Once again these arguments fascinate me in the vacuum of the honest FACTS. In order to facilitate this argument one has to believe that Saddam was not in defiance of the agreements he signed for over a decade and if we had done NOTHING, he would have eventually complied.
It is equally specious to suggest that we had no right to enforce the UN resolutions as member nations of a 36 nation coalition; the simple fact that our age old enemies and nemesis would have to sign on is absurd on the extreme and requires ignorance of the language contained in UN resolutions where MEMBERS can enforce UN resolutions.
Once again it is ironic that you can reach the RIGHT conclusion with FALSE logic.
What an absurd statement. There are several forms of Democracy one of which is the parliamentary system used in Iraq and our form of Federalism in the US. The notion that it is flavored by our Western mentality is another absurd statement in a vacuum of the FACTS.
I would love to see what OTHER form of Democracy you think works. After all, we see Democracy working everywhere it is tried and used and prosperity results when Capital markets are allowed to flourish legally and without too much Government intrusion.
The other side is to have a fundamentalist theocracy or dictatorship which allows little if any freedom and exists at the benevolence of a small cadre or singular leader and abuses human rights.
The notion that having a despicable tyrant like Saddam was better for the Iraqi people than what they currently had is absurd in the extreme.
And you are in complete denial of your own words. I quoted you, I made nothing up, you said what you said. Run from it now that it's exposed. If I had put my junk on the table and got it smacked with a hammer I'd tuck and run too.Again you are making it up as you go along. If you are not going to quote my points properly, I am not going to waste any time cottecting you.
Oh looky, more mincing words by Reverend Hellhound! This is the best you have? Complete avoidance of the issue? If you remove a nations sovereignty in any way you have "stripped it, taken, removed it, done away with it, etc." You know what the word means, you said they would not be considered sovereign...which entails discarding their sovereignty. I pinned you, you know it. So rather than actually debate your "solution" you will hide behind this milktoast "when did I say strip" defense. I'll accept your surrender on this point.When did I say "strip"?
Yeah, when was the last time I challenged you to a...oh wait, not up here.Bait me all you want. Your subversive rudeness beckons to your building up of anger that you are known for.
No, I know what you claimed you did in the Air Force.You know damn well what I did in the Air Force, or are you going to pretend now you don't in order to play your little troll game. We can compare DD214's any time you like.
Are you serious? Like how? You want hypothetical scenarios? What is it about surgical overt operations or covert operations that you don't understand? Why do you need examples? I thought you were high speed low drag and all that, you know you hang out with "operators" and whatnot. This is yet more of your avoidance of actually talking about your solution. I've put my ideas on the table...you've said you'd simply send in more troops and invade more countries. Nothing more. You've yet to provide a single specific.like how? Give me an example. You can throw all the "intelligence" acronyms around to look cool all you want. All you are doing is avoiding an actual answer....
I know for a fact we can conduct MOUT operations without knocking out power grids and water treatment plants, we can do it without leveling entire city blocks or sections of neighborhoods. Do you know what the **** MOUT actually means? Apparently you read the acronym somewhere because your position here is absolutely lacking in credibility.Are you suggesting ignorantly I might add that we can do MOUT operations in terrorist strongholds without any of the things you whine about above? Or do you think haji only hides in the hills. :
You know what you propose would expose operators to far greater danger, right? Good to see saftey of these members amount little to you.
MOUT does not require widespread paths of destruction. MOUT is building to building, room to room, street to street warfare conducted primarily by dismounted troops in an urban environment. The very nature of MOUT is to avoid leveling a city, otherwise we wouldn't send in ground troops until after we had carpet bombed the place into rubble. You really need to just stop. Seriously. I've been there, you obviously have not.
No, you are suggesting a one dimensional approach. I'm not. In fact I'm apparently speaking at a macro level that you refuse to rise to.more of a solution than you offered, but if you look real close and take you partisan blinders off for a second you can see that we are proposing similar things here....
