Would you prefer we lose the war in Iraq?

Heineken Helen

cinredzfan47 wrote:

That is an ignorant statement. They have a choice to join the armed services, they do NOT choose where they are deployed. There are plenty of soldiers who do not agree with this war. As I've said before, hate the war, not the soldier.

And as I'VE said before... nobody can be forced to fight a war. They can be punished for not doing so but the nazis were 'just following orders', weren't they?

I don't fall for that shite! There would be no war if there was nobody to fight it - FACT!

catefrances

WindNoSail wrote:

I don't buy your analysis of state sponsored terrorism. If Iran funds terrorists, that is state sponsored terrorism. If the US goes to war for the removal of a Sadam, that is a military action. If the US tries to establish a free govt, that is nation building. When people try to equate the two I wonder if they understand how the world has defined terrorism vs a govt military. Historically there is a big difference. Just because the IRA has the word Army in it doesn't make it Irelands military.

who said anything about the invasion of iraq being state sanctioned terrorism? i am talking about points in history where the United States has sponsored known dictators. where they have helped overthrow democratically elected governments because they didn't like the politics of those elected. where they have given aid to countries knowing the abuses taking place and dismissing them.

WindNoSail wrote:

Okay, what else do I need to know about that you think I don't know?

i don't know what it is you don't know. it is up to you to decide what you need to know. but if you are going to argue from a balanced position you at least have to know what is going on and has gone on under the guise of democracy and freedom.

WindNoSail wrote:

You understimate our economy. We aren't all walking around making money off of the military here. Most people don't have any affiliation with any defense companies or the military, that is a fact.

No. i do not underestimate the US economy.
i didn't say that everyday americans are walking around making money off the military.
know anyone who works for General Electric? NBC? Boeing? Bechtel? Westinghouse? Honeywell?

WindNoSail

Heineken Helen wrote:

Well if the US winning is prevailing, overcoming and succeeding at what they're doing... then yes, my straight answer would be 'I would prefer the US to lose the war'. I would like the Iraqis to have their OWN freedom - not one that's economically linked to YOUR country cos that's not real freedom.

So, we don't want the US to win because the Iraqis would not be able to take credit? I understand that it would always be better for a nation to determine their freedom, but we helped France didn't we? We helped Britian? Was that not valuable to them as a nation?

So, I want to know what the world gains if we fail in Iraq. I just don't see an upside except to fanatical Islam.

catefrances

WindNoSail wrote:

So, we don't want the US to win because the Iraqis would not be able to take credit? I understand that it would always be better for a nation to determine their freedom, but we helped France didn't we? We helped Britian? Was that not valuable to them as a nation?

i believe it is up to the iraqis to take control of their own country.
you can see the difference between helping france and britain and the nation building exercise in iraq i hope.

WindNoSail wrote:

So, I want to know what the world gains if we fail in Iraq. I just don't see an upside except to fanatical Islam.

and if Iraq chooses to become an islamic republic, isn't that their right to self determination?
you seem to be under the false impression that if the US succeeds in their democratic venture that it will somehow last more than 15 minutes.

WindNoSail

catefrances wrote:

who said anything about the invasion of iraq being state sanctioned terrorism? i am talking about points in history where the United States has sponsored known dictators. where they have helped overthrow democratically elected governments because they didn't like the politics of those elected. where they have given aid to countries knowing the abuses taking place and dismissing them.

Well, maybe you didn't say that but I know I have encountered that opinion here. I am just as clear as can be that I don't want my country doing anything underhanded or illegal in the name of 'national interest', so don't think I believe we are lilly white or incapable of evil.

But, it is a weird world. There are countries out there committing genocide and you look at them and they have nothing to fight for. No resources, no valuable land, nothing. And yet they kill and fight for generations. I see people who hate so much they are willing to blow themselves up along with 20 other persons, kids even. WTF? Makes no damn sense to me why so many people are so twisted. Then I see countries who live in relative peace since WWII, and they aren't any more entitled to it than anyone else. They aren't nessessarily better or smarter, just in a position to live this way. I know the world lived under 'fear' of the Soviets for decades, not fear of the US. Hell, Cuba is just a few miles from our coast and have they had no real reason to be fearful for their existence in the past 40 years, despite the bad things Castro did to come into power.

