RE: One or Two Iraq Questions

RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity

Message

mnottertail -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/15/2005 4:51:25 AM)
You know, I have wondered endlessly about this 70+ virgins thing that they use to get young guys to do the little square dance to Allah...... If when you get there and you get them, what happens if they are still to remain virgins by Allahs ingenious plans? Wouldn't that be the shits?

JohnWarren -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/15/2005 5:23:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail You know, I have wondered endlessly about this 70+ virgins thing that they use to get young guys to do the little square dance to Allah...... If when you get there and you get them, what happens if they are still to remain virgins by Allahs ingenious plans? Wouldn't that be the shits? It's been a long time since I read the Quran and that was a translated one so I can't be sure it's accurate (After all, the King James people translated "poisoners" as "witches") but I seem to recall the adjective "perpetual" attached to the situation to which you are referring.

gypsysoul -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/17/2005 3:01:14 AM)
Merc, you blow me away. You sound like a smart man. You don't back down in a debate, threaten to leave if everyone doesn't agree with you. But I really don't understand you. Please help me to understand you. OK, there's this war, and a bunch of us left wingers ain't for it. We're opposed. We think it's wrong-minded, poorly planned, piss-poorly executed, and we can't see logically where anyone can justify its continuance, let alone its commencement. You, on the other hand, disregard WMD's as an excuse because they surely weren't the point. It's democracy, dammit! WE NEED to spread our love of Democracy, dammit! Then you throw this line out: quote: I hate the fact that we are still in Iraq. The people we are fighting for, don't deserve our troops blood.ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Decide, brother, decide! Decide what your Commander In Chief intended in this fiasco. There weren't any WMD's; we sold WMD's to the Iraqis to use against Iran, and they just blew up Kurds with 'em. The WMD's were all gone, we all know that. YOU know that. And in the end, you state your opposition to our troops fighting for freedom for Iraqis, since they don't "deserve our blood". Support the troops, dammit. It ain't their mission, right? Blah blah blah. Support them when it isn't their mission, and none of us are into it, as you obviously aren't into the spread of democracy to essentially Third World people, when the people in the country you so vigorously support the deployment of troops to, are "The people we are fighting for, don't deserve our troops blood." then where does that leave you idealogically?

Mercnbeth -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/17/2005 8:01:28 AM)
quote: "The people we are fighting for, don't deserve our troops blood." then where does that leave you idealogically? Gypsy, My ideologically isn't being represented in Iraq, but I doubt you'd agree with what was going on if it was. I believe in commitment, and winning. The problem with Iraq is both the commitment it's the "winning". It can't be defined. There is no Capitol to conquer, no flag to capture, and even the "kill the bad man" isn't appropriate because bin Laden is not there. The "democracy" agenda is the only rationalization the current administration has. All that's admitted. As a result the US is conducting a "politically correct" war. Our commitment is governed by restraint. That, my friend is doomed for failure in Iraq, as it was in Vietnam. Meanwhile, our troops are dying. If you read the thread, you already know my belief of supporting the war as a commitment to supporting the troops. Just put it in your own situation. Whatever job you have, would you feel you had support if your friends or family said; "Gee gypsy, I think you are a great person, you support your family with your job, but really, that company you work for is run by an asshole, the product you're making can kill people, so I'm going to lobby and protest to close you down." How would you feel about that person? Would you feel their efforts were counterproductive to you, you family, your life? Doesn't happen, outside the military? There are many industries like that, the cigarette for one. Were it my decision, I'd withdraw. Surprised? I'd withdraw with a caveat; ANY terrorist even in the US will result in an attack on the country of origin. The scale of that attack, dictated by the event; up to an including nuclear. Every country would be included, including our "friends" the Saudis, where the majority of the 9/11 participants had citizenship. It's not my idea. The existence of Israel, amidst its enemies, is a direct result of having this philosophy and its enemies knowing it. I would not risk ground troops. I would now care about the locals anymore than their current governing body. It would be a very pragmatic, "old testament", and Koran approach to the situation. Fuck with us - DIE. "Innocents" would be killed. More than now? More than under the regime of Saddam? I don't see how that's possible. Fear of retaliation works as a deterrent. It worked from 1945 to 1989 on a much larger scale. Regarding the troops and the war, I will restate this every time the question is broached. I support them and believe part of that support, in fact the key of that support, is supporting what they have been ordered to do. Another question the opposing position needs to answer is; if you don't support what they are doing, exactly what are you supporting? Supporting that they don't die? There is no logic to that position. Not supporting their activity is a goal of their enemy. Recently it's been an open goal of the enemy. The position gives the enemy a victory. That victory results in more enemy and more US troop death. So my solution would be to let the Iraqi live and die as they want. Although I believe Saddam was complicit in the 9/11 attacks, I don’t think he is any worse than the leaders of Libya, Korea, Iran, or a lot of non-oil producing countries in Africa, and other parts of the world that don’t seem to warrant “democracification”. But I’d leave making sure that everyone knew the “new rules”. The returning troops would be assigned to our borders with Canada and Mexico. I’d even consider re-implementing the “Don’t Tread on Me” flag. At that point both the commitment and the winning would be defined. Commitment to protecting the citizens of the US, and winning would be defined as, if an attack happens we have a a published retaliation policy and act upon it.

