[Kevin]

BAGHDAD, Iraq — The chief U.S. military spokesman in Iraq insisted Wednesday that Muqtada al-Sadr has left the country and is believed to be in Iran, despite denials from the radical Shiite cleric's supporters.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251847,00.html

If you can't stand the heat...

[BRussell]

If true, is it that he can't stand the heat, or is it that he's over there getting orders from his bosses?

[Sky Captain]

I thought his "boss" was allah.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

If true, is it that he can't stand the heat, or is it that he's over there getting orders from his bosses?

Probably some of both.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

I thought his "boss" was allah.

A lot of people, including many here no doubt, claim that their boss is a deity named God, but they don't act like it either, so what's the difference?

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

A lot of people, including many here no doubt, claim that their boss is a deity named God, but they don't act like it either, so what's the difference?

Mohammed, the founder of Islam, was quoted as saying, "Invitation first", that is, call them first to embrace Islam. "If they refuse, then war." "The sword", said Mohammed, "is the key of heaven and hell; a drop of blood shed in the cause of Allah, a night spent in arms, is of more avail than two months of fasting or prayer: whosoever falls in battle, his sins are forgiven, and at the day of judgment his limbs shall be supplied by the wings of angels and cherubim."

[Sayf-Allah]

Yay! An out of contex hadith (we've explained Hadiths to you guys about a 1000 times on here) about a completely unrelated event is somehow an example of "the difference"!

Let me guess, you are going to bring up Teh MoonGod™ next?

[Sky Captain]

Or the Magic Meteor™?

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

Or the Magic Meteor™?

Ya, that one is even better. It seems peoples ignorance on Islam knows no bounds.

But anyway, since we seem to be able to have a decent conversation about things (at least every now and then ) I'll give you a short quote about it. I know it won't change your mind but hopefully it will make you want to learn more about it.

"No doubt, I know that you are a stone and can neither harm anyone nor benefit anyone. Had I not seen Allah's Messenger kissing you, I would not have kissed you."

[Sky Captain]

I know that it is FORBIDDEN for non muslims to visit Mecca.
Right?
I have studied the origins of the Ka’ba.
And consider it an idol to be worshiped.
Much like the Virgin Mary has become an idol.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

I know that it is FORBIDDEN for non muslims to visit Mecca.
Right?

And that has what to do with what?

I have studied the origins of the Ka’ba.
And consider it an idol to be worshiped.
Much like the Virgin Mary has become an idol.

No one worships al-Ka‘bah. Seems like you haven't studied it much at all.

[Sky Captain]

Kissing a meteor after circleing it is ritual worship.
As is worship of the Virgin Mary images.

And Mecca being forbidden has to do with everything that's wrong with islam.
Tollerant my ass.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

Kissing a meteor after circleing it is ritual worship.
As is worship of the Virgin Mary images.

And eating the "blood and flesh" of someone isn't? Please......

And Mecca being forbidden has to do with everything that's wrong with islam.
Tollerant my ass.

And Islam has what to do with Mecca being forbidden for non-Muslims? Or did you mean the Saudi government? Easy mistake to make for the ignorant.

[Mark Larr]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

And that has what to do with what?

No one worships al-Ka‘bah. Seems like you haven't studied it much at all.

You must kiss the Magic Meteor™ so it will absorb your "sins"

THAT makes it an idol.

Period.

How about the throwing stones at the big "devil" idol right in the center of Mecca?

[Mark Larr]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

And eating the "blood and flesh" of someone isn't? Please......

The catholic church have some pretty despicable rituals themselves, but start a different thread on it and I'll be happy to fill you in.

[typoon]

If this is true then we should move into that area and crush his army. We should do it either way.

[Sky Captain]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

And eating the "blood and flesh" of someone isn't? Please......

And Islam has what to do with Mecca being forbidden for non-Muslims? Or did you mean the Saudi government? Easy mistake to make for the ignorant.

Islamic Saudi government.

And I won't argue that Christianity is chock full of idolism. I agree completely.
Where as some can't accept that Islam is flawed. Deeply. There in lies a problem.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Mark Larr 

You must kiss the Magic Meteor™ so it will absorb your "sins"

Wrong. But nice try. Read the quote I posted above.

How about the throwing stones at the big "devil" idol right in the center of Mecca?

You don't seem to have much knowledge of that part either.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

Islamic Saudi government.

