NationStates Jolt Archive

For those of you who think it's better to fight them over there rather than over here I have a question. What makes you think it's either over there or over here? What's to stop an Iraqi al qaeda from boarding a flight from the middle east to the USA?

It just seems to me that when you start unnecessary wars and end up fighting them "over there" that some otherwise ordinary Iraqis may end up being recruited to bring the fight over here.

Wait...DCD...you don't support Iraq?

I thought war was the perfect vehicle for cultural imperialism?

For those of you who think it's better to fight them over there rather than over here I have a question. What makes you think it's either over there or over here? What's to stop an Iraqi al qaeda from boarding a flight from the middle east to the USA?

It just seems to me that when you start unnecessary wars and end up fighting them "over there" that some otherwise ordinary Iraqis may end up being recruited to bring the fight over here.

Our crack Homeland Security department can't even stop some guy with TB from crossing the border, even while he's using his passport and real name to enter the country. I have no doubt there are a number of Islamic terrorists waiting for their time to act.

But don't forget who "started" the war. The first shot was fired even before September 11, 2001.

But don't forget who "started" the war. The first shot was fired even before September 11, 2001.

Wait...was this first shot before or after Saddam was still a 'good guy'?

Don't be so cryptic...

I fail to see why we should play the game on their terms at all. Fuck 'em, 3000 people, really not a huge deal. The buildings were more valuable.

Wait...DCD...you don't support Iraq?

I thought war was the perfect vehicle for cultural imperialism?

No. I liked Saddam. People like him suppress the religious fundies in favor of secularism.

Our crack Homeland Security department can't even stop some guy with TB from crossing the border, even while he's using his passport and real name to enter the country. I have no doubt there are a number of Islamic terrorists waiting for their time to act.

But don't forget who "started" the war. The first shot was fired even before September 11, 2001.

By Iraq? I'm all for killing the shit out of Al Qaedas. I don't even mind if a few civilians go along with them. It sucks, but you've got to do what you've got to do. Iraq, however, wasn't in with the Al Qaedas. Saddam didn't want the competition.

I'll gladly choose "over there," as a matter of policy. The important bit is accuracy in determining where threats originate and what they mean to us.

I'll gladly choose "over there," as a matter of policy. The important bit is accuracy in determining where threats originate and what they mean to us.

So what are we doing about Saudi Arabia? A lot of the Al Qaeda ideology, funding and recruits are from over there.

No. I liked Saddam. People like him suppress the religious fundies in favor of secularism.

Nothing about his policy of murdering political enemies figures into the equation? ;)

this policy of getting innocent bystanders killed in order to save us a bit of trouble is EVIL.

all it does is create more hatred for us in the world and more terrorists willing to die to kill a few americans.

it is a lasting evil that will do nothing but bring more trouble to us.

we should be ashamed of ourselves.

The real question is, "Would you rather innocent Iraqis die because of US conflicts, or innocent Americans die because of US conflicts?"

Those who supported the war for reasons of terrorism prefer dead Iraqis because they value Iraqis less than Americans. Simple as that.

Our crack Homeland Security department can't even stop some guy with TB from crossing the border, even while he's using his passport and real name to enter the country. I have no doubt there are a number of Islamic terrorists waiting for their time to act.

But don't forget who "started" the war. The first shot was fired even before September 11, 2001.

those guys didnt exist in iraq. they werent supported by saddam hussein.

sure hussein supported paletstinian suicide bombers in israel but thats not US.

By Iraq? I'm all for killing the shit out of Al Qaedas. I don't even mind if a few civilians go along with them. It sucks, but you've got to do what you've got to do. Iraq, however, wasn't in with the Al Qaedas. Saddam didn't want the competition.
Iraq was probably an over-reaction to a lot of bad intelligence. I'm giving the Administration the benefit of the doubt on that whole thing, though.

If we want to get to the real cause of the bad intel, though, only two names need to be mentioned. First and foremost -- Jimmy Carter because of the way he gutted the intelligence services. Secondly, we have to recognize Frank Church for the way he changed the way intelligence services were allowed to collect intel.

I would also readily choose the "over there" option... but seeing as the nature of terrorists is to commit acts of terrorism, it is sometimes hard to choose whether you fight the "war on terror" here or there. Personally, I believe that the "war on terror" concept lumps too many incidents under one definition and one type of retalitory action. I am in no way supporting or making inconsequential the deaths and attacks on innocent citizens or military personell, but I think some more disceretion could be used in defining "acts of terror" and acts of war etc.

The real question is, "Would you rather innocent Iraqis die because of US conflicts, or innocent Americans die because of US conflicts?"

Those who supported the war for reasons of terrorism prefer dead Iraqis because they value Iraqis less than Americans. Simple as that.

is it better to have 100,000 iraqis die to save a few thousand americans?

or if we have to be even more cynical IS IT BETTER TO KILL THOUSANDS OF US SOLDIERS TO SAVE A FEW CIVILIANS IN THE US?

and what braindead member of the administration thinks that there are only a limited number of terrorists in the world so that if you kill them THEY ARE ALL GONE?

The real question is, "Would you rather innocent Iraqis die because of US conflicts, or innocent Americans die because of US conflicts?"

Those who supported the war for reasons of terrorism prefer dead Iraqis because they value Iraqis less than Americans. Simple as that.

Sums it up nicely.

Nothing about his policy of murdering political enemies figures into the equation? ;)

Not at all. That's how business is done in that part of the world. Besides, he would have been very useful to us right about now with an Iran on the verge of building nuclear weapons.

Iraq was probably an over-reaction to a lot of bad intelligence. I'm giving the Administration the benefit of the doubt on that whole thing, though.

If we want to get to the real cause of the bad intel, though, only two names need to be mentioned. First and foremost -- Jimmy Carter because of the way he gutted the intelligence services. Secondly, we have to recognize Frank Church for the way he changed the way intelligence services were allowed to collect intel.

which is all well and good.

we made a mistake. we were led into a mistake by an adminstration that wanted to invade iraq from day 1 and was looking for a opportunity

whatever.

oops we oughtent've done that.

but NOW we have done everything we set out to do in iraq. no wmd, no saddam, a new administration that was freely elected.

what is KEEPING us there is this incredibly evil policy of drawing those who hate america to iraq to fight us there. we cant leave because we have made iraq terrorist central. there can be no peace while we are there and we cant leave because that is giving in to the terrorists.

we need to give up this policy TODAY if we are ever to get out of iraq.

Iraq was probably an over-reaction to a lot of bad intelligence. I'm giving the Administration the benefit of the doubt on that whole thing, though.

If we want to get to the real cause of the bad intel, though, only two names need to be mentioned. First and foremost -- Jimmy Carter because of the way he gutted the intelligence services. Secondly, we have to recognize Frank Church for the way he changed the way intelligence services were allowed to collect intel.

Or, the intelligence was fine and the war was for oil.

So what are we doing about Saudi Arabia? A lot of the Al Qaeda ideology, funding and recruits are from over there.

we like their oil, they like our money, et cetera.

such is the way of most US foreign policy

Iraq was probably an over-reaction to a lot of bad intelligence. I'm giving the Administration the benefit of the doubt on that whole thing, though.

If we want to get to the real cause of the bad intel, though, only two names need to be mentioned. First and foremost -- Jimmy Carter...There you have folks..
the IraqWar is not our (neocons) fault, its Jimmy Carter fault !!!.

:D :D :cool: :D

So what are we doing about Saudi Arabia? A lot of the Al Qaeda ideology, funding and recruits are from over there.

Well as you and most realize attacking Arabia and "occupying" Mecca would not be tolerated at all by most Muslims. This is the main reason for not invading Arabia. Now if the Saudi royal family fell and fundies took over then the US would play the liberator card but would just reinstall the Saudi's in power. The Saudi's do keep a lid on the problems in their own country fairly well. Why disrupt that process?

we like their oil, they like our money, et cetera.

such is the way of most US foreign policy

Foreign policy since the begining of time with every nation has a component of resources, money and or religion. Most of it is a combination of the three.

For those of you who think it's better to fight them over there rather than over here I have a question. What makes you think it's either over there or over here? What's to stop an Iraqi al qaeda from boarding a flight from the middle east to the USA?

It just seems to me that when you start unnecessary wars and end up fighting them "over there" that some otherwise ordinary Iraqis may end up being recruited to bring the fight over here.

i dont want to fight anyone!
if they show up on my doorstep i will give them a belly full of lead.as is my right to defend myself...but i sure as hell aint going to their home to force my views on them.just dont try to force yours down on me...as i have the right to defend myself.
as an aside..i dont work for exxon/mobil or bp...so fuck off you hosers..lol

The real question is, "Would you rather innocent Iraqis die because of US conflicts, or innocent Americans die because of US conflicts?"

Those who supported the war for reasons of terrorism prefer dead Iraqis because they value Iraqis less than Americans. Simple as that.

What might have more effect on the pro-Iraq war sorts is that, since the number of dead US soldiers passed the death toll on 9/11, one is also saying that US soldiers are worth less than US civilians. Of course thousands of Iraqis got killed too, but they probably know they value Iraqis less than Americans already.

Bah. Ashmoria beat me to it.

Foreign policy since the begining of time with every nation has a component of resources, money and or religion. Most of it is a combination of the three.

Do I smell a whiff of narcissism?

World of Jihadcraft.

That is all.

Iraq was probably an over-reaction to a lot of bad intelligence. I'm giving the Administration the benefit of the doubt on that whole thing, though.You do that a lot, don't you?

If we want to get to the real cause of the bad intel, though, only two names need to be mentioned. First and foremost -- Jimmy Carter because of the way he gutted the intelligence services. Secondly, we have to recognize Frank Church for the way he changed the way intelligence services were allowed to collect intel.
The whole human intel thing again? Lest we all forget, the primary sources for intel on Iraq before the war were humans, notably Curveball and Ahmed Chalabi. Still want to stick with that?

What might have more effect on the pro-Iraq war sorts is that, since the number of dead US soldiers passed the death toll on 9/11, one is also saying that US soldiers are worth less than US civilians. Of course thousands of Iraqis got killed too, but they probably know they value Iraqis less than Americans already.

Bah. Ashmoria beat me to it.

I think the problem is that we keep thinking that the neoconservatives and others favouring the war care about lives at all, be they American or Iraqi. Me, I care about all sentient being's lives period, no matter what their occupation, what they have done(Yes, that means I would care about Hitler, those of you wondering) and so on...but then that's because I'm such a compassionate man that I feel no one--NO ONE--is beyond redemption, so what do I know, eh?

...Fuck, I'm more Christian than most of the United States and I'm an athiest...

Iraq was probably an over-reaction to a lot of bad intelligence. I'm giving the Administration the benefit of the doubt on that whole thing, though.

If we want to get to the real cause of the bad intel, though, only two names need to be mentioned. First and foremost -- Jimmy Carter because of the way he gutted the intelligence services. Secondly, we have to recognize Frank Church for the way he changed the way intelligence services were allowed to collect intel.

So the fault doesn't go to Bush it is all the doing of Jimmy Carter's, eh? Why I guess I will just go and put a Bush/Cheney bumper sticker on my car right now as Bush is so clearly innocent and Iraq was all that bastard Carter's fault!

Over here, over there...whats the difference?...what does that even mean?

People are dying, and people are dead...

Over here, over there...whats the difference?...what does that even mean?

People are dying, and people are dead...

It's meant to make idiots feel afraid, to basically say that "if you don't let us do exactly what we want to do, you're going to end up dead!" only in a way that does not imply that the Bush Administration would be at fault for the deaths.

If you were going to say that I was trying to imply the Bush Administration would actually go so far as to kill American civilians because they could not fight the war in Iraq, I wasn't. I was simply stating that the basic argument, the type of threat, is the same thing....it's using fear to motivate.

It's meant to make idiots feel afraid, to basically say that "if you don't let us do exactly what we want to do, you're going to end up dead!" only in a way that does not imply that the Bush Administration would be at fault for the deaths.

The really stupid thing is that they (al Qaeda) got in one lucky shot, and we reacted like they were landing on the beaches in a reenactment of fucking D-Day. Trust me--it hasn't been Bush's steady leadership that has kept them from attacking again, or anything we've done to secure our airports or seaports. I sometimes sit back and read right-wing pundits and think "these are the biggest bunch of scaredy-cat bedwetters I've ever seen." The worst attack they could come up with went off without a hitch, and they only managed to kill 2,996 people, and they couldn't follow it up. We have 300 million people in this country, and the worst they could do was 3,000, and we collectively shit our pants over that.

The really stupid thing is that they (al Qaeda) got in one lucky shot, and we reacted like they were landing on the beaches in a reenactment of fucking D-Day. Trust me--it hasn't been Bush's steady leadership that has kept them from attacking again, or anything we've done to secure our airports or seaports. I sometimes sit back and read right-wing pundits and think "these are the biggest bunch of scaredy-cat bedwetters I've ever seen." The worst attack they could come up with went off without a hitch, and they only managed to kill 2,996 people, and they couldn't follow it up. We have 300 million people in this country, and the worst they could do was 3,000, and we collectively shit our pants over that.
Well, you have to take into account the fact that we're so bloody used to being isolated from the rest of the world that our contry has only seen a few wars on our own soil, most fought before we were a full country, and the other two were either ourselves fighting, or a fight with a country that could not possibly win over us. As such, having a sudden attack on our soil, it is somewhat reasonable that we might panic at the time.

That does not, however, excuse six fucking years worth of panicking, which is not only ridiculous, but makes me extremely sad to think these are our leaders, and that 51% of the country was either fooled by the Swift Boaters or otherwise stupid enough to reelect them back in 2004.

If you were going to say that I was trying to imply the Bush Administration would actually go so far as to kill American civilians because they could not fight the war in Iraq, I wasn't. I was simply stating that the basic argument, the type of threat, is the same thing....it's using fear to motivate.

