darthtang aw
Active Member
What lies? Besides the tie to Al Qeada, Sadaam supposedly had...You have one lie....Not LIES.
Would you kindly answer my two questions?
Would you kindly answer my two questions?
Why we are losing the war in Iraq...
- Thread starter crimzy
- Start date
andy51632
Member
Alot of BS. The war was justified. What the hell are we suppose to do when we have people crashing planes into our buildings, blowing up ships and embassys. Saddam supported terror and was open about it giving families money when their kids blew up innocent people. He had it coming and needed to be taken out. What ever chance he had to stay in power was lost on Sept. 11.
With that being said now the war is not justified. We should never of thought we could occupy and rebuild a country in a islamic area. Their values and society is completely different than ours. We should of been out of there along time ago. Let the forces fight out who gets power. If democracy is something the iraqi people want then they will fight for it.
We should of moved on to another state islamic or not that supported terrorism. There the leaders should of been stripped of their power and another government allowed to form.
A government that supports terror should have serious santions and if that does not help they should be taken care of before they are allowed to become a nuclear threat example North Korea.
With that being said now the war is not justified. We should never of thought we could occupy and rebuild a country in a islamic area. Their values and society is completely different than ours. We should of been out of there along time ago. Let the forces fight out who gets power. If democracy is something the iraqi people want then they will fight for it.
We should of moved on to another state islamic or not that supported terrorism. There the leaders should of been stripped of their power and another government allowed to form.
A government that supports terror should have serious santions and if that does not help they should be taken care of before they are allowed to become a nuclear threat example North Korea.
rbaldino
Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
I know that this statement is true, but my point is that why would they model themselves after Israel and western goverments if they hate us, regardless of their reasoning why they hate us - why would they want this? For the most part it is against their culture... and if they did do this, party lines would be split between different cutlural/religious sects which would further cause additional violence.
Again, you seem to understand the concept that they just plain hate us, yet you don't understand why we have to fight. For Jihadists, the end goal is to either convert the world to Islam or get rid of everyone who isn't. There is no middle ground, nothing to negotiate.
BTW - Japan had no real history of democracy before 1945, and little regard for western culture. If you drop a big enough bomb, you can bring anyone around.
I know that this statement is true, but my point is that why would they model themselves after Israel and western goverments if they hate us, regardless of their reasoning why they hate us - why would they want this? For the most part it is against their culture... and if they did do this, party lines would be split between different cutlural/religious sects which would further cause additional violence.
Again, you seem to understand the concept that they just plain hate us, yet you don't understand why we have to fight. For Jihadists, the end goal is to either convert the world to Islam or get rid of everyone who isn't. There is no middle ground, nothing to negotiate.
BTW - Japan had no real history of democracy before 1945, and little regard for western culture. If you drop a big enough bomb, you can bring anyone around.
crimzy
Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
I would like to ask a couple questions....Regardless of past with concerns for Iraq. Two Questions.
We all seem to be in agreement that Al Qaeda is in Iraq and causing the majority of the fighting. There seems to be no question there.
Do you think Al Qaeda is to blame for 9/11?
Do you think we should be fighting Al Qaeda?
If you answer yes to both...Then you should support IRAQ as Al Qaeda is there fighting us now. If you truly feel we should be going after Al Qaeda and the organization that DID attack us on 9/11 your anti-war stance for Iraq should be changed now as we ARE now fighting AL Qaeda in IRAQ.
I'll give this a shot... yes would be the answers to the question however I disagree with your conclusions. First, I disagree that Al Queda is a MAJORITY of the fighting. We are also fighting Kurds, Sunnis, Shiites, independants, Iranians, Syrians, Saudis, Egyptians, etc. Also, you are using "end justifies the means" logic. You admit that Al Queda was not in Iraq when we went in. By invading, we caused civil war and brought in Al Queda, other terrorists and a host of united arab nations to oppose us. By killing every human being in Iraq, we will not defeat Al Queda. We will not achieve a victory against our true enemy. But then again, I guess its easier for Bush to send more guys to Iraq than to answer questions about us failing to punish the mastermind behind 9/11. Distraction can be a very useful tool.
I would like to ask a couple questions....Regardless of past with concerns for Iraq. Two Questions.
We all seem to be in agreement that Al Qaeda is in Iraq and causing the majority of the fighting. There seems to be no question there.
Do you think Al Qaeda is to blame for 9/11?
