Hitler never attacked us, he never said he wanted to take over the world -- he was, according to his ow worlds, only after what was, in his mind, traditionally germany. By your theories it was wrong to attack him.
this is what I wrote - which never said anything about hitler attackin US or theories that it was wrong to attack him
the only time we need to jump in is if the dictators were trying to conquer the whole world like hitler, which even they know they would seriously FAIL at that - its impossible to conquer the whole world judging from the size of the allies vs. them, but assuming they did start to expand the war to a few more countries, then and only then should we jump in and stop them
The point is, we shouldnt be fighting in Iraq war unless it escalates to a few more countries. If Iraqis want freedom they can always become Iraqi freedom fighters or find a way to leave.
By your theories we should fight in every war.
No, by my theories every life is precious, freedom is precious, and sometimes we need to fight for it. Rule of law is precious, and sometimes we need to fight for that. You don't know my theories at all.
How do you think we should handle someone violating the terms of surrender?
I am using the term Jihad as the shorthand for what they call "offensive Jihad" because no one would have any problem with anypne's personal struggle with faith. This "offensive Jihad" if you prefer is the belief that they have the right to take over the world and that God will provide this for them if they fight ruthlessly enough for it. This Jihad has at varying times and places, been either a minority view within Islam or the majority view. Right now, thankfully it is a minority view. You evidently have not read much of their literature. I have studied the faith itself for many years, I am a student of religion, and I find much in Islam that is great -- this is not about that at all. This is about the Jihad. I suggest you actually read THEIR writings to each other. In those they are NOT freedom fighters -- they are warriors for God bent on taking over the world. Every time we "pull out" as you suggest we do -- in Somalia, in Beirut, in Afghanistan -- they have considered it THEIR victory and used it as reason to ADVANCE. Please, I ask you, since you seem to be a reasonable person, read a few more books on this. I suggest "The Al Qaeda Reader, which is just a catalogue of the writings of one branch of the Jihad (remember I mean what they call "offensive jihad," not spiritual jihad). This is not a war against a religion, but a political ideology of conquest that uses religion as an excuse. read how they actually react to us "pulling out and leaving them alone" a bit more. I am most sympathetic to your position and I used to fel that way until I actually studied the Jihad's own writings. This doesn't really determine whether Iraq was a good idea or not within the "struggle" we are in with the Jihad, but it's all worth discussing.
I didn't directly claim them to me freedom fighters, I said that some terrorist groups could be viewed as freedom fighters and terrorists doesn't neccesarily have to be Al-Quaeda. No matter the motives, withdrawing and leaving them will hurt Al-Quaeda in their search for new members that isn't looking to do an offensive Jihad. Now, if "The Al Qaeda Reader" is fully correct or not, I cannot judge but I still don't believe the answer lies in direct attacks.
I am using the term Jihad as the shorthand for what they call "offensive Jihad" because no one would have any problem with anypne's personal struggle with faith. This "offensive Jihad" if you prefer is the belief that they have the right to take over the world and that God will provide this for them if they fight ruthlessly enough for it. This Jihad has at varying times and places, been either a minority view within Islam or the majority view. Right now, thankfully it is a minority view. You evidently have not read much of their literature. I have studied the faith itself for many years, I am a student of religion, and I find much in Islam that is great -- this is not about that at all. This is about the Jihad. I suggest you actually read THEIR writings to each other. In those they are NOT freedom fighters -- they are warriors for God bent on taking over the world. Every time we "pull out" as you suggest we do -- in Somalia, in Beirut, in Afghanistan -- they have considered it THEIR victory and used it as reason to ADVANCE. Please, I ask you, since you seem to be a reasonable person, read a few more books on this. I suggest "The Al Qaeda Reader, which is just a catalogue of the writings of one branch of the Jihad (remember I mean what they call "offensive jihad," not spiritual jihad). This is not a war against a religion, but a political ideology of conquest that uses religion as an excuse. read how they actually react to us "pulling out and leaving them alone" a bit more. I am most sympathetic to your position and I used to fel that way until I actually studied the Jihad's own writings. This doesn't really determine whether Iraq was a good idea or not within the "struggle" we are in with the Jihad, but it's all worth discussing.
I didn't directly claim them to me freedom fighters, I said that some terrorist groups could be viewed as freedom fighters and terrorists doesn't neccesarily have to be Al-Quaeda. No matter the motives, withdrawing and leaving them will hurt Al-Quaeda in their search for new members that isn't looking to do an offensive Jihad. Now, if "The Al Qaeda Reader" is fully correct or not, I cannot judge but I still don't believe the answer lies in direct attacks.
The whole terrorist vs. freedom fighter all rest on what side of the argument you are on. My family originated from Northern Ireland. My parents and all my siblings were born in Derry or Londonderry if you're a Loyalist. My family moved to the US because of an apartide-like government that kept the Catholic population from voting, owning property, getting a government job or even graduating beyond the 8th grade as in my parents’ case. During "The Troubles" of the 1970's, 80's and 90 the IRA was branded as terrorist by the British government. To the Catholic population of Northern Ireland, the IRA was protectors from the Loyalist para-militaries, the police (all of which were Protestant Loyalist) and eventually even the British Army that was sent there to "keep the peace". I am in no way painting the IRA as saints. They did some very awful things during those times as did all parties involves. But to the Catholics of Northern Ireland they did what they had to do to protect the Catholic people of the province. Now there is peace in the area and some of those who were branded as terrorist now have high level position in the government and work closely with many Loyalist members of the Northern Ireland government.
My point is that there are those who see these jihadists as freedom fighters fighting against government(s) that will do them some harm. I think that most of the people don't see them as nothing more than cold-blooded killers who want things to go back to the 10th century. I certainly do not agree with their ideals or tactics. But it should be stated that sectarian wars are much messier and complicated than a conventional war where the opposing sides are very well defined as are their objectives. There are no easy solutions. There is no "winning" the war; there is only an end to fighting. There are no defined borders or rules of engagement. The US has already notched down its expectations in Iraq from "spreading Democracy through out the Middle-east" to just having a stable situation in Baghdad and we should expect even more adjustments in the future. Much like the British troops who went to Northern Ireland in the 1970's to help keep the peace I am of the belief that our invading Iraq made an already bad and messy situation under Saddam Hussein and made it much, much worse. It took the British nearly 30 years of some very hard and costly lesson of sectarian warfare in Northern Ireland before that realized that it was the people of the region that needed to fix their problems, not an army and certainly not ours. Let's hope it doesn’t take three decades to learn these lessons too.
