0
   

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

 
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2005 03:01 pm
it = the war in Iraq.

#1 Is it worth the cost to try and remove terrorists and terrorist bases from Iraq?

#2 Is it worth the cost to keep terrorists and terrorist bases out of Iraq once they are removed?

#3 Is it worth the cost to try to bring democracy to Iraq?

Item #3 is as a means to the ends stated in #1 and #2.

#4 Is not trying to remove from Iraq and not trying to keep out of Iraq, terrorists and terrorist bases, worth the cost?

What will be the cost of #1 plus #2?

What would be the cost of #4?

I bet the cost of #4 would far exceed the cost of #1 plus #2!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2005 03:03 pm
It has not "removed" the terroists; it has increased terrorists and terrorist activity in Iraq and elsewhere. Maybe you haven't noticed, but most of the world has.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2005 03:09 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
"Yes, and I can say I'm pure royalty too, but it doesn't make me the Queen of England."

well it might, there have been stranger claims. Caroline of Brunswick. Camilla Parker-Bowles. Her Royal Highness Queen Foxfyre I sounds ok to me.


I dunno .... royal pain in the buttocks about says it all for me Razz
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2005 03:15 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
It has not "removed" the terroists; it has increased terrorists and terrorist activity in Iraq and elsewhere. Maybe you haven't noticed, but most of the world has.

I have noticed that the number of terrorists in Iraq has increased dramatically.

I have noticed that the number of acts of terrorism outside of Iraq has decreased dramatically.

I notice that the terrorists are desperate to prevent the Iraqi people from establishing there own democracy.

All three of these things that I have noticed lead me to the conclusion that Americans and Iraqis better damn well succeed in Iraq or else Americans and Iraqis will end up in mass graves.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2005 03:16 pm
right pain in the...

agree Smile
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2005 03:22 pm
Quote, "I have noticed that the number of acts of terrorism outside of Iraq has decreased dramatically." If we're looking at the two year period since March 2003 to now, those numbers have been decreasing. However, if we look at the three year period as a whole compared to any similar previous two year period, it has increased dramatically. It also seems to me you are ignoring the current administration's warnings about the possible attack on US soil by terrorists in recent months. When we compare these warnings to previous periods in American life, it seems much more frequent today than any time in recent history.
0 Replies
 
George
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2005 03:22 pm
> it = the war in Iraq.
>
> #1 Is it worth the cost to try and remove terrorists and terrorist bases
> from Iraq?
The US has committed itself to a "War on Terrorism." I'll restrict this to a
war on the al-Qaeda jihadists for the sake of this question. Yes, I believe
it is worth the cost. No matter what the situation was before the invasion,
it is clear that jihadists are operating in Iraq now. Therefore, the US must
stay and fight until the jihadists are eliminated.

> #2 Is it worth the cost to keep terrorists and terrorist bases out of Iraq
> once they are removed?
Once again, restricting this to jihadists, I'd say yes. If there is a civil war
in Iraq that involves terrorism, but that al-Qaeda does not involve itself
in, I'd say no.

> #3 Is it worth the cost to try to bring democracy to Iraq?
Only insofar as it involves suppressing the efforts of al-Qaeda to derail
the process.

> Item #3 is as a means to the ends stated in #1 and #2.
I still would not sacrifice American lives only to bring democracy to Iraq.


> #4 Is not trying to remove from Iraq and not trying to keep out of Iraq,
> terrorists and terrorist bases, worth the cost?
I have no idea what this means.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2005 03:42 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
If a country will pay a ransom for the release of a hostage, if effectively guarantees there will be many more kidnappings of that country's citizens.


Spanish and Italian nationals should just stay out of Iraq so they would stop getting kidnapped and then financing the insurgency when they pay these ransoms.

Quote:
Spanish hostage freed in Iraq: report

An Iraqi-born Spanish businessman kidnapped in Baghdad several weeks ago has been freed after a ransom was paid, Spain's leading daily reported.

El Pais reported that the kidnapped man, identified only by his initials, UAH, was freed on Tuesday, El Pais said, citing unidentified government sources.

The paper said the sources refused to give details of the ransom paid so as not to put people involved in the operation at risk.

The man was said to have Spanish nationality and passport since 2000, and for the past 30 years has lived in Spain, where he runs a translation firm and a real estate company, the daily said.

He was kidnapped during a visit to Iraq to see his family.

El Pais said the government helped the man's family negotiate his release and return to Spain late Tuesday.

