Targeting Girls School

[quote]John S. wrote:
Because Im going to help out other people im indoctrinated, just because your too big of a pussy to do anything? And are you saying the service memebers over there are not helping out? I sure hope your not.
[/quote]

I’ll say it. The military is in no way helping in Iraq. Nor is it their job to. Their job is to “protect and defend the constitution” and protect America from “all enemies foreign and domestic” .

You tell me in what way the US is better off and in what way we are any safer today than we were 10 years ago. And don’t give me, “Sadam is gone”…he wasn’t a threat to the US…EVER.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

In other words, the executions will continue until morale improves.[/quote]

By executions you mean the beheading of civilians, right?

[quote]And who is to say that Al Qaida doesn’t have spies right on this board, who have read your post, and right now, as we speak, are formulating their Cunning Plan with the rest of the cell members in Baghdad:

"It is so simple! All we must do to rid our land of the filthy infidel is to just stop being violent! As soon as the Americans leave, we can return to being violent once more![/quote]

Funny how they can’t even manage to stop killing Americans or Iraqis long enough for the US to withdraw.

So if the US is there they’re non-violent and when we’re gone, they’re violent. Is this argument for or against our withdrawal?

[quote]lucasa wrote:
lixy wrote:

Very good point.

Compare to the report released yesterday by the STC organisation and where Iraq ranks lowest in the world in child mortality.

http://news.yahoo.com/...me/child_deaths

“Iraq’s mortality rate has soared by 150 percent since 1990. Even before the latest war, Iraq was plagued by electricity shortages, a lack of clean water and too few hospitals.”

Iraq was good before Saddam turned to the Dark(er) Side. Funny how when he was compliant and friendly with the Western World his people prospered (except the ones he killed), and his nation thrived. But for some reason, he chose to invade Kuwait and adopt more religious values and the cooperative prosperity evaporated.

Saddam was a monster; that’s not open to debate. He slaughtered anyone who opposed him and that’s what dictators do. But for the great majority of people (kids, women…), life was better under his rule, and that’s not open to debate either.

Human Rights Watch (criticized for having an Anti-Israel slant) feels there’s room for debate;

http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/wrd/iraq-women.htm

[i]Women’s Status in the Post-Gulf War Years

In the years following the 1991 Gulf War, many of the positive steps that had been taken to advance women’s and girls’ status in Iraqi society were reversed due to a combination of legal, economic, and political factors. [b]The most significant political factor was Saddam Hussein’s decision to embrace Islamic and tribal traditions as a political tool in order to consolidate power.

[/b] In addition, the U.N. sanctions imposed after the war have had a disproportionate impact on women and children (especially girls). For example, the gender gap in school enrollment (and subsequently female illiteracy) increased dramatically due to families’ financial inability to send their children to school.

When faced with limited resources, many families chose to keep their girl children at home. According to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), as a result of the national literacy campaign, as of 1987 approximately 75 percent of Iraqi women were literate;

however, by year-end 2000, Iraq had the lowest regional adult literacy levels, with the percentage of literate women at less than 25 percent.

In 2001, the U.N. Special Rapporteur for Violence against Women reported that since the passage of the reforms in 1991, an estimated 4,000 women and girls had been victims of “honor killings.”

In 1998, the government reportedly dismissed all females working as secretaries in governmental agencies. In June 2000, it also reportedly enacted a law requiring all state ministries to put restrictions on women working outside the home.[/i]

Saddam, at one point, was just a dictator who slaughtered his own people, then he started invading other nations, defying the UN, and further oppressing his own people to gain greater power.

HRW seems to feel that this coincided with his adoption of Islam as a basis for national policy. But you’re right, it’s not open to debate, just because you say so.
[/quote]

Sorry lucasa. You must be a faithful watcher of “Faux” news.

You don’t seem to realize that Iraq was a land of honey and joy before the evil Bush brought in Halliburton.

Oh, he would never have armed our enemies and fired on our military.

In short, Bush wants oil money so he can retire rich.

Signed,

Fools.

P.S. Great post. You essentially destroyed all the stupidity in one foul swoop.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Lifticus, unlike some, has done his homework.