Who me?...Im rather drunken n confused

Do I smell a whiff of narcissism?

Foreign policy is always selfishness of the nation it belongs to.

Who me?...Im rather drunken n confused

I presume...you were the one who deleted a post, after all. I simply thought it best to correct a possible misinterpretation by some people.

For those of you who think it's better to fight them over there rather than over here I have a question. What makes you think it's either over there or over here? What's to stop an Iraqi al qaeda from boarding a flight from the middle east to the USA?

It just seems to me that when you start unnecessary wars and end up fighting them "over there" that some otherwise ordinary Iraqis may end up being recruited to bring the fight over here.

Exactly!! that whole "we'll fight them over there so we don't fight them here" mumbo jumbo works if your fighting a country, maybe if it was still the Cold War...but it doesn't work against an ORGANIZATION that has NO COUNTRY and NO BORDER and NO "THERE" to fight

I presume...you were the one who deleted a post, after all. I simply thought it best to correct a possible misinterpretation by some people.

No...no presumption or misinterpretation I was merely completing a thought about my original post, no ill-feelings care for a drink?

Over there. Hey, I am answering the question aren't I?

To answer the OP's question. I would rather we made our own country as secure as we can. Which I suppose would be the equivalent of fighting them over here.

To me, fighting them "over there instead of over here" is equal to attempting to use the Iraqis as human shields.

No...no presumption or misinterpretation I was merely completing a thought about my original post, no ill-feelings
Oh okay.
care for a drink?
Thank you, but no. I don't drink alcohol.

it depends, mostly over hear, becaues i know the area.

Wait...was this first shot before or after Saddam was still a 'good guy'?

Don't be so cryptic...

Good post!

Nothing about his policy of murdering political enemies figures into the equation? ;)

As compared, of course, to the outstanding and honourable Republican tradition of knifing them in the back and trying to destroy them personally AND professionally?

I wonder how many equations have been adjusted since Shrubya "took" office.

\ I'm giving the Administration the benefit of the doubt on that whole thing, though.
And that kind of fallacious philosophy is what is costing everyone so much.
It's not like there were hits and misses of a nominal appreciation with this fucking administration.
As Bender said,
So far it's been CRAP after CRAP! *pounds fist into palm for emphasis*
People still defending the administration this far into all seven years of their fucking bullshit are either moderately to dangerously delusional, or just evil.
Present company excluded, of course, by grace of commerce and rollplay.

and what braindead member of the administration thinks that there are only a limited number of terrorists in the world so that if you kill them THEY ARE ALL GONE?There simply isn't enough time in this or the next administration to weed them all out. Kinda like a virus too, given their infectiousness of gullible right-wing listeners/readers/consumers.

The Saudi's do keep a lid on the problems in their own country fairly well. Why disrupt that process?

We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbour them.


...

Do I smell a whiff of narcissism?

Perhaps ... or as Bender said,
It looks like (*his*) neck stepped in something.
;)

I sometimes sit back and read right-wing pundits and think "these are the biggest bunch of scaredy-cat bedwetters I've ever seen."

Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.

Who makes a pattern of fear of both the known and the unknown?
Hint:

Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know.

and

There's another way to phrase that and that is that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. It is basically saying the same thing in a different way. Simply because you do not have evidence that something does exist does not mean that you have evidence that it doesn't exist.

+

"It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.

AND

I don't know what the facts are but somebody's certainly going to sit down with him and find out what he knows that they may not know, and make sure he knows what they know that he may not know.

What did they know?

We do know of certain knowledge that he (bin Laden) is either in Afghanistan, or in some other country, or dead.
+
We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.
...that last one, of course, the wmd :rolleyes:

What other cornerstone on knowledge did/does the administration possess in such copious and useful multitude?

I believe what I said yesterday. I don't know what I said, but I know what I think, and, well, I assume it's what I said.
...
If I said yes, that would then suggest that that might be the only place where it might be done which would not be accurate, necessarily accurate. It might also not be inaccurate, but I'm disinclined to mislead anyone.

.... epitaph?

Learn to say 'I don't know.' If used when appropriate, it will be often.

... if the Saudi royal family fell and fundies took over ...the Saudi "royal" family are the fundies.

the Saudi "royal" family are the fundies.

Oh, snap!

It's a good thing we're their military force as well (effectively), so we keep perfect tabs on every move they make .... even the moves we make with them ourselves, or of them, like during the NOTAM. Ayup.
http://dir.salon.com/story/books/feature/2004/03/11/unger_1/index.html?pn=2

Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer ...
http://www.greatdreams.com/political/bush_saudi.jpg

http://dohiyimir.typepad.com/bush-abdulah.jpg
...note how close Bush and Bandar's lips are here.

we are not fighting the same men who attacked the WTC on sep. 11 in Iraq. We are mostly fighting men wwho, before the American invasion, didn't care about us but who now have had proven to them everything negative about the States. Kill a man's family, you can't expect him not to hate you. The civilian death count in Iraq is astronomical, last I heard easily 40x that of US soldiers. In all, 9/11 was just an excuse the government has been waiting for.

For those of you who think it's better to fight them over there rather than over here I have a question. What makes you think it's either over there or over here? What's to stop an Iraqi al qaeda from boarding a flight from the middle east to the USA?

It just seems to me that when you start unnecessary wars and end up fighting them "over there" that some otherwise ordinary Iraqis may end up being recruited to bring the fight over here.
"Over here or over there" was always a bullshit question. They aren't mutually exclusive. If AQ really wanted to strike in America, I have no doubt that they would be able to do so - and the same goes for any other terrorist wannabe.

Sure, it's not easy to make a spectacular attack like on the WTC, but still... A car bomb in DC or a random shooting (or two) at a mall, how much fear wouldn't it generate?

Fact is, most of the fighting goes on over there because the islamists are fighting for their lands and areas. They want the traditional muslim lands to be free of western influence and thereby fights against the invaders / occupiers.

If there are terrorists "over here," surely fighting them is a higher priority than fighting terrorists "over there."

If there are not, it is a false dichotomy. And other bad shit besides.

Exactly!! that whole "we'll fight them over there so we don't fight them here" mumbo jumbo works if your fighting a country, maybe if it was still the Cold War...but it doesn't work against an ORGANIZATION that has NO COUNTRY and NO BORDER and NO "THERE" to fight

YEAH!

the administratrion pretends that "terrorism" is a location. its not. its a tactic whose users increase every day in response to our actions in the world.

there is no THERE there.

Kill a man's family, you can't expect him not to hate you.*bows*

we are not fighting the same men who attacked the WTC on sep. 11 in Iraq. We are mostly fighting men wwho, before the American invasion, didn't care about us but who now have had proven to them everything negative about the States. Kill a man's family, you can't expect him not to hate you. The civilian death count in Iraq is astronomical, last I heard easily 40x that of US soldiers. In all, 9/11 was just an excuse the government has been waiting for.
QFT.

If there are terrorists "over here," surely fighting them is a higher priority than fighting terrorists "over there."

If there are not, it is a false dichotomy. And other bad shit besides.

Well said.

YEAH!

the administratrion pretends that "terrorism" is a location. its not. its a tactic whose users increase every day in response to our actions in the world.

there is no THERE there.
Also well said.

But don't forget who "started" the war. The first shot was fired even before September 11, 2001.

Yep. 1953. Overthrow of Mossadegh by the CIA in Iran.

Yep. 1953. Overthrow of Mossadegh by the CIA in Iran.

Ka-POW! :sniper:

Ka-POW! :sniper:

Head. Shot.

Remember, World of Jihadcraft. You're not fighting them Over There, you're just training them Over There so the fittest can come Over Here and Raid our U.S.Asses.

I would also readily choose the "over there" option... but seeing as the nature of terrorists is to commit acts of terrorism, it is sometimes hard to choose whether you fight the "war on terror" here or there. Personally, I believe that the "war on terror" concept lumps too many incidents under one definition and one type of retalitory action. I am in no way supporting or making inconsequential the deaths and attacks on innocent citizens or military personell, but I think some more disceretion could be used in defining "acts of terror" and acts of war etc.

I find the whole "war on terror" concept rather nebulous. It's like declaring a war on cheese.

I find the whole "war on terror" concept rather nebulous. It's like declaring a war on cheese.

Or a war on fungus?

Or a war on fungus?

Which is why I propose a War on War...We must end war with war, before war ends us with war...

Which is why I propose a War on War...We must end war with war, before war ends us with war...

Oroborous?

*head explodes*

...and on the other side of the world, passive resistance against passive resistance? :eek: :confused:

I don't want to fight the terrorists here, there, or anywhere.

I do not want to fight them in a box.
I do not want to fight them with a fox.
I do not want to fight them in a house.
I do not want to fight them with a mouse.

I don't want to fight the terrorists here, there, or anywhere.

I do not want to fight them in a box.
I do not want to fight them with a fox.
I do not want to fight them in a house.
I do not want to fight them with a mouse.

Silence Dr. Seuss...

"would you rather fight the terrorists over there or over here"

I'd much rather people in the USA paid the price for the actions of the USA government than, say, people in Iraq, but I'm kooky that way in that I think the USA's lust for war will never be deflated until they themselves suffer it... or, well, it might make them go a decade without starting a new one.

"A peace-loving people", my ass.

You want to risk having a state that doesn't sponsor terrorism, but plans and carries it out? That is the dumbest thing that I've ever heard. Also, you want terrorists in charge of such a huge chunk of the worlds oil supply? Do you realize how catastrophic that would be? Thats the problem with the surrender crowd, they're irrational.

You want to risk having a state that doesn't sponsor terrorism, but plans and carries it out? That is the dumbest thing that I've ever heard. Also, you want terrorists in charge of such a huge chunk of the worlds oil supply? Do you realize how catastrophic that would be? Thats the problem with the surrender crowd, they're irrational.

thats the problem with the war crowd. they are irrational

what makes you think that iraq will EVER be a terrorist state run by alqaeda?

first of all the only reason that would happen is because WE used iraq as a terrorism magnet and brought alqaeda there to kill innocent iraqis.

and you are assuming that they have the kind of power that would let them get control of iraq. you have to go a long way to show that kind of influence.

thats the problem with the war crowd. they are irrational

what makes you think that iraq will EVER be a terrorist state run by alqaeda?

first of all the only reason that would happen is because WE used iraq as a terrorism magnet and brought alqaeda there to kill innocent iraqis.

and you are assuming that they have the kind of power that would let them get control of iraq. you have to go a long way to show that kind of influence.

Who said Al-Qaeda? There are a lot more terrorists than that. And it doesn't matter why it would possibly happen. That doesn't make any difference if and when if does happen. Because we're still going to have to go back.

Who said Al-Qaeda? There are a lot more terrorists than that. And it doesn't matter why it would possibly happen. That doesn't make any difference if and when if does happen. Because we're still going to have to go back.

its ridiculous to think that iraq is gong to end up as a terrorist state.

its ridiculous to think that iraq is gong to end up as a terrorist state.

It's ridiculous for you to think that you have any clue about anything to do with Iraq or American foreign policy. If a small group of Iraqis has controlled the masses before, it can happen again.

It's ridiculous for you to think that you have any clue about anything to do with Iraq or American foreign policy. If a small group of Iraqis has controlled the masses before, it can happen again.

a small group of iraqis WILL end up controlling the country.

why would they be terrorists when they have never been terrorists before? they will have a country to run, oil fields to manage, riches to spend and their own people to keep in line. why would they bother to spend any of that attacking the US? thats a one way ticket to the grave.

the only way that would happen is if we keep fucking them over in iraq. we need to pack up and go home as soon as the government asks us to.

and we very much need to drop this "we are fighting them there so we dont have to fight them here" line. its too fucking TRUE and lets them know how completely evil our intentions toward them are.

a small group of iraqis WILL end up controlling the country.

why would they be terrorists when they have never been terrorists before? they will have a country to run, oil fields to manage, riches to spend and their own people to keep in line. why would they bother to spend any of that attacking the US? thats a one way ticket to the grave.
Do you really think that we would be able to go back to Iraq with people like you in our country? You really don't understand how governments work in that part of the country. Dictators gain power by winning abroad. If they give in to outside pressure, they are done. If they don't give in and they lose, they are done. However, if they don't give in and don't lose, then they gain power.
the only way that would happen is if we keep fucking them over in iraq. we need to pack up and go home as soon as the government asks us to.
1) The gov't hasn't asked us to leave
2) If we leave right now, there's a high chance that the gov't collapses and then we'll see who takes power.
and we very much need to drop this "we are fighting them there so we dont have to fight them here" line. its too fucking TRUE and lets them know how completely evil our intentions toward them are.
The role of a government is to protect it's people, not the people of other countries.

I would just like to point out that the over there/over here dichotomy only proves that the resistence to American forces is a retaliation for imperialism, and not an attack on our secular western democracy. If the "terrorists" hated our "freedom" would they not still be attacking our "freedom" as opposed to our troops?

we are not fighting the same men who attacked the WTC on sep. 11 in Iraq. We are mostly fighting men wwho, before the American invasion, didn't care about us but who now have had proven to them everything negative about the States. Kill a man's family, you can't expect him not to hate you.
Meanwhile, in Afghanistan:

Baryaly Noorzai was knocked out by a bomb, while he and his wife and child were fleeing their home.

He described how it was only after the villagers were angered by culturally insensitive house searches that they picked up guns and took on the American military machine.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6705607.stm

Meanwhile, in Afghanistan:

Afghanistan? You're not supposed to remember that failure, too.

That is the dumbest thing that I've ever heard. Also, you want terrorists in charge of such a huge chunk of the worlds oil supply? Do you realize how catastrophic that would be? Thats the problem with the surrender crowd, they're irrational.

