Political Crossfire Forums

[Suheil]

Chingu wrote: I'd like to hear from some sensible people if they notice the same thing I am noticing in the anti-war relpies here. Is it just me or do they all have opininions without anything relevent to base them on? I hear, that we are loosing in Iraq, but none of the military people nor our leadership seem to agree. Do the anti-war left here on this BBS know better than the military and the leadership in regard to if we are loosing or winning?

I hear claims that popular opinion is against thwe war as if the popular opinion is somehow the end all be all of intelligent decision making. Does the average Joe know as much as the people directly involved in this conflict? Does the average Joe have the intelligence and information to make an informed decision? Does the average Joe take into consideration everything one needs to take into consideration before taking a position regarding something so important?

Does the fact that we are involved in a violent fight mean things are messed up or that we are loosing? And, if so, wouldn't that suggest that D-Day, Normandy, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Tet, Gettysburg, Antiem were all lost causes and big messes?

Doesn't it sound like the left is myopic in their views? Perhaps less concerned with reality than with a partisan political position? Or, could it be that the left and/or anti-war types are idealic but naive enough to believe that our enemies are really not the threat that they are preported to be?

Doesn't the anti-war rhetoric sound just a little like a bunch of spoiled children who don't want to eat their vegetables or do their homework before they go out and play?

And, doesn't it just seem a bit selfish and arrogant to dismiss the Iraqi people out of hand and be more concerned with the financial cost of war than the ramifications involved in either position?

And, when we consistently read misguided and ill-informed reasons for their positions, doesn't that demonstrate that they really don't have an educated grasp on what is going on in Iraq? We hear them constantly mixing up who our enemy really is by saying things like Juhadists are in the Iraqi Government and that there is a high percentage of Shiite in the government and therefor they are Jihadists?

Have we not heard that we were going to loose, were getting into a quagmire from day one? Is it not possible that the left has intended for this to fail from day one and no matter what we do they would consider it a failure?

Does anyone else notice that when cold-hard facts are presented to the left they either change the subject, parse semantics or simply ignore them?

Isn't it showing that there is video-recordings of the entire Democratic leadership saying the exact same things Bush was saying regarding Iraq and our reasons for going to war and that the left can ignore all of those people - many of which - including Prsident Clinton - had access to the very same intelligence that Bush did - and then say Bush lied - but still believe that Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry, Harry Ried, Madaline Albright and the whole lot of them were honest?

Doesn't it also appeare that a significant portion of these anti-war types are misguided into believing that mostof the problems in this world are the fault of America and that the motivations for our involvement in Iraq were conspiratorial rather than in the interest of our national security?

I believe the left /anti-war types here present my case in stunning clarity. They are not interested in the outcome here. They never were. They haven't a concern with the state of the world, the security of the nation or any of this. What they have is a simple-minded partisan perspective that disallows honesty and holds the ideals of this nation and others who seek to do the right thing in contempt. These folks are no different than the fantastic whackos that protest and WTO meetings.

I have not heard one argument to my points yet on this thread that really honestly address the issues. They have totally ignored the consequences of leaving question.

All we can hope for, I suppose, is that clearer heads prevail and that the left - which has failed in foreign policy at every turn for decades and decades - does not pressure us to take the wrong road because our future will be vwery grim if that ends up being the case.

YOU ARE ALONE moan "mission accomplished". In a cesspool, and America is still smelling the roses.

Awaiting the last Cobra out of new Saigon

[Suheil]

Chingu wrote: Suheil wrote: Chingu wrote: Suheil wrote: The American wrote: Suheil wrote: Chingu


Quote: the point, of course, being, that the modern world has no place for folks that kill innocent people intentionally for political purposes. We have no place for folks who want to assert an evil ideology of tyranny and oppression on everyone else at the point of a sword and will behead innocent civilians in order to terrorize others into complicity. They have not evolved to the level that much of the rest of the world has where we have found ways to live alongside one another without murdering each other.

The twilight zone

600,000 deaths of sanctions
The heavy use of DU, WP and Daises
The rise of cancer to 4 folds in southern Iraq
The raising of Falluja, Talafar, Qaem, and 8 more Iraqi towns
The death of 655,000 Iraqis as a consequence of an illegal war based on spins and lies
The dismantling of Iraq
Factionalism
Civil war

And still taking the highroad?
Flatlander

Suheil, your conclusions and statements are without merit, unless you provide a reference on how you arrived at these conclusions. You quote them as fact, as I dispute them. Give me reference and I will take it apart. Give me your facts. Or do expect for me to believe them at your say so?

Trig.

Quote: Suheil, your conclusions and statements are without merit, unless you provide a reference on how you arrived at these conclusions. You quote them as fact, as I dispute them. Give me reference and I will take it apart. Give me your facts. Or do expect for me to believe them at your say so?

Trig.

