Iraq

[ParanoiA]

To continue the Iraq debate without hijacking Pangloss's thread any further...

 

Ndi / Mokele -

 

You two seem to have interpreted my post as a pro-bush, pro-war opinion piece. I'm just sharing what I believe the plan is, what I believe the intent of the administration is, in this "war on terror". It's not my plan. I've already posted what my idea was and still is.

 

It's interesting how both of you are so adamant about condemning the US as a failure, even though not a single country has solved Islamic Terrorism to date. Nothing anyone has tried yet, has worked. So, we're all failures. No country yet has been able to stop Islamic terrorism and whether or not they fight them or obey their demands they still get attacked. At least fighting them, ruthlessly, kills some of them.

 

The point I keep bringing up, and will never forget, is that we've been attacked by Islamic terrorists for decades. We even helped them during the 80's to get rid of the soviet invaders. We were not warring with any of their nations. We've showered them with money for oil and have provided a secure flow of funds.

 

Yet, terrorists were created. Terrorists hated us. Terrorists have condemned the US for decades as the great Satan. It doesn't matter what we do. We can war with them or help them, or ignore them, or comply with their demands - all approaches render more terrorism. This argument that Iraq has just created more terrorists is irrelevant as there would have been more terrorists anyway. Warring with them at least limits that number via killing them - some of them anyway. I believe that is the administration's intent - to focus resources and drain them.

 

Is it working? Well if that's their intent, then of course it's working. There are attacks daily in Iraq. There are not attacks here in the states. So, it appears to be working. I don't think it will ultimately solve anything though. These people thrive on death and religion and they'll blow themselves up for centuries to show god how much they care.

 

You can take issue with this plan, but quit acting like I'm a proponent for it. I'm just sharing my take on it. I believe some of war mentality is justified, but I don't believe it is the correct response to this whole thing.

[ParanoiA]

That's precisely why tanks are last resort.

 

That's an out of context remark. Tanks are not good for policing - just killing people and breaking things. So, that's why our troops are dying - because we are policing face to face - not behind the steel and non-discriminatory barrel of a tank.

 

Yes, all war should be last resort. All war will yield the death of innocent little kids and women - as if men don't count. So when you go to war, you're saying "I believe the death of women and children is necessary to resolve this situation". I take that very seriously.

 

OMG. Please consider' date=' if they starved for years to make weapons to kill each other, how would they have ten times the recorded history of US?

 

Also, I know it's just your opinion, but shouldn't you worry when a single person deems "regions" as <whatever>? Shouldn't you worry that you make life and death assessments based on media reports and hearsay? Ever been there? Assume not. I'm not even saying it's not true. I'm saying you repeat someone else's opinions and assessments giving them momentum and validity by sheer size of followers. Remember, religion is nothing more than a huge ball of people who believe something with zero proof and hearsay. Billions make up such a ball. Agreeing with no checking does that. I'm not saying go check. I'm saying don't doom areas. Try to limit damage.[/quote']

 

I'm not sure what you're point is. The middle east hasn't always been in this state of insanity. I believe much of it comes from holding themselves back with their religion while the rest of the world - at least the ones they're abusing - have humiliated them with progress and advancement. They're trust fund states - they have enjoyed the endless money that gets pumped out of the ground for far too long. They don't have a lot of practice having to create things and market them to the world, like the rest of us. Far more experience obsessing over death and god and how they can kill for him.

 

Yeah and I agree on the religion bit. One of the most dangerous institutions of mankind in my opinion. The american taliban are boy scouts compared to the perverted Islamic religio-slavery embraced by that part of the world. And when I say that part of the world, I mean Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan - do I really have to name them? I think if folks can say "the west", and broaden the "damage", then we can say "the middle east". It's not condemning neighbors, it's keeping a discussion trimmed for length.

 

 

I know I'm rude and insensitive' date=' but two people meet on the battlefield. Both ready to die, bot armed with the best their country has to offer. One is a martyr patriot, the other is a maniacal suicidal scum. Which one?

 

All they have is handweapons and explosives. What would YOU use on a tank or large group of people? A Glock? Heck, if I die for my country I'm taking as many bastards with me as I can.

