[quote]John S. wrote:
Relax, Everything I have stated was true. Just because you close your eyes and plug your ears does not make it any less true.[/quote]
Let’s just agree that you believe everything that you have stated… because things are not always as simple and one sided as many would like.
When the things you say reflect actually being able to “see” both sides of the issue, then you can say things about people having their eyes closed.
[quote]vroom wrote:
John S. wrote:
Relax, Everything I have stated was true. Just because you close your eyes and plug your ears does not make it any less true.
Let’s just agree that you believe everything that you have stated… because things are not always as simple and one sided as many would like.
When the things you say reflect actually being able to “see” both sides of the issue, then you can say things about people having their eyes closed.[/quote]
I am listing, and a lot of what is said is pure bullshit, we have some retards stating the elections where not a victory, we have some fucktards stating overthrowing saddam was not a victory(go figure I guess rape farms and putting people threw a paper shredder was a good thing), Or the fact that Iraq itself Is now beating the fucking shit out of Al-quida is somehow not a victory. I’m waiting for the other side which isn’t stated by a complete moron.
[quote]John S. wrote:
vroom wrote:
John S. wrote:
Relax, Everything I have stated was true. Just because you close your eyes and plug your ears does not make it any less true.
Let’s just agree that you believe everything that you have stated… because things are not always as simple and one sided as many would like.
When the things you say reflect actually being able to “see” both sides of the issue, then you can say things about people having their eyes closed.
I am listing, and a lot of what is said is pure bullshit, we have some retards stating the elections where not a victory, we have some fucktards stating overthrowing saddam was not a victory(go figure I guess rape farms and putting people threw a paper shredder was a good thing), Or the fact that Iraq itself Is now beating the fucking shit out of Al-quida is somehow not a victory. I’m waiting for the other side which isn’t stated by a complete moron.[/quote]
Purpose of Iraq invasions: Get WMDs, Reduce terrorism.
NOT GOALS: Democracy
Results: More terrorism, civil war, no WMDs.
Iraq had nothing to do with Al Quaeda or any other terrorist group before we invaded. I consider the fact that some Iraqi’s are now looking to Al Quaeda, even though I’m sure Al Quaeda’s involvement is being played up a bit, a failure.
Looks like a loss to me…
We killed Saddam. Excuse me for not getting excited. Thousands of American lives, and tens of thousands more if we decide we don’t want a few new Saddams’ taking his place.
Before the “Your a Saddam lover!” accusations pop up, I don’t like Saddam.
He deserved death. Period.
At the cost of this many American lives?
Not worth it, in my opinion. We don’t have that kind of responsibility. UNLESS we got the international community involved. You know, like Bush’s daddy did. Remember that?
When everyone used to like us, and support our war? When we were guaranteed to not have to commit almost on our own to a cause for upwards of 5 decades in a country that has nothing to do with us?
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
John S. wrote:
vroom wrote:
John S. wrote:
Relax, Everything I have stated was true. Just because you close your eyes and plug your ears does not make it any less true.
Let’s just agree that you believe everything that you have stated… because things are not always as simple and one sided as many would like.
When the things you say reflect actually being able to “see” both sides of the issue, then you can say things about people having their eyes closed.
I am listing, and a lot of what is said is pure bullshit, we have some retards stating the elections where not a victory, we have some fucktards stating overthrowing saddam was not a victory(go figure I guess rape farms and putting people threw a paper shredder was a good thing), Or the fact that Iraq itself Is now beating the fucking shit out of Al-quida is somehow not a victory. I’m waiting for the other side which isn’t stated by a complete moron.
Purpose of Iraq invasions: Get WMDs, Reduce terrorism.
NOT GOALS: Democracy
Results: More terrorism, civil war, no WMDs.
Iraq had nothing to do with Al Quaeda or any other terrorist group before we invaded. I consider the fact that some Iraqi’s are now looking to Al Quaeda, even though I’m sure Al Quaeda’s involvement is being played up a bit, a failure.