The dumbest thing I've heard today is "the surrender crowd" being used to refer to anyone who wants to pull out of Iraq. It's odd you know, you claim to be military personnel, presumably you had some very basic military education, but you don't seem to know what the word surrender means. Maybe you're just taking your definitions from Ann Coulter or some other talking head.

But it's good that you acknowledge what this war is about - "a huge chunk of the worlds oil supply." Time was you'd sputter and blurt out the old propaganda of Saddam's nuclear weapons and of liberating Iraqi people from tyranny.

It's ridiculous for you to think that you have any clue about anything to do with Iraq or American foreign policy.

Ahh, ad hominem. Didn't you just generalize about people who are "irrational?" It doesn't get much more irrational than logical fallacies. I love it, please post more nonsense that I can tear up.

The war will have to be fought "over there" if we will ever stop it from coming "over here." But it requires more than just war. It requires a broad ideaological and political change across the illiberal Muslim world. And the US isn't the one that needs this, either.

So what are we doing about Saudi Arabia? A lot of the Al Qaeda ideology, funding and recruits are from over there.

but they have oil, and they sell it, we can't invade them.

Bring them here. Americans are armed, are we not?

Besides, the reason they want to "bring it here", is because we take it there. We bring it back, and they won't want to attack, right?

I guess it must be our wide open borders thats stopping them from coming here

The really stupid thing is that they (al Qaeda) got in one lucky shot, and we reacted like they were landing on the beaches in a reenactment of fucking D-Day. Trust me--it hasn't been Bush's steady leadership that has kept them from attacking again, or anything we've done to secure our airports or seaports. I sometimes sit back and read right-wing pundits and think "these are the biggest bunch of scaredy-cat bedwetters I've ever seen." The worst attack they could come up with went off without a hitch, and they only managed to kill 2,996 people, and they couldn't follow it up. We have 300 million people in this country, and the worst they could do was 3,000, and we collectively shit our pants over that.

Yeah...and enacted policies of all types without thinking of the consequences.

Cause we like making things worse, I guess. :(

we are not fighting the same men who attacked the WTC on sep. 11 in Iraq. We are mostly fighting men wwho, before the American invasion, didn't care about us but who now have had proven to them everything negative about the States. Kill a man's family, you can't expect him not to hate you. The civilian death count in Iraq is astronomical, last I heard easily 40x that of US soldiers. In all, 9/11 was just an excuse the government has been waiting for.

Which is quite possibly the worst consequence of the Iraqi invasion. The animosity we've bred won't go away...it'll simmer for generations.

"Over here or over there" was always a bullshit question. They aren't mutually exclusive. If AQ really wanted to strike in America, I have no doubt that they would be able to do so - and the same goes for any other terrorist wannabe.

Sure, it's not easy to make a spectacular attack like on the WTC, but still... A car bomb in DC or a random shooting (or two) at a mall, how much fear wouldn't it generate?

Fact is, most of the fighting goes on over there because the islamists are fighting for their lands and areas. They want the traditional muslim lands to be free of western influence and thereby fights against the invaders / occupiers.

If they had wanted to strike us again, they could have...that they have not indicates, at least to me, that "fighting us here" is not a part of their plan, at least at the moment.

Yep. 1953. Overthrow of Mossadegh by the CIA in Iran.

We've got two people (http://www.segunda-guerra-mundial.com/images/eisenhower3.jpg) to thank for that.

I would just like to point out that the over there/over here dichotomy only proves that the resistence to American forces is a retaliation for imperialism, and not an attack on our secular western democracy. If the "terrorists" hated our "freedom" would they not still be attacking our "freedom" as opposed to our troops?

I think the whole "War on Terror" has proved that our own government is a far greater threat to secular democracy than some foriegn terrorist organization ever could hope to become.

Hell, I sometimes think the terrorists are simply trying to steer our own government in that very direction.

Afghanistan? You're not supposed to remember that failure, too.

Iraq is really a double faliure...if we hadn't gone on that idiotic misadventure, there would be ample resources to make sure we could leave Afghanistan better than we found it.

Instead we get two broken countries.

Didn't Bush tout his aversion to "nation-building" during the 2000 campaign? :rolleyes:

We've got two people (http://www.segunda-guerra-mundial.com/images/eisenhower3.jpg) to thank for that.

Actually the plan to install the shaw was proposed to Eisenhower by John Foster Dulles, the Secretary of State, and his brother Allen Dulles, Director of the CIA. Eisenhower pretty much gave those two free reign over US foreign policy during his administration. They were also responsible for the Guatemalan coup, central in the decision to send military advisers to Indochina and were involved in all of the US's other early endeavors into the New Imperialism.

The dumbest thing I've heard today is "the surrender crowd" being used to refer to anyone who wants to pull out of Iraq. It's odd you know, you claim to be military personnel, presumably you had some very basic military education, but you don't seem to know what the word surrender means. Maybe you're just taking your definitions from Ann Coulter or some other talking head.

But it's good that you acknowledge what this war is about - "a huge chunk of the worlds oil supply." Time was you'd sputter and blurt out the old propaganda of Saddam's nuclear weapons and of liberating Iraqi people from tyranny.



Ahh, ad hominem. Didn't you just generalize about people who are "irrational?" It doesn't get much more irrational than logical fallacies. I love it, please post more nonsense that I can tear up.

With Forrest "Eutrusca" Horn's departure from NationStates, it's up to USMCL2 to fill in the extra space to represent the self-loathing sample of Military Busheviks.

the whole fraimwork of this question has bought into a deception.

for the record, i have no wish to fight anyone anywhere. period.

so called alqieda, or as i like to clearifyingly put it; al-cia-da, didn't create itself "over there". but was facilitated by a then much younger donald rumsfield under the auspecies of the ragun regeme.

like comminizum before it, terrorism has become a catchall target to portray anything whoever in power doesn't like, as.

there is of course unrest where infrastructure is wantonly destroyed by overwhelming force and by that same force, except as is bennificial to itself, prevented from being restored.

this is NOT 'fighting terrorism', but rather breeding and creating a market for it.

=^^=
.../\...

Oh, snap!

It's a good thing we're their military force as well (effectively), so we keep perfect tabs on every move they make .... even the moves we make with them ourselves, or of them, like during the NOTAM. Ayup.
http://dir.salon.com/story/books/feature/2004/03/11/unger_1/index.html?pn=2


http://www.greatdreams.com/political/bush_saudi.jpg

http://dohiyimir.typepad.com/bush-abdulah.jpg
...note how close Bush and Bandar's lips are here.

By generating fear of a more powerful Iran, people (arms dealers) can easily make the Saudis buy their (U.S, Germany and some French/British exports I think) military equipment.

Ooo, so many juicy ones to play with... Who first...

Oh, why not them all?

Watch this, folks. Three chain combos, with a quip in the end of each.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

First of all, "there or over here" is pretty much the kind of thinking Al Qaeda has. They fought the US there (WTC) in the hopes of not having to fight it in Afghanistan. It didn't work for them and the American power won't make it work for the USA. Because, when attacked, people, guess what, REACT. Furthermore, "let's involve millions of foreigners in our war so we don't have to get a few of our own in harm's way", even if it made any sense, would still be something like what Stalin did. The "fight them over there" crowd is made of people that are cowardly enough to use millions of people as their personal meat-shields.

And you claim to be the "home of the brave"?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Myrm, "the CIA was allowed to decay (or whatever) by Carter"... Didn't you have four Presidents afterwards, two of which with two terms? Not a ONE of them decided to rebuild the CIA? Not even your beloved Ronnie Reagan? Please. Make an argument I have to make something like an effort to debunk; you won't look cool otherwise. Furthermore, Bush pushed the CIA to say what HE wanted about Iraq. Not Carter. Even assuming there were WMDs, Bush mismanaged this war to the point of nausea. Not Carter. Bush, given carte blanche to run this bloodshed as he damn well pleased, made Iraq into the quagmire it is now. Not Carter. Not "liberals". To claim that "troop morale" matters more than the number of boots in the ground, and to claim "troop morale" is hurt by questioning the misguided, idiotic policies that are effectively harming the troops, rather than the policy itself is bullshit. Result, Bush started a war for no reason and mismanaged it to Hell. Not Carter, not "the liberals".

And you claim to believe in personal responsibility?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

USMC, my boy, you'll have to do better than the old "surrender monkeys" routine. You have as much chance of winning with this as I have of winning in a battlefield (5'4, 160 pounds, little of it muscle). Furthermore, if you were a soldier, you'd know that the Rules of Engagement DO force you to care about the people in the other country, especially when you are the invading force. If you were a true soldier, you'd be for fighting for self-defense, not for, as YOU YOURSELF SAID, oil. You'd support risking your life and killing for your country, not for Halliburton.

And you claim to be a soldier?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do feel free to answer them. Or not to, if you have no counterpoint.

I'd like to fight them over here, in the streets, with militias and paramilitary groups and factions and renegade military units and the total breakdown of civil society.

Why?

It'd be bloody good fun. :D No, I'm serious!

The dumbest thing I've heard today is "the surrender crowd" being used to refer to anyone who wants to pull out of Iraq. It's odd you know, you claim to be military personnel, presumably you had some very basic military education, but you don't seem to know what the word surrender means. Maybe you're just taking your definitions from Ann Coulter or some other talking head.
Even though we are not surrendering ourselves as POW's, it amounts to surrendering. Maybe retreating would be a better term.

But it's good that you acknowledge what this war is about - "a huge chunk of the worlds oil supply." Time was you'd sputter and blurt out the old propaganda of Saddam's nuclear weapons and of liberating Iraqi people from tyranny.
Oil is not what this war is about. However, it needs to be a consideration. It must be nice to live in your world where we don't need to secure our way of life. The first Gulf War was a war for oil, and was perfectly justified.


Ahh, ad hominem. Didn't you just generalize about people who are "irrational?" It doesn't get much more irrational than logical fallacies. I love it, please post more nonsense that I can tear up.
How is saying that a kid, who has never been there or done that, doesn't know what they are talking about, irrational? And you didn't tear apart anything, you found the slight misuse of one word and then made up a bunch of bullshit.

Retreat = surrender?

Retreat is a perfectly legitimate military tactic.

By the way, USMC, what makes you qualified to know things about American foreign policy?

Retreat is a perfectly legitimate military tactic.

Retreat does not exist. There is temporary re-alignment of the lines of advance, strategic reshuffling, withdrawing from the theatre of combat to allow time for new supplies to reach the front... but retreat? Not a concept. :p

Retreat = surrender?

Retreat is a perfectly legitimate military tactic.

By the way, USMC, what makes you qualified to know things about American foreign policy?

It is a legitimate tactic when you are faced with superior firepower and are in danger of being decisively engaged.

What makes me qualified? Being on the front lines of American foreign policy for eight years.

What makes me qualified? Being on the front lines of American foreign policy for eight years.

Iraq, Afghanistan... anywhere else?

It is a legitimate tactic when you are faced with superior firepower and are in danger of being decisively engaged.

What makes me qualified? Being on the front lines of American foreign policy for eight years.

So retreat is not legitimate when you're not in danger of being decisively engaged, even though there may be no prospects of victory? Plenty of retreats have occured without being faced with superior firepower, anyway.

Just because you're an instrument of it doesn't mean you're required to understand it. If you're a line soldier, you do what you're told, no?

Iraq, Afghanistan... anywhere else?

And Djibouti and Pakistan

And Djibouti and Pakistan

Djibouti? I thought that was the preserve of the French and the Legion Etranger. What were you doing there?

So retreat is not legitimate when you're not in danger of being decisively engaged, even though there may be no prospects of victory? Plenty of retreats have occured without being faced with superior firepower, anyway.
However, there are prospects of victory so it's a non-issue.
Just because you're an instrument of it doesn't mean you're required to understand it. If you're a line soldier, you do what you're told, no?

I'm an officer. I have to control my battlespace in accordance with our foreign policy so yes, I do have to understand it.

Djibouti? I thought that was the preserve of the French and the Legion Etranger. What were you doing there?

Humanitarian stuff. In 2002.

Humanitarian stuff. In 2002.

Ah, fair play. I didn't realise you were an officer, by the way, are you platoon, company, or higher level? I assume you're not general staff.

Ah, fair play. I didn't realise you were an officer, by the way, are you platoon, company, or higher level? I assume you're not general staff.

I'm a Capt so I should be in command of a company or be in a staff position for a battalion but I took an unusual path for my career. I was infantry for most of my career but then I was offered to get a secondary MOS in ground intel. So in my last deployment I was a platoon leader for a scout/sniper plt and S-2 for my battalion.

*laughs while reading page after page of drivel, picks up aviator shades and corncob pipe in aid of mimicking General MacArthur (oops, I meant USMC Leathernecks)*

Now see here, everybody - you all know me... I'm frickin' Nick Fury, Sgt. Rock, John Wayne and General Patton all rolled up into one! Now shut up and let me drive this steam-roller all over all of you - you're all far too irrational and unknowledgable about what's *winks* really going on in the world to have a valid opinion, so just kick back and focus all your attention upon the greatness that is me.

Not gonna happen, soldier-boy.

No one says that American soldiers are less valuable. I say thats what they signed up for. If you want to be in the military, then there's a chance you're going to die, and thats a risk you'll take.

We don't have a draft, soldiers joined involuntarily. When there's a war, someones got to die, and soldiers just so happened to volunteer for that prospect. Funny how that works...

I'm a Capt so I should be in command of a company or be in a staff position for a battalion but I took an unusual path for my career. I was infantry for most of my career but then I was offered to get a secondary MOS in ground intel. So in my last deployment I was a platoon leader for a scout/sniper plt and S-2 for my battalion.

Reconnaissance-intelligence? It would appear you're definitely Yogi-bear style smarter than the average grunt then. (:p)

It seems to me, Captain, that you have to have a pretty firm grasp on what the politics of the situation is. However, I would argue that perhaps your position as both an officer and executor of, and being a frontman for, your nation's foreign policy (plus, of course, your own personal political ideologies) are preventing you from seeing what is, to outsiders, obvious?

