/rant on Serves bush right for using americans to help fix those animals, while our country suffers. Look to your own country bush and stay the F**k! away from those pieces of trash. Why must america help everyone else but themselves? The American Way: helping non-deserving countries first before fixing america itself.
/rant off
America2Pwn .. I wonder that same thing every time we get involved in someone elsed business. Just the the crap that went down in Russia, with the Georgians. We really didnt have to get involved, but the media portraited it like we had to do somethign because Georgians had troops with us in Iraq, whooaaaa, big F'ing deal.
We're bulys, and thats that.
If a woman is being raped down your block, and you stop it -- are you a bully. That is exactly what was going on in Iraq -- government rape of the people. Both LITERALLY and figuratively. You are okay with that?
Flip that around.
A woman you don't know is being beaten to death down the block and you can stop it, but if you do so one of your family memebers has a 50% chance of being killed.
I just can't understand how people can even try and make the case that a guy like Saddam was a legitimate leader, or that getting rid of a thug like Saddam is morally wrong. I can certainly understand feeling that it may not be PRUDENT to get involved in such things, but not the morality of it.
I don't know anyone that would argue for Saddam, but if we really were in the war to help people out and spread democracy why Iraq? Why not Sudan?
The liberation of the Iraqi people was a seconday agenda.
/rant on Serves bush right for using americans to help fix those animals, while our country suffers. Look to your own country bush and stay the F**k! away from those pieces of trash. Why must america help everyone else but themselves? The American Way: helping non-deserving countries first before fixing america itself.
/rant off
America2Pwn .. I wonder that same thing every time we get involved in someone elsed business. Just the the crap that went down in Russia, with the Georgians. We really didnt have to get involved, but the media portraited it like we had to do somethign because Georgians had troops with us in Iraq, whooaaaa, big F'ing deal.
We're bulys, and thats that.
If a woman is being raped down your block, and you stop it -- are you a bully. That is exactly what was going on in Iraq -- government rape of the people. Both LITERALLY and figuratively. You are okay with that?
Flip that around.
A woman you don't know is being beaten to death down the block and you can stop it, but if you do so one of your family memebers has a 50% chance of being killed.
Do you do it? I know I wouldn't.
That's the PRUDENCE argument, not the moral one. I stated very clearly that Iraq may not have been the PRUDENT thing to do, but that is not the same thing as declaring it the wrong thing to do. Once more you are not reading what I am writing, and arguing another straw man.
Either way, your premise is a false premise. Are you saying we lose 50% of the people we send to war? that's just false. Are you saying "American lives" are worth more than Iraqi lives? Are you saying that your own freedom is worth fighting for, but not someone else's?
/rant on Serves bush right for using americans to help fix those animals, while our country suffers. Look to your own country bush and stay the F**k! away from those pieces of trash. Why must america help everyone else but themselves? The American Way: helping non-deserving countries first before fixing america itself.
/rant off
America2Pwn .. I wonder that same thing every time we get involved in someone elsed business. Just the the crap that went down in Russia, with the Georgians. We really didnt have to get involved, but the media portraited it like we had to do somethign because Georgians had troops with us in Iraq, whooaaaa, big F'ing deal.
We're bulys, and thats that.
If a woman is being raped down your block, and you stop it -- are you a bully. That is exactly what was going on in Iraq -- government rape of the people. Both LITERALLY and figuratively. You are okay with that?
Flip that around.
A woman you don't know is being beaten to death down the block and you can stop it, but if you do so one of your family memebers has a 50% chance of being killed.
Do you do it? I know I wouldn't.
That's the PRUDENCE argument, not the moral one. I stated very clearly that Iraq may not have been the PRUDENT thing to do, but that is not the same thing as declaring it the wrong thing to do. Once more you are not reading what I am writing, and arguing another straw man.
Either way, your premise is a false premise. Are you saying we lose 50% of the people we send to war? that's just false. Are you saying "American lives" are worth more than Iraqi lives? Are you saying that your own freedom is worth fighting for, but not someone else's?
I just can't understand how people can even try and make the case that a guy like Saddam was a legitimate leader, or that getting rid of a thug like Saddam is morally wrong. I can certainly understand feeling that it may not be PRUDENT to get involved in such things, but not the morality of it.
I don't know anyone that would argue for Saddam, but if we really were in the war to help people out and spread democracy why Iraq? Why not Sudan?
The liberation of the Iraqi people was a seconday agenda.