The whole terrorist vs freedom fighter all rest on what side of the argument you are on. My family originated from Northern Ireland. My parents and all my siblings were born in Derry or Londonderry if you're a Loyalist. My family moved to the US because of an apartide-like government that kept the Catholic population from voting, owning property, getting a government job or even graduating beyond the 8th grade as in my parents case. During "The Troubles" of the 1970's, 80's and 90 the IRA was branded as terroist by the British government. To the Catholoc population of Northern Ireland, the IRA was protectors from the Loyalist para-militaries, the police (all of which were Prodestent Loyalist) and eventually even the British Army that was sent there to "keep the peace". I am in no way painting the IRA as saints. They did some very awful things during those times as did all parties involves. But to the Catholics of Northern Ireland they did what they had to do to protect the Catholic people of the province. Now there is peace in the area and some of those who were branded as terrorist now have high level position in the government and work closely with many Loyalist members of the Northern Ireland government.
My point is that there are those who see these jihadist as freedom fighters figting against government(s) that will do them some harm. I think that most of the people don't see them as nothing more than cold-blooded killers who want things to go back to the 10th century. I certianly do not agree with their ideals or tactics. But it should be stated that sectarian wars are much more messy and complicated than a conventional war where the opposing sides are very well defined as are their objectives. There are no easy solutions. There is no "winning" the war, there is only an end to fighting. There are no defined borders or rules of engagement. The US has already notched down it's expections in Iraq from "speading Democracy through out the Middle-east" to just having a stable situation in Baghdad and we should expect even more adjustments in the future. Much like the British troops who went to Northern Ireland in the 1970's to help keep the peace I am of the belief that our invading Iraq made an already bad and messy situation under Saddam Hussain and made it much, much worse. It took the British nearly 30 years of some very hard and costly lesson of sectarian warfare in Northern Ireland before that realized that it was the people of the region that needed to fix their problems, not an army and certianly not ours. Let's hope it dosen't take three decades to learn these lesson too.
That was the first post I can rember of yours that wasent crap...Well done and welcome to the conversation
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude; greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. Samuel Adams
The whole terrorist vs freedom fighter all rest on what side of the argument you are on. My family originated from Northern Ireland. My parents and all my siblings were born in Derry or Londonderry if you're a Loyalist. My family moved to the US because of an apartide-like government that kept the Catholic population from voting, owning property, getting a government job or even graduating beyond the 8th grade as in my parents case. During "The Troubles" of the 1970's, 80's and 90 the IRA was branded as terroist by the British government. To the Catholoc population of Northern Ireland, the IRA was protectors from the Loyalist para-militaries, the police (all of which were Prodestent Loyalist) and eventually even the British Army that was sent there to "keep the peace". I am in no way painting the IRA as saints. They did some very awful things during those times as did all parties involves. But to the Catholics of Northern Ireland they did what they had to do to protect the Catholic people of the province. Now there is peace in the area and some of those who were branded as terrorist now have high level position in the government and work closely with many Loyalist members of the Northern Ireland government.
My point is that there are those who see these jihadist as freedom fighters figting against government(s) that will do them some harm. I think that most of the people don't see them as nothing more than cold-blooded killers who want things to go back to the 10th century. I certianly do not agree with their ideals or tactics. But it should be stated that sectarian wars are much more messy and complicated than a conventional war where the opposing sides are very well defined as are their objectives. There are no easy solutions. There is no "winning" the war, there is only an end to fighting. There are no defined borders or rules of engagement. The US has already notched down it's expections in Iraq from "speading Democracy through out the Middle-east" to just having a stable situation in Baghdad and we should expect even more adjustments in the future. Much like the British troops who went to Northern Ireland in the 1970's to help keep the peace I am of the belief that our invading Iraq made an already bad and messy situation under Saddam Hussain and made it much, much worse. It took the British nearly 30 years of some very hard and costly lesson of sectarian warfare in Northern Ireland before that realized that it was the people of the region that needed to fix their problems, not an army and certianly not ours. Let's hope it dosen't take three decades to learn these lesson too.
That was the first post I can rember of yours that wasent crap...Well done and welcome to the conversation
Hitler never attacked us, he never said he wanted to take over the world -- he was, according to his ow worlds, only after what was, in his mind, traditionally germany. By your theories it was wrong to attack him.
Obviously the Poles would choose to disagree that they were traditionally Germany.
I'm sure the Norwegians would not be far behind them in this view either.
The difference between our attack on Germany, and our attack on Iraq, is that Germany declared war on the United States. Saddam wasn't so fast to pull the trigger.
At no point in time did we initiate hostilies against Germany because Hitler was an evil dictator and we felt compelled to change the German government. You do realize that Hitler was ELECTED Chancellor of Germany by the German people, and for much of the period he was in power, to include that in which he declared war on the United States, he enjoyed the overwhelming support of the German people.
Originally posted by Fishermage Dictatorships are not legitimate countries. Any country or any individual for that that matter has every right to remove any dictator from power, morally speaking. All free countries should be spreading freedom throughout the world. Pity so many are also moral cowards. It wasn't just America that did this -- we only led this. Where is the "empire?" I see us pulling out, as promised.
Of course dictatorships are not legitimate countries, presidents and prime ministers are not legitimate countries either. They are people, governments. You argue apples and oranges.
A dictatorship is just as legitimate a government as a republic, democracy, theocracy, or oligarchy. Each of these forms of government holds power through the will of the people. No dictator controls his country single handed, he/she forms coalitions to enjoy the support of enough of the populace to retain power.
Governments are not controlled by one person. George W Bush does not control the United States and enjoy the support from 100% of the population. He holds his control based on the support of the Republican Party, a coalition of Republican voters, and a coalition of the Republican Congress.
Saddam enjoyed his position through the support of the Sunni Iraqis. Had it not been Saddam, it would have been another Sunni, possibly from the military. Primarily because a Kurd could not form a coalition to retain power in the country, and the Shiites were/are poorly positioned to govern.
To paraphrase Ghandi...."There go my people, I must hurry to get in front of them, for I am their leader".
Just remember as I have stated MANY times, I am much more in agreement with the idea that the Iraq war may not have been the wisest choice of action to fight the Jihad -- however, also remember that this thread was mostly about people claiming we were morally wrong for the war. Those are completely different issues. Now we are veering into an area where I am no longer in total disagreement with those who are against the war, and I certainly realize that it is a complicated issue and people can differ on it reasonably. Not so the moral argument.
The problem with the Iraq war is that Iraq/Saddam was not engaged in the Jihad. Iraq/Saddam did not attack the World Trade Center. Iraq/Saddam was not fundamentalist Islam.
As I seem to recall, the war with fundamentalist Islam was with the Sunnis in Afghanistan. Bin Laden was harbored by the Taliban. Somewhere along the line this objective was lost, and Saddam/Iraq became the war against terrorism, the war against WMDs, then the war to liberate Iraq.
Then the motive jumped to the "Axis of Evil" a nice spin that left the Shiite Iranians wondering what happened. You see, Iran was not radical fundamentalist Islam, they were a target of radical fundamentalist Islam. Just as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Pakistan, and the rest of the legitimate governments of the Muslim world are a target of fundamentalist Islam.