Wahhabi Saudi government would be more like it.

And I won't argue that Christianity is chock full of idolism. I agree completely.
Where as some can't accept that Islam is flawed. Deeply. There in lies a problem.

Islam or Islam as it is practiced by many today? There's a big difference.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by Mark Larr 

The catholic church have some pretty despicable rituals themselves, but start a different thread on it and I'll be happy to fill you in.

Ah, didn't Jeezus hiselph do this? So he must be deserving to be despised.

I hath smacketh yee.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Mark Larr 

The catholic church have some pretty despicable rituals themselves, but start a different thread on it and I'll be happy to fill you in.

ahem....

1 Corinthians 11:24-25

24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

Does the rest of Christianity skip this part of the bible? I'm quite sure I learned this myself while attending the Lutheran Church........

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

Wahhabi Saudi government would be more like it.

The inability of the conservatives to see the Islam is not one religion is one reason we are losing this war.

"Gee... we'll liberate Iraq and in since they're all Muslim it will be one big happy family..."

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by goMac 

The inability of the conservatives to see the Islam is not one religion is one reason we are losing this war.

"Gee... we'll liberate Iraq and in since they're all Muslim it will be one big happy family..."

To liberate a nation from a tyrant is a nobel act. We have have not overwhelmed the remnants of the Sadamm regime and other obstructionists to reconstruction on the battlefield by design. That was a fatal mistake. Iran on the other hand has it's own motivation to keep the country destabilized. It's difficult to reconcile the Islamist mindset and secular compromise when trying to govern. We have no problem with an Islamist underpinning of secularity much as the west has a Chirstian one. It just appears to me the Islamist mindset does not allow it. I think somehow the culture over the millenia has become genetically encoded. The fanaticism, the mindless hate and intolerence is breathtaking. I don't see one leader stepping away and offering any thoughts in speach or in writing condemning the slaughter of civilians going about the their daily lives. If there is I'd be happy to read or listen.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

And I won't argue that Christianity is chock full of idolism. I agree completely.
Where as some can't accept that Islam is flawed. Deeply. There in lies a problem.

Bingo!

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by goMac 

The inability of the conservatives to see the Islam is not one religion is one reason we are losing this war.

"Gee... we'll liberate Iraq and in since they're all Muslim it will be one big happy family..."

Hyperbole. No one is saying this.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Hyperbole. No one is saying this.

Who's Hyperbole? What did he say? The bustard!

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Hyperbole. No one is saying this.

You're right; no one is saying this, because those who planned this invasion of a sovereign nation are too stupid to have bothered to look up the history of a country, which wasn't even a country until 1932, and which had a long history of religious conflicts, and which the British controlled for a number of years, and one of the ways they controlled "Iraq" was by gassing Kurds, with phosphorus bombs (which are considered chemical weapons when used against people, but that's another conveniently forgotten piece of history) because the Kurds wanted independence. It was as plain as the nose on your face that this was far from a united country, but the naive group that proposed the takeover, in order to gain long term strategic command of the region's oil, either didn't care, or didn't think the American people were smart enough to know the background of the country/region, and either way, they were right. They thought, and too many Americans believed them, that they could just waltz in there, point some guns at people, and they would create a "democracy," out of a region which has a rife history of conflict.

Why is it some people are just never willing to admit they're wrong, when the evidence is overwhelming? There's an old saying that Those Who Forget History Are Bound To Repeat It, and by George, it is true!

[Sky Captain]

I've noticed the Kurds aren't blowing up markets.
Or trucks.
And the "insurgents" blowing them up.
Intresting.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

You're right; no one is saying this, because those who planned this invasion of a sovereign nation

This sovereign nation which was in violation of 13 UN Resolutions over the span of 12 years for non-compliance. There was no disagreement on the threat Saddam Hussein posed. I've got statements from just about every other "sovereign nation" on earth to suggest the disagreement was not whether or not Saddam was a threat, but how to deal with the threat Saddam posed. You know, while we're forgetting history and all.

are too stupid to have bothered to look up the history of a country, which wasn't even a country until 1932, and which had a long history of religious conflicts, and which the British controlled for a number of years, and one of the ways they controlled "Iraq" was by gassing Kurds, with phosphorus bombs (which are considered chemical weapons when used against people, but that's another conveniently forgotten piece of history)

Conveniently forgotten or conveniently found on Wikipedia? You can BS yourself with this notion of some memory you recently availed yourself of on the internet. I'm not impressed. The fact of the matter is there is no action worthy enough for those opposed to it. This is not some unique indictment you're making here.

because the Kurds wanted independence. It was as plain as the nose on your face that this was far from a united country, but the naive group that proposed the takeover, in order to gain long term strategic command of the region's oil, either didn't care, or didn't think the American people were smart enough to know the background of the country/region, and either way, they were right. They thought, and too many Americans believed them, that they could just waltz in there, point some guns at people, and they would create a "democracy," out of a region which has a rife history of conflict.

