NationStates Jolt Archive

You have no idea how deeply you have wounded me with your cutting remark. Why, I think I'm starting to feel a little faint at your overwhelming ire, and overcome by your incisive wit. I do declare, sah.

The hypocrisy is amazing.

Okay, then the hypothesis left out a factor. With that factor put in it holds true
It still doesn't - it only makes a new hypothesis. There is no actual proof yet, as I've stated before, since it only affected Cambodia.

Vietnam did suffer under communist rule. And it did fall to communism. What are you talking about?
What you said didn't make sense.

Sunni fundamentalists will seek to exploit their victory and continue jihad in Afghanistan. The anti-domino theory won't take place b/c there will be no refugees. (For shorthand sake I will call the refugee point the anti-domino theory) Understand?
I see what you're saying, but I disagree with you - among other things because I don't believe that the refugees will be a factor at all, or if they will be then only a marginal one.

Don't know where you're going with that. How does the path through which the fighters go affect what the theory is called?
The domino theory was aimed at neighbouring countries. One domino made the next one fall. If Iraq makes Afghanistan fall, it will be skipping Iran - since they are a Shi'a dominated regime that won't turn into a Sunni theocracy at the drop of a hat. Thus, Skipping Stones would be better suited.

There is an overlying theme in what each Mullah professes. That American is the infidel. That Allah commands Jihad. And that Jihad brings good for the Jihadist.
No, you won't find that America is the Infidel message in every Mullahs message. You will find Jihad, though, but the meaning and content of the Jihad will be different.

Thats not fundamentalist in the sense that I am using it. Forgive me for not defining it for you as I am using it but I will attempt to now. An Islamic fundamentalist is somebody who uses violence to carry out strict enforcement of traditional Islamic values. I would venture to say that extremist is a better term.
So a violent sunni extremist perhaps... But still not all violent sunni extremists are interested in going to Afghanistan. There is little reason to fight in Afghanistan, it's not what you could call the muslim heartland. No holy places to protect, and little of interest really... And when there's still work to be done closer to home, perhaps against Israel (Jerusalem) or Suadi Arabia... Not to mention their own local governments (Egypt, Jordan)

If they get no recruits then there is no Jihad. So if it is what draws those who carry out the Jihad then it is the basis.
No, the basis for violent jihad is Jihad, and the Koran is the basis for Jihad.

The opposite is evident on the propaganda websites and literature of extremists in Iraq.
So you believe their propaganda? Hmm...

And what literature? I recommend the reports of the International Crisis Group myself, they're quite thourough.

Also, remember that the muslim world exists outside Iraq too. When talking about Global Jihad you have to think globally...

It still doesn't - it only makes a new hypothesis. There is no actual proof yet, as I've stated before, since it only affected Cambodia.
If "it" affected Cambodia then "it" exists. And you're right, this is all speculation however it is also speculation that a pull out of Iraq will be good for anyone.
What you said didn't make sense.
I see where the wording gets a little mixed up. I said:The original didn't take into account that people who suffered under communism would get out. The countries where this happened didn't fall to communism. I should have said: The original didn't take into account that people who suffered under communism would get out and spread the word. The countries where the word got spread to didn't fall to communism. Fixed?
I see what you're saying, but I disagree with you - among other things because I don't believe that the refugees will be a factor at all, or if they will be then only a marginal one.
I think we are arguing for the same position against each other. Go figure. The refugees won't be a factor in Afghanistan. This means that the anti-domino theory won't be a factor.
The domino theory was aimed at neighbouring countries. One domino made the next one fall. If Iraq makes Afghanistan fall, it will be skipping Iran - since they are a Shi'a dominated regime that won't turn into a Sunni theocracy at the drop of a hat. Thus, Skipping Stones would be better suited.
Thanks for clearing that up.
No, you won't find that America is the Infidel message in every Mullahs message. You will find Jihad, though, but the meaning and content of the Jihad will be different.
That's because every Mullah isn't an extremist. The infidel is anybody who is not Muslim. America is not Muslim.
So a violent sunni extremist perhaps... But still not all violent sunni extremists are interested in going to Afghanistan. There is little reason to fight in Afghanistan, it's not what you could call the muslim heartland. No holy places to protect, and little of interest really... And when there's still work to be done closer to home, perhaps against Israel (Jerusalem) or Suadi Arabia... Not to mention their own local governments (Egypt, Jordan)
You're right that there are not holy places to protect. However it is an uneducated populace that already has an insurgency in progress. No need to start from scratch and a healthy supply of recruits. Why not go?
No, the basis for violent jihad is Jihad, and the Koran is the basis for Jihad.
Now we're going back to a semantics battle. The jihad movement is propped up by the 72 virgins promised b/c that is how they get their recruits. W/o virgins there is no Jihad. There is still the idea of Jihad but no actual Jihad.
So you believe their propaganda? Hmm...

And what literature? I recommend the reports of the International Crisis Group myself, they're quite thourough.
There is a world of literature put out by extremist groups however I think that I would get in some big trouble for disseminating it.
Also, remember that the muslim world exists outside Iraq too. When talking about Global Jihad you have to think globally...
However the Global Jihad movement is now centered in Iraq.

Edit: I like the new more friendly way we are debating. It is a much more healthy discussion. I thank you for that.

1) Then you agree that it is our responsibility to fix it? B/c that was my argument. I was just trying to show them how infeasible their position was.

2) We are currently there by U.N. mandate.

Parse words all you want Sir, but the UN was definately not behind us on this one. The adminsitration never put forth a resolution for military action because they knew they'd get shot down. You are a skilled debater and you clearly know how to split hairs to make your reasoning plausable. Plausable is not reasoning, it's the "what if" principle. It must be fixed but not recognizing who is at fault for all of the mistakes is just ignoring whose primary responsibility to fix the problem it is. "Those who fail to plan are planning to fail" or have you not heard that phrase recently? Your logic is, "I broke it now you fix it. Fix it now!!!!!!!" Then comes the "you have a plan to fix it and make it better, well I'll veto any plan you have because it's not my plan." That's the modus operandi of this administration. They bully others into getting what they want and then call others unpatriotic when things don't get done. Their arrogance has put them in the position they are in and they look down their noses still with disgust with those who knew the stakes from the beginning. Shinseki was ingored, as was Powell. Anyone who has a different idea (as it turns out the right ideas) was scorned and made to disappear or retire. So forgive some if they are reluctant to help out the kids in class who beat them up and riduculed them for their toughts. That's what happens with bullies though...eventually they get stuck and are at the mercy of those they would mock. A military solution cannot solve a political problem as fear, killing, and more fear are not the stimuli for growth. There is anger and the people most certainly know where it should go.

Question 1- Did the UN Security Council want to wait to see if there were WMD because reports indicated nothing was there?

Question 2- How can the people who F'd the whole situation get angry when their ideas keep failing and people grow restless? Does this make the public trust them?

Question #3 Mom tells you she'll be home by 3 every day for two weeks and it never happens... Do you trust Mom on Monday of the folowing week when she says she'll be home to take you to practice? In other words-CREDIBILITY GAPS cause problems when selling a war you said would take at most 6 months.

Edit: Time to hit my rack and get at this life againt tomorrow. Be well Sir.

Parse words all you want Sir, but the UN was definately not behind us on this one. The adminsitration never put forth a resolution for military action because they knew they'd get shot down. You are a skilled debater and you clearly know how to split hairs to make your reasoning plausable. Plausable is not reasoning, it's the "what if" principle. It must be fixed but not recognizing who is at fault for all of the mistakes is just ignoring whose primary responsibility to fix the problem it is. "Those who fail to plan are planning to fail" or have you not heard that phrase recently? Your logic is, "I broke it now you fix it. Fix it now!!!!!!!" Then comes the "you have a plan to fix it and make it better, well I'll veto any plan you have because it's not my plan." That's the modus operandi of this administration. They bully others into getting what they want and then call others unpatriotic when things don't get done. Their arrogance has put them in the position they are in and they look down their noses still with disgust with those who knew the stakes from the beginning. Shinseki was ingored, as was Powell. Anyone who has a different idea (as it turns out the right ideas) was scorned and made to disappear or retire. So forgive some if they are reluctant to help out the kids in class who beat them up and riduculed them for their toughts. That's what happens with bullies though...eventually they get stuck and are at the mercy of those they would mock. A military solution cannot solve a political problem as fear, killing, and more fear are not the stimuli for growth. There is anger and the people most certainly know where it should go.
Good analysis of the administration. I noticed that you didn't call Bush any names. I'm impressed by your ability to take criticism and change your ways. In regard to your last statement about the military solution: Any political solution requires a military one. There just needs to be some meaning behind the political gains.
Question 1- Did the UN Security Council want to wait to see if there were WMD because reports indicated nothing was there?
Yes. And they were right. However at this current juncture, we are there by U.N. mandate.
Question 2- How can the people who F'd the whole situation get angry when their ideas keep failing and people grow restless? Does this make the public trust them?
I don't think that they are angry and I don't think that they are their ideas. They just sign the papers they don't write them.
Question #3 Mom tells you she'll be home by 3 every day for two weeks and it never happens... Do you trust Mom on Monday of the folowing week when she says she'll be home to take you to practice? In other words-CREDIBILITY GAPS cause problems when selling a war you said would take at most 6 months.
Perception is rarely reality. Iraq has not been a complete failure. We have made serious progress in the IA and IP. 92 battalions is not a joke.
Edit: Time to hit my rack and get at this life againt tomorrow. Be well Sir.
Goodnight.