Before they come for you and yours, they want to unite them and theirs. We helped them in Iraq by toppling a government and creating a power vacuum.
The motives in Iraq were always fuzzy, as was the Wolkowicz/Rumsfeld post war plan.
I was just think that it was probably a good thing that this trip Iraq was Bush's last one. I just had a vision of every reporter having to leave his shoes outside of the press room before going in! <grin> On a serious note George should count his blessings that shoes were the only projectiles that whizzed past his head and not something more lethal.
I am using the term Jihad as the shorthand for what they call "offensive Jihad" because no one would have any problem with anypne's personal struggle with faith. This "offensive Jihad" if you prefer is the belief that they have the right to take over the world and that God will provide this for them if they fight ruthlessly enough for it. This Jihad has at varying times and places, been either a minority view within Islam or the majority view. Right now, thankfully it is a minority view. You evidently have not read much of their literature. I have studied the faith itself for many years, I am a student of religion, and I find much in Islam that is great -- this is not about that at all. This is about the Jihad. I suggest you actually read THEIR writings to each other. In those they are NOT freedom fighters -- they are warriors for God bent on taking over the world. Every time we "pull out" as you suggest we do -- in Somalia, in Beirut, in Afghanistan -- they have considered it THEIR victory and used it as reason to ADVANCE. Please, I ask you, since you seem to be a reasonable person, read a few more books on this. I suggest "The Al Qaeda Reader, which is just a catalogue of the writings of one branch of the Jihad (remember I mean what they call "offensive jihad," not spiritual jihad). This is not a war against a religion, but a political ideology of conquest that uses religion as an excuse. read how they actually react to us "pulling out and leaving them alone" a bit more. I am most sympathetic to your position and I used to fel that way until I actually studied the Jihad's own writings. This doesn't really determine whether Iraq was a good idea or not within the "struggle" we are in with the Jihad, but it's all worth discussing.
I didn't directly claim them to me freedom fighters, I said that some terrorist groups could be viewed as freedom fighters and terrorists doesn't neccesarily have to be Al-Quaeda. No matter the motives, withdrawing and leaving them will hurt Al-Quaeda in their search for new members that isn't looking to do an offensive Jihad. Now, if "The Al Qaeda Reader" is fully correct or not, I cannot judge but I still don't believe the answer lies in direct attacks.
Well, when the Soviets pulled out of afghanistan, that le to massive recruitment and emboldened them. When we pulled out of Somalia, that led them to believe they could defeat us, and led them to plan 9-11. Pulling out and leaving them alone is seen as defeat to them. This is what caused them to attack. That and their plans of global domination.
I am using the term Jihad as the shorthand for what they call "offensive Jihad" because no one would have any problem with anypne's personal struggle with faith. This "offensive Jihad" if you prefer is the belief that they have the right to take over the world and that God will provide this for them if they fight ruthlessly enough for it. This Jihad has at varying times and places, been either a minority view within Islam or the majority view. Right now, thankfully it is a minority view. You evidently have not read much of their literature. I have studied the faith itself for many years, I am a student of religion, and I find much in Islam that is great -- this is not about that at all. This is about the Jihad. I suggest you actually read THEIR writings to each other. In those they are NOT freedom fighters -- they are warriors for God bent on taking over the world. Every time we "pull out" as you suggest we do -- in Somalia, in Beirut, in Afghanistan -- they have considered it THEIR victory and used it as reason to ADVANCE. Please, I ask you, since you seem to be a reasonable person, read a few more books on this. I suggest "The Al Qaeda Reader, which is just a catalogue of the writings of one branch of the Jihad (remember I mean what they call "offensive jihad," not spiritual jihad). This is not a war against a religion, but a political ideology of conquest that uses religion as an excuse. read how they actually react to us "pulling out and leaving them alone" a bit more. I am most sympathetic to your position and I used to fel that way until I actually studied the Jihad's own writings. This doesn't really determine whether Iraq was a good idea or not within the "struggle" we are in with the Jihad, but it's all worth discussing.
I didn't directly claim them to me freedom fighters, I said that some terrorist groups could be viewed as freedom fighters and terrorists doesn't neccesarily have to be Al-Quaeda. No matter the motives, withdrawing and leaving them will hurt Al-Quaeda in their search for new members that isn't looking to do an offensive Jihad. Now, if "The Al Qaeda Reader" is fully correct or not, I cannot judge but I still don't believe the answer lies in direct attacks.
The whole terrorist vs. freedom fighter all rest on what side of the argument you are on. My family originated from Northern Ireland. My parents and all my siblings were born in Derry or Londonderry if you're a Loyalist. My family moved to the US because of an apartide-like government that kept the Catholic population from voting, owning property, getting a government job or even graduating beyond the 8th grade as in my parents’ case. During "The Troubles" of the 1970's, 80's and 90 the IRA was branded as terrorist by the British government. To the Catholic population of Northern Ireland, the IRA was protectors from the Loyalist para-militaries, the police (all of which were Protestant Loyalist) and eventually even the British Army that was sent there to "keep the peace". I am in no way painting the IRA as saints. They did some very awful things during those times as did all parties involves. But to the Catholics of Northern Ireland they did what they had to do to protect the Catholic people of the province. Now there is peace in the area and some of those who were branded as terrorist now have high level position in the government and work closely with many Loyalist members of the Northern Ireland government.
My point is that there are those who see these jihadists as freedom fighters fighting against government(s) that will do them some harm. I think that most of the people don't see them as nothing more than cold-blooded killers who want things to go back to the 10th century. I certainly do not agree with their ideals or tactics. But it should be stated that sectarian wars are much messier and complicated than a conventional war where the opposing sides are very well defined as are their objectives. There are no easy solutions. There is no "winning" the war; there is only an end to fighting. There are no defined borders or rules of engagement. The US has already notched down its expectations in Iraq from "spreading Democracy through out the Middle-east" to just having a stable situation in Baghdad and we should expect even more adjustments in the future. Much like the British troops who went to Northern Ireland in the 1970's to help keep the peace I am of the belief that our invading Iraq made an already bad and messy situation under Saddam Hussein and made it much, much worse. It took the British nearly 30 years of some very hard and costly lesson of sectarian warfare in Northern Ireland before that realized that it was the people of the region that needed to fix their problems, not an army and certainly not ours. Let's hope it doesn’t take three decades to learn these lessons too.
I completely understand what you are saying here; but I haven't used the word terrorist because i don't consider a tactic to be relevant. There are no Irish militants who believe it is their final destiny to rule all of the earth under an Irish King. It's not about terrorism or freedom. It's about Jihad.