The twilight zone

600,000 deaths of sanctions (read UN report on sanctions)
The heavy use of DU, WP and Daises (read, see and weep

http://www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie/VISIE/extremedeformities.html

P.S. warning not fit for humans, only for those who think "s**t happens"!

http://www.robert-fisk.com/depleted_uranium_links.htm

The rise of cancer to 4 folds in southern Iraq
The raising of Falluja, Talafar, Qaem, and 8 more Iraqi towns

The death of 655,000 Iraqis as a consequence of an illegal war based on spins and lies

The dismantling of Iraq (the Lancet Report)

Factionalism (read about democracy farce)
Civil war (read major news networks)

And still taking the highroad?
Flatlander

I think you really ought to be bright enough to understand that you've lost this argument. Your numbers and ideas are all from non-credible sources and have no merit in truth.

I already called you flatlander, a singularity that does not see the truth if it hits on the face. The UN, Lancet, studies on DU, photos of disfigured Iraqi children and common knowledge do not tilt the scale. The US had lost the plot and waiting for the undertaker. Get over it.

OK then, in the face of truth you still hide behind a lie. At least we know about your lack of character and therefor, need not even respond to you any longer.

Quote: OK then, in the face of truth you still hide behind a lie.

The truth Bush LIED!



Quote: At least we know about your lack of character and therefor, need not even respond to you any longer.

We have not been properly introduced but then no loss, you seem a one who listens only to his echo!

Shoo

[The Newb]

Otacon wrote:
1) It is a good thing that Saddam is no longer in power. He was an evil man and needed to be removed, but I would have preferred if we attempted different methods other than invasion.

agreed saddam is evil, but what means would you have used?

Otacon wrote: 2) The U.N. weapons inspectors already confirmed there were no WMDs in Iraq.

did they, or was it a good guess form the in and out they were doing? from what the prewar intel stated they were not 100% sure

Otacon wrote: 3) Yes, it is important to live up to your word, but it is sometimes acceptable to break your word.

in the world wide scheme of things, is it not important to keep one sword on matters of dstroying one government to allow for a democracy, would it not be seen as bad to have destroyed a tyranical gov in the name of democracy, then allow that democracy to fall?

Otacon wrote: 4) Even if Iraq becomes a great new Democracy, other countries in the Middle-East such as Iran won't convert governments and might even attack Iraq and spark even more violence.

iran may do that, yet with more of the world backing iraq and its democracy i doubt it

Otacon wrote: 5) We have trained Iraqi soldiers and policeman, and it isn't the United States' job to play nanny with the world.

no it is not, it is our job to ensure that they can do the job properly with effectiveness, you would not half train a security guard and expect him to be one of the best in the world to keep your company safe

Otacon wrote: 6) The world already has a pretty low opinion of our country, and I value lives more than I value how the US is viewed in the world.

what parts of the world do? any that matter? most of the free world still has a decent opinion of us, only the ones who lost money from this ordeal like france, germany, and russia. the non free world would not favor us any way so who cares?

Otacon wrote: 7) No, one should believe whatever they feel is right. They shouldn't follow what the majority believes if they don't agree.

good point, so why are the ones for the war chastised the way we are?

Otacon wrote: 8) They have already won, but we could eventually exterminate them at the cost of lives and resources.

no they have not won, that is called doom and gloom, they have yet to win one battle, or conflict in iraq, they have yet to destroy the gov there, they have yet to break the will of the iraqis, but they have broken the will of american citizens

Otacon wrote: 9) Yes. If we can stop a terrorist attack, we should, but wasting time in Iraq isn't what I would call preventing further terrorist acts.

why not? are more terrorists there, flocking in from other countries, known to have shipped them here and around the world prior to this conflict?

Otacon wrote: 10) This war wouldn't occur because of withdrawing from Iraq. It would occur because of something far worse, perhaps something that would warrant our involvement.

are you sure on this? do you not think that iraq would become the new hamas, taliban, or iranian based terrorist gov?

[Chingu]

Gdawg007 wrote: Chingu wrote: Gdawg007 wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: beachbum bob wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: The simple truth - shared by what it is an overwhelming majority of military leaders (even those that opposed Rumsfeld) - is that quitting the war now and not achieving victory through a stable Iraq will be disastrous. The future of the ME and much of the world's security is at stake. If we don't succeed in stabilizing Iraq we will be continually paying the price for the foreseeable future. Pulling out of Iraq now will simply cement our engagement in what will become a greater regional and potentially global conflict.

funny how we heard the same propaganda when we left Vietnam.......last time i looked...SE asia is pretty peaceful and prosperous and it wasn't because of US presence... Are you willing to take that gamble? The world doesn't run on rice so SE asia had far less - if any - global impact of the rest of the world. That was purely an ideological fight.

The stakes in the ME are far greater.

There's no oil in SE Asia...? Quite the contrary. If you think that at the time there was less at stake, then I suggest you go back and look at the similar arguments those who supported the war in Vietnam made.

I actually agree with you here. The big difference in future threat between Vietnam loss and this fight is that regading containment we also had another weapon which was detante and or MAD which was fairly helpful. that doesn't apply in this fight we face now. So, that really does make this one a bit more important to win in the short and long term.