Lordandmaster -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/17/2005 9:43:11 AM)
What was the "country of origin" of the 9/11 attacks? Or the Bali attacks? Oh, a bigger problem: The closest thing to a "country of origin" of the London Underground attacks was the United Kingdom. According to your logic, you'd favor a retaliatory attack on the United Kingdom, right? quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth I'd withdraw with a caveat; ANY terrorist even in the US will result in an attack on the country of origin. The scale of that attack, dictated by the event; up to an including nuclear. Every country would be included, including our "friends" the Saudis, where the majority of the 9/11 participants had citizenship.

JohnWarren -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/17/2005 10:04:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster What was the "country of origin" of the 9/11 attacks? Or the Bali attacks? Oh, a bigger problem: The closest thing to a "country of origin" of the London Underground attacks was the United Kingdom. According to your logic, you'd favor a retaliatory attack on the United Kingdom, right? quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth I'd withdraw with a caveat; ANY terrorist even in the US will result in an attack on the country of origin. The scale of that attack, dictated by the event; up to an including nuclear. Every country would be included, including our "friends" the Saudis, where the majority of the 9/11 participants had citizenship. Am I the only one bothered by the idea of killing thousands and maybe hundreds of thousands of people who were completely innocent? Even if the governments in question were active participants in the attack, most of these countries (including Saudi Arabia) aren't democracies. The average guy on the street would be less responsible a terrorist attack than a shopkeeper in Britain was responsible for America's Revolutionary War. Of course, they aren't us so "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out." Remember the picture of the naked girl running from the napalm? That's the level of selectivity that's being suggested.

Lordandmaster -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/17/2005 10:13:26 AM)
Hey, John, stop making this so complicated. It's simple: they bomb us, we nuke them. Right?

DesertRat -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/17/2005 10:25:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JohnWarren Am I the only one bothered by the idea of killing thousands and maybe hundreds of thousands of people who were completely innocent? Even if the governments in question were active participants in the attack, most of these countries (including Saudi Arabia) aren't democracies. The average guy on the street would be less responsible a terrorist attack than a shopkeeper in Britain was responsible for America's Revolutionary War. Of course, they aren't us so "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out." Remember the picture of the naked girl running from the napalm? That's the level of selectivity that's being suggested. You're not the only one bothered by it; it disturbs me, too. As for the "level of selectivity" you feel is being suggested, it appears to me we are practicing that right now in Iraq. It doesn't seem to bother too many Americans, though. Any time I mention all the innocent civilians killed, what I usually get back is the standard Administration party line bullshit to the effect that it's just the insurgent terrorists killing the innocent. Or worse yet: the good old "you gotta break eggs if you want to make an omelette" line. Interestingly, I hear these things from guys who get their war on tv, not from people who have actually been in combat over there. Bob

JohnWarren -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/17/2005 11:01:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Hey, John, stop making this so complicated. It's simple: they bomb us, we nuke them. Right? Worked in the old testament. Who am I to argue?