 

Now you see what you did by invading? Terrorist that need be shot are now soldiers defending children. Bad move. This is the price of taking it "to them".[/quote']

 

Again...why am I directed to this point? I'm not for any of this. And since when does feeble killing tools equal nobility and righteousness? It's not my fault they abuse every country around them and blame all of their problems on other governments. Every country on the globe has legitimate complaints about their treatment by other governments - some of them very life and death, way of life kinds of complaints - and they don't blow up innocent people, recruite more fanatics with lies and propaganda and develop multi-million dollar terror businesses in response to it. Why do we not expect the same from them?

 

We watched them move them but we can't find them? Odd. Do you think we watched them dismantle them too?

 

Yeah, I'm not aware of any 24 hour 7 day a week satellite coverage of anything on earth. Maybe there is, but I don't know about it.

 

But better yet, what is your point? We manufactured intelligence that we didn't even need? We had at least 9 excuses for invading Iraq. I think the WMD fear was overplayed to get the public into it, but I don't think it was manufactured. Do you really think the administration would manufacture intelligence just to get egg on their face when it doesn't come true? Better yet, why would they manufacture intelligence and NOT manufacture or plant the evidence after going in?

 

I would really like to hear that part of the conspiracy theory on that one...

 

That's my point. What if the administration decides my country also needs a spanking? There's bound to be SOMETHING unconstitutional in here. And if it isn't then we ARE the US and it matters not.

 

I hope not. So far we seem to be limiting our warring to thug gangs that run countries with religio-slavery and provide support for Islamoracist murder cowards.

 

Again, I'm not for the war in Iraq. I wouldn't have handled anything like it is being handled by the administration - nor how it's bound to be handled by democrats - nor how it sounds like you and Mokele might have handled it.

 

But then, I'm not religious and I have no desire to control people with god...

[Ndi]

You two seem to have interpreted my post as a pro-bush, pro-war opinion [...]

 

You brought up arguments that support certain decisions, or certain points of view, and since I disagree I bring my own points. It was never my point to disagree with YOU, it's just that since you see a point in someone's post you formulate it as a versus position. Perhaps my non-native English is having a role in this.

 

Both for you and whoever else is reading this post, please forgive my sometimes odd arguments, my native language favors "you" versus "one's". I get carried away.

 

It's interesting how both of you are so adamant about condemning the US as a failure, even though not a single country has solved Islamic Terrorism to date.

 

a) I'm not condemning US as a failure, I'm condemning this operation as failure.

 

b) I'm unsure as to what "solving" terrorism means. Not everything is solvable to begin with, for various reasons.

 

No country yet has been able to stop Islamic terrorism [...]

 

Let us consider a list of everything ... France has done to stop islamic terrorists. a). Drat. Mmkay, Germany? No ... . Ok, we'll take the other route, who HAS to do something about Islam terrorism. Threatened people. Suddenly there's a whole shorter list. Cut those who had reasons but not as many as to start a full war. We're not all failures.

 

Yet, terrorists were created. Terrorists hated us. Terrorists have condemned the US for decades as the great Satan. It doesn't matter what we do. We can war with them or help them, or ignore them, or comply with their demands - all approaches render more terrorism. This argument that Iraq has just created more terrorists is irrelevant as there would have been more terrorists anyway. Warring with them at least limits that number via killing them - some of them anyway. I believe that is the administration's intent - to focus resources and drain them.

 

Ok. Sorry to burst the bubble here, but that's just relayed propaganda. What the heck is the backing of all this? How come Sweden doesn't think Germany is Satan? How come Russia doesn't think Angola is Satan? Simple. People don't think other people are Satan just for the kick of it.

 

Someone screamed and nobody listened.

 

Stop selling arms to our enemies, because you force us to buy the same. This gives 10 times the killing, brings stalemates and brings poverty to our people. "bah, who cares about them? they are far away. Heck, how far is FAR EAST? aw. well, far enough". Who here can deny weapon sales?

 

Stop selling cowardly weapons that can be used for terrorism. Stop selling mines, stop selling grenades, go away. Really? Well, you can sell them mines, they can't attack US with mines. What are they going to do, lob them over the ocean?

 

Ok, maybe THIS is just their propaganda, I don't know, I wasn't there when weapon trades were made, so for the heck of it let's assume that neither is true. Nobody sold anything to anybody, nobody did anything to anyone. There is no such thing as weapon sales. Even though I clearly remember articles about mine cleanups in that "area".