On the other hand the charge is equally valid from the opposite direction when levelled at me. C'est la vie; the army wouldn't have me so I can't talk from the equivalent position and must rely on people's experiences (Dusty Warriors, Generation Kill etc) together with political analysis...

Which of us is the more accurate commentator I cannot say; although I would be lying if I said I didn't think that the left had a better critique of society. Equally, it appears to me that the only thing to be done in Iraq is getting the hell out of Dodge, seeing as we fucked up and went in in the first place when we shouldn't.

Finally: I hope you don't get slotted, occupational hazard it may be but I don't really want anyone else to get killed in this pointless war (although that's a futile hope).

Reconnaissance-intelligence? It would appear you're definitely Yogi-bear style smarter than the average grunt then. (:p)

It seems to me, Captain, that you have to have a pretty firm grasp on what the politics of the situation is. However, I would argue that perhaps your position as both an officer and executor of, and being a frontman for, your nation's foreign policy (plus, of course, your own personal political ideologies) are preventing you from seeing what is, to outsiders, obvious?

On the other hand the charge is equally valid from the opposite direction when levelled at me. C'est la vie; the army wouldn't have me so I can't talk from the equivalent position and must rely on people's experiences (Dusty Warriors, Generation Kill etc) together with political analysis...

Which of us is the more accurate commentator I cannot say; although I would be lying if I said I didn't think that the left had a better critique of society. Equally, it appears to me that the only thing to be done in Iraq is getting the hell out of Dodge, seeing as we fucked up and went in in the first place when we shouldn't.

Finally: I hope you don't get slotted, occupational hazard it may be but I don't really want anyone else to get killed in this pointless war (although that's a futile hope).

Could you explain to me how experience makes me unable to see the truth? Because I'm just not buying it.

There is plenty that we can do in Iraq and there is plenty that we are doing. Look at other posts in other threads if you want further detail.

And sorry to be nitpicky, but you don't address an officer by their rank.

No one says that American soldiers are less valuable. I say thats what they signed up for. If you want to be in the military, then there's a chance you're going to die, and thats a risk you'll take.

We don't have a draft, soldiers joined involuntarily. When there's a war, someones got to die, and soldiers just so happened to volunteer for that prospect. Funny how that works...

yeah thats a point

but really, soldiers arent there for the president to spend needlessly. yes, they have agreed to do a job that might require their lives but that doesnt mean that they should be considered expendable--cannon fodder so to speak.

it is their duty to fight and perhaps die, it is OUR duty to make sure that we dont ask them to do that for less than an excellent reason.

making iraq a terrorism magnet is NOT an excellent reason.

Could you explain to me how experience makes me unable to see the truth? Because I'm just not buying it.

Hum; it's more a case of being limited by your political ideology and the impact that has on your analysis of experience; I filter all my experience through an anarchist perspective for example.

Thus no-one's really seeing the truth because objective fact only exists in maths. ;) If you want me to stop being facetious, I will argue that in fact what you're doing is using your experiences to bolster your pre-concieved conservative and nationalist opinions.

There is plenty that we can do in Iraq and there is plenty that we are doing

Like what, kill more people and take more casualties? The presence of foreign military power in Iraq is exacerbating the situation and is directly responsible for the hideous fucking mess that it's been in since 1991, let alone 2003.

... you don't address an officer by their rank.

Well, you do, at least in Britain. If you're a squaddie it's "Sir", if you're a higher ranking officer it's "rank-name", if you're an officer of the same rank in the presence of enlisted men and NCOs it's "rank-name", or just "rank". That's in Britain, though; and given you're an American... what would I refer to you as? "Poor bastard soldier sent to kill and be killed by rich WASPs for a rotten and rancid American Dream and a pack of lies"? Presumably not.

Even though we are not surrendering ourselves as POW's, it amounts to surrendering. Maybe retreating would be a better term.

It doesn't "amount to surrendering." It isn't surrender. It's leaving a country we invaded and occupied. I know you'd like to equate that to "the terrorists win," but I equate it to the liberation of France.

Oil is not what this war is about. However, it needs to be a consideration. It must be nice to live in your world where we don't need to secure our way of life. The first Gulf War was a war for oil, and was perfectly justified.

Oil is obviously what this war is about, and what all US middle east interest is about. I'm not moved by your "secure our way of life" attempt at guilt-trip.

How is saying that a kid, who has never been there or done that, doesn't know what they are talking about, irrational?

Because logical fallacies (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html) are irrational by definition.

And you didn't tear apart anything, you found the slight misuse of one word and then made up a bunch of bullshit.

Of course, of course. Keep telling yourself that.

It doesn't "amount to surrendering." It isn't surrender. It's leaving a country we invaded and occupied. I know you'd like to equate that to "the terrorists win," but I equate it to the liberation of France.
It is leaving the country to our enemies before we could secure victory. We lose. We retreated. And if you equate it to France then you are an irreconcilable idiot.


Oil is obviously what this war is about, and what all US middle east interest is about. I'm not moved by your "secure our way of life" attempt at guilt-trip.
It is obviously not what it was about. The oil was secure and stable. Why destabilize it? You should try thinking. And our way of life is based on oil at this current juncture. Without a stable world oil supply, there is mass chaos, there is more war, and modern life comes to a grinding halt.


Because logical fallacies (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html) are irrational by definition.
I said that he has no experience and therefore has no understanding. There is nothing illogical about that.


Of course, of course. Keep telling yourself that.
Good one.:rolleyes:

Hum; it's more a case of being limited by your political ideology and the impact that has on your analysis of experience; I filter all my experience through an anarchist perspective for example.

Thus no-one's really seeing the truth because objective fact only exists in maths. ;) If you want me to stop being facetious, I will argue that in fact what you're doing is using your experiences to bolster your pre-concieved conservative and nationalist opinions.
I don't see what is wrong with using experience to support positions.


Like what, kill more people and take more casualties? The presence of foreign military power in Iraq is exacerbating the situation and is directly responsible for the hideous fucking mess that it's been in since 1991, let alone 2003.
No, like eliminating Al-Qaeda presence, building IA and IP and lowering tensions between the religious groups.


Well, you do, at least in Britain. If you're a squaddie it's "Sir", if you're a higher ranking officer it's "rank-name", if you're an officer of the same rank in the presence of enlisted men and NCOs it's "rank-name", or just "rank". That's in Britain, though; and given you're an American... what would I refer to you as? "Poor bastard soldier sent to kill and be killed by rich WASPs for a rotten and rancid American Dream and a pack of lies"? Presumably not.
Sir would do.

It is leaving the country to our enemies before we could secure victory. We lose. We retreated. And if you equate it to France then you are an irreconcilable idiot.

More ad hominems. Seems like "RAWR BOK SMASH" is not only a summation of your occupation, but the limits of your debating skills.

It is obviously not what it was about. The oil was secure and stable. Why destabilize it? You should try thinking.

The oil is now under our control, and will be as long as macho, macho men like yourself blather on about how leaving it would be "surrendering." But just keep heaping on the ad homs. Prove your manliness by how well you can insult anyone who disagrees with you online.


I said that he has no experience and therefore has no understanding. There is nothing illogical about that.

A logical fallacy is illogical. Your argument hinging on "you don't know what you're talking about cuz you're a civilian" is an ad hominem fallacy.

I'm not going to explain this any further if the concept is too difficult for you to get.

Good one.:rolleyes:

Yes, it was at least as good as "LOL ALL U SAID IS BULLSHIT WAH"

Actually the plan to install the shaw was proposed to Eisenhower by John Foster Dulles, the Secretary of State, and his brother Allen Dulles, Director of the CIA. Eisenhower pretty much gave those two free reign over US foreign policy during his administration. They were also responsible for the Guatemalan coup, central in the decision to send military advisers to Indochina and were involved in all of the US's other early endeavors into the New Imperialism.

The responsibility is still Eisenhower's, although I blame Churchill more...it was British control over Iranian oil interests that was the reason for the operation, the Brits simply used our commie paranoia to draw us into helping them.

Truman had wisely told the Brits to fuck off...too bad Eisenhower couldn't follow through.

this is NOT 'fighting terrorism', but rather breeding and creating a market for it.

=^^=
.../\...

And I have created a simple catchphrase to describe this overall effect.

World of Jihadcraft.

Truman had wisely told the Brits to fuck off...too bad Eisenhower couldn't follow through.
only because Truman was far too busy dicking around in Korea.

Well, since USMC did appear here and seemingly failed to answer my points, I believe he concedes them.

Thanks for playing, Captain.

By the way, since we're all playing unproven claims (especially given that the drivel you regularly support here goes very much against the RoE), I'll pick my name and patent, too.

I'm a Captain too.

Captain Jack Sparrow, savvy? :p

Sir would do.

Bravely bold Sir Robin rode forth from Camelot.
He was not afraid to die, O brave Sir Robin!
He was not at all afraid to be killed in nasty ways,
Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Robin!

He was not in the least bit scared to be mashed into a pulp,
Or to have his eyes gouged out, and his elbows broken;
To have his kneecaps split, and his body burned away;
And his limbs all hacked and mangled, brave Sir Robin!

His head smashed in and his heart cut out
And his liver removed and his bowels unplugged
And his nostrils raped and his bottom burned off
And his penis split and his...

First of all, "there or over here" is pretty much the kind of thinking Al Qaeda has. They fought the US there (WTC) in the hopes of not having to fight it in Afghanistan. It didn't work for them and the American power won't make it work for the USA. Because, when attacked, people, guess what, REACT. Furthermore, "let's involve millions of foreigners in our war so we don't have to get a few of our own in harm's way", even if it made any sense, would still be something like what Stalin did. The "fight them over there" crowd is made of people that are cowardly enough to use millions of people as their personal meat-shields.

And you claim to be the "home of the brave"?

If we are talking about the beginnings of Afghanistan, then it was completely justified. You don't take an attack that kills 3,000 of your own and let it go. That shows weakness that will perpetuate itself until we get many more attacks. If we are talking about the staying in Iraq, then it's pretty obvious that if we leave right now, there will be genocide. I don't know how not wanting that equals using them as meat-shields.

USMC, my boy, you'll have to do better than the old "surrender monkeys" routine. You have as much chance of winning with this as I have of winning in a battlefield (5'4, 160 pounds, little of it muscle). Furthermore, if you were a soldier, you'd know that the Rules of Engagement DO force you to care about the people in the other country, especially when you are the invading force. If you were a true soldier, you'd be for fighting for self-defense, not for, as YOU YOURSELF SAID, oil. You'd support risking your life and killing for your country, not for Halliburton.

What does ROE have to do with this at all? We are talking about the strategic level of things and you are talking about the tactical level.
And you claim to be a soldier?
No, a Marine.

More ad hominems. Seems like "RAWR BOK SMASH" is not only a summation of your occupation, but the limits of your debating skills.

Ad hominem and hypocritical

The oil is now under our control, and will be as long as macho, macho men like yourself blather on about how leaving it would be "surrendering." But just keep heaping on the ad homs. Prove your manliness by how well you can insult anyone who disagrees with you online.
The oil is not under our control. It was under the CPA control but we dissolved that and now the Iraqis have control. If you're going to be a strawman at least do some research.




I'm not going to explain this any further if the concept is too difficult for you to get.
Ad hominem and hypocritical.

Yes, it was at least as good as "LOL ALL U SAID IS BULLSHIT WAH"

You're entire point was that the word surrender was slightly misused. Read what you fucking write.

Ad hominem and hypocritical


LoL, I like that you think me pointing out your ad hominems, is an ad hominem.
Fail.

The oil is not under our control. It was under the CPA control but we dissolved that and now the Iraqis have control. If you're going to be a strawman at least do some research.

A strawman argument is *made*, people don't "be strawmen."

And Iraqi oil is under US control, because Iraq is occupied by the US.

Ad hominem and hypocritical.

Me informing you that I'm not going to educate you as to what an ad hominem is, is not itself an ad hominem argument.
Fail.

An insult, even if you're really thin-skinned like apparently most marines are, is not an ad hominem fallacy. Which you would know if you weren't so clearly out of your league.

You have resorted essentially to saying, "Nyah nyah, you too!" (Which is itself yet another (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque) logical fallacy you are making). Even if you were correct, it would not support your points nor refute my argument.

You're entire point was that the word surrender was slightly misused. Read what you fucking write.

Your entire point was based on the emotive charge of "surrender" when painted as the only alternative to staying. Yet another logical fallacy; appeal to emotion.

LoL, I like that you think me pointing out your ad hominems, is an ad hominem.
Fail.
You said that I have no debating skills. That is attacking me, not what I say. That is ad hominem.


A strawman argument is *made*, people don't "be strawmen."
However you are acting like exactly how someone would construct a strawman. So you're really just doing the work for me.
And Iraqi oil is under US control, because Iraq is occupied by the US.
And you are telling me about logical fallacies?


Me informing you that I'm not going to educate you as to what an ad hominem is, is not itself an ad hominem argument.
Fail.
You said that it was too difficult for me to grasp. Therefore, you called me dumb. Therefore, ad hominem.

Your entire point was based on the emotive charge of "surrender" when painted as the only alternative to staying. Yet another logical fallacy; appeal to emotion.

Way to ignore my post and talk about something unrelated.

Greater Trostia,

You are wasting my time. You attack me, saying that I use ad hominem attacks as if that isn't hypocritical. You are unable to talk about the issue without insults. You offer no proof for your positions. You have no experience to back up your positions. Come back to me in about ten years when you've grown up a bit and are little less of a jackass. Until then you are pretty much useless.

You said that I have no debating skills. That is attacking me, not what I say. That is ad hominem.

No, an ad hominem is where my argument uses an insult as one of it's premises. Mine doesn't.