Looks like a loss to me…
We killed Saddam. Excuse me for not getting excited. Thousands of American lives, and tens of thousands more if we decide we don’t want a few new Saddams’ taking his place.
Before the “Your a Saddam lover!” accusations pop up, I don’t like Saddam.
He deserved death. Period.
At the cost of this many American lives?
Not worth it, in my opinion. We don’t have that kind of responsibility. UNLESS we got the international community involved. You know, like Bush’s daddy did. Remember that?
When everyone used to like us, and support our war? When we were guaranteed to not have to commit almost on our own to a cause for upwards of 5 decades in a country that has nothing to do with us?[/quote]
Goals can change, And as you can see right now since Iraq is kicking the shit out of al-quida the only result that can happen is reduce terrorism. and since there are no wmds its a mute point.
And don’t forget to overthrow Saddam that was a goal. And after overthrowing Saddam the only thing left to do was to build a democracy so as you can see they go hand in hand. So all in all we are doing a very good job.
[quote]John S. wrote:
Goals can change, And as you can see right now since Iraq is kicking the shit out of al-quida the only result that can happen is reduce terrorism. and since there are no wmds its a mute point.
And don’t forget to overthrow Saddam that was a goal. And after overthrowing Saddam the only thing left to do was to build a democracy so as you can see they go hand in hand. So all in all we are doing a very good job.
[/quote]
It’s too early to say Iraq is kicking the shit out of Al-Queda. There are signs that Iraqi citizens are starting to fight terrorism and that is a good thing, but it’s not a done deal.
Regardless, conflict in the Middle East and US boots on that soil have the effect of adding fuel to the fire, so to speak. While an eventual successful Iraq could result in a net overall reduction in terrorism, this is not an assured end result.
A lot of things were stated as goals for the war in Iraq. The most important idea was that Iraq was an immediate threat to security of the USA, which hinged on WMD concerns. To ignore these aspects, whether or not you agree with them completely is disingenuous.
Do you see what I’m saying at all? When all you can do is parrot the administrations reasons that everything is perfect, you sound like a vapid little cheerleader.
How about looking a bit deeper and discussing the pros and cons of various issues, admitting possible errors and remaining dangers?
Personally, I am really enthused by the idea that Iraqi’s seem to be banding together. It may remain to be seen if they only band together to fight Al Queda or if they are going to be a force for democracy – in other words will they stay united when it comes to internal issues alone? Or, is it perhaps too little too late? It’s really hard to tell now, but it is a positive step.
[quote]vroom wrote:
John S. wrote:
Goals can change, And as you can see right now since Iraq is kicking the shit out of al-quida the only result that can happen is reduce terrorism. and since there are no wmds its a mute point.
And don’t forget to overthrow Saddam that was a goal. And after overthrowing Saddam the only thing left to do was to build a democracy so as you can see they go hand in hand. So all in all we are doing a very good job.
It’s too early to say Iraq is kicking the shit out of Al-Queda. There are signs that Iraqi citizens are starting to fight terrorism and that is a good thing, but it’s not a done deal.
Regardless, conflict in the Middle East and US boots on that soil have the effect of adding fuel to the fire, so to speak. While an eventual successful Iraq could result in a net overall reduction in terrorism, this is not an assured end result.
A lot of things were stated as goals for the war in Iraq. The most important idea was that Iraq was an immediate threat to security of the USA, which hinged on WMD concerns. To ignore these aspects, whether or not you agree with them completely is disingenuous.
Do you see what I’m saying at all? When all you can do is parrot the administrations reasons that everything is perfect, you sound like a vapid little cheerleader.
How about looking a bit deeper and discussing the pros and cons of various issues, admitting possible errors and remaining dangers?
Personally, I am really enthused by the idea that Iraqi’s seem to be banding together. It may remain to be seen if they only band together to fight Al Queda or if they are going to be a force for democracy – in other words will they stay united when it comes to internal issues alone? Or, is it perhaps too little too late? It’s really hard to tell now, but it is a positive step.[/quote]
With the support of the US troops Iraq will continue to kick the shit out of them. Al-quida is not welcome there anymore, Therefor terrorism is decreasing and therefor Victory is at hand. God damn 3rd time saying it before some democrat finally halfway agrees with me.