Do you think we should be fighting Al Qaeda?
If you answer yes to both...Then you should support IRAQ as Al Qaeda is there fighting us now. If you truly feel we should be going after Al Qaeda and the organization that DID attack us on 9/11 your anti-war stance for Iraq should be changed now as we ARE now fighting AL Qaeda in IRAQ.
I'll give this a shot... yes would be the answers to the question however I disagree with your conclusions. First, I disagree that Al Queda is a MAJORITY of the fighting. We are also fighting Kurds, Sunnis, Shiites, independants, Iranians, Syrians, Saudis, Egyptians, etc. Also, you are using "end justifies the means" logic. You admit that Al Queda was not in Iraq when we went in. By invading, we caused civil war and brought in Al Queda, other terrorists and a host of united arab nations to oppose us. By killing every human being in Iraq, we will not defeat Al Queda. We will not achieve a victory against our true enemy. But then again, I guess its easier for Bush to send more guys to Iraq than to answer questions about us failing to punish the mastermind behind 9/11. Distraction can be a very useful tool.
darthtang aw
Active Member
Crimzy, let me ask you this....If we catch BIN Laden is our war on terror done and will that Stop Al Qaeda from doing what they have been doing for a couple decades? You bring up achieving a true victory against our enemy...I do not see or understand a true victory against Terrorism so I was wondering what in your mind would be considered true victory against the enemy.
crimzy
Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
Crimzy, let me ask you this....If we catch BIN Laden is our war on terror done and will that Stop Al Qaeda from doing what they have been doing for a couple decades? You bring up achieving a true victory against our enemy...I do not see or understand a true victory against Terrorism so I was wondering what in your mind would be considered true victory against the enemy.
Interesting question. The Israelis have an effective model against groups such as this, (granted they suffer more terrorist attacks than anyone but they still have a good system to combat terrorism). I see no point in us sending a bunch of 20 year olds to fight a bunch of militant 20 year olds who are willing to sacrifice themselves for Allah. You kill this snake by cutting off its head. What we should do, instead of sending 75,000 people to fight terrorism with tanks, is send small special forces groups to take out their leadership. Israel has been using this technique for years. However, to do this, we must have good intelligence and very good special forces. Whether we have the training and intelligence for this, though, is the question. I believe that if we take out 10 of the right people, it will do more to fight terrorism than to take out 100 of their pawns. JMO
Crimzy, let me ask you this....If we catch BIN Laden is our war on terror done and will that Stop Al Qaeda from doing what they have been doing for a couple decades? You bring up achieving a true victory against our enemy...I do not see or understand a true victory against Terrorism so I was wondering what in your mind would be considered true victory against the enemy.
Interesting question. The Israelis have an effective model against groups such as this, (granted they suffer more terrorist attacks than anyone but they still have a good system to combat terrorism). I see no point in us sending a bunch of 20 year olds to fight a bunch of militant 20 year olds who are willing to sacrifice themselves for Allah. You kill this snake by cutting off its head. What we should do, instead of sending 75,000 people to fight terrorism with tanks, is send small special forces groups to take out their leadership. Israel has been using this technique for years. However, to do this, we must have good intelligence and very good special forces. Whether we have the training and intelligence for this, though, is the question. I believe that if we take out 10 of the right people, it will do more to fight terrorism than to take out 100 of their pawns. JMO
groupergenius
Active Member
Originally Posted by crimzy
Interesting question. The Israelis have an effective model against groups such as this, (granted they suffer more terrorist attacks than anyone but they still have a good system to combat terrorism). I see no point in us sending a bunch of 20 year olds to fight a bunch of militant 20 year olds who are willing to sacrifice themselves for Allah. You kill this snake by cutting off its head. What we should do, instead of sending 75,000 people to fight terrorism with tanks, is send small special forces groups to take out their leadership. Israel has been using this technique for years. However, to do this, we must have good intelligence and very good special forces. Whether we have the training and intelligence for this, though, is the question. I believe that if we take out 10 of the right people, it will do more to fight terrorism than to take out 100 of their pawns. JMO
If the Israeli method is so good. Why are they still fighting it? They have "cut the head off" many times. This snake is constantly growing a new head.
