (for the purpose of maintaining a certain amount of anonymity), but I can say I'm not American either. I prefer to see myself as a person of the world as opposed to a person of a country (just a preference, really).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Trained guerillas are better at guerilla warfar than people who are not trained in it. But a person with a gun is a problem, period. 200 million people with guns are a huge problem, even if all they are doing is sitting in their houses or wherever with their guns and waiting for a problem while just a few are shooting out their windows. That is stretching things all the way to the minimum scenario. It adds a whole new factor for those who are trying to take over cities.

---

Maybe... but I remain sceptical about the actual effectiveness. Maybe in situations where people cannot flee and have no choice but to fight would they really be effective (again, nothing quite as dangerous as a desperate person), but as long as it is possible to flee from danger, then such effectiveness is somewhat iffy. Oh well, I think we have beaten this horse enough, don't you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Even if they all flee, wherever they go would be much more difficult to take over. Imagine trying to take over Chicago. Think about that picture, for example.
Just keep thinking about trying to take over Chicago. Then think about trying to take over Los Angeles, New York, Washington, small towns in Mississippi and Alabama, wherever. There is no way that an armed citizenry is not going to add difficulty to that when our military is already handling things.

---

Yeah, geographical issues will be a big problem for any invading army, no matter it's size. But your armed citizenry (again those who are willing to fight) would be most concentrated in larger cities, whilst in the countryside, would be too spread out to really form effective resistance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Only by blowing smoke back.

---

Well, perhaps if the US administration took a different tact with the Iranians (not invasion, btw), perhaps they may be more successful on dissuading the Iranians from their crazy shenanigans. You know... like getting them to sit on a table and take them seriously, because if they feel they aren't getting ignored or being threatened with sanctions, perhaps they might feel more inclined to listen. Just a thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The point is that China does not want to take over a country that can do that. I hope we never blow up a country, by the way.

---

And I hope no country, US or otherwise, makes the choice of using a nuke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Well, I couldn't resist such a golden opportunity to smart off after you threw the first sarcasm punch.

---

Heh, fair game...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You mean Starship Troopers isn't really your guide to history?

---

Oh no, it sure isn't. If I want a guide to history, I pick up a book on the subject. I merely made the reference because it was a movie I enjoyed due to its dark satire and comment on various elements of American society, etc. Plus, it was a fun, b-movie style sci-fi war film.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Nukes are not a deterrent? They worked pretty well on Japan. Our nukes also had the Soviet Union going berzerk with its low socialist budget. It is what hurried them out of existence.

Nobody wants to invade a country that can nuke them out of existence.

---

First of all, the Japanese never knew the development of such a powerful weapon, and so when it was first used, it had the shock effect which was very effective at melting the Japanese mentality. Now, if they had known, they would have probably tried to find ways to prevent such bombings from occurring, but as it was obvious they weren't aware, and had two cities pretty much levelled, of course it was going to dissuade them. Such is the effectiveness of a surprise attack, not necessarily due to the nuke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Nooooooooooo.... :mad:

---

GASP!! D:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Actually, if it did end up like that, I'm sure China would simply skip the invasion bit and go for the nuking.

---

Then why would we nuke them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

My actual nationality is something I want to keep to myself (for the purpose of maintaining a certain amount of anonymity), but I can say I'm not American either. I prefer to see myself as a person of the world as opposed to a person of a country (just a preference, really).

---

:lol: What? Telling me what country you are from would reveal who you are? Wait... You're that guy who was born in Canada. Busted!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Maybe... but I remain sceptical about the actual effectiveness. Maybe in situations where people cannot flee and have no choice but to fight would they really be effective (again, nothing quite as dangerous as a desperate person), but as long as it is possible to flee from danger, then such effectiveness is somewhat iffy. Oh well, I think we have beaten this horse enough, don't you think?

---

Sure. But I am still not ready to put on armor and walk into Detroit when everybody there is ready to kill me, especially if they are just helping out the U.S. military.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Yeah, geographical issues will be a big problem for any invading army, no matter it's size. But your armed citizenry (again those who are willing to fight) would be most concentrated in larger cities, whilst in the countryside, would be too spread out to really form effective resistance.

---

What are the Chinese troops going to do out in the countryside? Take over some hills?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Well, perhaps if the US administration took a different tact with the Iranians (not invasion, btw), perhaps they may be more successful on dissuading the Iranians from their crazy shenanigans. You know... like getting them to sit on a table and take them seriously, because if they feel they aren't getting ignored or being threatened with sanctions, perhaps they might feel more inclined to listen. Just a thought.

---

I think it is maybe worth a try, but don't forget that we are dealing with religious nuts who train terrorist groups to kill "infidels" and stone people to death for adultery and homosexuality. It is not very different from trying to reason with rabid dogs. What could we possibly say to the Iranian government that would convince them not to have nukes other than, "You build nukes, bad things happen to you."?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

And I hope no country, US or otherwise, makes the choice of using a nuke.

---

Ditto. I hope nobody ever uses a nuke again. I think the Chinese feel the same way. I don't think the Iranians do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Oh no, it sure isn't. If I want a guide to history, I pick up a book on the subject. I merely made the reference because it was a movie I enjoyed due to its dark satire and comment on various elements of American society, etc. Plus, it was a fun, b-movie style sci-fi war film.

---

I think your sarcasm detector must have blown a fuse. Or maybe mine is going off so hard I can't even hear it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

First of all, the Japanese never knew the development of such a powerful weapon, and so when it was first used, it had the shock effect which was very effective at melting the Japanese mentality. Now, if they had known, they would have probably tried to find ways to prevent such bombings from occurring, but as it was obvious they weren't aware, and had two cities pretty much levelled, of course it was going to dissuade them. Such is the effectiveness of a surprise attack, not necessarily due to the nuke.

---

I think having two cities levelled has people rethinking strategy pretty much every time. I also think that the threat of having two cities levelled has a lot of people putting away their strategy pads and going fishing.

The general consensus is that the 2nd amendment protects peoples rights to own guns. There is also a long standing tradition with people owning guns, and its considered a right. So even if they are wrong, the 9th amendment says, just because your rights are not writen down, doesn't mean they aren't protected under the law.