I have an off topic question that pertains to the discussion here.
Some would say that the war on terror increased terrorism, al-qaeda. So how is the war in Iraq creating islamic fascist terror in India, Thailand, Pakistan, the Phillipines, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Algeria, Turkey, Lebanon, and other countries who have been attacked or have al-qaeda elements in them which have nothing to do with the situation in Iraq? There were islamo-fascists in some of these countries dating back before the war.
Maybe the creation of Islamo-fascist Wahabbi al-qaeda terrorists has something to do with a perversion of Islam rather than hatred of the West and the war in Iraq.
[quote]John S. wrote:
With the support of the US troops Iraq will continue to kick the shit out of them. Al-quida is not welcome there anymore, Therefor terrorism is decreasing and therefor Victory is at hand. God damn 3rd time saying it before some democrat finally halfway agrees with me.[/quote]
Maybe you should click your heels together or something?
Strangely, victory has seemed to be at hand for quite a while now, hasn’t it?
If you want to convince anyone that it is real this time you’ll have to do more than make conclusive statements.
It’s fine if you believe it, I certainly would like it if you were right, but how about some evidence and convincing arguments that support your viewpoint?
This reminds me about a line in the movie “A Few Good Men” about having to make an argument. So, go ahead, state your case… we already know your conclusions.
[quote]vroom wrote:
John S. wrote:
With the support of the US troops Iraq will continue to kick the shit out of them. Al-quida is not welcome there anymore, Therefor terrorism is decreasing and therefor Victory is at hand. God damn 3rd time saying it before some democrat finally halfway agrees with me.
Maybe you should click your heels together or something?
Strangely, victory has seemed to be at hand for quite a while now, hasn’t it?
If you want to convince anyone that it is real this time you’ll have to do more than make conclusive statements.
It’s fine if you believe it, I certainly would like it if you were right, but how about some evidence and convincing arguments that support your viewpoint?
This reminds me about a line in the movie “A Few Good Men” about having to make an argument. So, go ahead, state your case… we already know your conclusions.[/quote]
Your so cool, you can quote movies.
This is the first time Iraq as a whole has started kicking the shit out of them. They are not going to last long in Iraq, If you want some proof I believe JeffR has provided everyone with links many times so you already have seen the evidence. The evidence supports my conclusion.
[quote]John S. wrote:
Your so cool, you can quote movies.
[/quote]
I’m trying hard to find a reasonable way to illustrate that you need to put some work into supporting your viewpoint.
Jerffy is well known for being a huge cheerleader that points to one sided sources to support what are usually very arguable claims.
I think it is questionable whether “Iraq as a whole” is “kicking the shit out of” Al Queda. What we have is something that does have promise, and I’ve admitted to being enthused about it.
However, we honestly don’t know yet if these groups “banding together” will stay together if the threat of Al Queda eventually is defeated, do we? Will they turn on each other based on regions/religions?
Something else we don’t know is whether or not Al Queda, Iran or Syria will be ready and willing to jump in “after victory” and any resulting troop draw downs which may occur. Can we really leave before relations between the US, Iran and Syria have improved?
We also don’t know if the current government will continue to be largely influenced by militant groups going forward. Worse, we don’t know if there are little agendas just waiting for the situation to change a bit so that these plots can be unfolded. Are sectarian issues just waiting for the lid to come off so they can boil over?
We also don’t know how the threat of “sleeper” units in security forces will be countered.
Holy shit man, identify and discuss some areas of concern, and then talk convincingly about how they can be countered or conquered and I’ll find it a lot easier to take your conclusions as more than simplistic wishful thinking.
Let’s be clear though, I’m not saying these things will cause failure, I’m saying they are concerns that have to be handled or avoided. Given past mismanagement of the conflict in Iraq, I am less than fully confident that this administration knows how to do that.