Attacking Afghanistan and attacking Iraq is what made them realize maybe it isn't the best idea to attack America directly, and caused them to rethink their plans and focus on consolidating power on mostly Muslim lands. This is a long war and may last several generations. We will end up fighting this war throughout Asia and Africa. get use dto it. This is the rest of our lives.
The whole terrorist vs freedom fighter all rest on what side of the argument you are on. My family originated from Northern Ireland. My parents and all my siblings were born in Derry or Londonderry if you're a Loyalist. My family moved to the US because of an apartide-like government that kept the Catholic population from voting, owning property, getting a government job or even graduating beyond the 8th grade as in my parents case. During "The Troubles" of the 1970's, 80's and 90 the IRA was branded as terroist by the British government. To the Catholoc population of Northern Ireland, the IRA was protectors from the Loyalist para-militaries, the police (all of which were Prodestent Loyalist) and eventually even the British Army that was sent there to "keep the peace". I am in no way painting the IRA as saints. They did some very awful things during those times as did all parties involves. But to the Catholics of Northern Ireland they did what they had to do to protect the Catholic people of the province. Now there is peace in the area and some of those who were branded as terrorist now have high level position in the government and work closely with many Loyalist members of the Northern Ireland government.
My point is that there are those who see these jihadist as freedom fighters figting against government(s) that will do them some harm. I think that most of the people don't see them as nothing more than cold-blooded killers who want things to go back to the 10th century. I certianly do not agree with their ideals or tactics. But it should be stated that sectarian wars are much more messy and complicated than a conventional war where the opposing sides are very well defined as are their objectives. There are no easy solutions. There is no "winning" the war, there is only an end to fighting. There are no defined borders or rules of engagement. The US has already notched down it's expections in Iraq from "speading Democracy through out the Middle-east" to just having a stable situation in Baghdad and we should expect even more adjustments in the future. Much like the British troops who went to Northern Ireland in the 1970's to help keep the peace I am of the belief that our invading Iraq made an already bad and messy situation under Saddam Hussain and made it much, much worse. It took the British nearly 30 years of some very hard and costly lesson of sectarian warfare in Northern Ireland before that realized that it was the people of the region that needed to fix their problems, not an army and certianly not ours. Let's hope it dosen't take three decades to learn these lesson too.
That was the first post I can rember of yours that wasent crap...Well done and welcome to the conversation
Yes it really was a very good post. the kind of thing I want to see on these forums and what I hope will always happen.
Hitler never attacked us, he never said he wanted to take over the world -- he was, according to his ow worlds, only after what was, in his mind, traditionally germany. By your theories it was wrong to attack him.
Obviously the Poles would choose to disagree that they were traditionally Germany.
I'm sure the Norwegians would not be far behind them in this view either.
The difference between our attack on Germany, and our attack on Iraq, is that Germany declared war on the United States. Saddam wasn't so fast to pull the trigger.
At no point in time did we initiate hostilies against Germany because Hitler was an evil dictator and we felt compelled to change the German government. You do realize that Hitler was ELECTED Chancellor of Germany by the German people, and for much of the period he was in power, to include that in which he declared war on the United States, he enjoyed the overwhelming support of the German people.
Yours is a comparison of apples and oranges.
I know, there are no perfect comparisons in the history of war. You do make a fair point here. What I was saying was only in context.
We didn't initiate hostilties against saddam because he was an evil dictator, but that's a reasonable MORAL justification for it.
My point is neither ever attacked us; neither was a threat to us -- but BOTH were justified.
the fact is the invasion of Iraq was BOTH moral and justified. The MAIN justification of it was he was in clear, repeated violation of the terms of surrender.
Originally posted by Fishermage Dictatorships are not legitimate countries. Any country or any individual for that that matter has every right to remove any dictator from power, morally speaking. All free countries should be spreading freedom throughout the world. Pity so many are also moral cowards. It wasn't just America that did this -- we only led this. Where is the "empire?" I see us pulling out, as promised.
Of course dictatorships are not legitimate countries, presidents and prime ministers are not legitimate countries either. They are people, governments. You argue apples and oranges.
A dictatorship is just as legitimate a government as a republic, democracy, theocracy, or oligarchy. Each of these forms of government holds power through the will of the people. No dictator controls his country single handed, he/she forms coalitions to enjoy the support of enough of the populace to retain power.
Governments are not controlled by one person. George W Bush does not control the United States and enjoy the support from 100% of the population. He holds his control based on the support of the Republican Party, a coalition of Republican voters, and a coalition of the Republican Congress.
Saddam enjoyed his position through the support of the Sunni Iraqis. Had it not been Saddam, it would have been another Sunni, possibly from the military. Primarily because a Kurd could not form a coalition to retain power in the country, and the Shiites were/are poorly positioned to govern.
To paraphrase Ghandi...."There go my people, I must hurry to get in front of them, for I am their leader".
I other words you do not believe in our declaration of Independence. If the people are kept in check under a reign of terror, it is the will of the people that they have done so -- if exiles are begging to end the rape of their families -- F'em, they want it like that.
Just remember as I have stated MANY times, I am much more in agreement with the idea that the Iraq war may not have been the wisest choice of action to fight the Jihad -- however, also remember that this thread was mostly about people claiming we were morally wrong for the war. Those are completely different issues. Now we are veering into an area where I am no longer in total disagreement with those who are against the war, and I certainly realize that it is a complicated issue and people can differ on it reasonably. Not so the moral argument.
The problem with the Iraq war is that Iraq/Saddam was not engaged in the Jihad. Iraq/Saddam did not attack the World Trade Center. Iraq/Saddam was not fundamentalist Islam.
As I seem to recall, the war with fundamentalist Islam was with the Sunnis in Afghanistan. Bin Laden was harbored by the Taliban. Somewhere along the line this objective was lost, and Saddam/Iraq became the war against terrorism, the war against WMDs, then the war to liberate Iraq.
Then the motive jumped to the "Axis of Evil" a nice spin that left the Shiite Iranians wondering what happened. You see, Iran was not radical fundamentalist Islam, they were a target of radical fundamentalist Islam. Just as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Pakistan, and the rest of the legitimate governments of the Muslim world are a target of fundamentalist Islam.
Before they come for you and yours, they want to unite them and theirs. We helped them in Iraq by toppling a government and creating a power vacuum.
The motives in Iraq were always fuzzy, as was the Wolkowicz/Rumsfeld post war plan.
No wonder he threw shoes.
Saddam was in clear violation of the terms of his surrender, he has openly decalred allegiance with teh Jihad (event though THEY thought he was socialist, secular garbage), and he was a clear convenient, strategically placed target -- the reasons we invaded were strategic, not moral.
We also created a honey trap, and it has worked. they flooded into the country, and we humiliated them. Exactly what we needed to do.
We have also proved that we could do something the jihad can not do -- end a tyranny and create a better place for Muslims. The Jihad have NOT done that -- we have.
Ask the Kurds how they feel about us -- there's an untold story for ya.