Interesting question. The Israelis have an effective model against groups such as this, (granted they suffer more terrorist attacks than anyone but they still have a good system to combat terrorism). I see no point in us sending a bunch of 20 year olds to fight a bunch of militant 20 year olds who are willing to sacrifice themselves for Allah. You kill this snake by cutting off its head. What we should do, instead of sending 75,000 people to fight terrorism with tanks, is send small special forces groups to take out their leadership. Israel has been using this technique for years. However, to do this, we must have good intelligence and very good special forces. Whether we have the training and intelligence for this, though, is the question. I believe that if we take out 10 of the right people, it will do more to fight terrorism than to take out 100 of their pawns. JMO
If the Israeli method is so good. Why are they still fighting it? They have "cut the head off" many times. This snake is constantly growing a new head.
crimzy
Active Member
Originally Posted by GrouperGenius
If the Israeli method is so good. Why are they still fighting it? They have "cut the head off" many times. This snake is constantly growing a new head.
Because they are a country, roughly, the size of Idaho. They have enemies who want to destroy them on all sides and they have recently given approximately 1/3 of their land to those who hate them in an attempt at diplomacy. It's due to their superior military forces and strategy that Israel is able to sustain at all.
If the Israeli method is so good. Why are they still fighting it? They have "cut the head off" many times. This snake is constantly growing a new head.
Because they are a country, roughly, the size of Idaho. They have enemies who want to destroy them on all sides and they have recently given approximately 1/3 of their land to those who hate them in an attempt at diplomacy. It's due to their superior military forces and strategy that Israel is able to sustain at all.
groupergenius
Active Member
Originally Posted by rbaldino
Again, you seem to understand the concept that they just plain hate us, yet you don't understand why we have to fight. For Jihadists, the end goal is to either convert the world to Islam or get rid of everyone who isn't. There is no middle ground, nothing to negotiate.
BTW - Japan had no real history of democracy before 1945, and little regard for western culture. If you drop a big enough bomb, you can bring anyone around.
Good point.
Again, you seem to understand the concept that they just plain hate us, yet you don't understand why we have to fight. For Jihadists, the end goal is to either convert the world to Islam or get rid of everyone who isn't. There is no middle ground, nothing to negotiate.
BTW - Japan had no real history of democracy before 1945, and little regard for western culture. If you drop a big enough bomb, you can bring anyone around.
Good point.
darthtang aw
Active Member
Originally Posted by GrouperGenius
If the Israeli method is so good. Why are they still fighting it? They have "cut the head off" many times. This snake is constantly growing a new head.
No, Crimzy is correct, the way Isreal handles it is the way to go. However, you think we have issues with torture now...How do you think The Isreali's get such good info. The Mossad is the most feared group/agency by Terrorist and extremists in the world. They use what ever means necessary to extract info....So this put's in a bind...we can do it the Isreali way, but the reason they have such great intel is their methods, which are borderline to crossing the geneva convention laws.
The reason Isreal keeps getting hit is they are surrounded and it is just a hop skip and a jump for a suicide bomber to run in their.....and doesn't take much indepth planning. They have however stopped the major attacks on them and have just the occassional suicide bomber...they are no longer the huge methodical strikes they used to be.
I always said, any terrorist we capture we should just hand over to the Mossad for interrogation and detaining...
But that still doesn't define what would constitute winning the war on terror or against Al Qaeda....
If the Israeli method is so good. Why are they still fighting it? They have "cut the head off" many times. This snake is constantly growing a new head.
No, Crimzy is correct, the way Isreal handles it is the way to go. However, you think we have issues with torture now...How do you think The Isreali's get such good info. The Mossad is the most feared group/agency by Terrorist and extremists in the world. They use what ever means necessary to extract info....So this put's in a bind...we can do it the Isreali way, but the reason they have such great intel is their methods, which are borderline to crossing the geneva convention laws.
The reason Isreal keeps getting hit is they are surrounded and it is just a hop skip and a jump for a suicide bomber to run in their.....and doesn't take much indepth planning. They have however stopped the major attacks on them and have just the occassional suicide bomber...they are no longer the huge methodical strikes they used to be.
I always said, any terrorist we capture we should just hand over to the Mossad for interrogation and detaining...
But that still doesn't define what would constitute winning the war on terror or against Al Qaeda....
groupergenius
Active Member
Originally Posted by crimzy
Because they are a country, roughly, the size of Idaho. They have enemies who want to destroy them on all sides and they have recently given approximately 1/3 of their land to those who hate them in an attempt at diplomacy. It's due to their superior military forces and strategy that Israel is able to sustain at all.
