The Iraq thread 3

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]Do you really want me to start compiling a list of global Jihad announcements, posted on the WEB by Islamic terrorists? You can do that as easily as I can.

Nice weasling AL.So they are represntative for the Islamic population that numbers 1.5 billions?

That`s the same thing as saying KKK in representative for Americans.I also remember a nice petition about nuking Fallujah circulating on the net that got some extremly positive responses.

Quote[/b] ]We'll never know what Al-Qaeda would have accomplished had they not been devoting resources and manpower to Iraq as they're doing now.

I noticed you invoked this for quite some times in this thread.So in the end this is the fantastic accomplishment of the war in Iraq.That now Iraqis are dieing because of terror attacks instead of Americans?

I thought the war on terror was about stoping it not shifting the suffering.

[Pathy 0]

Quote[/b] ]We'll never know what Al-Qaeda would have accomplished had they not been devoting resources and manpower to Iraq as they're doing now.

Probably about the same, given that thier resources increased as a result of Iraq. Only now the US has a nice situation on its hands in Iraq as well as the rest of the terrorist threats.

[Balschoiw 0]

@billybob

Quote[/b] ]That's why Karzai gave him (Chirac) a ear full about not allowing the "uber" Nato force to be deployed during the elections.....suprised you did not post it....

Why should the NATO send it´s best forces to Afghanistan ?

Why ? They are determined for other crisis, they are THE team for rapid answers on urgent situations. I don´t see why they should be sent to Afghanistan right now. We already have a hell lot of troops there. Why send more if the UN hasn´t even totally extended the mission. You can demand much but you won´t always get what you want.

Quote[/b] ]zzzz.....I can post polls that Bush "popularity" has increased by a point or more........zzzzzzz

Do so. I´m not talking about "points", it´s a landslide loss Bush´s Iraq policy faces right now. Nothing else. Not "points"

People lost faith in the TBA, that´s what the poll shows.

Quote[/b] ]Bals,

Should looked at the poll more closely.....

I read the poll closely. It´s not about comparing Kerry to Bush, it´s about the people who don´t believe Bush anymore about Iraq. I may remind you that this topic is about Iraq and not the 2004 elections in the USA.

So activate your brain before you type.

Quote[/b] ]Bals,

You forgot something again....

No, it´s in the link, it´s in the poll so why did I forget it ?!?

Or do I have to guide you through a link like a little kid ?

Jeeez !

While you have no point you try to make up some. Won´t work billybob.

[Jinef 2]

I say we get Avon elected to lead Israel.

First order in government is to have 2 A4 Skyahawks fly out and drop nuclear weapons on Palestine.

A Trident missile is then launched from HMS Spartan or something and bye bye Israel. The next 15 minutes is a frenzy of comms between Paris, London, Washington, Beijing, Moscow, Delhi and Islamabad. The main question is, do we destroy the Earth? Well with politicians who have restraint then no. The world lives happily ever after. The End.

[Jinef 2]

People who vote for Bush should be charged with negligence and sent to prison.

[Pathy 0]

LOL.

Yes, i have a plan, nuke the entire middle east area, nobody left alive there, problem solved......PROFOUND! As Stalin said: "Remove the man, remove the problem"......as Pathy said: "Remove all of the men, (and women and children) remove all of the problem"......

Thats a joke BTW.

Jinef i agree with you Avons opinions seem extreme. But then she has the various baggage that comes with living constantly with such a threat, which no doubt distorts her perception of the muslim world.....its nothing unusual, its human nature, when you end up with 2 factions opposing each other, its easy to forget the common person on the other side is someone just like you........

[Jinef 2]

If I didn't know that Pathy I wouldn't be here arguing to change opinions, I would be fighting them in the middle east.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Well this thread just shoots by doesnt it...

bn880-

Quote[/b] ](on desire for death in islamist radicals)...No they don't, if they could fight you with tanks and planes without dying they would.  It is that htey have to die to be effective in any sort of way that creates the psychology for martyrs.

Thats not exactly true. No doubt islamic extremists might be using tanks and planes and other advanced technology if they could (much as some currently use assault rifles and roadside bombs) but from the reporting and documentaries i have seen, the radicals who blow themselves up tend to be participating in a culture (or sub culture) of heroic self sacrifice borne of some level of despair. They could plant bombs and radio detonate them for much the same effect, but as well as lacking the horror of suicide bombing it also lacks the percieved element of heroism (of course i do not personally regard blowing people up as heroic). Some islamic radicals do indeed claim to 'love death as you (westerners) love life'. I think this speaks of the level of despair reached in some places in the islamic world, a despair that needs to be addressed with some haste by the affluent west.

