Originally posted by MindshipWell Michigan does have the largest population of Muslims in the WHOLE US OF A!!....So.. maybe we'll be OK.......
IMO, it's already underway, will likely continue for the next 20-40 years, and the worst is yet to come.Last I checked, though, Michigan wasn't high on anybody's "Let's Kill Americans" list, so you should be relatively safe.
As for us here in NYC...
Look a rhyme.. 😛
Originally posted by KharmaDog
Kurdish researcher Shoresh Resoul estimates between 60,000 and 110,000' civilians died before, including and directly after Anfal. Some Estimates are higher, but Resoul's numbers are generally accepted to be closer as he is known to be quite meticulous.No one is saying that Sadam was not a horrible man. What many have said before, and are saying now, is that this war was not about how he was commiting genocide. If that was the reason for this war it would have happened long ago. The people who were in power to stop this are just as guilty for letting it continue as Sadam is for enacting such policies. Also, Sadam's regime did offer a stabilizing effect in the middle east as he was against the fundamentalist islamic ideal that is sweeping the area.
[B] Fair enough, but why did the americans and allies turn a blind eye to Sadams actions in his own country? Because they did not give a sh*t. To use these reason now as a pretext for invasion is just as bad as when these actions were ignored. The reigning powers that were, cared as little for those people as Sadam did, for them to say anything different now is a joke.
I prefer to blame the British and allies for allowing Hitler to act as he did while knowing what he was capable of and intent on doing. The Americans I am just pissed of for waiting so long to get in the fray.
There is a fine line between inactivity and compliance.
I (and I hope I am correct in so thinking) am under the impression that you believe that it is a good thing that Sadam is out of power and that it was a necesary measure. I agree, but the context in which it was done was false, and the power vacuum left behind (not to mention the stupidity an ineffectiveness with which this campaign has been conducted) have set up a situation that is now more of a global threat than a local threat. This is what I think people are trying to say. [/B][/QUOTE]
I agree with this post 100%.
I'm a conservative republican, and I support the war because Saddam was an ass, but Dubya lied about it.
No doubt.
I woulda had more respect for him saying "He tried to kill my dad. That, and our country looks to do better with him gone."... rather than the WMD theory. (which had some truth to it, as Clinton has admitted that they suspected he still had weapons, or the plans to make them).
Regardless, Bush stretched the truth to go in there.
He wanted to take out anybody who could "hit us again" (as he likes to say), or anyone who would want to hit us again.
Personally, I'm fine with that.
Somebody who comes into my neighborhood, shoots at my house and my neigbor's house, and kills my brother and one of his kids....
I'm not waiting for him to come back and try again before I do something about it.
I will arm myself, gather a few close friends and go smoke out the bastard, his home, and anyone who looks like him. (women and children excluded of course.)
I for one, am glad that my President thinks that way.
I wish that he would have the balls to have just said so. (but that goes against rules of engagement, geneva convention, popular belief, political correctness...)
One other thing, we knew that Saddam tried to kill Bush #1, why isn't that a good enough reason to get him?
When the hell did our country become a bunch of p*ssy's?
If you or I, or anyone else tried to kill the President, we would be arrested, and charged with, at least, attempted murder, and probably treason, which is punishable by execution.
No middle eastern country would be tolerant of an attempt on their leader.
*whew*.... sorry for the rant. 🙂
Back on topic:
Now that we are in this mess, Bush should just increase the troop level.
What do we have? 250,000 to 500,000 over there?
Make it a million.
Go to as many areas as possible, and arrest anyone with a weapon. (no one but Iraqi police/military should be allowed to own a weapon for 2-5 years..... that would make it easy to identify insurgents more quickly.)
Clean this deal up, and get the hell out of there.
After that, its up to the people who live there.
Unfortunately, there are alot of cultural biases, and deep-rooted feelings of hate from one group to another.
Things may very well end up as they were before, unless we put our own person there to run the country for a few years.
(but that would make us invaders/occupiers/rulers of another country, which would never be allowed)
They should have just sent special ops in to cut his throat in the middle of the night, and see what happened from there.
(I don't know if that would have been possible, but......)
The reigning powers that were, cared as little for those people as Sadam did
indeed...and i've always thought that is a huge problem with our cherished democracy
it's not really accurate to say "America" did this or "America" didn't do that in a historical context...because no democratic country is run by the same people with the same intentions as time goes by...
you also cant take action or inaction towards other nations as merely one country against another...they had and still have global implications...between the 1950's and 1980's...most actions were taken in other countries such as vietnam, korea and the middle east as spin offs from the cold war
I (and I hope I am correct in so thinking) am under the impression that you believe that it is a good thing that Sadam is out of power and that it was a necesary measure. I agree, but the context in which it was done was false, and the power vacuum left behind (not to mention the stupidity an ineffectiveness with which this campaign has been conducted) have set up a situation that is now more of a global threat than a local threat. This is what I think people are trying to say.
it was an idiotic way to go to war...whether or not it was deliberate misleading of the UN or whether it was genuinly mistaken intelligence was a massive mistake by the allies...but the fact remains that if George Bush had gone to the senate...the American people and the UN with evidence of mass graves and huge ethnic cleansing...and said he had to act against Saddam...the response would have been a resounding NO from each...and the pretext is there for it...Rwanda, East Timor, Darfour,
way to avoid the point
what was your point?...that things are bad in Iraq?...wow...profound...truely
Originally posted by sithsaber408
I agree with this post 100%.
