• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Paratrooper's Mom Begs Obama: 'End It'

Middle East - what, like Virginia? Or is that North Carolina. :2razz: Or more inland like Kentucky?

Hmm - explain, this vexes me so.

:lol:

Since before we invaded pretty much no one in Iraq was trying to kill us, by your definition, we netted about zero "bad guys", since they did not exist till we made them.

I think she believes no one in the M.E. wanted to harm us until we invaded Iraq.
 
Are you aware of anything that went on in the Middle East prior to the Iraqi invasion? Do you think it was sunshine and rainbows until we showed up for no reason??

I would caution you going down this road within the context of this discussion. Redress is talking about Iraq and the insurgency there. If we drag the whole of the Middle East into this particular channel the facts are going to sting.
 
I think she believes no one in the M.E. wanted to harm us until we invaded Iraq.

No, that's not what Redress is saying at all. The comment was specific to the situation in Iraq, with some implications to Afghanistan possibly.
 
Are you aware of anything that went on in the Middle East prior to the Iraqi invasion? Do you think it was sunshine and rainbows until we showed up for no reason??

How many people in Iraq where actively trying to kill us before we invaded? If they where not trying to kill us before then, then claiming we are safer since we killed them after we invaded is a nonsense argument. The net gain in security is about zero.

By the way, I have been to the middle east, trust me when I say I know just exactly how ****ed up it is there.
 
Devoid of factual integrity, if you prove me wrong. Obviously, I'm not the one dodging the question.

Um - you have to prove your own claim first. It's like math. You know how that works? I'll explain it to you.

How much is 2 + 2?

My answer : 2 + 2 = 4

Why?

Because

4 - 2 = 2

4 = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1

1 + 1 = 2

1 + 1 = 2

So 2 + 2 = 4.

See how that worked? I asked myself a question and provided an answer and PROOF in support of this answer. That's how debate works.
 
Um - you have to prove your own claim first. It's like math. You know how that works? I'll explain it to you.

How much is 2 + 2?

My answer : 2 + 2 = 4

Why?

Because

4 - 2 = 2

4 = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1

1 + 1 = 2

1 + 1 = 2

So 2 + 2 = 4.

See how that worked? I asked myself a question and provided an answer and PROOF in support of this answer. That's how debate works.

This is why Hatuey is my god.
 
Why....because this person can count to four, I set my bar a little higher then that.:lol:

HEY! It's 9! I CAN COUNT TO 9! I'm working on that '10' thing.
 
Um - you have to prove your own claim first. It's like math. You know how that works? I'll explain it to you.

How much is 2 + 2?

My answer : 2 + 2 = 4

Why?

Because

4 - 2 = 2

4 = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1

1 + 1 = 2

1 + 1 = 2

So 2 + 2 = 4.

See how that worked? I asked myself a question and provided an answer and PROOF in support of this answer. That's how debate works.

Conversely if a random, unidentified poster says something like "2+2= 7 fire engines" and someone says "that's absurd" the logical response would not be "prove me wrong."

Silliness.
 
Why....because this person can count to four, I set my bar a little higher then that.:lol:

No, because he can explain things clearly and with humor.
 
Conversely if a random, unidentified poster says something like "2+2= 7 fire engines" and someone says "that's absurd" the logical response would not be "prove me wrong."

Silliness.

I think there should be a rite of passage before you join this website. You have to write some sort of essay for a debate panel demonstrating your ability to use primary sources, spot fallacies and differentiate between opinions and facts. We'd have a lot less members but it would make for less uninformed posts.


-----------------------------------------

Anyways I think it's ridiculous that this lady is coming on television and anybody on the right is using her like a Cindy Sheehan doll. It's disgusting to use your kids to support politics. I've confronted many posters on this website about their inconsistency on the matter. People like to use soldiers like political chips and they are the first who come out against it when the message isn't one which they support.
 