If "it" affected Cambodia then "it" exists.
Yes, but unfortunately there is no way of proving it... That's why the success of the theory was contingent on more countries following.

And you're right, this is all speculation however it is also speculation that a pull out of Iraq will be good for anyone.
I've yet to be convinced of that. I allow myself to remain ambivalent.

I see where the wording gets a little mixed up. I said:The original didn't take into account that people who suffered under communism would get out. The countries where this happened didn't fall to communism. I should have said: The original didn't take into account that people who suffered under communism would get out and spread the word. The countries where the word got spread to didn't fall to communism. Fixed?
Yes. clearer.

I think we are arguing for the same position against each other. Go figure. The refugees won't be a factor in Afghanistan. This means that the anti-domino theory won't be a factor.
Ah, but I mean that the new domino theory won't come into play at all, and that's why the anti-domino theory won't be a factor. Isn't that where we disagree? :)

That's because every Mullah isn't an extremist. The infidel is anybody who is not Muslim. America is not Muslim.
No, but some americans are. And many muslim countries have the wrong kind of muslim governments. America is just a target of opportunity - it's far away, yet sometimes sticking its nose into muslim affairs (like when supporting Israel) so it (used to be) safe to have them as a common, uniting outside enemy.


You're right that there are not holy places to protect. However it is an uneducated populace that already has an insurgency in progress. No need to start from scratch and a healthy supply of recruits. Why not go?
Why go? What would you win, really? The clan structure might hinder any true victory for you, as the infighting surely will resume if the NATO forces leave, and let's face it, the kind of islam you find there isn't nessesarily what the jihadist from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or Egypt is preaching.

And recruits? There the clan structure makes trouble again. It will be hard to convince them to leave their clans to go fight someone elses war, I think. I don't believe they'll find many recruits there at all, maybe apart from the taleban - but then it would be easier to just go to Pakistan.

Now we're going back to a semantics battle. The jihad movement is propped up by the 72 virgins promised b/c that is how they get their recruits. W/o virgins there is no Jihad. There is still the idea of Jihad but no actual Jihad.
No, again, you are mistaken. The 72 virgins part isn't that widely used as a motivator. And there is still jihad without it, because jihad is an important part of the muslim faith. The question is really when violent jihad is allowed, and there is where some mullahs and scholars, in my mind, corrupt the word of Allah and allow it to be done at the wrong time for the wrong reasons against the wrong targets.

But if you had removed the 72 virgins - or the Houri - entirely, violent jihad would still occur.


There is a world of literature put out by extremist groups however I think that I would get in some big trouble for disseminating it.
Don't trust their words - trust the more objective research.

However the Global Jihad movement is now centered in Iraq.
That is debatable, but may be true. If so, I would say that it proved that the global jihad movement was just a tiny fraction. One that could do a lot of damage, but still a tiny one.

Edit: I like the new more friendly way we are debating. It is a much more healthy discussion. I thank you for that.
Prego.

It's nothing new, really... It's just the best way to go at it :)

Your question was rhetorical.

Good! You've admitted that it was a question!

That means that you already had an answer and didn't want to hear another. Therefore it was just another way of making a statement.

A question is a question. A=A, up=up, down=down, do I need to argue this any further or are you going to actually retain your learning?

This will be the last response I will make to you

Oh so you're going to PULL OUT? That's not very butch for a supposed marine.

And yes, you did start this.

Ooh, you got me there. That was quite the refutation.

An obvious copying and pasting error is not a logical inconsistency. If this is you're entire argument then you are just a waste of life.

2+2=2 might be a copy paste error. But you'd still be wrong. And you haven't done anything to correct it either. Calling me a waste of life because you're too lazy to do anything to correct it is the pathetic excuse of a coward.

Yet you have YET to point out any inconsistances of this other poster either? How is that consistant?

I don't have to because it was already done for me earlier. I am simply adding onto it. You fail at reading.


But seriously do you know any terminalogy of the military WITHOUT looking it up?

First let's see if you understand mine. Come back when you figure it out.

Yes, but unfortunately there is no way of proving it... That's why the success of the theory was contingent on more countries following.
The Domino Theory wasn't just the theory that more countries would fall. There was a reason for why those countries would fall. That reason was that the militants who had their first victory would move on to other countries. I believe that that happened in Cambodia.


Ah, but I mean that the new domino theory won't come into play at all, and that's why the anti-domino theory won't be a factor. Isn't that where we disagree? :)
Here we go again:p
No, but some americans are. And many muslim countries have the wrong kind of muslim governments. America is just a target of opportunity - it's far away, yet sometimes sticking its nose into muslim affairs (like when supporting Israel) so it (used to be) safe to have them as a common, uniting outside enemy.
Yup

Why go? What would you win, really? The clan structure might hinder any true victory for you, as the infighting surely will resume if the NATO forces leave, and let's face it, the kind of islam you find there isn't nessesarily what the jihadist from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or Egypt is preaching.
Al-Qaeda certainly had a reason pre-9/11. If you look at Al-Qaeda alone and leave out all other groups they will have a lot of motivation. They have a friendly Taliban there. And it is a Global Jihad isn't it? Why would an extremist there be different than an extremist in Iraq?
And recruits? There the clan structure makes trouble again. It will be hard to convince them to leave their clans to go fight someone elses war, I think. I don't believe they'll find many recruits there at all, maybe apart from the taleban - but then it would be easier to just go to Pakistan.
You bring up an interesting point about Pakistan. I think that if they went to Pakistan that that could be even worse. If they were able to create a movement to take over the gov't then you are looking at a possible nuclear caliphate. Not to mention that it would only help the Afghani insurgency as Pakistan does now.
No, again, you are mistaken. The 72 virgins part isn't that widely used as a motivator. And there is still jihad without it, because jihad is an important part of the muslim faith. The question is really when violent jihad is allowed, and there is where some mullahs and scholars, in my mind, corrupt the word of Allah and allow it to be done at the wrong time for the wrong reasons against the wrong targets.
Thats whats in all of their recruiting propaganda. So yes, it is widely used as a motivator. There will still be Jihad but it will not have the number of followers as it does today.
But if you had removed the 72 virgins - or the Houri - entirely, violent jihad would still occur.
True, but there would be many less to carry it out.

Don't trust their words - trust the more objective research.
I don't think I communicated my thought well enough to you. I was citing their recruiting propaganda as how they recruit. It's primary source, nothing more objective than that.
That is debatable, but may be true. If so, I would say that it proved that the global jihad movement was just a tiny fraction. One that could do a lot of damage, but still a tiny one.
And unfortunately, is the face of modern Islam in the western world.

The theory predicted that other countries in the region would fall to communism if S. Vietnam did. They did fall. Even if it did predict that all of E. Asia would fall then it would be amended and it would be usable. In science you don't just throw out a theory b/c it doesn't go to the full extent that you thought, you change it to account for reality.
No.

The importance of the theory was that it predicted a threat to the US. Cambodia being communist is hardly a huge threat to the US in and of itself. The threat comes from the domino effect being predicted. That is, the one domino having fallen, the rest continue to fall until no dominos remain standing. In this analogy, the US itself is a domino, hence the threat to the US from countries becoming communist. The whole point and importance of the theory was that if a country was allowed to fall into communism the US would end up falling too.

The crucial element of the domino theory (the rational behind it's very name even) is a continuous chain reaction that doesnt stop once triggered until all dominos have ceased to stand (the fact that people might flee the new communist regime in their own land and act as a bulwark against in neighbouring countries is not merely inconsistent with or missing from the domino theory - rather it is contrary to the domino theory - the fall of one nation is supposed to trigger the fall of neighbouring nations which then do the same without triggering any factors that would halt the progress of communism).

Subtract that central element and all you have is 'if one country becomes communists their neighbours either will or will not become communist'. We can add to this the factual knowledge that some countries became communist when their neighbours were not and that some countries didnt become communists when their neighbours were not. So when we rescue the only true elements from the domino theory and add to them another empircally known truth we get 'if your neighbour is or is not a communist, you may or may not become communist yourself'.....you might see how this isnt a very useful theory although unlike the original domino theory it does have the advantage of at least being true.

Pardon me, but my family is from Afghanistan, and I can say with all authority that a country being too poor to defend its borders from the unpermitted entry of mostly Saudi and Egyptian extremists does not equal .

I am sorry doesnt matter if they are stong or not. The Taliban of Afganistan was harboring and sheltering al Qaeda. Get it now?

Interestingly enough, one of you doesnt realize or care to know is that we WERE there under UN mandate to make sure Iraq was contained. Fact of the matter is Hussein on many occasions went against the no-fly zones and such and other violations, so in a way we were only finishing the job we should of done the first time when certain cowards in our government forced us to just contain Hussein and his government, which oddly sounds like the same containment that was used on Japan and Germany in WW2, but then we all know how that worked...
At least we nipped this in the butt and removed the tyrannt.