You asked what would constitute defeat of the coalition for an original supporter of the war.

I did not agree with the invasion. However from my perspective it is indeed a full forced military withdrawal that would constitute true 'defeat' for the coalition, or a widespread evaporation of support in coalition countries for the continued presence of troops (even if the situation would still require such a presence for the coalitions aims to be pursued). A humanitarian disaster or the stalling of the building/rebuilding process would constitute a great failure but not overall defeat. Another presently obvious failure is the intelligence failure that led to the wild goose chase for NBC weapons (one can hardly blame coalition troops themselves for failing to find weapons that were not there).

Of course this definition of defeat is quite practical and rather detached from the morality of the coalitions actions, but i think thats necessary when Blair for instance makes the claim that he will be 'vindicated by history'. We could make the argument that the coalition is close to defeat now but in ten years time the perception may be quite different. They failed to find WMD but its arguable whether the war was ever really about them at all except as a specific casus belli. For Blair and others maybe, for the neoconservatives almost certainly not.

Denoir-

Quote[/b] ]I think that Avon and others make a big mistake in lumping all the attacks in Iraq together. I'd say there are the following categories:

1. Religious violence (Sunni blowing up Shia and vice versa, different Shia militias etc)

2. Violence against the new government/collaborators

3. Violence against US soldiers

4. Hostage takers/killers

5. Generic violence against random civilians

Number 1. is an internal matter that is bound to be more and more problematic. Iraq has dozens of well-armed militias representing various religious and political factions. The Al-Sadr militia is just one of many.

Number 2 and 3 are mostly executed by people opposing the occupation. The core was probably Baathist, but  have extensive support from the population (majority thinks that killing US soldiers is ok, and a minority, but significant percentage supports the killing of Iraqis collaborating with the occupation). Now it's kiddies in Sadr-city shooting mortars at US positions. It's more of a popular uprising against the occupation. Think WW2, French resistance, Vichy government etc

Number 4 and 5 fall into the classical definition of "terrorism" and this is where we see foreign elements. This is where AQ and associates turn up. They have little political agenda for Iraq, but have a very strong agenda against westerners being in the Mid East. Snatching a civilian is easy (far easier than attacking well-armed US troops) and given the relatively few abductions so far indicates that these generic terrorist elements are fairly few in numbers.

Of course, there isn't always quite a clear line between the categories, but there is a significant difference. And the current US policy is to lob missiles at 4) and 5), while taking a non-confrontational approach with the others.

Yes, its important to make such distinctions if we are to understand whats going on in Iraq and people tend to enjoy lumping things together (DukeOfRay seems most guilty in this to me).

But im not sure the US really has a policy for number 4 except to condemn them and perhaps try some negotiation (the US generally desists from lobbing missiles at hostage takers -as far as i aware-).

There is of course also number 6) Opportunists, criminals and politically unaware thugs who also do quite a lot to make Iraqis feel unsafe on the streets or going to work.

[Akira 0]

Although there is some stereotyping in both directions, I'd say that at some point it is justified. Most criticism here is directed at Bush and his administration, and very little at the people who elected him and supported him. Something like 80% of the Americans supported the war. In a country supposedly by the people of the people and for the people, shouldn't the people take at least partial responsibility

Of course it sucks for the 20% that were against it, but that's the nature of majority rule.

Not necessarily, as at the time of election known of this was known or foreseen. When the election was, generally, the biggest thing we had to worry about was if old people would have a prescription drug plan.

Neither of the candidates platforms had anything to do with terrorism, or Iraq for that matter.

If at the time Bush said "I'm gonna bomb the hell outta Iraq" and then still won then yes, you have a point.

Supported, yes. (I might add that quite a bit of criticism is directed at those that support him) Elected, no.

Also I direct you to the poll previously posted about Bush's support slipping.

Also I might point out that though the person was elected, policy is not chosen or voted upon by the voter. Average Joe Schmo is not responsible for the seige in Fulleja, the people that ordered it are.

To put partial blame on those that elected him is an abstract connection. Those who support him. Then yes they take partial blame.

[Pathy 0]

[denoir 0]

Not necessarily, as at the time of election known of this was known or foreseen.  When the election was, generally, the biggest thing we had to worry about was if old people would have a prescription drug plan.

I'm talking about the start of the war. Not to mention what when Baghdad fell, the support for the war was in the lower 90's.

Quote[/b] ]Also I direct you to the poll previously posted about Bush's support slipping.

Actually it's the Iraq war support that is slipping, while Bush's support went up (which is of course worrying on so many levels). And so what? Things are going bad and people are changing their minds? That doesn't do anybody good. The objections should have come during the prelude of the war. It was not like Bush was the only source of information. Most of the world warned against going to Iraq, predicting exactly the type of instability that we're seeing today.