Thus anyone if someone argues, the right to own a gun isn't written down, you point first to the 2nd amendment and if they say thats wrong, you point to the 9th.

Anyway, its kind of silly to say your allowed to form a militia but your not allowed to own any weapons that are capable of defeating an oppressive government. You just said the point was to defend themself from an overbearing federal government, yet they are not allowed to own any guns?

If something is illegal for the government to own, of course the people shouldn't have them either. But if the government can have tanks and stuff I don't see a problem allowing the population to have machine guns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Then why would we nuke them?

---

Perhaps out of boredom maybe? Only joking... well, if in that case, then it wouldn't happen, because again, simply too unlikely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

:lol: What? Telling me what country you are from would reveal who you are? Wait... You're that guy who was born in Canada. Busted!

---

Oh noes! I've been found out! Crap... :lol:
It's just my preference to maintain at least some form of anonymity with my personal details. Nothing personal, it's just a habit of mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal

Mind Sure. But I am still not ready to put on armor and walk into Detroit when everybody there is ready to kill me, especially if they are just helping out the U.S. military.

---

Heh, fair enough...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What are the Chinese troops going to do out in the countryside? Take over some hills?

---

Well, manoeuvre their armies to and fro... easier to move through areas of less resistance. May not necessarily mean claiming a hill, but if an army can move more freely, then it would advantageous to secure the countryside.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I think it is maybe worth a try, but don't forget that we are dealing with religious nuts who train terrorist groups to kill "infidels" and stone people to death for adultery and homosexuality. It is not very different from trying to reason with rabid dogs. What could we possibly say to the Iranian government that would convince them not to have nukes other than, "You build nukes, bad things happen to you."?

---

I am aware of their 'policies' and human rights record, but sometimes, getting them to sit down by a table and taking them seriously is really the only way to get them to listen. And also, the only way change is going to happen within the country is if the people are willing enough to risk their lives for it, and if the chance is given for change to flourish, so this is something to work towards on the long-term scale, as opposed to the short-term diffusing of this 'pissing contest' between Iran and the US government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Ditto. I hope nobody ever uses a nuke again. I think the Chinese feel the same way. I don't think the Iranians do.

---

I think maybe the Iranians want a Dr. Frankenstein moment with nuclear power... you know.. "it's alive! It's ALIVE!!" and the power rush it gives. Perhaps we wouldn't such a problem with the Iranians developing nuclear power if they simply allowed the necessary concessions in order to insure it was only for peaceful purposes right from the beginning. Who knows...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I think your sarcasm detector must have blown a fuse. Or maybe mine is going off so hard I can't even hear it.

---

If my sarcasm detector is broke, it was from your overwhelming sarcastic posts :lol:. But the thing is... I actually enjoyed that movie... I even have it in my DVD collection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I think having two cities levelled has people rethinking strategy pretty much every time. I also think that the threat of having two cities levelled has a lot of people putting away their strategy pads and going fishing.

---

Or with the latter option, only encourage the most fearless, and probably sociopathic strategists to keep on scheming and plotting. But, in the Japanese situation, I think a lot of the strategical change was due to the fact it was essentially a complete surprise, along with the severity of the attack that forced them to change tact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

I dont think you'll do much better then a suicide bomber lol.

---

You said that right "You don't think" I'm a Marine vet, with a wife and daughter. Do you honestly for one second think I would'nt Blow a Motherf***ers brains out to protect mine? If you do then you must be smoking a whole lot of something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

Anyway, its kind of silly to say your allowed to form a militia but your not allowed to own any weapons that are capable of defeating an oppressive government. You just said the point was to defend themself from an overbearing federal government, yet they are not allowed to own any guns?

If something is illegal for the government to own, of course the people shouldn't have them either. But if the government can have tanks and stuff I don't see a problem allowing the population to have machine guns.

---

I don't how the guns situation is there in the USA, but if people are allowed to have guns just because of a 200 hundred years old document, then it can't get any sillier. :shock:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

You said that right "You don't think" I'm a Marine vet, with a wife and daughter. Do you honestly for one second think I would'nt Blow a Motherf***ers brains out to protect mine? If you do then you must be smoking a whole lot of something.

---

Well then, in that case, isn't protecting your wife and daughter more important than your country or your own brains? If not, how would you prioritise it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

My actual nationality is something I want to keep to myself (for the purpose of maintaining a certain amount of anonymity), but I can say I'm not American either. I prefer to see myself as a person of the world as opposed to a person of a country

---

Halleluya! I like you already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

I don't how the guns situation is there in the USA, but if people are allowed to have guns just because of a 200 hundred years old document, then it can't get any sillier. :shock:

---

Thats because you dont know anything about history. The people in the US believe they have a god given right to defend themself, and their property. Our rights don't come from any piece of paper, we are born with them. The paper is only there to protect our rights. It basicly tells the government, "Back off! We have rights and since you serve us, the people, you will not take them away!"

The age of the paper is utterly pointless. Some people, especially gun control advocates would like you to believe that owning guns is an outdated idea. Nothing could be further from the truth however. The right to defend yourself has been a right all throughout history. Had the US been created a 1000 years ago it may have said, your right to own a sword shall not be infringed. And if it did it would still apply to guns. Because its not about owning a gun, its about having a right to defend yourself and your property.

Doesn't it give people the idea that they can just shoot anyone they want?

Of course not, why would it?

Because people aren't always in control of their emotions...
A psycho with a gun is more dangerous than an unarmed psycho.

But whatever I don't feel like arguing forever.

We are not talking about psychos though. We are talking about normal everyday people. You use a steak knife to cut your food, but you never thought of running around stabbing people in the face with it did you? Of course not.

Besides, if there is a crazy person running around, why wouldn't you want to defend yourself? Its an odd idea that if you give up your weapon your some how safer when a nut case goes on a rampage. If you notice mass shooting always take place in areas where they ban guns. Theres never shootings at the gun range however. Hmm I wonder why? Maybe its because if people have guns they just shoot the psycho?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

We are not talking about psychos though. We are talking about normal everyday people. You use a steak knife to cut your food, but you never thought of running around stabbing people in the face with it did you? Of course not.