In the long run it will prove to have been wise in many ways. Watch. See you in two decades when you see.
Just remember as I have stated MANY times, I am much more in agreement with the idea that the Iraq war may not have been the wisest choice of action to fight the Jihad -- however, also remember that this thread was mostly about people claiming we were morally wrong for the war. Those are completely different issues. Now we are veering into an area where I am no longer in total disagreement with those who are against the war, and I certainly realize that it is a complicated issue and people can differ on it reasonably. Not so the moral argument.
The problem with the Iraq war is that Iraq/Saddam was not engaged in the Jihad. Iraq/Saddam did not attack the World Trade Center. Iraq/Saddam was not fundamentalist Islam.
As I seem to recall, the war with fundamentalist Islam was with the Sunnis in Afghanistan. Bin Laden was harbored by the Taliban. Somewhere along the line this objective was lost, and Saddam/Iraq became the war against terrorism, the war against WMDs, then the war to liberate Iraq.
Then the motive jumped to the "Axis of Evil" a nice spin that left the Shiite Iranians wondering what happened. You see, Iran was not radical fundamentalist Islam, they were a target of radical fundamentalist Islam. Just as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Pakistan, and the rest of the legitimate governments of the Muslim world are a target of fundamentalist Islam.
Before they come for you and yours, they want to unite them and theirs. We helped them in Iraq by toppling a government and creating a power vacuum.
The motives in Iraq were always fuzzy, as was the Wolkowicz/Rumsfeld post war plan.
No wonder he threw shoes.
Saddam was in clear violation of the terms of his surrender, he has openly decalred allegiance with teh Jihad (event though THEY thought he was socialist, secular garbage), and he was a clear convenient, strategically placed target -- the reasons we invaded were strategic, not moral.
We also created a honey trap, and it has worked. they flooded into the country, and we humiliated them. Exactly what we needed to do.
We have also proved that we could do something the jihad can not do -- end a tyranny and create a better place for Muslims. The Jihad have NOT done that -- we have.
Ask the Kurds how they feel about us -- there's an untold story for ya.
In the long run it will prove to have been wise in many ways. Watch. See you in two decades when you see.
Honey trap LOL,Humiliated them,HAHA,so true its huge.
Sweden in deep problems they have alot more to worry about than "US" thats for-sure.Short video about the Sweden...the English starts about 1 minute into the video.
Iraq has 67 billion on had in cash,satellite on every roof,a theocracy on their border trying to destroy there nation,mainly because its threating their power base. The number of Democrcys is growing.We are under a UN mandate, this why the vote is needed to be able to stay with troops,the UN mandate ends next month.
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
Just remember as I have stated MANY times, I am much more in agreement with the idea that the Iraq war may not have been the wisest choice of action to fight the Jihad -- however, also remember that this thread was mostly about people claiming we were morally wrong for the war. Those are completely different issues. Now we are veering into an area where I am no longer in total disagreement with those who are against the war, and I certainly realize that it is a complicated issue and people can differ on it reasonably. Not so the moral argument.
The problem with the Iraq war is that Iraq/Saddam was not engaged in the Jihad. Iraq/Saddam did not attack the World Trade Center. Iraq/Saddam was not fundamentalist Islam.
As I seem to recall, the war with fundamentalist Islam was with the Sunnis in Afghanistan. Bin Laden was harbored by the Taliban. Somewhere along the line this objective was lost, and Saddam/Iraq became the war against terrorism, the war against WMDs, then the war to liberate Iraq.
Then the motive jumped to the "Axis of Evil" a nice spin that left the Shiite Iranians wondering what happened. You see, Iran was not radical fundamentalist Islam, they were a target of radical fundamentalist Islam. Just as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Pakistan, and the rest of the legitimate governments of the Muslim world are a target of fundamentalist Islam.
Before they come for you and yours, they want to unite them and theirs. We helped them in Iraq by toppling a government and creating a power vacuum.
The motives in Iraq were always fuzzy, as was the Wolkowicz/Rumsfeld post war plan.
No wonder he threw shoes.
Saddam was in clear violation of the terms of his surrender, he has openly decalred allegiance with teh Jihad (event though THEY thought he was socialist, secular garbage), and he was a clear convenient, strategically placed target -- the reasons we invaded were strategic, not moral.
We also created a honey trap, and it has worked. they flooded into the country, and we humiliated them. Exactly what we needed to do.
We have also proved that we could do something the jihad can not do -- end a tyranny and create a better place for Muslims. The Jihad have NOT done that -- we have.
Ask the Kurds how they feel about us -- there's an untold story for ya.
In the long run it will prove to have been wise in many ways. Watch. See you in two decades when you see.
Honey trap LOL,Humiliated them,HAHA,so true its huge.
Sweden in deep problems they have alot more to worry about than "US" thats for-sure.Short video about the Sweden...the English starts about 1 minute into the video.
Iraq has 67 billion on had in cash,satellite on every roof,a theocracy on their border trying to destroy there nation,mainly because its threating their power base. The number of Democrcys is growing.We are under a UN mandate, this why the vote is needed to be able to stay with troops,the UN mandate ends next month.
Hmmm from that Video, and taking our friend's advice, it is time for the Swedes to pull out of Sweden.
The most interesting thing about the shoe throwing incident to me was 1. Bush made a pretty good dodge of the first shoe 2. The guy was able to throw a second shoe w/out getting wrestled to the ground after the first shoe.
I can see Bush talking to the commander of his security contingent afterward: "Yeah, yeah, I know I only have a few days left in office, but you do realize you are supposed to protect me for the rest of my life. Or was that the point?"
Hitler never attacked us, he never said he wanted to take over the world -- he was, according to his ow worlds, only after what was, in his mind, traditionally germany. By your theories it was wrong to attack him.
Now history may not be my strong point, but if my memory serves me right the US joined the war after the japanese attacked pearl Harbor. If u are trying to argue schematics here then yes the japanese were not Hitler, they were his allies. And if u want to argue morality by bringing the second world war in your whole theory crumbles because before helping in Europe the Europeans asked several times for help, yet the so moral US ignored them. Only to join WWII when your own soil was threatened.
Now excuse me for thinking so, but if you didnt help Europe against the oppresion of dictatorship even after they asked for that help countless of times why did u move in to help Iraquis when they didnt even ask for it? Iraq never attacked your soil, why did u opt to liberate them. And finally why did so many innocents have to die when supposedly u were fighting for THEIR freedom?
Comments
this is what I wrote - which never said anything about hitler attackin US or theories that it was wrong to attack him
the only time we need to jump in is if the dictators were trying to conquer the whole world like hitler, which even they know they would seriously FAIL at that - its impossible to conquer the whole world judging from the size of the allies vs. them, but assuming they did start to expand the war to a few more countries, then and only then should we jump in and stop them
The point is, we shouldnt be fighting in Iraq war unless it escalates to a few more countries. If Iraqis want freedom they can always become Iraqi freedom fighters or find a way to leave.
