Enrique 0 #1 September 27, 2006 The numbers don't lie. http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/03/death.toll/ News like that are hard to digest. A few questions come to mind: Is it really worth sacrificing so many US soldiers? Is it worth sacrificing so many coalition soldiers? As Speedracer said in a previous string, maybe if the US stops intruding in other Country's business, things will get better. (Bear in mind that the initial reaction after 9/11 was to go after Bin Laden... once that failed, a close-by target was chosen) Enrique Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #2 September 27, 2006 Quote As Speedracer said in a previous string, maybe if the US stops intruding in other Country's business, things will get better. No, it wouldn't. This is a culture clash. Never forget, they came to our door and killed civilians going to work.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #3 September 27, 2006 Yes, & the main motivation for that was Osama declaring war on us, after we went into Iraq in 1991. As Clay pointed out, he had volunteered his Mujahadeen to Saudi Arabia to go & fight against Saddam. The Saudis turned him down & went with the US/UK etc. On top of that, we left over 100,000 troops stationed in Saudi Arabia (the holy land of Islam) from 1991 to 2003. THAT is why they declared war on us. The shit that's going on today is really an extention of the 1991 gulf War. If we had stayed out of Iraq in 1991, things might be different. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Enrique 0 #4 September 27, 2006 QuoteQuote As Speedracer said in a previous string, maybe if the US stops intruding in other Country's business, things will get better. No, it wouldn't. This is a culture clash. Never forget, they came to our door and killed civilians going to work. Cultures are bound to clash when you mix them, so, why mix them... Notwithstanding, culture clash or not, look at the numbers. It doesn't seem to me like a very good business decision. I would be truly surprised if all the 2,974+ families of killed soldiers would certify that the "war on terror" or the "fight against the axis of evil" has been efficient at all. At first, it was and "in & out" job. One week at the most! THAT would have been efficient. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #5 September 27, 2006 Quote The shit that's going on today is really an extention of the 1991 gulf War. If we had stayed out of Iraq in 1991, things might be different. How so? You make it sound like UBL is a rational person.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #6 September 27, 2006 Quote No, it wouldn't. This is a culture clash. Never forget, they came to our door and killed civilians going to work. The Iraqis? Come on, we know there was no signifcant role by them in New York. It's the ongoing occuption that is costing lives. Had we bailed after getting Hussein, the toll to us would have been substantially less, and perhaps to the Iraqis as well. Though the resulting leadership may not be any more democratic that SH was. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #7 September 27, 2006 Quote Cultures are bound to clash when you mix them, so, why mix them... They're the ones that want to make the whole world a caliphate.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #8 September 27, 2006 QuoteQuote The shit that's going on today is really an extention of the 1991 gulf War. If we had stayed out of Iraq in 1991, things might be different. How so? You make it sound like UBL is a rational person.UBL is a fucked-up megalomaniac. That doesn't change the fact that the violent jihadist movement in general is motivated by their (admittedly skewed)take on SPECIFIC actions that we have done in the Middle East. Such as having 100,000+ of our troops in their holy land. It is simplistic boy-scout rhetoric to simply say "Well, they just hate our freedom." and leave it at that. Sure, they don't like the way we run our culture, but that by itself is not enough to make young men sign up by the thousands to blow themselves up. These guys have specific issues of our foreign policiy in mind. I'm just saying, what would havve happened if we'd let them alone? We're leaving the Africans alone, and there are brutal dictators & wars going on down there. Why not leave the Middle East alone? We've tried intruding, & look what that's gotten us. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,080 #9 September 27, 2006 >Never forget, they came to our door and killed civilians going to work. Wrong war. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #10 September 27, 2006 It wasn't a case of bailing after getting rid of saddam's regime - more a case of the 'coalition' actually having some kind of plan or phase to initiate once actual war fighting had ceased. Instead of doing next to nothing as the looters destroyed what was left of the country, as they ripped out miles of wiring from power stations, emptied out old Iraqi army ammo. bunkers, and beat their donkeys within an inch of their lives as they dragged off lampposts. The scale of the looting would have to be seen to be believed. Ultimately the opportunity was there, to start extensivley rebuilding the countries infrastructure and to successfully gain the trust of the local populaces. (Hearts and minds? An opportunity lost - despite an opportunity literally fucking screaming to be won) Some argue the Iraqis only have themselves to blame, in regard to the efforts of the populace in looting virtually anything lootable. But this is not so. Their certainly partially responsible, but the coalition took on the responsibility by invading the country for...wow...for what? What were the reasons again? Duh!!!! 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #11 September 27, 2006 In the course of these debates here, I'm seeing a fine delineation between various Muslim groups. I'm not concerned about passive Muslims, other than their lack of effort to turn out the bad guys. It's the bad Mulsims that are coming at us, and they're not going to stop. Those are the ones that I personally have an issue with.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,080 #12 September 27, 2006 >It's the bad Mulsims that are coming at us, and they're not going to >stop. Those are the ones that I personally have an issue with. Then FIGHT THE RIGHT WAR. Iraq is not it; Iraq didn't attack the US. If you want to go after the people who attacked us, then go into Pakistan. That's where they are. