[quote]lixy wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Why do you feel compelled to comment on what is an American, domestic issue? This is none of your business.
Domestic issue? It’s about the American troops in Iraq, you nimrod.
Repeat after me: Iraq is not part of the United States.[/quote]
Furthermore Chushin,
you are writing in the "Politics and World Issues" debate forum, not the "Politics and World Issues Everybody Shut Up Forum."
[quote]johnnybravo30 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
jb,
First, your “schoolyard shooter” comment is in bad taste.
So forgive me. You know what the bible says about not forgiving people. It’s against it.
Second, you make many assumptions that are pretty thin.
For instance, saddam and Jordan were traditionally very friendly.
I believe “intimate” was the word that was used.
There was a long relationship between Jordan and the old Iraqi government which was quite intimate and wasn’t limited to the regime, but spread to the society," said Joost Hiltermann, the Middle East project director for the International Crisis Group who has lived in Amman since 1991. “The people here still feel a great affinity for the Saddam Hussein regime.”
Jordanian people’s relationship with the Saddam regime is not in question. Saddam was the only thing standing in the way of a Shiite Iraq (Jordan is, of course, Sunni). I can’t take the time to write about the massive consequences of an independent Shiite Iraq on the entire landscape of geopolitics.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/middle_east/iraq/jan-june07/jordan_05-16.html
What exactly would saddam gain from playing games with an “intimate” friend? Do you think he really feared that his “intimate” friend was going to invade?
Rubbish.
You are utterly confused. Not an invasion by Jordan. I didn’t say anything about invasion. I said “uprising”; meaning from within, from the militant factions that were gaining strength as Saddam’s wained. Given teetering state of his regime, it is unlikely that he could have withstood a substantial uprising. There is nothing “thin” about this.
Second, if you run into al-zarqawi, please ask him why he moved from place to place so often.
Maybe a more telling question is why, when he was wounded fighting for al qaeda, was his first stop Baghdad?!?
Why check into uday hussein’s hospital?
You are obviously completely oblivious to the state of Iraq’s infrastructure, particularly its health services, after the decade of sanctions. During the time between the end of the 1st Gulf War and the current invasion/occupation the sanctions are estimated to have killed 500,000 children alone from starvation and disease. The first two directors of the “Oil for Food” program resigned stating that the imposed sanctions were “genocidal.” Baghdad was the only place where one could find an adequate hospital. Obviously, one run by Uday Hussein would get the lion’s share of resources. How many hospitals did Uday run? Just Curious.
So as you see, your second question is not more telling than your first question. I would appreciate it if you would comment on Zarqawi’s choice of residence. Furthermore, has al-Qaeda ever supported any other secularist dictators?
Finally, you could ask him how many calls saddam’s “intimate” neighbor made for his release?
Did Abdullah call the hospital as Jordanian intelligence claimed they knew exactly where al-zarqawi was and gave the Iraqi government detailed reports on his movement.
Seems like friends look out for friends. Sounds like saddam was willing to piss off Abdullah in order to protect and support al qaeda in their war against the U.S.
You could make a compelling argument that this shows saddam’s priorities.
And this is where your argument falls apart entirely. When you post news articles in support of your Iraq related arguments they should 1) Not be book reports carried out by internet reporters based state-side. 2) not contain information that blows up in your face.
If Abdullah was such a great friend of Saddam as you repeatedly claim, then why did Jordan privately support the US invasion (six paragraphs from the bottom)? Why would Saddam cooperate with a regime with such close ties to a superpower that was preparing to invade him for the second time?
Finally, I believe al zarqawi was wanted by Jordanian officials for acts committed in Jordan.
I just don’t see the American connection.
Unless, of course, this is just you blowing smoke.
JeffR
The reasons for Jordan’s extradition request are of little consequence to this argument. Discussing the US connection isn’t of immediate concern. To do so would launch an extremely complex and long-winded geopolitical debate. [/quote]
jb,
Looks like your head is full of concrete.
I cannot make this argument any clearer.
I have a feeling nothing will open your mind. I’ve used a variety of sources. Most if not all are well respected.
You’ve used nothing but conjecture and extremely thin arguments.
You ignore things like my article pointing out how close the Jordanian Government was to the Iraqi Regime.
Your brain doesn’t have the ability to understand that if saddam had wanted to extradite zarqawi, he would have found a way. How hard would it have been for him to have one of his squads snatch him from his son’s HOSPITAL!??