So what? that has nothing to do with the morality of the action itself, which is what I am arguing about. The people I was arguing against WERE arguing FOR Saddam. Read the thread.
/rant on Serves bush right for using americans to help fix those animals, while our country suffers. Look to your own country bush and stay the F**k! away from those pieces of trash. Why must america help everyone else but themselves? The American Way: helping non-deserving countries first before fixing america itself.
/rant off
People reffered to as animals, whole countries as pieces of trash. Reminds me of some german guy who had a wierd moustache and an even wierder name. What was it now? Ah yes Hitler
/rant on Serves bush right for using americans to help fix those animals, while our country suffers. Look to your own country bush and stay the F**k! away from those pieces of trash. Why must america help everyone else but themselves? The American Way: helping non-deserving countries first before fixing america itself.
/rant off
People reffered to as animals, whole countries as pieces of trash. Reminds me of some german guy who had a wierd moustache and an even wierder name. What was it now? Ah yes Hitler
well excuse my rant then, I'm just tired of my very own government ignoring its own countries problems to help a third world country that doesn't want help in the first place.
Whats really messed up is the US will continue to act like the world police and leave its own country to ruin. Poverty, increased crime and were sitting in iraq helping them? people that think were savages and would rather toss shoes at our president when americans gave their lives to help thier country?
/rant on Serves bush right for using americans to help fix those animals, while our country suffers. Look to your own country bush and stay the F**k! away from those pieces of trash. Why must america help everyone else but themselves? The American Way: helping non-deserving countries first before fixing america itself.
/rant off
People reffered to as animals, whole countries as pieces of trash. Reminds me of some german guy who had a wierd moustache and an even wierder name. What was it now? Ah yes Hitler
well excuse my rant then, I'm just tired of my very own government ignoring its own countries problems to help a third world country that doesn't want help in the first place.
Whats really messed up is the US will continue to act like the world police and leave its own country to ruin. Poverty, increased crime and were sitting in iraq helping them? people that think were savages and would rather toss shoes at our president when americans gave their lives to help thier country?
Yeah so excuse me for being a little pissed.
I dont like the way you worded it But Id totaly be for pulling out of all countrys that treat us like shit and watch as the world starves and beegs us to go help them again.(reading my own post it still sounds like a dick thing to do but it would serve them right.)
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
/rant on Serves bush right for using americans to help fix those animals, while our country suffers. Look to your own country bush and stay the F**k! away from those pieces of trash. Why must america help everyone else but themselves? The American Way: helping non-deserving countries first before fixing america itself.
/rant off
America2Pwn .. I wonder that same thing every time we get involved in someone elsed business. Just the the crap that went down in Russia, with the Georgians. We really didnt have to get involved, but the media portraited it like we had to do somethign because Georgians had troops with us in Iraq, whooaaaa, big F'ing deal.
We're bulys, and thats that.
If a woman is being raped down your block, and you stop it -- are you a bully. That is exactly what was going on in Iraq -- government rape of the people. Both LITERALLY and figuratively. You are okay with that?
Flip that around.
A woman you don't know is being beaten to death down the block and you can stop it, but if you do so one of your family memebers has a 50% chance of being killed.
Do you do it? I know I wouldn't.
That's the PRUDENCE argument, not the moral one. I stated very clearly that Iraq may not have been the PRUDENT thing to do, but that is not the same thing as declaring it the wrong thing to do. Once more you are not reading what I am writing, and arguing another straw man.
Either way, your premise is a false premise. Are you saying we lose 50% of the people we send to war? that's just false. Are you saying "American lives" are worth more than Iraqi lives? Are you saying that your own freedom is worth fighting for, but not someone else's?
Where is that supposed liberal humanitarianism?
Stop assuming.
You can't have a civil argument can you?
What am I assuming and how is my assumption wrong? I am asking questions -- I don't know how questions can show what i am assuming.
What did I say that was uncivil? I am trying to learn your position here and why you feel the way you do.
Anyways, I don't think it was a very good idea of USA to invade Iraq. Seriously, ANY OTHER COUNTRY /UNION besides USA would've been better, the middle-east already hate USA enough, invading the country didn't exactly help soothing peoples feelings about America.
Anyways, I don't think it was a very good idea of USA to invade Iraq. Seriously, ANY OTHER COUNTRY /UNION besides USA would've been better, the middle-east already hate USA enough, invading the country didn't exactly help soothing peoples feelings about America.