First of all, we did just "waltz in there" and it has become among the most stunning examples of military strategy to date. The long-term struggle (as indicated by just about everyone in the current US administration) was specifically in building a democracy. It does not occur over night. You're claiming that somehow the rival factions of "barbarians" in Iraq are incapable of civility, rule of law, and democracy/representation. Your xenophobia and ability to look up facts on Wikipedia does not make you somehow more knowledgeable than the average American quack. You might be amazed what fallacious ideals you "believe". There are very few nations that don't have a rife history of conflict.

Why is it some people are just never willing to admit they're wrong, when the evidence is overwhelming? There's an old saying that Those Who Forget History Are Bound To Repeat It, and by George, it is true!

I always remember that little quip when I'm debating someone on the Israel/Palestine conflict, but it never flies as well as you seem to think it does.

This world is going to come to a head of ideals. To suppose that human nature and ignorance is unique to the American is naive. To assume that America somehow holds the lock on imperialism is woefully ignorant of human nature. You may believe our desire to "change the face of the Middle East" is naive and ignorant, I certainly didn't see any better ideas on the table. Status quo wasn't going well and in a world of complacency and mutual corruption, someone's got to do something. The one who acts is usually criticized the most. It's a heavy crown for sure.

[OldManMac]

It must be tough, carrying such a heavy load, executing that brilliant strategy. Like I said, some people never will admit they're wrong.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

There's an old saying that Those Who Forget History Are Bound To Repeat It, and by George, it is true!

I like "Those Who Forget History Are Bound To Repeat the Ninth Grade" myself, but it's all good.

The two essential attributes of a good government, as outlined by James Madison in the Federalist Papers: First, a government must be able to control the governed, and then it must be able to control itself. Order plus liberty. Those two forces will, in the long run, produce legitimate government, prosperity, and liberal democracy.

I don't know.

greg

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You may believe our desire to "change the face of the Middle East" is naive and ignorant, I certainly didn't see any better ideas on the table. Status quo wasn't going well and in a world of complacency and mutual corruption, someone's got to do something. The one who acts is usually criticized the most. It's a heavy crown for sure.

Why do you think "someone's got to do something"? How about we leave alone the Middle East and those other places around the world where despotism and tyranny reign? How has invading Iraq benefitted the United States (as a people, as culture, as a political entity, as a whole)? I think we should just stay in our little corner of the world and take care of ourselves.

This is not to say we should become pacifistic as a nation. I think when someone attacks us we should respond with over-whelming, devastating force that will completely destroy those who attack us. However, in the case of 9/11 and Afghanistan, that was not done. Why are there still major pockets of Taliban in Afghanistan? Why is al Qaeda gaining a significant presence in the Pakistani regions bordering Afghanistan? Why did we pull out most of our troops from Afghanistan before we eliminated all those responsible for attacking us on 9/11?

I did/do/will fully support whatever it takes to destroy the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan/Pakistan. When that is done we should help the Afghani's re-build and then return to our little corner of the world.

[OldManMac]

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You may believe our desire to "change the face of the Middle East" is naive and ignorant, I certainly didn't see any better ideas on the table. Status quo wasn't going well and in a world of complacency and mutual corruption, someone's got to do something. The one who acts is usually criticized the most. It's a heavy crown for sure.

Whoa, is this the new reason we're at war in Iraq? I guess I missed the press release. Can anyone think of a dumber reason for going to war than, "Status quo wasn't going well and in a world of complacency and mutual corruption, someone's got to do something"? I preferred, Saddam's launching weather balloons from "mobile bio-weapons factories."

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Why do you think "someone's got to do something"? How about we leave alone the Middle East and those other places around the world where despotism and tyranny reign? How has invading Iraq benefitted the United States (as a people, as culture, as a political entity, as a whole)? I think we should just stay in our little corner of the world and take care of ourselves.