---

If there's no ban on guns, then psychos can get guns. x)

A knife is a lot different than a gun, with the gun you just pull the trigger and magic happens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Timothy Paradox

Doesn't it give people the idea that they can just shoot anyone they want?

---

You have held a steak knife, did it give you the idea you could stab anyone you wanted?

Yes. I could. But of course, I'm a sane human, so I don't.

There is a ban on drugs and theres tons of people with drugs. Why do you believe if there was a ban on guns there would be no guns? The truth is, banning guns doesn't get rid of them, its just makes it very difficulty for normaly people to get them legally. Criminals and insane people will still have them either way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

Thats because you dont know anything about history. The people in the US believe they have a god given right to defend themself, and their property.

---

1. God isn't real
2. a 9 millimeter sidearm defends your property just as well as an uzi.

Doesn't matter if god is real or not. People still have the innate right to be free and to defend themself. It doesn't really matter why you believe that, the belief that you are born with certian rights are what we are talking about.

When does the innate right to own a killing device come from then? If all you want is self defense, why not get a taser instead?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

2. a 9 millimeter sidearm defends your property just as well as an uzi.

---

...

An uzi is much better than a 9 millimeter for defending yourself against a gang of attackers or intruders. A tazer only subdues sombody for a little bit, and it is not instantaneous. Watch the "Don't Taze Me, Bro" video to see how weak a tazer is. If somebody attacks you or breaks into your house, you deserve to be able to take the person completely out on the spot so you can be as safe as possible. You do not owe it to an attacker to make things riskier for yourself. Attackers owe you as much safety as you can have.

Taser wouldn't help you if more than one person attacked you. It also isn't a fair match up against a gun. People have guns so you need to have a gun to be on an even ground with them. Even if guns were made illegal people would still own guns, so you would still need a gun to be on an even level with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

Taser wouldn't help you if more than one person attacked you. It also isn't a fair match up against a gun. People have guns so you need to have a gun to be on an even ground with them. Even if guns were made illegal people would still own guns, so you would still need a gun to be on an even level with them.

---

A war on guns would be very successful. Just look at how good of a job they are doing with the war on drugs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Well then, in that case, isn't protecting your wife and daughter more important than your country or your own brains? If not, how would you prioritise it?

---

I could give a damn about this country. I think I was pretty clear up there in regards to how I explained it. The scenerio was was also clear as well and I'll reinerate what I said and make it more elementry for those who didn't understand. My Country Invaded - Me - Splattering Brains all over the pavement bottom Line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

I could give a damn about this country. I think I was pretty clear up there in regards to how I explained it. The scenerio was was also clear as well and I'll reinerate what I said and make it more elementry for those who didn't understand. My Country Invaded - Me - Splattering Brains all over the pavement bottom Line.

---

Exactly!. Now i wonder why some people are surpised at the reaction of iraqs people to the invasion when all they have to do is think what would they do if a foreign power invaded there own country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Exactly!. Now i wonder why some people are surpised at the reaction of iraqs people to the invasion when all they have to do is think what would they do if a foreign power invaded there own country.

---

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

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

Its really not different at all, atleast not to the people living in the country. It looks exactly the same to them. You see a tank driving down the street, does it matter why its there? Just being there is pretty scary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

Its really not different at all, atleast not to the people living in the country. It looks exactly the same to them. You see a tank driving down the street, does it matter why its there? Just being there is pretty scary.

---

We are accepted by a great portion of the Iraqi people. Even a major portion of the people who want us to leave say they are glad we overthrew the Hussein regime. Do you think Americans would be saying things like that about a Chinese invasion? How many Americans would be holding up signs saying, "Thank you, China."? Would Americans in large numbers eagerly take pictures with Chinese soldiers and smile in the pictures?

I have asked this question about a thousand times and never gotten an answer. The insurgents know that their insurgency is what is keeping us in Iraq and that if they quit we would leave. Right? So why do they continue with the insurgency? Seriously... Why?

It is a nonsensical idea that the insurgents are doing what they do to make us leave when they know that what they are doing is specifically what is keeping us there. If you disagree, please be the first to explain otherwise.

The only possible explanation is that they are against democracy, as Zarqawi flat out said he was and as Bin Laden has said he is. Anybody who is against democracy is wrong. Oppressive dictatorship is not a legitimate form of government. It is completely out of the question, it should be internationally outlawed, and we are not bad people for standing in the way of it. I am surprised you don't agree with me, considering all you have said about individual liberties. The freedom I say people are entitled to from birth (Remember what you said about gun rights?) is something that applies to all people, not just Americans.

Thats because your using a poor example, china. What would happen if instead of china it was UN peace keepers? Say there was some big problem and they came in to help us out. A lot of people would probably support them helping. What happens when they don't leave however? Well then people start getting mad at them.

And me, I would hate them at the very start, like many others. I am sure even years after being here, there would be people still thanking the UN.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

Thats because your using a poor example, china. What would happen if instead of china it was UN peace keepers? Say there was some big problem and they came in to help us out. A lot of people would probably support them helping. What happens when they don't leave however? Well then people start getting mad at them.

And me, I would hate them at the very start, like many others. I am sure even years after being here, there would be people still thanking the UN.

---

If the Hussein regime were our government, you can bet the farm that I would really want the U.N. coming in and installing a new government. Now suppose that the Hussein regime was Christian and supported Christian terrorists and terrorist groups. If masses of brainwashed fundamentalist Christians started blowing up shopping centers and shooting at crowds and soldiers and creating chaos everywhere so the new government would not work, I would totally understand why the U.N. decided to remain for as long as they need to. It would be completely legitimate and necessary. I would be one of the smiling people in the pictures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

I could give a damn about this country. I think I was pretty clear up there in regards to how I explained it. The scenerio was was also clear as well and I'll reinerate what I said and make it more elementry for those who didn't understand. My Country Invaded - Me - Splattering Brains all over the pavement bottom Line.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If the Hussein regime were our government, you can bet the farm that I would really want the U.N. coming in and installing a new government. Now suppose that the Hussein regime was Christian and supported Christian terrorists and terrorist groups. If masses of brainwashed fundamentalist Christians started blowing up shopping centers and shooting at crowds and soldiers and creating chaos everywhere so the new government would not work, I would totally understand why the U.N. decided to remain for as long as they need to. It would be completely legitimate and necessary. I would be one of the smiling people in the pictures.