Since before we invaded pretty much no one in Iraq was trying to kill us, by your definition, we netted about zero "bad guys", since they did not exist till we made them.

By that logic, we created more Nazis and Bushidists during WW2. There were never any Japanese attacks against the US, before we slapped them with a trade embargo. We NEVER bagged any Nazis in Italy, until we invaded Italy in 1943. I don't expect you to see how your logic is flawed, but it is.
 
By that logic, we created more Nazis and Bushidists during WW2. There were never any Japanese attacks against the US, before we slapped them with a trade embargo. We NEVER bagged any Nazis in Italy, until we invaded Italy in 1943. I don't expect you to see how your logic is flawed, but it is.

Comparing :

1. An existing entity like the Nazis, who'd shown themselves to exist before we entered WWII

to

2. An entity which appeared as a consequence of our invasion, the insurgency in Iraq.

is a failure. But every time you make use of Godwin's law you fail anyways.
 
Good god. Are we all still being too simple? Still too stupid to understand how absolutely contradictory and pathetic we are?

- The same leftist pieces of garbage in the world that has a love affair for pointing out America's Cold War sins with dictators immediately jumped to criticize America for refusing to continue a Cold War mission in regards to Saddam Hussein.

- The same pieces of garbage in America who seek to drag America through the mud over Hussein absolutely deny that for twelve years we placed troops in and out of Iraq to deal with humanitarian issues, denied him his right to fly his own military jets over his own soil, denied him trade, and looked away as long as his UN starvation tactics didn't interfere with oil flow. "Soveriegnty" mattered only in 2003.

- The same war protestors who painted their little signs and looked for dates at college universities boasted their heartfelt feelings of "No-War-For-Oil." But somehow containing (and maintaining his family inheriting regime) the dictator, that we should have killed long ago, as he starved out his people and toyed with the U.S. military while making the UN look like the fool it is...for oil....was something to pretend wasn't happening. After all, why go to war for oil when we can simply pretend that we aren't dragging our values through the mud for it?

- The same fools who read Osama Bin Laden's letter to the American people and found understanding or disgust glossed completely over the part where he used the "starving children of Iraq" and the "escallation of troops in holy lands" as a justification. These same people denied the fact that this escallation occurred because of Hussein's continual games with our military. That Iraqi children were starving under UN mandates and scandels with American muscle enforcing it. They instead preached about how our historical sins with the Middle East has created our enemies (Osama said so) with a disregard for what had happened since 1991. I guess the mission was to go on forever until he died of natural causes...or his son died...or his other son died....or his entire regime of nasties died of SARS. In the mean time, the UN mission, which was abandoned by just about all of the other nations who rogered up to the burden in 1991, could go ahead and serve as justifications for any other terrorist lunatic that wanted to punish America for the way the wind blows.


No matter where American troops go, there will always be a support given to what we are fighting. Or is the Black Hawk Down incident of Somalia supposed to take humanitarian missions off the table too? You want to fix this problem and set America up with a long view of security? It starts with the region, not an idiot in a cave who is merely a symptom of the cancerous Middle East. But I don't know. Maybe we can put this in terms of law enforcement. If the police go into a neighborhood to address gang land thugs (Afghanistan) or another neighborhood where drug dealers aren't really hurting anybody (Iraq), perhaps they should first consider pretending that all is well just in case they create more criminals by disrupting the careful balance people have become accustomed to. And the neighborhood itself? Surely correcting it will make it better for the citizens and thusly less likely to breed further criminals in mass, but maybe we should just accept the breeding and keep hitting symptoms instead for the illusion of progress.

