Iraqi Parliment Bombed - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-13-2007, 05:35 PM   #46
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



it's because you're asking the wrong questions. you're fretting over tanks when you should be focusing on Shia militias.

setting a date will force the Iraqi government to deal with it's own problems as well as assure the Iraqi people that the US isn't a colonialist overloard intent on dominating the oil. i know your posts make it seem as if this is indeed the truth, that we are only there for the oil and to protect the oil in Saudi Arabia, but i actually don't think that's the case.

much of the violence is due to the very presence of American troops in Iraq. Al-Qaeda is not really the problem here; it's the sectarian violence.






for the last time: Iraq and Afghanistan are differen countries and diffierent situations. equivocate all you want, it just makes you look even more foolish.
Security, whether it comes from coalition forces or new Iraqi and police forces is a necessity to the formation of stable government and economy in Iraq. Iraqi's in the Sunni majority area's are concerned about security, Iraqi's in other area's site the delivery of basic services as their largest concern. Few people are concerned about American colonialist theory's.

Setting a date will certainly place a new kind of urgency on the Iraqi government, but the Iraqi government will not be able to deal with any situation in which they are left with a military that is not able to secure the country and does not have the logistical means to supply and maintain itself in the field.

Once again, setting a date allows insurgent forces, Al Quada forces, Shia militias to distribute their resources accordingly in order to bring about the rapid disolution of the government once coalition forces are gone. Setting some arbitrary date only helps them.

Al Quada was responsible for the Shia Mosque bombing in 2006 which increased the level of sectarian violence. Al Quada is also reponsible for many of the larger and more destructive attacks within the country as well as most of the recruitment and active use of suicide bombers. If that were not enough, with the withdrawal of coalition forces from Iraq, Al Quada would have its first safe haven since early 2001 and would be able to devote more resources, suicide bombers, to operations in Europe as well as make more attempts to hit North America.


Iraq and Afghanistan are both country's that face active insurgencies and threats to the central government. They are both country's that have deep political and economic problems. They are both country's with long historical tribal roots. They are both country's with wide a number of ethnic groups. Afghanistan in fact is much more ethnically diverse, more tribal, and has a 5,000 year history of warlordism as well as opposition to any type of a central government. Afghanistan is less developed than Iraq, and has also had less violence, but fundamentally, the challenges in both country's are the same! Yet, the Democrats have completely different proposals for each country, despite the fact that the enemy they claim they are after, Al Quada, is more active in Iraq than Afghanistan.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-13-2007, 05:38 PM   #47
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 02:37 AM
inarguable. i don't know why i've bothered posting anything.

all i suppose i can say is that you've been right so many times before, STING, on so many things in regards to Iraq, so i suppose we should continue to give credence to your unsubstantiated assertions. and continue with your tactics -- don't respond to questions, merely repeat what you've said previously as if it were an acceptable answer.

keep up the great work! it's been going so well! if anyone's an authority on how to win a war against Arab teenagers, it's you and this administration.



have a great weekend, FYM.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-13-2007, 05:43 PM   #48
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




hasn't it been made rather obvious that battling Al-Qaeda is done through effective intelligence work and NOT through guerilla warfare? in fact, removing American troops from Muslim lands will take away the greatest recruiting tool Al-Qaeda has aside from the presidency of George Bush. Al-Qaeda is too amorphous and tenously connected, at best, to some sort of central leadership (that isn't in Iraq, it's in Pakistan) for any sort of conventional military action.
The United States does not engage in guerilla warfare. Effective intelligence work is vital to any effort, but to say that fighting Al Quada is just a matter for non-military law inforcement is absurd. Even the vast majority of Democrats support the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan because it was the only way to remove the Al Quada element there. Withdrawing from Al Anbar provinces on the other hand will not remove the Al Quada element there, it will create the first safe haven it has had since early 2001.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-13-2007, 06:11 PM   #49
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,236
Local Time: 01:37 AM
Unbelievable. You keep using Afghanistan as if it is equal in every way to Iraq - as if to say "well it worked in Afghanistan, so it must work in Iraq."

The two are not the same, and to continue to equate them really highlights the immense size of the blinders you've got on. The vast majority of Democrats supported the invasion of Afghanistan because that was where the power structure of Al Qaeda was based. Because that's where the perpetrators of 9/11 were strongest. Going into Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with Al Qaeda or 9/11, hence the lack of support from the Dems. Al Qaeda was, at best, an insignificant (or more realistically, non-existent) presence in Iraq prior to our invasion.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 04-13-2007, 06:11 PM   #50
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Different time, different needs and different means to those ends. There is no chance of Saddam Hussein aquiring WMD.
Now that Saddam has been removed, that is correct. But while in power, inspections after the war showed they he still had the technical capacity to build more WMD as well as maintaining active WMD programs in violation of the resolutions. No actual WMD was found, but thousands of stocks of WMD that the UN had been looking for since the mid 1990s remained unaccounted for. While many theories have been developed as to what has happened to those stocks, no one knows for sure.