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Enrique 0 #13 September 27, 2006 QuoteQuote Never forget, they came to our door and killed civilians going to work. Wrong guy / wrong timeline. Don't get UBL (Taliban who ordered the attack on the US) mixed up with SH (gruesome dictator and genocide). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites juanesky 0 #14 September 27, 2006 I thought that GWI was based on a coallition of troops, including 12 Arab league states. Wasn't it in the end UN mandated?"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Enrique 0 #15 September 27, 2006 QuoteIt wasn't a case of bailing after getting rid of saddam's regime You are right, it was a matter of bailing after getting rid of BIN LADEN, not HUSSEIN... he came into the picture later. QuoteUltimately the opportunity was there, to start extensivley rebuilding the countries infrastructure The Country would not have needed rebuilding if the coallition had not leveled it with bombs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,080 #16 September 27, 2006 >They're the ones that want to make the whole world a caliphate. And we want to make the whole world a democracy, whether they like it or not. I think both sides would be better served by leaving other people the fuck alone most of the time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites vortexring 0 #17 September 27, 2006 They hadn't 'levelled' it with bombs. Still, perhaps you operated around areas I've not and seen a bit more? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites vortexring 0 #18 September 27, 2006 As if that's ever going to happen 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #19 September 27, 2006 News:US troop presence keeps neighbors from invading Iraq Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said that the US military presence in Iraq keeps neighbors from invading his country... He also defended the US military presence in Iraq. "The immediate departure of coalition forces would only unleash the terrorists," Talabani said. "I cannot promise when or how the American presence will completely end in Iraq but I can promise that American soldiers do not fight in vain." Source: Breitbart.com Quotemaybe if the US stops intruding in other Country's business, things will get better You must have missed President Bush's speech yesterday, in which he pointed out some of the many attacks against the U.S. that happened long before we ever got involved in Iraq. Therefore, our presence in Iraq is not the reason that the Muslim terrorists hate us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SpeedRacer 1 #20 September 27, 2006 QuoteYou must have missed President Bush's speech yesterday, in which he pointed out some of the many attacks against the U.S. that happened long before we ever got involved in Iraq. . You mean, before 1991? Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,080 #21 September 27, 2006 >Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said that the US military presence >in Iraq keeps neighbors from invading his country . . . True; indeed, our military support of Saddam Hussein kept others from successfully winning border wars as well. However, at this point, having Iran lose thousands of troops with nothing to show for it seems like a better deal (to me) than having the US lose thousands of troops with nothing to show for it. Why not give Iran their Vietnam? We can keep Baghdad to prove we "won," and can provide military assistance to Kurdistan (a place that, more or less, has its act together.) >Therefore, our presence in Iraq is not the reason that the Muslim terrorists hate us. You must have missed the NIE summaries released recently. Our presence in Iraq is not the ONLY reason that radicals hate us, but it is certainly ONE reason they hate us. (In other words, there were indeed attacks against us before we invaded Iraq; those attacks are now more likely.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Enrique 0 #22 September 27, 2006 QuoteNews:US troop presence keeps neighbors from invading Iraq Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said that the US military presence in Iraq keeps neighbors from invading his country... He also defended the US military presence in Iraq. "The immediate departure of coalition forces would only unleash the terrorists," Talabani said. "I cannot promise when or how the American presence will completely end in Iraq but I can promise that American soldiers do not fight in vain." Source: Breitbart.com Quotemaybe if the US stops intruding in other Country's business, things will get better You must have missed President Bush's speech yesterday, in which he pointed out some of the many attacks against the U.S. that happened long before we ever got involved in Iraq. Therefore, our presence in Iraq is not the reason that the Muslim terrorists hate us. President Bush and his team have proven not to be a credible source of information. Their actions speak for them. In addition, that is not the point of the thread. The point is that more soldiers have died in Iraq than during the 9/11 attacks. The "solution" has proven worse than the original problem. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites juanesky 0 #23 September 27, 2006 And so are the Danish cartoons, the Pope's reference, the soccer trainer wearing shorts in Baghdad that got killed, the women with no hijab on the street. Yes, one by one we can see how many things we can increase their list...."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites vortexring 0 #24 September 27, 2006 Sure - your right - America in Iraq contributes towards zero muslim hatred of the West. "I think -- tide turning -- see, as I remember -- I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of -- it's easy to see a tide turn -- did I say those words?"- George W. Bush, asked if the tide was turning in Iraq, Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,080 #25 September 27, 2006 >And so are the Danish cartoons, the Pope's reference, the soccer > trainer wearing shorts in Baghdad that got killed, the women with no > hijab on the street. What would upset you more - a Al-Jazeera editorial about how you're evil, or seeing an occupier kill your wife and family? Which would make you want to sign up to take action against an occupier? Again, don't make the mistake of thinking that Iraqis are some other species of humanity. They're a lot like you and I. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 1 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