No, you didn't propose anything in detail at all. You said "we invade." I described a multi-dimensional approach. You want to stay the course.Go ahead think about it.... Your little surgical small hammer solution, would require exactly what I propose. Soveregnty means jack when you send in troops to get terrorists like you stated.
No, I said that invading Afghanistan was the right thing to do...did I not? How do you just forget this stuff? I mean seriously, I actually typed out that invading Afghanistan was the right thing to do, yet here you are asking if I'm suggesting that we should have asked the Taliban for permission? What is wrong with your memory?Or are you suggesting that we ask the likes of the Taliban permission before going into afghanistan oh and wait for france to give us the go ahead.
I think this is where we differ.
Why do you think I asked you to spell out precisely what nations you would have us invade and what the other stages of your solution would involve? Because I have already said that combat operations where necessary should be conducted. But I was clear that Iraq was an example of what we should not be doing. Remember that? You have yet to answer my question regarding who you think we should invade or on what scale. Why is that again? Do you not like specifics Mr. Reverend Hellhound? Do they bother you? You sure ask for a lot of them.
I wouldn't venture into the woods by myself either if I were you, best to avoid.why you waste your time posting these tantrums is beyond me......
pages and pages of whining...jeesh, or is that "Command pressence" you are going for?
I think I used up my smiley quotent, You are so laughable. Just because I have no interest in a broad discussion on every little tangent you can think of is not my issue its yours. Pick something to talk about and lets shorten this up....
Talk about arguing for arguings sake. I never disagreed with you regarding this, I simply pointed out that indeed they come from all walks of islamic life....
ad hom after ad hom....
Given your inability to actually carry on any form of substantial debate in this thread, I'll go ahead and save my energy. I can recommend some books for you, sorry...they don't have a lot of pictures.What started radical Islam? what caused it? Why do they kill each other?
Please by all means educate me.
And you still haven't posted a single bit of substance to this argument.More useless crying and ad homs.
Again with the useless complaining.
Man you complain alot...
But see, if you leave all the personal crap out, and stop complaining, your posts become more managable... Why don't you give it a try.... Thanks!
"An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it." - Gandhi
Yeah yeah yeah...skip goes the record.Useless ad hom banter and misrepresentation of my posts.
Your laughable, it throughout my posts. It was "in summary" meaning a summation of points I have brought up throughout. If you don't get what this means then you don't need to be debating me.Now there you go Lerxst.....
You said this before? Can you show me? It must of gotten lost in all your ad hom, complaining, and banter.... If you show me I will be happy to take a look.
Really? Now you agree with me?And you know what. I agree with this.... I also though as you say, think we need to take the fight to the terrorists.
I never proposed an "either or" proposition and you can't link to a single comment I have made that would back that up. You are lying. And I've already summarized. Apparently you can quote my posts but not actually read them.What yo propose is some goofy "either or" proposition, or combined, depending on what post it is.
Perhaps you can summarize...
Really, because you've spent an inordinate amount of time saying I've offered up basically nothing. So what exactly about my proposal do you agree with?I think we should do exactly what you say,
Okay, you prefer unilateral military operations. Fine, now I ask you again...what nations and why? On what scale?I also think we need to go into some of these "Soverign nations" to root out the hard core terrorists, and not ask france for a permision slip....
No, you called it a mini-cold war. That was your description and you said you had given an explanation. I'm an avid student of the Cold War. I would like to see your explanation, that's all. I absolutely understand the oil for food scandal, I understand the failure of the U.N. sanctions, I understand western foreign policy, and I understand the starvation situation in Iraq previous to the U.S. invasion. So, how does this relate to some "mini-cold war" and how does it relate to Islamic terrorism? Do you think that the oil for food program was more to blame for anti-west sentiment than the actual invasion and occupation of Iraq? Since you refuse to link your explanation of this point you've made I'm forced to continually ask you to break it down. Don't just say "oh you know." No, I don't. Not as you are presenting it because it doesn't make any sense.Useless banter. Unlike you I am not intereted in "everything including the kitchen sink" debate style...