By your theories we should fight in every war.
No, by my theories every life is precious, freedom is precious, and sometimes we need to fight for it. Rule of law is precious, and sometimes we need to fight for that. You don't know my theories at all.
How do you think we should handle someone violating the terms of surrender?
fishermage.blogspot.com
Woahh. Did you see Bush's dodge?
Sign him up for some pro dodgeball baby.
hehehe
He is very fit for his age.
fishermage.blogspot.com
hehehe
He is very fit for his age.
Yep bush pulled a matrix bullet time move on the dude tossing the shoes.
Last night when I saw this on the news at first I couldn't believe it.
I actually turned toward my brother and said "was that for real or did I just catch a MAD TV skit?"
I couldn't believe that dude got the second shoe off, figured security would have the dude flatlined in 2 seconds.
PLaying: EvE, Ryzom
Waiting For: Earthrise, Perpetuum
I didn't directly claim them to me freedom fighters, I said that some terrorist groups could be viewed as freedom fighters and terrorists doesn't neccesarily have to be Al-Quaeda. No matter the motives, withdrawing and leaving them will hurt Al-Quaeda in their search for new members that isn't looking to do an offensive Jihad. Now, if "The Al Qaeda Reader" is fully correct or not, I cannot judge but I still don't believe the answer lies in direct attacks.
hahaha I think bush should have caught the shoe and whipped it right back at the guy. That would have made my day in so many ways haha.
Haha do it again and we will use our weapons of mass destruction! that'll keep their shoes on their feet
and hey, atleast he didn't throw a ninja death star
I didn't directly claim them to me freedom fighters, I said that some terrorist groups could be viewed as freedom fighters and terrorists doesn't neccesarily have to be Al-Quaeda. No matter the motives, withdrawing and leaving them will hurt Al-Quaeda in their search for new members that isn't looking to do an offensive Jihad. Now, if "The Al Qaeda Reader" is fully correct or not, I cannot judge but I still don't believe the answer lies in direct attacks.
The whole terrorist vs. freedom fighter all rest on what side of the argument you are on. My family originated from Northern Ireland. My parents and all my siblings were born in Derry or Londonderry if you're a Loyalist. My family moved to the US because of an apartide-like government that kept the Catholic population from voting, owning property, getting a government job or even graduating beyond the 8th grade as in my parents’ case. During "The Troubles" of the 1970's, 80's and 90 the IRA was branded as terrorist by the British government. To the Catholic population of Northern Ireland, the IRA was protectors from the Loyalist para-militaries, the police (all of which were Protestant Loyalist) and eventually even the British Army that was sent there to "keep the peace". I am in no way painting the IRA as saints. They did some very awful things during those times as did all parties involves. But to the Catholics of Northern Ireland they did what they had to do to protect the Catholic people of the province. Now there is peace in the area and some of those who were branded as terrorist now have high level position in the government and work closely with many Loyalist members of the Northern Ireland government.
My point is that there are those who see these jihadists as freedom fighters fighting against government(s) that will do them some harm. I think that most of the people don't see them as nothing more than cold-blooded killers who want things to go back to the 10th century. I certainly do not agree with their ideals or tactics. But it should be stated that sectarian wars are much messier and complicated than a conventional war where the opposing sides are very well defined as are their objectives. There are no easy solutions. There is no "winning" the war; there is only an end to fighting. There are no defined borders or rules of engagement. The US has already notched down its expectations in Iraq from "spreading Democracy through out the Middle-east" to just having a stable situation in Baghdad and we should expect even more adjustments in the future. Much like the British troops who went to Northern Ireland in the 1970's to help keep the peace I am of the belief that our invading Iraq made an already bad and messy situation under Saddam Hussein and made it much, much worse. It took the British nearly 30 years of some very hard and costly lesson of sectarian warfare in Northern Ireland before that realized that it was the people of the region that needed to fix their problems, not an army and certainly not ours. Let's hope it doesn’t take three decades to learn these lessons too.
That was the first post I can rember of yours that wasent crap...Well done and welcome to the conversation
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude; greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
Samuel Adams
That was the first post I can rember of yours that wasent crap...Well done and welcome to the conversation
Thanks!
Obviously the Poles would choose to disagree that they were traditionally Germany.
I'm sure the Norwegians would not be far behind them in this view either.
The difference between our attack on Germany, and our attack on Iraq, is that Germany declared war on the United States. Saddam wasn't so fast to pull the trigger.
At no point in time did we initiate hostilies against Germany because Hitler was an evil dictator and we felt compelled to change the German government. You do realize that Hitler was ELECTED Chancellor of Germany by the German people, and for much of the period he was in power, to include that in which he declared war on the United States, he enjoyed the overwhelming support of the German people.
Yours is a comparison of apples and oranges.
Of course dictatorships are not legitimate countries, presidents and prime ministers are not legitimate countries either. They are people, governments. You argue apples and oranges.
A dictatorship is just as legitimate a government as a republic, democracy, theocracy, or oligarchy. Each of these forms of government holds power through the will of the people. No dictator controls his country single handed, he/she forms coalitions to enjoy the support of enough of the populace to retain power.
Governments are not controlled by one person. George W Bush does not control the United States and enjoy the support from 100% of the population. He holds his control based on the support of the Republican Party, a coalition of Republican voters, and a coalition of the Republican Congress.
Saddam enjoyed his position through the support of the Sunni Iraqis. Had it not been Saddam, it would have been another Sunni, possibly from the military. Primarily because a Kurd could not form a coalition to retain power in the country, and the Shiites were/are poorly positioned to govern.
To paraphrase Ghandi...."There go my people, I must hurry to get in front of them, for I am their leader".
The US throws bombs.
Some Iraqi throws a shoe.
Shoe guy gets US healines.
The problem with the Iraq war is that Iraq/Saddam was not engaged in the Jihad. Iraq/Saddam did not attack the World Trade Center. Iraq/Saddam was not fundamentalist Islam.
As I seem to recall, the war with fundamentalist Islam was with the Sunnis in Afghanistan. Bin Laden was harbored by the Taliban. Somewhere along the line this objective was lost, and Saddam/Iraq became the war against terrorism, the war against WMDs, then the war to liberate Iraq.
Then the motive jumped to the "Axis of Evil" a nice spin that left the Shiite Iranians wondering what happened. You see, Iran was not radical fundamentalist Islam, they were a target of radical fundamentalist Islam. Just as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Pakistan, and the rest of the legitimate governments of the Muslim world are a target of fundamentalist Islam.
Before they come for you and yours, they want to unite them and theirs. We helped them in Iraq by toppling a government and creating a power vacuum.
The motives in Iraq were always fuzzy, as was the Wolkowicz/Rumsfeld post war plan.