Your argument that saddam couldn’t have taken down zarqawi when he set up shop in the north is silly. I remember saddam cracking down on the north when it suited his needs. It wouldn’t be hard to send some Republican Guards. Especially, if his ally, Jordan was telling him exactly where zarqawi was.
saddam had a rather effective assassination network going. He killed, tortured, and jailed anyone in his way.
It stretches credibility to the maximum to imagine he couldn’t have nabbed and extradited a guy in his son’s hospital.
Further, the only hope your argument has to work is if saddam didn’t know he was there.
Obviously (see Abdullah) he knew he was there.
In summary, in order for your argument to work, a series of unlikely events would have to transpire.
I’ll stick with facts from multiple sources.
FACTS: saddam harbored al zarqawi. zarqawi was al qaeda wounded in Afghanistan fighting against the coalition. zarqawi chose Baghdad knowing he’d receive a safe haven. abdullah, his friend, asked him multiple times to turn him over. saddam refused.
You stick with conjecture and imagination.
Oh, are you interested in buying some land?
JeffR
First you write: [quote] read your posted article. I know the King asked for extradition, obviously at the request of the US as Jordan is essentially a client state[/quote]
Then after I’ve given you clear proof that Jordan had compelling reasons of their own to want zarqawi, you write this.
[quote]johnnybravo30 wrote:
The reasons for Jordan’s extradition request are of little consequence to this argument. Discussing the US connection isn’t of immediate concern. To do so would launch an extremely complex and long-winded geopolitical debate. [/quote]
So after I showed you that Jordan, in all likelihood, wasn’t working on behalf of the U.S., you wrote that this was “of little consequence to this argument.”
Instead of acknowledging that I had a point, you try to dodge and hide behind an “extremely compled and long-winded geopolitical debate.”
I have to tell you that you haven’t distinguished yourself whatsoever in your short posting history. Your arguments are neither complex nor very believable. Your ability to make an effective geopolitical debate are in serious doubt. Therefore, you haven’t earned the benefit of the doubt when you make these blanket statements.
I warned you. If you waffle, change your argument midstream, and generally make yourself look foolish, you are going to get hurt.
JeffR
P.S. I have some land to sell at “reasonable prices.” Interested?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Bush loses ground with military families
[i]By Faye Fiore, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
December 7, 2007
WASHINGTON – Families with ties to the military, long a reliable source of support for wartime presidents, disapprove of President Bush and his handling of the war in Iraq, with a majority concluding the invasion was not worth it, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.
The views of the military community, which includes active-duty service members, veterans and their family members, mirror those of the overall adult population, a sign that the strong military endorsement that the administration often pointed to has dwindled in the war’s fifth year.
Nearly six out of every 10 military families disapprove of Bush’s job performance and the way he has run the war, rating him only slightly better than the general population does.
And among those families with soldiers, sailors and Marines who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan, 60% say that the war in Iraq was not worth the cost, the same result as all adults surveyed.
“I don’t see gains for the people of Iraq . . . and, oh, my God, so many wonderful young people, and these are the ones who felt they were really doing something, that’s why they signed up,” said poll respondent Sue Datta, 61, whose youngest son, an Army staff sergeant, was seriously wounded in Iraq last year and is scheduled to redeploy in 2009. “I pray to God that they did not die in vain, but I don’t think our president is even sensitive at all to what it’s like to have a child serving over there.”
Patience with the war, which has now lasted longer than the U.S. involvement in World War II, is wearing thin – particularly among families who have sent a service member to the conflict.[/i]
Those unpatriotic rascals…[/quote]
lixy,
I’m enjoying your desperation.
A los angeles times poll is the best you can come up with?
I love it!!!
Perhaps you have no idea about the reputation and history of the la times. Look them up.
Zoom in on Arnold’s first run for Governor.
Bless the families. I grieve for my friends who have lost family members and any of them who have had to endure long periods of separation.
It brings me joy to know that their efforts haven’t been in vain.
lixy you and your murderous ideology have been dealt a serious blow.
The U.S. troops are going to come home triumphant.
After they’ve come home, I’m going to wait about a year, then I will redo the poll.
If this poll has any legitimacy (I have my doubts) I’ll bet MY POLL will look much different.
I’ll let you know.