But it is simple and if you are as well read as you claim, you would understand the underpinnings of the oil for food program, who benefited, and who was blamed for starving Iraqis.....
But if willful ignorace is your position, uhm ok,
No, I didn't misrepresent your point. You're trying to hard here. I gave my opinion of your "solution" or lack thereof. I summarized your position as to what I believe best represents it. I have asked you for further detail but you can't seem to give it.More complaining and clear misrepresentation of my point.
What is your endgame? Historical evidence that your endgame has worked before?
Regarding my "end game," I'm pretty sure in this case, since the topic is to counter the spread of radical Islamic militancy and safeguard our nation against terrorism, I would guess my end game would to counter the spread of radical Islamic terrorism and safeguard our nation against terrorism. That's just off the top of my head. Do you know what an "end game" is?
Instead of asking me what historical evidence there is of my "end game" working (since that question is simply absurd) you should ask me "what historical evidence is there that your methodology has worked before?" To which I would respond "where have you been for this entire debate?" We have not employed the types of strategies I am suggesting and that is one of the main issue here. What do you think I have been saying? When I say we need to change our foreign policy because historically it's been a complete failure in this area, it's because we haven't ever tried doing it this way in the past and what we are and have been doing hasn't and isn't working. Get it?
Hahahahaha...omfg....oh you did it, oh my god....nice one! Should I actually answer your question since you are so afraid to answer mine? Sure, I'll answer this one...in the specific case of Afghanistan, more troops, more money, more resources...yes. In that specific instance. But then again, I think you already knew that as I have consistently stated Afghanistan was an example of where we should have gone all out to begin with.So are you suggesting more troops?
Good, however I have never seen you suggest this in any detail. I'm operating in the confines of this discussion, and as far as that goes you have never offered anything of the sort. Point it out please...in this thread, show me where you suggested what I did.I find nothing wrong with this. I believe I have stated similar in the past... I guess you choose to see what you think I said instead of what I did say.
That's an easy answer and I have it. But this is a case of quid pro quo. You owe me some specific answers. It's pretty shallow of you to refuse to answer my questions, calling them a tangent just because I'm asking for details, and then ask me to oblige you. Drop your act and answer mine first, and I'll reciprocate.How would you go about giving say the population in Iraq an "alternate to the bad guys"? How does that differ than what we are doing, and how long should this take?
I didn't make a position and that you did not take, show me where I did. I asked if you understood the issue. I don't think you do. I do blame righty, the neo-con administration of GWB was responsible for Iraq. The new front, the one IN IRAQ, is one that did not exist previous to our invasion. Again, what is so hard for you to connect with here? How many Iraqi's were blowing themselves up or setting car bombs or throwing hand grenades at coalition forces or civilians in Iraq prior to our invasion. Hint...it's a trick question.Perfect.
Make up position I do not have, blame righty, and demonstrate an ignorance that this started long before iraq or even 911....
What? You don't like it when I turn your own words on you? When I point out what a very poor job your doing within this debate and articulate that you have absolutely no command over the subject at hand? Yeah, it's drama right? Puerile and ignorant....big words huh Reverend Hellhound?perhaps you should leave the drama out and stick to the facts and your position. It would benefit both of us.....
No innuendo at all. We have a long history of injecting our influence into other nations affairs with awful results. You can deny it all you want but it's documented and it's spread far and wide from Asia, to the Middle East, and south and central America. The rest of the world knows this, I'm not sure why you think it's innuendo and rhetoric. We are the greatest nation in the world in my opinion, but we could have been much better than we are and I know when we are ****ing up. I'm not ashamed to point it out.But all the innuendo and rhetoric aside, the feelings of many after 9-11 was exactly that; how dare you attack us and declare war.
