Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 234567891011 LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 220
  1. #121  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Civil war it may or may not be, but there is definitely factions of one country fighting each other, they definitely control sections of land. If it is not civil war yet we are definitely getting closer.

    Here is the definition of "civil war" as stated by GlobalSecurity.org
    1) The contestants arguably control some territory,
    2) The insurgents have no functioning government,
    3) They enjoy no foreign recognition,
    4) They have no identifiable regular armed forces,
    5) They engage in minor fights and guerilla tactics.

    Seems about four short of a Civil War.
  2. #122  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    I don't want it to be. I would love to see these factions cooperate either together or separately and share in their oil wealth and continue to spend it on the welfare of the people as before the Iran/Iraq war.

    In reality, I don't see that happening in the short term.
    Of course not. Nothing good is ever gained quickly. I think that's the cause of a lot of discontent in this country. Unfortunately, this isn't a movie and isn't likely to wrap up in two hours.
  3. #123  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Of course not. Nothing good is ever gained quickly. I think that's the cause of a lot of discontent in this country. Unfortunately, this isn't a movie and isn't likely to wrap up in two hours.
    Yea, nothing good is gained quickly, such as, the bad guys will flee and the people will greet our troops as liberators with candy and flowers and will grasp onto a Jeffersonian Secular Democracy. Should take no longer than 6 months.

  4. #124  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    Iranians think of themselves as Persians -- but they are pan-islamic Persians who think of themselves as destined to again lead a great islamic empire.

    Iraqi Shiites are absolutely in bed with the Iranians NOW. If you can't see that I'm dissapointed that you're so naive.
    Do you think that statement can be applied to all or even most Iraqi Shi'a?
  5. #125  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Yea, nothing good is gained quickly, such as, the bad guys will flee and the people will greet our troops as liberators with candy and flowers and will grasp onto a Jeffersonian Secular Democracy. Should take no longer than 6 months.

    And who said that?
  6. #126  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    And who said that?

    The neo-cons did.
  7. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #127  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    1) The contestants arguably control some territory,
    2) The insurgents have no functioning government,
    3) They enjoy no foreign recognition,
    4) They have no identifiable regular armed forces,
    5) They engage in minor fights and guerilla tactics.

    Seems about four short of a Civil War.
    You left a major part out of my post. In future try include all revelant info.

    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Some others denote Civil war as simply two or factions of one nation fighting one another.

    Source: Wikipedia.org
    A civil war is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight for political power or control of an area. Some civil wars are also categorized as revolutions when major societal restructuring is a possible outcome of the conflict. An insurgency, whether successful or not, is likely to be classified as a civil war by some historians if, and only if, organized armies fight conventional battles. Other historians state the criteria for a civil war is that there must be prolonged violence between organized factions or defined regions of a country (conventionally fought or not).
  8. #128  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    The neo-cons did.
    Not Bush or Cheney
  9. #129  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    You left a major part out of my post. In future try include all revelant info.
    Last edited by NRG : Today at 04:04 PM.
    Try to get it all in before I quote it.
  10. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #130  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    And who said that?
    It was either Wolfowitz...wait he is said it would pay for itself "Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz: “There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people…and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” [Source: House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on a Supplemental War Regulation, 3/27/03]

    Donald Rumsfeld is the one that said it....
    Feb. 7, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
  11. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #131  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Try to get it all in before I quote it.
    Booooo. And it is still f*cked up. Look at the statement
    "In future try....." where it should read, "In the future try to..." grrrr. Brain moves quuicker than the hands.
  12. #132  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Not Bush or Cheney
    Puleez hoovs.



  13. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #133  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Not Bush or Cheney
    Actually he did. But this is the same guy who said the insurgency was in it's "last throes".

    "March 16, Vice President Cheney, on NBC's Meet the Press: "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months." He predicted that regular Iraqi soldiers would not "put up such a struggle" and that even "significant elements of the Republican Guard . . . are likely to step aside."


    Here you can see how the admin officials changed their tune after the war starts, or as I like to put it "got what they wanted". http://www.usatoday.com/educate/war28-article.htm
    Last edited by NRG; 06/08/2006 at 05:02 PM.
  14. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #134  
    Let's try to get back on topic.
  15. #135  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Actually he did. But this is the same guy who said the insurgency was in it's "last throes".

    "March 16, Vice President Cheney, on NBC's Meet the Press: "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months." He predicted that regular Iraqi soldiers would not "put up such a struggle" and that even "significant elements of the Republican Guard . . . are likely to step aside."