Fail.

However you are acting like exactly how someone would construct a strawman. So you're really just doing the work for me.

That's good, because you aren't doing jack shit but making a fool of yourself here.

And you are telling me about logical fallacies?

Yep. You've made so many of them it's hard to keep up. You don't seem to understand what they are.

You said that it was too difficult for me to grasp. Therefore, you called me dumb. Therefore, ad hominem.

All the evidence so far indicates that yes, despite given definitions and links to logical fallacy, you do not know what they are. Like for example, this right here. My argument isn't that you are dumb. That's merely a side-comment, and one I might add, that you yourself are saying, not I.

Greater Trostia,

You are wasting my time. You attack me, saying that I use ad hominem attacks as if that isn't hypocritical.

Do you admit you use ad hominem arguments? Otherwise this is just tu quoque fallacy - again.

You are unable to talk about the issue without insults.

Untrue, I just happen to like insulting people. Especially if they insult first, as you do. Don't hate me cuz I'm better at it.

You offer no proof for your positions.

Demonstrably untrue.

You have no experience to back up your positions.

On the contrary, I have quite a bit of experience in reasoning and logic.

Come back to me in about ten years when you've grown up a bit and are little less of a jackass. Until then you are pretty much useless.

I suppose this is the bit where I'm impressed by how mature, useful and reasonable you are?

snip

You have no argument. However, you do have an ability to avoid responding to posts and to attacking the poster with no actual points. I may include insults (for affect;)) but at least I have an argument or point to go along with it. You are just pathetic.

I may include insults (for affect;)) but at least I have an argument or point to go along with it. You are just pathetic.

You should stop the insults, they add nothing at all to your text in terms of style. Try using forms instead, it's what I do, people get pretty impressed when I deliver my points on haiku. Furthermore, did you ever study logics? Discourse? Anything that might have a remote chance to improve your ability to argue?

You should stop the insults, they add nothing at all to your text in terms of style. Furthermore, did you ever study logics? Discourse? Anything that might have a remote chance to improve your ability to argue?

Mathematical logic is often useless in the real world IMHO. In mathematical logic, credibility is a non-issue b/c everything is either true or false. This is no middle ground. It is also assumed, in mathematical logic, that everybody knows all of the givens and therefore is equally capable of proving their point, but in the real world some people have more experience to base their givens on.

If we are talking about the beginnings of Afghanistan, then it was completely justified. You don't take an attack that kills 3,000 of your own and let it go. That shows weakness that will perpetuate itself until we get many more attacks. If we are talking about the staying in Iraq, then it's pretty obvious that if we leave right now, there will be genocide. I don't know how not wanting that equals using them as meat-shields.

Iraq. Going there in the first place began this. You had no right to. "You don't take an attack that kills 600,000 of your own and let go" - an Iraqi could say. Thus, he'd be fully justified in attacking the US. By YOUR logic.

What does ROE have to do with this at all? We are talking about the strategic level of things and you are talking about the tactical level.

No, a Marine.

Don't you think the very rules that were made to protect civilians, rules you're supposed to uphold, have as their spirit to protect them in the strategic level as well?

Right. You don't claim to be a soldier, you claim to be a marine.

You have no argument.

Not that you've actually addressed, no.

However, you do have an ability to avoid responding to posts and to attacking the poster with no actual points.

...and you don't, is that what you're saying?

I may include insults (for affect;)) but at least I have an argument or point to go along with it. You are just pathetic.

Yes, the fact that you base your argument on insults - such as here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12727308&postcount=76) - is what means you are making ad hominem fallacies. You are proving mostly that you don't know how to debate.

Mathematical logic is often useless in the real world IMHO. In mathematical logic, credibility is a non-issue b/c everything is either true or false. This is no middle ground. It is also assumed, in mathematical logic, that everybody knows all of the givens and therefore is equally capable of proving their point, but in the real world some people have more experience to base their givens on.

DISCOURSE logic. Reasoning. And I really can't see how you could mistake one for another in this context.

Iraq. Going there in the first place began this. You had no right to. "You don't take an attack that kills 600,000 of your own and let go" - an Iraqi could say. Thus, he'd be fully justified in attacking the US. By YOUR logic.
An Iraqi could say that. But they would be wrong b/c we did not kill 600,000 Iraqis. Assuming that that is the number killed since 2003 (highly questionable) we did not kill the vast vast majority of them. Iraqis and foreign terrorists did.


Don't you think the very rules that were made to protect civilians, rules you're supposed to uphold, have as their spirit to protect them in the strategic level as well?
I see your point, but disagree. Let's look at the Gulf War as it is a more clear example of this. Saddam, a man hostile to the entire western world was threatening to have control over the majority of the oil in the world. $15 gas would destroy the entire modern world's way of life. Chaos would ensue. Now, you could avoid all of that by going to war. There was the possibility that many innocents would die. Is that worth preserving our way of life? I think it is but that's really not for me to decide.

Not that you've actually addressed, no.

What point haven't I addressed?



Yes, the fact that you base your argument on insults - such as here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12727308&postcount=76) - is what means you are making ad hominem fallacies. You are proving mostly that you don't know how to debate.
"If a small group of Iraqis has controlled the masses before, it can happen again." That has nothing ad hominem about it.

An Iraqi could say that. But they would be wrong b/c we did not kill 600,000 Iraqis. Assuming that that is the number killed since 2003 (highly questionable) we did not kill the vast vast majority of them. Iraqis and foreign terrorists did.

Let's assume 2,975 Iraqis died due to American action directly. It's a pretty easy number to reach, you and me both know that. Why this number? The number of 9/11 victims plus one. Again, by your logic, they'd STILL get to invade America. And Canada, for being close and culturally-linked to America.

There was the possibility that many innocents would die. Is that worth preserving our way of life? I think it is but that's really not for me to decide.

It's for the INNOCENT to decide. I know military personnel are trained not to put themselves in the place of the other, but bear with me: Would you feel it's "worth" to preserve the way of life of, say, Martians, if they invaded America because they were in dire need of whatever it is you produce and you, and your family, died in the process?

What point haven't I addressed?


Is this the part where I have to repeat myself? Perhaps you could do me a favor and read through the thread again instead.

"If a small group of Iraqis has controlled the masses before, it can happen again." That has nothing ad hominem about it.

Cute. You said, "It's ridiculous for you to think that you have any clue about anything to do with Iraq or American foreign policy." That was half your entire post and a rebuttal to a statement Ashmoria said. Hence, your point was that Ashmoria is wrong because he/she doesn't "have any clue about anything to do with Iraq or American foreign policy." Ergo, ad hominem.

You say I'm wasting your time? But I don't make you post stupid shit. And let's face it, how valuable is your time? Doesn't seem to be very valuable if you think you can spend it calling people names online.

Let's assume 2,975 Iraqis died due to American action directly. It's a pretty easy number to reach, you and me both know that. Why this number? The number of 9/11 victims plus one. Again, by your logic, they'd STILL get to invade America. And Canada, for being close and culturally-linked to America.
However, this situation would be much more complex seeing as the goal of the action was not to kill those innocents. It was (as one justification) to liberate them but mistakes were made. Do you see how this is much different than deliberately trying to kill them? And as a side note, they could try to invade the U.S. but they aren't likely to succeed.


It's for the INNOCENT to decide. I know military personnel are trained not to put themselves in the place of the other, but bear with me: Would you feel it's "worth" to preserve the way of life of, say, Martians, if they invaded America because they were in dire need of whatever it is you produce and you, and your family, died in the process?
No, it is not worth it for several reasons. The first of which is that we would not necessarily be hostile to them and it could be traded. Trade was not a viable option with Saddam in the early 90s.

Is this the part where I have to repeat myself? Perhaps you could do me a favor and read through the thread again instead.
You posted nothing that I didn't directly respond to.


Cute. You said, "It's ridiculous for you to think that you have any clue about anything to do with Iraq or American foreign policy." That was half your entire post and a rebuttal to a statement Ashmoria said. Hence, your point was that Ashmoria is wrong because he/she doesn't "have any clue about anything to do with Iraq or American foreign policy." Ergo, ad hominem.
That was obviously not my point. You are, again, ignoring my point. Also, I believe that ad hominem is more illogical when it is baseless and doesn't degrade the credibility of ones argument. If you are saying that they are inexperienced to make a certain call, then that is not necessarily illogical.

However, this situation would be much more complex seeing as the goal of the action was not to kill those innocents. It was (as one justification) to liberate them but mistakes were made. Do you see how this is much different than deliberately trying to kill them? And as a side note, they could try to invade the U.S. but they aren't likely to succeed.

Well, let's elaborate. 2975 Iraqis dead, they see problems in YOUR legal system and want to "liberate" the Americans. The dead civilians become casualties, not targets. And they have the power to succeed and do to America exactly what the Americans are doing in Iraq. Would it be acceptable then? Minding that you'd know and care for at least 5 people that died due to it. Acceptable?

No, it is not worth it for several reasons. The first of which is that we would not necessarily be hostile to them and it could be traded. Trade was not a viable option with Saddam in the early 90s.

Let's say you don't FEEL like trading it. Are they entitled to take it by force? To, again, "preserve their way of life".

You posted nothing that I didn't directly respond to.

Yes, with classic things like "you are pathetic." Brilliant refutations.

That was obviously not my point. You are, again, ignoring my point.

Your point was irrelevant, I was criticizing the ad hominem argument. I know you'd like to ignore it lest you be seen as a raging hypocrite. But, I won't. Sorry pal.

Also, I believe that ad hominem is more illogical when it is baseless and doesn't degrade the credibility of ones argument.

Ad hominem arguments are logical fallacies, period.

If you are saying that they are inexperienced to make a certain call, then that is not necessarily illogical.

It is when that is the basis of your refutation of their point, and when you have no knowledge of their experience, and the only experience you talk about is irrelevant toward the veracity of the point. Fail.

only because Truman was far too busy dicking around in Korea.

Well, on the issue of fighting communists, I think Truman was a little more on the ball than Eisenhower. There were slightly more communists in Korea than in Iran at the time. :p

By generating fear of a more powerful Iran, people (arms dealers) can easily make the Saudis buy their (U.S, Germany and some French/British exports I think) military equipment.

Hmmm - perhaps.

Oil is not what this war is about. Bullshit.
However, it needs to be a consideration.Really? Thanks! The first Gulf War was a war for oil, and was perfectly justified....and so obviously, perfectly executed.

And you didn't tear apart anything, you found the slight misuse of one word and then made up a bunch of bullshit.Better, i guess, than major misuse of a concept and making up a bunch of bullshit around it, and pompous bullshit at that.

And sorry to be nitpicky, but you don't address an officer by their rank.

Perhaps you're simply not suited well for free-topic conversational environment.
Adopt, adapt and improve.

Bravely bold Sir Robin rode forth from Camelot.
He was not afraid to die, O brave Sir Robin!
He was not at all afraid to be killed in nasty ways,
Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Robin!

He was not in the least bit scared to be mashed into a pulp,
Or to have his eyes gouged out, and his elbows broken;
To have his kneecaps split, and his body burned away;
And his limbs all hacked and mangled, brave Sir Robin!

His head smashed in and his heart cut out
And his liver removed and his bowels unplugged
And his nostrils raped and his bottom burned off
And his penis split and his...Classic. :D

I see your point, but disagree. Let's look at the Gulf War as it is a more clear example of this. Saddam, a man hostile to the entire western world was threatening to have control over the majority of the oil in the world. $15 gas would destroy the entire modern world's way of life. Chaos would ensue. Now, you could avoid all of that by going to war. There was the possibility that many innocents would die. Is that worth preserving our way of life? I think it is but that's really not for me to decide.

He took over Kuwait due to it having both significant oil supplies and also because he had a sizeable debt to them.

He would not have needed to jack up the prices to a significant amount as he had an undamaged set of oil extraction facillities. He definately would not have raised the prices to the extent you are suggesting, mainly because he didn't want to fight the U.S and also because he actually wanted to sell all that he could, and raising the prices to that extent would have made everyone else exploit other reserves.

Having control of Kuwait would not have given Iraq the major oil reserves in the world anyway, Iraq itself has more oil than Kuwait. Kuwaits importance was in eliminating a large debt and having fully functional facillities to extract and export.

Well as I am not an American, I honestly don't care, you elected the politicians that gave you these belligerent policies, and now you reap what you sew.

He took over Kuwait due to it having both significant oil supplies and also because he had a sizeable debt to them.

He would not have needed to jack up the prices to a significant amount as he had an undamaged set of oil extraction facillities. He definately would not have raised the prices to the extent you are suggesting, mainly because he didn't want to fight the U.S and also because he actually wanted to sell all that he could, and raising the prices to that extent would have made everyone else exploit other reserves.
You could have said the same about Iran but that didn't stop them.
Having control of Kuwait would not have given Iraq the major oil reserves in the world anyway, Iraq itself has more oil than Kuwait. Kuwaits importance was in eliminating a large debt and having fully functional facillities to extract and export.
At that point in time it was feared that he would continue on to Saudi Arabia.

Well, let's elaborate. 2975 Iraqis dead, they see problems in YOUR legal system and want to "liberate" the Americans. The dead civilians become casualties, not targets. And they have the power to succeed and do to America exactly what the Americans are doing in Iraq. Would it be acceptable then? Minding that you'd know and care for at least 5 people that died due to it. Acceptable?
You are making the mistake of assuming that we had to liberate them from a legal system. In reality it was from oppression. We are not oppressed in the U.S. so this whole example is mute.



Let's say you don't FEEL like trading it. Are they entitled to take it by force? To, again, "preserve their way of life".

I wouldn't expect them to do anything different. So, yes.

Your point was irrelevant, I was criticizing the ad hominem argument. I know you'd like to ignore it lest you be seen as a raging hypocrite. But, I won't. Sorry pal.
Calling points "irrelevant' while simultaneously avoiding answering it is a logical fallacy. A bad one.