[/quote]
The sad thing is that it only took me 20 seconds to find this information. Now, considering most posters here spend a good portion of their day reinforcing rhetoric with out doing a little research should tell you how brainwashed they are to thier own self-importance, as a nation and culture.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
John S. wrote:
Because Im going to help out other people im indoctrinated, just because your too big of a pussy to do anything? And are you saying the service memebers over there are not helping out? I sure hope your not.

I’ll say it. The military is in no way helping in Iraq. Nor is it their job to. Their job is to “protect and defend the constitution” and protect America from “all enemies foreign and domestic” .

You tell me in what way the US is better off and in what way we are any safer today than we were 10 years ago. And don’t give me, “Sadam is gone”…he wasn’t a threat to the US…EVER.[/quote]

Its easy, we help them out we get an ally, we get to put up some strategic bases, then if Iran acts up we have them from almost all sides, Plus you have set up a democracy there that with some help can thrive and do very well.

Please play again.

[quote]lixy wrote:

Back to the point. The big Jihad cannot be tranlated into “Holy war” or be associated with violence. It’s an internal struggle between good and bad; i.e: the hedonic part that wants to abuse life’s pleasures and the part that thrives to alleviate you from earthly concerns.[/quote]

Don’t give me that crap when I see masses of people in the streets with AK-47’s and RPG’s pointed to the sky SCREAMING “JIHAD, JIHAD, JIHAD” as they burn an American flag. Nothing “internal” about that message.

[quote]John S. wrote:
Plus you have set up a democracy there that with some help can thrive and do very well.

Please play again.[/quote]

Why does it have to be a democracy? Don’t you think it should be up to the Iraqi people…you know? self rule!

Logistically, we don’t need bases in Iraq–ever heard of the US Navy? We have bases all over the world including Saudi Arabia.

We also have these giant floating vessels with all the gear necessary for war-fighting that are maintained by joint US forces so that we can deploy at a moments notice and be “in country” in less than two weeks anywhere in the world–the Marines (part of the US Navy) can do it in less than 36 hours but wouldn’t be able to be fully mission capable until the flotilla arrives.

Strategically speaking, a base in Iraq would only to help occupy it–which is how it will be viewed after we “pull out”.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

Their daughters could also go the market and meet up with one of Saddam’s sons ---- what a treat!
[/quote]

Saddam targeted people whom he perceived as a threat to his power. The common 10 year old Iraqi child didn’t have anything to fear unless his or her father had been overheard saying something negative about Saddam.

Iraq was a stable county where its citizens could own businesses and send their kids to school without fear of being blown up.

Dustin

[quote]PGJ wrote:

Really? You speak for the entire Iraqi population now.
[/quote]

Iraqis have said that they were better off under Saddam. Why? Because they had stability.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Dustin

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
John S. wrote:
Plus you have set up a democracy there that with some help can thrive and do very well.

Please play again.

Why does it have to be a democracy? Don’t you think it should be up to the Iraqi people…you know? self rule!

Logistically, we don’t need bases in Iraq–ever heard of the US Navy? We have bases all over the world including Saudi Arabia.

We also have these giant floating vessels with all the gear necessary for war-fighting that are maintained by joint US forces so that we can deploy at a moments notice and be “in country” in less than two weeks anywhere in the world–the Marines (part of the US Navy) can do it in less than 36 hours but wouldn’t be able to be fully mission capable until the flotilla arrives.

Strategically speaking, a base in Iraq would only to help occupy it–which is how it will be viewed after we “pull out”.[/quote]

They had a huge turnouts for the votes, if they didn’t want a democracy they would not have shown up. We may not need a base but it will sure as hell help.

[quote]PGJ wrote:

Absolutely classic. You have to go back to the Crusades and ancient history to prove your point. You said something like “just like every other organized religion promotes violence”…

I asked you to name one religion othern than Islam that promotes violence. You couldn’t and had to reach back 1,000 years to provide examples. Very weak. Show me a verse in the New Testament where Jesus promotes violence and asks followers to kill in his name.

[/quote]

I said:

Not that Islam is not organized, violent insanity, but so are most other religions that still have a strong grip on a society.