Can you “see” what I’m saying? I’m saying your statements lack depth and consideration of remaining issues. I’m not saying that you must be wrong, and I’m not trying to convince you that you are wrong, but I am saying that you are doing a horrible job of supporting your statements.
[quote]John S. wrote:
vroom wrote:
John S. wrote:
With the support of the US troops Iraq will continue to kick the shit out of them. Al-quida is not welcome there anymore, Therefor terrorism is decreasing and therefor Victory is at hand. God damn 3rd time saying it before some democrat finally halfway agrees with me.
Maybe you should click your heels together or something?
Strangely, victory has seemed to be at hand for quite a while now, hasn’t it?
If you want to convince anyone that it is real this time you’ll have to do more than make conclusive statements.
It’s fine if you believe it, I certainly would like it if you were right, but how about some evidence and convincing arguments that support your viewpoint?
This reminds me about a line in the movie “A Few Good Men” about having to make an argument. So, go ahead, state your case… we already know your conclusions.
Your so cool, you can quote movies.
This is the first time Iraq as a whole has started kicking the shit out of them. They are not going to last long in Iraq, If you want some proof I believe JeffR has provided everyone with links many times so you already have seen the evidence. The evidence supports my conclusion.
[/quote]
Thanks, John. Also, when referencing my sources, please be sure to point out to the peanut gallery that they are rarely right leaning sources. (the blog on the WMD topic being an exception)
I like to hit them on their home turf.
Most of the time, they don’t acknowledge it. However, it brings me great joy
Thanks, again.
JeffR
[quote]vroom wrote:
John S. wrote:
Your so cool, you can quote movies.
I’m trying hard to find a reasonable way to illustrate that you need to put some work into supporting your viewpoint.
This is the first time Iraq as a whole has started kicking the shit out of them. They are not going to last long in Iraq, If you want some proof I believe JeffR has provided everyone with links many times so you already have seen the evidence. The evidence supports my conclusion.
Jerffy is well known for being a huge cheerleader that points to one sided sources to support what are usually very arguable claims.
I think it is questionable whether “Iraq as a whole” is “kicking the shit out of” Al Queda. What we have is something that does have promise, and I’ve admitted to being enthused about it.
However, we honestly don’t know yet if these groups “banding together” will stay together if the threat of Al Queda eventually is defeated, do we? Will they turn on each other based on regions/religions?
Something else we don’t know is whether or not Al Queda, Iran or Syria will be ready and willing to jump in “after victory” and any resulting troop draw downs which may occur. Can we really leave before relations between the US, Iran and Syria have improved?
We also don’t know if the current government will continue to be largely influenced by militant groups going forward. Worse, we don’t know if there are little agendas just waiting for the situation to change a bit so that these plots can be unfolded. Are sectarian issues just waiting for the lid to come off so they can boil over?
We also don’t know how the threat of “sleeper” units in security forces will be countered.
Holy shit man, identify and discuss some areas of concern, and then talk convincingly about how they can be countered or conquered and I’ll find it a lot easier to take your conclusions as more than simplistic wishful thinking.
Let’s be clear though, I’m not saying these things will cause failure, I’m saying they are concerns that have to be handled or avoided. Given past mismanagement of the conflict in Iraq, I am less than fully confident that this administration knows how to do that.
Can you “see” what I’m saying? I’m saying your statements lack depth and consideration of remaining issues. I’m not saying that you must be wrong, and I’m not trying to convince you that you are wrong, but I am saying that you are doing a horrible job of supporting your statements.[/quote]
I see what your saying, but I have to disagree, Iraq sees the problem its not the USA its Al-quida, they realize that they need to kick the shit out of them in order to live peacefully. Iran won’t jump in they know all we need right now is a reason and there off the map. My statements are supported on the Info provided to you by JeffR, You may think he’s a cheerleader but the links he posted even you in your republican hating ways has to agree with it. So does my argument lack depth or do you just not want to admit that I’m right?