frenchpet -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/17/2005 11:01:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JohnWarren Of course, they aren't us so "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out." I think the reason why war is still seen as one option among others (just as a boycott or other economic pressure) is that people don't have a strong repulsion towards war, as the kind of horror reminded by this quote is not something people really know, on your side of the pond. I know that in 14-18 people lived in shit for 4 years. Many died because some fucking sergeant wanted to take back hill#G142, sent hundreds of soldiers die to take it, and the next day just as many people die on the other side bacause another idiotic sergeant decided to take it back. Visit any french village that has 100 inhabitants. On the monument to the war heroes you will often see 30 names. 30 wasted lives. Out of 36000 towns and villages, I think there is one small village in which no one died in 14-18. But others have completely disappeared, all the inhabitants being killed. And when some soldiers refused to die to let their sergeant have a medal, they were sometimes killed by their own officers. I don't need any history book to tell me this. It happened to many people in my family as in anybody's family here. Closer than that, my french grandparents can still tell me who in the family was burnt alive, burried alive or hang in public, during the occupation. And these murders were most of the time done on a random person (more often on several random people), after a "terrorist attack". It's pobably more questionable when it's a history book. Decide to go to war against a country that does not pose the slightest threat except to its own people ? No thanks. There are other ways to help the starving people in North Korea.

JohnWarren -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/17/2005 11:16:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: frenchpet quote: ORIGINAL: JohnWarren Of course, they aren't us so "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out." I think the reason why war is still seen as one option among others (just as a boycott or other economic pressure) is that people don't have a strong repulsion towards war, as the kind of horror reminded by this quote is not something people really know, on your side of the pond. I know that in 14-18 people lived in shit for 4 years. Many died because some fucking sergeant wanted to take back hill#G142, sent hundreds of soldiers die to take it, and the next day just as many people die on the other side bacause another idiotic sergeant decided to take it back. Visit any french village that has 100 inhabitants. On the monument to the war heroes you will often see 30 names. 30 wasted lives. Out of 36000 towns and villages, I think there is one small village in which no one died in 14-18. But others have completely disappeared, all the inhabitants being killed. And when some soldiers refused to die to let their sergeant have a medal, they were sometimes killed by their own officers. I don't need any history book to tell me this. It happened to many people in my family as in anybody's family here. Closer than that, my french grandparents can still tell me who in the family was burnt alive, burried alive or hang in public, during the occupation. And these murders were most of the time done on a random person (more often on several random people), after a "terrorist attack". It's pobably more questionable when it's a history book. Decide to go to war against a country that does not pose the slightest threat except to its own people ? No thanks. There are other ways to help the starving people in North Korea. Before you get feeling noble about the French people post WWI and WWII, you'd might want to read up on the Algerian and Indochina Campaigns. Despite horrific things that happened in those two wars, they had no problem at all with mass slaugher. I'll give them credit; most of the time it wasn't "we have to fight communism/terrorism" it was the clearer and more accurate "we have to keep our sources of raw materials and markets." It's been my observation that people who suffer through war are more likely to be the "pitbulls of politics" than those who have been spared its ravages. Oh, the quote? That's actually a paraphase from "your side of the pond." "Kill them all, God will know his own" is attributed to Arnold Amaury, the monk who led the Albigensian Crusade in the Cathar Conflict. [evil grin] You remember that... a French war.

frenchpet -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/17/2005 12:00:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JohnWarren Before you get feeling noble about the French people post WWI and WWII, you'd might want to read up on the Algerian ... Oh, the quote? That's actually a paraphase from "your side of the pond." "Kill them all, God will know his own" is attributed to Arnold Amaury, the monk who led the Albigensian Crusade in the Cathar Conflict. [evil grin] You remember that... a French war. I'm an American citizen, and I remind this each and every time I'm talking to someone who attacks Americans, and I do fight back. Anyway...there isn't much to feel noble about when discussing about war. Mass murders in Algeria weren't pretty, and the fact that thousands of people refused to go doesn't help. I was simply reminding that the fact that most people know about many relatives who were tortured and murdered changes the way people see things. Concerning Amalric, are you a native american, to tell me that crusades are the heritage of europeans only ? I've tracked most of my ancestors back to 1600, and given that between 1600 and 1880 there weren't more than 20 km from the birthplaces of one generation to the next, I'm quite confident that none of my ancestors were in or around Béziers at that time. So it's more likely to be your heritage than mine ! quote: It's been my observation that people who suffer through war are more likely to be the "pitbulls of politics" than those who have been spared its ravages. But of course we agree here.

frenchpet -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/17/2005 1:02:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JohnWarren Remember the picture of the naked girl running from the napalm? That's the level of selectivity that's being suggested. The problem is, I'm afraid most people forgot. Here is Kim Phuc, when she was 9 year old. [image]http://www.transom.org/talk/photos/200108.ut.napalm.jpg[/image] She now lives in Canada. Enlarged picture available. Oh... the reason why I wanted to post this picture is that you can't see this kind of pictures from wars, any more. Wars have become surgical operations. Which is perfectly true as long a journalists mind their own business (it applies to Chechnya as well). (I don't know how to upload an image, so this is a direct link to another site, bad me.)

