THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Quote:

The only reason the US is still required is to combat the terrorists trying to disrupt the process. Kind of self defeating, isn't it?

Noone, and I do mean noone, but right-wing Americans actually believes this. The Iraqis sure don't believe this.

I know you find this surprising, but there are many people who don't believe the US has good intentions for anyone but themselves. They certainly don't believe we are going to up and leave Iraq as soon as they are 'stable.' Not everyone sees the US as bringers of peace to the world, and why would they? We certainly don't have a track record of doing that over the last 50 years, do we?

I don't agree with the killing of innocent civilians, but those training with the Americans are, in the eyes of the insurgents, collabarating with the enemy. And collabarators all get it in the end.

Replace 'Americans' with 'Chinese' and see if you'd have such a moral issue with what they're doing. You disagree with the opinions of those who wish to fight to see an illegal occupying force leave their country. That's fine; but that doesn't make them wrong for doing so.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

You mean in the eyes of the terrorists, right?

I am done arguing with someone willing to defend terrorists. Good day.

0 Replies

Cyclop, I think you struck a chord...

0 Replies

Quote:

You mean in the eyes of the terrorists, right?

I am done arguing with someone willing to defend terrorists. Good day.

By which you mean, 'my argument is completely hosed, as I have zero ability to look at issues from someone elses' point of view, and realize this, so I'm going to bluster and accuse you of being anti-American while I back out of sight.'

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

You mean in the eyes of the terrorists, right?

I am done arguing with someone willing to defend terrorists. Good day.

You answered your own question.... they are terrorist when you say they are ... and insurgents when they are not terrorists.
Now, does the same apply when the question is 'when are they Iraqis'?

0 Replies

Gelisgesti wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
You mean in the eyes of the terrorists, right?

I am done arguing with someone willing to defend terrorists. Good day.

You answered your own question.... they are terrorist when you say they are ... and insurgents when they are not terrorists.
Now, does the same apply when the question is 'when are they Iraqis'?

How many Germans have other Germans killed in bombings this past year? How many Canadians have been killed in car bombings by fellow Canadians this past year? How many Dutchmen have been beheaded by fellow Dutch this past decade? How many Italians have been kidnapped and tortured and shot in the head by other Italians this past year?

0 Replies

The better question is, how many Americans have been killed by Americans this year?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Gelisgesti wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
You mean in the eyes of the terrorists, right?

I am done arguing with someone willing to defend terrorists. Good day.

You answered your own question.... they are terrorist when you say they are ... and insurgents when they are not terrorists.
Now, does the same apply when the question is 'when are they Iraqis'?

How many Germans have other Germans killed in bombings this past year? How many Canadians have been killed in car bombings by fellow Canadians this past year? How many Dutchmen have been beheaded by fellow Dutch this past decade? How many Italians have been kidnapped and tortured and shot in the head by other Italians this past year?

Interesting question ..... get back to me when yo find out ... meanwhile, back in Iraq.

0 Replies

ican, this response will be brief, as I feel this particular dialogue has run its course.

you wrote: "We can verify an imminent threat only after it has been executed. "

Again, I disagree. But even if what you say is true, that would mean we can and should take military action pre-emptively whenever we "think" there might be a threat, and that would very soon prove to be unwise, destructive, impractical, and ineffective. (Bush himself has admitted that the pre-invasion info re Iraq was faulty.)

you also wrote: "When we have the means available I'd direct our attention first to freeing the people of Lebanon, then Syria, then Iran, and then North Korea, in that order. Then let's see who else needs our help. "

We will never have the means (or the will) for such rash action. Also, "our help" does not necessarily mean military intervention. This is the crux of our disagreement. I believe that our military must only be used unilaterally in our defense.

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

you also wrote: "Talk is cheap but ineffective in the face of those dedicated to murdering you. " My "talk" is every bit as valid as yours, so spare me the insults, ok? You will obviously continue to attempt to equate the invasion of Iraq for purposes of regime change with defending our country against terrorism, and I will continue to oppose that attempt.

and finally, you wrote: "We shall see if the present method works or not."