 

Now. I don't know how you call these in English, but if you start with a hypotheses and follow logic and you find that you have an impossible result, then the hypotheses was wrong. We'll start with everyone is innocent and get that Islam hates US and nobody else. For me, that's enough to say that SOMETHING, somewhere, some time was unforgivable.

 

Don't presume that everyone tried to extinguish a section of a continent but failed or chickened out. Just for the kick of the example, my country never had any terrorist attacks from any Islam and we had *no* plans of following a vendetta.

 

The reason i push this so much is that this is a pivot in the "nobody else did it so we had to" justification. Nobody else did it because nobody actually had reason to wage war.

 

There are attacks daily in Iraq. There are not attacks here in the states.

 

Statistically speaking there was an attack every 10 years or so in the US so you can't say that until some 20-30 years.

 

These people thrive on death and religion and they'll blow themselves up for centuries to show god how much they care.

 

Sorry to be the one to say this, but

 

a) US soldiers go to battle praying to our god just as the Iraqi do that praying to theirs. Your belief in justice and God keeps you blowing yourselves up too. They could believe in an un-open-able jar of pickles. Where else would they turn for moral support if not God and freedom? Each fights for each one's freedom.

 

b) I also must point out that both religions are about as tolerant to violence and war. The Koran doesn't teach violence. If you don't feel like reading, there are at the very least Internet sites and documentaries about religion, ignorance is no excuse for accusations. Don't tune to CNN, try Discovery and listen to high priest or whatever they are called talk about the essence and message of Koran.

 

c) Entire regions don't thrive on death. Labeling and name calling doesn't make for a war excuse.

 

That's an out of context remark.[...]

 

I misunderstood your point.

 

All war will yield the death of innocent little kids and women - as if men don't count[...]

 

I distinctly remember buzz words like "surgical". I also remember someone suggesting that war on terror is not going to be an invasion war, more like a strike to fix things like oppressors and then things will "slide" in as people become drunk with freedom. People are not drunk with freedom. That is the point, in my opinion, where US could no longer pretend it's all good. It's where people started screaming Vietnam. It's where people started to suggest that maybe a base and surgical strikes were better. And it's where whoever makes these decisions decided to go ahead and kill people.

 

I'm not sure what you're point is. The middle east hasn't always been in this state of insanity. I believe much of it comes from holding themselves back with their religion while the rest of the world - at least the ones they're abusing - have humiliated them with progress and advancement.

 

I don't believe this to be true.

 

a) The idiot can't be humiliated by his/her stupidity - he does not understand what he/she's missing.

 

b) There are other poor countries that never attacked superpowers

 

No, it's just too simple. Too ... simple, sorry, it's just that this isn't third grade no more. People don't start holy wars because US has better healthcare.

 

Besides, it is my arguably documented opinion that Canada has better unemployment care, Germany has better cars and roads, Japan has better applied technology, Swiss makes for better watches, and so on and so forth. I have always considered US as a mildly balanced country, at the scorn of US citizens I've met. I never held a few opinions against a nation so I'm not saying you feel the same, but the point remains that given some study US is not exactly the spearhead of everything, I'll go as far as to say there are only a few thing you can find nowhere else at same or better, just as with any other country. Why US then? I don't blame US for C-Cola watering down my drink. Or McSomeone for insert-my-rant-here. All I'm saying is it's just not enough to war over.

 

Every country on the globe has legitimate complaints about their treatment by other governments - some of them very life and death, way of life kinds of complaints - and they don't blow up innocent people, recruite more fanatics with lies and propaganda and develop multi-million dollar terror businesses in response to it. Why do we not expect the same from them?

 

Same fact, different interpretations. They attacked. You say they did it because that are just that bad, they have horns and hoofs and blow fire. I say that there HAS to be more to it.

 

a) Genes are not that different

b) People do things for other things, but blowing one self up with ZERO hope of progress hints true hatred, not a favorite past time.

c) They do NOT have a complete history line of blowing up civilized, far away countries. Don't mistake neighbor skirmish for terrorist attack on the other side of the globe.

 

Yeah, I'm not aware of any 24 hour 7 day a week satellite coverage of anything on earth. Maybe there is, but I don't know about it.