This ridiculous idea that America creates enemies by crossing the ocean to adress people that hate us already is pointless. These ****ers are already our enemies. They merely lack the very small instigation to start killing. They already slaughter each other and look away as long as the tribe dying is the other one. Why would thery hesitate to kill a few Americans who represent that European "western" imperialism that is blamed for everything? At no time in our history has our enemies, once the war was taken to their territory, mounted counterattacks upon our soil. Since we are dealing with terrorists, we have to accept that even if America rejects 99 attempts, there will be the one that sneaks in. This is the price of not taking this crap anymore. Or was the American military, who was taking this crap since Beirut, supposed to go ahead and embrace our enemy as something untouchable until enough American civilians were killed? Maybe something like 9/11 will wake the morons up. Or maybe not.
 
Last edited:
How many people in Iraq where actively trying to kill us before we invaded? If they where not trying to kill us before then, then claiming we are safer since we killed them after we invaded is a nonsense argument. The net gain in security is about zero.

By the way, I have been to the middle east, trust me when I say I know just exactly how ****ed up it is there.

Oh, Well then, my bad. I interpreted your original statement as meaning the invasion was the root of their hatred for us. :lol: I thought that was odd considering you were Military and should know better. And yeah, really no gain in security, because we can't invade or defeat terrorism.
 
Oh....and....

I've even entertained somebody's notion that we didn't have to escallate our troops in Kuwait. That we didn't have to continue the containment mission. That we could have later fixed our problems with Osama Binn Laden (appeased is the word I would use) by simply leaving the mission and vacating his holy lands.

Are people aware that Hussien flew military jets over Saudi and Jordanian air space as late as 2002 prompting American military responses? This was the same damn taunting he did for twelve years. The same defiance towards, what is supposed to be a global authority, the UN. The same smack in the face to those humanitarian heroes in the west who preserved his throne in 1991 rather than disposing of him. Simply leave? With the world's most valuable resource at stake and the region's proven lunatic on the loose, we wouldn't have simply set ourselves for a future bigger problem when he decided to heal his wounded and embarrassed pride? And I guess that means placing our troops right back in the region, huh?

Of course, the response is that "we don't know that." This is just stupid. The man's history is one of terror and assault. He spent years pretending that he may have WMD just to continue his powerful stance in the region and he hung from the neck for it. This was as stubborn a man as Rumsfeld himself. He wasn't finished pumping out his chest and he would have used our leaving as a way to parade victory. The suicide bombers in palesitne would continue to get funded. Terrorist organizations would seek him out as that hero that defeated the Great Satan. Would it be worth our while to go back and deal with this or would we simply accept his instigating trouble makings?

The critics have no sense at all. With a plethora to criticize over this, they still choose to wander around in the dark.
 
Last edited:
Oh....and....

I've even entertained somebody's notion that we didn;t have to escallate our troops in Kuwait. That we didn't have to contionue the containment mission. That we can have fixed our problems with Osama Binn Laden (appeased is the word I would use) by simply leaving the mission and vacating his holy lands.

Are people aware that Hussien flew military jets over Saudi and Jordanian air space as late as 2002 prompting American military responses? This was the same damn taunting he did for twelve years. The same defiance towards, what is supposed to be a global authority, the UN. The same smack in the face to those humanitarian heroes in the west who preserved his throne in 1991 rather than disposing of him. Simply leave? With the world's most valuable resource at stake and the region's proven lunatic on the loose, we wouldn't have simply set ourselves for a future bigger problem when he decided to heal his wounded and embarrassed pride?

Of course, the response is that "we don't know that." This is just stupid. The man's history is one of terror and assault. He spent years pretending that he may have WMD just to continue his powerful stance in the region and hung for it. This was as stubborn a man as Rumsfeld himself.

gunny.jpg


I can't thank you enough.
 
Comparing :

1. An existing entity like the Nazis, who'd shown themselves to exist before we entered WWII

to

2. An entity which appeared as a consequence of our invasion, the insurgency in Iraq.

is a failure. But every time you make use of Godwin's law you fail anyways.

Are you seriosuly trying to convince us that Bathists, Bathist supporters and anti-American jihadists didn't exist prior to our invasion of Iraq? Surely you're smarter than that. But, maybe not.
 