---

Ummm, not too sure if every assumption there is correct. You said the Hussein supported terrorists, can I assume by this you mean he supported Al-Qaeda? If so, then Hussein actually never supported the terrorist group in the time he was in power. Of course, doesn't mean he wasn't a terrible dictator, but I think that's also one of the many things the US government didn't pay attention to. However, if this is not the terrorist group I'm assuming you are referring to, please feel free to correct me on that bit.

Now, as with the whole Iraq war... I never liked it from the beginning. Executed under false pretences, and once the 'war' was declared over, little was done to set up an effective government and law enforcement, improve infrastructure, etc... and when things did come round, it was too little too late. People got pissed off, and naturally insurgents started popping up throughout the country.

We did remove a nasty dictator from power, but in the Saddam-shaped hole that was left in Iraq, we put nothing else in to fill that void in, instead insurgents took advantage of such a void of power and control. There was no WMDs, and if anything, we literally have ruined a country.

Now, if the pretences for such a conflict weren't false and were focused on solely deposing the dictator, then most likely I would have had a more favourable opinion on the war. Plus, if there was a plan for how to run and repair the country until an effective democratic government could be formed that was formulated before the war even begun, then I would have had an even more favourable look on the war. But what the war actually looks like to me is simply a sustained and engineered conflict, with interests on keeping defence contractors happy and not on actually fixing Iraq, otherwise the country would be in a much better state today. You don't go invading countries without contingencies/plans in place for when the conflict is supposed to have ended.

That summarises my two cents on the Iraq war. I wonder how this will go after the whole theoretical "China vs US" talk...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

A tazer only subdues sombody for a little bit, and it is not instantaneous. Watch the "Don't Taze Me, Bro" video to see how weak a tazer is. If somebody attacks you or breaks into your house, you deserve to be able to take the person completely out on the spot so you can be as safe as possible.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

Taser wouldn't help you if more than one person attacked you. It also isn't a fair match up against a gun. People have guns so you need to have a gun to be on an even ground with them. Even if guns were made illegal people would still own guns, so you would still need a gun to be on an even level with them.

---

Some nice facts about tasers: http://www.safetygearhq.com/taser-facts-info.htm

If more than one armed person attacked you, having a gun yourself probably wouldn't help at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Ummm, not too sure if every assumption there is correct. You said the Hussein supported terrorists, can I assume by this you mean he supported Al-Qaeda?

---

You can assume it, but you would be wrong. Hussein provided financial incentives to Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel, funded Hamas and Hezballah, and used sarin gas in a terrorist attack himself.

However, Hussein's representatives did have a few meetings with Al Qaeda members, and Zarqawi was harbored in an Iraqi hospital. That is about all we know about the ties between the Hussein regime and Al Qaeda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Now, as with the whole Iraq war... I never liked it from the beginning. Executed under false pretences, and once the 'war' was declared over, little was done to set up an effective government and law enforcement, improve infrastructure, etc... and when things did come round, it was too little too late. People got pissed off, and naturally insurgents started popping up throughout the country.

---

The right term is not "false pretenses". The correct term is "one unproven basis among several proven ones". There is a major difference. However, in being unproven, it was still supported by six goverments and some people in the U.N. The rest of the reasons were absolutely correct and proven. The regime did violate our ceasefire on several grounds, the Hussein regime was a terrorist government with a history of WMD terrorism, liberation of Iraq does have long term strategic significance in the war on terror, we are luring in Islamofascists by the tens of thousands and capturing or killing them, and the people of Iraq do deserve to be free just like you and I do. We are doing a great deal to protect the new government and set up infrastructure. If we had left right after the liberation was accomplished, you would be right in saying we have done little in those areas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

We did remove a nasty dictator from power, but in the Saddam-shaped hole that was left in Iraq, we put nothing else in to fill that void in, instead insurgents took advantage of such a void of power and control. There was no WMDs, and if anything, we literally have ruined a country.

---

Iraq has a future with great potential for freedom and prosperity. Before the invasion, they had absolutely no hope of that. Did you know that Iraqis are now voting in higher percentages than Americans? Do you have any idea what Iraq was like under the Hussein regime? You should read about it. It was a horror story that would make Stephen King novels look like Disney stories. The idea that we "ruined" that scene is light years from the truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Now, if the pretences for such a conflict weren't false and were focused on solely deposing the dictator, then most likely I would have had a more favourable opinion on the war. Plus, if there was a plan for how to run and repair the country until an effective democratic government could be formed that was formulated before the war even begun, then I would have had an even more favourable look on the war. But what the war actually looks like to me is simply a sustained and engineered conflict, with interests on keeping defence contractors happy and not on actually fixing Iraq, otherwise the country would be in a much better state today. You don't go invading countries without contingencies/plans in place for when the conflict is supposed to have ended.

---

We are getting a democracy off the ground in a place where the world never dreamed it could happen. If you want to see major success in Iraq, stick around. We planted the seed, and we are gardening it every day. Watch what happens over the decades. You should rethink your position because eventually you will really see the success. When that happens, you will like knowing that you were on the right side when the world did not believe in the success of Iraq and on too sad of a scale did not even want it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

Some nice facts about tasers: http://www.safetygearhq.com/taser-facts-info.htm

---

Watch this video and ask yourself what it would be like to have nothing but a tazer when somebody has broken into your house and is trying to rape your wife and kill your kids. Ask yourself what it would be like if three men are trying to do it.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

If more than one armed person attacked you, having a gun yourself probably wouldn't help at all.

---

An uzi would work wonders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You can assume it, but you would be wrong. Hussein provided financial incentives to Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel, funded Hamas and Hezballah, and used sarin gas in a terrorist attack himself.