But no, an overwhelming majority supported the war.

Quote[/b] ]To put partial blame on those that elected him is an abstract connection. Those who support him. Then yes they take partial blame.

And those that supported him in his war were a majority. Around 80% IIRC at the time that the war started.

Edit: Pathy:

http://www.snopes.com/humor/iftrue/nostra.htm

[theavonlady 2]

http://www.wildcrazy.com/wildcrazy/Presidential/bush_nostradamus.jpg

Yuk, yuk says Snopes.

edit: yuk, yuk, said Denior.

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]Do you really want me to start compiling a list of global Jihad announcements, posted on the WEB by Islamic terrorists? You can do that as easily as I can.

Nice weasling AL.So they are represntative for the Islamic population that numbers 1.5 billions?

Same to you, QS. Read my post that you quoted: "islamic terrorists". I did not say "Islam" or "Moslems" or "Columbina FARC terrorists" for that matter.

Nice try to distort my words and intention.

[Akira 0]

Denoir's Post...

Indeed. I didn't say those that supported it shouldn't hold partial blame. I said those that elected him should not necessarily be held accountable, as nothing of this nature could be foreseen at the time. At the start of the war, yes, since after all, where else could it have really gone?

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]We'll never know what Al-Qaeda would have accomplished had they not been devoting resources and manpower to Iraq as they're doing now.

I noticed you invoked this for quite some times in this thread.So in the end this is the fantastic accomplishment of the war in Iraq.That now Iraqis are dieing because of terror attacks instead of Americans?

I thought the war on terror was about stoping it not shifting the suffering.

I believe colaition soldiers are also dying in Iraq. So much for shifting.

But I do not argue with the fact that the Coalition has been extremly clumsy in fighting this war.

[Pathy 0]

[theavonlady 2]

I say we get Avon elected to lead Israel.

First order in government is to have 2 A4 Skyahawks fly out and drop nuclear weapons on Palestine.

A Trident missile is then launched from HMS Spartan or something and bye bye Israel. The next 15 minutes is a frenzy of comms between Paris, London, Washington, Beijing, Moscow, Delhi and Islamabad. The main question is, do we destroy the Earth? Well with politicians who have restraint then no. The world lives happily ever after. The End.

Glad to see you've hit bottom with your fiction and sarcasm.

Big hero. Come on over and try to take out an ever-shifting target in Gaza with an assault team without getting killed on the way in.

Your ignorance of the situations involved shows.

Your interest in destroying Israel shows you for the anti-semitic filthy racist that you are.

[Pathy 0]

I say we get Avon elected to lead Israel.

First order in government is to have 2 A4 Skyahawks fly out and drop nuclear weapons on Palestine.

A Trident missile is then launched from HMS Spartan or something and bye bye Israel. The next 15 minutes is a frenzy of comms between Paris, London, Washington, Beijing, Moscow, Delhi and Islamabad. The main question is, do we destroy the Earth? Well with politicians who have restraint then no. The world lives happily ever after. The End.

Glad to see you've hit bottom with your fiction and sarcasm.

Big hero. Come on over and try to take out an ever-shifting target in Gaza with an assault team without getting killed on the way in.

Your ignorance of the situations involved shows.

Your interest in destroying Israel shows you for the anti-semitic filthy racist that you are.

I dont want to get into a flame war, but i have to say, your own views could be seen by some as "filthy anti arab racist".....it does sometimes strike ME that way, i dont know about anyone else  

Sorry that seems like a totally pointless post looking at it without further comment. Point is, noone is innocent.

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]Same to you, QS. Read my post that you quoted: "islamic terrorists". I did not say "Islam" or "Moslems" or "Columbina FARC terrorists" for that matter.

Nice try to distort my words and intention.

Miles Teg was refering to Islam in general,your post suggested that terrorists agenda to "conquer the world" has anything to do with that of muslim nations.

If it was not your intention I will take it as a misunderstanding from my side.

[Pathy 0]

Quote[/b] ]Same to you, QS. Read my post that you quoted: "islamic terrorists". I did not say "Islam" or "Moslems" or "Columbina FARC terrorists" for that matter.

Nice try to distort my words and intention.

Miles Teg was refering to Islam in general,your post suggested that terrorists agenda to "conquer the world" has anything to do with that of muslim nations.

If it was not your intention I will take it as a misunderstanding from my side.

I must also say i read it as an "all of islam" thing. Perhaps i should edit out my above post if it was not intended that way

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]We'll never know what Al-Qaeda would have accomplished had they not been devoting resources and manpower to Iraq as they're doing now.