Yes, but your assuming that the fighting is Al Qaeda interests versus US intersts. In reality, most of the fighting in Iraq is about control of the country between Sunni's and Shi'ites, and there are many factions that have ntohing to do with Al Qaeda. In fact, al Qaeda holds very little power in the largely Shi'ite dominated Iraq.

Al Qeada holds enough power to terrorize people, murder people and blow stuff and people up. They apparently have allied with both Shiite and Sunni criminal elements in Iraq and or they've managed to bamoozle them into believing they are something other than Al Qeada. And, while Al Qeada is not a huge force, they are certainly there and operational even though they have communicated between IRaq and the leadership that they are loosing badly in IRaq and require more fighters.

So, there is certainly and has been a presence of Al Qeada in IRaq and they have been and continue to be operational. There is a certain amount of alignment for a united purpose between some Sunni and some Shiite factions / militias against US and Iraqi security forces.

But, the larger point is that without the US presence, Al Qeada would not hesitate to try and establish its foothold in IRaq and prevent stability. And, we wouldn't be there to fend that off. And then, Iraq furtrher devolves into Al Qeadastan - and all bets are off. Then, it would take another actual WAR to go get them out again. More epople would die.

I keep hearing naive folks saying things can't get any worse. Let me suggest that - oh, yes they can. They can get a lot worse.

[beachbum bob]

Chingu wrote: ]

Al Qeada holds enough power to terrorize people, murder people and blow stuff and people up. They apparently have allied with both Shiite and Sunni criminal elements in Iraq and or they've managed to bamoozle them into believing they are something other than Al Qeada. And, while Al Qeada is not a huge force, they are certainly there and operational even though they have communicated between IRaq and the leadership that they are loosing badly in IRaq and require more fighters.

So, there is certainly and has been a presence of Al Qeada in IRaq and they have been and continue to be operational. There is a certain amount of alignment for a united purpose between some Sunni and some Shiite factions / militias against US and Iraqi security forces.

But, the larger point is that without the US presence, Al Qeada would not hesitate to try and establish its foothold in IRaq and prevent stability. And, we wouldn't be there to fend that off. And then, Iraq furtrher devolves into Al Qeadastan - and all bets are off. Then, it would take another actual WAR to go get them out again. More epople would die.

I keep hearing naive folks saying things can't get any worse. Let me suggest that - oh, yes they can. They can get a lot worse.

:lol: :lol: :lol:
AQ doesn't need to do anything in Iraq to cause instability...the Iraqis are doing just fine by themselves

[Chingu]

The UN weapons inspectors in Iraq said that they had found no WMD - that is true. But that is only part of what they said. Hans Blix also said that they had still not been allowed access to sites unfettered and without warning, that Iraq had failed to present anything substantuially new in their documentation and therefor were not in compliance with the UN resolutions demands. Their job, over 13 years, had been being thwarted by Saddam. This should be clear and inarguable to all. The fact that some people still think that there was any credible evidence that Saddam had destroyed his WMD and related programs is simply not true. The entire worlds intelligence communities and leaders were convinced that Saddam not only had WMD but would likely use them in a military confrontation. Thiswas one of teh reasons used by Hosni Mubarak for not wanting to get involved in a military confrontation with Egyptian troops in Iraq.

[Chingu]

The idea that there is any alrge seperation in ideology or purpose between any of the fations we are fighting in Iraq is misguided. While there are certainly Sunni killing Shiite and visa versa, there are elements of both that are also allied for the united front to wage the violent Jihad alongside Al Qeada.

And, I think it is a misnomer now to use the term Al Qeada because it tends to direct people into thinking that only Al Qeada certified terrorists are responsible foor the violent Jihad. The reality is that there are fighters from all over teh region coming into Iraq to join the same fight as perscribed by Al Qeada, and the elements within IRaq that were criminal and resistant to peace and stability and democracy, ally with the Al Qeada / Jihadist types before they will ally with the new government.

And, some of this violence we are haering about is actually sort of like vigilante killings. Some of these attacks are carried out by militias which are not aligned against the enw government but are atually going out and taking care of business that they don't see anyone else taking care of due to specific rules of engagment that they know they don't have to live by.

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Chingu wrote: The UN weapons inspectors in Iraq said that they had found no WMD - that is true. But that is only part of what they said. Hans Blix also said that they had still not been allowed access to sites unfettered and without warning, that Iraq had failed to present anything substantuially new in their documentation and therefor were not in compliance with the UN resolutions demands. Their job, over 13 years, had been being thwarted by Saddam. This should be clear and inarguable to all. The fact that some people still think that there was any credible evidence that Saddam had destroyed his WMD and related programs is simply not true. The entire worlds intelligence communities and leaders were convinced that Saddam not only had WMD but would likely use them in a military confrontation. Thiswas one of teh reasons used by Hosni Mubarak for not wanting to get involved in a military confrontation with Egyptian troops in Iraq.

