Obama Backs WTC Mosque

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Bombing people plotting ways to kill as many of us as possible is NOT the same as flying planes filled with civilians into civilian buildings.
[/quote]
Bombs sometimes miss. Bombs sometimes have a larger kill radius than intended.

Besides, this is an ideological war that cannot be won with bombs.

Both sides miss that point because they are both mired in their own arrogance.

All I know is I don’t want to be killed by the crossfire of antagonistic zealots. I count the majority of idiotic Americans who support military aggression as the antagonistic zealots to be feared most.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

In fairness, we’ve been building ‘ground zeros’ near Iraqi mosques since March 2003.[/quote]

this!

Gotta wonder who the real terrorists are.[/quote]

Really?

I agree with you most of the time, and you know I’m not fan of the use of force by our government, But if you can’t see the difference, you’re blind.

There is no moral equivalence to this.

Bombing people plotting ways to kill as many of us as possible is NOT the same as flying planes filled with civilians into civilian buildings.

You can disagree with what we do over there, but they are far from the same thing.[/quote]

Many, many civilians have been killed over there. This is probably supremely ironic to those Muslims who have lost loved ones (who were civilians) because of the unnecessary Iraq invasion.

It’s pretty equivalent.[/quote]

All you democrats have done since the invasion of Iraq is whine about how poor Saddam didn’t deserve to get took out and we didn’t need to go into Iraq. And you throw your whiny bullshit out there as if it’s an undeniable fact, when it isn’t.

What is an undeniable fact is Saddam wasn’t coming out any other way. And despite all the whining you never come up with a reasonable suggestion as to how his removal was to be accomplished without the use of force.

Nor do you ever give any reasonable reasons why Saddam or his sons deserved to have the kind of power the Iraqi oil fields provided. These were dangerous people who needed to be removed so the world could move forward.

[quote]Sifu wrote:

All you democrats have done since the invasion of Iraq is whine about how poor Saddam didn’t deserve to get took out and we didn’t need to go into Iraq. And you throw your whiny bullshit out there as if it’s an undeniable fact, when it isn’t.
[/quote]

This thread has brought the fanatics out from under their rocks.

We didn’t need to go into Iraq because Iraq was not a threat to the U.S. None, zero. I thought most people figured this out by now.

The Iraq invasion was blatant warmongering.

Saddam’s reign over the Iraqi people is of no consequence to you or anyone else. You and I have no moral obligation to have him removed. We do have the moral obligation to hold the U.S government accountable when it sends military forces around the world to turn a country inside out, killing people who did absolutely nothing wrong.

This should be apparent to anyone with a conscience.

[quote]
Nor do you ever give any reasonable reasons why Saddam or his sons deserved to have the kind of power the Iraqi oil fields provided. These were dangerous people who needed to be removed so the world could move forward.[/quote]

They didn’t deserve the power they had anymore than the common Iraqi deserved to have their homes destroyed by American bombs.

And how was Saddam holding the rest of the world back? WTF are talking about?

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Bombing people plotting ways to kill as many of us as possible is NOT the same as flying planes filled with civilians into civilian buildings.
[/quote]
Bombs sometimes miss. Bombs sometimes have a larger kill radius than intended.

Besides, this is an ideological war that cannot be won with bombs.

Both sides miss that point because they are both mired in their own arrogance.

All I know is I don’t want to be killed by the crossfire of antagonistic zealots. I count the majority of idiotic Americans who support military aggression as the antagonistic zealots to be feared most.[/quote]

You are way off base in this line of reasoning.

You can absolutely argue many thing about us being over there. HOWEVER, arguing that what we do over there is making things worse or that what we are going is morally equivalent to 9-11 is retarded.

If you want to argue that we don’t have the authority or it isn’t worth the price we pay, fine. But don’t claim that the middle east (Iraq) is worse off for it.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

But don’t claim that the middle east (Iraq) is worse off for it.[/quote]

You sure about that? Have you ever been there?

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

But don’t claim that the middle east (Iraq) is worse off for it.[/quote]

You sure about that? Have you ever been there?

[/quote]

You think they were better off under sadam?

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

But don’t claim that the middle east (Iraq) is worse off for it.[/quote]

You sure about that? Have you ever been there?

[/quote]

You think they were better off under sadam?[/quote]

Depends on who you were (Sunni vs. Shiite). And I would think that if you lost loved ones or your business or whatever, while the U.S was in the process of “freeing” you, I doubt this “freedom” would seem worth it.

Of course, the US didn’t invade Iraq for any humanitarian reasons so much of this speculation seems irrelevant.

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

But don’t claim that the middle east (Iraq) is worse off for it.[/quote]

You sure about that? Have you ever been there?