Ad hominem arguments are logical fallacies, period.
Absolute statements are logical fallacies.


It is when that is the basis of your refutation of their point, and when you have no knowledge of their experience, and the only experience you talk about is irrelevant toward the veracity of the point. Fail.
That wasn't the basis of any of my refutations. You are just ignoring my posts.

Bullshit.
Really? Thanks! ...and so obviously, perfectly executed.
That's not how one debates. You don't even back up your points.
Better, i guess, than major misuse of a concept and making up a bunch of bullshit around it, and pompous bullshit at that.
I didn't misuse any concepts and you're the one who is actually using the word bullshit as their entire argument.

As long as the 'terrorists' are bikini-clad cheerleaders, I'd much rather fight them here, thank you very much.
In a big vat of Jello, if it's not too much trouble.

An Iraqi could say that. But they would be wrong b/c we did not kill 600,000 Iraqis. Assuming that that is the number killed since 2003 (highly questionable) we did not kill the vast vast majority of them. Iraqis and foreign terrorists did.
Those 600 000 Iraqis weren't killed by the US per se. They died as a direct result of the invasion - due to deaths thru violence (doesn't matter whom) or through lack of medical attention and/or from lack of basic utilities like clean drinking water or electricity (two of the utilities the US targeted during the invasion).
Had the US not invaded, those 600 000 would still be alive. simple as that.

You are making the mistake of assuming that we had to liberate them from a legal system. In reality it was from oppression. We are not oppressed in the U.S. so this whole example is mute.





I wouldn't expect them to do anything different. So, yes.

Well, you may believe in might making right, but at least you're not a hypocrite. Sure, if you apply your logic, the terrorists that attacked you to "protect their way of life" as is their excuse would have had every right to do so merely because they had the ability to. So, I would like to know on which side you stand. You can't condone might making right without condoning terrorism, which stems from that belief.

As for the first part, remember Bush only brought up the "oppression" card AFTER the usefulness of the WMD card had run its course. So my point remains. Also, one could consider having the moron you have for a President a form of oppression. So answer my point instead of dodging it.

Isn't it awfully nice to have a penis?
Isn't it frightfully good to have a dong?
It's swell to have a stiffy.
It's divine to own a dick,
From the tiniest little tadger
To the world's biggest prick.
So, three cheers for your Willy or John Thomas.
Hooray for your one-eyed trouser snake,
Your piece of pork, your wife's best friend,
Your Percy, or your cock.
You can wrap it up in ribbons.
You can slip it in your sock,
But don't take it out in public,
Or they will stick you in the dock,
And you won't come back.

Calling points "irrelevant' while simultaneously avoiding answering it is a logical fallacy. A bad one.


I didn't "answer" your point at all; I criticized your ad hominem. You denied it and are still denying it, causing amusement for all.

But just for shits and giggles, do tell me what logical fallacy you think it is I've committed. Other than "a bad one." I'm curious.

Absolute statements are logical fallacies.

lol

That wasn't the basis of any of my refutations. You are just ignoring my posts.

This from the guy whose response to my posts is "snip" and then just blathering about how "that's bullshit" or "come back in ten years" or "you are just pathetic" etc etc. Rich, I tell you. Rich.

I see your point, but disagree. Let's look at the Gulf War as it is a more clear example of this. Saddam, a man hostile to the entire western world
...not really, no. Quite friendly with for example the US, the French, and the Germans in fact.

was threatening to have control over the majority of the oil in the world. $15 gas would destroy the entire modern world's way of life. Chaos would ensue. Now, you could avoid all of that by going to war. There was the possibility that many innocents would die. Is that worth preserving our way of life? I think it is but that's really not for me to decide.
That's a fantastically unethical worldview. And a silly one to boot. Saddam alone would not have pushed prices that high - and the US did nothing until Kuwait came and asked politely. i.e. nobody really feared such high prices before Desert Storm.

I didn't "answer" your point at all

Thank you. Now we can all move on.

Well, you may believe in might making right, but at least you're not a hypocrite. Sure, if you apply your logic, the terrorists that attacked you to "protect their way of life" as is their excuse would have had every right to do so merely because they had the ability to. So, I would like to know on which side you stand. You can't condone might making right without condoning terrorism, which stems from that belief.
Protecting their way of life is not their reasoning. They want to convert everybody to Islam because "allah told them to." And might doesn't make right. However, if you have the might to do what you think is right then you are going to have many more chances to do right. Thats just how it is.

As for the first part, remember Bush only brought up the "oppression" card AFTER the usefulness of the WMD card had run its course. So my point remains. Also, one could consider having the moron you have for a President a form of oppression. So answer my point instead of dodging it.

http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2002/knov/22_iraqi.html Notice the date.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go1652/is_200202/ai_n6717064 Notice the date

And Bush isn't killing and torturing Americans because of their beliefs or opinions. When he is, we can talk.

Those 600 000 Iraqis weren't killed by the US per se. They died as a direct result of the invasion - due to deaths thru violence (doesn't matter whom) or through lack of medical attention and/or from lack of basic utilities like clean drinking water or electricity (two of the utilities the US targeted during the invasion).
Had the US not invaded, those 600 000 would still be alive. simple as that.

Responsibility goes to the person who directly did something. You might as well say that it is Christopher Columbus's fault b/c if he hadn't discovered the Americas, then the U.S. wouldn't exist and we wouldn't have invaded Iraq.

Thank you. Now we can all move on.

No, you can move on. The rest of us are hopelessly ill-equipped to even think of discussing the topic-at-hand, remember? I mean, what with you being our unquestionable superior in all matters pertaining to war and American foreign policy.

...not really, no. Quite friendly with for example the US, the French, and the Germans in fact.

That's a fantastically unethical worldview. And a silly one to boot. Saddam alone would not have pushed prices that high - and the US did nothing until Kuwait came and asked politely. i.e. nobody really feared such high prices before Desert Storm.

I was just looking for an example. It gets the point across, it doesn't matter if the situation wasn't exactly the same as that wasn't the point of the post.

No, you can move on. The rest of us are hopelessly ill-equipped to even think of discussing the topic-at-hand, remember? I mean, what with you being our unquestionable superior in all matters pertaining to war and American foreign policy.

That adds nothing to the debate and the only reason you posted it was to pick a fight. Troll.

Protecting their way of life is not their reasoning. They want to convert everybody to Islam because "allah told them to."

Some of them.

Some of them.

Do you really think that there are any terrorists that want to rid us of our "oppressor?'

Do you really think that there are any terrorists that want to rid us of our "oppressor?'

Well, if we could mention specific groups, I'll comment on their motivation. As far as Iraq is concerned, I'd be fairly confident in saying that a lot of them do not find their raison d'etre in the idea of forcing sharia law on Kansas.

Well, if we could mention specific groups, I'll comment on their motivation. As far as Iraq is concerned, I'd be fairly confident in saying that a lot of them do not find their raison d'etre in the idea of forcing sharia law on Kansas.

Not the insurgents but the terrorists ultimate goal would be a world caliphate. Which does include sharia law in Kansas.

Not the insurgents but the terrorists ultimate goal would be a world caliphate. Which does include sharia law in Kansas.

Do you honestly believe that if we were to have focused on securing our own borders (ie fighting them here) and not bombing the shit out of and occupying other countries (ie fighting them there) that radical Muslim extreemists would be able to impose such a thing on the US? Really?

Do you honestly believe that if we were to have focused on securing our own borders (ie fighting them here) and not bombing the shit out of and occupying other countries (ie fighting them there) that radical Muslim extreemists would be able to impose such a thing on the US? Really?

Not in our or our children's lifetime.

Not the insurgents but the terrorists ultimate goal would be a world caliphate. Which does include sharia law in Kansas.

By which you mean Al Qaeda, I presume. Thats an amusing goal to have. Its not exactly realistic now, is it?

By which you mean Al Qaeda, I presume. Thats an amusing goal to have. Its not exactly realistic now, is it?

Refer to the post above yours.

Protecting their way of life is not their reasoning. They want to convert everybody to Islam because "allah told them to." And might doesn't make right. However, if you have the might to do what you think is right then you are going to have many more chances to do right. Thats just how it is.

They had the might. They did what they thought was right. That's just how it is.

http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2002/knov/22_iraqi.html Notice the date.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go1652/is_200202/ai_n6717064 Notice the date

And Bush isn't killing and torturing Americans because of their beliefs or opinions. When he is, we can talk.

The point is: Do they have the right to attack you and "liberate" you from a system THEY disagree with, should they have the power? The invasion was a mistake.

They had the might. They did what they thought was right. That's just how it is.
And we had the might to retaliate. Where's the problem?


The point is: Do they have the right to attack you and "liberate" you from a system THEY disagree with, should they have the power? The invasion was a mistake.

No, they don't. Just like we don't have that right either. Neither OIF or OEF were about systems of governing. The common theme of both was liberating people from oppression. I do not mean oppression as in Sharia law. I mean oppression as in killing or torturing critics. And yes, the invasion was a mistake.

Not the insurgents but the terrorists ultimate goal would be a world caliphate. Which does include sharia law in Kansas.

Some of the terrorists. A very small (but noticable) minority wants that.

Refer to the post above yours.


No, that gives it some hope. Given the failure of the US to subdue a piss-poor country with a population of 27 odd million, precisely how can a bunch of badly armed gobshites subdue a population of at least 300 million spread over a vast area, some thousands of miles from their support base?

Some of the terrorists. A very small (but noticable) minority wants that.

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/007891.html 65% of muslims want a caliphate.

No, that gives it some hope. Given the failure of the US to subdue a piss-poor country with a population of 27 odd million, precisely how can a bunch of badly armed gobshites subdue a population of at least 300 million spread over a vast area, some thousands of miles from their support base?

1) We could "subdue" them any god damn day that we want. Most people just probably wouldn't want to see that much blood in the street.

2) They wouldn't need to do it by force. Islam is growing rapidly and they could pull it off within the democratic system. Majority rule. Another way to do it would be by intimidation. Pull off enough attacks and pretty soon, the left will be saying that it is all our fault and that we should change our gov't to suit them.

1) We could "subdue" them any god damn day that we want. Most people just probably wouldn't want to see that much blood in the street..

The 'peace of the graveyard' is no peace at all.



2) They wouldn't need to do it by force. Islam is growing rapidly and they could pull it off within the democratic system. Majority rule.

So the US is converted to Islam by peaceful means over a long period...

What has that to do with the Al Qaeda campaign and the "war on terror"?

The 'peace of the graveyard' is no peace at all.
You claimed that we couldn't defeat "piss-poor country." I decided to dislodge that notion from you head.



So the US is converted to Islam by peaceful means over a long period...

What has that to do with the Al Qaeda campaign and the "war on terror"?
Read my edit also.

Speaking as a former British soldier that spent a large chunk of the 1980s and some of the 90s watching out for terrorists both at home and in Northern Ireland I'd suggest that the US forces are seriously out of their depth in this sort of low level policing counter insurgency warfare, and they should take much more advice from the UK forces who are the best there is when it comes to this type of operation.

I do, of course, acknowledge the invaluable assistance given to the British by the USA to help us to reach this level of expertise. If they hadn't funded the IRA for so long we wouldn't have had nearly as much practise.

Speaking as a former British soldier that spent a large chunk of the 1980s and some of the 90s watching out for terrorists both at home and in Northern Ireland I'd suggest that the US forces are seriously out of their depth in this sort of low level policing counter insurgency warfare, and they should take much more advice from the UK forces who are the best there is when it comes to this type of operation.
And your suggestion would be incorrect. Ireland and the middle east are two very different areas and have very different dynamics. Something that, with your bias, you might not be able to understand. And you really don't sound like you were a former British soldier.
I do, of course, acknowledge the invaluable assistance given to the British by the USA to help us to reach this level of expertise. If they hadn't funded the IRA for so long we wouldn't have had nearly as much practise.

All of the funding was from groups in the U.S. that supported Irish independence. Not the U.S. government. The only role that the U.S. government had in it was brokering the peace deal.

And your suggestion would be incorrect. Ireland and the middle east are two very different areas and have very different dynamics. Something that, with your bias, you might not be able to understand. And you really don't sound like you were a former British soldier.

Really? What are you basing that on? I not only was a former British Soldier, I still am a former British Soldier.

All of the funding was from groups in the U.S. that supported Irish independence. Not the U.S. government. The only role that the U.S. government had in it was brokering the peace deal.

And blocking extradition, and allowing convicted terrorists to address congress, and having senators make speeches supporting Irish Republican Terrorists and allowing fundraising to be carried out in US Government buildings

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/007891.html 65% of muslims want a caliphate.

No. Wrong. Islamist terrorists does not equal "muslims". If they did, the surprising result would be that around 80% of the terrorists would say that terrorism could never be justified. That's a strange reality, no?

Even if it's true that 65% of muslims want a caliphate...

(which the study doesn't show, since the question was:

Q27-F28: What do you personally feel about these goals? For each goal, please say whether you agree with it strongly, agree somewhat, disagree somewhat, or disagree strongly.

To unify all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state or Caliphate.)

...then you still fail as only a small minority of the terrorists are fighting a global jihad with the goal of establishing a global caliphate.

Really? What are you basing that on? I not only was a former British Soldier, I still am a former British Soldier.
Really? You just sound ignorant to me. Why don't you provide some proof.


And 1)blocking extradition, and 2)allowing convicted terrorists to address congress, and 3)having senators make speeches supporting Irish Republican Terrorists and 4)allowing fundraising to be carried out in US Government buildings

1) Why would we want your problem?

2) They shouldn't be allowed to talk? If they were free then they were free.

3) Can you provide one of those speeches. And if they made one then it is their right to make that speech. In fact, if they feel that Ireland should have its independence then it is their duty to make that speech

4) Some credible citations please?