Quote: The entire worlds intelligence communities and leaders were convinced that Saddam not only had WMD but would likely use them in a military confrontation.
In 1991, Saddam did in fact have a WMD capability yet, did not use it.
Why after 10 years of inspections and the destruction of the vast majority (if not all)
of his WMD capabilities would they think any differently ?

[The American]

Richard Owl Mirror wrote: Chingu wrote: The UN weapons inspectors in Iraq said that they had found no WMD - that is true. But that is only part of what they said. Hans Blix also said that they had still not been allowed access to sites unfettered and without warning, that Iraq had failed to present anything substantuially new in their documentation and therefor were not in compliance with the UN resolutions demands. Their job, over 13 years, had been being thwarted by Saddam. This should be clear and inarguable to all. The fact that some people still think that there was any credible evidence that Saddam had destroyed his WMD and related programs is simply not true. The entire worlds intelligence communities and leaders were convinced that Saddam not only had WMD but would likely use them in a military confrontation. Thiswas one of teh reasons used by Hosni Mubarak for not wanting to get involved in a military confrontation with Egyptian troops in Iraq.

Quote: The entire worlds intelligence communities and leaders were convinced that Saddam not only had WMD but would likely use them in a military confrontation.
In 1991, Saddam did in fact have a WMD capability yet, did not use it.
Why after 10 years of inspections and the destruction of the vast majority (if not all)
of his WMD capabilities would they think any differently ?

In 1980's, when Saddam forced genocide on his own people, and did in fact have WMD capabilities, why did he use it?

Why after 10 years of shuffling inspectors in and out of the country like a deck of cards, were they not able to access whether he had capability or not? That discovery was not made until after Saddam was removed from power.

[The American]

Dookiestix wrote:
Oh, so now it's me who has to "shoulder the responsibility" of what would happen if we left?

That makes absolutely no sense. Have you shouldered the responsibility yet of backing this war yet? All those U.S. and Iraqi deaths?

Where's the responsibility and accountability in that?

The more the rightwingers spin this, the less sense they inevitably make. You are yet another case in point.

I shoulder responsibility in my support for war efforts. Support for our troops and the mission the have endeavored on. In that belief, I see a main goal accomplished. Understanding, from the nature of the enemy we face, who instigates and distorts truth, backed by radical ideology, I understand we will not see this war end soon. Wars do not go as planned from the beginning. strategies change, however, the goal should remain the same. There were several reasons stated for removing the regime there. Sadly, I see one focused on most of time.

I shoulder responsibility in my support and in my convictions, by knowing what it is we face, and the consequences thereof, when we finish, or if we decide to quit. By knowing these consequences, as one supports war efforts, and one who does not, that responsibility should be taken at hand by the support they show. I may be wrong in discernment, but it is implied that you do not support war efforts. It was the reasoning behind the assertion.

[Trajan]

The American wrote:


In 1980's, when Saddam forced genocide on his own people, and did in fact have WMD capabilities, why did he use it?


Because he was also fighting an 8 year war with Iran that we were determined he would not lose.

[Richard Owl Mirror]

The American wrote: Richard Owl Mirror wrote: Chingu wrote: The UN weapons inspectors in Iraq said that they had found no WMD - that is true. But that is only part of what they said. Hans Blix also said that they had still not been allowed access to sites unfettered and without warning, that Iraq had failed to present anything substantuially new in their documentation and therefor were not in compliance with the UN resolutions demands. Their job, over 13 years, had been being thwarted by Saddam. This should be clear and inarguable to all. The fact that some people still think that there was any credible evidence that Saddam had destroyed his WMD and related programs is simply not true. The entire worlds intelligence communities and leaders were convinced that Saddam not only had WMD but would likely use them in a military confrontation. Thiswas one of teh reasons used by Hosni Mubarak for not wanting to get involved in a military confrontation with Egyptian troops in Iraq.

Quote: The entire worlds intelligence communities and leaders were convinced that Saddam not only had WMD but would likely use them in a military confrontation.
In 1991, Saddam did in fact have a WMD capability yet, did not use it.
Why after 10 years of inspections and the destruction of the vast majority (if not all)
of his WMD capabilities would they think any differently ?

In 1980's, when Saddam forced genocide on his own people, and did in fact have WMD capabilities, why did he use it?

Why after 10 years of shuffling inspectors in and out of the country like a deck of cards, were they not able to access whether he had capability or not? That discovery was not made until after Saddam was removed from power.

Quote: In 1980's, when Saddam forced genocide on his own people, and did in fact have WMD capabilities,
why did he use it?
Because he had the blessing and encouragemnet of the United States Government.
The United States Government issued him a blank check and provided him with military hardware, intelligence, satellite recon photo's in his war against Our mutual enemy, IRAN.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" seems to be the compelling theme of the American Government.
Which is precisely why a large portion of this planet is alligned against the USA today.