Dozens of people have been kidnapped in Iraq over the past year. Some 30 are believed to have been killed.


http://au.news.yahoo.com/050317/2/tjzy.html
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2005 04:09 pm
my comments are in blue
cicerone imposter wrote:
Quote, "I have noticed that the number of acts of terrorism outside of Iraq has decreased dramatically." If we're looking at the two year period since March 2003 to now, those numbers have been decreasing.

That's exactly what I am looking at. I'm focused on the last two years because it has been in only the last two years that we have been in Iraq. I infer from that that the terrorists are devoting the bulk of their formally worldwide strength to stopping a democracy from being set up in Iraq. I in turn infer from that that it is the terrorists's perception that being able to re-establish bases in Iraq free of government interference is seen by them as essential to not only their ability to succeed in their war of murdering civilian Iraqis, Americans, Europeans, Southeast Asians, etc, etc. with relative ease, but also to their very survival.

However, if we look at the three year period as a whole compared to any similar previous two year period, it has increased dramatically.

Yes, I agree. Think about that a moment more. Think about what the result of that trend already in motion prior to our invasion of Iraq would be now without our invasion of Iraq.

It also seems to me you are ignoring the current administration's warnings about the possible attack on US soil by terrorists in recent months.

No, I'm not ignoring these warnings. These are their 2005 warnings. I take them quite seriously--just as seriously as I have taken their past warnings. I perceive these warnings as an indication of what worse will probably happen if we do not succeed in Iraq and flee instead.

Don't forget these warnings started in 1992 and were repeated again in 1996, 1998, and 2004. Those warnings were bin Ladin fatwahs declaring war against Americans and threatening to kill Americans, miltary and civilian, whereever they could be found. I believed all these warnings too! The subsequent evidence was quite persuasive.

Before we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, al Qaeda and connections fomented the following mass murders of Americans:
1. 2/1993 WTC in NYC--6 dead Americans;
2. 11/1995 Saudi National Guard Facility in Riyadh--5 dead Americans;
3. 6/1996 Khobar Towers in Dhahran--19 dead Americans;
4. 8/1998 American Embassy in Nairobi--12 dead Americans;
5. 12/2000 Destroyer Cole in Aden--17 dead Americans;
6. 9/2001 WTC in NYC, Pentagon, Pennsylvania Field--1500 dead Americans + 1500 dead non-Americans.


When we compare these warnings to previous periods in American life, it seems much more frequent today than any time in recent history.

Yes! The al Qaeda fatwah warnings started in 1992 and began being executed in 1993. The warnings have increased steadily ever since. However, the terrorist attacks outside of Iraq have diminished steadily since 2003. I think our invasion of Iraq has contributed to that diminishment.

We damn well better not lose in Iraq! Evil or Very Mad
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2005 04:12 pm
And then the ransom money was no doubt used to bribe a fanatical suicide bomber and rig a car with high explosives to be detonated where it would cause maximum deaths, injuries, maimings of whatever men, women, and children happen to be present.

Play their game and you are probably condemning dozens or hundreds more people to death. Don't play their game and the hostage will likely be beheaded.

Pack up and go home and we condemn probable hundreds of thousands of freedom seeking people to death or worse.

But there are those, some even on this thread, who still think the Americans are the bad guys and are especially evil because they shoot to kill terrorists.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2005 04:22 pm
Quote, "But there are those, some even on this thread, who still think the Americans are the bad guys..." blah blah blah blah... Your conclusions and assumptions are stupid, ill-informed, and not even close to being accurate. Why do you continue to spout these stupidity?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2005 04:23 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Quote, "But there are those, some even on this thread, who still think the Americans are the bad guys..." blah blah blah blah... Your conclusions and assumptions are stupid, ill-informed, and not even close to being accurate. Why do you continue to spout these stupidity?


Why not point out what you feel that way about, and why you feel that way about it, rather than just call it stupid?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2005 04:31 pm
I meant earlier to say thanks to Steve. My only claim to royalty is via a French marquis who we think was hanged as a horse thief and perhaps one English pirate with interesting bloodlines, but that also is uncertain. In any case, I don't think either would qualify me to ever be the Queen Mum. Smile

I will believe that some do not see America as the bad guys when I see the same level of anger and revulsion consistently directed at the terrorists that they consistently direct at the President and/or our military.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2005 04:32 pm
Well, if Fox has the individual or persons who supports what he says, he can name them - rather than using a whole brush to insult everybody else. I'd like to see one post that says anything close to "...Americans are the bad guys and are especially evil because they shoot to kill terrorists." If that isn't stupid, I don't know what stupid is.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2005 04:39 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Well, if Fox has the individual or persons who supports what he says, he can name them - rather than using a whole brush to insult everybody else. I'd like to see one post that says anything close to "...Americans are the bad guys and are especially evil because they shoot to kill terrorists." If that isn't stupid, I don't know what stupid is.