Right, and the victim of the rape deserved it because she wore her skirt too short. You're taking a theory and trying to swing it as a fact. They have in no way been "singular in their effect" to promote terrorism. That is absolutely bogus partisan rhetoric. The only bit of truth in it is the fact that our enemy has sought to exploit political divides in our country. There is ten times more validity in saying the invasion of Iraq has caused the most dramatic increase in the number of instances of terrorism in the middle east in modern history. And it has. Again, history backs me up on this. As do a lot of dead Iraqis, foreign workers in Iraq, and coalition troops.Your politics and those of Democrats who supported the War in Iraq have been singular in their affect to promote the despicable acts you denounce; Osama and Saddam felt that they could use American Liberal politics and journalism to win the propaganda war.
The war in Iraq was a loss the day it started. Not because our troops couldn't defeat our enemy but because it didn't need to happen. You are in a minority that clings to the validity of the invasion like a dog to a bone. The majority of Americans and the overwhelming majority of the world views the invasion of Iraq an absolutely unjust and even criminal act. Won or lost is irrelevant in the fact that we should have never invaded in the first place. We haven't lost militarily, but then again what we are doing is trying to fix something we broke. You clap your hands in joy and wave the flag like a good patriot, proclaim our military prowess for all to hear, and I'm sure you'll be impressive. The rest of us will look at you in disbelief, shaking our heads in the understanding that you don't get it, at all...and thanking our lucky stars that your kind are on your way out.What they didn't count on, and thought they would get another "Clinton", was a President who actually did what he said he would and carried it out even with the onslaught of Liberals and Journalists in their inane attempts to declare the Iraq War lost and attack this President as being the enemy instead of our REAL enemies.
I never saw these big stories stating the U.S. had lost in Iraq. This is just an example of your setting up a straw man and knocking it down, then telling everyone you see that you "won." What was being printed was that the war was a mistake, and it was. That we would be in Iraq for years, and we have. That we would spend billions and loss thousands of sons and daughters, and we have. Yeah TD, we sure won didn't we?Isn't it telling that their efforts at declaring the US the loser have been silenced and we no longer see the front pages blathered with the typical Liberal speculative BS and body counts to support their inane assertions that losing is good and winning is bad.
They absolutely do support me. Is this one of those threads where you will parade around and claim to beat people over the head with "facts" but not ever produce any? I've seen this before. Please TD, show us again!Please spare us your hyperbole when you attempt to describe the HISTORIC facts and how the Bush Presidency acted and reacted to Osama and Saddam; the facts do not support your rhetoric as usual.
Oh yeah, Bush used diplomacy. Misrepresenting raw intelligence reports and twisting the truth into a pretzel in order to pretend he was justified in invading Iraq, that was diplomatic alright.It is about as inane as suggesting Bush did not use diplomacy; only by suspending common sense and the facts can anyone make such idiotic arguments.
I know, I know...but the U.N. resolution! Yep, and it's also legal for an officer to use an elevated level of force to compel a criminal offender to surrender and be taken into custody...and that is never over done is it? Nobody ever yells "stop resisting" while the suspect is laying there getting kicked in the head. No, nothing like that ever plays out...it certainly didn't here either. I mean, the resolution...it was an official document and whether or not we actually needed to invade Iraq and blow it to hell, all that was important was that we could. Never mind that we couldn't substantiate any of our claims that he had WMD's and that he was supporting Al Qaeda operations...we had that resolution. It was legal I tells ya!
Yet, you have not actually said anything other than "you liberals are responsible for terrorist attacks cause you undermine the war effort and your wrong Lerxst." Are those some more of your famous TD Facts?It is ironic that you can come up with the RIGHT solution using the WRONG logic.