[quote]John S. wrote:
I see what your saying, but I have to disagree, Iraq sees the problem its not the USA its Al-quida, they realize that they need to kick the shit out of them in order to live peacefully. Iran won’t jump in they know all we need right now is a reason and there off the map. My statements are supported on the Info provided to you by JeffR, You may think he’s a cheerleader but the links he posted even you in your republican hating ways has to agree with it. So does my argument lack depth or do you just not want to admit that I’m right?[/quote]
Most importantly, I don’t have some type of hate for republicans. I see a lot of crazy posts on these forums, but I don’t believe they represent the majority of republicans.
I do deplore some of the tactics employed in the political arena, but that is a different thing.
I do think your arguments lack depth. I think it is too early to draw the conclusions you have drawn, but I do certainly agree that this is a step in that direction and it could go the way you describe.
As for Iran, they have a leader who seems to ascribe to the concept of an Armageddon scenario, so your statement might not impart the deterrence you suggest it should. At the same time, Iran is currently doing a ton of sabre rattling, what makes you think they will suddenly stop when US presence is diminished?
I will be more than happy to admit you are right when what you predict actually happens. I want things to go well, but I think it will take deeper thinking than just focusing on the good things that may be happening.
Jerffy is an joke, so my best advice is not to place too much stock in anything he says. In fact, when you find your best supporter is Jerffy, it’s time to realize you are getting a bit “out there” in terms of your stance.
John S.,
I’m sorry, but for someone with your great ASVAB scores and all, you argue like a retard, and with clearly minimal knowledge of your subject. Do you even know what a Shiite and a Sunni are?
It’s great that some Sunni tribes are fighting back against Al Qaeda, who appear to have made serious mistakes in the country. That’s great. It doesn’t necessarily mean much in the big picture though, because the issue of Iraq’s impact on the region (Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria) is an even bigger one than it becoming a safe haven for Al Qaeda. Bill Lind puts it well:
http://www.d-n-i.net/lind/lind_6_05_07.htm
If you’re deploying to Iraq anytime soon, I’d seriously urge you to read this, for a start:
I’m sorry if that sounds condescending.
[quote]lixy wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Most of the iraqi terrorists were imports.
Well yeah. A great batch of them came from my hometown in Morocco.
And they were already terrorists prior to the war.
Here I’ll have to disagree with you. I actually met someone who ultimately was drawn to the “dark side” and I could see him getting radicalized by the day as the invasion was carried.
You might argue that it was inevitable no matter what, but I’ll have to argue otherwise.
Besides, like I said the war provided opportunity.
I saw that just fine. The part that bummed me, is where you replied with the affirmative to my “Would there be that many terrorists if you didn’t invade the country?”. That made me quite mad as you could see.
If you didn’t invade, Saddam would be still in power and any terrorist would be crushed by the Ba’athist oppresssive machine.
Besides, there were plenty of terrorists before 9/11, we were struck 5 times prior to 9/11 and we did nothing. The terrorists still struck us. The war is just an excuse, they would try to blow us up no matter what we did.
Totally agreed. The terrorist threat didn’t suddenly emerge on 9/11, nor will it end any time soon.
They use the war as an excuse to recruit, and what you don’t seem to get, is that Iraq gave them a cause that allowed them to get tons of new applicants. Would the kernel be present if you didn’t invade? Hell yeah! Would they have managed to get such overwhelming numbers of “Jihadists”? I think not.[/quote]
Any military action on the part of the U.S. would have done the same thing. Iraq just happens to be a cluster fuck and was a bad idea to begin with. A war with Somalia, Iran, Uzbekistan, etc. Would have fed terrorist organizations with new recruits, whether that war was justified (i.e. bonafied, verifiable threat) or not.
In the end, as far as Iraq goes. We still have to finish what we started. Leaving now would be essentially turning the country over to the terrorists and then it would really be a threat to the U.S.
[quote]vroom wrote:
John S. wrote:
I see what your saying, but I have to disagree, Iraq sees the problem its not the USA its Al-quida, they realize that they need to kick the shit out of them in order to live peacefully. Iran won’t jump in they know all we need right now is a reason and there off the map. My statements are supported on the Info provided to you by JeffR, You may think he’s a cheerleader but the links he posted even you in your republican hating ways has to agree with it. So does my argument lack depth or do you just not want to admit that I’m right?