JeffR
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Trying reading it again, genius. It’s about American military families and their views on an American president. [/quote]
No. It’s about American military families and their growing disapproval of the war of aggression started by an American president.
“Why of course the people don’t want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don’t want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” – Hermann Goering (1893-1946) Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe, President of the Reichstag, Prime Minister of Prussia and, as Hitler’s designated successor, the second man in the Third Reich.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Oh my! I’m so chastsized! “Furthermore,” eh? LOL.
Listen, hot shit, you have no idea of the history of this forum, with your overwhelming 27 posts.
Mind your own fucking business.
“Furthermore.”
[/quote]
In the time it has taken me to make 27 posts I have come to suspect that you are an intolerant bigot that can’t process information that doesn’t pass through your nationalism filter. Just a hunch though.
Mind my own fucking business?
This is an open internet forum. I’m not intercepting PMs between you and Lixy and then giving you shit about them. The notion that a post or topic discussed in an open internet forum is off limits just because you take it personally is completely insane. Just because I only started posting in this forum doesn’t make me new to this game, and tough-talking forum posts are not terribly threatening. Only a battle of wits is possible.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
johnnybravo30 wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Oh my! I’m so chastsized! “Furthermore,” eh? LOL.
Listen, hot shit, you have no idea of the history of this forum, with your overwhelming 27 posts.
Mind your own fucking business.
“Furthermore.”
In the time it has taken me to make 27 posts I have come to suspect that you are an intolerant bigot that can’t process information that doesn’t pass through your nationalism filter. Just a hunch though.
Mind my own fucking business?
This is an open internet forum. I’m not intercepting PMs between you and Lixy and then giving you shit about them. The notion that a post or topic discussed in an open internet forum is off limits just because you take it personally is completely insane. Just because I only started posting in this forum doesn’t make me new to this game, and tough-talking forum posts are not terribly threatening. Only a battle of wits is possible.
<adding to the ITD* list>
*Ignore the Dickhead
[/quote]
That’s too bad. I had such high hopes for our relationship.
I think the US invasion of Iraq deserves some credit.
[quote]johnnybravo30 wrote:
In the time it has taken me to make 27 posts I have come to suspect that you are an intolerant bigot that can’t process information that doesn’t pass through your nationalism filter. Just a hunch though.
[/quote]
Personally, I hope those 27 posts are the first of at least 2,700.
[quote]lixy wrote:
I think the US invasion of Iraq deserves some credit.
[/quote]
From an interesting reader comment under your article:
"I just laugh at the people who read this article and then start throwing darts at Bush and Blair, claiming blindly that this is somehow related to “neocon” politics (usually without really understanding neo-conservative politics). Regardless of foreign political/military intervention, the Islamic world has an alarming overabundance of similar atrocities carried out for reasons of so-called religious piety.
The point we should all take away from the article is that something needs to be done with respect to ALL religious extremism, especially when it results in physical intimidation, personal injury, or death.
Muslims everywhere (yes, I am one as well) need to wake up and speak out against what is being done in the name of this religion.
Were heinous crimes against humanity being carried out for religious reasons before Saddam was in power? Yes.
…And while he was in power? Yes.
…And 50 years from now? Of course.
Stop blaming external actors for the crimes of others.
Isaak Mahdi, Detroit, MI - USA"
Pookie, I guess they are not invisible, just not found on this board.
[quote]lixy wrote:
I think the US invasion of Iraq deserves some credit.
Not so long ago you used Basra an example of Iraqis taking over security successfully. You even displayed a positive opinion of the Sadrists taking over. Now you post an article showing what happens when the militias aren’t put down first, in Basra.
Now, if only that vast majority of muslims (the moderates) would simply crush the teensy-tiny minority of extremists doing this to these women. I mean, they’re such a vastly outnumbered part of the muslim population it should take little time.
Edit: No, in fact, I know Basra was your example of what should be happening. That’s what happens when troops pull out before the extremist militias are defeated, and before moderate Iraqi security forces are truly able to stand up and take command.
Basra is failing. Perhaps American troops will sort it out before all is said and done. Oh, I forgot, you support immediate withraw of this sort throughout the nation. Do that and all gains will turn into Basra. Even Baghdad, where as the article noted, even alcohol shops have reopened.