juanesky 0 #14 September 27, 2006 I thought that GWI was based on a coallition of troops, including 12 Arab league states. Wasn't it in the end UN mandated?"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Enrique 0 #15 September 27, 2006 QuoteIt wasn't a case of bailing after getting rid of saddam's regime You are right, it was a matter of bailing after getting rid of BIN LADEN, not HUSSEIN... he came into the picture later. QuoteUltimately the opportunity was there, to start extensivley rebuilding the countries infrastructure The Country would not have needed rebuilding if the coallition had not leveled it with bombs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,080 #16 September 27, 2006 >They're the ones that want to make the whole world a caliphate. And we want to make the whole world a democracy, whether they like it or not. I think both sides would be better served by leaving other people the fuck alone most of the time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #17 September 27, 2006 They hadn't 'levelled' it with bombs. Still, perhaps you operated around areas I've not and seen a bit more? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #18 September 27, 2006 As if that's ever going to happen 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #19 September 27, 2006 News:US troop presence keeps neighbors from invading Iraq Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said that the US military presence in Iraq keeps neighbors from invading his country... He also defended the US military presence in Iraq. "The immediate departure of coalition forces would only unleash the terrorists," Talabani said. "I cannot promise when or how the American presence will completely end in Iraq but I can promise that American soldiers do not fight in vain." Source: Breitbart.com Quotemaybe if the US stops intruding in other Country's business, things will get better You must have missed President Bush's speech yesterday, in which he pointed out some of the many attacks against the U.S. that happened long before we ever got involved in Iraq. Therefore, our presence in Iraq is not the reason that the Muslim terrorists hate us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #20 September 27, 2006 QuoteYou must have missed President Bush's speech yesterday, in which he pointed out some of the many attacks against the U.S. that happened long before we ever got involved in Iraq. . You mean, before 1991? Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,080 #21 September 27, 2006 >Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said that the US military presence >in Iraq keeps neighbors from invading his country . . . True; indeed, our military support of Saddam Hussein kept others from successfully winning border wars as well. However, at this point, having Iran lose thousands of troops with nothing to show for it seems like a better deal (to me) than having the US lose thousands of troops with nothing to show for it. Why not give Iran their Vietnam? We can keep Baghdad to prove we "won," and can provide military assistance to Kurdistan (a place that, more or less, has its act together.) >Therefore, our presence in Iraq is not the reason that the Muslim terrorists hate us. You must have missed the NIE summaries released recently. Our presence in Iraq is not the ONLY reason that radicals hate us, but it is certainly ONE reason they hate us. (In other words, there were indeed attacks against us before we invaded Iraq; those attacks are now more likely.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Enrique 0 #22 September 27, 2006 QuoteNews:US troop presence keeps neighbors from invading Iraq Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said that the US military presence in Iraq keeps neighbors from invading his country... He also defended the US military presence in Iraq. "The immediate departure of coalition forces would only unleash the terrorists," Talabani said. "I cannot promise when or how the American presence will completely end in Iraq but I can promise that American soldiers do not fight in vain." Source: Breitbart.com Quotemaybe if the US stops intruding in other Country's business, things will get better You must have missed President Bush's speech yesterday, in which he pointed out some of the many attacks against the U.S. that happened long before we ever got involved in Iraq. Therefore, our presence in Iraq is not the reason that the Muslim terrorists hate us. President Bush and his team have proven not to be a credible source of information. Their actions speak for them. In addition, that is not the point of the thread. The point is that more soldiers have died in Iraq than during the 9/11 attacks. The "solution" has proven worse than the original problem. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #23 September 27, 2006 And so are the Danish cartoons, the Pope's reference, the soccer trainer wearing shorts in Baghdad that got killed, the women with no hijab on the street. Yes, one by one we can see how many things we can increase their list...."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #24 September 27, 2006 Sure - your right - America in Iraq contributes towards zero muslim hatred of the West. "I think -- tide turning -- see, as I remember -- I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of -- it's easy to see a tide turn -- did I say those words?"- George W. Bush, asked if the tide was turning in Iraq, Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,080 #25 September 27, 2006 >And so are the Danish cartoons, the Pope's reference, the soccer > trainer wearing shorts in Baghdad that got killed, the women with no > hijab on the street. What would upset you more - a Al-Jazeera editorial about how you're evil, or seeing an occupier kill your wife and family? Which would make you want to sign up to take action against an occupier? Again, don't make the mistake of thinking that Iraqis are some other species of humanity. They're a lot like you and I. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