I suppose since she didn't name you, she is only insulting you if the shoe fits --- IMHO.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2005 04:41 pm
====cough==== biting tongue. . . sooooo tempting. Smile
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2005 05:07 pm
I already have ten pairs of shoes; don't need more at the moment.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2005 05:10 pm
McG, Nothing has stopped you before....you still haven't answered my question.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2005 05:56 pm
Quote:

Victoria Cross: Courage under fire
A soldier's heroism in Iraq has led to the first award of a Victoria Cross for 20 years. Kim Sengupta and Max Arthur on 150 years of our highest military honour

18 March 2005

THE IRAQ WAR, Private Johnson Gideon Beharry

The ambush in the killing fields of Iraq was well-planned and ferocious. Round after round of rocket-propelled grenades smashed into the trapped Warrior, rocking the 30-ton armoured vehicle and setting it ablaze.

With the platoon commander and gunner wounded and unconscious, and the radio system wrecked, Pte Johnson Gideon Beharry led the convoy to safety and saved the lives of 30 comrades. After medical treatment, a month later Pte Beharry returned to duty and another ambush. Again he managed to save his Warrior and his comrades, this time suffering head injuries which left him in a coma.

Yesterday 25-year-old Pte Beharry, was awarded the Victoria Cross for "two individual acts of great heroism by which he saved the lives of his comrades. His valour is worthy of the highest recognition". Fellow soldiers had vigorously lobbied the military hierarchy for him to get the medal.

This is the first time the Victoria Cross - the highest British and Commonwealth military honour for bravery - has been awarded in 20 years, and Pte Beharry is the first living recipient in 40 years. Just 11 had been awarded since the Second World War, the last posthumously to Lt-Col Herbert "H" Jones and Sgt Ian McKay in the Falklands campaign.

Pte Beharry, who was born in the Caribbean island of Grenada, bears the scars of battle on his face and head. His wife Lynthia, 23, was told after the second wounds that he had only a "50-50" chance of survival.

Yesterday, at a ceremony at the Ministry of Defence, Pte Beharry, of the Princess of Wales Royal Regiment, was embarrassed to talk about his heroism. What was going through his mind at the time of the attack? "RPG", he said. But surely he must accept he was brave? "When I was told about the Victoria Cross I was speechless," he said. "At the time, I was just doing my job. I didn't have time for other thought. Maybe I was brave, but I really don't know. I think anyone else could have done the same thing."

When a black journalist asked whether he was a "Uncle Tom" by joining the British Army, he smiled and said patiently: "Look, I did what was right for me. I joined the Army for a change of life. I have really thought about it. It was a good decision to make."

On 1 May 2003, after President George Bush declared the war was officially over, Pte Beharry's company was on a supply run to al-Amarah in southern Iraq when they were switched to go to the aid of foot patrol pinned down by insurgent fire.

Pte Beharry was in the first of five Warriors when the RPGs opened fire. He realised that staying put would be suicide and drove the armoured vehicle straight through an insurgent barricade, clearing a path for the rest of the convoy.

As Pte Beharry tried to pull down the armoured hatch it was blown out of his hand by another blast. The rocket also wrecked the Warrior's armoured periscope, forcing him to drive the rest of the 1,500m escape route with his head exposed to fire from the ground and windows and balconies overhead. One bullet went through his helmet and lodged in the inner surface. Pte Beharry halted the Warrior at an Army post, and still under heavy enemy fire, he twice went back into the burning vehicle to drag his platoon commander, then the gunner to safety.

On 11 June, Pte Beharry was in an armoured column trying to cut off an enemy mortar team when it was attacked. An RPG hit armour plate 6ins from him, shrapnel embedding in his head. Bleeding heavily, he reversed the Warrior into cover, helping save the soldiers inside. General Sir Mike Jackson, chief of the general staff, said: "His citation is an extraordinary story of one man's courage. He risked his life for his colleagues not just once, but twice."
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2005 10:19 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
McG, Nothing has stopped you before....you still haven't answered my question.


What question?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 10/05/2024 at 04:42:48