“The British Army will formally hand Basra over to Iraqi control in less than two weeks, claiming that it had done all it could to stabilise the southern port city during four years in charge. Yet as a tentative stability returns to Baghdad, where even alcohol shops are starting to reopen, Britain appears to be leaving Basra ever more firmly in the hands of lawless gangs and strict morality police.”
Basra is an indictment against your support of immediate withdraw.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Basra is an indictment against your support of immediate withdraw.[/quote]
It seems Lixy would like Iraq to fail so he can go on condemning the US. Win or lose, it matters not, he has only one stance and it is solely anti-US.
Am I right here?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Basra is an indictment against your support of immediate withdraw.
It seems Lixy would like Iraq to fail so he can go on condemning the US. Win or lose, it matters not, he has only one stance and it is solely anti-US.
Am I right here?[/quote]
I don’t know that he actually wants it to fail. But he is ignorant of what would come from an immediate withdraw. He doesn’t get to use Basra to argue one way, then the other. Indeed, he held it up as an example of the peace that would break out because of British withdraw (before the militas had even been broken), implying that such could happen nationwide. Now he uses the very same Basra, holding it up as a failure, to bash the coalition. The glaring lesson, he seems to willfully ignore, is that the turnover was way too soon. The turnover he supported on this forum.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
First you write: read your posted article. I know the King asked for extradition, obviously at the request of the US as Jordan is essentially a client state
Then after I’ve given you clear proof that Jordan had compelling reasons of their own to want zarqawi, you write this.
johnnybravo30 wrote:
The reasons for Jordan’s extradition request are of little consequence to this argument. Discussing the US connection isn’t of immediate concern. To do so would launch an extremely complex and long-winded geopolitical debate.
So after I showed you that Jordan, in all likelihood, wasn’t working on behalf of the U.S., you wrote that this was “of little consequence to this argument.”
Instead of acknowledging that I had a point, you try to dodge and hide behind an “extremely compled and long-winded geopolitical debate.”
[/quote]
You didn’t show me that that Jordan wasn’t under the influence of the US. You said something to the effect of, “I believe Abdullah wanted Zarqawi for crimes against Jordan.” You tell me why it matters who ultimately asked for Zarqawi’s extradition? I don’t think it does. I mentioned that Jordan is a client state in passing.
You still have yet to explain Jordan’s support for the invasion, if they were such close allies.
I don’t think I will ever distinguish myself in your eyes JeffR because I haven’t attended Tank Abbott’s “Use Your Words” Summer Debate Camp like you have. Maybe I need to start making idle, meat-headed threats about getting “hurt.”
I’m in the middle of exams right now and can’t take the time to go round and round in circles like this. I’ve spent way too much time on here this weekend as it is. I apologize for my lack of commitment to this debate and promise that at this time next week I will make you my human toilet.
Cheers and happy non-denominational holiday season,
JB
[quote]pookie wrote:
johnnybravo30 wrote:
In the time it has taken me to make 27 posts I have come to suspect that you are an intolerant bigot that can’t process information that doesn’t pass through your nationalism filter. Just a hunch though.
Personally, I hope those 27 posts are the first of at least 2,700.
[/quote]
So I was right about him? The fact that he needs an “ignore list” only further supports my beliefs about him.
Thanks for the kind words.
This is probably a waste of a few seconds, given JeffR’s propensity for ignorance, bias, and repetitive name-calling, but the basic argument johnnybravo is making is right on. And the larger argument is this:
Al Qaeda did not like Saddam. Far from it. Bin Laden actually offered Al Qaeda’s services to the Saudi royal family in 1990, saying they would defend the Saudis from Iraq after the invasion of Kuwait, thus sparing Saudi Arabia from having to be defended by infidels (i.e. us). The Saudi royals wisely laughed in his face.
Also, Saddam, despite attempts to cloak himself in religion following the First Gulf War, was a secular Arab dictator, a Baathist, the very thing Al Qaeda hates. I know this is probably beyond your limited, Giuliani-esque knowledge of terrorism Jeffy, but ever hear the terms ‘near enemy’ and ‘far enemy.’? Mubarak’s Egypt, Saddam’s Iraq, and even Wahhabist Saudi Arabia were all hated by Al Qaeda for being insufficiently Muslim.
Lawrence Wright, who wrote maybe the definitive book on Al Qaeda, ‘The Looming Tower,’ has said simply that while Saddam would have liked links with Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda would have nothing to do with him. I’ll take his word over yours.