So anyway, I would prefer to clean up my country w/o destroying its fiber, which is still here. The divisiveness I see often in the more radical left leaning world is based on anger, hatred, and a desire to revisit the Viet Nam years because it was cool to hate your country. Whatever. I am rambling I really don't want to politicize the conversations, so if Americans agree to be good, then we will be able to be good in the rest of the world.

I think my point is that we are in a unique position in the world, we can't be Sweden. It is unlikely that we can withdraw from the position we have, we can only handle it wisely. But don't expect us or even desire that we get out of this role we are in. Sweden can be Sweden partially because we are who we are in the world. If we all withdrew, it wouldn't be long before we would have to face some other enemy. Someone always wants to take over the world. G-R-E-E-D.

WindNoSail

catefrances wrote:

i believe it is up to the iraqis to take control of their own country.
you can see the difference between helping france and britain and the nation building exercise in iraq i hope.

I don't see a difference in a comparison if Iraqis want a democracy, and we assist them in that goal.

catefrances wrote:

and if Iraq chooses to become an islamic republic, isn't that their right to self determination?
you seem to be under the false impression that if the US succeeds in their democratic venture that it will somehow last more than 15 minutes.

If Iraq chooses the Iran route, it won't be by a free vote. Maybe corruption in the vote, or threats of death to control the people. I am not saying they won't have religious elements in their govt, but a truly Islamic Republic will take away freedoms. Only foolish radical persons want to live under that type of system, so they can dominate other persons. Which is supposedly exactly what liberals should be against, but in this case, it is okay for Iraqis to not have freedoms because it makes GW look bad.

If we were all consistent, we would want freedom for all.

Heineken Helen

WindNoSail wrote:

So, we don't want the US to win because the Iraqis would not be able to take credit? I understand that it would always be better for a nation to determine their freedom, but we helped France didn't we? We helped Britian? Was that not valuable to them as a nation?

So, I want to know what the world gains if we fail in Iraq. I just don't see an upside except to fanatical Islam.

No, I'm not talking about them taking credit - but Americans can't define 'freedom' for an Iraqi - how's that so hard to understand.

You may have helped France and Britain and they've never heard the bloody end of it, have they... but ya never helped us and we're doing alright for ourselves. Managed to kick them out with none of your help so Europe would have been fine without yas.

Byrnzie

depopulationINC wrote:

"loose the war"

interesting choice of words. Support it or not......what do you consider a victory. "stopping terrorism".....sorry, not going to happen. Wish it could, but it cant.

The U.S government always needs to convince the American people that they have an enemy. If it's not 'communism', then it's 'drugs' - remember Noriega? - and if it's not drugs, then it's 'terrorism'. It's all bollocks! The Bush administration are the the most dangerous terrorists in the world right now. The illegal occupation of Iraq and the 100% support for the terrorism being committed by israel are just two examples of this. There are many more. Has anyone heard of the Cuban five?

http://www.canadiannetworkoncuba.ca/Documents/C5-TimBoodOct03.shtml

That's another example. The Bush administration were told by top advisors in the U.S that an invasion of Iraq would increase the risk of terrorism in the world. Did this stop them invading? No. Therefore it seems obvious that they don't care about the safety of the American public, but only there own power interests.
And no, I don't care if the U.S loses the illegal war of occupation in Iraq. Just as I wouldn't have shed any tears for the Nazis when they were driven out of the Soviet Union and Europe, and why I wouldn't feel sorry for the Israelis if they were forced to withdraw from the illegally occupied terroritries in the West bank and Gaza.

Byrnzie

WindNoSail wrote:

I am sorry, but no way can you honestly say the US are terrorists in this situation. Sorry. This is Michael Moore stuff, which is just too radical to be good policy. Insurgents = freedom fighters, what? Who lives in freedom under the insurgents rule. ie Taliban, Saudi Arabia. I guess radical Islam is so free that if you write a book that offends you, they lop off your head or stab you will riding your bike in Denmark.

Michael Moore too radical? Really? According to who? Who decides where the bounds of acceptable thought and opinion lie? I personally don't believe Michael Moore is radical at all. As far as im concerned he merely states the obvious whilst injecting some humour into the proceedings, showing those in power as they really are.
Secondly, how does radical Islam differ from radical fundamentalist Christianity in your scheme of things? I'd be interested to know.