 

I don't have a live feed myself but with all the satellites in orbit I think we can assume they cover the essentials. Nobody cares about Antarctica or the vast water expanses but US's WMDs? I'm pretty sure that's quite high on the list.

 

Also, just because we get scans from civilian satellites doesn't mean the military don't get live feeds of focused areas. I'd go so far as to say that a low quality localized live feed is ten times more useful than a high-resolution shot from last night. Given the budget I'd be surprised if they didn't have it.

 

a) But better yet, what is your point? We manufactured intelligence that we didn't even need? b) We had at least 9 excuses for invading Iraq. c) I think the WMD fear was overplayed to get the public into it, but I don't think it was manufactured. d) Do you really think the administration would manufacture intelligence just to get egg on their face when it doesn't come true? e) Better yet, why would they manufacture intelligence and NOT manufacture or plant the evidence after going in?

 

I would really like to hear that part of the conspiracy theory on that one...

 

Wish granted. Let me alphabetize that section. (letters added by me)

 

a) I'm not saying "you" did (see? you ask a question with "we" than ask why you get directed responses j/k ) because I have no proof, I'm saying you needed it.

 

b) Excuses, yes. Reasons, no. You stepped on my toe, now I have an excuse to punch you. Great, except that when we're downtown to the station I'm getting my behind wooped because the officer will say "That's no reson to punch him. You wanted to and used the toe as an excuse, right?". I hope you see my point. You don't get self defense and just holy wars on excuses. You don't get millions to vote "yes" on a paper that says "we want Saddam off, the oil and a few other things. We have no reason to do it, but we have some excuses. That OK with you? Please give up your privacy and live in relative poverty for this. Thank you".

 

c) Keyword being "think". I also think they were. And there's more of us. Not that it matters. It's obvious it was overplayed, I agree. I have no doubts the weapons were sold and stored. I have true doubts that were not destroyed. If they are there, why aren't they launched on the US bases? Or US. You caught them. Do you think they lose children to prove you wrong?

 

d) Yes. If you were to choose between a lie that makes US shine like gold and one slight, forgivable, slip, what would you chose as a lie? The eye poker? Look at the line of events. Read the previous slips/cover-ups/whatever.

 

"Our vigilant and never-sleeping secret service/whatever/generic good guys SAW this happen, but bureaucracy/single idiot/generic bad guys ignored it". 9/11 was on the desk of <x> but nothing was done. Afghanistan was predicted but. Iraq was predicted but. There was a file on Bin Laden and the imminent attack but. Heck friggin' Perl Harbor was the same. Maybe that was the template. Pick any booboo from the US.

 

I'll stop before I let myself loose on conspiracy and terminate my keyboard entirely.

 

e) Because the war was on media. Look at all the theories and all the poking and the measuring and the international experts looking at each atom on 9/11. And holes smaller than the bullets. They've learned their lesson, now that everthing they say is triplechecked. Besides, what better way to blow all this over when it's done with no hangings? Awwww, we're sorry, we could have SWORN WMDs were there. Damn. But you must admit, it it WERE true, it would have been a heck of a reason. You can understand and forget if I was scared.

 

Please note the above replies were on "I'd like to see your take on this". This does not necessarily mean I support the fact that they lied. I'm just saying there isn't enough evidence to the contrary; this in itself means I can't say it was nor can I say it wasn't a cover-up. I do lean towards clinging to a thread so thin it's invisible enough that it might as well not be there.

 

I wouldn't have handled anything like it is being handled by the administration - nor how it's bound to be handled by democrats - nor how it sounds like you and Mokele might have handled it.

 

Thank goodness

 

As for me I have no idea EXACTLY how I would have handled it because I don't know exactly what were the true reasons and situations. Assuming everything is as in the media, I would have gathered search parties from all countries and gotten an endorsement from the UN or each country in itself that they will participate in the search and that they would endorse force if Iraq denied access to *any* areas. Also I would have made a contract with Iraq that NOTHING except WMDs and threats to world's peace would be made public. I bet that would have more or less forced Iraq into an escape-less situation where they would either allow the search and destroy of weapons or directly admit possession and declare war on the planet. I trust a) would be the true course of action.

 

Of course, this would assume I have nothing to hide and I am ready to prove it. Then call Saddam's cards.

[SkepticLance]

A bit of history.