[The American]

Richard Owl Mirror wrote: The American wrote: Richard Owl Mirror wrote: Chingu wrote: The UN weapons inspectors in Iraq said that they had found no WMD - that is true. But that is only part of what they said. Hans Blix also said that they had still not been allowed access to sites unfettered and without warning, that Iraq had failed to present anything substantuially new in their documentation and therefor were not in compliance with the UN resolutions demands. Their job, over 13 years, had been being thwarted by Saddam. This should be clear and inarguable to all. The fact that some people still think that there was any credible evidence that Saddam had destroyed his WMD and related programs is simply not true. The entire worlds intelligence communities and leaders were convinced that Saddam not only had WMD but would likely use them in a military confrontation. Thiswas one of teh reasons used by Hosni Mubarak for not wanting to get involved in a military confrontation with Egyptian troops in Iraq.

Quote: The entire worlds intelligence communities and leaders were convinced that Saddam not only had WMD but would likely use them in a military confrontation.
In 1991, Saddam did in fact have a WMD capability yet, did not use it.
Why after 10 years of inspections and the destruction of the vast majority (if not all)
of his WMD capabilities would they think any differently ?

In 1980's, when Saddam forced genocide on his own people, and did in fact have WMD capabilities, why did he use it?

Why after 10 years of shuffling inspectors in and out of the country like a deck of cards, were they not able to access whether he had capability or not? That discovery was not made until after Saddam was removed from power.

Quote: In 1980's, when Saddam forced genocide on his own people, and did in fact have WMD capabilities,
why did he use it?
Because he had the blessing and encouragemnet of the United States Government.
The United States Government issued him a blank check and provided him with military hardware, intelligence, satellite recon photo's in his war against Our mutual enemy, IRAN.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" seems to be the compelling theme of the American Government.
Which is precisely why a large portion of this planet is alligned against the USA today.

8 year war with Iran?

:lol:

I said, on his own people. Maybe you misread. However, if you two didn't, should this administration use the same policy on its opposition in the U.S.?

The question was sarcasm at its worst, as the final question. The question of Saddam not using WMD was answered with why he gassed his own people? Wouldn't these questions be answered more appropriately by Saddam himself? It was his decision.

[Gdawg007]

Chingu wrote: Gdawg007 wrote: Chingu wrote: Gdawg007 wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: beachbum bob wrote: Kilo Tango wrote: The simple truth - shared by what it is an overwhelming majority of military leaders (even those that opposed Rumsfeld) - is that quitting the war now and not achieving victory through a stable Iraq will be disastrous. The future of the ME and much of the world's security is at stake. If we don't succeed in stabilizing Iraq we will be continually paying the price for the foreseeable future. Pulling out of Iraq now will simply cement our engagement in what will become a greater regional and potentially global conflict.

funny how we heard the same propaganda when we left Vietnam.......last time i looked...SE asia is pretty peaceful and prosperous and it wasn't because of US presence... Are you willing to take that gamble? The world doesn't run on rice so SE asia had far less - if any - global impact of the rest of the world. That was purely an ideological fight.

The stakes in the ME are far greater.

There's no oil in SE Asia...? Quite the contrary. If you think that at the time there was less at stake, then I suggest you go back and look at the similar arguments those who supported the war in Vietnam made.

I actually agree with you here. The big difference in future threat between Vietnam loss and this fight is that regading containment we also had another weapon which was detante and or MAD which was fairly helpful. that doesn't apply in this fight we face now. So, that really does make this one a bit more important to win in the short and long term.

Yes, but your assuming that the fighting is Al Qaeda interests versus US intersts. In reality, most of the fighting in Iraq is about control of the country between Sunni's and Shi'ites, and there are many factions that have ntohing to do with Al Qaeda. In fact, al Qaeda holds very little power in the largely Shi'ite dominated Iraq.

Al Qeada holds enough power to terrorize people, murder people and blow stuff and people up. They apparently have allied with both Shiite and Sunni criminal elements in Iraq and or they've managed to bamoozle them into believing they are something other than Al Qeada. And, while Al Qeada is not a huge force, they are certainly there and operational even though they have communicated between IRaq and the leadership that they are loosing badly in IRaq and require more fighters.

First of all, I don't think the terrorists equate loosing with loss of their fighters. LEt's not forget that this group supports and advocates suicide attacks. That alone says that they are confident in being able to get more recruits who are dedicated, to say the least, to their cause. So a call for more fighters doesn't mean we are defeating Al Qaeda. It may mean we are killing them, but killing them doesn't necessarily equal defeating them. Those are two different things.

That said, how much power and influence does al Qaeda need to carry out the few operations it actually carries out? Al Qaeda isn't a very active organization compared to others. It inspires more attacks than it has ever directly carried out. I doubt their role in Iraq is any different. They gather logistical and moral support for those they are allied with, but they aren't running this war nor are they the major combatants fighting US forces at this point.

Quote: So, there is certainly and has been a presence of Al Qeada in IRaq and they have been and continue to be operational. There is a certain amount of alignment for a united purpose between some Sunni and some Shiite factions / militias against US and Iraqi security forces.

If there were a stable gov't supported by the people in place, al Qaeda would find itself on a rail out the door. Just like under Saddam, there is no room in Iraqi politics for Al Qaeda. That would require the gov't of Iraq to share power, and clearly, no one in the Iraqi gov't wants that right now. They would rather fight each other for all the power than conceed some of it for the sake of peace.