I understand that. Thing is though that no matter how many leaders you take out there is someone up and coming to take their spot. Idea is to change the ideals. It will take time no doubt, but as generations go, they will start to question their own motives. The more "Democracies" they have in the region, the more exposed they will become to peaceful philosophies.
How long after our own Civil War was it still basically acceptable in the South to treat black people in a horrific manner? Change takes time, but it eventually happens. Not overnight.
Because they are a country, roughly, the size of Idaho. They have enemies who want to destroy them on all sides and they have recently given approximately 1/3 of their land to those who hate them in an attempt at diplomacy. It's due to their superior military forces and strategy that Israel is able to sustain at all.
I understand that. Thing is though that no matter how many leaders you take out there is someone up and coming to take their spot. Idea is to change the ideals. It will take time no doubt, but as generations go, they will start to question their own motives. The more "Democracies" they have in the region, the more exposed they will become to peaceful philosophies.
How long after our own Civil War was it still basically acceptable in the South to treat black people in a horrific manner? Change takes time, but it eventually happens. Not overnight.
groupergenius
Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
which are borderline to crossing the geneva convention laws. ....
Borderline?? Our problem is...we have some stupid individuals "haze" some detainees and it is treated like we had cut their nads off and fed it to them.
which are borderline to crossing the geneva convention laws. ....
Borderline?? Our problem is...we have some stupid individuals "haze" some detainees and it is treated like we had cut their nads off and fed it to them.
rbaldino
Active Member
Originally Posted by crimzy
The Israelis have an effective model against groups such as this, (granted they suffer more terrorist attacks than anyone but they still have a good system to combat terrorism).
How can you logically believe that Israel has a better system when you admit that they suffer more terrorism than anyone else? That makes no sense. I subscribe to the Russian model: Surround terrorist strongholds with artillery pieces and obliterate them.
The Israelis have an effective model against groups such as this, (granted they suffer more terrorist attacks than anyone but they still have a good system to combat terrorism).
How can you logically believe that Israel has a better system when you admit that they suffer more terrorism than anyone else? That makes no sense. I subscribe to the Russian model: Surround terrorist strongholds with artillery pieces and obliterate them.
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
....I also believe Journey is referencing Clinton to point out it wasn't just BUSH "lies" regarding these topics....
Corect. Ryan kept saying "Bush lied", the Democrats didn't know, etc.
....I also believe Journey is referencing Clinton to point out it wasn't just BUSH "lies" regarding these topics....
Corect. Ryan kept saying "Bush lied", the Democrats didn't know, etc.
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
....I also believe Journey is referencing Clinton to point out it wasn't just BUSH "lies" regarding these topics....
Correct. Ryan kept saying "Bush lied", the Democrats didn't know, etc.
....I also believe Journey is referencing Clinton to point out it wasn't just BUSH "lies" regarding these topics....
Correct. Ryan kept saying "Bush lied", the Democrats didn't know, etc.
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
.... and the first Iraq war was legit. The bombings during Clinton Admin probably were too. ......
That sums it up. President Clinton apparently bombed imaginary nuclear, chemical and biological targets, without consulting the UN, and it was "probably" legit.
President Bush attacks Iraq, after 17 UN Resolutions, and is a "liar".
.... and the first Iraq war was legit. The bombings during Clinton Admin probably were too. ......
That sums it up. President Clinton apparently bombed imaginary nuclear, chemical and biological targets, without consulting the UN, and it was "probably" legit.
President Bush attacks Iraq, after 17 UN Resolutions, and is a "liar".
1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by crimzy
Interesting question. The Israelis have an effective model against groups such as this, (granted they suffer more terrorist attacks than anyone but they still have a good system to combat terrorism). ....
Israel arrests without cause, profiles, sets up border checks, requires every man and woman to be in the military, laughs at the UN, laughs at the Geneva Convention (because it doesn't apply to terrorists), puts down riots with tanks, and forces people to live in a basically "segregated" society based on ethnicity. Their general policies make the Patriot Act look like a Greeting Card.
Did I leave anything out? Oh ya, they invade other countries to kill terrorists.
They still get hit by terrorists... and they have steadily lost territory since the 6 Day War.
Why is their model better than ours? If anything, they should be looked at as an example of how not to fight a war with Islamic Extremists. You don't give in, you don't negotiate, and you don't let them surround you...