Not in our or our children's lifetime.

Then we dont need to send our military out there to fight them since they have no chance of reaching their goal. End of discussion.

And we had the might to retaliate. Where's the problem?




No, they don't. Just like we don't have that right either. Neither OIF or OEF were about systems of governing. The common theme of both was liberating people from oppression. I do not mean oppression as in Sharia law. I mean oppression as in killing or torturing critics. And yes, the invasion was a mistake.

The point of it all is: If you claim that you had an ethical right to invade Iraq due to force, you must believe in order to be coherent that ANYTHING can be rightfully done through force.

No. Wrong. Islamist terrorists does not equal "muslims". If they did, the surprising result would be that around 80% of the terrorists would say that terrorism could never be justified. That's a strange reality, no?
WTF are you talking about? The poll said that 65% of muslims want a caliphate. Nothing else.
To unify all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state or Caliphate.[/FONT])
Right, 65% want that. 65% want every country to be united under a Caliphate. Not sure what you're getting at.
...then you still fail as only a small minority of the terrorists are fighting a global jihad with the goal of establishing a global caliphate.
A large number of Americans want freedom. A small number would be willing to fight and die for it.

No. Wrong. Islamist terrorists does not equal "muslims". If they did, the surprising result would be that around 80% of the terrorists would say that terrorism could never be justified. That's a strange reality, no?

Even if it's true that 65% of muslims want a caliphate...

(which the study doesn't show, since the question was:

Q27-F28: What do you personally feel about these goals? For each goal, please say whether you agree with it strongly, agree somewhat, disagree somewhat, or disagree strongly.

To unify all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state or Caliphate.)

...then you still fail as only a small minority of the terrorists are fighting a global jihad with the goal of establishing a global caliphate.

I've always said USMCL2 was a Military Bushevik and his subscription to the 3b1l |\/|05l3|\/| |-|1\/3|\/|1|\|D theory is just more icing on the cake.

Not only did he buy into Beloved Dear Leader's flip-flop justifications for invading Iraq and overthrow a secular and stabilizing dictatorship, he never questions Bush's judgment one bit. And despite the overall ineffectiveness of the occupation/policing of Iraq he's more than willing to continue throwing in the lives of our armed forces away in some delusional hope that it'll actually slow down the inevitable degradation into outright civil war.

Also throw in his buying into the supposed threat of the Global Caliphate movement and Dubya's bullshit about Iraq being the Global Front on the War on Terra, and you really couldn't tell Eutrusca left NS a long times back. The Military Busheviks are still ranting and raving the same as they always did.

And some people call Jane Fonda a traitor to the country... sheesh.

The point of it all is: If you claim that you had an ethical right to invade Iraq due to force, you must believe in order to be coherent that ANYTHING can be rightfully done through force.

On the international stage that is how things work. I'm not saying that it is right. We can justify the Iraq war through many avenues. The best of which is that they were in violation of the Gulf War treaty.

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/007891.html 65% of muslims want a caliphate.

That study shows that those muslims surveyed wished for the Muslim countries to unite.

Then we dont need to send our military out there to fight them since they have no chance of reaching their goal. End of discussion.

Yes they do. Also, you don't care about your grandchildren?

That study shows that those muslims surveyed wished for the Muslim countries to unite.

Yes, and an established caliphate is in direct opposition to U.S. interests. That is why it can't be allowed to be established.

Yes they do. Also, you don't care about your grandchildren?

I'm not goign to have grandchildren. What does that have to do with anything? Do you think that if Islamic countries unite that the United Statses has no choice but to become oe as well? If so please explain why.

WTF are you talking about? The poll said that 65% of muslims want a caliphate. Nothing else.
The poll said a lot of things, if you had looked up the poll instead of just that snippet of a rant that you linked to. Follow the links deeper down the rabbit hole, and you'll find out ;)

Right, 65% want that. 65% want every country to be united under a Caliphate. Not sure what you're getting at.
Not "every country". "Every muslim country". Huuuuuge difference.

A large number of Americans want freedom. A small number would be willing to fight and die for it.
Yeah. So? Because some americans are willing to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people (including children) to create freedom by establishing a dominant american hegemony in the world, doesn't mean that all americans are willing to do so.

Yes, and an established caliphate is in direct opposition to U.S. interests. That is why it can't be allowed to be established.

How so? Because we won't be able to export our culture into their societies as easily or what? You need to back up your points if you have anything behyond, those Muslims are all evil and want to take over the world.


Saying that they want Islamic countries to unite says nothing of their wish to dominate the entire world.

Besides. There are plenty of US Americans that wish to see their culture and system of governance exported around the world; many would like to do so at the barrell of a gun.

I'm not goign to have grandchildren. What does that have to do with anything? Do you think that if Islamic countries unite that the United Statses has no choice but to become oe as well? If so please explain why.

Because he buys into the spooky story that a united Islamic coalition would end up becoming a giant Jihadi Cobra, with Osama Bin Ladin as Cobra Commander and that they'd actually try to conquer the world Invasion USA style.

Really? You just sound ignorant to me. Why don't you provide some proof.

If you consider being ignorant to preclude someone from serving in Her Majesty's forces then I'd suggest you haven't met many of them!

What sort of proof do you want? is my word as a former British Soldier insufficient?


1) Why would we want your problem?

2) They shouldn't be allowed to talk? If they were free then they were free.

3) Can you provide one of those speeches. And if they made one then it is their right to make that speech. In fact, if they feel that Ireland should have its independence then it is their duty to make that speech

4) Some credible citations please?


1) Standard international treaty obligations, wanted for a crime in the UK, the USA should release them to British Justice.

2) Imagine the reaction in the USA if the British government invited Bin LAden into the Palace of Westminster to make a speech condemning his distorted views of the USA's policies, and then allowed him to invite wealthy local citizens to a meal in his honour in a nearby hotel to raise funds for Al Qaeda. No different from the tacit support given the IRA by many US politicians. (forgive me for not caring about the difference between Senators and Congressmen)

3 & 4 Cannot be arsed to trawl t'internet but I'm sure if you look at www.barkingmadpoliticos.com you'll find some

WTF are you talking about? The poll said that 65% of muslims want a caliphate. Nothing else.
However, respondents roundly reject attacks on civilians. Asked about politically-motivated attacks on civilians, such as bombings or assassinations, majorities in all countries—usually overwhelming majorities—take the strongest position offered by saying such violence cannot be justified at all. More than three out of four Indonesians (84%), Pakistanis (81%), and Egyptians (77%) take this position, as well as 57 percent of Moroccans (an additional 19 percent of Moroccans say such attacks can only be “weakly justified”).
I'll give you a hand. (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/incl/printable_version.php?pnt=346)
Yes, and an established caliphate is in direct opposition to U.S. interests. That is why it can't be allowed to be established.
Bullshit. There is no indication of that, not from this poll.
But this does not appear to mean that the publics in these Muslim countries want to isolate themselves from the larger world. Asked how they feel about “the world becoming more connected through greater economic trade and faster communication,” majorities in all countries say it is a good thing (average 75%). While wary of Western values, overall 67 percent agree that “a democratic political system” is a good way to govern their country and 82 percent agree that in their country “people of any religion should be free to worship according to their own beliefs.”

Because he buys into the spooky story that a united Islamic coalition would end up becoming a giant Jihadi Cobra, with Osama Bin Ladin as Cobra Commander and that they'd actually try to conquer the world Invasion USA style.

LMFAO!

It's funny cuz it's true. Wait, that's not funny, it's sad :(

I'm not goign to have grandchildren. What does that have to do with anything? Do you think that if Islamic countries unite that the United Statses has no choice but to become oe as well? If so please explain why.

It is not definite but there is the real possibility that they would be our enemy and have the ability to engage in warfare conventional or otherwise. The demographic shift is also a concern.

However, respondents roundly reject attacks on civilians. Asked about politically-motivated attacks on civilians, such as bombings or assassinations, majorities in all countries—usually overwhelming majorities—take the strongest position offered by saying such violence cannot be justified at all. More than three out of four Indonesians (84%), Pakistanis (81%), and Egyptians (77%) take this position, as well as 57 percent of Moroccans (an additional 19 percent of Moroccans say such attacks can only be “weakly justified”).
I'll give you a hand. (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/incl/printable_version.php?pnt=346)

Bullshit. There is no indication of that, not from this poll.

We are not talking about how many people want violence, but how many want a caliphate. And the fact the % of people who don't want violence is so low (a majority but hardly comforting) is disconcerting. And what you posted is the feelings towards violence against civilians. Nothing about against military personnel.

If you consider being ignorant to preclude someone from serving in Her Majesty's forces then I'd suggest you haven't met many of them!

What sort of proof do you want? is my word as a former British Soldier insufficient?
Your status as a former British Soldier is the very thing that is in question.




1) Standard international treaty obligations, wanted for a crime in the UK, the USA should release them to British Justice.

2) Imagine the reaction in the USA if the British government invited Bin LAden into the Palace of Westminster to make a speech condemning his distorted views of the USA's policies, and then allowed him to invite wealthy local citizens to a meal in his honour in a nearby hotel to raise funds for Al Qaeda. No different from the tacit support given the IRA by many US politicians. (forgive me for not caring about the difference between Senators and Congressmen)

3 & 4 Cannot be arsed to trawl t'internet but I'm sure if you look at www.barkingmadpoliticos.com you'll find some

As I am not 100% familiar with the topic some evidence to back your claims is necessary.

How so? Because we won't be able to export our culture into their societies as easily or what? You need to back up your points if you have anything behyond, those Muslims are all evil and want to take over the world.

How does it sound to have a country, where the majority hates us, be in control of one of the most important resources on this planet?

The poll said a lot of things, if you had looked up the poll instead of just that snippet of a rant that you linked to. Follow the links deeper down the rabbit hole, and you'll find out ;)
I did. However, we aren't talking about how many are for or against civilian killings.
Not "every country". "Every muslim country". Huuuuuge difference.
That is what I had in mind from the start. Wherever there are muslims, they will want sharia. Because of that we are in danger of falling to sharia law in the distant future.
Yeah. So? Because some americans are willing to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people (including children) to create freedom by establishing a dominant american hegemony in the world, doesn't mean that all americans are willing to do so.
We didn't kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

It is not definite but there is the real possibility that they would be our enemy and have the ability to engage in warfare conventional or otherwise. The demographic shift is also a concern.

Yes, there is a very real possibility that we coudl go to war with any country (especially with conservatives in the drivers seat). What does that have to do with Sharia Law being imposed on the US? What demographic shift is a concern to whom and why?

We are not talking about how many people want violence, but how many want a caliphate. And the fact the % of people who don't want violence is so low (a majority but hardly comforting) is disconcerting. And what you posted is the feelings towards violence against civilians. Nothing about against military personnel.

And so what if they want a caliphate in Islamic countries ONLY. What do you care?

How does it sound to have a country, where the majority hates us, be in control of one of the most important resources on this planet?

That's already the case. Has the end of the world come yet? We are workign toward alternative energies and oil is runnign otu anyway. How quickly do you think this caliphate (that is never going to happen) will arise? How many times do you need to change your underwear daily because you are so scared of nonexistant boogeymen?

I did. However, we aren't talking about how many are for or against civilian killings.

That is what I had in mind from the start. Wherever there are muslims, they will want sharia. Because of that we are in danger of falling to sharia law in the distant future.

We didn't kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

No, these Muslims from your own poll said they want their Islamic countries to unite. They also said in your poll that they wish for others to be able to freely practice their own religion. They ALSO said in your poll that they think Democracy is the best system of governance. What are you so afraid of? You think they are going to outbreed the Christians and gain a majority vote in the US? Again I must ask about your fears of nonexistant boogeymen and how these fears came about.

Yes, there is a very real possibility that we coudl go to war with any country (especially with conservatives in the drivers seat). What does that have to do with Sharia Law being imposed on the US? What demographic shift is a concern to whom and why?
The demographic shift towards more Muslims.


And so what if they want a caliphate in Islamic countries ONLY. What do you care?
I care because it hurts U.S. interests.


That's already the case. Has the end of the world come yet? We are workign toward alternative energies and oil is runnign otu anyway. How quickly do you think this caliphate (that is never going to happen) will arise? How many times do you need to change your underwear daily because you are so scared of nonexistant boogeymen?
Saudi Arabia's gov't is not hostile towards us. You underestimate the movement towards a caliphate. If every country in the middle east were a democracy, it already would have been established.


No, these Muslims from your own poll said they want their Islamic countries to unite. They also said in your poll that they wish for others to be able to freely practice their own religion. They ALSO said in your poll that they think Democracy is the best system of governance. What are you so afraid of? You think they are going to outbreed the Christians and gain a majority vote in the US? Again I must ask about your fears of nonexistant boogeymen and how these fears came about.
67% say democracy is a good form of govt. Not the best. And 75% say that sharia should be applied to every Islamic country. I'm sensing that they are being bombarded with conflicting propaganda. And it is my job to worry about threats. Sorry if it bothers you.

The demographic shift towards more Muslims.


What's wrong with that? Are Muslims of a hive mind like Christians are?


I care because it hurts U.S. interests.

How does it hurt US interests? Do we not already deal with countries with Muslim majority that follow sharia law?

Saudi Arabia's gov't is not hostile towards us. You underestimate the movement towards a caliphate. If every country in the middle east were a democracy, it already would have been established.

You said "How does it sound to have a country, where the majority hates us"

67% say democracy is a good form of govt. Not the best. And 75% say that sharia should be applied to every Islamic country. I'm sensing that they are being bombarded with conflicting propaganda. And it is my job to worry about threats. Sorry if it bothers you.


I don't see this threat you keep bringing up. I see some imaginary scenario that will never come to pass, but no real threat. And why is it your job to worry about threats? Do you set foreign policy?