No wonder he threw shoes.
I was just think that it was probably a good thing that this trip Iraq was Bush's last one. I just had a vision of every reporter having to leave his shoes outside of the press room before going in! <grin> On a serious note George should count his blessings that shoes were the only projectiles that whizzed past his head and not something more lethal.
I didn't directly claim them to me freedom fighters, I said that some terrorist groups could be viewed as freedom fighters and terrorists doesn't neccesarily have to be Al-Quaeda. No matter the motives, withdrawing and leaving them will hurt Al-Quaeda in their search for new members that isn't looking to do an offensive Jihad. Now, if "The Al Qaeda Reader" is fully correct or not, I cannot judge but I still don't believe the answer lies in direct attacks.
Well, when the Soviets pulled out of afghanistan, that le to massive recruitment and emboldened them. When we pulled out of Somalia, that led them to believe they could defeat us, and led them to plan 9-11. Pulling out and leaving them alone is seen as defeat to them. This is what caused them to attack. That and their plans of global domination.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I didn't directly claim them to me freedom fighters, I said that some terrorist groups could be viewed as freedom fighters and terrorists doesn't neccesarily have to be Al-Quaeda. No matter the motives, withdrawing and leaving them will hurt Al-Quaeda in their search for new members that isn't looking to do an offensive Jihad. Now, if "The Al Qaeda Reader" is fully correct or not, I cannot judge but I still don't believe the answer lies in direct attacks.
The whole terrorist vs. freedom fighter all rest on what side of the argument you are on. My family originated from Northern Ireland. My parents and all my siblings were born in Derry or Londonderry if you're a Loyalist. My family moved to the US because of an apartide-like government that kept the Catholic population from voting, owning property, getting a government job or even graduating beyond the 8th grade as in my parents’ case. During "The Troubles" of the 1970's, 80's and 90 the IRA was branded as terrorist by the British government. To the Catholic population of Northern Ireland, the IRA was protectors from the Loyalist para-militaries, the police (all of which were Protestant Loyalist) and eventually even the British Army that was sent there to "keep the peace". I am in no way painting the IRA as saints. They did some very awful things during those times as did all parties involves. But to the Catholics of Northern Ireland they did what they had to do to protect the Catholic people of the province. Now there is peace in the area and some of those who were branded as terrorist now have high level position in the government and work closely with many Loyalist members of the Northern Ireland government.
My point is that there are those who see these jihadists as freedom fighters fighting against government(s) that will do them some harm. I think that most of the people don't see them as nothing more than cold-blooded killers who want things to go back to the 10th century. I certainly do not agree with their ideals or tactics. But it should be stated that sectarian wars are much messier and complicated than a conventional war where the opposing sides are very well defined as are their objectives. There are no easy solutions. There is no "winning" the war; there is only an end to fighting. There are no defined borders or rules of engagement. The US has already notched down its expectations in Iraq from "spreading Democracy through out the Middle-east" to just having a stable situation in Baghdad and we should expect even more adjustments in the future. Much like the British troops who went to Northern Ireland in the 1970's to help keep the peace I am of the belief that our invading Iraq made an already bad and messy situation under Saddam Hussein and made it much, much worse. It took the British nearly 30 years of some very hard and costly lesson of sectarian warfare in Northern Ireland before that realized that it was the people of the region that needed to fix their problems, not an army and certainly not ours. Let's hope it doesn’t take three decades to learn these lessons too.
I completely understand what you are saying here; but I haven't used the word terrorist because i don't consider a tactic to be relevant. There are no Irish militants who believe it is their final destiny to rule all of the earth under an Irish King. It's not about terrorism or freedom. It's about Jihad.
Attacking Afghanistan and attacking Iraq is what made them realize maybe it isn't the best idea to attack America directly, and caused them to rethink their plans and focus on consolidating power on mostly Muslim lands. This is a long war and may last several generations. We will end up fighting this war throughout Asia and Africa. get use dto it. This is the rest of our lives.
Terrorism isn't an issue at all.
fishermage.blogspot.com
That was the first post I can rember of yours that wasent crap...Well done and welcome to the conversation
Yes it really was a very good post. the kind of thing I want to see on these forums and what I hope will always happen.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Obviously the Poles would choose to disagree that they were traditionally Germany.
I'm sure the Norwegians would not be far behind them in this view either.
The difference between our attack on Germany, and our attack on Iraq, is that Germany declared war on the United States. Saddam wasn't so fast to pull the trigger.
At no point in time did we initiate hostilies against Germany because Hitler was an evil dictator and we felt compelled to change the German government. You do realize that Hitler was ELECTED Chancellor of Germany by the German people, and for much of the period he was in power, to include that in which he declared war on the United States, he enjoyed the overwhelming support of the German people.
Yours is a comparison of apples and oranges.
I know, there are no perfect comparisons in the history of war. You do make a fair point here. What I was saying was only in context.
We didn't initiate hostilties against saddam because he was an evil dictator, but that's a reasonable MORAL justification for it.
My point is neither ever attacked us; neither was a threat to us -- but BOTH were justified.
the fact is the invasion of Iraq was BOTH moral and justified. The MAIN justification of it was he was in clear, repeated violation of the terms of surrender.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Of course dictatorships are not legitimate countries, presidents and prime ministers are not legitimate countries either. They are people, governments. You argue apples and oranges.
A dictatorship is just as legitimate a government as a republic, democracy, theocracy, or oligarchy. Each of these forms of government holds power through the will of the people. No dictator controls his country single handed, he/she forms coalitions to enjoy the support of enough of the populace to retain power.
Governments are not controlled by one person. George W Bush does not control the United States and enjoy the support from 100% of the population. He holds his control based on the support of the Republican Party, a coalition of Republican voters, and a coalition of the Republican Congress.
Saddam enjoyed his position through the support of the Sunni Iraqis. Had it not been Saddam, it would have been another Sunni, possibly from the military. Primarily because a Kurd could not form a coalition to retain power in the country, and the Shiites were/are poorly positioned to govern.
To paraphrase Ghandi...."There go my people, I must hurry to get in front of them, for I am their leader".
I other words you do not believe in our declaration of Independence. If the people are kept in check under a reign of terror, it is the will of the people that they have done so -- if exiles are begging to end the rape of their families -- F'em, they want it like that.
fishermage.blogspot.com
The problem with the Iraq war is that Iraq/Saddam was not engaged in the Jihad. Iraq/Saddam did not attack the World Trade Center. Iraq/Saddam was not fundamentalist Islam.
As I seem to recall, the war with fundamentalist Islam was with the Sunnis in Afghanistan. Bin Laden was harbored by the Taliban. Somewhere along the line this objective was lost, and Saddam/Iraq became the war against terrorism, the war against WMDs, then the war to liberate Iraq.