    Here you can see how the admin officials changed their tune after the war starts, or as I like to put it "got what they wanted". http://www.usatoday.com/educate/war28-article.htm
    Wasn;t he correct in his assessment of the regular soldiers?
  16. #136  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Let's try to get back on topic.
    Here is my take:

    This is a victory. Plain and simple. Whether he is a leader in function or by perception, he was a symbol of the insurgents in Iraq and with AQ. Whether his death disrupts actual functions in the hierarchy of AQ dealings with the terrorists in Iraq or is a Symbolic advancement by a new Prime Minister in Iraq, it does have positive value.

    Bottom line with all politics aside, he was a very bad man that did very bad things. He would continue to do bad things. He probably had a more human death than did most of his victims at his own hands. He deserved to die. The world is better place as a result of his death.

    As for continued attacks......that will happen. If it is not for avenging Zarqawi, it would be for the fact that US has a presence trying to establish a democratic gov that would make their lives harder to conduct terrorist activities, or they would kill because Iraq has diplomatic relations with the US after we leave, or they will kill because Israel has to gall to exist, or they will kill because they disagree with a cartoon, or they will kill because they claim their understanding of their religion demands it, or they will kill innocent people because they walked down the wrong side of the street on the 3rd Tuesday of the month at 2:46 pm, or they will kill because....

    The point is they have a power hungry, hate driven, personal agenda that will use any EXCUSE to kill innocent men, women, and children to further their cause. This will be nothing more than another excuse in a long line of excuses of why they are really killing innocent people.

    So, no the killing will not stop. Zarqawi will be used claim of victory for our side and for recruiting purposes and as a war cry among the terrorists....just like any other set back in their plan is used in exactly the same way.

    If what the Da & NRG say is true, and Zarqawi did not have any actual power and then they use him as a hero and martyr, then it will be nothing more than a transparent political ploy by the terrorists in an attempt to further their own murderous personal agendas.
  17. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #137  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Here is my take:

    This is a victory. Plain and simple. Whether he is a leader in function or by perception, he was a symbol of the insurgents in Iraq and with AQ. Whether his death disrupts actual functions in the hierarchy of AQ dealings with the terrorists in Iraq or is a Symbolic advancement by a new Prime Minister in Iraq, it does have positive value.

    Bottom line with all politics aside, he was a very bad man that did very bad things. He would continue to do bad things. He probably had a more human death than did most of his victims at his own hands. He deserved to die. The world is better place as a result of his death.

    As for continued attacks......that will happen. If it is not for avenging Zarqawi, it would be for the fact that US has a presence trying to establish a democratic gov that would make their lives harder to conduct terrorist activities, or they would kill because Iraq has diplomatic relations with the US after we leave, or they will kill because Israel has to gall to exist, or they will kill because they disagree with a cartoon, or they will kill because they claim their understanding of their religion demands it, or they will kill innocent people because they walked down the wrong side of the street on the 3rd Tuesday of the month at 2:46 pm, or they will kill because....

    The point is they have a power hungry, hate driven, personal agenda that will use any EXCUSE to kill innocent men, women, and children to further their cause. This will be nothing more than another excuse in a long line of excuses of why they are really killing innocent people.

    So, no the killing will not stop. Zarqawi will be used claim of victory for our side and for recruiting purposes and as a war cry among the terrorists....just like any other set back in their plan is used in exactly the same way.
    All above agreed to.

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    If what the Da & NRG say is true, and Zarqawi did not have any actual power and then they use him as a hero and martyr, then it will be nothing more than a transparent political ploy by the terrorists in an attempt to further their own murderous personal agendas.
    Here is to hoping that they try!
  18. #138  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    The point is they have a power hungry, hate driven, personal agenda that will use any EXCUSE to kill innocent men, women, and children to further their cause. This will be nothing more than another excuse in a long line of excuses of why they are really killing innocent people.
    Hobbes, you are quite mad (or has swallowed the demonizing koolaid jug and all). So you think the whole agenda is killing? Killing is the end, as apposed to the means to the end? And you pretend to have insight?

    Surur
  19. #139  
    STOP TWISTING AND SPINNING IN FAVOR OF YOUR SUPPORT OF KILLING INNOCENT MEN, WOMEN, AND CHILDREN.

    If you read the post again....I said that they use any excuse to kill to further their personal agenda. That is a immoral means to an end that apparently is inline with your self proclaimed "Moral Relativist" stance.
  20. #140  
    Moral Relativist
Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 234567891011 LastLast

Posting Permissions