Troubles with Middle Eastern Muslims began around the year 1096 when Pope Urban II began the first crusade. The crusades that followed were unmitigated aggression by Western powers against Muslim nations, that had given no cause for invasion.

 

Towards the end of WW II the United States and Britain set out to create a homeland for Jews. They did this by taking over the Muslim state of Palestine, and kicking out enormous numbers of the residents, without compensation, to make room for Jewish immigrants. This created a massive refugee crisis and unbelievable human misery. Millions of these refugees moved to neighbouring Muslim nations, creating a massive economic drain.

 

Anyone still unsure as to why the Muslim nations hate the West???

 

Since WWII, certain western nations, and especially the United States, have set out to increase their sphere of influence in the Middle East. This is primarily a response to the presence of oil. The fact of the all-pervading influence and presence of Americans (classified as the enemy, as in paragraphs 1 and 2 above) drove many Muslims into hating America even more. It was Americans in Saudi Arabia that was the reason Osama bin Laden set up Al Qaeda and started killing people.

 

None of this justifies terrorism, but perhaps permits us to understand the Muslim position a bit better.

[ParanoiA]

Anyone still unsure as to why the Muslim nations hate the West???

 

Well, America yeah. America was formed by people who ran away from that mentality about religion. America wasn't around in 1096. Everyone west of their direction deserves to be abused for that?

 

I get your point, really I do. I know the middle east has legitimate security concerns, but if the middle east were a person it would be a child. I don't mean this as derogatory and political as it sounds. Think about it. They basically kick and scream, break things and bite people till they get their way.

 

I would rather see us approach this from a parental angle, rather than from a stubborn sibling perspective. War isn't going to fix this. Someone in this forum said that you can't defeat an idea. I would change that to - you can only defeat an idea with an idea. We need to convince their hearts and minds. Understanding their perspective is useful for that purpose - you certainly have that right in my mind.

[SkepticLance]

ParanoiA

What you say about hearts and minds, and the need for an idea to counter another idea, is absolutely true.

 

However, it is an uphill battle. We are countering 900 years of hostility, brought on by the activities of ourselves in the West. We are in the position of a bully who has been persecuting a smaller child for years, who now realises the error of his ways and want to make up. How many years will the victim need to come to trust the ex bully?

 

Certainly, the actions of Bush junior are utterly harmful. To invade a Muslim nation is to exacerbate the hostility, hatred and distrust.

 

Only an enlightened approach, with genuine efforts at real assistance will begin to change the terrible reality of 900 years of hatred. And that will take decades to even begin to make progress.

[ParanoiA]

Well, keep in mind, I don't believe we are in the position where we should have to live down anything that happened 900 years ago. I'm just saying it's our best bet to solve the problem. The middle east is just using their victim status to their gain. I don't agree with it, and I don't believe anyone on this earth is guilty for anything that happened before their lifetimes. It's childish and flat out wrong to carry the attitude that we deserve any of these terror attacks.

 

However, it is an uphill battle. We are countering 900 years of hostility, brought on by the activities of ourselves in the West. We are in the position of a bully who has been persecuting a smaller child for years, who now realises the error of his ways and want to make up. How many years will the victim need to come to trust the ex bully?

 

I don't agree that we are a bully. I agree they perceive us as a bully, and perception is reality as far as they are concerned. What I see is a country, America, who has never really dealt with terrorism, trying to deal with other countries who have dealt with terrorism to the point they have grown tolerant - they have adapted to this as part of their way of life. So, the Americans come into this going all out, intense and determined only to be shocked by the surrounding countries' foot dragging and tolerant approach to all of this.

 

America is not accepting that approach - right or wrong. They are not going to allow the opinions of the "terror tolerant" world dictate how they fight it. They are collectively disgusted and dismayed at how the rest of world accepts terrorism, or at least how they appear not to want to fight it with the same intensity and resolve.

 

But, like I said, it doesn't matter that I believe we are right to destroy their country or defeat them militarily. It doesn't matter because it won't work. We need to be pragmatic and do what will work - I believe changing their hearts and minds is the way to make it work. Not because I believe we are obligated to atone for anything.

 

Just wanted to make that clear...

[CPL.Luke]

NDi your history seems to be a bit off in places.

 

Unless the US hass started to produce migs, AK's, and TI tanks, the US hasn't sold the middle east very many weapons at all.