That's a reasonable assessment. How would YOU fight the Jihad to take over the world?
all war is stupid. they dont need a life guard. they dont want a life guard. they have hundreds of billion $ surplus. we lost hundreds of billion $ on the war. we can back out of THEIR war anytime. america is hurt most when we continue to battle in THEIR war. we lose hundreds of billionms of $, right now with the economy the way it is, thats the last thing we need.
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.
all war is stupid. they dont need a life guard. they dont want a life guard. they have hundreds of billion $ surplus. we lost hundreds of billion $ on the war. we can bacl out of THEIR war anytime. america is hurt most when we continue to battle in THEIR war. we lose hundreds of billionms of $, right now with the economy the way it is, thats the last thing we need.
So Iraqis don't deserve freedom? Your money is more important that someone else's freedom?
all war is stupid. they dont need a life guard. they dont want a life guard. they have hundreds of billion $ surplus. we lost hundreds of billion $ on the war. we can bacl out of THEIR war anytime. america is hurt most when we continue to battle in THEIR war. we lose hundreds of billionms of $, right now with the economy the way it is, thats the last thing we need.
So Iraqis don't deserve freedom? Your money is more important that someone else's freedom?
america needs freedom first.
the only time we need to jump in is if their dictators were trying to conquer the whole world like hitler, which even they know they would seriously FAIL - 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.
Anyways, I don't think it was a very good idea of USA to invade Iraq. Seriously, ANY OTHER COUNTRY /UNION besides USA would've been better, the middle-east already hate USA enough, invading the country didn't exactly help soothing peoples feelings about America.
That's a reasonable assessment. How would YOU fight the Jihad to take over the world?
Well for starters, leaving them alone is a good start and let things change slowly. Societies, traditions and mindsets are all things that changes very slowly. You can't just invade Iraq, have lots of casualties and be like "Lol you're democratic now" and expect democracy to work right away nor expect the people to rid of their hate for what USA has done to the middle-eastern countries in the past right away.
See, the answer lies in NOT having a war against the extremists (Jihad is a term). Just killing and randomly accuse people named Hussein for being terrorists will only help create more terrorists (Terrorists can also be known as Freedom fighters, patriots etc. depending on how you view a particular group of terrorists).
all war is stupid. they dont need a life guard. they dont want a life guard. they have hundreds of billion $ surplus. we lost hundreds of billion $ on the war. we can bacl out of THEIR war anytime. america is hurt most when we continue to battle in THEIR war. we lose hundreds of billionms of $, right now with the economy the way it is, thats the last thing we need.
So Iraqis don't deserve freedom? Your money is more important that someone else's freedom?
america needs freedom first.
Are you saying that Americans are no freer than Saddam's Iraq was? The two states are equal? there is no difference in the level of freedom between Iraq under Saddam and America?
how many family members have you had that have been raped in government rape rooms because you are critical of Bush? I know that if you were an Iraqi and said the same things about saddam as you do about Bush, this would be your fate? has this happened to you for your anti-Bush views?
Also, are you saying that Americans are worth more than Iraqis? Why?
Anyways, I don't think it was a very good idea of USA to invade Iraq. Seriously, ANY OTHER COUNTRY /UNION besides USA would've been better, the middle-east already hate USA enough, invading the country didn't exactly help soothing peoples feelings about America.
That's a reasonable assessment. How would YOU fight the Jihad to take over the world?
Well for starters, leaving them alone is a good start and let things change slowly. Societies, traditions and mindsets are all things that changes very slowly. You can't just invade Iraq, have lots of casualties and be like "Lol you're democratic now" and expect democracy to work right away nor expect the people to rid of their hate for what USA has done to the middle-eastern countries in the past right away.
See, the answer lies in NOT having a war against the extremists (Jihad is a term). Just killing and randomly accuse people named Hussein for being terrorists will only help create more terrorists (Terrorists can also be known as Freedom fighters, patriots etc. depending on how you view a particular group of terrorists).
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.
Sure, I want to know what you know about the Jihad, their goals, their plans. that is the only way to assess a proper strategy against them. I want to know what information is in your head to better understand where you are coming from.
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.
Sure, I want to know what you know about the Jihad, their goals, their plans. that is the only way to assess a proper strategy against them. I want to know what information is in your head to better understand where you are coming from.