NCfan

Byrnzie wrote:

Michael Moore too radical? Really? According to who? Who decides where the bounds of acceptable thought and opinion lie? I personally don't believe Michael Moore is radical at all. As far as im concerned he merely states the obvious whilst injecting some humour into the proceedings, showing those in power as they really are.
Secondly, how does radical Islam differ from radical fundamentalist Christianity in your scheme of things? I'd be interested to know.

Maybe I have a short memory, but please refresh me to the last time a group of Christian zealots hijacked four planes and flew them into a few of the most iconic buildings in the world.

And oh yeah, I also don't recall a group of radical Christians mobilzing, uniting and arming themselves into worldwide organizations whose mission it is to kill all who oppose their call to go back to the days before Martin Luther and embrace the Inquisition.

Sorry for the sarcasm, but I'm just saying that of course their are militant, radical Christians. But, they haven't manifested themselves like radical Islamists have.

WindNoSail

NCfan wrote:

Maybe I have a short memory, but please refresh me to the last time a group of Christian zealots hijacked four planes and flew them into a few of the most iconic buildings in the world.

And oh yeah, I also don't recall a group of radical Christians mobilzing, uniting and arming themselves into worldwide organizations whose mission it is to kill all who oppose their call to go back to the days before Martin Luther and embrace the Inquisition.

Sorry for the sarcasm, but I'm just saying that of course their are militant, radical Christians. But, they haven't manifested themselves like radical Islamists have.

Thanks for responding to Brynzie, you got there first and got it right. I sometimes loose my energy to respond to these concepts, that are so far out there that you are pretty sure reason has left the building with Elvis.

Christian haters are weird people

inmytree

NCfan wrote:

Maybe I have a short memory, but please refresh me to the last time a group of Christian zealots hijacked four planes and flew them into a few of the most iconic buildings in the world.

And oh yeah, I also don't recall a group of radical Christians mobilzing, uniting and arming themselves into worldwide organizations whose mission it is to kill all who oppose their call to go back to the days before Martin Luther and embrace the Inquisition.

Sorry for the sarcasm, but I'm just saying that of course their are militant, radical Christians. But, they haven't manifested themselves like radical Islamists have.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml

Press Releases
God told me to invade Iraq, Bush tells Palestinian ministers

Category: News

Date: 06.10.2005
Printable version

President George W Bush told Palestinian ministers that God had told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq - and create a Palestinian State, a new BBC series reveals.



In Elusive Peace: Israel and the Arabs, a major three-part series on BBC TWO (at 9.00pm on Monday 10, Monday 17 and Monday 24 October), Abu Mazen, Palestinian Prime Minister, and Nabil Shaath, his Foreign Minister, describe their first meeting with President Bush in June 2003.



Nabil Shaath says: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"



Abu Mazen was at the same meeting and recounts how President Bush told him: "I have a moral and religious obligation. So I will get you a Palestinian state."


those crazy zealots...they're everywhere...

Abuskedti

NCfan wrote:

Maybe I have a short memory, but please refresh me to the last time a group of Christian zealots hijacked four planes and flew them into a few of the most iconic buildings in the world.

And oh yeah, I also don't recall a group of radical Christians mobilzing, uniting and arming themselves into worldwide organizations whose mission it is to kill all who oppose their call to go back to the days before Martin Luther and embrace the Inquisition.

Sorry for the sarcasm, but I'm just saying that of course their are militant, radical Christians. But, they haven't manifested themselves like radical Islamists have.

We have Christian zealots flying far more than 4 plans over Iraq today.. they use bombs and get to come home alive.. guess that makes their religon better

NCfan

inmytree wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml

Press Releases
God told me to invade Iraq, Bush tells Palestinian ministers

Category: News

Date: 06.10.2005
Printable version

President George W Bush told Palestinian ministers that God had told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq - and create a Palestinian State, a new BBC series reveals.



In Elusive Peace: Israel and the Arabs, a major three-part series on BBC TWO (at 9.00pm on Monday 10, Monday 17 and Monday 24 October), Abu Mazen, Palestinian Prime Minister, and Nabil Shaath, his Foreign Minister, describe their first meeting with President Bush in June 2003.



Nabil Shaath says: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"



Abu Mazen was at the same meeting and recounts how President Bush told him: "I have a moral and religious obligation. So I will get you a Palestinian state."


those crazy zealots...they're everywhere...