---

Okay, then I was wrong to assume so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

However, Hussein's representatives did have a few meetings with Al Qaeda members, and Zarqawi was harbored in an Iraqi hospital. That is about all we know about the ties between the Hussein regime and Al Qaeda.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The right term is not "false pretenses". The correct term is "one unproven basis among several proven ones". There is a major difference. However, in being unproven, it was still supported by six goverments and some people in the U.N. The rest of the reasons were absolutely correct and proven. The regime did violate our ceasefire on several grounds, the Hussein regime was a terrorist government with a history of WMD terrorism, liberation of Iraq does have long term strategic significance in the war on terror, we are luring in Islamofascists by the tens of thousands and capturing or killing them, and the people of Iraq do deserve to be free just like you and I do. We are doing a great deal to protect the new government and set up infrastructure. If we had left right after the liberation was accomplished, you would be right in saying we have done little in those areas.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Iraq has a future with great potential for freedom and prosperity. Before the invasion, they had absolutely no hope of that. Did you know that Iraqis are now voting in higher percentages than Americans? Do you have any idea what Iraq was like under the Hussein regime? You should read about it. It was a horror story that would make Stephen King novels look like Disney stories. The idea that we "ruined" that scene is light years from the truth.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We are getting a democracy off the ground in a place where the world never dreamed it could happen. If you want to see major success in Iraq, stick around. We planted the seed, and we are gardening it every day. Watch what happens over the decades. You should rethink your position because eventually you will really see the success. When that happens, you will like knowing that you were on the right side when the world did not believe in the success of Iraq and on too sad of a scale did not even want it.

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

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

---

The United States and the Soviet Union were enemies.

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

What if the attackers have uzis too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

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

What if the attackers have uzis too?

---

You will definitely need more than a taser.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

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

---

Thanks for that, will take note of it. :content:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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

---

True dat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You will definitely need more than a taser.

---

And certainly no gun would help either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

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

---

Well since you're referring to the grammatical usages of words then I guess you already knew that I was using a negative polarity item which is used only within the scope of semantic negation of some sort; i.e. not, never, only, rarely, few, etc. Hence the perceived strangeness to you of the statement, I could give a damn, which has no overt negative, but means the same thing as the same phrase with a negative. Thus making this statement an idiomatic intensification of a negative but doesn't require a negative connotation to intensify it's meaning. You know you never know what you may learn watching TLC. :goodjob2:

You have wisdom beyond your years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Well since you're referring to the grammatical usages of words then I guess you already knew that I was using a negative polarity item which is used only within the scope of semantic negation of some sort; i.e. not, never, only, rarely, few, etc. Hence the perceived strangeness to you of the statement, I could give a damn, which has no overt negative, but means the same thing as the same phrase with a negative. Thus making this statement an idiomatic intensification of a negative but doesn't require a negative connotation to intensify it's meaning. You know you never know what you may learn watching TLC. :goodjob2:

You have wisdom beyond your years.

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

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

---

What about the reasons I named?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

And certainly no gun would help either.

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What about the reasons I named?

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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

---

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

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

I hope this answers your question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

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

I hope this answers your question.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

Origonally posted by Universal Mind

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluefinger

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

---

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. :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

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

---

Not everybody in Israel is "colonial scum". This is 2008. Your prejudice is blinding you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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. :lol:

---

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* :P

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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......

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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!

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.)

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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."

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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" :roll: 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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

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.

---

Pay very close attention this time. We have the large number of troops we have in Iraq right now because of the insurgency. Without the insurgency, the war would have been over years ago, and Iraq would be an independent nation. We will have some troops in Iraq for the rest of your life. However, we will start reducing troop numbers when we think the insurgency has died down enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

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.

---

Our war is not against Iraq. It is for Iraq. What we have been against are the Hussein regime and the insurgency. The insurgency does have a moral obligation to stop targetting Iraqi civilians, American/Coalition civilian workers, and American/Coalition soldiers. The insurgency is accomplishing nothing but getting a bunch of people killed and postponing Iraqi independence. Can you name anything specific that it is doing that is good? Specific! (other than your claim that it is keeping us there, since I just corrected that again) Once again, the insurgency is our reason for having the high troop level and why Iraq is not quite independent yet. Is it not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

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.

---

Wrong. We have reduced the insurgency, stabilized many areas, turned a lot of the Iraqi population against the insurgency, and protected the democratic government this whole time.

The Hussein regime did violate our ceasefire on several terrorism grounds for 12 years. That alone refutes your claim that they did nothing against us. I challenge you to admit that. They were also a terrorist government that engaged in the mindless terrorism you support. That made them an enemy of the world. Plus, I believe in overthrowing every government that engages in genocide. How innocent do you think genocide is?

We did not leave Vietnam with our tails between our legs. We left short of North Vietnamese surrender because of political pressure from our left wing. They killed 56,000 of us, we killled a few million of them. We did not have tails between our legs. That is a silly concept.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

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.

---

Then the insurgency needs to end. We want the war to end too, but then insurgents have been keeping it going for years and getting a lot of innocent people killed. Our war in Iraq ends when the insurgency ends. Tell your insurgent friends to knock that shit off today so Iraq can be independent today. Get it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

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.

---

I already explained this to you in another thread. We were not in Vietnam because of an insurgency. We were in Vietnam because of a communist take over. We left because of our own internal political pressure, not because we lost 56,000 to their 3 million or so. We are still occupying Iraq because of the insurgency. So stop telling me that the insurgency is getting us to leave. It is why we have 150,000 troops in Iraq right now in the first place. Get it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

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.

---

If the insurgents want us to leave, they need to call of the insurgency. I explained to you what the Hussein regime did. We never said they had anything to do with 9/11. We said they had a lot to do with terrorism and had even engaged in WMD terrorism on top of violating our ceasefire with them on terrorism grounds. That is not at all innocent. Neither is genocide. Genocide is the entire world's business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

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.

---

They have a right to be free. That is what we have given them along with a government that is not the type that will fire sarin gas at their own civilian populations, support Hamas and Hezballah, provide financial incentives for Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel, take over Kuwait, or engage in genocide. The Hussein regime did all of that. We are going to do what it takes to preserve the democracy until it can preserve itself. That is what the insurgents are so desperately trying to stop, and we are going to continue to capture and kill them for as long as we have to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

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

---

We are the world police because somebody has to be. The U.N. would not do its job, so we did it for them. The entire world should come together on things like this, but unfortunately too many countries are way too apathetic to do what is needed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

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 are getting very repetitive, and I am tired of being repetetive in response. I cleared up all of that earlier in my post. We did not start the fight. We would have cleared out our fighting divisions and just had a base there after we arrested the criminals, but a bunch of dipshits had to start a riot. Now we are there on riot duty.