Most importantly, I don’t have some type of hate for republicans. I see a lot of crazy posts on these forums, but I don’t believe they represent the majority of republicans.
I do deplore some of the tactics employed in the political arena, but that is a different thing.
I do think your arguments lack depth. I think it is too early to draw the conclusions you have drawn, but I do certainly agree that this is a step in that direction and it could go the way you describe.
As for Iran, they have a leader who seems to ascribe to the concept of an Armageddon scenario, so your statement might not impart the deterrence you suggest it should. At the same time, Iran is currently doing a ton of sabre rattling, what makes you think they will suddenly stop when US presence is diminished?
I will be more than happy to admit you are right when what you predict actually happens. I want things to go well, but I think it will take deeper thinking than just focusing on the good things that may be happening.
Jerffy is an joke, so my best advice is not to place too much stock in anything he says. In fact, when you find your best supporter is Jerffy, it’s time to realize you are getting a bit “out there” in terms of your stance.[/quote]
Ahh, now what this whole thing is about finally happened. I use JeffR’s articles and since he found them they are retarded.
My conclusion is a very rational one, I believe the Iraqi’s are very smart and they realize now that America is there to help them. They realize full well that if America leaves they will be royal fucked by Al-quida.
They like there new government, and for them to keep it they know to destroy Al-quida. I agree that my conclusion hasn’t happened yet but I’m willing to stake my name on it that my conclusion is right.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
John S.,
I’m sorry, but for someone with your great ASVAB scores and all, you argue like a retard, and with clearly minimal knowledge of your subject. Do you even know what a Shiite and a Sunni are?
It’s great that some Sunni tribes are fighting back against Al Qaeda, who appear to have made serious mistakes in the country. That’s great. It doesn’t necessarily mean much in the big picture though, because the issue of Iraq’s impact on the region (Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria) is an even bigger one than it becoming a safe haven for Al Qaeda. Bill Lind puts it well:
http://www.d-n-i.net/lind/lind_6_05_07.htm
If you’re deploying to Iraq anytime soon, I’d seriously urge you to read this, for a start:
I’m sorry if that sounds condescending.[/quote]
First off, if you want to talk about shitty arguing, insulting someone is not a good way to make them listen to anything you have to say without tearing you apart.
The sunnies are doing the right thing, Hell everyone in Iraq is now starting to do the right thing. Thanks for pointing out the fact that they are kicking the shit out Al-quida, that what I was fucking saying all last night.
Please read what I say next time.
Oh and I don’t give a fuck what bill lind says.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
In the end, as far as Iraq goes. We still have to finish what we started. Leaving now would be essentially turning the country over to the terrorists and then it would really be a threat to the U.S. [/quote]
Doomed if you do, and doomed if you don’t. That really is a bummer.
I for one, don’t believe for a second that your long-term stay in Iraq is related to the “war on terror”. It’s mainly to extend your sphere of influence even further, and make sure you have control over the flow of oil in the region.
You wait and see. The troops will never leave before the end of the century.
We would win if we carpet bomb the Triangle. Literally wipe it from the earth. As long as it exists, its a nest. Wipe it out, clean.
Of course, our goal is not to win in the conventional sense. That’s why we’re not try to do what it takes to win, as most ordinary people mean by ‘win’.
[quote]lixy wrote:
pat36 wrote:
In the end, as far as Iraq goes. We still have to finish what we started. Leaving now would be essentially turning the country over to the terrorists and then it would really be a threat to the U.S.
Doomed if you do, and doomed if you don’t. That really is a bummer.
I for one, don’t believe for a second that your long-term stay in Iraq is related to the “war on terror”. It’s mainly to extend your sphere of influence even further, and make sure you have control over the flow of oil in the region.
You wait and see. The troops will never leave before the end of the century.[/quote]
Lixy, You do understand we are only there because there government wants us there? Nope didn’t think you understood that.