Quote: But, the larger point is that without the US presence, Al Qeada would not hesitate to try and establish its foothold in IRaq and prevent stability. And, we wouldn't be there to fend that off. And then, Iraq furtrher devolves into Al Qeadastan - and all bets are off. Then, it would take another actual WAR to go get them out again. More epople would die.

Perhaps, but I would have to argue that if the militias can manage to keep the fighting going as they are with a US force on the ground, how will Al Qaeda have more success at creating a gov't even as relatively stable (I use the term relatively for a reason) as the Taliban were? I think the reality is these militias are growing in strength to the point that al Qaeda can't control them anymore than we can, and that alone would keep al Qaeda from establishing control over the country.

Quote: I keep hearing naive folks saying things can't get any worse. Let me suggest that - oh, yes they can. They can get a lot worse.

I hear equally naive folks saying that only the bad news is being reported, but I fail to see how the term "bad news" accurately applies to hundreds of people dying a day. I agree, things could be worse, but things could be a hell of a lot better too. That said, I have to wonder why i hear so much about al Qaeda from the war supporters and less about the infighting that is the primary cause of all this death and destruction.

[Gdawg007]

Chingu wrote: The idea that there is any alrge seperation in ideology or purpose between any of the fations we are fighting in Iraq is misguided. While there are certainly Sunni killing Shiite and visa versa, there are elements of both that are also allied for the united front to wage the violent Jihad alongside Al Qeada.

And, I think it is a misnomer now to use the term Al Qeada because it tends to direct people into thinking that only Al Qeada certified terrorists are responsible foor the violent Jihad. The reality is that there are fighters from all over teh region coming into Iraq to join the same fight as perscribed by Al Qeada, and the elements within IRaq that were criminal and resistant to peace and stability and democracy, ally with the Al Qeada / Jihadist types before they will ally with the new government.

And, some of this violence we are haering about is actually sort of like vigilante killings. Some of these attacks are carried out by militias which are not aligned against the enw government but are atually going out and taking care of business that they don't see anyone else taking care of due to specific rules of engagment that they know they don't have to live by.

Most of the violence is militia on militia. It's either fighting over power, or revenge killings. The jihadists are a minority at the moment, especially when it comes to the death count. True, it's likely many of these fighters are being recruited, but they aren't killing strictly in the name of al Qaeda's jihad, they are helping to fight a civil war.

[U seless N ations]

Gdawg007 wrote: Chingu wrote: The idea that there is any alrge seperation in ideology or purpose between any of the fations we are fighting in Iraq is misguided. While there are certainly Sunni killing Shiite and visa versa, there are elements of both that are also allied for the united front to wage the violent Jihad alongside Al Qeada.

And, I think it is a misnomer now to use the term Al Qeada because it tends to direct people into thinking that only Al Qeada certified terrorists are responsible foor the violent Jihad. The reality is that there are fighters from all over teh region coming into Iraq to join the same fight as perscribed by Al Qeada, and the elements within IRaq that were criminal and resistant to peace and stability and democracy, ally with the Al Qeada / Jihadist types before they will ally with the new government.

And, some of this violence we are haering about is actually sort of like vigilante killings. Some of these attacks are carried out by militias which are not aligned against the enw government but are atually going out and taking care of business that they don't see anyone else taking care of due to specific rules of engagment that they know they don't have to live by.

Most of the violence is militia on militia. It's either fighting over power, or revenge killings. The jihadists are a minority at the moment, especially when it comes to the death count. True, it's likely many of these fighters are being recruited, but they aren't killing strictly in the name of al Qaeda's jihad, they are helping to fight a civil war.

OK so lets pull out and let them kill each other and then come back I think we have waited long enough for these idiots to stop killing each other. they want revenge lets clear the streets and let them kill each other off fuc em I'm over it and I think everyone else is too. I support the troops but this is just rediculous at this point let the Iraqi's kill each other and then lets go back in and try to help set up a gov...

[Timmytour]

The American wrote: Richard Owl Mirror wrote: The American wrote: Richard Owl Mirror wrote: Chingu wrote: The UN weapons inspectors in Iraq said that they had found no WMD - that is true. But that is only part of what they said. Hans Blix also said that they had still not been allowed access to sites unfettered and without warning, that Iraq had failed to present anything substantuially new in their documentation and therefor were not in compliance with the UN resolutions demands. Their job, over 13 years, had been being thwarted by Saddam. This should be clear and inarguable to all. The fact that some people still think that there was any credible evidence that Saddam had destroyed his WMD and related programs is simply not true. The entire worlds intelligence communities and leaders were convinced that Saddam not only had WMD but would likely use them in a military confrontation. Thiswas one of teh reasons used by Hosni Mubarak for not wanting to get involved in a military confrontation with Egyptian troops in Iraq.