Well, I've read about all the major religions as well as some minor ones when I was still studying as Religion is an official subject that everyone reads in the country I live in. Jihad doesn't neccesarily have to be violent and the word itself means "the struggle". Us westerners relate this word with "Holy war" but in truth, Jihad can simply mean to strive to live a moral and virtuous life, to spread and defend Islam as well as to fighting injustice and oppression, among other things.
I find it more likely that middle-eastern terrorists are people who've lost loved ones rather than just plain religions fantaics. Cause nothing in the Koran mentions USA being their number 1 enemy.
EDIT: Do know that I don't mind or dislike USA as a country nor the people living there. I just believe that some american leaders in the past helped planting the seed of hate in the Middle-east, although it was not their intention to do so. It's good that Saddam is gone, it's sad that there has been so many casualties but my main concern is that the invasion probably helped increase the hate for America which sadly might lead to more tragedies in the future.
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.
Sure, I want to know what you know about the Jihad, their goals, their plans. that is the only way to assess a proper strategy against them. I want to know what information is in your head to better understand where you are coming from.
Well, I've read about all the major religions as well as some minor ones when I was still studying as Religion is an official subject that everyone reads in the country I live in. Jihad doesn't neccesarily have to be violent and the word itself means "the struggle". Us westerners relate this word with "Holy war" but in truth, Jihad can simply mean to strive to live a moral and virtuous life, to spread and defend Islam as well as to fighting injustice and oppression, among other things.
I find it more likely that middle-eastern terrorists are people who've lost loved ones rather than just plain religions fantaics. Cause nothing in the Koran mentions USA being their number 1 enemy.
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.
Comments
America2Pwn .. I wonder that same thing every time we get involved in someone elsed business. Just the the crap that went down in Russia, with the Georgians. We really didnt have to get involved, but the media portraited it like we had to do somethign because Georgians had troops with us in Iraq, whooaaaa, big F'ing deal.
We're bulys, and thats that.
If a woman is being raped down your block, and you stop it -- are you a bully. That is exactly what was going on in Iraq -- government rape of the people. Both LITERALLY and figuratively. You are okay with that?
Flip that around.
A woman you don't know is being beaten to death down the block and you can stop it, but if you do so one of your family memebers has a 50% chance of being killed.
Do you do it? I know I wouldn't.
The Official God FAQ
I don't know anyone that would argue for Saddam, but if we really were in the war to help people out and spread democracy why Iraq? Why not Sudan?
The liberation of the Iraqi people was a seconday agenda.
The Official God FAQ
America2Pwn .. I wonder that same thing every time we get involved in someone elsed business. Just the the crap that went down in Russia, with the Georgians. We really didnt have to get involved, but the media portraited it like we had to do somethign because Georgians had troops with us in Iraq, whooaaaa, big F'ing deal.
We're bulys, and thats that.
If a woman is being raped down your block, and you stop it -- are you a bully. That is exactly what was going on in Iraq -- government rape of the people. Both LITERALLY and figuratively. You are okay with that?
Flip that around.
A woman you don't know is being beaten to death down the block and you can stop it, but if you do so one of your family memebers has a 50% chance of being killed.
Do you do it? I know I wouldn't.
That's the PRUDENCE argument, not the moral one. I stated very clearly that Iraq may not have been the PRUDENT thing to do, but that is not the same thing as declaring it the wrong thing to do. Once more you are not reading what I am writing, and arguing another straw man.
Either way, your premise is a false premise. Are you saying we lose 50% of the people we send to war? that's just false. Are you saying "American lives" are worth more than Iraqi lives? Are you saying that your own freedom is worth fighting for, but not someone else's?
Where is that supposed liberal humanitarianism?
fishermage.blogspot.com
America2Pwn .. I wonder that same thing every time we get involved in someone elsed business. Just the the crap that went down in Russia, with the Georgians. We really didnt have to get involved, but the media portraited it like we had to do somethign because Georgians had troops with us in Iraq, whooaaaa, big F'ing deal.
We're bulys, and thats that.
If a woman is being raped down your block, and you stop it -- are you a bully. That is exactly what was going on in Iraq -- government rape of the people. Both LITERALLY and figuratively. You are okay with that?
Flip that around.
A woman you don't know is being beaten to death down the block and you can stop it, but if you do so one of your family memebers has a 50% chance of being killed.
Do you do it? I know I wouldn't.
That's the PRUDENCE argument, not the moral one. I stated very clearly that Iraq may not have been the PRUDENT thing to do, but that is not the same thing as declaring it the wrong thing to do. Once more you are not reading what I am writing, and arguing another straw man.