At least we nipped this in the butt and removed the tyrannt.

True that. Pity the US government did not just tell that to its voters, but instead decided to make up elaborate stories as to why they invaded. It would have been so much simpler - if only because the whole UN would then be forced to declare war on the USA ;)

Interestingly enough, one of you doesnt realize or care to know is that we WERE there under UN mandate to make sure Iraq was contained. Fact of the matter is Hussein on many occasions went against the no-fly zones and such and other violations, so in a way we were only finishing the job we should of done the first time when certain cowards in our government forced us to just contain Hussein and his government, which oddly sounds like the same containment that was used on Japan and Germany in WW2, but then we all know how that worked...
At least we nipped this in the butt and removed the tyrannt.

A fine example of what substandard or even non-existent education can do to 'people'.

Sporadic atrocious spelling. Factually ignorant commentary. Leaps in assumption that even Superman would have trouble matching.

At least we nipped this in the butt and removed the tyrannt.

A tyrant yes, but one who kept the region stable under his iron-fisted rule, contained Jihadist groups like Al'Qaeda, and was even a buddy buddy pet dictator of the U.S. until he was lied to about the green light on invading Kuwait.

And replaced with what? World of Jihadcraft, where insurgents and terrorists can gain XP and new skills killing off Coalition troops and each other so they can learn to inflict real damage elsewhere in the globe when time comes.

A fine example of what substandard or even non-existent education can do to 'people'.

Sporadic atrocious spelling. Factually ignorant commentary. Leaps in assumption that even Superman would have trouble matching.

Nice fallacy attacks and ad hominom attacks. *claps* keep showing your maturity.

Is this the best you can do in a rebuttal? Why dont you tell me where i am wrong instead of attacking me? Oh forgot that might be hard for you...

A tyrant yes, but one who kept the region stable under his iron-fisted rule, contained Jihadist groups like Al'Qaeda, and was even a buddy buddy pet dictator of the U.S. until he was lied to about the green light on invading Kuwait.

And replaced with what? World of Jihadcraft, where insurgents and terrorists can gain XP and new skills killing off Coalition troops and each other so they can learn to inflict real damage elsewhere in the globe when time comes.

Actually you are wrong about the green light thing in Kuwait. We supported him with Iran, a mistake. BUT we never supported him fro attacking a nation that did no wrong to his nation. Some of you need to go back to school and relearn your history, this includes our fallacy throwing Non Aligned States person.

Also if you consider holding down a broiling fumes of hate toward Hussein a good thing, i worry for some of you on here...he was opressive to his people, period.

he was opressive to his people, period.

He really was oppressive. It's a good thing the US decided to intervene and make the entire country even better.

Just the other day I saw throngs of Iraqis throwing roses in the streets to the US army and singing praises to President Bush. /sarcasm

In case you haven't read Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan you might forget that we don't have the sovereignty to overthrow a dictator. Since when have we attained the label of "Morality Council of America", in which we prize morality before the collapse of social/legal law? In case you haven't noticed, by removing the head of the leviathan we have a nation thrashing around. We promised stability in a region whom have been warring with each other for -thousands- of years.

Some of this conflict goes back to Mesopotamia, and a lot of it hundreds of years ago when the Shi'ites won over the Sunni and cemented their legacy to modern time.

And we think we can up and fix it? So much for removing a tyrant, we removed the head and now a whole can of worms is pouring out. We removed the tyrant at what cost? You think this cost is justified?

He really was oppressive. It's a good thing the US decided to intervene and make the entire country even better.

Tis true!

Just the other day I saw throngs of Iraqis throwing roses in the streets to the US army and singing praises to President Bush. /sarcasm

Ha, ha.

In case you haven't read Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan you might forget that we don't have the sovereignty to overthrow a dictator.

Unless he attacks another country, and your leadership publicly announces your will support their efforts to overthrow said dictator.

Since when have we attained the label of "Morality Council of America", in which we prize morality before the collapse of social/legal law?

Never, though many people seem to think we do. Especially, given the types of legislation that is passing in states across the country, but that is a discussion for another thread.

In case you haven't noticed, by removing the head of the leviathan we have a nation thrashing around. We promised stability in a region whom have been warring with each other for -thousands- of years.

All true, way too true.

And we think we can up and fix it? So much for removing a tyrant, we removed the head and now a whole can of worms is pouring out. We removed the tyrant at what cost? You think this cost is justified?

Most certainly not for the lies we were given in the beginning of this particular war. However, now that we have made this colossal mistake, it is our, United States’, responsibility to fix what we have done. And yes, whatever the costs are justified. As I have said before, you make a mistake you pay the consequences, no matter how much you dislike them.

No.

The importance of the theory was that it predicted a threat to the US. Cambodia being communist is hardly a huge threat to the US in and of itself. The threat comes from the domino effect being predicted. That is, the one domino having fallen, the rest continue to fall until no dominos remain standing. In this analogy, the US itself is a domino, hence the threat to the US from countries becoming communist. The whole point and importance of the theory was that if a country was allowed to fall into communism the US would end up falling too.
I'm pretty sure that you just made that up. Nowhere have I found anything about the U.S. falling to communism. It is always just SE asia. So unless you can come up with a source I am calling bullshit. However if you can source it then it's all good.
The crucial element of the domino theory (the rational behind it's very name even) is a continuous chain reaction that doesnt stop once triggered until all dominos have ceased to stand (the fact that people might flee the new communist regime in their own land and act as a bulwark against in neighbouring countries is not merely inconsistent with or missing from the domino theory - rather it is contrary to the domino theory - the fall of one nation is supposed to trigger the fall of neighbouring nations which then do the same without triggering any factors that would halt the progress of communism).
To my knowledge, that wasn't the theory at all. It was just that if we allowed communism to take Vietnam that all or most of SE asia would fall.
Subtract that central element and all you have is 'if one country becomes communists their neighbours either will or will not become communist'. We can add to this the factual knowledge that some countries became communist when their neighbours were not and that some countries didnt become communists when their neighbours were not. So when we rescue the only true elements from the domino theory and add to them another empircally known truth we get 'if your neighbour is or is not a communist, you may or may not become communist yourself'.....you might see how this isnt a very useful theory although unlike the original domino theory it does have the advantage of at least being true.

It is much more complicated that they will or will not as we've discussed in the rest of the thread. There are specific factors which go into it. To name a few, the aspirations of the enemy, native culture, refugees.

Nice fallacy attacks and ad hominom attacks. *claps* keep showing your maturity.

Is this the best you can do in a rebuttal? Why dont you tell me where i am wrong instead of attacking me? Oh forgot that might be hard for you...

Sometimes, the stuff you spout is so nonsensical, it can't even be debated sensibly. Like assertions of UFOs, Elvis sightings and flying snakes. But if you insist.

Containment for example, doesn't equate extermination. And as for certain cowards, maybe they expected the current mess that would have resulted had they gone in.

Not that I expect people with no actual strategic thinking capability to understand of course. It's so much simpler to say "Oh they're cowards" And "mission accomplished". And when everything falls to pieces. "It's not my fault"

As for putting a stop to it early. Putting a stop to what? Iraq had all the capabilities of a limbless tiger at the point of the invasion. Constant sanctions, bombing raids every now and then, along with it's slow starvation killed any chance of it doing anything remotely harmful as a nation.

The US didn't stop hostility against it by invading Iraq. It certainly increased it.

And let's not forget that America put Saddam in charge. Right until they decided to backstab him, Saddam was America's golden boy.

And your spelling is still retarded. The only one who should be nipped in the butt would be you. Preferably by a Bengal tiger.

In fact, I'll make a bet with you. I bet you won't even come up with a decent rebuttal at all. Just propaganda points devoid of factual accuracy.

To my knowledge, that wasn't the theory at all. It was just that if we allowed communism to take Vietnam that all or most of SE asia would fall.


Most of SE Asia didn't. Thereby, the theory was a failure.

So, while looking for the news that I heard from a fellow student, I read this nice little quote from President Bush:



Why is he still comparing Iraq and Sept. 11?

Why?

I just don't understand how he can continue to do this. There must be something that can be done to get it into his head that, no, Iraq had nothing to do with Sept. 11, while Saudi Arabia did.

source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18132601/



He's not. Al Quada is committing terrorists attacks in Iraq, so he is right in saying the people behind 9/11 are killing us there.

He's not. Al Quada is committing terrorists attacks in Iraq, so he is right in saying the people behind 9/11 are killing us there.

Shrub engineered that prophecy, given as how Al'Qaeda had little to no real presence in Iraq until the Saddam was overthrown and the entire Iraqi infrastructure demolished completely.

Since when did a basic dictionary account for technical language?
Since when did you prove that your usages are actually technical usages? I have already told you at least 5 times that, if you are going to claim special knowledge by using technical jargon, you must first show us that you actually have the necessary knowledge. This is especially necessary if you are claiming some kind of technical definition of common words that is the exact opposite of what those words mean in standard English. You have never shown or even suggested that you actually have any such knowledge. You have only claimed to have "insider knowledge" (which you also claim can be simply found by anyone by just looking around, so how "insider" could it be?). So, the only possible conclusion is that you are talking out your ass.