This is not to say we should become pacifistic as a nation. I think when someone attacks us we should respond with over-whelming, devastating force that will completely destroy those who attack us. However, in the case of 9/11 and Afghanistan, that was not done. Why are there still major pockets of Taliban in Afghanistan? Why is al Qaeda gaining a significant presence in the Pakistani regions bordering Afghanistan? Why did we pull out most of our troops from Afghanistan before we eliminated all those responsible for attacking us on 9/11?

I did/do/will fully support whatever it takes to destroy the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan/Pakistan. When that is done we should help the Afghani's re-build and then return to our little corner of the world.

dmc: are you of the opinion we should not have stopped the potential genocide of the Moslems in Bosnia? You also asked the question how has the invasion of Iraq benefitted us? Have you ever helped a person in distress a homeless person, a hungry person, someone in an abusive relationship? If not maybe you should try it, if you have how has it benefitted you? How has all the food aid to Africa benefitted us? How has our underwriting the UN benefitted us? Or the Iraqi people for that matter? The idea of "returning to our little corner of the world" is so naive as to be laughable, as is your idea of moral equivalence. The point is despite your selfish desire to return to your little corner of the world, there are large portions of the rest of the world which are dependent on us directly or indirectly for security and other aide.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

Whoa, is this the new reason we're at war in Iraq? I guess I missed the press release. Can anyone think of a dumber reason for going to war than, "Status quo wasn't going well and in a world of complacency and mutual corruption, someone's got to do something"? I preferred, Saddam's launching weather balloons from "mobile bio-weapons factories."

Why is it so many here are completely unable to grasp the big picture? Can you not handle more than one issue at a time? There is no ONE reason we went to war with Iraq. Let me see if I can wrap things in a simpler package for you.

"When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know. So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions."
--Bill Clinton, July 22, 2003

- Iraq had produced or imported some 4,000 tons of ingredients to produce other types of poison gas.

- Iraq had produced 8,500 liters of anthrax.

- Iraq had produced 500 bombs fitted with parachutes for the purpose of delivering poison gas or germ payloads.

- Iraq had produced 550 artillery shells filled with mustard gas.

- Iraq had produced or imported 107,500 casings for chemical weapons.

- Iraq had produced at least 157 aerial bombs filled with germ agents.

- Iraq had produced 25 missile warheads containing germ agents (anthrax, aflatoxin, and botulinum).

- David Kay himself whom many of you liked to quote said; "if we avoided a nuclear weapons program from being sold by invading Iraq, we barely avoided it."

Now, much of this is just what the Iraqi government admitted to. There's also the Iraqi nuclear program that the German intelligence service had concluded in 2001 might produce a bomb within three years. Why? A real or perceived arms race with Iran of course. Let me help you here; this is bad and/or really stupid unless you believe the UN is full of idle wanna-be bullies.

- Iraq planned to move away from the US dollar to the Euro. Very bad for US dollar. You may find this deplorable, but with so many other reasons, the real question is; why the hell not invade Iraq???
- 13 UN Resolutions over 12 years with final Resolution threatening "severe consequences for non-compliance". Only perhaps you and three other posters view this to mean more economic sanctions only serving to starve hundreds of thousands of Iraqi poor to death, but I hope you're not still trying to defend your cause with some humanitarian argument.
- Failed economic sanctions serving only to starve hundreds of thousands of Iraqi poor to death.
- Transform a hostile country into a base from which it could address with potential force, al-Qaeda and governments tempted to support it such as, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran. Change the face of the Middle East through democratization of a country at the core of the Middle East. Are you familiar with Libya's cessation of weapons development? Are you familiar with the reform movement underway in Iran? No? Perhaps you should be. Many of you have been crying about N. Korea. Is any credit at all due to recent negotiations?
- Iraq posed a threat to his own people, our allies, and our interests.
- Russia and China conducting joint military operations and an increasing interest in the Middle East, it is clear to anyone (not satisfied with burying their head in the ignorant sands of isolationist rhetoric) that this is a volatile globe of conflicting interests.

If you're not growing, you're dying. Period. Russia knows this, China knows this. Pakistan knows this. Saudi Arabia knows this. Egypt knows this. Syria knows this. Iran knows this. Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, and Hamas know this. The only ones who can't seem to grasp this very simple concept are the diehard anti-Bush zealots in this forum. Your hatred for one man and his Administration has made you blind as a fruit bat.

