100+ killed in coordinated attacks. Say hello to civil war.

JustanObserver wrote:

woiyo,

Obviously you're either not paying attention or your just trolling. You contribute nothing. Actually, let me correct that. You contribute nothing of significance or substance.

Please make a thread of your own to go play in the mud with. And no, I don't care about any snide, pointless remarks you surely have about this. Seriously, do us all a favor.

I hate dealing with the down side of the internet community.

Apparently you have little knowledge about the history of the region. However your ignorance can be corrected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Islam

Their history includes numerous wars, many instigated by "outsiders" (us included).

This is what happens when governments get invloved in "things" they have no business getting involved with. This includes our current occupation of Iraq.

Iraq is no longer a threat to our national security so we have no business being there. So I am not surprised at all when these things occur.

If you were not so wrapped up in your own hysteria, you would realize I have had this position since day 1.

So if you feel compelled to continue to wallow in your own misery, feel free to chirp on.

0 Replies

I think that war, violence, whatever, is extremely hard to reverse or stop. We set the ball in motion and seem to think that putting the breaks on it will be easy as pie. It's turning out not to be. Now we're surprised that there's violence.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

I think that war, violence, whatever, is extremely hard to reverse or stop. We set the ball in motion and seem to think that putting the breaks on it will be easy as pie. It's turning out not to be. Now we're surprised that there's violence.

We? You got a mouse in your pocket? Laughing

0 Replies

I'm not surprised. I meant the greater "we". We'll be hearing about how awful and violent the Iraqi's are now. I bet the word "savage" comes out at least once.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Iraq is no longer a threat to our national security so we have no business being there.

No longer a threat? They were never a threat to us in the first place and you know it. Seriously though, just pm me your comments from now to spare the rest of us from being taken off point to read your posts.

0 Replies

brandon wrote : " Sure, in much the same way as the WW2 German attack on allied troops known as "The Battle of the Bulge" was a direct result of the US invasion of Europe".

...but the war in iraq is finished, over ... isn't it ?
this is not a battle of the bulge or anything like it.
i believe the iraqi war has - at least to some extent - turned into a religious conflict. can a religious conflict be won by "outside" forces ? who is supposed to be the "winner" in this conflict ?

as much as two years ago - and even earlier, i believe - we discussed the implications of a "religious" war in both afghanistan and iraq. i don't see how it can be fought like a conventional war. so far "victory" has eluded the invaders.

without fully understanding the soul and the mind of the people of the middle-east - understanding what is important to THEM - is it freedom first ? is it food and shelter ? is it true peace they want ? ... do we in the western nations truly know what THEIR desires are ? - , i don't have much hope of a satisfactory outcome to this conflict.

(satisfactory outcome = satisfying both the people/nations of the middle east and the people/nations of the western world).

i don't think this can in any way be compared to the two world-wars or even vietnam or korea . in those wars religion did not play a major role; in the iraqi/afghanistan conflict, i think religion plays a major role. ... perhaps one might compare it to the crusades, but i think they happened too long ago for a valid comparison. hbg

0 Replies

JustanObserver wrote:

woiyo wrote:
Iraq is no longer a threat to our national security so we have no business being there.

No longer a threat? They were never a threat to us in the first place and you know it. Seriously though, just pm me your comments from now to spare the rest of us from being taken off point to read your posts.

What, in your estimation, would be "on point"?

0 Replies

JustanObserver wrote:

woiyo wrote:
Iraq is no longer a threat to our national security so we have no business being there.

No longer a threat? They were never a threat to us in the first place and you know it. Seriously though, just pm me your comments from now to spare the rest of us from being taken off point to read your posts.

Well, yours is a very tired argument that, due to your inability for objective analysis, and potential lack of mental capacity, renders you irrelevant to me.

0 Replies

Easy now, no need to be nasty.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

I think that war, violence, whatever, is extremely hard to reverse or stop. We set the ball in motion...

For those of you who may be confused, THAT is the "point" of the thread. Sure, there has been violence in the middle east throught history, blah blah blah, but THIS violence is that of our own making.

Baghdad was not in this type of chaos before we took over. There were not suicide bombers killing hundreds of people every day and creating utter chaos throughout Baghdad.

NOW, its our problem. We entered a soverign nation, destroyed their infrastructure, eliminated their army/police force, and NOW we're trying to put it together again in a sloppy, mismanaged manner.

This is not the type of situation the Iraqi people should be left in after being taken over by the most powerful nation in the world. Its a huge clusterf*ck right now. The article illustrates that problem.

And wyoio, hopefuly my "irrelevance" to you will mean you'll stop crapping in threads I provide. Although (unfortunately) we all know you wont.

0 Replies

How is woiyo's first post, which presents a differing view than yours, "off-topic"? Sure, your point is different, but that doesn't mean opposing views can't be stated. Unless of course you just wanted a thread where only those who share your view respond ...

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

How is woiyo's first post, which presents a differing view than yours, "off-topic"? Sure, your point is different, but that doesn't mean opposing views can't be stated. Unless of course you just wanted a thread where only those who share your view respond ...

Because I read it in the context of his other posts. If the administration screwed up in some regard, he does his damndest to try to get the focus on some other aspect of the issue that takes us away from dealing with the original aspect of the problem.

That your even posting about him goes to show that he's doing a pretty decent job of taking attention away from the article provided. I've taken the bait enough, though. You shouldn't do the same.

I'll be happy to deal with any non thread related nonsense (including him) via PM's. No need to waste thread space.

And now, back to our regularly scheduled article about the latest wave of violence in Iraq...

0 Replies

JustanObserver wrote:

And now, back to our regularly scheduled article about the latest wave of violence in Iraq...

Yeah ... al-Zarqawi's a monster, isn't he?

0 Replies

100+ killed in coordinated attacks. Say hello to civil war.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know