If you did what post #?
People whose arguments are completely debunked, and who have nothing new to bring up to save them, always try at some point to claim it never happened and start demanding to have the posts in which it occurred identified. As a ploy, it is particularly annoying and pathetic.

I used to comply with such requests. I used to post enormously long rehashes of past arguments, including links and quotes from both parties, but I don't anymore. The person making the demand has no interest in actually seeing, much less acknowledging the proofs against him, and will never back down, no matter how much damning evidence is thrown at him. So all such things end up doing is spamming up the thread with repetitions of things already said -- not to mention wasting hours of my time.

So, I'll say to you what I say to everyone who tries to deny the past. The posts in which your nonsense was debunked are numerous and scattered throughout this very thread. Go read it for yourself.

But anticipating that you will deny the existence of arguments even though they are posted right here, I bypass you and invite others reading this thread to judge for themselves whether you have been debunked or not.

Musta been a Fruedlian Slip.
I see you don't know what a Freudian Slip is, either.

You said that you don't trust Bush but if he isn't coming up with anything then that shouldn't be a problem. Unless you think he is doing everything.
This is a ridiculous remark composed entirely of non sequitors. But if you want to play with it, fine -- if Bush is doing nothing, then why is he drawing a paycheck? Get rid of him already, he is just mucking up the situation.

By the way, this is the second time I have posted this very response. Forcing others to repeat themselves is extremely annoying, whether you do it deliberately in an attempt to make them quit the thread or do it accidentally because you cannot keep track of the on-going argument.

That it isn't Bush's policy.

Then fire his lazy worthless ass and let me talk to whoever really is in charge and tell him how wrong he is.

Why wouldn't they apply?
Theories that don't work generally don't apply to much in reality.

The only reason that more countries didn't fall was that refugees with stories of hardship under communism were able to effectively kill all of the movements that were underway in countries such as Thailand.
Hahahaha! You have finally achieved true comedy. Congratulations.


Who: Islamic Extremists
Why: To fight for allah and to expand caliphate
Back up: Common sense
In other words, you made it up.

Sometimes, the stuff you spout is so nonsensical, it can't even be debated sensibly. Like assertions of UFOs, Elvis sightings and flying snakes. But if you insist.

Here you go again. Nice personal attacks, real mature of you. *claps*

Containment for example, doesn't equate extermination. And as for certain cowards, maybe they expected the current mess that would have resulted had they gone in.

See that is the thing, tehy didnt want to deal with the issue liek many dont want to deal with teh ISSUE NOW. Understand now?

Not that I expect people with no actual strategic thinking capability to understand of course. It's so much simpler to say "Oh they're cowards" And "mission accomplished". And when everything falls to pieces. "It's not my fault"

Very nice and mature of you to make silly and rediculous statements. So its better to sit back and say ho hum he cant do anything while in containment? Wow, and i thought some of the politicans were dense....

As for putting a stop to it early. Putting a stop to what? Iraq had all the capabilities of a limbless tiger at the point of the invasion. Constant sanctions, bombing raids every now and then, along with it's slow starvation killed any chance of it doing anything remotely harmful as a nation.

Ok let me explain this ONE MORE TIME. We should of removed him when we attacked to remove him from his neighbor at that time. Get it now? How ignorant can you be?

The US didn't stop hostility against it by invading Iraq. It certainly increased it.

Of what the media is telling you and what you want to believe.

And let's not forget that America put Saddam in charge. Right until they decided to backstab him, Saddam was America's golden boy.

Who put who again? Oh that is right, we voted him in office did we...
No let me tell you the real truth...the Iraqis put him in power and then he abused it.

And your spelling is still retarded. The only one who should be nipped in the butt would be you. Preferably by a Bengal tiger.

And how is this suppose to be significant to the topic at hand? And you accuse me of not being on topic? Now that is a laugh.

In fact, I'll make a bet with you. I bet you won't even come up with a decent rebuttal at all. Just propaganda points devoid of factual accuracy.


Like your drivel of late is not propaganda points? Nice try. But dont forget i am not a Republican or Democrat. So i dont follow anyoens talking points, thats your joba nd you seem very good at it and by the way what does this ahve anything to do with the topic again? Oh that is right you avioding the issue at hand, removing a tryannt from power. Own up to it, you would rather see this person stay in power.

Shrub engineered that prophecy, given as how Al'Qaeda had little to no real presence in Iraq until the Saddam was overthrown and the entire Iraqi infrastructure demolished completely.

No sorry Hussein had terrorist training camps there.

He really was oppressive. It's a good thing the US decided to intervene and make the entire country even better.

Just the other day I saw throngs of Iraqis throwing roses in the streets to the US army and singing praises to President Bush. /sarcasm

In case you haven't read Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan you might forget that we don't have the sovereignty to overthrow a dictator. Since when have we attained the label of "Morality Council of America", in which we prize morality before the collapse of social/legal law? In case you haven't noticed, by removing the head of the leviathan we have a nation thrashing around. We promised stability in a region whom have been warring with each other for -thousands- of years.

Some of this conflict goes back to Mesopotamia, and a lot of it hundreds of years ago when the Shi'ites won over the Sunni and cemented their legacy to modern time.

And we think we can up and fix it? So much for removing a tyrant, we removed the head and now a whole can of worms is pouring out. We removed the tyrant at what cost? You think this cost is justified?

So you want to sit by and let more and more people die, EVEN though i saw plenty of Iraqis that fled that nation early on asking us to go back and help remove him to save their families? Hmm and here i thought i was cold hearted...

See that is the thing, tehy didnt want to deal with the issue liek many dont want to deal with teh ISSUE NOW. Understand now?

Uh huh. And somehow, dealing with it with guns blazing and hardly a thought towards post invasion makes it all better? It's retarded.


Very nice and mature of you to make silly and rediculous statements. So its better to sit back and say ho hum he cant do anything while in containment? Wow, and i thought some of the politicans were dense....

Provide some evidence that he could do anything of significance while in containment, and maybe you'll have a leg to stand on.


Of what the media is telling you and what you want to believe.


Let's see. People come along, blow my country to bits, reduce my standard of living from developing world to 3rd world, let in all sorts of violent elements, not to mention committing any number of crimes.

Gee, I think that would make me unhappy with these people.

As for informative sources, most of the media has more credibility than an unknown poster with grandiose notions of nationalism.


Who put who again? Oh that is right, we voted him in office did we...
No let me tell you the real truth...the Iraqis put him in power and then he abused it.

And the CIA didn't fund, train and inform the Baathists, along with Saddam, in accordance to their "dictator in a pocket" strategy hmm?

Seem's like the truth tends to fly straight between your ears and out. Particularly when it's inconvenient to you.


And how is this suppose to be significant to the topic at hand? And you accuse me of not being on topic? Now that is a laugh.

It's significance is a matter of etiquette. Of which you lack.


Like your drivel of late is not propaganda points? Nice try. But dont forget i am not a Republican or Democrat. So i dont follow anyoens talking points, thats your joba nd you seem very good at it and by the way what does this ahve anything to do with the topic again? Oh that is right you avioding the issue at hand, removing a tryannt from power. Own up to it, you would rather see this person stay in power.

What I see here is a child's attempt at claiming "I'm not a whiny loser! He is!"

Saddam was a tyrant yes. He was also a US puppet tyrant. However, he did a better job running Iraq than the pathetic attempts of the coalition and the current Iraqi government.

Maybe if the US stopped trying to play world policeman. Too bad it can't.

Tyrants are a symptom of the problem, not the source. The source of the problem is people who put them in power. Most of them used to be evenly distributed between the Soviet Union and the US. Now it's mostly the US.

So you want to sit by and let more and more people die, EVEN though i saw plenty of Iraqis that fled that nation early on asking us to go back and help remove him to save their families? Hmm and here i thought i was cold hearted...

Anecdotal evidence has no place in an internet discussion, particularly when using emotive arguments since anyone can claim anything.

Why is he still comparing Iraq and Sept. 11?

Why?

I just don't understand how he can continue to do this. There must be something that can be done to get it into his head that, no, Iraq had nothing to do with Sept. 11, while Saudi Arabia did.


He must do this to save his own neck and his fellows'.
If he said the truth, all the truth, nothing but the truth, he would be kicked off the White House by a revolt.

And the CIA didn't fund, train and inform the Baathists, along with Saddam, in accordance to their "dictator in a pocket" strategy hmm?


Also, the same thing applies to funding Mr.Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan during the '80s, see "Rambo III" as a clearly non-pro-Soviet-biased source.

*consipiration theory alert*
Whoa, Osama happens to hail from the Bin Laden family, long-term business partners of the Bush family.

Uh huh. And somehow, dealing with it with guns blazing and hardly a thought towards post invasion makes it all better? It's retarded.

And yes we contain him while he kills more people of his nation by stealing the money and supplies that was going in there even during this so called sanctions. Sorry, he who stands by and does nothing is much worse then one who does something and people get hurt.



Provide some evidence that he could do anything of significance while in containment, and maybe you'll have a leg to stand on.

Oh i dont know, lets say the stealing of the supplies coming in while the sanctions were going on, food and such that was suppose to go to the PEOPLE, not to his personal uses. How about his attacking the planes in the no fly zones. There is so much more, you really need to look it up bud. Then again i never supprted the sanctions either, it was costly and inefficient.