Imperialism and hegemony are not exclusive to the US government. The sooner some of you realize this the better. In this world of conflicting interests and ideals I personally have a favorite and it is not Communism nor Fascism, but make no mistake they will come to a head of ideals. To deny this is to deny human nature.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

dmc: are you of the opinion we should not have stopped the potential genocide of the Moslems in Bosnia? You also asked the question how has the invasion of Iraq benefitted us? Have you ever helped a person in distress a homeless person, a hungry person, someone in an abusive relationship? If not maybe you should try it, if you have how has it benefitted you? How has all the food aid to Africa benefitted us? How has our underwriting the UN benefitted us? Or the Iraqi people for that matter? The idea of "returning to our little corner of the world" is so naive as to be laughable, as is your idea of moral equivalence. The point is despite your selfish desire to return to your little corner of the world, there are large portions of the rest of the world which are dependent on us directly or indirectly for security and other aide.

The Europeans should have stopped the slaughter of Muslims in Bosnia; It is in their backyard. And if they didn't, then it would be their reputation on the line for insufficient or non-existent action.

As for helping out people, I do it all the time, right here in my city and my neighborhood. But when I help out them there is NOT a high probability I am going to invade their home or kill them while I am providing my help. See the difference. Giving starving people food is helping people--although giving them skills and tools to grow food on their own would be even better--but I am still at a loss to understand how invading a country and directly or indirectly causing the death of tens of thousands of citizens of that country is *helping* them. More important, care to explain how we can claim to be helping a people when we invade their country and leave their basic infrastructures (electricity, clean water, safe streets and roads) worse off then when we arrived? How is that *helping* anyone?

Besides, I DO think we should spend more time taking care of "our little corner of the world".

Why do we have the highest average per-person expenditure on health care of any developed country yet not all of our citizens are covered by health insurance and afforded the regular, preventative medical and dental care provided by most health insurance plans?

Why do we have the highest average per-pupil expenditure on public education costs of any developed country yet our students consistently score lower in percentages of skills acquired (reading at grade-level, regularly taking high-level math and science course in secondary school, equitable graduation rates between boys and girls) than students from other developed countries?

These are just two examples but I can think of many more. And as for your opinion that those of us whose "hatred for one man and his Administration has made you blind as a fruit bat", know full well this is not anti-Bush zealotry as it is anti-unnecessary-war zealotry. Had McCain got the Republican nomination in 2004 and won the election I would still be here railing against the current administration's policies for *helping* out countries in need--McCain has been as big a supporter of this war as Bush has been. This has nothing to do with Bush and everything to do with an Administration that believes invading a country and causing thousands of deaths and un-told suffering to the people of that country is the best way to *help* them.

And having said all that, Yes, I would still advocate we spend more time focusing on our humanitarian needs at home.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

The Europeans should have stopped the slaughter of Muslims in Bosnia; It is in their backyard. And if they didn't, then it would be their reputation on the line for insufficient or non-existent action.

As for helping out people, I do it all the time, right here in my city and my neighborhood. But when I help out them there is NOT a high probability I am going to invade their home or kill them while I am providing my help. See the difference. Giving starving people food is helping people--although giving them skills and tools to grow food on their own would be even better--but I am still at a loss to understand how invading a country and directly or indirectly causing the death of tens of thousands of citizens of that country is *helping* them. More important, care to explain how we can claim to be helping a people when we invade their country and leave their basic infrastructures (electricity, clean water, safe streets and roads) worse off then when we arrived? How is that *helping* anyone?

Besides, I DO think we should spend more time taking care of "our little corner of the world".

Why do we have the highest average per-person expenditure on health care of any developed country yet not all of our citizens are covered by health insurance and afforded the regular, preventative medical and dental care provided by most health insurance plans?

Why do we have the highest average per-pupil expenditure on public education costs of any developed country yet our students consistently score lower in percentages of skills acquired (reading at grade-level, regularly taking high-level math and science course in secondary school, equitable graduation rates between boys and girls) than students from other developed countries?