Quote: The entire worlds intelligence communities and leaders were convinced that Saddam not only had WMD but would likely use them in a military confrontation.
In 1991, Saddam did in fact have a WMD capability yet, did not use it.
Why after 10 years of inspections and the destruction of the vast majority (if not all)
of his WMD capabilities would they think any differently ?

In 1980's, when Saddam forced genocide on his own people, and did in fact have WMD capabilities, why did he use it?

Why after 10 years of shuffling inspectors in and out of the country like a deck of cards, were they not able to access whether he had capability or not? That discovery was not made until after Saddam was removed from power.

Quote: In 1980's, when Saddam forced genocide on his own people, and did in fact have WMD capabilities,
why did he use it?
Because he had the blessing and encouragemnet of the United States Government.
The United States Government issued him a blank check and provided him with military hardware, intelligence, satellite recon photo's in his war against Our mutual enemy, IRAN.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" seems to be the compelling theme of the American Government.
Which is precisely why a large portion of this planet is alligned against the USA today.

8 year war with Iran?

:lol:

I said, on his own people. Maybe you misread. However, if you two didn't, should this administration use the same policy on its opposition in the U.S.?

The question was sarcasm at its worst, as the final question. The question of Saddam not using WMD was answered with why he gassed his own people? Wouldn't these questions be answered more appropriately by Saddam himself? It was his decision.

Saddam´s "own people" were the Kurds who were siding with Iran. They were form a part of Iraq he didn´t really control as later witnessed by the fact that the Iraq National Congress held talks with others about overthrowing him in Northern Iraq in 1992. Amazingly it was an area of Iraq to which some people pointed out the existences of terrorist groups as evidence Saddam harboured them :roll:

That said Saddam should have been condemned outright for his use of chemical weapons by the UN. I dont understand why they didn´t do it. I understand there was one country that effectively vetoed the proposition.......´No wonder he felt emboldened :roll:

[The American]

Timmytour wrote: The American wrote: Richard Owl Mirror wrote: The American wrote: Richard Owl Mirror wrote: Chingu wrote: The UN weapons inspectors in Iraq said that they had found no WMD - that is true. But that is only part of what they said. Hans Blix also said that they had still not been allowed access to sites unfettered and without warning, that Iraq had failed to present anything substantuially new in their documentation and therefor were not in compliance with the UN resolutions demands. Their job, over 13 years, had been being thwarted by Saddam. This should be clear and inarguable to all. The fact that some people still think that there was any credible evidence that Saddam had destroyed his WMD and related programs is simply not true. The entire worlds intelligence communities and leaders were convinced that Saddam not only had WMD but would likely use them in a military confrontation. Thiswas one of teh reasons used by Hosni Mubarak for not wanting to get involved in a military confrontation with Egyptian troops in Iraq.

Quote: The entire worlds intelligence communities and leaders were convinced that Saddam not only had WMD but would likely use them in a military confrontation.
In 1991, Saddam did in fact have a WMD capability yet, did not use it.
Why after 10 years of inspections and the destruction of the vast majority (if not all)
of his WMD capabilities would they think any differently ?

In 1980's, when Saddam forced genocide on his own people, and did in fact have WMD capabilities, why did he use it?

Why after 10 years of shuffling inspectors in and out of the country like a deck of cards, were they not able to access whether he had capability or not? That discovery was not made until after Saddam was removed from power.

Quote: In 1980's, when Saddam forced genocide on his own people, and did in fact have WMD capabilities,
why did he use it?
Because he had the blessing and encouragemnet of the United States Government.
The United States Government issued him a blank check and provided him with military hardware, intelligence, satellite recon photo's in his war against Our mutual enemy, IRAN.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" seems to be the compelling theme of the American Government.
Which is precisely why a large portion of this planet is alligned against the USA today.

8 year war with Iran?

:lol:

I said, on his own people. Maybe you misread. However, if you two didn't, should this administration use the same policy on its opposition in the U.S.?

The question was sarcasm at its worst, as the final question. The question of Saddam not using WMD was answered with why he gassed his own people? Wouldn't these questions be answered more appropriately by Saddam himself? It was his decision.

Saddam´s "own people" were the Kurds who were siding with Iran. They were form a part of Iraq he didn´t really control as later witnessed by the fact that the Iraq National Congress held talks with others about overthrowing him in Northern Iraq in 1992. Amazingly it was an area of Iraq to which some people pointed out the existences of terrorist groups as evidence Saddam harboured them :roll:

That said Saddam should have been condemned outright for his use of chemical weapons by the UN. I dont understand why they didn´t do it. I understand there was one country that effectively vetoed the proposition.......´No wonder he felt emboldened :roll:

They may have been influenced by the Iranian government, however they were still Iraqis. If not so, you could not call it a civil war developing there today? Genocide pretty much brought them under control. Depicting Hussein's innocence of terrorist training camps, they were still operating at the time we moved in and accomplished our mission to remove him from power. Those camps were targeted.

In a nut shell, he didn't care about them, after all, he was an employer to terrorist activities.

Now, addressing the embolden theory, what else was in that proposition?

Trig.

