Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 215
  1. #101  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    I understand perfectly. I also understand that shooting at overflying planes is not enough reason to kill 10 000's Iraqi's and causing the death of 3000+ Americans.

    The question is then - is that the best you can do? Is that the worst attack Saddam has made on America. Was it worth the continuing cost?

    Surur
    The point is that you said America was the aggressor. Can we first address that issue?
  2. #102  
    Yes. When you shoot at people flying war planes over your own territory its defense. When you fly over some-one else's country and drop bombs on them its attack. Now guess who did what.

    Simple enough, isn't it ?

    Surur
  3.    #103  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Say there's a bully in the schoolyard picking on other kids and provoking you as well.....What do you do?
    Just so I follow.

    George Bush is the schoolyard bully in this analogy? Or the hero?
  4. #104  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    Yes. When you shoot at people flying war planes over your own territory its defense. When you fly over some-one else's country and drop bombs on them its attack. Now guess who did what.

    Simple enough, isn't it ?

    Surur
    Accept that when they shot at us flying over their territory they were violating the terms of the cease fire. Yes, that's simple.
  5. #105  
    hoovs...I dont know why you are trying to reason with him. It's apparant he has theblaze gene
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  6. #106  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    hoovs...I dont know why you are trying to reason with him. It's apparant he has theblaze gene
    I'm just not very bright at times.
  7. #107  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    hoovs...I dont know why you are trying to reason with him. It's apparant he has theblaze gene


    Surur
  8. #108  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Accept that when they shot at us flying over their territory they were violating the terms of the cease fire. Yes, that's simple.
    That doesn't really change who the aggressor is, or who has attacked America or not. Nor does it justify the killing of 10 000's of Iraqis. I dont see any self-defense case here for America. It was all attack and killing for their own selfish ends..

    Surur
  9. #109  
    You see what you want to see. The bottom line is that Saddam was the aggressor in Kuwait. When coalition forces stomped on him and drove him out of Kuwait he maintained his aggression towards coalition patrols along the no-fly zone. He continued to thwart attempts at weapons inspections--to the point that most intel thought he had a weapons program. The choice was his, all along, to stop his aggressive actions but he persisted. This, combined with the fact that the world can't take the chance that someone like Saddam would get the bomb, and it seems clear what the appropriate action was. On the other hand, in what way has America benefitted from this war other than the obvious fact that a clear threat to regional and national security has been removed? If we went to war for our own selfish ends, what ends would those be?
  10. #110  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    This, combined with the fact that the world can't take the chance that someone like Saddam would get the bomb, and it seems clear what the appropriate action was. On the other hand, in what way has America benefitted from this war other than the obvious fact that a clear threat to regional and national security has been removed? If we went to war for our own selfish ends, what ends would those be?
    Funny that the rest of the world wasn't threatened by Saddam having nuclear weapons. One would have thought France and Russia, being geographically closer, would have been much more perturbed. I, like most anti-war people, were quite satisfied by the WMD inspector's efforts. I took their public reports much more seriously that the vague supposed intelligence which the Americans could not disclose to the public. The inspectors did not ask for war, they asked for more inspections. It was the whole war-happy gung-ho cowboy American attitude which resulted in the killing of 10 000's.

    The simple fact is that Iraq did not attack America, America attacked Iraq, killing 1000's of women and children, and 10 000's of Iraqi's, and throwing the country into the turmoil that everyone predicted would result.

    Score so far:
    ......................America..........Anti-war protesters
    WMD...................X..................right
    turmoil.................X..................right
    civilians killed....... X..................right
    PRPRPR $disaster$...........$X$..................$right$
    exit stratergy........X..................right
    creating terrorists..X..................right
    quagmire..............X..................right
    Vietnam II............X..................right

    They dont look less and less like a bastion for freedom and justice. America has confirmed their image as a brutal bully. Already the Iraqi's say about the killings "Isn't that what you expect from the Americans?"

    Surur
  11. #111  
    I suspect if we didn't go to Iraq and Saddam was still in power, Saddam would still be avoiding UN visits indicating he has WMD's and gladly hosting binladen and other terrorists. Although messy, necessary.

    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    Funny that the rest of the world wasn't threatened by Saddam having nuclear weapons. One would have thought France and Russia, being geographically closer, would have been much more perturbed. I, like most anti-war people, were quite satisfied by the WMD inspector's efforts. I took their public reports much more seriously that the vague supposed intelligence which the Americans could not disclose to the public. The inspectors did not ask for war, they asked for more inspections. It was the whole war-happy gung-ho cowboy American attitude which resulted in the killing of 10 000's.

    The simple fact is that Iraq did not attack America, America attacked Iraq, killing 1000's of women and children, and 10 000's of Iraqi's, and throwing the country into the turmoil that everyone predicted would result.

    Score so far:
    ......................America..........Anti-war protesters
    WMD...................X..................right
    turmoil.................X..................right
    civilians killed....... X..................right
    PRPRPR $disaster$...........$X$..................$right$
    exit stratergy........X..................right
    creating terrorists..X..................right
    quagmire..............X..................right
    Vietnam II............X..................right

    They dont look less and less like a bastion for freedom and justice. America has confirmed their image as a brutal bully. Already the Iraqi's say about the killings "Isn't that what you expect from the Americans?"