Either way, your premise is a false premise. Are you saying we lose 50% of the people we send to war? that's just false. Are you saying "American lives" are worth more than Iraqi lives? Are you saying that your own freedom is worth fighting for, but not someone else's?
Where is that supposed liberal humanitarianism?
Stop assuming.
You can't have a civil argument can you?
The Official God FAQ
I don't know anyone that would argue for Saddam, but if we really were in the war to help people out and spread democracy why Iraq? Why not Sudan?
The liberation of the Iraqi people was a seconday agenda.
So what? that has nothing to do with the morality of the action itself, which is what I am arguing about. The people I was arguing against WERE arguing FOR Saddam. Read the thread.
fishermage.blogspot.com
People reffered to as animals, whole countries as pieces of trash. Reminds me of some german guy who had a wierd moustache and an even wierder name. What was it now? Ah yes Hitler
People reffered to as animals, whole countries as pieces of trash. Reminds me of some german guy who had a wierd moustache and an even wierder name. What was it now? Ah yes Hitler
well excuse my rant then, I'm just tired of my very own government ignoring its own countries problems to help a third world country that doesn't want help in the first place.
Whats really messed up is the US will continue to act like the world police and leave its own country to ruin. Poverty, increased crime and were sitting in iraq helping them? people that think were savages and would rather toss shoes at our president when americans gave their lives to help thier country?
Yeah so excuse me for being a little pissed.
PLaying: EvE, Ryzom
Waiting For: Earthrise, Perpetuum
People reffered to as animals, whole countries as pieces of trash. Reminds me of some german guy who had a wierd moustache and an even wierder name. What was it now? Ah yes Hitler
well excuse my rant then, I'm just tired of my very own government ignoring its own countries problems to help a third world country that doesn't want help in the first place.
Whats really messed up is the US will continue to act like the world police and leave its own country to ruin. Poverty, increased crime and were sitting in iraq helping them? people that think were savages and would rather toss shoes at our president when americans gave their lives to help thier country?
Yeah so excuse me for being a little pissed.
I dont like the way you worded it But Id totaly be for pulling out of all countrys that treat us like shit and watch as the world starves and beegs us to go help them again.(reading my own post it still sounds like a dick thing to do but it would serve them right.)
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
America2Pwn .. I wonder that same thing every time we get involved in someone elsed business. Just the the crap that went down in Russia, with the Georgians. We really didnt have to get involved, but the media portraited it like we had to do somethign because Georgians had troops with us in Iraq, whooaaaa, big F'ing deal.
We're bulys, and thats that.
If a woman is being raped down your block, and you stop it -- are you a bully. That is exactly what was going on in Iraq -- government rape of the people. Both LITERALLY and figuratively. You are okay with that?
Flip that around.
A woman you don't know is being beaten to death down the block and you can stop it, but if you do so one of your family memebers has a 50% chance of being killed.
Do you do it? I know I wouldn't.
That's the PRUDENCE argument, not the moral one. I stated very clearly that Iraq may not have been the PRUDENT thing to do, but that is not the same thing as declaring it the wrong thing to do. Once more you are not reading what I am writing, and arguing another straw man.
Either way, your premise is a false premise. Are you saying we lose 50% of the people we send to war? that's just false. Are you saying "American lives" are worth more than Iraqi lives? Are you saying that your own freedom is worth fighting for, but not someone else's?
Where is that supposed liberal humanitarianism?
Stop assuming.
You can't have a civil argument can you?
What am I assuming and how is my assumption wrong? I am asking questions -- I don't know how questions can show what i am assuming.
What did I say that was uncivil? I am trying to learn your position here and why you feel the way you do.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Anyways, I don't think it was a very good idea of USA to invade Iraq. Seriously, ANY OTHER COUNTRY /UNION besides USA would've been better, the middle-east already hate USA enough, invading the country didn't exactly help soothing peoples feelings about America.
That's a reasonable assessment. How would YOU fight the Jihad to take over the world?
fishermage.blogspot.com
all war is stupid. they dont need a life guard. they dont want a life guard. they have hundreds of billion $ surplus. we lost hundreds of billion $ on the war. we can back out of THEIR war anytime. america is hurt most when we continue to battle in THEIR war. we lose hundreds of billionms of $, right now with the economy the way it is, thats the last thing we need.