Let's see. People come along, blow my country to bits, reduce my standard of living from developing world to 3rd world, let in all sorts of violent elements, not to mention committing any number of crimes.

No, Hussein already did that himself. He was the one already terrorizing his own people long before we came. And then he made it even worse when he couldnt even let his people have the supplies...oil for food scandal, you ahve heard of it right? Yeah...

Gee, I think that would make me unhappy with these people.

As for informative sources, most of the media has more credibility than an unknown poster with grandiose notions of nationalism.

Can you please point out my grandiose notion of nationalism? Now this is a lack of use of debate congrats. *claps*
Thats fine put your faith in a system of media sources that have shown themselves lack of crediability time and time again. Thats right be a true researcher and rely on one source.



And the CIA didn't fund, train and inform the Baathists, along with Saddam, in accordance to their "dictator in a pocket" strategy hmm?

Never said that, but then you also like to twist the facts and truth around here, already have shown us this. I have yet to see one source or link of your own, yet you barrage me with that notion. We had our CIA in htere help training BEFORE Hussein came to power bud. He then used the training himself when he went to war with Iran. And where is your source of this information by the way?

Seem's like the truth tends to fly straight between your ears and out. Particularly when it's inconvenient to you.

You mean your personal truth right? How about when i make a statement you blantantly attack me personally on spelling and such when you cant come back with a rebuttal? Eh?



It's significance is a matter of etiquette. Of which you lack.

Only to a person that has nothing to particularly say on the matter. Which means one who cant rebuttal on a certain topic.



What I see here is a child's attempt at claiming "I'm not a whiny loser! He is!"

See here is another fine example of you resorting to comments that have NOTHING to do with the topic. Congrats. *claps*

Saddam was a tyrant yes. He was also a US puppet tyrant. However, he did a better job running Iraq than the pathetic attempts of the coalition and the current Iraqi government.

Seriously read up on your history. Hussein made his nation by himself, he didnt need the US to pull any strings. You beleive this bullshit so much you are blinded by it. I would LOVE to see your sources saying he didnt create his own power and kept it himself.

Maybe if the US stopped trying to play world policeman. Too bad it can't.

If this were true, we would be in Africa more, so once again you debate a point that has no relivence.

Tyrants are a symptom of the problem, not the source. The source of the problem is people who put them in power. Most of them used to be evenly distributed between the Soviet Union and the US. Now it's mostly the US.


No, they are the source, like Hussein and N. Korea's current leader Kim and many more. You are so disillusioned to think that the US has its hand in everything. Its sad really that you think this way.

Anecdotal evidence has no place in an internet discussion, particularly when using emotive arguments since anyone can claim anything.

Everything YOU have said was anecdotal evidence, so what is your point? Get on with actual rebuttals and stop misdirecting the debate.

Also, the same thing applies to funding Mr.Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan during the '80s, see "Rambo III" as a clearly non-pro-Soviet-biased source.

*consipiration theory alert*
Whoa, Osama happens to hail from the Bin Laden family, long-term business partners of the Bush family.

Wow, you so simplified international relations...come on...

So, while looking for the news that I heard from a fellow student, I read this nice little quote from President Bush:



Why is he still comparing Iraq and Sept. 11?

Why?

I just don't understand how he can continue to do this. There must be something that can be done to get it into his head that, no, Iraq had nothing to do with Sept. 11, while Saudi Arabia did.

source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18132601/

We were attacked by Al Quaeda on September 11, 2001. Sadaam was not our friend on September 11, 2001. Sadaam tried to kill George Bush I. Sadaam was a bad motherf***** that did some sick nasty torturing and murdering. We are now fighting Al Quaeda in Iraq. I see a whole lot of connections. Anybody come and try to kill our former President is going to get some serious can of whoopass opened up on his hiney!

This is a wonderful war. We must not surrender to Terrorists. Personally, I do not see what the big deal is of having a Sunni Iraq, a Shiite Iraq, and a Kurdish Iraq.

We were attacked by Al Quaeda on September 11, 2001. Sadaam was not our friend on September 11, 2001.

The two are not the same.

Sadaam tried to kill George Bush I. Sadaam was a bad motherf***** that did some sick nasty torturing and murdering.

He's dead, in case you haven't noticed.

We are now fighting Al Quaeda in Iraq. I see a whole lot of connections.

We're fighting Iraqis in Iraq.

As for connections, I'm sure a lot of people see connections between Bush and 9/11 too. Or, aliens and the Holocaust. You're special for doing so, but not so special that it's a valid argument.

Anybody come and try to kill our former President is going to get some serious can of whoopass opened up on his hiney!

Tough guy. HOOAH! You'll make a fine soldier if you ever leave the computer in your mom's basement.

This is a wonderful war.

You are an idiot troll.

We must not surrender to Terrorists.

You are an idiot troll.

We were attacked by Al Quaeda on September 11, 2001. Sadaam was not our friend on September 11, 2001. Sadaam tried to kill George Bush I. Sadaam was a bad motherf***** that did some sick nasty torturing and murdering. We are now fighting Al Quaeda in Iraq. I see a whole lot of connections. Anybody come and try to kill our former President is going to get some serious can of whoopass opened up on his hiney!

This is a wonderful war. We must not surrender to Terrorists. Personally, I do not see what the big deal is of having a Sunni Iraq, a Shiite Iraq, and a Kurdish Iraq.

HAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The two are not the same.



He's dead, in case you haven't noticed.

And so it goes with tyrants.

We're fighting Iraqis in Iraq.
I do not know about that. When we first liberated Iraq, the Iraqis were calling for their countrymen to kill the foreigners. They were not referring to us. So who were they referring to? Hmmmm how about the foreign terrorists that came to Iraq to fight us Trollypants?

As for connections, I'm sure a lot of people see connections between Bush and 9/11 too. Or, aliens and the Holocaust. You're special for doing so, but not so special that it's a valid argument.
Um that is one of the reasons that Congress listed in their authorization for use of military force, Trollypants.


Tough guy. HOOAH! You'll make a fine soldier if you ever leave the computer in your mom's basement.

I would make a fine soldier if I was able to be one, but unfortunately I was rejected for health reasons. Why aren't you doing your duty, punk?



You are an idiot troll.
Say that to a mirror.


You are an idiot troll.
Say that to a mirror.

I wish I knew how to respond to lonq quotes without having my text look like the quoted text.

Say that to a mirror.

I'm really not sure why I would point out inaccuracies in your text, to a mirror. It seems much more productive to tell them to you, since, you know, it's your inaccuracies I am responding to, not my good looks.

I'm really not sure why I would point out inaccuracies in your text, to a mirror. It seems much more productive to tell them to you, since, you know, it's your inaccuracies I am responding to, not my good looks.

Are you denying that one of the reasons that Congress authorized the use of military force was because Sadaam tried to assasinate GHWB?

We were attacked by Al Quaeda on September 11, 2001. Sadaam was not our friend on September 11, 2001.

No link.

Sadaam tried to kill George Bush I. Sadaam was a bad motherf***** that did some sick nasty torturing and murdering. We are now fighting Al Quaeda in Iraq.

There's still no link between Iraq and Sept 11.

I see a whole lot of connections. Anybody come and try to kill our former President is going to get some serious can of whoopass opened up on his hiney!

So... you're fighting this war not based on sept 11, but you're still comparing it to sept 11 and not only that, but you're not fighting for the american people, you're fighting because the president was put under threat?

Learn to use your secret service! They can retaliate you know! It's far more subtle.

This is a wonderful war. We must not surrender to Terrorists.

Wow! You're really arguing the link between sept 11 and Iraq there :rolleyes:

Personally, I do not see what the big deal is of having a Sunni Iraq, a Shiite Iraq, and a Kurdish Iraq.

Again, what does this have to do with Iraq and Sept 11. being related?


As far as I see it, Bush is trying to implicitly argue that the american people were attacked by Iraq on Sept 11. This is false.

Are you denying that one of the reasons that Congress authorized the use of military force was because Sadaam tried to assasinate GHWB?

That has nothing to do with Sept 11 though. He's seeking funding for this war and basing it off a non-existant implicit link between Iraq and Sept 11.

Are you denying that one of the reasons that Congress authorized the use of military force was because Sadaam tried to assasinate GHWB?

Your post here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12602749&postcount=293) is what I've denied.

We were attacked by Al Quaeda on September 11, 2001. Sadaam was not our friend on September 11, 2001.

Yesterday Pete raped your sister. Yesterday you had an argument with Ralph.
Is there any relation between the two ?

Answer: could be. But these statements do not show that in any way, despite implying there is.

The Domino Theory wasn't just the theory that more countries would fall. There was a reason for why those countries would fall. That reason was that the militants who had their first victory would move on to other countries. I believe that that happened in Cambodia.
A correction: The theory wasn't that concerned about the movement of the militants as the movement of ideas. They feared the spread of the idea of communism, and if one country fell they thought the idea would inspire other movements in neighbouring countries.