I noticed you invoked this for quite some times in this thread.So in the end this is the fantastic accomplishment of the war in Iraq.That now Iraqis are dieing because of terror attacks instead of Americans?

I thought the war on terror was about stoping it not shifting the suffering.

I believe colaition soldiers are also dying in Iraq. So much for shifting.

We we`re talking about terrorist attacks,and a clear majority of them are directed at the Iraqis(car bombs,Ashura festival masacre) or in your opinion the incidents that inflicted the deaths of the US serviceman are related with Al-Queda?

Quote[/b] ]But I do not argue with the fact that the Coalition has been extremly clumsy in fighting this war.

I wouldn`t use exactly those words  

[Veovis 0]

Quote[/b] ]Actually it's the Iraq war support that is slipping, while Bush's support went up (which is of course worrying on so many levels).

Well you see, surprising as it may be to you, Americans care about more than the Iraq war when we look at our president. Iraq is only one of many things that influence the American people's support for him. On the other hand, Europe cares nothing about a president's domestic agenda, and therefore Iraq is the only factor in your opinion of him.

Quote[/b] ]People who vote for Bush should be charged with negligence and sent to prison.

Same idea here. This is the most idiotic statement I've seen in some time. (his previous post mentioning nuking Israel came in a close second) Do you know anything of Bush and Kerry's goals, policies, etc., outside of Bush's (disasterous) foreign policy? I would guess that you know very little. Iraq aside, Bush is the conservative, Kerry is the liberal, and people affiliated with either will vote for what they believe in. Just because somebody does not support Kerry's agenda and votes for their only alternative, Bush, means they should be sent to jail?    You are nuts.

[Jinef 2]

Hold your horsies there mate.

The smiley face offers my opinion in a semi joking way, don't take it too seriously I am just professing that I am a lily livered pinko commie liberal.

My more serious point is that education should be the key goal of all government, Education, Education, Education. If that goal is achieved there will be no such thing as conservatives

About nuking Israel, if you had any gauge of myself or got the slighly satirical paradox referring to the holocaust you would realise i'm not seriously considering supporting Avon to take Ariel Sharon's position.

Keep chucking it at me Avon, I'm loving it!

[Monkey Lib Front 10]

Not necessarily, as at the time of election known of this was known or foreseen.  When the election was, generally, the biggest thing we had to worry about was if old people would have a prescription drug plan.

I'm talking about the start of the war. Not to mention what when Baghdad fell, the support for the war was in the lower 90's.

Quote[/b] ]Also I direct you to the poll previously posted about Bush's support slipping.

Actually it's the Iraq war support that is slipping, while Bush's support went up (which is of course worrying on so many levels). And so what? Things are going bad and people are changing their minds? That doesn't do anybody good. The objections should have come during the prelude of the war. It was not like Bush was the only source of information. Most of the world warned against going to Iraq, predicting exactly the type of instability that we're seeing today.

But no, an overwhelming majority supported the war.

Quote[/b] ]To put partial blame on those that elected him is an abstract connection. Those who support him. Then yes they take partial blame.

And those that supported him in his war were a majority. Around 80% IIRC at the time that the war started.

Edit: Pathy:

http://www.snopes.com/humor/iftrue/nostra.htm  

Remember the polls never asked do you support Bush, it was more do you support war on iraq, now once the war started support went up in both countries because we backed our troops, alot of people would say yes to voice there support of there nations troops.

[Monkey Lib Front 10]

I say we get Avon elected to lead Israel.

First order in government is to have 2 A4 Skyahawks fly out and drop nuclear weapons on Palestine.

A Trident missile is then launched from HMS Spartan or something and bye bye Israel. The next 15 minutes is a frenzy of comms between Paris, London, Washington, Beijing, Moscow, Delhi and Islamabad. The main question is, do we destroy the Earth? Well with politicians who have restraint then no. The world lives happily ever after. The End.

Glad to see you've hit bottom with your fiction and sarcasm.

Big hero. Come on over and try to take out an ever-shifting target in Gaza with an assault team without getting killed on the way in.

Your ignorance of the situations involved shows.

Your interest in destroying Israel shows you for the anti-semitic filthy racist that you are.

I dont want to get into a flame war, but i have to say, your own views could be seen by some as "filthy anti arab racist".....it does sometimes strike ME that way, i dont know about anyone else  

Sorry that seems like a totally pointless post looking at it without further comment. Point is, noone is innocent.

i guess you are not in the position of being bombed at any time and living in that state of fear every day of your life like avon does (Living in Israel) she has not posted her views on the particular topic to keep the forums semi flame free, i'm not american but it seems that Anti-American statements on this forum are allowed for some reason.