Mercnbeth -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/17/2005 1:46:33 PM)
quote: Am I the only one bothered by the idea of killing thousands and maybe hundreds of thousands of people who were completely innocent? It will take a long time to obtain the efficiency of the Saddam regime where it gets to the hundreds of thousands quickly no matter which side does the counting. Please enlighten me. In which war/conflict were zero civilians killed? The naked girl running from napalm was in a war zone during an active war. Her situation was tragic, and disturbing. It must be an important focal point since you point it out on a couple of occasions and now we have a picture posted. Should the response be to post a picture of Nicholas Berg's beheading? Does that serve any purpose? Instead of a bombing mission Mr Berg's experience was first hand, deliberate. Should you, Frenchpet or anyone else be so inclined, I'll just post the link if your memory needs refreshing. The reference is immaterial in both cases and serves no purpose for this debate. http://www.thenausea.com/elements/usa/iraq%202004/05/berg/index.html Why assume by taking the position I take that I am not "bothered by the idea of killing thousands..."? When I have to fire someone at my office am I bothered that I potentially destroyed his financial status? Do I not consider the impact on his family, his lifestyle? Well I do. But ultimately I didn't fire him. His actions/inactions, poor results fired him. As would be the case. Their government initiated the action. If it didn't matter the action would be preemptive. After all there is a stated position, not contradicted by any Muslim leader to my knowledge, to kill any "infidel". Feel free to peruse any of the following outlines or articles: http://answering-islam.org.uk/Sharia/ http://www.prophetofdoom.net/ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1297328/posts http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1998 Of course the patten is not to address the first part of the argument just the result, but no matter. It was a pragmatic solution offered in an effort to return the troops you "support" from a war you don't. What solution do you offer? The "oil for food" program during the trade embargo worked very well, didn't it? It would be interesting to know if more civilians dies at Saddam's hands during that fiasco versus since his overthrow. All we heard then was that the embargo was killing children and civilians. At least now there are hospitals, schools, and other infrastructure being built instead of another Saddam palace. The only civilians being killed are by the same people who were killing them before, except to a MUCH lessor extent. Or is it your position that fewer civilians were being killed routinely under Saddam? So no, I would not be bothered, in the event of another attack on the US, to retaliate to source. I make it my "best guess". I have no problem with that. All I need to rationalize is to take on the logic my enemies did on 9/11. Yes it is "simple". Does it work? Ask Israel or better yet ask Israel's enemies.

Lordandmaster -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/17/2005 1:51:45 PM)
Prophetic. quote: ORIGINAL: DesertRat Or worse yet: the good old "you gotta break eggs if you want to make an omelette" line. Interestingly, I hear these things from guys who get their war on tv, not from people who have actually been in combat over there. quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Please enlighten me. In which war/conflict were zero civilians killed?

Mercnbeth -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/17/2005 2:04:52 PM)
quote: Prophetic. I want to play too.... Profound! Now what's your point?

JohnWarren -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/17/2005 2:11:17 PM)
deleted... ain't worth it

frenchpet -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/17/2005 2:14:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth After all there is a stated position, not contradicted by any Muslim leader to my knowledge, to kill any "infidel". Feel free to peruse any of the following outlines or articles: http://answering-islam.org.uk/Sharia/ The fact that you mention a position "not contradicted by any muslim leader" and immediately link to the sharia is either extremely dishonest or ignorant. FYI, muslim leaders in France have to abide by the laws of the Republic. This is the credit I give to Sarkozy (who is very likely to be the next president) as a minister of interior and religious affairs. Before that many leaders were sent from Saudi Arabia, not even speaking french, and calling for violence and jihad in unofficial mosques (usually, cellars). The leader of french muslims (5-6 million people) is Dalil Boubakeur. He was chosen by the government (officially, he was elected by muslims. It's quite a contradiction in a secular country, but it's a positive change). And are you going to discuss the fact that the bible calls for the murder of homosexuals ? Do you need the verses ? So what should homosexuals do ? Bomb the churches ? What should christian homosexuals do ? Commit suicide ? edit : of course, you added "to my knowledge". But then I'd bet 3 peanuts that you don't know a single muslim leader (let alone those you see on TV who call for the jihad, I'm talking about religious leaders, not warlords). All the baptist leaders I know call for a nucular war against North Korea...

