First we take Baghdad

Well, first of all, it should be borne in mind that our primary purpose in invading was to resolve the WMD issue, not to liberate the Iraqis.

That having been said, though, they are being liberated, since they are having Hussein's iron fisted and very cruel regime replaced by an elected government.

Perhaps you can get some clue to the answer to your question from the fact that the insurgents threatened to kill people who voted, and did, indeed, bomb polling places. Perhaps the insurgents are people who suspect that they can get more power at the point of a gun than by participating in elections.

If I may venture to offer you a little advice, I would not look for my moral compass to people who saw off the heads off their living, non-combatant hostages.

...Ah, here we arrive at last at the stench which first attracted me. This inferentially smears those with whom you disagree by the implication that they ever have, or ever would seek their "moral compass" in such people's actions. It is the kind of self-righteously indignant sneer which is sadly all too common among the holier-than-thou crowd who support this dirty little war.

Certainly, i personally consider that having f*cked-up the Iraqis' homeland as we have, we have an ethical obligation to set things right if we are able. It is very likely that a great many foreign mujahadin have been drawn to Iraq by the opportunity presented to shoot at Americans. It is also very likely that among the murderously violent in Iraq, there are a great many--if not in fact the majority--who are Iraqis responding to a very basic instinct to attack the invader. The history of the English occupation of Baghdad in the 1920's, when the probability of participation by foreign mujahadin was negligible, strongly suggests that the insurgency will not go away any time soon.

Hence, Dys' point in starting this thread. Hence my reference to a quagmire. Until such time as there is actually a legitimate government truly controlling the nation, with a good probability of wide-spread support among Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Shi'ite Arabs and Farsi in Iraq, the likelihood of being obliged to "take" Baghdad again, and again, and again--will remain a fact of life in that tormented nation.

I think my point was that, as soon as it became clear that there were was no proof of WMD (the reason for invading), the spin quickly moved around to the fact that the USA (and Britain, to my shame), was in fact, liberating Iraq from a brutal Dictator.

All very commendable, but since when has it been allowed that the USA can just do as it likes to other Countries, because they see it as a good thing to do?

So, we are being told that it was a liberation after all, and not about WMD.

You have sort of made my point by trying to put the guilts on me re. the unarmed hostages. Why, would a liberated Country, be carrying out these sorts of atrocities?
Why are they not eternally grateful, and building McDonalds Restaurants everywhere?

If it is insurgency that is to blame for the atrocities, why are the grateful "liberatees" not denouncing them to the necessary authorities.
One would even suspect that a fair proportion of Iraqis actually SUPPORT the insurgency. How ungrateful of them.

All you have succeeded in doing, is to increase the recruitment into organisations like AQ by ten fold, I would imagine.

In my personal opinion, if there were no insurgents, we would now have a much smaller presence in Iraq, and would be 99% out very soon. They are actually the primary thing keeping us there.

dlowan wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Are you just making fun of America, or the American military, or do you have a point capable of expression in words? It sounds like you're saying that failure to succeed quickly in a war is evidence of some kind of sin. Perhaps you could clarify, or perhaps you'd rather make some irrelevant crack than explain what you mean.

Actually, he is quoting from a legitimate news story - the contents of which you do not like - so YOU resorted to the ad hominen.

Beware the beam in your eye before condemning the mote in the next person's.

1. I never condemned ad hominems. I said that posts which consist only of ad hominems have no debating significance, and most likely indicate that the poster cannot argue his point.
2. Yes, he's quoting from a news story, but my objection was that he didn't state his point.
3. It sounded as though he was implying that failure to proceed directly and quickly from entry in a war to victory proved some kind of illegitimacy, which is nonsense.

...So unusual in someone who seems so quick to loudly assert that those who indulge ad hominem have no real argument.

Brandon9000 wrote:

dlowan wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Are you just making fun of America, or the American military, or do you have a point capable of expression in words? It sounds like you're saying that failure to succeed quickly in a war is evidence of some kind of sin. Perhaps you could clarify, or perhaps you'd rather make some irrelevant crack than explain what you mean.

Actually, he is quoting from a legitimate news story - the contents of which you do not like - so YOU resorted to the ad hominen.

Beware the beam in your eye before condemning the mote in the next person's.

1. I never condemned ad hominems. I said that posts which consist only of ad hominems have no debating significance, and most likely indicate that the poster cannot argue his point.
2. Yes, he's quoting from a news story, but my objection was that he didn't state his point.
3. It sounded as though he was implying that failure to proceed directly and quickly from entry in a war to victory proved some kind of illegitimacy, which is nonsense.

3. In the eye of the beholder. Do you not think it interesting that there is talk of "taking Baghdad" again? That this does not gel very well with the constant assurances that the war is going well? Is that not of interest?

The illegitiomacy comes from other reasons, mostly.

By the way, has anyone ever told you that you have a bad temper? It's even worse than mine.

Brandon9000 wrote:

By the way, has anyone ever told you that you have a bad temper? It's even worse than mine.

Has it never occured to you that, absent all of the context of face-to-face exchange, you are in no position to reasonably judge whether or not someone has lost his or her temper? You might give the thought some consideration . . . me, i think i'll go rummage around in the kitchen.

dlowan wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

dlowan wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Are you just making fun of America, or the American military, or do you have a point capable of expression in words? It sounds like you're saying that failure to succeed quickly in a war is evidence of some kind of sin. Perhaps you could clarify, or perhaps you'd rather make some irrelevant crack than explain what you mean.

Actually, he is quoting from a legitimate news story - the contents of which you do not like - so YOU resorted to the ad hominen.

Beware the beam in your eye before condemning the mote in the next person's.

1. I never condemned ad hominems. I said that posts which consist only of ad hominems have no debating significance, and most likely indicate that the poster cannot argue his point.
2. Yes, he's quoting from a news story, but my objection was that he didn't state his point.
3. It sounded as though he was implying that failure to proceed directly and quickly from entry in a war to victory proved some kind of illegitimacy, which is nonsense.

3. In the eye of the beholder. Do you not think it interesting that there is talk of "taking Baghdad" again? That this does not gel very well with the constant assurances that the war is going well? Is that not of interest?

The illegitiomacy comes from other reasons, mostly.

Even if it were true that this war or some war were not going well, it wouldn't indicate either that the war was ill advised or that the commander in chief had committed some malfeasance.

fag!

dyslexia wrote:

fag!

Just about to light one up, thankee . . .