Just because we had the authority doesn't mean had to invade. I never said we had no right to enforce the resolution, I merely contend we did not need to invade the way we did. Saddam was no viable threat to the region. A failure of the U.N. to actually maintain oversight doesn't give us righteous position to do what we did. The U.S. under GWB was absolutely not in any position to invade Iraq for the simple fact we didn't have our collective **** together. We unleashed a monster there because we didn't have even a half assed excuse for a post invasion occupation plan. Never mind that we couldn't substantiate the need for invasion. Hence your complete reliance on that piece of paper for your reasoning.It is equally specious to suggest that we had no right to enforce the UN resolutions as member nations of a 36 nation coalition; the simple fact that our age old enemies and nemesis would have to sign on is absurd on the extreme and requires ignorance of the language contained in UN resolutions where MEMBERS can enforce UN resolutions.
And lucky for me you did your famous TD Facts routine but really didn't support your statement. You just threw the word in there because you believe it has magical powers or something.Once again it is ironic that you can reach the RIGHT conclusion with FALSE logic.
And you are completely out of touch with the reality of this issue. If you think that we don't have a very pronounced influence in their democracy you are blind. And there you go with your use of the word FACTS again. They aren't helping you here, especially when you don't produce any. WE directed the establishment of the Iraqi government and we influenced it's evolution from the interim to the transitional to the permanent. We occupy the damn the country and function as a second arm of their military and police. Your hogwash here doesn't fly. If you wanna unleash all caps FACTS then by all means do it. But make sense.What an absurd statement. There are several forms of Democracy one of which is the parliamentary system used in Iraq and our form of Federalism in the US. The notion that it is flavored by our Western mentality is another absurd statement in a vacuum of the FACTS.
And here we have it folks. I believe that you, Mr. Truth Detector, are one of those that feel that if we force our way of life, the capitalist Democracy we so love in the U.S., on any nation they will eventually adapt to it and all will be well. If a Muslim nation wants a democracy modeled off what they see in the west, they should be able to self determine that course. If they prefer to live in a theological oligarchy they should be allowed to do that. It's their nation.I would love to see what OTHER form of Democracy you think works. After all, we see Democracy working everywhere it is tried and used and prosperity results when Capital markets are allowed to flourish legally and without too much Government intrusion.
So how has this experiment worked in Iraq up till now? Six years later. Have they fully embraced it? Would you say the capitalist markets are flourishing? How many times exactly have we tried this in Arab nations before? How many times has it succeeded?
Absolutely false. You can have a moderate Islamic nation that embraces it's religious leanings.The other side is to have a fundamentalist theocracy or dictatorship which allows little if any freedom and exists at the benevolence of a small cadre or singular leader and abuses human rights.
I never said Saddam was better. This is the part where you ride your pony for all it's worth.The notion that having a despicable tyrant like Saddam was better for the Iraqi people than what they currently had is absurd in the extreme.
In your three posts you have almost completely avoided the meat of the discussion which is the problem of Islamic extremism and the impact of western foreign policy. Your choice was to focus on trying to pretend that you have justified the invasion of Iraq. That is irrelevant because the Islamic militants don't see it the same way you do. Nobody cares if you think the invasion was justified, one the main factors in our current struggle against Islamic terrorism is the fact that most Muslims think we were wrong to invade Iraq.
Do you not get this simple premise. It's been spelled out not just by me, but by them. You have fun with this, maybe you and Reverend Hellhound can tell each other how right you are without actually discussing the issue.
You are confusing the term "Islamic fundamentalism" with "Islamic extremism". Most "moderate" Muslims are fundamentalist in that they follow a fundamental interpretation of their religious text. The same could be said of many Southern Baptists. Although they are not the same as the minority of Christians who blow up abortion clinics I think it's safe to assume that when nobody's looking they indulge themselves in a smile or two at the thought of an abortion doctor with his guts hanging out just the same as the "moderate" Muslim who secretely smiles everytime a katyusha rocket blows an Israeli's head out of their ass.Moderate Islam in no way reflects much of what you are talking about. What you are describing is fundamental Islam, not moderate Islam. Islam, like Christianity, has evolved albeit at a slower pace. It's still evolving. There is a war within the culture with the fundamentalists struggling to keep control versus the moderates who are changing with the times. Your narrow description and broad application of the worst of Islam is very disingenuous.