-
Brian (the devil incarnate)
-
What's interesting about it?
...
I'm not being sarcastic or trying to start a flame war, but this is just as controversial a subject as Adis' 101 Biblical Contradictions thread.
Why not share some of your opinions with us Brian? Say something substantive.
The WMD pretext didn't pan out. We know that. What would you have the Americans do now? Leave Iraq to the foreign Islamic extremists? Maybe America should leave Iraq to the local grown mercenary gangs that are being run by foreign government agents? Don't you think America is obligated to work for stability in Iraq now? Do you seriously think that there would be any more stability if America just up and left?
P.S. I hope you don't delete this thread if it doesn't go your way.
P.S. You've been Spanked! -
heh imo:
If the US leaves now, there'll be a civil war between shia militias & government and sunni insurgents (and maybe the kurds in the north will declare independance and Turkey will start a war with them).
If the US leaves as soon as the insurgence can be 'handled' by the iraqi government, the shia muslims probably will still try and take over (if they're lucky they'll do it without too much bloodshed).
Bush invading Iraq is the best thing that could have happened to the Irani extremist government. Their influence in Iraqi government/south is now enourmous and I very much doubt that the US/Israel will dare to start military intervention against their nucleair weapons programme because they can easily cause major problems in Iraq. It's a win/win situation for them...Comment
-
r u kidding?!!!
Israel will bomb the shit out or their reactor if all other options fail (and let's face it, they will).
Oil already costs a fortune over there. You have to refinance your mortgage just to visit the gas station.
Israel won't care about oil prices in the context of an Iranian nuke program.
I was in Israel in 2001 and EVERY person I spoke too, when I asked them about the peace process, said that Iran was the biggest threat and hindrance. Besides, the Iranian people WANT American help to overthrow the Mullahs.
And the UN/EU negotiations/appeasement fiasco will lead to nothing but more deaths in the long run if good men to nothing.
...
On your opinion about what would happen if the US left Iraq today. Yeah, chaos of BIBLICAL PROPORTIONS!
One word: MESS-O-POTAMIA! (heavy on the mess).P.S. You've been Spanked!Comment
-
I found it an interesting read, that's all. I don't have any opinions on the subject, because I don't have data, so I'm unable to know whether the deaths are as stated by one or the other side.Originally posted by schmosef
That is not my style and I resent it that you would think it was.Originally posted by schmosefP.S. I hope you don't delete this thread if it doesn't go your way.
However, I believe it typical that you would turn this thread into a flame war which has NO bearing on the subject in question and which makes a number of controversial and unsubstantiated statements. I shall not rise to the bait
Sasq: Can you please move this to Temp Forum as, in three responses, it has gone completely off-topic from what I hoped would have been a reasoned debate. As far as I'm concerned, the matter is closed.Brian (the devil incarnate)
Comment
-
Umm, maybe you didn't see my smiley? I was joking. Let's relax a little bit.
How did I turn this thread into a flame war? Are you really so naive as to think that posting on a subject like this isn't fodder for a flame war? I wanted you to make some comments so as to PREVENT a flame war caused by people assuming your motives.
We all know that too many people are dying in Iraq. What's interesting about the article you posted? I still want to know.
What would the "reasonable debate" have been about? You didn't post any assertions? Maybe the debate should have been whether the article was INTERESTING? Is that what you really wanted?
"Controversial and unsubstantiated statements". Perhaps you didn't read the article you posted. If I wanted to give an oral report on "controversial and unsubstantiated statements" I'd have to consider citing that article.
Frankly, Brian, I didn't bait you, and I resent your attitude.P.S. You've been Spanked!Comment
-
Typical? Typical of what Brian? Dirty Jews perhaps? You've actually managed to heavily insulted me.Originally posted by Brian Ellis
Listen, I know that you've chosen to label me as some sort of radical. I believe you've done that as a means of writing me off and not having to respond to me. I don't think that's fair. I've already apologised for being unkind to you in my early days here. I don't see why my political views (Israel's right to exist and work towards her own security, etc.) are so intolerable to you. The right to life doesn’t' seem so radical to me.