Then the motive jumped to the "Axis of Evil" a nice spin that left the Shiite Iranians wondering what happened. You see, Iran was not radical fundamentalist Islam, they were a target of radical fundamentalist Islam. Just as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Pakistan, and the rest of the legitimate governments of the Muslim world are a target of fundamentalist Islam.
Before they come for you and yours, they want to unite them and theirs. We helped them in Iraq by toppling a government and creating a power vacuum.
The motives in Iraq were always fuzzy, as was the Wolkowicz/Rumsfeld post war plan.
No wonder he threw shoes.
Saddam was in clear violation of the terms of his surrender, he has openly decalred allegiance with teh Jihad (event though THEY thought he was socialist, secular garbage), and he was a clear convenient, strategically placed target -- the reasons we invaded were strategic, not moral.
We also created a honey trap, and it has worked. they flooded into the country, and we humiliated them. Exactly what we needed to do.
We have also proved that we could do something the jihad can not do -- end a tyranny and create a better place for Muslims. The Jihad have NOT done that -- we have.
Ask the Kurds how they feel about us -- there's an untold story for ya.
In the long run it will prove to have been wise in many ways. Watch. See you in two decades when you see.
fishermage.blogspot.com
The problem with the Iraq war is that Iraq/Saddam was not engaged in the Jihad. Iraq/Saddam did not attack the World Trade Center. Iraq/Saddam was not fundamentalist Islam.
As I seem to recall, the war with fundamentalist Islam was with the Sunnis in Afghanistan. Bin Laden was harbored by the Taliban. Somewhere along the line this objective was lost, and Saddam/Iraq became the war against terrorism, the war against WMDs, then the war to liberate Iraq.
Then the motive jumped to the "Axis of Evil" a nice spin that left the Shiite Iranians wondering what happened. You see, Iran was not radical fundamentalist Islam, they were a target of radical fundamentalist Islam. Just as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Pakistan, and the rest of the legitimate governments of the Muslim world are a target of fundamentalist Islam.
Before they come for you and yours, they want to unite them and theirs. We helped them in Iraq by toppling a government and creating a power vacuum.
The motives in Iraq were always fuzzy, as was the Wolkowicz/Rumsfeld post war plan.
No wonder he threw shoes.
Saddam was in clear violation of the terms of his surrender, he has openly decalred allegiance with teh Jihad (event though THEY thought he was socialist, secular garbage), and he was a clear convenient, strategically placed target -- the reasons we invaded were strategic, not moral.
We also created a honey trap, and it has worked. they flooded into the country, and we humiliated them. Exactly what we needed to do.
We have also proved that we could do something the jihad can not do -- end a tyranny and create a better place for Muslims. The Jihad have NOT done that -- we have.
Ask the Kurds how they feel about us -- there's an untold story for ya.
In the long run it will prove to have been wise in many ways. Watch. See you in two decades when you see.
Honey trap LOL,Humiliated them,HAHA,so true its huge.
Sweden in deep problems they have alot more to worry about than "US" thats for-sure.Short video about the Sweden...the English starts about 1 minute into the video.
Iraq has 67 billion on had in cash,satellite on every roof,a theocracy on their border trying to destroy there nation,mainly because its threating their power base. The number of Democrcys is growing.We are under a UN mandate, this why the vote is needed to be able to stay with troops,the UN mandate ends next month.
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
The problem with the Iraq war is that Iraq/Saddam was not engaged in the Jihad. Iraq/Saddam did not attack the World Trade Center. Iraq/Saddam was not fundamentalist Islam.
As I seem to recall, the war with fundamentalist Islam was with the Sunnis in Afghanistan. Bin Laden was harbored by the Taliban. Somewhere along the line this objective was lost, and Saddam/Iraq became the war against terrorism, the war against WMDs, then the war to liberate Iraq.
Then the motive jumped to the "Axis of Evil" a nice spin that left the Shiite Iranians wondering what happened. You see, Iran was not radical fundamentalist Islam, they were a target of radical fundamentalist Islam. Just as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Pakistan, and the rest of the legitimate governments of the Muslim world are a target of fundamentalist Islam.
Before they come for you and yours, they want to unite them and theirs. We helped them in Iraq by toppling a government and creating a power vacuum.
The motives in Iraq were always fuzzy, as was the Wolkowicz/Rumsfeld post war plan.
No wonder he threw shoes.
Saddam was in clear violation of the terms of his surrender, he has openly decalred allegiance with teh Jihad (event though THEY thought he was socialist, secular garbage), and he was a clear convenient, strategically placed target -- the reasons we invaded were strategic, not moral.
We also created a honey trap, and it has worked. they flooded into the country, and we humiliated them. Exactly what we needed to do.
We have also proved that we could do something the jihad can not do -- end a tyranny and create a better place for Muslims. The Jihad have NOT done that -- we have.
Ask the Kurds how they feel about us -- there's an untold story for ya.
In the long run it will prove to have been wise in many ways. Watch. See you in two decades when you see.
Honey trap LOL,Humiliated them,HAHA,so true its huge.
Sweden in deep problems they have alot more to worry about than "US" thats for-sure.Short video about the Sweden...the English starts about 1 minute into the video.
Iraq has 67 billion on had in cash,satellite on every roof,a theocracy on their border trying to destroy there nation,mainly because its threating their power base. The number of Democrcys is growing.We are under a UN mandate, this why the vote is needed to be able to stay with troops,the UN mandate ends next month.
Hmmm from that Video, and taking our friend's advice, it is time for the Swedes to pull out of Sweden.
fishermage.blogspot.com
This thread is amusing...
The most interesting thing about the shoe throwing incident to me was 1. Bush made a pretty good dodge of the first shoe 2. The guy was able to throw a second shoe w/out getting wrestled to the ground after the first shoe.
I can see Bush talking to the commander of his security contingent afterward: "Yeah, yeah, I know I only have a few days left in office, but you do realize you are supposed to protect me for the rest of my life. Or was that the point?"
Now history may not be my strong point, but if my memory serves me right the US joined the war after the japanese attacked pearl Harbor. If u are trying to argue schematics here then yes the japanese were not Hitler, they were his allies. And if u want to argue morality by bringing the second world war in your whole theory crumbles because before helping in Europe the Europeans asked several times for help, yet the so moral US ignored them. Only to join WWII when your own soil was threatened.
Now excuse me for thinking so, but if you didnt help Europe against the oppresion of dictatorship even after they asked for that help countless of times why did u move in to help Iraquis when they didnt even ask for it? Iraq never attacked your soil, why did u opt to liberate them. And finally why did so many innocents have to die when supposedly u were fighting for THEIR freedom?
Where can I send this reporter a gift certificate for a pair of shoes.
11/10
He wins.
I was laughin so hard, what a great kiss goodbye from the Iraqi people.
Yours in Sole Searching Plasma,
Star*Dagger