What's wrong with that? Are Muslims of a hive mind like Christians are?


More Muslims means it's bad, because Muslims are bad. They're terrorists. And this generalization is not a bigoted stereotype at all, because it comes from a US Marine. AKA, Duddley Do-Right. In fact, even disagreeing with him means you don't know what you're talking about, cuz you're a damn civvie. So why do you hate America?

;)

More Muslims means it's bad, because Muslims are bad. They're terrorists. And this generalization is not a bigoted stereotype at all, because it comes from a US Marine. AKA, Duddley Do-Right. In fact, even disagreeing with him means you don't know what you're talking about, cuz you're a damn civvie. So why do you hate America?

;)

Why do I hate America? I hate America for our resident Mr. Do-Right and all the other Mr. Do-Rights who elevate themselves while castigating those who do not subscribe to their notions of the inherent goodness and unquestionability of authoritarian, hierarchical structures. Those same structures that diminish the individual while furthering the goals of a fleeting minority - and objectifying the world around them, reducing everything Humanity has ever accomplished to a crass series of tactical data.

That sums it up nicely. Thanks for asking...

More Muslims means it's bad, because Muslims are bad. They're terrorists. And this generalization is not a bigoted stereotype at all, because it comes from a US Marine. AKA, Duddley Do-Right. In fact, even disagreeing with him means you don't know what you're talking about, cuz you're a damn civvie. So why do you hate America?

;)

I don't like the idea of living under Sharia law. The majority in every muslim country want sharia law. It's a logical extension that we would then have sharia law. I'm not against muslims, just living under Sharia law.

I don't like the idea of living under Sharia law. The majority in every muslim country want sharia law. It's a logical extension that we would then have sharia law. I'm not against muslims, just living under Sharia law.

Wow, you really are scared shitless of something that has absolutely no fucking chance of happening in the United States in such a relatively short period of time. The United States has about the same chance of becoming a IFS as it does of becoming the Kingdom of Gilead, although with Your Beloved Dear Leader in office the latter does seem frighteningly closer a possibility.

What's wrong with that? Are Muslims of a hive mind like Christians are?

No. But they do tend to support Sharia law.


How does it hurt US interests? Do we not already deal with countries with Muslim majority that follow sharia law?
Yes we do and if full blown democracy ever spreads to those countries, we will not be dealing with them much any more. It's kind of funny actually. The gov't understands the need to deal with us but the people don't. But when we spread "glorious" democracy the people decide to not deal with us and it hurts us.



You said "How does it sound to have a country, where the majority hates us"
Ah, I see. My bad.



I don't see this threat you keep bringing up. I see some imaginary scenario that will never come to pass, but no real threat. And why is it your job to worry about threats? Do you set foreign policy?
Imagine a USSR that believed that in death they would get 72 virgins. That's a dangerous prospect.

It is my job to worry about threats on a smaller scale and it would be intelligent for me to stay up to date on larger scale threats as I may end up dying b/c of them in the future.

Wow, you really are scared shitless of something that has absolutely no fucking chance of happening in the United States in such a relatively short period of time. The United States has about the same chance of becoming a IFS as it does of becoming the Kingdom of Gilead, although with Your Beloved Dear Leader in office the latter does seem frighteningly closer a possibility.

The worst case scenario is that our Muslim population reaches a certain level so that they are a force to be reckoned with in politics. And while this is the situation, a terrorist group decides to engage in terrorism b/c we are oppressing our muslims under non-Sharia law. And then the softer ones decide that it is our fault and that we must change some of our laws to Sharia in order to accommodate. I'm not saying that it's going to happen but it's a real possibility.

More Muslims means it's bad, because Muslims are bad. They're terrorists. And this generalization is not a bigoted stereotype at all, because it comes from a US Marine. AKA, Duddley Do-Right. In fact, even disagreeing with him means you don't know what you're talking about, cuz you're a damn civvie. So why do you hate America?

;)

I didn't say that all Muslims are terrorists. Stop fighting a strawman.

On the international stage that is how things work. I'm not saying that it is right. We can justify the Iraq war through many avenues. The best of which is that they were in violation of the Gulf War treaty.

You can make an excuse for the war. You can make one for any war, lebensraum was an excuse used not too long ago. Justification is something else entirely.

The worst case scenario is that our Muslim population reaches a certain level so that they are a force to be reckoned with in politics. And while this is the situation, a terrorist group decides to engage in terrorism b/c we are oppressing our muslims under non-Sharia law. And then the softer ones decide that it is our fault and that we must change some of our laws to Sharia in order to accommodate. I'm not saying that it's going to happen but it's a real possibility.

In other words, you're weaving a campside story operating on the presumption that all Muslims are part of a group hivemind. Brilliant.

You can make an excuse for the war. You can make one for any war, lebensraum was an excuse used not too long ago. Justification is something else entirely.

The violation of the Gulf War treaty is a legal justification. Lebensraum is just sick and twisted.

Lebensraum is just sick and twisted.

So are the actual reasons Bush started the war for.

The majority in every muslim country want sharia law.

Really? Got any stats to back that up?

I'm not saying that it's going to happen but it's a real possibility.

According to quantum physics, there's a 1/10^40 (per a given amount of time, I think a second) possibility of a body "phasing through" another body. If you spend your life preparing for the possibility of phasing through the ground, you'll be a pretty sad case.

In other words, you're weaving a campside story operating on the presumption that all Muslims are part of a group hivemind. Brilliant.

The majority of muslims want Sharia regardless of location. No? What is the difference if they were the majority in the United States? Terrorist groups seek to sway our actions through asymmetric warfare. No? It's really not that far fetched provided that the demographics work out. It requires no coordination.

The majority of muslims want Sharia regardless of location. No?

No.

That was another issue of Short Answers to Stupid Questions.

So are the actual reasons Bush started the war for.

Liberating people (no matter how misguided) is sick?

The majority of muslims want Sharia regardless of location. No? What is the difference if they were the majority in the United States? Terrorist groups seek to sway our actions through asymmetric warfare. No? It's really not that far fetched provided that the demographics work out. It requires no coordination.

Ah, so this is based on your assumption and not an actual survey of American Muslims right?

Again...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/img/06/0228_brilliant06.jpg

BRILLIANT!!

According to quantum physics, there's a 1/10^40 (per a given amount of time, I think a second) possibility of a body "phasing through" another body. If you spend your life preparing for the possibility of phasing through the ground, you'll be a pretty sad case.

Okay, let's assume that Sharia will never take hold in the United States. Do you want a USSResque superpower in the middle east with their hands on nukes and allah supporting them in their use?

The majority of muslims want Sharia regardless of location. No?
No.

Heard of Turkey?

No.

Heard of Turkey?

Kurds are thrown into the mix. It's not all muslims.

Liberating people (no matter how misguided) is sick?

The reasons he HAD, not the ones he CLAIMED TO HAVE. And the result of that "liberation" are lots of dead people, which neither your god nor theirs can bring back.

Ah, so this is based on your assumption and not an actual survey of American Muslims right?

We're talking when we're both long dead.

Okay, let's assume that Sharia will never take hold in the United States. Do you want a USSResque superpower in the middle east with their hands on nukes and allah supporting them in their use?

I don't want a GWB-esque superpower in my continent with its hands on nukes and God supporting it in their use either. Who do I call to take away THAT threat?

Kurds are thrown into the mix. It's not all muslims.

You do know Kurds are mostly Sunni Muslim right?

Responsibility goes to the person who directly did something. You might as well say that it is Christopher Columbus's fault b/c if he hadn't discovered the Americas, then the U.S. wouldn't exist and we wouldn't have invaded Iraq.
Yes, you're right: Responsibility does go to the person who directly did something. And in the case of Iraq, that 'person' was the US military that invaded that country, killed thousands and destroyed the infrastructures that - had they not done so - would mean ~1/2 million Iraqis would still be alive today.

Great use of the strawman there, btw.

Why do I hate America? I hate America for our resident Mr. Do-Right and all the other Mr. Do-Rights who elevate themselves while castigating those who do not subscribe to their notions of the inherent goodness and unquestionability of authoritarian, hierarchical structures. Those same structures that diminish the individual while furthering the goals of a fleeting minority - and objectifying the world around them, reducing everything Humanity has ever accomplished to a crass series of tactical data.

That sums it up nicely. Thanks for asking...

Hey! That question was for me! *takes it back*

Pfft. :fluffle:

Why do I hate America? It's more of a love/hate relationship. I feel we just stay together becauce we need each other to reinforce each others feelings of security when really this co-dependence is making us unable to live life on our own effectively. I don't know. I guess there are some beatiful things about her, but her neurotic tendency to interfere in other peoples lives (mine as well) gets pretty aggravating. I think about leaving her but we've had so many good times together. I'd miss climbing her mountains and exploring her caves, if you know what I mean. ;) There are others who have caught my eye. Hey, a man can fantasize can't he?

Yes, you're right: Responsibility does go to the person who directly did something. And in the case of Iraq, that 'person' was the US military that invaded that country, killed thousands and destroyed the infrastructures that - had they not done so - would mean ~1/2 million Iraqis would still be alive today.

Great use of the strawman there, btw.

How did I use a strawman? I gave an example that used the same logic and would be more clear to you as you would have no bias involved in it. And I like how your hundreds of thousands of civilians went down to thousands of people real quick. Again, if Christopher Columbus hadn't discovered the Americas, 1/2 million Iraqis would still be alive today also. Does that mean that it is his fault?

The reasons he HAD, not the ones he CLAIMED TO HAVE. And the result of that "liberation" are lots of dead people, which neither your god nor theirs can bring back.

1) We are talking about reasons, not outcomes

2) How would you know what his reasons were?

3) I'm agnostic

How did I use a strawman? I gave an example that used the same logic and would be more clear to you as you would have no bias involved in it. And I like how your hundreds of thousands of civilians went down to thousands of people real quick. Again, if Christopher Columbus hadn't discovered the Americas, 1/2 million Iraqis would still be alive today also. Does that mean that it is his fault?

That's what you're implying there, bud. Trying to deflect criticism of Your Beloved Dear Leader's quarter-assed foreign policy by blaming it all on a guy who's been dead for centuries.

An Islamaphobic Bushevik in the military. More treason than Hanoi Jane could have ever hoped to achieve.

You do know Kurds are mostly Sunni Muslim right?

They have a different culture though. It's more relaxed not to mention Sufiism. I don't think that they'll be getting along well with the other members of the caliphate.

They have a different culture though. It's more relaxed not to mention Sufiism. I don't think that they'll be getting along well with the other members of the caliphate.

But you first declare that all Muslims are a hivemind that want a global "caliphate," and then when Turkey is brought up as an exception you're trying to make a grandfather clause for Kurds? Wow, I think you went to the same ROTC class as Corny with such brilliant leaps of logic.

1) We are talking about reasons, not outcomes

2) How would you know what his reasons were?

3) I'm agnostic

1) Outcome: Half a million dead people, thousands more wounded, thousands of terrorists created, instability in the region for the years to come...

2) You're claiming GWB has a lot of depth?

3) "Their god" or the Christian one. Or whatever.

That's what you're implying there, bud. Trying to deflect criticism of Your Beloved Dear Leader's quarter-assed foreign policy by blaming it all on a guy who's been dead for centuries.

An Islamaphobic Bushevik in the military. More treason than Hanoi Jane could have ever hoped to achieve.

I'm not Islamophobic, I think that Iraq was a mistake and I support Bush on almost no domestic issues. But you were almost right.

I'm not blaming it on Columbus. I'm showing to ludicrousness of his argument.

I'm not Islamophobic, I think that Iraq was a mistake and I support Bush on almost no domestic issues. But you were almost right.

I'm not blaming it on Columbus. I'm showing to ludicrousness of his argument.

Columbus didn't actively pursue the war. Bush did.

1) Outcome: Half a million dead people, thousands more wounded, thousands of terrorists created, instability in the region for the years to come...

2) You're claiming GWB has a lot of depth?

3) "Their god" or the Christian one. Or whatever.

1) Except for the half a million part yeah. That's about right.

2) His whole ideology is based on liberating people. Why wouldn't that be a reason?

3) That's better.

Columbus didn't actively pursue the war. Bush did.

And bush didn't kill hundreds of thousands of people, insurgents and terrorists did.

And bush didn't kill hundreds of thousands of people, insurgents and terrorists did.

Columbus couldn't have foreseen that this would happen.

Bush could.

And bush didn't kill hundreds of thousands of people, insurgents and terrorists did.

Insurgents and terrorists who were in no position to kill hundreds of thousands of people until Your Beloved Dear Leader Bush George-Dubya ordered the invasion of Iraq to overthrow the despotic but stable and secular regime of Saddam Hussein, demolish the country's infrastructures and disperse countless Iraqis who could have been used to rebuild the country but instead found themselves turning to the said insurgency.

Bush didn't pull the trigger, but he sure damn signed the papers authorizing the trigger pulls.

But you first declare that all Muslims are a hivemind that want a global "caliphate," and then when Turkey is brought up as an exception you're trying to make a grandfather clause for Kurds? Wow, I think you went to the same ROTC class as Corny with such brilliant leaps of logic.

2/3s of muslims want a caliphate. Do you deny that? Turkey would probably not be included in it anyway seeing as it is going in the opposite direction with the EU and whatnot. But the problem with Turkey is that they will most likely be pushed away from the EU and will definitely be pushed away from the U.S. This may leave them with only one option, join the caliphate. I never declared that all muslims want a caliphate. You're attacking a strawman once again.

1) Except for the half a million part yeah. That's about right.

2) His whole ideology is based on liberating people. Why wouldn't that be a reason?

3) That's better.

1- Assume 2975, again. Any difference?

2- His ideology is based on the worst ideological threat the world has ever created, second only to Nazism: Manifest Destiny.

3- Meh.