Why can't we just agree to disagree? Why do I have to be so evil in your eyes?P.S. You've been Spanked!Comment
-
what I mean is that I think Iran will cause _major_ problems in Iraq with its current influence on the shia population. And I'm not sure if the US wants to risk that... although I agree that letting Iran have nucleair weapons is something that should be prevented at quite high costs if necessary.Originally posted by schmosefComment
-
Yeah, I'm totally in agreement with you regarding Iran's designs on Iraq.P.S. You've been Spanked!Comment
-
This issue isn't that new or controversial or even surprising. Military and political leaders all over the world have split hairs over combat deaths vs combat related deaths for as long as there has been combat.
We're just going to have to wait 20 or 50 or more years for history to rule on whether the Iraq invasion was a good thing or a bad thing for Iraq and the middle east. We are still way too close to the situation and it's still too fluid for us to make a subjective determination. Our (U.S.) responsibility now is to clean up the mess we made in Iraq as best we can before we leave it to the Iraqis' devices. It's probably going to cost several thousand more young lives (on all sides) before we're done. Under those circumstances it's in everyone's best interest for us to stick with it long enough to make sure there's at least enough political stability there for them to take on the burden of internal security upon themselves.
Even after we leave we'll probably be bombing weapons caravans crossing the Iranian/Saudi/Syrian borders into Iraq for decades to come.
Ousting Saddam Hussein = Good.
Resultant social chaos from power vacuum = Bad.
PolSci 101
KevinComment
-
Gaining 2 forward bases in case Iran has to be dealt with forcetully: PRICELESS
Tzu Sun Tzu - "The Art of War"
Dr. MordridDr. Mordrid
----------------------------
An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.
I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fpsComment
-
Iran is 4 times the size of Iraq in area and 2 1/2 times as populous. It is also extremely mountainous. An absolute military nightmare. The Russians in Afghanistan and the Germans in Yugoslavia never got a handle on the guerilla warfare emanating from the mountains. The only way the US was able to root out the Japanese in caves during WW2 was that they were in a confined area and had no means of supply. Even then, if the Americans had not been hell-bent on utterly exterminating the enemy, with the entire economy of the US at their backs and the willingness to take appalling casualties themselves, they would have been bogged down indefinitely.Comment
-
Theres different ways to skin a cat....Originally posted by KvHagedornWhy is it called tourist season, if we can't shoot at them?Comment
-
Quick reminder, Iran, unlike mose ME countries, was once an advanced western country. (relative) Democracy isn't something new for them, so hopefully they can/will do a better job returning it."For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism."Comment
-
A legitimately interesting read
A War to Be Proud Of
Read it all. (if you dare)DOES THE PRESIDENT deserve the benefit of the reserve of fortitude that I just mentioned? Only just, if at all. We need not argue about the failures and the mistakes and even the crimes, because these in some ways argue themselves. But a positive accounting could be offered without braggartry, and would include:
(1) The overthrow of Talibanism and Baathism, and the exposure of many highly suggestive links between the two elements of this Hitler-Stalin pact. Abu Musab al Zarqawi, who moved from Afghanistan to Iraq before the coalition intervention, has even gone to the trouble of naming his organization al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.
(2) The subsequent capitulation of Qaddafi's Libya in point of weapons of mass destruction--a capitulation that was offered not to Kofi Annan or the E.U. but to Blair and Bush.
(3) The consequent unmasking of the A.Q. Khan network for the illicit transfer of nuclear technology to Libya, Iran, and North Korea.
(4) The agreement by the United Nations that its own reform is necessary and overdue, and the unmasking of a quasi-criminal network within its elite.
(5) The craven admission by President Chirac and Chancellor Schröder, when confronted with irrefutable evidence of cheating and concealment, respecting solemn treaties, on the part of Iran, that not even this will alter their commitment to neutralism. (One had already suspected as much in the Iraqi case.)
(6) The ability to certify Iraq as actually disarmed, rather than accept the word of a psychopathic autocrat.
(7) The immense gains made by the largest stateless minority in the region--the Kurds--and the spread of this example to other states.
(8) The related encouragement of democratic and civil society movements in Egypt, Syria, and most notably Lebanon, which has regained a version of its autonomy.
(9) The violent and ignominious death of thousands of bin Ladenist infiltrators into Iraq and Afghanistan, and the real prospect of greatly enlarging this number.
(10) The training and hardening of many thousands of American servicemen and women in a battle against the forces of nihilism and absolutism, which training and hardening will surely be of great use in future combat.P.S. You've been Spanked!Comment
Tweet
Comment