I am arguing that Christianity no longer has a strong grip on any society except the Vatican and neither does Judaism.

You are no longer true believers, therefore you wimp out.

The reason why I have to go back, um, around 300 years (thou shall not suffer a witch to live), because nobody truly believes that stuff anymore.

Augustins argument is as valid as it was on the day that he made it, but we are no longer sure that Jesus is the only way to salvation, right?

At least not sure enough to torture and kill people.

Christianity in its logical conclusion is as violent as Islam, it is just that we grew up.

[quote]PGJ wrote:

Ok, Orion. What is your experience in America? WTF do you know about SWAT teams? Nobody is going to jail for having anal sex (unless it’s rape). You have a twisted mind.

Just come out of the closet and join the insurgent movement. You already hate America, so why not join the fight against us?
[/quote]

I remind you that you have laws on your books that are as intolerant,irrational an full of fear as them.

I am pretty sure their really stupid and intrusive laws get ignored too, whenever possible.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

You tell me in what way the US is better off and in what way we are any safer today than we were 10 years ago.[/quote]

  1. A known trafficker in WMDs is gone, thereby preventing a clearinghouse for terror elements to acquire weapons

  2. No Saddam-seeking-nuclear-weapons scenario

  3. Rogue nations and terror elements are now on notice that “multilateral” international security arrangements can no longer be manipulated to their advantage - i.e., the Russias and Chinas of the world who have shady economic interests in said rogue state won’t be able to hogtie action against said rogue state in an abuse of process scenario (which international brigands love)

Resolution 1441:

Recognizing the threat Iraq?s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/15016.htm

Nearly everyone thought Saddam was a threat - the question was what do we do with him? That is where the disagreement occurred.

And the sad thing is that it only took me 20 seconds to find this information. Now, considering most posters here spend a good portion of their day reinforcing rhetoric with out doing a little research should tell you how brainwashed they are to thier own self-importance, as a nation and culture.

How about that?

[quote]orion wrote:
PGJ wrote:

WTF, Orion? Name some other religions that tell people to kill in the name of God?

And I have never heard of ANYONE seriously saying “Dear Jesus, thank you for giving me the strength to saw that man’s head off. All Glory is yours”.

All I hear is “Lord, please protect us and our great nation.” I have never heard in 14 years of military service anyone praying for the death of anyone.

Why is it so freaking hard for people to realize that the “insurgency” is fueled by radical Islamic religious fervor? They do kill for Allah and the virgins.

Some surely do kill in the name of Allah.

Some kill so they do not have to live in a society that is ruled by people that kill in the name of Allah.

Now to what other people kill in the name of their religions.

Well, a lot.

Not even beginning to describe Aztec customs, Jews and Christians also did.

Contrary to popular belief Crusades and the burning of heretics was not an abberation from Christs teachings but the logical conclusion of some Christian dogmas as explained by Augustin from Hyppo in his writings on the Donatists.

Basically the argument is this.

We kill murderers.

What should we do with people who refuse Jesus and the churches teachings, publicly talk about it and thereby endanger other peoples eternal souls salvation?

Should we not punish their flesh to save their souls or at least stop them from endangering other peoples souls?

Absolutely flawless logic and given that the Lord wants you to be stoned if you touch a pig skin on schabbath…

It is true though that most Christians no longer truly believe all that nonsense, thank God. Even though they insist on calling themselves Christian, I somehhow doubt that their faith is strong.

What religious people rarely get is that if God is the source of ethics or morals everything God demands is morally right, even the most barbarous atrocities.

That is the counterpoint to the argument that if there is no God anything goes, which is usually meant as an attack on atheists.
[/quote]

OK, What insurgencey in Iraq is killing in the interest of anything other than Islam? I still have not seen a shred of evidence to back it up. Sure it’s possible, but it’s not happening that way. They are all killing in the name of Allah.

[quote]orion wrote:
I remind you that you have laws on your books that are as intolerant,irrational an full of fear as them.

I am pretty sure their really stupid and intrusive laws get ignored too, whenever possible.[/quote]

Really? Which ones? I know what they are, but I doubt you do.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
pat36 wrote:
2. Do you contest the notion that is the insurgents were not attacking the U.S. military and Iraqi civilian targets, that we would be gone? Do you honestly think anybody wants to be there?

