RE: Did we Belong in Iraq

RE: Did we Belong in Iraq (Full Version)

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

[Poll]

Did we Belong in Iraq

Yes

29% (19)

67% (43)

maybe

3% (2)

Total Votes : 64

(last vote on : 9/19/2006 12:07:08 AM)
(Poll will run till: -- )

Message

Mercnbeth -> RE: Did we Belong in Iraq (7/5/2005 4:03:35 PM)
quote: You're not making any sense, and frankly I think your views about this are fundamentally non-rational. I think you just hate Muslims. Lam, No I don't. I hate their actions, their interpretation of their dogma, and how they are represented by their "leaders". Their actions are my source of hatred. The individuals who lead their people. The clerics who "sell" martyrdom to their congregations. The teachers who begin each school day with a "prayer" for the death of the US. The "congress" that shouts "death to American" as the call to order. Where is Muslim outrage over the beheaded captives? The only common denominator of all the hijackers on 9/11 was that they were Muslim. I think it would be impossible to them as much as they hate life itself as evidenced by their "martyrdom". I've quoted from the Koran enough. Here's the piratical side of that dogma of hatred. " quote: Secret documents known as "martyrs' kits" obtained by The Post provide a startling glimpse into the world of suicide bombers, who are recruited with promises that their families will be well taken care of financially. These kits ensure that the families of Hamas, PLO and Palestinian Islamic Jihad killers get generous "charitable donations" from Saudi Arabia-based organizations and, while he was in power, Saddam Hussein. The documents reviewed by The Post include a martyr kit for Maher Kamel Hbeishe, a Hamas fanatic who blew himself up on a Haifa bus Dec. 2, 2001, killing 15 Israelis and wounding 40. Much of the kit's paperwork carries the corporate logo of the Arab Bank — the Middle East's most important and influential financial institution — and the numbers of the accounts through which his family was paid. The cover on Hbeishe's file — in the records of Saudi relief committees — proclaims: "the martyrs receive reward from their Lord, they and their light." Entire Article: http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/49575.htm How does anyone propose to deal with that reality? Still unanswered is; "What would Zarqawi, bin Laden and the other Islamic terrorists be doing? Would they all go back to sheep herding, or opening convenience stores, or driving taxis in NYC? Would the war be "over" as it was on September 10, 2001? Were the people we saw dancing in the streets on 9/11 our "friends" who became enemies after we invaded Iraq?" There is no compromise in their position. I see no need to compromise in mine.

sub4hire -> RE: Did we Belong in Iraq (7/5/2005 4:06:07 PM)
quote: "What would Zarqawi, bin Laden and the other Islamic terrorists be doing? Would they all go back to sheep herding, or opening convenience stores, or driving taxis in NYC? Would the war be "over" as it was on September 10, 2001? Were the people we saw dancing in the streets on 9/11 our "friends" who became enemies after we invaded Iraq?" To answer it the second time. They would still be doing what they were doing. Since they never were in Iraq in the first place. They were in Afghanistan where nobody is condemning the war efforts.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Did we Belong in Iraq (7/5/2005 5:30:26 PM)
Merc, what you're saying would make some sense if the war on Iraq actually helped to destroy al Qaeda. But it didn't and won't. On the contrary, the war in Iraq has only made al Qaeda much stronger--because the most powerful Muslim state in the Middle East used to be led by a dictator who was a bitter enemy of al Qaeda, and now it's not being led by anyone at all. (Not to mention the fact that we've now sown at least two more generations of people who hate the U.S. with all their heart--with some reason, you know.) I despise terrorists too. I really don't think you'll find many people who love Islamic terrorists. But supporting the invasion of Iraq because you hate terrorists is simply non-rational. This is all very disappointing to witness, because yours is precisely the attitude that the Bush Administration has tried to inculcate in the American electorate since the end of 2001. After constant pressure, they themselves have now abandoned the whole galling pretense that the war in Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. But millions of people still believe in their bones that there is some kind of connection. I guess it's what you call a faith-based electorate. Facts don't matter. Lam