 

also you mention that your country has never been attacked by terrrorists, what country do you live in?

[SkepticLance]

ParanoiA said :

 

I don't believe we are in the position where we should have to live down anything that happened 900 years ago

 

Morally, you are correct. However, in the real world of practical politics, your statement is definitely unhelpful. People (not just Muslims) have very long memories, and historical wrongs tend to linger long past what should be their 'use by' date. This fact must be taken into account when planning future action. Piling more real aggression on top of perceived aggression just makes things worse.

 

We need to be pragmatic and do what will work - I believe changing their hearts and minds is the way to make it work.

 

This I agree with. Softly, softly is the approach. Aid with such things as health and education to raise their standard of living, and the avoidance of anything that can be perceived as aggression.

[Ndi]

Sorry about the long posts followed by long pauses, I'm genuinely busy.

 

Well, America yeah. America was formed by people who ran away from that mentality about religion. America wasn't around in 1096. Everyone west of their direction deserves to be abused for that?

 

a) America was founded by people running for opportunity and many other reasons, mentality about religions is far from primary.

 

b) The post you are referring to was a general timeline, not an explanation, more of a mise-en-scene (I hope the expression is not too localized).

 

if the middle east were a person it would be a child. I don't mean this as derogatory and political as it sounds. Think about it. They basically kick and scream, break things and bite people till they get their way.

 

While I understand what you mean, I disagree. How do you tell apart someone kicking and screaming for your life from kicking and screaming as a fit? Not that a parental approach is bad, I just disagree with the reasoning.

 

How many years will the victim need to come to trust the ex bully?

 

Loads, and don't start counting because it's still going backwards.

 

And, thanks for the timeline.

 

Ndi your history seems to be a bit [...]Unless the US hass started to produce migs, AK's, and TI tanks, the US hasn't sold the middle east very many weapons at all.

 

I admit my history is lacking, I only have general points. But at this particular topic, I must disagree, since:

 

a) Selling weapons and not marking them as Made in USA is not a shock

 

b) AKs are produced all over the world. You can still buy an AK from an US citizen, that does not mean it's made in USA.

 

c) I wasn't referring to the army stocks, I was referring to local group supporting in the area.

 

d) The Automat Kalashnikov is being produced in virtually every country, with Albania, Bulgaria, Germany, Egypt, Hungary, Iraq, North Korea, China, Poland, Romania and Yugoslavia being recognized as major manufacturers. You don't have to sell them an M4A1, nor is it recommended you do. Since the AK is the emblem of all terrorists, freedom fighters, cells, etc as being a cheap, reliable, powerful and uniform weapon, you sell them AKs regardless. You can have a Hungarian AK, run out of ammo, pick up a leftover magazine from a -say- Romanian AK and fire away. Same with any other "modified" AK. Besides, a prerequisite of selling both sides weapons is that you don't tag them as being yours.

 

e) I remember some missing WMDs?

 

also you mention that your country has never been attacked by terrrorists, what country do you live in?

 

I'm trying my best to make this discussion as non-local as possible, since I'm really, really, trying to avoid the "yes but your country had an attack in 1865!" and "yes but you were geographically ...". Keeping it general is the only way to make this a discussion of principle as opposed to specification. Because once specified generic arguments tend to fail.

 

My not-so-exhaustive search on Islam - Iraq - Afghanistan - etc and similar sourced attacks on Europe yielded next to nothing. Germany has virtually no such attacks, Hungary was spared, etc. Really, considering EU alone has 25 countries, with Bulgaria and Romania negotiating and others on the way, a -say- Spain is not rule. By comparison, it's smooth sailing out here (in this matter).

 

Note this is a Middle East related thread rather than terrorism. Acts of sabotage during civil war in other European countries don't count as terrorist threats.

 

Which is quite an eye opener considering we were the crusaders.

 

If you really want to know, I'm sure a search will be relevant. Or I can message you. Please understand I'm trying to keep it out of this thread. Which reminds me, I never filled out my location

 

Morally, you are correct. However, in the real world of practical politics, your statement is definitely unhelpful.

 

As proof of that, ParanoiA considered them threatening based on their history, yet considers them doing the same unfair. Why would living terrorists such as bin Laden be held accountable for region trends?