I emphatically agree, we shall see, and upon that agreement, I shall end this particular dialogue. As I said to c.i. above, the music is ending and the dance is over. I am sure someone else here will engage you when the music starts again. Namaste.

0 Replies

Quote, "ican wrote: " it was linked to future 911s. The whole argument seems to rest on the concept of imminent threat. The only way a threat can be proven to be an imminent threat is for it to have been executed."

Defense attorney speaking on behalf of his client: "He preemptively killed all his neighbors because he knew they were an imminent threat."

0 Replies

Most had guns, knives, and gasoline that could be used as a bomb. I was afraid.

0 Replies

Does anyone think that other countries may start thinking of AMERICA as an 'imminent threat?'

It would be all the justification they needed, to say so; they certainly don't need anything silly like proof.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Whadaya mean 'start'?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Could it be the Shia, then? I thought it was those Sunni's that have been betrayed by the Baathist party.

I don't know anything about the alleged betrayal of the Baathist party. I only know that a majority of the Baathists are Sunnis.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Gelisgesti wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
You mean in the eyes of the terrorists, right?

I am done arguing with someone willing to defend terrorists. Good day.

You answered your own question.... they are terrorist when you say they are ... and insurgents when they are not terrorists.
Now, does the same apply when the question is 'when are they Iraqis'?

How many Germans have other Germans killed in bombings this past year? How many Canadians have been killed in car bombings by fellow Canadians this past year? How many Dutchmen have been beheaded by fellow Dutch this past decade? How many Italians have been kidnapped and tortured and shot in the head by other Italians this past year?

Back when our country first started, the loyalist and the rebels killed each other. I think in the eyes of the insurgents it is the same thing for them. They didn't want their country set up by an occupying force and so they started fighting the coalition and anyone who goes along with the coalition. They are still insurgents.

Having said that, I have to say that it seems that more Iraqis wanted to have a government as was evident by the high turnout in the elections. So maybe soon some kind of compromise can be reached.

The administration must have the same idea because they have been meeting with the insurgents for talks. Didn't seem to do much good unless that was their plan all along. (even I don't believe that--yet)

0 Replies

Pay attention America

Quote:

Breaking News: Lebanese Government Resigns in Face of VideoClip Revolution

Futur television satellite news is reporting that the Lebanese government has resigned. For the last few days, I was watching the crowds assembled at Martyrs' Square in Beirut (a place significant in the anticolonial struggle against the French), and noted the ineffectual attempt of [now former] Interior Minister Suleiman Frangieh to forbid the protests.

I just saw a speaker at the protests shout that the people are more powerful than the government, with everyone joyous at the fall of the government.

Futur was showing the protests with an overlay of Lebanese music, so that the effect was to mimic the wildly popular Video Clips (a belated Arab version of "I want my MTV").

Futur was partially owned by slain Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri, whose assassination kicked off the crisis.
Mon, Feb 28, 2005 5:55

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Quote, "ican wrote: " it was linked to future 911s. The whole argument seems to rest on the concept of imminent threat. The only way a threat can be proven to be an imminent threat is for it to have been executed."

Defense attorney speaking on behalf of his client: "He preemptively killed all his neighbors because he knew they were an imminent threat."

The only way a threat can be proven to be an imminent threat is for it to have been executed. Your attorney's symbolic client lied. We know the symbolic client lied because we know he cannot prove his neighbors were an imminent threat until after that threat is executed and his neighbors have murdered the symbolic client. Since he murdered his neighbors before they could execute their imminent threat, his only defense is to provide the jury persuasive evidence his neighbors were a growing threat.

However, symbolic client may have been able to provide persuasive evidence that his neighbors were a growing threat before they actually murdered him. If so, all he had to do is go to the police (e.g., UN) and present his persuasive evidence. If he were to fail to convince the police, he could defend himself by what he perceived was a self-defense killing of his neighbors and take the risk of failing to persuade a jury of his peers (e.g., American voters) his neighbors were a growing threat.

0 Replies

But the police (UN) was deemed to be insignificant. That's the reason why we didn't return to them for their 'support.' Our secretary of state even outlined the locations of those weapons, but they all poo-pooed it, and said a preemptive attack was not justified. I was scared; nobody else listened to my concerns.

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know