Here we go again:p
Well, the first step of a successful debate is to identify where the differences and disagreement lies ;)

Al-Qaeda certainly had a reason pre-9/11. If you look at Al-Qaeda alone and leave out all other groups they will have a lot of motivation. They have a friendly Taliban there. And it is a Global Jihad isn't it? Why would an extremist there be different than an extremist in Iraq? Because the global Jihad movement is small, and most islamists are preoccupied with their own local situations. Afghani Jihadists care more about Afghanistan than about Iraq or any other countries - and more about their clans than about the country itself.


Thats whats in all of their recruiting propaganda. So yes, it is widely used as a motivator. There will still be Jihad but it will not have the number of followers as it does today.
I think you would be surprised at how little effect it would have to remove that motivation. But since that won't ever happen, continued speculation on my part serves little purpose.


True, but there would be many less to carry it out.
Yes, but there would still be many... What we need is to see a change of ideology, a return to viewing Jihad as a collective duty instead of an individual one, perhaps. As it was before Sayyid Qutb and his doctrine from the 70s. Perhaps...

And unfortunately, is the face of modern Islam in the western world.
And that is also something that needs to change, because the violent jihadis draw strength from it. We need to see them as the minority fringe groups that they really are, not feed their ego and make them important players.

A correction: The theory wasn't that concerned about the movement of the militants as the movement of ideas. They feared the spread of the idea of communism, and if one country fell they thought the idea would inspire other movements in neighbouring countries.
Interesting point. I agree that the idea was the most important factor however the experience brought from former Vietcong can't be underplayed.

Because the global Jihad movement is small, and most islamists are preoccupied with their own local situations. Afghani Jihadists care more about Afghanistan than about Iraq or any other countries - and more about their clans than about the country itself.
I'm not exactly in agreement about the size of the movement but you are right about the tribalistic nature of the ME. However, to them, the spread of Sharia law is mandated by Allah and is therefore necessary. Not that Sharia is not what most muslims want.

I think you would be surprised at how little effect it would have to remove that motivation. But since that won't ever happen, continued speculation on my part serves little purpose.
I forget what this has to do with anything so let's just move on.:)


Yes, but there would still be many... What we need is to see a change of ideology, a return to viewing Jihad as a collective duty instead of an individual one, perhaps. As it was before Sayyid Qutb and his doctrine from the 70s. Perhaps...
Agreed.
And that is also something that needs to change, because the violent jihadis draw strength from it. We need to see them as the minority fringe groups that they really are, not feed their ego and make them important players.
I think that the number of muslims in favor of Jihad and those willing to carry out Jihad are very different. The first is likely a majority and the latter is a tiny minority.

I wish I knew how to respond to lonq quotes without having my text look like the quoted text.
Try coming up with an original thought of your own. That usually works.

And yes we contain him while he kills more people of his nation by stealing the money and supplies that was going in there even during this so called sanctions. Sorry, he who stands by and does nothing is much worse then one who does something and people get hurt.


A quack is far more likely to kill someone with kidney stones than a trained doctor. The US is the quack here. Why? Cause more people are dying now than under Saddam. And no going blaming it on the insurgency. They wouldn't be there if it wasn't for the US. The blame is on the US for enabling them.


Oh i dont know, lets say the stealing of the supplies coming in while the sanctions were going on, food and such that was suppose to go to the PEOPLE, not to his personal uses. How about his attacking the planes in the no fly zones. There is so much more, you really need to look it up bud. Then again i never supprted the sanctions either, it was costly and inefficient.


Nope. That doesn't count. The reasons for war was a clear and present threat to the US. Those reasons are complete bullshit. You have to provide evidence to prove that it isn't. If the suffering of the people were ever used as real reasons for war, we'd see the US in a heck of a lot more places trying to do humanitarian work. Which it doesn't unless there's something in it for them.


No, Hussein already did that himself. He was the one already terrorizing his own people long before we came. And then he made it even worse when he couldnt even let his people have the supplies...oil for food scandal, you ahve heard of it right? Yeah...


Before the US decided to bomb everything to shit and put up sanctions on Iraq, it was considerably well developed and it's people had first rate education. All that was under Saddam.

And before even that, the CIA enabled the Baathist party to rise to the top, and while Saddam terrorized his populace, the US turned a blind eye. Heck, the US even sold him chemical weapons to use.

Now with US management, we have 3rd world infrastructure, random death squads, random bombings, kidnapings, raids. So things are not just as bad as it was under Saddam. It's worse.

Much easier to foster more hate in the latter than the former.


Can you please point out my grandiose notion of nationalism? Now this is a lack of use of debate congrats. *claps*

Where you clearly see nothing wrong with what the US is doing, not to mention toppling governments and installing ones favorable to the US. What did the Japanese call it 60 years ago? Ah yes, the greater economic co-prosperity sphere or something like that.

That's grandiose nationalism to me. The next step is fascism.


Thats fine put your faith in a system of media sources that have shown themselves lack of crediability time and time again. Thats right be a true researcher and rely on one source.

One source? Hardly. But you seem to only rely on yourself for sources. Or maybe you'd like to prove me wrong, and provide some of yours hmm? To back up your words that is. Or maybe you'll just spout out more nonsense while trying to look clever.


Never said that, but then you also like to twist the facts and truth around here, already have shown us this. I have yet to see one source or link of your own, yet you barrage me with that notion. We had our CIA in htere help training BEFORE Hussein came to power bud. He then used the training himself when he went to war with Iran. And where is your source of this information by the way?

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/husseinindex.htm

http://www.awolbush.com/rumsfeld_saddam.jpg

Yeah, the US had nothing to do with Saddam eh?


You mean your personal truth right? How about when i make a statement you blantantly attack me personally on spelling and such when you cant come back with a rebuttal? Eh

Your spelling sucks. Your posts are evidence of that. What's there to rebut?


See here is another fine example of you resorting to comments that have NOTHING to do with the topic. Congrats. *claps*


Because your accusation of 'talking points' have nothing to do with the topic either.


Seriously read up on your history. Hussein made his nation by himself,

No. Iraq was around before Saddam was even born. Get your facts right.


he didnt need the US to pull any strings. You beleive this bullshit so much you are blinded by it. I would LOVE to see your sources saying he didnt create his own power and kept it himself.

He may or may not have needed it. Fact remains is, the US did.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/husseinindex.htm

He was in the US pocket and best of buddies until they decided he wasn't useful anymore.


If this were true, we would be in Africa more, so once again you debate a point that has no relivence.

Africa has nothing of strategic importance to the US. I will admit one error to my statement. Not a world policeman, but a corrupt world policeman.


No, they are the source, like Hussein and N. Korea's current leader Kim and many more. You are so disillusioned to think that the US has its hand in everything. Its sad really that you think this way.

Nope. Tyrants are a symptom. The source of the problem is those who want easily manageable, stable systems of control over strategic assets. To that end, the big powers try to install as many favorable dictators as possible rather than rely on something as unstable as a democracy.

My disillusionment is that the US has the good of people in mind.

It doesn't. The only interest US policy makers have is in lining their pockets and maintaining their power bases. Anyone who thinks otherwise is hopelessly naive. You don't get to be a political leader on good intentions.

Everything YOU have said was anecdotal evidence, so what is your point? Get on with actual rebuttals and stop misdirecting the debate.

You don't even know what anecdotal evidence means do you?

No link.



There's still no link between Iraq and Sept 11.



So... you're fighting this war not based on sept 11, but you're still comparing it to sept 11 and not only that, but you're not fighting for the american people, you're fighting because the president was put under threat?

Learn to use your secret service! They can retaliate you know! It's far more subtle.



Wow! You're really arguing the link between sept 11 and Iraq there :rolleyes:



Again, what does this have to do with Iraq and Sept 11. being related?


As far as I see it, Bush is trying to implicitly argue that the american people were attacked by Iraq on Sept 11. This is false.


Funny enough there is more connections then you would like to assume. We went to war with TERRORISM in 2001, meaning eliminating terrorist world wide, INCLUDING dictator terrorists, and yes Hussein was a terrorist. Ok? Ok.

Funny enough there is more connections then you would like to assume. We went to war with TERRORISM in 2001, meaning eliminating terrorist world wide, INCLUDING dictator terrorists, and yes Hussein was a terrorist. Ok? Ok.
Yep, and completely and utterly, incompetently missed the guy who was actually responsible for the 9/11 attacks AND have done nothing about the country who hosted most of said terrorists (note: NOT a-one Iraqi amongst them), being Saudi Arabia.
Other than "assumptions", what do you have? You want that conversation with us?

A quack is far more likely to kill someone with kidney stones than a trained doctor. The US is the quack here. Why? Cause more people are dying now than under Saddam. And no going blaming it on the insurgency. They wouldn't be there if it wasn't for the US. The blame is on the US for enabling them.

I guess we are not thinking of the same people then apparently...



Nope. That doesn't count. The reasons for war was a clear and present threat to the US. Those reasons are complete bullshit. You have to provide evidence to prove that it isn't. If the suffering of the people were ever used as real reasons for war, we'd see the US in a heck of a lot more places trying to do humanitarian work. Which it doesn't unless there's something in it for them.

Actually it does. See not all of use are Bush followers. Some of us are happy we went into remove the tyrannt. See? And this so called arguement of how if we went in for humanitarian reasons saying we would then be all over the world is sad arguement...thing is we HAVE been all over the world helping in humanitarian relief...we have been covering for the UN and international communities butts on this....