Is a fire good for keeping firemen away from the fire?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

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.

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.

---

The U.N. and NATO would not do their jobs! So we had to do their jobs for them. The Hussein regime ruined their right to exist, just like the Nazis did. You talk as though we did the equivalent of invading Canada out of the blue for no reason. You know that is far from the truth.

grr u left me with tons of stuff to respond to. This is such a headache!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

grr u left me with tons of stuff to respond to. This is such a headache!

---

I don't think there's really that much. We just keep covering the same stuff over and over. Just tell me this...

1. How is 12 years of violation of our ceasefire not an infraction against us? Should a ceasefire continue when its provisions are not met?

2. How is a terrorist government with a history of WMD terrorism, funding of suicide terrorism against Israel, and support of international terrorist groups not a threat to Israel's major ally and the Hussein regime's major enemy?

3. Would Iraq be an independent nation right now if not for the insurgency? Why or why not?

4. Would the U.S. have more than or fewer than 150,000 troops in Iraq right now if there were no insurgency?

5. Is genocide the business of only the government that engages in it?

Quote:

---

They have a right to be free. That is what we have given them along with a government that is not the type that will fire sarin gas at their own civilian populations, support Hamas and Hezballah, provide financial incentives for Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel, take over Kuwait, or engage in genocide. The Hussein regime did all of that. We are going to do what it takes to preserve the democracy until it can preserve itself. That is what the insurgents are so desperately trying to stop, and we are going to continue to capture and kill them for as long as we have to.

---

I just want to adress the issue of hamas and hezbollah first. HAMAS is not the evil you think it is. They are no the ones firign the rockets into israel it is Islamic Jihad. Hamas has actually tried to stop and arrest them. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...428566,00.html

The current dictatoriship (and it is a dictatorship i can elaborate if you will)propagated by Israel is FATAH in reality there is not much difference between hamas and fatah. thre are originas are very similar to.

Hamas even made a 10 peace treaty with Israel in return for them pulling out of Gaza and guess who broke it too?

The crucial difference between hamas and fatah are that Hamas dos not recgonize israel but with the peace treaty they could of negotiated mutial recognition in that time to bad israel broke it.

Fatah is israels bitch and they are extremely corrupt and lazy. Why do you think they lost the election? I wont include Hezbollah because im starting to backtrack.

But my point is you guys had no business going into Iraq. It was a matter for the UN and NATO not for any rogue country. Why couldnt you wait for the matter to be resolved with the UN like the afghanistan issue was?

Some years

Quote:

---

We are the world police because somebody has to be. The U.N. would not do its job, so we did it for them. The entire world should come together on things like this, but unfortunately too many countries are way too apathetic to do what is needed.

---

Again dude, The entire world does come together to come and discuss world affairs and make decisions together. Its called the UN and NATO. Just because they dont do something fast enough or dont come to a decesion your country doesn't like does not give you the right to defy or say fuck you when at the same tiem you critice countries for acting in defiance of it. Thats hypocrocy. countries can't be cherry pickers.

Quote:

---

You are getting very repetitive, and I am tired of being repetetive in response. I cleared up all of that earlier in my post. We did not start the fight. We would have cleared out our fighting divisions and just had a base there after we arrested the criminals, but a bunch of dipshits had to start a riot. Now we are there on riot duty.

Is a fire good for keeping firemen away from the fire?

---

There was no fire to begin with, the invasion of iraq is like the firemen going to a building and starting a fire. The invasion of Iraq is the catlyst for all its problems today.

Again you should have had the foresight to see that if they (Al Qaeda) attacked you because (partly) you had christian soldiers in Saudi then you should have known that invading onother muslim country would produce a disaster.

Don't you think that much was painfully obvious?

Quote:

---

The U.N. and NATO would not do their jobs! So we had to do their jobs for them. The Hussein regime ruined their right to exist, just like the Nazis did. You talk as though we did the equivalent of invading Canada out of the blue for no reason. You know that is far from the truth.

---

Again it was up to the UN to decide how the UN resoloution would be interpreted and carried out not for any sole country. To decide.


EDIT: PLEASE DONT REPLY YET I HAVE TO GO AND RESPOND TO THE REst AND I WILL BUT I NEED A BREAK FROM THE COMPUTER. ONCE I REPLY To EVEYRTHING THEN BY ALL MEANS RESPONS BUT NOT UNTIL I DO SO. I DONT WANT IT TO LOOK Like IM AVODING ISSUES up

Man, if you will just answer those five questions I asked, we will get to the bottom of things much faster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I don't think there's really that much. We just keep covering the same stuff over and over. Just tell me this...

1. How is 12 years of violation of our ceasefire not an infraction against us? Should a ceasefire continue when its provisions are not met?
err i admit, i dont know much about the cease fire but does it have to do with kuwait? Im still learning about iraq and the iraq war i spent to much time studying the palestinian/israeli conflict...

2. How is a terrorist government with a history of WMD terrorism, funding of suicide terrorism against Israel, and support of international terrorist groups not a threat to Israel's major ally and the Hussein regime's major enemy? can you give me proof that they were supplying any such groups? and if so it was not a imminent matter it was a matter that could be solved through negotiations and was not one which called for war neccesarily.

3. Would Iraq be an independent nation right now if not for the insurgency? Why or why not?

4. Would the U.S. have more than or fewer than 150,000 troops in Iraq right now if there were no insurgency? i suppose so yes. but i beleive the invasion was illegal and the actions of the insurgency are warranted.

5. Is genocide the business of only the government that engages in it? Genocide is a matter for the international community EG the UN. It is not a matter for one sole country to deal with.

---

.