I contest it. A government that does not want to be in a country does not build the world’s largest embassy (anyone have any idea how many Marines will be garrisoned there as “guards?”) in that country’s capital.

Violence or no violence, we are planning to be in Iraq for a good long time.[/quote]

Bullshit, you have no evidence of that. All that has been spoken and assured has indicated we’ll be out as soon as the place is stable enough for us to do so.

Nothing and no one aside from conspiracy theorists believe that we are there indefinitely. If you have evidence that we are going to stay in Iraq despite the situation you should lay it on the table.

[quote]dustin wrote:
[/quote]

dustin,

I can’t tell if you are a schtick. If you are just on here throwing turds, let me know.

If you are serious with your errors (which I fear), then you need to realize that almost all of your premises are completely incorrect. I’m not talking subjectively wrong. I’m talking objectively and factually incorrect. Let’s take a few sentences from your latest “gem.”

[quote]

Saddam targeted people whom he perceived as a threat to his power. The common 10 year old Iraqi child didn’t have anything to fear unless his or her father had been overheard saying something negative about Saddam. [/quote]

What must it be like to defend saddam? I just cannot imagine. A cursory search of saddam’s atrocities revealed:

from: www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq1.html

More from the same source: Highlight CHILDREN.

Again, if you are a schtick looking for attention, I’ll send you a candy-gram.

If you are serious, seek help.

JeffR

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

  1. A known trafficker in WMDs is gone, thereby preventing a clearinghouse for terror elements to acquire weapons
    [/quote]
    Please show us the evidence.

hypothesis

There is a big difference in believing what we are told (or what people say) and believing in the veracity of factual evidence. There was no evidence for war. Fmr. CIA Dir. George Tenet has been speaking about this for the past two weeks all over the air waves.

The CIA raised a question into Iraq’s activities in regard to WMD; however, the Bush administration took it and ran with it as evidence before an actual investigation could have even taken place. They manipulated a report made by a man whose sole responsibility is to gain information about our peers and nothing more.

It was the equivalent of raising an interest in a suspect of a crime and then throwing him or her in jail without an investigation or trial…then firing the person who signed the inquiry because it was later found to be “inaccurate”–which it never was because it was only an “inquiry” and not evidence.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3112729236545487839&q=George+Tenet+on+Charlie+Rose

Quoting from ‘Rebuilding America’s Defences’, from the Project for a New American Century think-tank

“the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.” (my emphasis)

Prominent members of PNAC include Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, many other Bush appointees, and the President’s brother, Jeb Bush.

It irritates me no end that the Bush administration can state it’s objectives and reasoning in an unequivocal manner, and yet anyone who repeats them as a criticism is accused of being a conspiracy theorist.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Please show us the evidence. [/quote]

You want evidence that Saddam had and was thought to have WMDs, was a declared enemy of the US, had breached a international ceasefire, and had shown a reputation of engaging in all kinds of behind-the-scenes deals to further his ends?

You already have all of that.

Uh, yeah, genius - that is entirely the point.

You want proof that rogue nations and terror elements will be more wary that they can’t manipulate the international process as a result of the Iraq action? Hmm. Let’s send off surveys with self-addressed stamped envelopes.

Well, see, that is the problem - you are making a threshold argument. Was there enough evidence to warrant war? That is a policy disagreement - but it also different from saying “there was no threat”.

The evidence is right there - you can think that there wasn’t enough to warrant what occurred, but this notion - that Saddam represented no threat and a case was fabricated against him - just doesn’t add up in light of the information.

And I wouldn’t put too much stock in Tenet’s CYA memoir - he tries to pin something on a conversation he had with Wolfowitz…when Wolfowitz was in Paris at the time.

Who “manipulated” it? The NIE is the NIE. If you are going to make such a claim - manipulation impliesd bad faith - then show it: no one is going to take your word for it.

A bipartisan Congress believed the information - as did 15 out of the 16 UNSC nations that signed Resolution 1441. Now I know you tell us over and over again that you are very, very smart - but what do you know that both domestic and foreign intelligence agencies didn’t?