These are just two examples but I can think of many more. And as for your opinion that those of us whose "hatred for one man and his Administration has made you blind as a fruit bat", know full well this is not anti-Bush zealotry as it is anti-unnecessary-war zealotry. Had McCain got the Republican nomination in 2004 and won the election I would still be here railing against the current administration's policies for *helping* out countries in need--McCain has been as big a supporter of this war as Bush has been. This has nothing to do with Bush and everything to do with an Administration that believes invading a country and causing thousands of deaths and un-told suffering to the people of that country is the best way to *help* them.

And having said all that, Yes, I would still advocate we spend more time focusing on our humanitarian needs at home.

dmc: You can't be serious. Have you studied any history? Do me a favor and review the history of the Third Reich 1933-1945. Then tell me again about the reputation of the Europeans, the holocaust and what role America had defeating facism? And then we took on the communists. Have you ever heard of the Berlin Wall? Do you remember in your studies the films of people trying to escape from Eastern Europe being shot down in coils of barbed wire trying to escape to the West? Do you believe the Holocaust happened? Do you know who Stalin was? Were you even alive when Ronald Reagan asked Gorbachev to tear down the wall 25 years after a Democrat John Kennedy stood in the same place an proclaimed he was a Berliner? Just what did that mean? Do you know the real story of Pope John Paul? Poland? Do you know what sacrifice is? Normandy? Tell the survivors both the victims and the avengers how much DMC wants to crawl back into his corner of the world. And when the rats surround your little corner of the world who you gonna call?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

*yawns*

[macintologist]

Orion27, do not speak in questions. Get right to the point!

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

- Iraq planned to move away from the US dollar to the Euro. Very bad for US dollar. You may find this deplorable, but with so many other reasons, the real question is; why the hell not invade Iraq???

You crack me up. And I know you're serious. Too funny.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

I've noticed the Kurds aren't blowing up markets.
Or trucks.
And the "insurgents" blowing them up.
Intresting.

But you do know that kurds are sunni-muslims, don't you?

They have the same religion as most of the insurgents in Iraq, they only happen to not be arabs.

The kurds also have their terrorist-organisation, it's called the PKK, and was very active in Turkey.

Right now, in Iraq they have made an alliance with the US, and as long as they can keep their autonomy in northern-Iraq, they will remain good allies, but should the US decide to take away the autonomy from the kurds in the north...

Taliesin

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

You crack me up. And I know you're serious. Too funny.

Well as your sig suggests, you've likely missed the bus. Again.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

dmc: You can't be serious. Have you studied any history? Do me a favor and review the history of the Third Reich 1933-1945. Then tell me again about the reputation of the Europeans, the holocaust and what role America had defeating facism? And then we took on the communists. Have you ever heard of the Berlin Wall? Do you remember in your studies the films of people trying to escape from Eastern Europe being shot down in coils of barbed wire trying to escape to the West? Do you believe the Holocaust happened? Do you know who Stalin was? Were you even alive when Ronald Reagan asked Gorbachev to tear down the wall 25 years after a Democrat John Kennedy stood in the same place an proclaimed he was a Berliner? Just what did that mean? Do you know the real story of Pope John Paul? Poland? Do you know what sacrifice is? Normandy? Tell the survivors both the victims and the avengers how much DMC wants to crawl back into his corner of the world. And when the rats surround your little corner of the world who you gonna call?

Umm, nice personal attacks. It makes your argument so well for you.

I have read more than a little history. And as I recall the US didn't get involved in WWII UNTIL after we were attacked by Japan. After we declared war on Japan Germany declared war on us which we replied to with a counter-declaration of war. And that was all in late 1941. Except the war had been going on for several years before that. So, tell me again what all we were doing to help save the Europeans BEFORE we were attacked, not a whole lot. So, the US was doing what? That's right, trying to stay in their little corner of the world, avoiding involvement in the war going on in Europe. Maybe you should read up on some history. FDR was very reluctant to get involved with the war in Europe. But when we did get involved--AFTER an attack on US soil--we were completely involved. And that's been my argument all along in these discussions. We should stay in our little corner of the world unless/until someone attacks us. Then when that happens, we respond with overwhelming, terrifying force to destroy completely our attacker. But that level of force should be used ONLY to defend American soil. I do not want US military policy to be such that we use major military force every time some tin-pot dictator spouts anti-American rhetoric.

NOTE
If you have read my many other posts on the subject of Afghanistan you would realize I completely and whole-heartedly supported that invasion. They were responsible for harboring/supporting the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 and it was necessary to invade them to punish those behind the attacks. They attack us, we invade; It's a simple equation, really. Except, we did a half-assed job on the invasion part. The Taliban are still there (and growing in power), Al Qaeda are still there (and re-gaining their stature along with adherents willing to die for their cause) and those responsible for attacking us on 9/11 have not been fully punished.