    Surur
  12. #112  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    I suspect if we didn't go to Iraq and Saddam was still in power, Saddam would still be avoiding UN visits indicating he has WMD's and gladly hosting binladen and other terrorists. Although messy, necessary.
    Its a fact that Saddam did not support Bin Laden, and that UN inspectors kept Saddam from getting WMD. Your suspicions are completely unfounded.

    Surur
  13. #113  
    I think I heard of links between al queda and Iraq meetings prior to invasion. It would have been a natural progression. I feel confident it would have happened. On top of that, Saddam was a killing machine - Iraqi's in the long term are better off. Your quagmire is clouding your thoughts. In ten years people will look back and know that it was the right thing to do.
  14. #114  
    That 10 years are pretty arbitrary. We are already 3 years down the line, and things are worse every year. That's a very optimistic statement, but its based on wistfull thinking.

    Surur
  15. #115  
    To expand apon that: In 1o years time Iraq will be saddled with huge debts to pay for the reconstruction project, and the world will be in energy turmoil. The population will continue to be resentfull of the US, as they will be obligated to pay USA in cheap oil for the "liberation and reconstruction" costs. Not much money will flow down to the average citizen. USA will be obligated to continue to have bases in Iraq to prop up a collaborator government. This will continue to provide opportunities to grow terrorists under the flag of resistance, and the sons and daughters killed by heavy handed US actions will provide ready foot soldiers for organizations such as al queda. It will be Palistine writ large, with USA directly involved. In the mean time USA will continue to intimidate other countries in the area, and due to the world oil crisis will find the international community much more split and less prepared to support america, instead they would try and cut deals directly. There would be much less support for american action against iran and syria, as it would be even more clear that the result would just be american ownership of their oil.

    Look a very tumultuous next decade, with things being worse then, not better.

    Surur
  16. #116  
    Wouldn't you agree that a lot of the insurgency are from within? If these groups enter the political process the insurgency will be sucked out like a vacuum. Once that occurs all that is left is al queda - I think the Iraqi people will eventually rise up and root them out. Once this occurs, Iraq will prosper. Vietnam was a poor country before the war with no real resources. This is not true with Iraq where many of the people are well educated and they have a true economy. You are relying too much on the everyday killings, once the local indigenous insurgency ends, Iraq prospers.

    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    That 10 years are pretty arbitrary. We are already 3 years down the line, and things are worse every year. That's a very optimistic statement, but its based on wistfull thinking.

    Surur
  17. #117  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    Wouldn't you agree that a lot of the insurgency are from within? If these groups enter the political process the insurgency will be sucked out like a vacuum. Once that occurs all that is left is al queda - I think the Iraqi people will eventually rise up and root them out.
    Its an uncommon admission that a lot of the anti-American activities in Iraq are by Iraqi's themselves. Collective punishment killings by American soldiers is not going to do anything to quell that resistance.

    Regarding participation in the political process leading to less violence, this has not happened in Northern Ireland, Palestine or even Spain.

    I expect you think Iraq will turn into a South Korea or Japan. The culture is different - it will not happen.

    Surur
  18. #118  
    Many anti-invasion of Iraq folks have been on the bandwagon to say that many of the insurgents are infact Iraqi's. I tend to agree. With politcal stability, insurgency will diminish. 'Collective punishment killings' doesn't make sense, but if the allegations of murder by less than ten soldiers of a force of 130,000 is true, yes it is not a good thing with regards to resistance. But only the misinformed will believe that it was an American motive to purposely kill civilians.

    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    Its an uncommon admission that a lot of the anti-American activities in Iraq are by Iraqi's themselves. Collective punishment killings by American soldiers is not going to do anything to quell that resistance.

    Regarding participation in the political process leading to less violence, this has not happened in Northern Ireland, Palestine or even Spain.

    I expect you think Iraq will turn into a South Korea or Japan. The culture is different - it will not happen.

    Surur
  19. #119  
    Surur admits that if it takes a couple beheadings of innocent people to advance a cause it is acceptable. He admits that he believes that bombing innocent children and families in restaurants is a valid tactic to advance a cause. So by his logic, if proven guilty, these 10 soldiers (out of hundreds or thousands) should be in the clear as they are trying to establish their cause, a democracy and deter the insurgents, at the cost of a few innocent children and women.....as long as it for a cause it is fair tactic.

    Surur. Your alignment with terrorist points of view makes any rational decision about terrorist activities and those efforts to stop them completely invalid. You are are an admitted terrorist sympathizer, and will never see or admit any other way.
  20. #120  
    I fully support the underdogs here in their fight against the invaders. The news of these killings did not shock me. Like most Iraqis I fully expect this is just the tip of the icebreg, and that this goes on regularly, and goes regularly unpunished.

    Hobbes, the only difference between the people killed here and the ones killed by 'shock and awe' was that this was from closer range. Your government is as much as al queda in the business of intentionally killing people to generate fear.

    Surur

Posting Permissions