Most importantly, when we talk about the Middle East, we need to be looking at the big picture. Illegal or no, it doesn't matter at this point, the stability of the region is extremely important to the world. Whatever your political stance, we are subject to the economic impact of changes in the global economy. A stable Iraq is a necessity for a stable Europe and United States. Don't be naive, the United States is the world police. If you control the waters, you control the world. Hearken back to the Spanish and English empires. If doing such things can keep greater wars and genocides from occuring, then it is morally justifiable, as it is in Iraq. Life is the more precious than gold, and a lot more lives would be lost if a World War were sparked by a rogue state. We created the UN and the League of Nations to prevent another World War, remember?

Most people that oppose or support the war are giving into to political rhetoric instead of investigating the region and it's history like they should. We installed Saddam Hussein, and we booted him out because he wasn't reliable, he became a rogue instead of acting like a puppet like we intended. The thought was, by having a secular dictator in such a radically divided region ethnically, he could unify the country. What he did to achieve this was not worth it however, so daddy had give him a good spanking.

George Bush is essentially finishing what America started and his father didn't finish. Sometimes we must make painful choices to do not only the right thing but the necessary thing.

Traveling Troubador, excellent post.

Dragon, you seem to have the quote function confusion I used to have. You can either delete everything from between the quote brackets except what you want to quote and then use cut and paste or you can use the quote button with the two ++'s and... something.

The boldface comments are the answers you gave to my questions. My responses are under them.

1. err i admit, i dont know much about the cease fire but does it have to do with kuwait? Im still learning about iraq and the iraq war i spent to much time studying the palestinian/israeli conflict...

Yes, the ceasefire is what ended (temporarily) the 1991 war we engaged in with the Hussein regime after they took over Kuwait. The Hussein regime did not comply with the ceasefire, and they violated it on several grounds. So the 2003 invasion was a continuation of the 1991 war. We were not being bullies.

2. can you give me proof that they were supplying any such groups? and if so it was not a imminent matter it was a matter that could be solved through negotiations and was not one which called for war neccesarily.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9513/

Negotiations did not work with the Hussein regime. They thumbed their noses at us for twelve years in regard to their terrorism and the ceasefire provisions that concerned it.

3. (unanswered... I would love to know your answer to it.)

4. i suppose so yes. but i beleive the invasion was illegal and the actions of the insurgency are warranted.

Then you understand that the insurgency has not served to keep our troop number lower than otherwise. It has kept it very high.


5. Genocide is a matter for the international community EG the UN. It is not a matter for one sole country to deal with.

They would not deal with it. Not only was genocide not enough basis for a U.N. invasion as far as the U.N. was concerned. Genocide plus everything else I have talked about was not enough for the U.N. to send in forces. Also, we did not act alone. We went in with a very large coalition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Traveling_Troubador

Most importantly, when we talk about the Middle East, we need to be looking at the big picture. Illegal or no, it doesn't matter at this point, the stability of the region is extremely important to the world. Whatever your political stance, we are subject to the economic impact of changes in the global economy. A stable Iraq is a necessity for a stable Europe and United States. Don't be naive, the United States is the world police. If you control the waters, you control the world. Hearken back to the Spanish and English empires. If doing such things can keep greater wars and genocides from occuring, then it is morally justifiable, as it is in Iraq. Life is the more precious than gold, and a lot more lives would be lost if a World War were sparked by a rogue state. We created the UN and the League of Nations to prevent another World War, remember?

---

I beleive international law and procedure should be always respected, it is doubtful if a world war would have been sparked from Iraq as they were in no position to do such a thing at all. They had chemical weapons from the 1990's with a shelf life of 2 montsh big deal they expired years ago!!!

Saddam Hussein didnt have Yellow cake or nuclear weapons either.

If you guys followed procedure and respected the UN and international law then many many lives could have been sparred if you had not invaded and caused the mess.

You contradict yourself. The UN was created to creat a dialogue between the worlds nations were they all could discuss issues at hand instead of doing something stupid like invading a country illegally. You guys only harmed world peace by invading iraq, if you ahd followed procedure and waited for the UN to come to a proper conclusion on the issue then this whole calamity could have bene avoided.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by travelling_troubador

]Most people that oppose or support the war are giving into to political rhetoric instead of investigating the region and it's history like they should. We installed Saddam Hussein, and we booted him out because he wasn't reliable, he became a rogue instead of acting like a puppet like we intended. The thought was, by having a secular dictator in such a radically divided region ethnically, he could unify the country. What he did to achieve this was not worth it however, so daddy had give him a good spanking.

---

this is distrubing news to me, its not news to me but to see an american actually admitting it is something i never expected. I have in my reading encountered this idea bout puppet dictators. Its called the Dictator dilema or something. the idea states that if you have a country with democracy, the leaders of said country are shifting every 4 years or so and thus the position of said country on the united states would be perodic. You might get one politician elected who is pro america and onother who is anti america.

However i disagree. Your support of Saddam was not because he could unify the country under sectarian lines. NO. NOt at all if this was the case you would have played it safe and installed a Shia puppet leader. You just wanted a consistently pro america dictator however as history will show us he was not consistent in the end with his position on america.

thus it was decided by the united states that dictators would be better to support because with a dictator you could usually get a consesent position on the united states. Ie the USA helped install pro america dictators.

However i disagree. your support of Saddam wa snot because he could inify the country under sectarian lines. No. Not at all. If this was the case you would have played it safe and installed a shia puppet leader instead of taking the leap of faith and supporting a Sunni leader (who would have a sunni bias) in a majority shia country. You guys just wanted a consistently pro america dicatator. As history shows us he was not consistent on his position on america thus you made some excuses and invaded.

There is a reason why the United States didnt wait for the UN and NATO for support on the iraq issue, you waited and got UN and NATO support with the afghanistan issue. So why not with Iraq? Well, you revealed it with your post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Travelling_troubador

George Bush is essentially finishing what America started and his father didn't finish. Sometimes we must make painful choices to do not only the right thing but the necessary thing.

---

I dont beleive it was the right or not the neccesariy thing but i agree with teh rest of this quote. the minute george bush got into office he wanted to invade iraq that much was clear. Watch Farenheit 9/11

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Yes, the ceasefire is what ended (temporarily) the 1991 war we engaged in with the Hussein regime after they took over Kuwait. The Hussein regime did not comply with the ceasefire, and they violated it on several grounds. So the 2003 invasion was a continuation of the 1991 war. We were not being bullies.