[Chingu]

Gdawg007 wrote: Chingu wrote: The idea that there is any alrge seperation in ideology or purpose between any of the fations we are fighting in Iraq is misguided. While there are certainly Sunni killing Shiite and visa versa, there are elements of both that are also allied for the united front to wage the violent Jihad alongside Al Qeada.

And, I think it is a misnomer now to use the term Al Qeada because it tends to direct people into thinking that only Al Qeada certified terrorists are responsible foor the violent Jihad. The reality is that there are fighters from all over teh region coming into Iraq to join the same fight as perscribed by Al Qeada, and the elements within IRaq that were criminal and resistant to peace and stability and democracy, ally with the Al Qeada / Jihadist types before they will ally with the new government.

And, some of this violence we are haering about is actually sort of like vigilante killings. Some of these attacks are carried out by militias which are not aligned against the enw government but are atually going out and taking care of business that they don't see anyone else taking care of due to specific rules of engagment that they know they don't have to live by.

Most of the violence is militia on militia. It's either fighting over power, or revenge killings. The jihadists are a minority at the moment, especially when it comes to the death count. True, it's likely many of these fighters are being recruited, but they aren't killing strictly in the name of al Qaeda's jihad, they are helping to fight a civil war.

Here , we have room todebate honestly. you have your view. it is my view, however, that the majority of tehsectarian violence has been instigated by Al Qeada. they've done a knock up job of it as well by allying with Saddam loyalist thugs to accomplish a mutal goal. And, in doing so - they've managed to insight a once restrained Shiite majority to revenge.

That said, I do not believe we have come to the point of irrepairable damage. I don't think you ever really get to that point. But, one sure way to accelerate that would be to leave the very most evil folks currently fighting on Earth without much of a challenged.

[Gdawg007]

Chingu wrote: Gdawg007 wrote: Chingu wrote: The idea that there is any alrge seperation in ideology or purpose between any of the fations we are fighting in Iraq is misguided. While there are certainly Sunni killing Shiite and visa versa, there are elements of both that are also allied for the united front to wage the violent Jihad alongside Al Qeada.

And, I think it is a misnomer now to use the term Al Qeada because it tends to direct people into thinking that only Al Qeada certified terrorists are responsible foor the violent Jihad. The reality is that there are fighters from all over teh region coming into Iraq to join the same fight as perscribed by Al Qeada, and the elements within IRaq that were criminal and resistant to peace and stability and democracy, ally with the Al Qeada / Jihadist types before they will ally with the new government.

And, some of this violence we are haering about is actually sort of like vigilante killings. Some of these attacks are carried out by militias which are not aligned against the enw government but are atually going out and taking care of business that they don't see anyone else taking care of due to specific rules of engagment that they know they don't have to live by.

Most of the violence is militia on militia. It's either fighting over power, or revenge killings. The jihadists are a minority at the moment, especially when it comes to the death count. True, it's likely many of these fighters are being recruited, but they aren't killing strictly in the name of al Qaeda's jihad, they are helping to fight a civil war.

Here , we have room todebate honestly. you have your view. it is my view, however, that the majority of tehsectarian violence has been instigated by Al Qeada. they've done a knock up job of it as well by allying with Saddam loyalist thugs to accomplish a mutal goal. And, in doing so - they've managed to insight a once restrained Shiite majority to revenge.

How much instigating was really needed? The Shi'ites were brutally repressed by a Sunni dictator who let the Sunnis flourish as best they could in Iraq after the Gulf War. Sure Al Qaeda provided the spark, but even if they hadn't, it's unlikely there would've been no Sunni and Shi'ite infighting. Al Qaeda brought the ignition caps, but the explosive they set off was already incredibly unstable. Again, how much influence they needed to do this isn't a lot. The Shi'ites wanted revenge from day one, and all Al Qaeda has to do is pop up every now and then and keep the Sunni's in the fight. They keep the Shi'ites in the fight by having the Sunni's attack them. Restrained Shi'ite majority? I wouldn't say that. There are plenty of small villages where al Qaeda has little to no influence where Shi'ites have been exacting revenge of their own accord.

Quote: That said, I do not believe we have come to the point of irrepairable damage. I don't think you ever really get to that point. But, one sure way to accelerate that would be to leave the very most evil folks currently fighting on Earth without much of a challenged.

I agree, we could always fix the situation if we put enough resources into it. But that's the catch, resources. How much money, time, and blood are we willing to invest in Iraq? I don't think the American public will invest nearly as much as Bush wants them to. And he probably realizes that, but he can't admit it for politic's sake. With unlimited support, anything is possible.

Don't let arrogance get in the way of rational judgement, though. Making sure we "hurt" al Qaeda isn't going to stop them. They don't care if they get hurt, they have nothing to lose, and neither to their supporters. We have to look beyond punishing them for every step and start focusing on removing the source of their power, which is the silent support they enjoy from many Muslims across the globe. Fighting them in Iraq only strengthens that support because no matter what we do, we will always be seen as the western aggressor. Fighting them anywhere will not convince those who choose not to resist al Qaeda to start resisting.