Interesting question. The Israelis have an effective model against groups such as this, (granted they suffer more terrorist attacks than anyone but they still have a good system to combat terrorism). ....
Israel arrests without cause, profiles, sets up border checks, requires every man and woman to be in the military, laughs at the UN, laughs at the Geneva Convention (because it doesn't apply to terrorists), puts down riots with tanks, and forces people to live in a basically "segregated" society based on ethnicity. Their general policies make the Patriot Act look like a Greeting Card.
Did I leave anything out? Oh ya, they invade other countries to kill terrorists.
They still get hit by terrorists... and they have steadily lost territory since the 6 Day War.
Why is their model better than ours? If anything, they should be looked at as an example of how not to fight a war with Islamic Extremists. You don't give in, you don't negotiate, and you don't let them surround you...
nigerbang
Active Member
Originally Posted by GrouperGenius
Our problem is...we have some stupid individuals "haze" some detainees and it is treated like we had cut their nads off and fed it to them.
Agreed...At least we dont feed them to tigers while they are alive or saw thier heads off with small knives on TV while the whole world watches and hears them scream...
Our problem is...we have some stupid individuals "haze" some detainees and it is treated like we had cut their nads off and fed it to them.
Agreed...At least we dont feed them to tigers while they are alive or saw thier heads off with small knives on TV while the whole world watches and hears them scream...
darthtang aw
Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Did I leave anything out?
They actively assassinate people and perform kidnappings. They plant false information for other countries to gather and base conclusions from .....
The only reason they keep losing territory is the secumb to political pressure from Western nations to compromise with the Palestinians and other arab nations......
Did I leave anything out?
They actively assassinate people and perform kidnappings. They plant false information for other countries to gather and base conclusions from .....
The only reason they keep losing territory is the secumb to political pressure from Western nations to compromise with the Palestinians and other arab nations......
rylan1
Active Member
".....But despite these visible differences on key Mideast policy issues, the Saudis have not broken with the U.S. any more than Britain has done since it chose a new leadership less sanguine about U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. remains Saudi Arabia's most important strategic ally, and that relationship has been a cornerstone of U.S. national security doctrine since 1945. Even on the issues where they differ, the two sides share the same strategic goals - stabilizing Iraq; concluding a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians; and curbing Iran's regional influence and nuclear ambitions. The differences arise because the Saudis believe the Bush Administration's methods of pursuing these goals have failed, and that its dogged persistence in pursuing dysfunctional policies will imperil both Saudi and U.S. strategic interests. The Saudis also know that President George W. Bush is a lame duck and have to work with that debilitating circumstance. They saw his father as a model U.S. President, and are quite disappointed because he was so unlike his father.
So, the Saudis will emphasize their shared goals with the U.S., but they won't follow the Bush Administration's lead on the key issues when Washington's policy contradicts their own sense of what is required. They will strongly support the continued U.S. presence in Iraq, but press for more aggressive pressure on the Maliki government to make substantial political concessions to Iraq's Sunnis; they will continue to promote Palestinian unity and insist on a more far-reaching Mideast peace process than the one envisaged by the Bush Administration; and they will continue to press for a realistic diplomatic solution to the Iran nuclear standoff. And, of course, they will hope that the U.S. electorate produces a successor more prone to the realism of the elder Bush than to the hubris and ideological impulses of his son"
This is from Time Magazine - any thoughts? Apparently we are trying to give Saudi Arabia $20billion worth of advanced weapons, but feel like we are failing in Iraq and that Bush is a bad president.
So, the Saudis will emphasize their shared goals with the U.S., but they won't follow the Bush Administration's lead on the key issues when Washington's policy contradicts their own sense of what is required. They will strongly support the continued U.S. presence in Iraq, but press for more aggressive pressure on the Maliki government to make substantial political concessions to Iraq's Sunnis; they will continue to promote Palestinian unity and insist on a more far-reaching Mideast peace process than the one envisaged by the Bush Administration; and they will continue to press for a realistic diplomatic solution to the Iran nuclear standoff. And, of course, they will hope that the U.S. electorate produces a successor more prone to the realism of the elder Bush than to the hubris and ideological impulses of his son"
This is from Time Magazine - any thoughts? Apparently we are trying to give Saudi Arabia $20billion worth of advanced weapons, but feel like we are failing in Iraq and that Bush is a bad president.