Before the US decided to bomb everything to shit and put up sanctions on Iraq, it was considerably well developed and it's people had first rate education. All that was under Saddam.

DO you seriously believe this? For over 20 years this ma has kept that nation in fear, making sure anyone and everyone is under his thumb. Those that followed him were giving power and position in power that would listen to him. Those that didnt died or disappeared...Dont think you realize his party is based Nazism from his early days learning from such like Michel Aflaq and more. Sorry this man had no care for the Iraqis what so ever, perfect example of this is during the coalitions sanctions.

And before even that, the CIA enabled the Baathist party to rise to the top, and while Saddam terrorized his populace, the US turned a blind eye. Heck, the US even sold him chemical weapons to use.

He was already doing that long before we ever were in the region bud. Yes its sad that our PAST administrations were working with this murderer. Why we have to bring this up has no relevence to the NOW.

Now with US management, we have 3rd world infrastructure, random death squads, random bombings, kidnapings, raids. So things are not just as bad as it was under Saddam. It's worse.

No the infrastructure was already falling apart even before 1991.

Much easier to foster more hate in the latter than the former.


Not really, i do hate those that sucked up to Hussein back inteh 1960s, both Democrats and Republicans.




Where you clearly see nothing wrong with what the US is doing, not to mention toppling governments and installing ones favorable to the US. What did the Japanese call it 60 years ago? Ah yes, the greater economic co-prosperity sphere or something like that.

Byt he way learn a little more about the Japanese prewar history...it was the Japanese that wanted the "economic co-prosperity sphere of influece" with out the Western powers being part of it....then again Japan thought the Chinese were inferior...go figure...just like Hussein that Kurds were inferior.

That's grandiose nationalism to me. The next step is fascism.

Yes, what Hussein wanted and some of the militaristic Japanese leaders of that time were nationalistic and fascist. Your point?



One source? Hardly. But you seem to only rely on yourself for sources. Or maybe you'd like to prove me wrong, and provide some of yours hmm? To back up your words that is. Or maybe you'll just spout out more nonsense while trying to look clever.



http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/husseinindex.htm

http://www.awolbush.com/rumsfeld_saddam.jpg

Yeah, the US had nothing to do with Saddam eh?

Oooooh. That lovely link says nothing at all. All it says is:

Evidence suggests
Yet all i see is a photo op of hands being shaken. None of the links below show no evidence.....hmmmm.
Funny thing is history says that Hussein and his henchmen are the ones that got into power, nothing to do with CIA. I love the fact that so many conspiracy theoriest will use the CIA as a scape goat for anything these days....



Your spelling sucks. Your posts are evidence of that. What's there to rebut?

That is my point. There is no use of taking simple mistakes and attacking them, it has no place here. Grow up.



Because your accusation of 'talking points' have nothing to do with the topic either.

Like you dont have talking points? Get off the labeling of other's arguements what you dont like and stick to the topic.



No. Iraq was around before Saddam was even born. Get your facts right.

Never said it wasnt....i said the current one HE ruled, that is what we are talking about, right? We are talking about the Baathist nation he ruled....



He may or may not have needed it. Fact remains is, the US did.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/husseinindex.htm

He was in the US pocket and best of buddies until they decided he wasn't useful anymore.

What you like to see it as. Its not as simple as you think. Plus your so called CIA theory is a load of crap.



Africa has nothing of strategic importance to the US. I will admit one error to my statement. Not a world policeman, but a corrupt world policeman.

Oh yes, anything AMerican is so corrupt. Come on man, the world is not run in so simple of terms.



Nope. Tyrants are a symptom. The source of the problem is those who want easily manageable, stable systems of control over strategic assets. To that end, the big powers try to install as many favorable dictators as possible rather than rely on something as unstable as a democracy.

Nothing wrong with Democracy. Its the individuals tryingt o control others. See the thing is, we have multiply leaders and individuals that want help spreadu freedom. Hussein for in for only himself. And no tyrannts are the source. Regardless what so called wrongs they think they experienced, whether it was Hitler or Hussein or who ever, doesnt give them the right to terrorize the people they are entrusted to rule.

My disillusionment is that the US has the good of people in mind.

It doesn't. The only interest US policy makers have is in lining their pockets and maintaining their power bases. Anyone who thinks otherwise is hopelessly naive. You don't get to be a political leader on good intentions.

Now this is a disillusionment, thinking that all US policy is interrested in money and power...seriously you really need to get into politcs more and understand the world a little less simply. And yes you can become a good leader on merit and good intentions, its just some dont always agree with those intentions because of their own jealousy....

Yep, and completely and utterly, incompetently missed the guy who was actually responsible for the 9/11 attacks AND have done nothing about the country who hosted most of said terrorists (note: NOT a-one Iraqi amongst them), being Saudi Arabia.
Other than "assumptions", what do you have? You want that conversation with us?

Did i say we didnt fail in Afganistan? Thats what i thought. Never also said i didnt agree with everything with this administration...now what was it you said about assumptions?

I guess we are not thinking of the same people then apparently...

Who do you have in mind then hmm? Mickey Mouse?


Actually it does. See not all of use are Bush followers. Some of us are happy we went into remove the tyrannt. See? And this so called arguement of how if we went in for humanitarian reasons saying we would then be all over the world is sad arguement...thing is we HAVE been all over the world helping in humanitarian relief...we have been covering for the UN and international communities butts on this....

Bullshit. If the US went in for humanitarian reasons, they wouldn't have bombed the hell out of infrastructure, dismantled the government, disbanded the army and secured the oil fields and pretended there wasn't mass looting the moment Baghdad fell.

The US went in to line the pockets of its elite, control resources and create power projection. No two ways about it.


DO you seriously believe this? For over 20 years this ma has kept that nation in fear, making sure anyone and everyone is under his thumb. Those that followed him were giving power and position in power that would listen to him. Those that didnt died or disappeared...Dont think you realize his party is based Nazism from his early days learning from such like Michel Aflaq and more. Sorry this man had no care for the Iraqis what so ever, perfect example of this is during the coalitions sanctions.


Look at the level of development Iraq was having prior to the sanctions and Iran-Iraqi war. They had first rate education standards and shock and horror, they had women working. Now education in Iraq is unlikely to go very far thanks to constant bombings, and women working are likely to be on the receiving end of acid attacks by religious loonies that Saddam kept out.

Saddam was a tyrant yes. But at least he was ONE big tyrant. Not the hundred or so mini tyrants messing things up now.

Things are worse now than under Saddam. Deny it all you want, it won't change facts.

If you want to argue that things are better than under Saddam, invent a time machine, depose Bush and come up with a better occupation plan that didn't involve "Everything will come up roses, I'm sure of it"


He was already doing that long before we ever were in the region bud. Yes its sad that our PAST administrations were working with this murderer. Why we have to bring this up has no relevence to the NOW.

Nope. Saddam was a minor thug in the Baathist party when the CIA decided that they were their golden boys. Read your history.


No the infrastructure was already falling apart even before 1991.


You mean the Iraqi-Iran war? The one the US was herding Saddam into? He was put there as a check on them after all.


Not really, i do hate those that sucked up to Hussein back inteh 1960s, both Democrats and Republicans.

You're not Iraqi. You're not likely to suffer the effects that would foster hatred against the US now.


Byt he way learn a little more about the Japanese prewar history...it was the Japanese that wanted the "economic co-prosperity sphere of influece" with out the Western powers being part of it....then again Japan thought the Chinese were inferior...go figure...just like Hussein that Kurds were inferior.


You need more reading comprehension.

Japan had it's economic co-prosperity sphere for itself. The US has the PNAC for itself. Both are pretty much the same, except for who they benefit.

As for thinking who is inferior, might I remind you that America still has a lot of influential elements with the retarded idea of "manifest destiny"?


Yes, what Hussein wanted and some of the militaristic Japanese leaders of that time were nationalistic and fascist. Your point?


You really do love separating points to create garbled interpretations don't you? You've got nationalistic tendencies that go hand in hand with "manifest destiny" right there.



Oooooh. That lovely link says nothing at all. All it says is:

Yet all i see is a photo op of hands being shaken. None of the links below show no evidence.....hmmmm.
Funny thing is history says that Hussein and his henchmen are the ones that got into power, nothing to do with CIA. I love the fact that so many conspiracy theoriest will use the CIA as a scape goat for anything these days....


Just like evidence suggests OJ Simpson is a murderer hmm? How about these eh?

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/217.html

Maybe a former CIA official will do it for you.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0420-05.htm

As for shaking hands, maybe it was because of a certain chemical weapons deal hmm?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52241-2002Dec29?language=printer


What you like to see it as. Its not as simple as you think. Plus your so called CIA theory is a load of crap.


I have yet to see you rebutting any of my points linking the CIA to Saddam's rise to power in any meaningful manner.



Oh yes, anything AMerican is so corrupt. Come on man, the world is not run in so simple of terms.

LOL! Are you suggesting that most American politicians aren't corrupt money hungry bastards in the pay of their corporate sponsors? What are you smoking?


Nothing wrong with Democracy. Its the individuals tryingt o control others. See the thing is, we have multiply leaders and individuals that want help spreadu freedom. Hussein for in for only himself. And no tyrannts are the source. Regardless what so called wrongs they think they experienced, whether it was Hitler or Hussein or who ever, doesnt give them the right to terrorize the people they are entrusted to rule.