So why don't YOU tell me how this is a good military policy we have. Why don't YOU tell me why and how it is important to pre-emptively invade a country that might be a threat to us (Iraq) while the country directly responsible for the biggest loss of life on American soil was treated as a secondary concern. Why are not all the Taliban and al Qaeda dead? Huh?

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Umm, nice personal attacks. It makes your argument so well for you.

I have read more than a little history. And as I recall the US didn't get involved in WWII UNTIL after we were attacked by Japan. After we declared war on Japan Germany declared war on us which we replied to with a counter-declaration of war. And that was all in late 1941. Except the war had been going on for several years before that. So, tell me again what all we were doing to help save the Europeans BEFORE we were attacked, not a whole lot. So, the US was doing what? That's right, trying to stay in their little corner of the world, avoiding involvement in the war going on in Europe. Maybe you should read up on some history. FDR was very reluctant to get involved with the war in Europe. But when we did get involved--AFTER an attack on US soil--we were completely involved. And that's been my argument all along in these discussions. We should stay in our little corner of the world unless/until someone attacks us. Then when that happens, we respond with overwhelming, terrifying force to destroy completely our attacker. But that level of force should be used ONLY to defend American soil. I do not want US military policy to be such that we use major military force every time some tin-pot dictator spouts anti-American rhetoric.

NOTE
If you have read my many other posts on the subject of Afghanistan you would realize I completely and whole-heartedly supported that invasion. They were responsible for harboring/supporting the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 and it was necessary to invade them to punish those behind the attacks. They attack us, we invade; It's a simple equation, really. Except, we did a half-assed job on the invasion part. The Taliban are still there (and growing in power), Al Qaeda are still there (and re-gaining their stature along with adherents willing to die for their cause) and those responsible for attacking us on 9/11 have not been fully punished.

So why don't YOU tell me how this is a good military policy we have. Why don't YOU tell me why and how it is important to pre-emptively invade a country that might be a threat to us (Iraq) while the country directly responsible for the biggest loss of life on American soil was treated as a secondary concern. Why are not all the Taliban and al Qaeda dead? Huh?

The policy as it was articulated in subtext, was to address the region as a whole, from Saudi Arabia to Eygypt, which included the Palestinian issue. We had Taliban in Afgnanistan, and Saudi nationals responsible for 9/11. We had UN resolutions being ignored by a major player in the region, Iraq. Iraq had already invaded Kuwait, threatened Saudi Arabia which in turn threatened the flow of oil to the marketplace. The free market such as it is. We are not the only nation dependent on oil. We are the only nation which can defend the free market, such as it is. Granted the oil cartel, but life's unfair so we accommodate.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

The policy as it was articulated in subtext, was to address the region as a whole, from Saudi Arabia to Eygypt, which included the Palestinian issue. We had Taliban in Afgnanistan, and Saudi nationals responsible for 9/11. We had UN resolutions being ignored by a major player in the region, Iraq. Iraq had already invaded Kuwait, threatened Saudi Arabia which in turn threatened the flow of oil to the marketplace. The free market such as it is. We are not the only nation dependent on oil. We are the only nation which can defend the free market, such as it is. Granted the oil cartel, but life's unfair so we accommodate.

There is no subtext; we invaded a nation that was of no immediate threat to us, and that invasion was based on false information, which was specifically manufactured to bolster a false claim. We did not finish the job in Afghanistan, as others have clearly pointed out, and we did absolutely nothing to address the Saudi connection, and still haven't , and probably won't, because we love to drink from their oil trough, even at our own peril, and that is the root of the problem. It is about oil, and not bringing "democracy" to the region. We (you and I) are responsible for what is happening there, as you and I are the gluttons who can't seem to wean ourselves off liquid gold. When you (figurately, or maybe literally) drive down the freeway at 75 - 80 mph in your Ford Explosion, or you Chevrolet SubHuman, or your Dodge RamMonster, you contribute to the problem. When you leave lights on all over the house, you contribute to the problem. When you buy bottled water in an area where tap water is fine, you contribute to the problem. Yes, it is your right to do those things, and many others, which are killing this planet. It is also your responsibility to accept the consequences for your actions. It is not your right to complain about it, afterward, nor is it your right to send other peoples' children to die for it!!! The mirror is not always a pretty place to look at.