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.
also, what is the proper response for a country that repeatedly violates the terms of its surrender?
fishermage.blogspot.com
So Iraqis don't deserve freedom? Your money is more important that someone else's freedom?
fishermage.blogspot.com
So Iraqis don't deserve freedom? Your money is more important that someone else's freedom?
america needs freedom first.
the only time we need to jump in is if their dictators were trying to conquer the whole world like hitler, which even they know they would seriously FAIL - 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.
That's a reasonable assessment. How would YOU fight the Jihad to take over the world?
Well for starters, leaving them alone is a good start and let things change slowly. Societies, traditions and mindsets are all things that changes very slowly. You can't just invade Iraq, have lots of casualties and be like "Lol you're democratic now" and expect democracy to work right away nor expect the people to rid of their hate for what USA has done to the middle-eastern countries in the past right away.
See, the answer lies in NOT having a war against the extremists (Jihad is a term). Just killing and randomly accuse people named Hussein for being terrorists will only help create more terrorists (Terrorists can also be known as Freedom fighters, patriots etc. depending on how you view a particular group of terrorists).
So Iraqis don't deserve freedom? Your money is more important that someone else's freedom?
america needs freedom first.
Are you saying that Americans are no freer than Saddam's Iraq was? The two states are equal? there is no difference in the level of freedom between Iraq under Saddam and America?
how many family members have you had that have been raped in government rape rooms because you are critical of Bush? I know that if you were an Iraqi and said the same things about saddam as you do about Bush, this would be your fate? has this happened to you for your anti-Bush views?
Also, are you saying that Americans are worth more than Iraqis? Why?
fishermage.blogspot.com
That's a reasonable assessment. How would YOU fight the Jihad to take over the world?
Well for starters, leaving them alone is a good start and let things change slowly. Societies, traditions and mindsets are all things that changes very slowly. You can't just invade Iraq, have lots of casualties and be like "Lol you're democratic now" and expect democracy to work right away nor expect the people to rid of their hate for what USA has done to the middle-eastern countries in the past right away.
See, the answer lies in NOT having a war against the extremists (Jihad is a term). Just killing and randomly accuse people named Hussein for being terrorists will only help create more terrorists (Terrorists can also be known as Freedom fighters, patriots etc. depending on how you view a particular group of terrorists).
How much of THEIR literature have you read?
fishermage.blogspot.com
Can I ask what the purpose of that question is?
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.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Can I ask what the purpose of that question is?
Sure, I want to know what you know about the Jihad, their goals, their plans. that is the only way to assess a proper strategy against them. I want to know what information is in your head to better understand where you are coming from.
fishermage.blogspot.com
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.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Can I ask what the purpose of that question is?
Sure, I want to know what you know about the Jihad, their goals, their plans. that is the only way to assess a proper strategy against them. I want to know what information is in your head to better understand where you are coming from.
Well, I've read about all the major religions as well as some minor ones when I was still studying as Religion is an official subject that everyone reads in the country I live in. Jihad doesn't neccesarily have to be violent and the word itself means "the struggle". Us westerners relate this word with "Holy war" but in truth, Jihad can simply mean to strive to live a moral and virtuous life, to spread and defend Islam as well as to fighting injustice and oppression, among other things.
I find it more likely that middle-eastern terrorists are people who've lost loved ones rather than just plain religions fantaics. Cause nothing in the Koran mentions USA being their number 1 enemy.
EDIT: Do know that I don't mind or dislike USA as a country nor the people living there. I just believe that some american leaders in the past helped planting the seed of hate in the Middle-east, although it was not their intention to do so. It's good that Saddam is gone, it's sad that there has been so many casualties but my main concern is that the invasion probably helped increase the hate for America which sadly might lead to more tragedies in the future.
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.
Can I ask what the purpose of that question is?
Sure, I want to know what you know about the Jihad, their goals, their plans. that is the only way to assess a proper strategy against them. I want to know what information is in your head to better understand where you are coming from.
Well, I've read about all the major religions as well as some minor ones when I was still studying as Religion is an official subject that everyone reads in the country I live in. Jihad doesn't neccesarily have to be violent and the word itself means "the struggle". Us westerners relate this word with "Holy war" but in truth, Jihad can simply mean to strive to live a moral and virtuous life, to spread and defend Islam as well as to fighting injustice and oppression, among other things.
I find it more likely that middle-eastern terrorists are people who've lost loved ones rather than just plain religions fantaics. Cause nothing in the Koran mentions USA being their number 1 enemy.
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.
fishermage.blogspot.com