Last edited:
Conversely if a random, unidentified poster says something like "2+2= 7 fire engines" and someone says "that's absurd" the logical response would not be "prove me wrong."

Silliness.


Unless ... [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bfq5kju627c"]YouTube- Ma & Pa Kettle Math[/ame]
 
Comparing :

1. An existing entity like the Nazis, who'd shown themselves to exist before we entered WWII

to

2. An entity which appeared as a consequence of our invasion, the insurgency in Iraq.

is a failure. But every time you make use of Godwin's law you fail anyways.

"Appeared" being the key word. Consider a few thinhgs...

1) Iraq - The insurgency came from all over the region. They were largely made up of non Iraqi players and virtually all of the leadership was from elsewhere. Al-Queda went there just as they went to nations in Africa to fight Americans and just like they came to New York and Washington D.C. Enemies that already existed gravitated to American boots. Or do we believe that they genuinely only cared to defend Saddam Hussein's regime or at least the loss of power for the Sunni tribe?

2) The Tali-Ban is not the same Tali-Ban we destroyed in 2001. Today we fight a never ending recruitment pool that comes from all over the region. Like Iraq, they are gravitating across borders, because it is easier to kill Americans a few borders away than it is to cross the Atlantic to kill Americans there.

These are enemies that have always existed. In the end, history has proven that it doesn't take much to invite these people to kill Americans (and especially to kill each other.) We are resented, hated, and despised for anything and everything. According to Qutb (circa 1950s), we represent everything Allah hates in the world. Do we really think Arabs care about Iranians and the Shah? Until the PLO forced the Shia in southern Lebanon to fight Israelis prior to the Lebanese civil war, the Shia could care less about Israel's existence. Rage exists and it often seeks a scapegoat.

Because of this, American forces will never deal with just a simple enemy in the Middle East. Even our half-ass victory during the Gulf War saw Al-Queda rise in anger. Enemies exist throughout this region. Just think...if we just gave Kuwait and whatever else to Saddam, 9/11 would have never happened. What a fragile civilization we are dealing with. A failing civilization in the Middle East, full of fanatics, need something to blame. And the enemy of their God will do. All other earthly justifications are for the western masses who can't fathom how deeply hated they are for simply being successful without Allah.
 
Last edited:
"Appeared" being the key word. Consider a few thinhgs...

1) Iraq - The insurgency came from all over the region. They were largely made up of non Iraqi players and virtually all of the leadership was from elsewhere. Al-Queda went there just as they went to nations in Africa to fight Americans and just like they came to New York and Washington D.C. Enemies that already existed gravitated to American boots. Or do we believe that they genuinely only cared to defend Saddam Hussein's regime or at least the loss of power for the Sunni tribe?

2) The Tali-Ban is not the same Tali-Ban we destroyed in 2001. Today we fight a never ending recruitment pool that comes from all over the region. Like Iraq, they are gravitating across borders, because it is easier to kill Americans a few borders away than it is to cross the Atlantic to kill Americans there.

These are enemies that have always existed. In the end, history has proven that it doesn't take much to invite these people to kill Americans (and especially to kill each other.) We are resented, hated, and despised for anything and everything. According to Qutb (circa 1950s), we represent everything Allah hates in the world. Do we really think Arabs care about Iranians and the Shah? Until the PLO forced the Shia in southern Lebanon to fight Israelis prior to the Lebanese civil war, the Shia could care less about Israel's existence. Rage exists and it often seeks a scapegoat.

Because of this, American forces will never deal with just a simple enemy in the Middle East. Even our half-ass victory during the Gulf War saw Al-Queda rise in anger. Enemies exist throughout this region.


All that's too much for the Libbos to comprehend.
 
- The same leftist pieces of garbage in the world that has a love affair for pointing out America's Cold War sins with dictators immediately jumped to criticize America for refusing to continue a Cold War mission in regards to Saddam Hussein.
Please explain. Who is complaining about a refusal to continue a Cold War mission? Can you give some examples because I'm not following your argument.