Ultimately I feel sadness and pitty for people confused as you. So I guess what you are trying to say is that America is in Iraq becuase God told Bush to go there. Did I get that right, do you honestly believe that?

A proper "yes" or "no" is in order.

NCfan

Abuskedti wrote:

We have Christian zealots flying far more than 4 plans over Iraq today.. they use bombs and get to come home alive.. guess that makes their religon better

Sinse when did we build a "Christian" army to serve our "Christian" wants? I wasn't aware that we had an army of God, only an army of Americans.

By your rationale, our military should turn and kill its own who are not Christian. Am I wrong there?

inmytree

NCfan wrote:

Ultimately I feel sadness and pitty for people confused as you. So I guess what you are trying to say is that America is in Iraq becuase God told Bush to go there. Did I get that right, do you honestly believe that?

A proper "yes" or "no" is in order.

do you really..? you feel sadness and pity...I don't believe you...however pretentiousness tends to cloud ones ability to be honest with oneself...

as for what I'm trying to say...I'm simply sharing an article which quotes bush being told by god to invade Iraq...you can read it any way you wish...

and finally, to answer your "yes" or "no" question..which part of the question are you wanting me to answer "yes" or "no"...the first part:

NCfan wrote:

Did I get that right

or the second...?

NCfan wrote:

do you honestly believe that?

it's a two part question that would be impossible for me to properly answer with a simple "yes" or "no"...

to answer the first part of your question...It depends on your interpretation...and to answer the second part of your two part question: does it matter what I believe...would it make a difference to you...? since you already pity me...you appear to have a preconceived notion about me, therefore it doesn't really matter what I believe...

Heineken Helen

NCfan wrote:

Sinse when did we build a "Christian" army to serve our "Christian" wants? I wasn't aware that we had an army of God, only an army of Americans.

By your rationale, our military should turn and kill its own who are not Christian. Am I wrong there?

Since when did the muslims build a 'muslim army' to serve their 'muslim' wants? Do you actually know any muslims?

ALL sides killing in God's name - You can SAY God told ya to do it, doesn't mean he actually DID though, it just means you're personally a bit fucking mental! Why can nobody tell the fucking difference? :rolleyes:

Heineken Helen

NCfan wrote:

Ultimately I feel sadness and pitty for people confused as you. So I guess what you are trying to say is that America is in Iraq becuase God told Bush to go there. Did I get that right, do you honestly believe that?

A proper "yes" or "no" is in order.

Somebody said that Christians don't hijack planes and fly them into buildings or something like that... well you're right in a way. They just OWN the planes that drop bombs ON TOP of buildings... BIG difference :rolleyes:

AND they claim it's in Gods name, just like SOME Muslims claim what they do is in Allahs name... but they're about as Muslim as GWB is a Christian (as in they just SAY they are).

ryan198

How can you argue that George Bush hasn't invoked the use of a moral God to fight this 'war' in Iraq? Isn't that his final justification for everything...doesn't he god bless america and all that after all of his speaches? Isn't this whole thing based on creating a corporate conservative Iraq with ATM's and good 'family' values? I don't get how you cannot correlate that with right wing christian terrorism?

Further if you look at our country how can you not see the individual terror christianity has on the people - even though Bush will be the first to claim freedom - a few brief examples:
1. You have the right to be gay and in love, but you cannot have the same rights as a married man and women.

2. You have the right to practice other or no religions, but at graduations (at a vast majority of schools), sporting events, and following every speech by Bush, only one religion and one god is evoked.

Isn't that a form of mental terrorism on the part of christianity? Doesn't that a/effect more people in this country and around the world?

TexJam

NCfan wrote:

Maybe I have a short memory, but please refresh me to the last time a group of Christian zealots hijacked four planes and flew them into a few of the most iconic buildings in the world.

And oh yeah, I also don't recall a group of radical Christians mobilzing, uniting and arming themselves into worldwide organizations whose mission it is to kill all who oppose their call to go back to the days before Martin Luther and embrace the Inquisition.

Sorry for the sarcasm, but I'm just saying that of course their are militant, radical Christians. But, they haven't manifested themselves like radical Islamists have.

Good reply...beat me too the punch. And Michael Moore is a big fat liar.