As for aquiring things that Saddam did not have the capacity to produce himself, the collapse of the sanctions and embargo regimes after 2000 increased his capability to do so.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-13-2007, 06:13 PM   #51
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 05:37 PM
I am not disagreeing, if Saddam was left in power right now in 2007 both Iran and Iraq would be in a race for the bomb.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-13-2007, 06:16 PM   #52
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,284
Local Time: 02:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
I am not disagreeing, if Saddam was left in power right now in 2007 both Iran and Iraq would be in a race for the bomb.
That's why we have to elect McCain and take out Iran too, using this same wonderful strategy that STING is fond of. Maybe in 4 years Iran will also be like your average marketplace in Indiana to walk around.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 04-13-2007, 06:18 PM   #53
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 05:37 PM
Maybe Iran is already so far ahead with its program that military action is impossible and obfuscation of the international community makes it's aquisition of nuclear weapons inevitable .
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-13-2007, 06:24 PM   #54
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen
Unbelievable. You keep using Afghanistan as if it is equal in every way to Iraq - as if to say "well it worked in Afghanistan, so it must work in Iraq."

The two are not the same, and to continue to equate them really highlights the immense size of the blinders you've got on. The vast majority of Democrats supported the invasion of Afghanistan because that was where the power structure of Al Qaeda was based. Because that's where the perpetrators of 9/11 were strongest. Going into Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with Al Qaeda or 9/11, hence the lack of support from the Dems. Al Qaeda was, at best, an insignificant (or more realistically, non-existent) presence in Iraq prior to our invasion.
Its 2007. In 2007, the greatest area of Al Quada activity is in Iraq. There are many reasons besides Al Quada not to support the pre-mature withdrawal advocated by Democrats, but its amazing to see Democrats advocating a withdrawal from the area of greatest Al Quada activity while supporting the cotinued presense of forces in a country with virtually no Al Quada activity.

I've never said that Iraq and Afghanistan are exactly the same. But they are both country's that are facing insurgencies, violence and other threats to the authority of the central government. They are both country's where instability will not benefit the United States. They are both country's with ethnic tensions, and long tribal history's. Supporting both operations in Afghanistan and Iraq is vital to US security, but even more so in Iraq where Al Quada is most active and where Iraq's location, resources, demographics and level of development make it the higher priority.

Its difficult to understand how Democrats plan to fight Al Quada in the future when they support the pre-mature withrawal of US troops from the area of greatest Al Quada activity. Why are Democrats so insistent on the withdrawal of forces from an area of higher priority to US security? Afghanistan is important, but it currently has no Al Quada activity, and instability there certainly does not have the potential to impact the vital resources of the Persian Gulf in the way that Iraq does.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-13-2007, 06:25 PM   #55
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,236
Local Time: 01:37 AM
And just WHY do you think Al Qaeda is in Iraq?

Because we are. That we brought this upon ourselves should be GLARINGLY obvious.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 04-13-2007, 06:32 PM   #56
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 11:37 PM
Is there anything that could possibly make the situation in Iraq even worse?

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 04-13-2007, 07:17 PM   #57
Refugee
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,435
Local Time: 07:37 AM
Yep. The Kurds could declare an independent Kurdistan in the north, with Kirkuk as its capital. As they say, Kirkuk is the "Jerusalem" of the Kurds. And Kirkuk sits on the richest individual oil well in Iraq and one of the potentially biggest in the world--it's the Ghawar oil field from Saudi Arabia all over again.

The US is pulblicaly symapathic to the Kurds but up to a point. An independent state is that point. We'll bend over backwards to do anything to please our NATO ally, Turkey. In the long run, it's not the Sunnis and Shiite violence that'
is the real problem; it's the Kurds. The media don't talk aobut this aspect of it much yet but quitly the Kurds are making their plans, assuming we support all their goals.

But then again..if the Turks do invade....bye bye European Union!

(Ouch, I have a headache already!)
__________________
Teta040 is offline  
Old 04-14-2007, 02:23 PM   #58
Halloweenhead
Forum Moderator
 
Bonochick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cherry Lane
Posts: 40,816
Local Time: 03:37 AM

I think some of us just need to calm ourselves for a sec. Debate is fine, but let's keep it kind.
__________________
"Knight in shining Zubaz."

Bonochick [at] interference.com
Bonochick is offline  
Old 04-14-2007, 03:23 PM   #59
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 02:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


It was vital to US and global security that Saddam be removed from power. Goodluck arguing that US and global security would be better with Saddam in power given his prior actions and the fundamental global security concerns.
Amazing we survived for twelve years with him in power. What exactly made it "vital". Was he suddenly no longer contained?

Was he going to us e his atomic slingshot on us?

Are you going to join up and get your but over there since it is so vital?

]
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-14-2007, 03:24 PM   #60
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 02:37 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Iraqi Parliment Bombed

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


US goals in Iraq remain essentially the same as they have been since the start of the invasion, to develop a non-hostile, stable democratic government in Iraq, that has the means to provide for its own security without the need for foreign troops. This is the same goal for Afghanistan as well.


I thought the goal was capturing WMD? Isn't that what our executive branch told us?
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com