Mercnbeth -> RE: Did we Belong in Iraq (7/5/2005 6:54:15 PM)
quote: After constant pressure, they themselves have now abandoned the whole galling pretense that the war in Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. But millions of people still believe in their bones that there is some kind of connection. I guess it's what you call a faith-based electorate. Facts don't matter. Would you say there are Muslims who believe in their bones that America is Satan? Would anything change that opinion? What current fact am I not considering regarding our current situation in Iraq? Current - not history. We are there now. To date facts seem to have proven that there were no WMD's; although prior to the invasion there was no absolute unqualified certainty. There were opinions on both sides of the issue. Reading all 7 of the Downing street memo create a reasonable doubt at least to me. I currently don't connect Iraq directly with 9/11 other than in the support, aid, and comfort of the people who carried out the mission. I believe that through Iraq and Saddam, training, money, and a safe haven were provided. If there were no doubt that there were no WMD's would that have been enough for invasion? It may be more convoluted than before but it's still a connection. I believe that arguments were on both sides of the issue prior to the invasion. My rationalization for being there now is more pragmatic. Better there than here. Let the resources of hatred be spent as far away from the US as possible. I don't agree that there are more or less terrorists because of our activity. Are there more patriotic American's after 9/11? Maybe, but I'd argue that they are just more polarized. The same condition exists in Iraq with one exception. There is no opposition opinion tolerated. Or better put, all opposition is under the threat of death. If you were there Lam, would you have gone and gotten a "blue thumb" under the threat of death? I don't know if I would. Hell if it's raining I think about the "inconvenience" of voting. As the country exists now, those people deserve our protection until they can protect themselves. Abandoning them would result in more and justified hatred. People in the US don't need to concern themselves with these things. The most serious issue the opposition must contend with here is loud mouth bragging that no rational person would take seriously. No one has martyred themselves to kill others because of their opinion or belief. And no cleric is recruiting members to do so. My deepest desire is that they have a 100% success rate in recruitment, yet somehow they all fail to kill anyone but themselves and their clerics.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Did we Belong in Iraq (7/5/2005 8:58:44 PM)
There is absolutely no proof of that, Merc--and if there were, you can be sure we'd be hearing about it on Fox News every night. Yes, of course I believe there are Muslims who believe in their bones that America is Satan. But there are two inferences you seem to be drawing that don't follow. It doesn't mean that all Muslims feel that way, and it certainly doesn't mean that our invasion of Iraq was justified. quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth I believe that through Iraq and Saddam, training, money, and a safe haven were provided.

knees2you -> RE: Did we Belong in Iraq (7/6/2005 9:39:11 AM)
This is why We can't send any more Troops over in Iraq~~ Who's in the Army Now? Why we can't send more troops to Iraq. By Fred Kaplan Posted Thursday, June 30, 2005, at 3:21 PM PT As we're often told, 1 million men and women serve in the U.S. Army. So, why is it such a strain to keep a mere 150,000 in Iraq? What are the other 850,000 doing? Why can't some of them be sent there, too? And if they really can't be spared from their current tasks, what broader inferences can be drawn about America's military policy? Should we bring back the draft to provide more boots on the ground—or, alternatively, scale back our global ambitions so fewer boots will be needed? First, let's look at those million soldiers. Who are they? The Web site GlobalSecurity.org has a pie chart breaking them down into categories. It turns out that fewer than 40 percent of them—391,460—are combat soldiers. And fewer than 40 percent of those combat soldiers—149,406—are members of the active armed forces. (The rest are in the National Guard and Army Reserve.) The others are support and logistics troops—50,252 in transportation, 37,763 in medical, 34,270 in the training and doctrine command, and so forth. The distinctions are not ironclad. Transportation soldiers, for example, get shot at and shoot back. Still, however you define it, a strikingly small percentage of the million-man Army consists of active soldiers whose principal job is to fight. http://www.slate.com/id/2121793/?GT1=6666 Sincerely, Ant [image]local://upfiles/19655/450094DC797F47C39742AAF0D5E111F3.jpg[/image]

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 4 [5]

Spam Policy

0.03125