[/quote]

You think they were better off under sadam?[/quote]

Depends on who you were (Sunni vs. Shiite). And I would think that if you lost loved ones or your business or whatever, while the U.S was in the process of “freeing” you, I doubt this “freedom” would seem worth it.

Of course, the US didn’t invade Iraq for any humanitarian reasons so much of this speculation seems irrelevant.[/quote]

As I mentioned before, if we were going to start asking groups, you’d need to ask people outside of Iraq effected by them too. Like Kuwait.

Iraq is better off without Sadam. The majority of the Iraqi people wants us there it is when the Jihadist use innocent people as armor that makes them hates us. I remember flying in right after the 2nd invasion and people where coming out of there hut or houses and waving at us. Especially when we hit south of Baghdad. The only reason they hates us now is because of the collateral damage.

I agree with some folks that we went in with a self-interest and so what? We went in for the oil and to establish our presence against this radical muslims who want to harm the US. Its war idiots plus we liberated the majority of people of Iraq.

[quote]jre67t wrote:
Iraq is better off without Sadam. The majority of the Iraqi people wants us there it is when the Jihadist use innocent people as armor that makes them hates us. [/quote]

No. They hate us because we bombed the fuck out of em and killed their friends and loved ones. We then told them we’re there to free them.

Please tell me you all understand how fucking stupid that sounds.

Now we are an occupying force. They don’t want us there anymore than we would want a foreign army occupying the U.S.

[quote]
I agree with some folks that we went in with a self-interest and so what? We went in for the oil and to establish our presence against this radical muslims who want to harm the US. Its war idiots plus we liberated the majority of people of Iraq. [/quote]

There were no radical muslims (terrorists) in Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion. They simply were not there.

Dustin oh wow, yeah they where. They are the same ones fighting right now against us. They are the same ones who where killing the Kurdish up in Northern Iraq for a long time and still are.
Let me see when we flew right in after the invasion much of Iraq’s infrastructure was intact expect the main ones. Like airport and military bases and so and so. Was there damage hell yes, but a necessary evil Dustin. It is not as terrible as you make as a matter of fact they have more infighting and killing in between them.
Do we occupy yeah, so what? If not us then it will be another major power. Self-interest my friend. To be honest we did not bomb them enough, luckily the Iraqi Army pretty much quit and went underground.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Bombing people plotting ways to kill as many of us as possible is NOT the same as flying planes filled with civilians into civilian buildings.
[/quote]
Bombs sometimes miss. Bombs sometimes have a larger kill radius than intended.

Besides, this is an ideological war that cannot be won with bombs.

Both sides miss that point because they are both mired in their own arrogance.

All I know is I don’t want to be killed by the crossfire of antagonistic zealots. I count the majority of idiotic Americans who support military aggression as the antagonistic zealots to be feared most.[/quote]

You are way off base in this line of reasoning.

You can absolutely argue many thing about us being over there. HOWEVER, arguing that what we do over there is making things worse or that what we are going is morally equivalent to 9-11 is retarded.

If you want to argue that we don’t have the authority or it isn’t worth the price we pay, fine. But don’t claim that the middle east (Iraq) is worse off for it.[/quote]

If killing innocent people is moral to you then you are an evil person to be feared.

Yeah we are an occupying force Dustin, so be it. You act like this is something new happening, no other country has ever done this. At least we dont go in like previous great countries and rape and pillage there women. Nor do we tear down all religious icons.
Yeah we go in with self-interest, mind you that includes you as well. I guarantee you that there are more Iraqis scared of us leaving than staying there. You watch and see whats happens once we are completely gone. Think North and South Korea. North Korea would have run over that place without us there.

Liftivs it is not moral to kill innocent people, we do not do it on purpose my friend. Like it is not moral to kill an innocent person by a car accident. We do not fly planes into buildings full of innocent people. We do not blow ourselves up when children and mommies are shopping. We shoot at Muslims and Terrorists hiding behind innocent people.

[quote]jre67t wrote:
Dustin oh wow, yeah they where. They are the same ones fighting right now against us. They are the same ones who where killing the Kurdish up in Northern Iraq for a long time and still are.
[/quote]

No they were not. Al Queda, you know, the terrorists that the military was supposed to be fighting were only in Iraq after the invasion, and even then, their presence was small. The Iraqis that the military are fighting now are just that, Iraqis.

The people who were killing the Kurds were the Iraqi Army.

[quote]
but a necessary evil Dustin. [/quote]

Let’s stop right here. It’s most certainly not necessary. But that is the problem. You and others posting here believe the US has the right to throw its weight around, no matter the consequences.

[quote]jre67t wrote:
Liftivs it is not moral to kill innocent people, we do not do it on purpose my friend.
[/quote]
How is going to war on people that have done nothing to us an accident?