Uh huh. Spread freedom. Like peanut butter and jelly eh? Get it in your thick skull, America doesn't spread freedom. It props up dictators who can promise them resources and support against its enemies. Democracies are too unstable because all the money they spend on propping up puppets goes to waste every 4 to 8 years.


Now this is a disillusionment, thinking that all US policy is interrested in money and power...seriously you really need to get into politcs more and understand the world a little less simply. And yes you can become a good leader on merit and good intentions, its just some dont always agree with those intentions because of their own jealousy....

American policy has been always been strongly dictated by 'manifest destiny' which is essentially "We're taking all you've got cause God put it there for us to take"

As for not interested in money and power, show me an example of US policy that wasn't put through in foreign relations that weren't supposed to gain them money, power, resources or influence. Show me one single example of real altruism that had no hooks attached to it that would have benefited them in the manner I have outlined.

You tell me all these "you're so ignorant" lines so you should have plenty of proof. I'm not holding my breath though.

You tell me all these "you're so ignorant" lines so you should have plenty of proof. I'm not holding my breath though.

Welcome to Bushevik Psychology 101.

Welcome to Bushevik Psychology 101.

Ah, the Ayatollah Gauthier. We meet again. Everything non-muslim is Bushevik, no?

Have you stopped laughing at other religions yet?

Funny enough there is more connections then you would like to assume. We went to war with TERRORISM in 2001, meaning eliminating terrorist world wide, INCLUDING dictator terrorists, and yes Hussein was a terrorist. Ok? Ok.

In which case:

Why aren't you in a dozen places in Africa?

Also, guess what - There's still no link between Sept. 11 and Iraq.

Ah, the Ayatollah Gauthier. We meet again. Everything non-muslim is Bushevik, no?

Have you stopped laughing at other religions yet?

That's rich coming from someone who thinks Paris Hilton jokes are anti-Semitism.

Oh and a Jew pretending to be a Muslim? Excuse me but Sasha Baron Cohen called. He said you stole his bit and wants it back.

Did i say we didnt fail in Afganistan? Thats what i thought. Never also said i didnt agree with everything with this administration...now what was it you said about assumptions?

Didn't make one. I called you on the specific quote you made, and as yet, you've made a relatively vacuuous attempt at meaning here. Probably just a point-count thing for you, kind of that "anecdotal evidence" thing.
:(
If so many of your posts didn't already have coherent rebuttals to them, i might've invested a bit more in thinking it's worth it.
As yet, you're kinda tepid at best. Keep it up though, there's plenty of room to learn!

Who do you have in mind then hmm? Mickey Mouse?

Cut the sarcasm or no one will take you seriously that are mature enough to discussion this topic.



Bullshit. If the US went in for humanitarian reasons, they wouldn't have bombed the hell out of infrastructure, dismantled the government, disbanded the army and secured the oil fields and pretended there wasn't mass looting the moment Baghdad fell.

Actually that is NOT bullshit. Do you know ANYTHING of military strategy? Actually there would of been a dismantling of teh government, its called removing one government to another one...it happened in our own histroy(USA) and many others. I swear some of the anti-war people are dense in how to set up a government.

The US went in to line the pockets of its elite, control resources and create power projection. No two ways about it.

Heh, in your opinion.



Look at the level of development Iraq was having prior to the sanctions and Iran-Iraqi war. They had first rate education standards and shock and horror, they had women working. Now education in Iraq is unlikely to go very far thanks to constant bombings, and women working are likely to be on the receiving end of acid attacks by religious loonies that Saddam kept out.

Did you also know that while he did that had his sons kill and rape many more because they would follow their instructions from business and politics or plain simple do what tehy wanted for favors??

Saddam was a tyrant yes. But at least he was ONE big tyrant. Not the hundred or so mini tyrants messing things up now.

I would rather have many that will at least look eye to eye one of these days and rout out the one(s) that are no different then Hussein. You dont get much info on the leaders fighting for the unification from the left wing press in this nation...

Things are worse now than under Saddam. Deny it all you want, it won't change facts.

Just because they are now more out in the open to YOU doesnt mean they are worse off over there...

If you want to argue that things are better than under Saddam, invent a time machine, depose Bush and come up with a better occupation plan that didn't involve "Everything will come up roses, I'm sure of it"

Nice, more sarcasm.



Nope. Saddam was a minor thug in the Baathist party when the CIA decided that they were their golden boys. Read your history.

I swear some of you need to go back to school.

Although Saddam was al-Bakr's deputy, he was a strong behind-the-scenes party politician. Al-Bakr was the older and more prestigious of the two, but by 1969 Saddam Hussein clearly had become the moving force behind the party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein

Look up more on his history kid. Learn alittle bit. Yes he worked with others, but he was far more ruthless and brutal coming to power UNDER his own power.





You mean the Iraqi-Iran war? The one the US was herding Saddam into? He was put there as a check on them after all.

That was only part of it. He made his mistake when he turned that nation into a dictatorship.



You're not Iraqi. You're not likely to suffer the effects that would foster hatred against the US now.

So you can predict the future now? And so what if i am not Iraqi. At least i have my standards of backing up allies when they asked in the past. See the thing is our government of the past when Hussein came to power considered exiled Iraqis as allies. Do you keep up with the past at all?



You need more reading comprehension.

Japan had it's economic co-prosperity sphere for itself. The US has the PNAC for itself. Both are pretty much the same, except for who they benefit.

As for thinking who is inferior, might I remind you that America still has a lot of influential elements with the retarded idea of "manifest destiny"?

Hahaha. Never said teh western powers were perfect at that time, sounds like you need to learn how to read. I SAID, the Japanese HAD the co-proserity sphere influence. They are the ones that wanted to break the Washington Peace conference of 1922 where England, France, USA, China local governments AND Japan signed to keep China together in a unified nation. NOW it was JAPAN that broke that with its view of the co-prosperity sphere...no one else. The other nations wanted some type of fair balance in teh region. Please learn what you speak.



You really do love separating points to create garbled interpretations don't you? You've got nationalistic tendencies that go hand in hand with "manifest destiny" right there.

Um, and what does this personal assult have to do what we are talking about?




Just like evidence suggests OJ Simpson is a murderer hmm? How about these eh?

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/217.html

Maybe a former CIA official will do it for you.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0420-05.htm

As for shaking hands, maybe it was because of a certain chemical weapons deal hmm?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52241-2002Dec29?language=printer

Wow...you really proved me wrong...:rolleyes:
One is a blog. And teh otehr two are out dated by like 5 years. Plus the one CIA operative is uncrediable. Hmm.


I have yet to see you rebutting any of my points linking the CIA to Saddam's rise to power in any meaningful manner.

Its not my job to defend something that is rediculous and not true. CIA MAY wanted to be part of it, but Hussein did that all by him self. HOWEVER, i will say that our past administrations did let them go about letting him slaughter thousands. Please read all of my post to understand my position.




LOL! Are you suggesting that most American politicians aren't corrupt money hungry bastards in the pay of their corporate sponsors? What are you smoking?

Did i say that? Wow, what assumptions. Heheh, just your comment here shows your lakc of thinking this through.



Uh huh. Spread freedom. Like peanut butter and jelly eh? Get it in your thick skull, America doesn't spread freedom. It props up dictators who can promise them resources and support against its enemies. Democracies are too unstable because all the money they spend on propping up puppets goes to waste every 4 to 8 years.

Wow, how dense...
Did you even look at my posts? I was talking about how to help them throw off the shackles of dictators. I swear some of you people on these forums dont know how to read...



American policy has been always been strongly dictated by 'manifest destiny' which is essentially "We're taking all you've got cause God put it there for us to take"

Riiiight. :rolleyes:

As for not interested in money and power, show me an example of US policy that wasn't put through in foreign relations that weren't supposed to gain them money, power, resources or influence. Show me one single example of real altruism that had no hooks attached to it that would have benefited them in the manner I have outlined.

Do you know how to read? Ok, let me say this one more time. IF YOU THINK all relations are based on power and control, you are very simply not seeing the whole picture. Much more complex then you think.

You tell me all these "you're so ignorant" lines so you should have plenty of proof. I'm not holding my breath though.


Never said that.

Didn't make one. I called you on the specific quote you made, and as yet, you've made a relatively vacuuous attempt at meaning here. Probably just a point-count thing for you, kind of that "anecdotal evidence" thing.
:(
If so many of your posts didn't already have coherent rebuttals to them, i might've invested a bit more in thinking it's worth it.
As yet, you're kinda tepid at best. Keep it up though, there's plenty of room to learn!



No, i make my points very clear. Its just some dont like to me to make them. Or how i dont fit their model of Bushism or being called a nationalistic person. When clearly i have yet to show that.

In which case:

Why aren't you in a dozen places in Africa?

Also, guess what - There's still no link between Sept. 11 and Iraq.

Actually we do have military in many places in Africa, plus UN keeps telling us they will handle that part of the world with their troops. Clearly we are also in Europe and Asia. Just because it doesnt make the headlines or in far left magazines like the other posters links, doesnt mean it is not happening.