Why do you vilify those who seek to critically examine Americas foreign policy mistakes? Do you not think we have made some serious blunders in that arena? Because many, many historians have documented a laundry list of things this nation did in it's own political and economic interests that have had long lasting ramifications at the expense of the indigenous people of the countries we decided to exert our influence in.
- The same pieces of garbage in America who seek to drag America through the mud over Hussein absolutely deny that for twelve years we placed troops in and out of Iraq to deal with humanitarian issues, denied him his right to fly his own military jets over his own soil, denied him trade, and looked away as long as his UN starvation tactics didn't interfere with oil flow. "Soveriegnty" mattered only in 2003.
So it was the leftists who did this? Really? It was the leftists? I for one felt the sanctions were a horrible idea because all they did was starve the people of Iraq. The Army did just fine, what was left of it. The idea that trade sanctions and "oil for food" were effective in their mission is perplexing to me. Since his Army was shattered during Desert Storm to the point of simply being able to police the country. I had no problem with the no-fly zone. I had a problem with the trade sanctions and their impact upon the populace.

- The same war protestors who painted their little signs and looked for dates at college universities boasted their heartfelt feelings of "No-War-For-Oil." But somehow containing (and maintaining his family inheriting regime) the dictator, that we should have killed long ago, as he starved out his people and toyed with the U.S. military while making the UN look like the fool it is...for oil....was something to pretend wasn't happening. After all, why go to war for oil when we can simply pretend that we aren't dragging our values through the mud for it?
Who exactly pretended it wasn't happening? Regardless, none of what you posted was reason enough to go to war. Iraq was not a regional threat of any consequence (they lacked the ability to actually project any meaningful military force) and certainly no threat to the U.S. This is "military capacity 101" stuff Gunny. There are plenty of dictators starving their people out all over the place.

- The same fools who read Osama Bin Laden's letter to the American people and found understanding or disgust glossed completely over the part where he used the "starving children of Iraq" and the "escallation of troops in holy lands" as a justification. These same people denied the fact that this escallation occurred because of Hussein's continual games with our military. That Iraqi children were starving under UN mandates and scandels with American muscle enforcing it. They instead preached about how our historical sins with the Middle East has created our enemies (Osama said so) with a disregard for what had happened since 1991. I guess the mission was to go on forever until he died of natural causes...or his son died...or his other son died....or his entire regime of nasties died of SARS. In the mean time, the UN mission, which was abandoned by just about all of the other nations who rogered up to the burden in 1991, could go ahead and serve as justifications for any other terrorist lunatic that wanted to punish America for the way the wind blows.
Lol...what games Gunny? Regardless of the "games" he played, can you please explain to us what actual threat Iraq was? Their air force was grounded, their ability to conduct campaigns outside the borders almost completely non-existent. Poor, poor starving Iraqi children. I know, I've heard this over and over again. This is a problem all over the world but not anything to go to war over apparently as nobody else, including the U.S., fetl compelled to do so.

Our response to 9/11 exactly what OBL had been seeking for years. A heavy handed, ill conceived war of aggression that was so misguided that it set the world back on it's heels. All it did was make this nation look like international storm troopers. 9/11 was an excuse to invade Iraq. We rode that propaganda for all it was worth because nobody, and I mean NOBODY else felt that deposing Saddam was actually warranted for this list of reasons GWB put forward under the U.N. resolution regarding Iraqi violations.