You and every voter who supports military aggression is guilty of murder.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

You and every voter who supports military aggression is guilty of murder.[/quote]

I’d happily vote in support of military aggression over military inaction and impotent passivity. Although, I’m a big fan of the ‘city on a hill’ idea and now-a-days it seems the more popular viewpoint is ‘global average joe that owes everyone an apology’.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]jre67t wrote:
Liftivs it is not moral to kill innocent people, we do not do it on purpose my friend.
[/quote]
How is going to war on people that have done nothing to us an accident?

You and every voter who supports military aggression is guilty of murder.[/quote]

What he means is they don’t mind dying so much, so long as its an accident.

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

All you democrats have done since the invasion of Iraq is whine about how poor Saddam didn’t deserve to get took out and we didn’t need to go into Iraq. And you throw your whiny bullshit out there as if it’s an undeniable fact, when it isn’t.
[/quote]

This thread has brought the fanatics out from under their rocks.

We didn’t need to go into Iraq because Iraq was not a threat to the U.S. None, zero. I thought most people figured this out by now.

The Iraq invasion was blatant warmongering. [/quote]

Obviously you have no clue about the history or the behavior of Saddam. We went to war with Saddam in 91 and absolutely humiliated him. Saddam had a well documented history of being vengeful and ruthlessly vindictive. You don’t take on someone like Saddam and leave him alive because there is a very good chance he will try to come back at you.

Saddam killed over a million people. For people to say he was not dangerous or a threat to us after killing that many people is absurd.

What 9/11 showed is that we are in a new era of asymmetrical warfare. It cost Al Qaeda $500,000 to pull off that attack. Saddam had billions of dollars, the resources of a nation behind him and reason to hold a grudge.

How could it have made sense to give some like that the opportunity to hurt us?

Saddam’s reign over the Iraqi people is of no consequence to you or anyone else. You and I have no moral obligation to have him removed. We do have the moral obligation to hold the U.S government accountable when it sends military forces around the world to turn a country inside out, killing people who did absolutely nothing wrong.

This should be apparent to anyone with a conscience. [/quote]

The mass starvation caused by the UN imposed sanctions killed over 500,000 Iraqis. How dare you come on here and speak of conscience while ignoring that.

The year that Saddam burned the Kuwaiti oil fields 50,000 people died during the Sri Lankan monsoon season which was unusually severe that year because all the soot from the burning oil fields went into the upper atmosphere and affected weather patterns over the Indian Ocean. The Sri Lankans did nothing wrong. For us to possess the ability to bring the person responsible for that mass murder to justice and to leave him out there so he could kill more people was immoral.

[quote]
Nor do you ever give any reasonable reasons why Saddam or his sons deserved to have the kind of power the Iraqi oil fields provided. These were dangerous people who needed to be removed so the world could move forward.[/quote]

They didn’t deserve the power they had anymore than the common Iraqi deserved to have their homes destroyed by American bombs. [/quote]

So they didn’t deserve to have the power and ability to cause more mass murder but you had no problem with letting them keep it. Despite the fact that it gave them the ability to carry out a vendetta against us any time they felt like it.

The actual proportion of Iraqis who had their home destroyed by bombs was not significant because we used guided munitions. So don’t come on here and try to act like we sent in B52’s and carpet bombed Baghdad from one side to the other because we didn’t.

Wow! You are so clueless that I am going to have to explain this to you, yet you think you are smart enough to question the wisdom of my judgment. Incredible.

Before the gulf war Iraq was producing over 3,000,000 barrels of oil a day. After the war the UN put a limit on how much oil Iraq could export of 1,000,000 barrels a day. So Saddam remaining in power meant that 2,000,000 barrels a day of oil production was taken off of the world oil market. To give some perspective on how much oil that is Saudi Arabia 10,500,000 barrels of oil a day. So the UN sanctions meant the world was deprived of an amount equal to 20 percent of the Saudi oil production at a time when the world wide demand for oil was beginning to skyrocket because of the rapidly growing Chinese and Indian automobile markets.

The whole world relies on oil for fuel. Driving up the cost of fuel by keeping the Iraqi oil production artificially limited was like a tax on every country in the world. For example food production requires fuel to harvest and ship the food. When the price of fuel goes up the price of food goes up. High fuel prices have also made it profitable to divert food into biofuels reducing the amount of available food which in turn increases the price of food. All this is going on during a time of massive population growth causing increased starvation in the third world that is driving people to emigrate to the US and Europe.

The whole world is now able to benefit from getting the Iraqi oil production restored. Also the last comprehensive surveys of the Iraqi oil reserves were done in the 1970’s. Now that Saddam is gone oil companies have been able to go back in using the latest technology which is indicating that Iraq has much greater reserves than previous surveys indicated. It is now believed that Iraq might have just as much oil as Saudi Arabia.