---

As i understand it the original gulf war of 1991 was a joint UN endeavour lead primarily by the United States. I hold firmly that the matter was not one for any individual country to pursue without support from the UN and NATO.

The United Nations security council estabilished the terms of the ceasefire and any interprations of the terms or any enforcement of the order should have been carried out only by the UN and possibly NATO but not by an individual nation or any other body sepearte from the United Nations. Not doing so only results in ugly international incidents like the world has in Iraq.

The invasion of Iraq as an ugly example arrogance on behalf of the bush admnistration and i have to say the majority of the americans agree with me.

Thats my opinion i guess...


[quote=Universal Mind]

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9513/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Negotiations did not work with the Hussein regime. They thumbed their noses at us for twelve years in regard to their terrorism and the ceasefire provisions that concerned it.

---

As i understand it in that article there is much speculation on many isues and it did not appear that Iraq was an immiment threat to the united states in any sense. Any grievenaces the USA had with Iraq should have been pursued through the United Nations, there is a reason why the united nations is there its to prevent uneccesary conflcits like WWII. Sadly if the bush administration wasn't so arrogant this conflict could have been avoided!

3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

(unanswered... I would love to know your answer to it.)

---

I can't say for sure if Iraq would be totally independent or if it would not have large american military bases thats a big IF. I suppose iraq would proably be independent. Alot of my opposition to the occupation is a pride issue and other issues too...(there i said it!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Then you understand that the insurgency has not served to keep our troop number lower than otherwise. It has kept it very high.

---

Okay yes. and there are two possible approaches i can come to this. I can say the invasion of iraq was illegal and thus the actions of the insurgency are legitimate to fight of an illegal invasion and occupation on the other hand i can say its a silly issue of pride. You know the humilation of the first gulf war plus the more recent invasion and plus the fact of a being occupied by a christain army......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

They would not deal with it. Not only was genocide not enough basis for a U.N. invasion as far as the U.N. was concerned. Genocide plus everything else I have talked about was not enough for the U.N. to send in forces. Also, we did not act alone. We went in with a very large coalition.

---

As shitty as the UN is in your view. I still think its only a matter for the UN. But if it was genocide that was your issue why didn't you guys invade in the 80's at the height (I think) of the genocide and only in 2003 when things were pretty much quite in comparison. I think this has to do alot with what traveling troubador said. Back in the 80's Saddam was regarded as a stooge of the west and as long as that was true you guys just let him do his thing, if only for the sake of having a pro america guy in power?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

As i understand it the original gulf war of 1991 was a joint UN endeavour lead primarily by the United States. I hold firmly that the matter was not one for any individual country to pursue without support from the UN and NATO.

The United Nations security council estabilished the terms of the ceasefire and any interprations of the terms or any enforcement of the order should have been carried out only by the UN and possibly NATO but not by an individual nation or any other body sepearte from the United Nations. Not doing so only results in ugly international incidents like the world has in Iraq.

The invasion of Iraq as an ugly example arrogance on behalf of the bush admnistration and i have to say the majority of the americans agree with me.

Thats my opinion i guess...

---

Like I said, the United Nations would not do its job. I have told you the long list of reasons we saw the Hussein regime as a threat and a very potential funder and supplier of terrorist groups who want to kill us. Acting on that was not arrogant. It was the prudent thing to do. Most of us wish it never had to happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

As i understand it in that article there is much speculation on many isues and it did not appear that Iraq was an immiment threat to the united states in any sense. Any grievenaces the USA had with Iraq should have been pursued through the United Nations, there is a reason why the united nations is there its to prevent uneccesary conflcits like WWII. Sadly if the bush administration wasn't so arrogant this conflict could have been avoided!

---

The United Nations was not going to help us with the problem in 2003. They had gotten too arrogant and apathetic as a result of corruption. The apathy of and hatred toward us from Russia and France was part of that problem. When the U.N. does not do its job, we have to do it for them. We could not just let a terrorist government with a history of WMD terrorism and apparent funding of Islamofascist terrorists continue to exist when they kept ignoring our ceasefire on terrorism grounds in a post-9/11 era after the formation of the necessary Bush Doctrine, especially after U.N. representatives and the intelligence divisions of six governments reported that they had present stockpiles of WMD's (plus a history of WMD programs, including a nuclear one). Doing so would have been insane.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

I can't say for sure if Iraq would be totally independent or if it would not have large american military bases thats a big IF. I suppose iraq would proably be independent. Alot of my opposition to the occupation is a pride issue and other issues too...(there i said it!)

---

Wow, thank you for your honesty. If it is any consolation to you, a lot of us Americans wish we were not by far the most powerful country in the world. A lot of us wish the rest of the world would adopt our economic system so they too could be powerful, prosperous, and civilized. I have a lot of great things to say about the American system, but I wish we were not the only country with it. I wish we could just be another great country among many. That is something that could actually happen. I want the best for the whole world, not to have my country win some pride contest. It is not about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Okay yes. and there are two possible approaches i can come to this. I can say the invasion of iraq was illegal and thus the actions of the insurgency are legitimate to fight of an illegal invasion and occupation on the other hand i can say its a silly issue of pride. You know the humilation of the first gulf war plus the more recent invasion and plus the fact of a being occupied by a christain army......

---

At least the side that lost was the side that deserved to lose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

As shitty as the UN is in your view. I still think its only a matter for the UN. But if it was genocide that was your issue why didn't you guys invade in the 80's at the height (I think) of the genocide and only in 2003 when things were pretty much quite in comparison. I think this has to do alot with what traveling troubador said. Back in the 80's Saddam was regarded as a stooge of the west and as long as that was true you guys just let him do his thing, if only for the sake of having a pro america guy in power?

---

Genocide was not the issue. It was an issue. Genocide has never been enough reason alone for the U.S. to go to war, but it has been one more variable to add to the list of reasons. Saddam was a plan that went horribly wrong. By 2003, there was a solid enough list of reasons to overthrow his government.