No matter where American troops go, there will always be a support given to what we are fighting. Or is the Black Hawk Down incident of Somalia supposed to take humanitarian missions off the table too? You want to fix this problem and set America up with a long view of security? It starts with the region, not an idiot in a cave who is merely a symptom of the cancerous Middle East. But I don't know. Maybe we can put this in terms of law enforcement. If the police go into a neighborhood to address gang land thugs (Afghanistan) or another neighborhood where drug dealers aren't really hurting anybody (Iraq), perhaps they should first consider pretending that all is well just in case they create more criminals by disrupting the careful balance people have become accustomed to. And the neighborhood itself? Surely correcting it will make it better for the citizens and thusly less likely to breed further criminals in mass, but maybe we should just accept the breeding and keep hitting symptoms instead for the illusion of progress.
This is all great from a 1 million foot view, the problem is that this nation and it's leadership rushed to war in two countries without the slightest indication they had a clue about the geopolitical dynamics there. We completely disregarded almost every piece of predetermined military strategy regarding our use of military force in order to hurriedly prosecute these campaigns. We've solved nothing in Iraq and Afghanistan other than ousting Saddam Hussein and bringing that country to near ruination in the process. We are pouring hundreds of billions of dollars overseas each year to try and stick fingers in dikes that we broke when decided to invade and occupy two nations at once.

Let me ask you this Gunny...how is that we are to follow our own strategies for foreign internal defense and counter insurgency when our first act as occupiers is to dismantle the very governmental structure we are supposed to support?
This ridiculous idea that America creates enemies by crossing the ocean to adress people that hate us already is pointless. These ****ers are already our enemies. They merely lack the very small instigation to start killing. They already slaughter each other and look away as long as the tribe dying is the other one. Why would thery hesitate to kill a few Americans who represent that European "western" imperialism that is blamed for everything? At no time in our history has our enemies, once the war was taken to their territory, mounted counterattacks upon our soil. Since we are dealing with terrorists, we have to accept that even if America rejects 99 attempts, there will be the one that sneaks in. This is the price of not taking this crap anymore. Or was the American military, who was taking this crap since Beirut, supposed to go ahead and embrace our enemy as something untouchable until enough American civilians were killed? Maybe something like 9/11 will wake the morons up. Or maybe not.
I've never seen you or anyone else on this forum articulate an actual necessity for the invasion of Iraq. Nor in all this text or any amount you've posted in the past have you articulated a reasonable explanation for why we are justified in injecting our own political and social ideals into foreign nations that pose no real threat to our nation.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. You cannot honestly and intelligently dismiss our foreign policy failures as having nothing to do with Islamic terrorism or general resentment towards the west that emanates from the Middle East. Yes, radical Islamic militants are our enemies and we should fight them. But to say that the entire Middle East is "cancerous" is indicative of the problem...not some enlightened grasp of reality.

We went beyond the abandonment of critical examination (which was desperately what we needed) of our foreign policy. We upped the anti and reinforced the exaggerated stereotypes that people like OBL were proliferating about us by invading a country that had not one thing to do with 9/11. This is prime example of why the bull**** argument that our foreign policy isn't at least partly responsible for our situation with the Middle East is just that...complete bull****.

Thank you for your service and your opinion.
 
Last edited:
"Appeared" being the key word. Consider a few thinhgs...

1) Iraq - The insurgency came from all over the region. They were largely made up of non Iraqi players and virtually all of the leadership was from elsewhere.
You're suggesting the insurgency is largely foreign in nature? If so provide some source for this. Because I've done some very brief research that debunks this idea thoroughly.

Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying here?
 
You're suggesting the insurgency is largely foreign in nature? If so provide some source for this. Because I've done some very brief research that debunks this idea thoroughly.

Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying here?

The insurgency wasn't mostly foreign, but there was a foreign faction to it.
 
All that's too much for the Libbos to comprehend.

You're one to be talking. I see you're still avoiding the completely trashing of your argument I conducted earlier. Instead of blabbing general insults like some kind of keyboard robot, why don't you simply engage your brain in some intelligent debate.

I've left you with several reasonable and relevant counters to your argument. How about you try and actually address those with actual reasonable and relevant responses of substance.

Not "Libbos are dumb...yuck yuck yuck."
 
Back
Top Bottom