Mercnbeth -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/17/2005 3:18:42 PM)
quote: And are you going to discuss the fact that the bible calls for the murder of homosexuals ? Do you need the verses ? So what should homosexuals do ? Bomb the churches ? What should christian homosexuals do ? Commit suicide ? I find organized religion the cause of more death then any other source. The source links were general. I don't blame the Muslims who may not concur with the position that is more loudly presented by their "leaders". If memory serves Salman Rushdie is/was a Muslim and his opinion resulted in a price on his head. More recently in Amsterdam, a filmmaker and newspaper columnist Theo van Gogh, was killed because his film was critical of the treatment of woman by Muslims, touching off another celebration in the Muslim world, with weak opposition from the leaders. I have yet to see any broad or specific condemnation of the ACTIVITIES. The Bible is a great source of scary children's stories and movie scripts. Few who are taken seriously and represent and speak for their religions espouse to enforce the literal words. If the murder of homosexuals was being preached from the pulpit as the murder of infidels is being preached in the Mosques, then your argument would have merit. That is the difference. Taken the farthest radical position taken by the Christian side of the equation; when the wackos bomb an abortion clinic and kill people there is no dancing in the streets of the Vatican. No "celebration" of the "martyrs". Just the opposite occurs in response to any of the the Muslim terrorist activities. I take that as an organizational position on the part of the Muslim religion, and will continue to do so until a leader as "revered" as bin Laden appears on TV saying that ANY murder is NOT in the name of Allah. To your other point regarding "Christian homosexuals" there aren't any. At least there can't be any if by defining "Christian" you are specifying a specific denomination. To my knowledge, although I believe there was an attempt by the Presbyterians, no Christian denomination accepts homosexuals. Key word there is "denomination". Local churches or non-denominational churches may accept Christians who are homosexual, but as doctrine I am not aware of any. Please let me know any exception, I'd be pleasantly surprised. Anyone can be a "Christian" defined as a follower of Christ. And personal sexual preference need not come into the equation; but if you want to identify with a specific religious denomination they have to identify with you. It's similar to the "new" catholics. Who represent themselves as catholics, but take birth control, don't believe in confession, and re-marry after divorce without the benefit of paying for an annulment. They can call themselves anything they'd like, but by doctrine they aren't catholic. Just to be clear, I don't feel suicide is a practical solution. I greatly respect the people of peace. To be a pacifist as ALL costs is extremely noble. To be a Gandhi is the bravest position of all, but somehow he too was shot to death, as was Martin Luther King, the closest the the US has to a non-violent revolutionary example. Both effected change, both never raised a hand in their own defense. Admirable! Would it work for a county? And how far would your pacifism go? Would you die for it? That being the case, I'd support you and your mission as I do the troops in Iraq, even though in both cases I think there are other and better options. I won't qualify my support because you position is not on the same side as mine.

frenchpet -> RE: One or Two Iraq Questions (10/17/2005 4:00:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth If the murder of homosexuals was being preached from the pulpit as the murder of infidels is being preached in the Mosques, then your argument would have merit. That is the difference. Are you talking about this or that ? Don't get me wrong thô. I'm not in awe before the muslim religion, to say the least. But the holy book of the muslim isn't really worse than the bible (edit : I mean, if you take them litteraly). If you add the sharia, it's a different story. Sorry, I can't give you any pleasant surprise from any christian denomination. Maybe silly, but lutherian churches might accept homosexuals. Given that Luther didn't believe in free will, anyone who is homosexual has no choice and whether s/he will be saved is up to god, not to him, so their should be no judging, and s/he should be accepted as s/he is. Just a thought. I don't consider myself as a pacifist, but I consider there should be a hell of a good reason before one decides to unleash Hell once again. I'm proud my countries (as thousands of other people I'm both french and american) went to fight in Afghanistan, even tho it was late, too late, after the assassination of Ahmad Shah Massud (he was assassinated a couple days before 9/11. In 2000 Massud was invited to the EU by Mme Fontaine. I was proud that Nicole Fontaine was doing so much for Afghanistan, and ashamed EU wouldn't take any action. Ah well, Massud is considered as a romantic hero, particularly popular in France because he was francophile, I guess. But had we helped him, he would have defeated the taliban. And the people there could be proud and say they liberated themselves from the taliban. And there was a link between the taliban and Al Qaeda... and those guys were a military threat to the whole central Asia. These were good reasons. Ah well...

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125