You don't know how much that frightens me.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
He wanted to take out anybody who could "hit us again" (as he likes to say), or anyone who would want to hit us again.
If that was true then he would have gotten Osama instead of forgetting about him and would have definitely dome something about Saudi Arabia.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Somebody who comes into my neighborhood, shoots at my house and my neigbor's house, and kills my brother and one of his kids....
What about somebody who encourages a war and strife between countries and profits from both sides? Because the U.S. did that as well as much more. Do you have any clue about your country's past foreign policies?
Originally posted by sithsaber408
I for one, am glad that my President thinks that way.
Your president thinks just enough to make horrible decisions and make himself look like an idiot.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Now that we are in this mess, Bush should just increase the troop level.What do we have? 250,000 to 500,000 over there?
Make it a million.
You are indeed clueless. Not only do you not understand the situation, you have absolutely no clue about the catastrophic logistical and economic nightmare that you just proposed.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Go to as many areas as possible, and arrest anyone with a weapon. (no one but Iraqi police/military should be allowed to own a weapon for 2-5 years..... that would make it easy to identify insurgents more quickly.)
You do realize that not only is this impossible, but that you would have the entire country rebelling against you instead of just the insurgents?
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Things may very well end up as they were before, unless we put our own person there to run the country for a few years.
Sadam was your own person to begin with. The U.S. has tried that many times and it has failed each time. Do have even the slightest idea what you are talking about?
Originally posted by sithsaber408
They should have just sent special ops in to cut his throat in the middle of the night, and see what happened from there.(I don't know if that would have been possible, but......)
Not only is it possible, but it is against international law. Not only that, but such an action would have left a power vacuum that probably would have been filled by one of his own sons, which would have been much worse.
Please don't agree with me in the future, It scares me to think that we even remotely see things the same way.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
You don't know how much that frightens me.Please don't agree with me in the future, It scares me to think that we even remotely see things the same way.
😂 Damn that freedom of speech.
I don't completely agree with your point of view, ... make you feel better? 🙂
I agree that the war was started under false(I prefer "thin"😉pretenses, and has the potential to become a bigger, more unstable problem, if not handled correctly.
(I also have no clue as to what "correctly" would be.) 😄
The style of killings is remiding of the type of religous riots in India.
This can turn very ugly for Iraq. Remeber that cleric who almost brought Iraq to its knees and killed dozens of US troops? If that type of violence goes starts agin it will not only caused the deaths of many Iraqis but also the deaths of many Soldiers.
Originally posted by manny321
The style of killings is remiding of the type of religous riots in India.This can turn very ugly for Iraq. Remeber that cleric who almost brought Iraq to its knees and killed dozens of US troops? If that type of violence goes starts agin it will not only caused the deaths of many Iraqis but also the deaths of many Soldiers.
It does a bit
Originally posted by sithsaber408
I'm a conservative republican, and I support the war because Saddam was an ass, but Dubya lied about it.No doubt.
I can't help but think that this is the most representative post made that illustrates the very core problem with Americans on that side of the aisle. It's an ends justifying the means kind of logic. This presidency has managed to justify going to war by !lying! to us.
No one will argue that Saddam was a bad man. However, how have we become any better than Iraq during the first Gulf War?
As absurd as it may seem, a civil war in Iraq could actually be a 'good' thing. At least it would allow a fully representative government to emerge. The problem is that it could easily lead to a return to the authoritarian-style governement that the US 'liberated' Iraq from.
These are just initial thoughts. They could be garbage.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Actually, the worrying thing is that for some Iraqis the bomb was not set by the other muslims, but by America to provoke the civil war.
Some of them claim that the shrine was not touched for 1000, but as soon as USA moved in, it happened.
Yes I heard this from Deano 😖hifty:
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Actually, the worrying thing is that for some Iraqis the bomb was not set by the other muslims, but by America to provoke the civil war.
Some of them claim that the shrine was not touched for 1000, but as soon as USA moved in, it happened.
an ounce of doubt can create a pound of belief..............yeah yeah🙂 Maybe Lil however one could also contend that soonis did this in a time it would make the US take blame.................those sneaky guys🙂
Whatever the reason one thing is for certain the middle east has been a hotbed for violence far before the USA ever put its foot over there and religion has been a driving factor for a great deal of it.
Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
As absurd as it may seem, a civil war in Iraq could actually be a 'good' thing. At least it would allow a fully representative government to emerge. The problem is that it could easily lead to a return to the authoritarian-style governement that the US 'liberated' Iraq from.These are just initial thoughts. They could be garbage.
I hate to differ with you. But civil war in Iraq is not a good thing. It's not a good thing for the trops this administration will leave there to get slaughtered during it's opening. It's not a good thing for non-muslim governments all over the world, and it's not a good thing in regards to th egrowing threat of Iran as a nuclear power.
I understand what you are saying. I also agree that civil war is a terrible thing, but perhaps it is the only way that the allegations of US interference can be dissolved. Basically, I was just wondering whether the organic nature of a civil war would ultimately allow a representative government, supported by the majority of the people, to be formed. It certainly would reduce the amount of outside interference that currently goes on there. Ideally, it wouldn't happen, but then ideally the US wouldn't have led an invasion that was rejected by the UN.
Originally posted by Great Vengeance
This area of the world is pretty much screwed.....the hatred runs so deep that I dont see any lasting peace for a very very long time.
true...but while Northern Ireland still has problem with working together politically...there isn't the same degree of violence as there was...and the hatred there ran as deep as anywhere in the middle east
its probably the best comparison given that both are hatred steeped in religious bigotry