And you're also right about life being unfair; you're wrong in that we can work to make it fairer, without killing others, and not just "accomadating."

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Umm, nice personal attacks. It makes your argument so well for you.

I have read more than a little history. And as I recall the US didn't get involved in WWII UNTIL after we were attacked by Japan. After we declared war on Japan Germany declared war on us which we replied to with a counter-declaration of war. And that was all in late 1941. Except the war had been going on for several years before that. So, tell me again what all we were doing to help save the Europeans BEFORE we were attacked, not a whole lot. So, the US was doing what? That's right, trying to stay in their little corner of the world, avoiding involvement in the war going on in Europe. Maybe you should read up on some history. FDR was very reluctant to get involved with the war in Europe. But when we did get involved--AFTER an attack on US soil--we were completely involved. And that's been my argument all along in these discussions. We should stay in our little corner of the world unless/until someone attacks us. Then when that happens, we respond with overwhelming, terrifying force to destroy completely our attacker. But that level of force should be used ONLY to defend American soil. I do not want US military policy to be such that we use major military force every time some tin-pot dictator spouts anti-American rhetoric.

NOTE
If you have read my many other posts on the subject of Afghanistan you would realize I completely and whole-heartedly supported that invasion. They were responsible for harboring/supporting the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 and it was necessary to invade them to punish those behind the attacks. They attack us, we invade; It's a simple equation, really. Except, we did a half-assed job on the invasion part. The Taliban are still there (and growing in power), Al Qaeda are still there (and re-gaining their stature along with adherents willing to die for their cause) and those responsible for attacking us on 9/11 have not been fully punished.

So why don't YOU tell me how this is a good military policy we have. Why don't YOU tell me why and how it is important to pre-emptively invade a country that might be a threat to us (Iraq) while the country directly responsible for the biggest loss of life on American soil was treated as a secondary concern. Why are not all the Taliban and al Qaeda dead? Huh?

The policy as it was articulated in subtext, was to address the region as a whole, from Saudi Arabia to Eygypt, which included the Palestinian issue. We had Taliban in Afgnanistan, and Saudi nationals responsible for 9/11. We had UN resolutions being ignored by a major player in the region, Iraq. Iraq had already invaded Kuwait, threatened Saudi Arabia which in turn threatened the flow of oil to the marketplace. The free market such as it is. We are not the only nation dependent on oil. We are the only nation which can defend the free market, such as it is. Granted the oil cartel, but life's unfair so we accommodate. We defend Saudi Arabia, liberate Kuwait, the market stabilizes.

9/11 The adiministration embarks on a strategy to destabilize the fiefdoms in the Middle East. The theory being, if we could establish democracies in the Middle East, the underlying frustration, abuse and manipualtion of the people would be mitagated, bring some semblance of hope and self governence. We crush Iraq, defending the institution of the UN, remove a major military threat and try to build a coalition and democracy within Iraq. The idea of democracy was hopefully to spread across the region. It's still possible.

Fundamentally though, the argument goes deeper. It's called free will. If you believe in it, we all possess it. Fundamentally we are free agents or not. The prevailing wisdom is free will is an illusion. We never had and never will. We will all disemble into peace or eternal conflict despite the illusion of best intentions.

[OldManMac]

Of course we want a stable ME. Then we have cheaper access to oil than if we would have to send troops to protect it. When did the U. S. start defending the institution of the U. N.? Was it by making a recess appointment of John Bolton, who has loudly called for the elimination of the U. N.? Why do we need to defend Saudi Arabia, while they use the money we send them to fund terrorist activities?

The solution is so simple, but most people think denial is a river in Egypt.

[Orion27]

Sorry for the double post, I had not finished my reply and posted by accident hence the repost.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Of course we want a stable ME. Then we have cheaper access to oil than if we would have to send troops to protect it. When did the U. S. start defending the institution of the U. N.? Was it by making a recess appointment of John Bolton, who has loudly called for the elimination of the U. N.? Why do we need to defend Saudi Arabia, while they use the money we send them to fund terrorist activities?

The solution is so simple, but most people think denial is a river in Egypt.

Karl read my post. We will be very happy to see the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia evolve into a democracy. The whole point of the policy is to destabilize the fiefdoms.