THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

...
If one way has proven to be a failure (and Bush's ways have) then it is only logical to give another way a chance. Those ways would involve more logical thinking verses these knee jerk reactionary methods of dealing with problems.
...

Remember, 19 murdered 3,000 in 2001 after visiting a hardware store.
Surely now 190 can murder 30,000 after visiting a hardware store.
Surely now 1,900 can murder 300,000 after visiting a hardware store.
Surely now 19,000 can murder 3,000,000 after visiting a hardware store.

Need I go on?

People lose what liberty they have when they are murdered.

People lose what liberty they have when they are murdered.

Why is it that only Muslims are allowed to get mad and be terrorists?

The reason your so called Islamo-murderers will still be around in two years 6 months is because of Bush and his policies. Bush isn't fighting terrorist, he's creating them. If Bush had not invaded Iraq Americans would not be getting killed by Sunnis insurgents. Instead Saddam's Sunnis would be fighting Shiites that were being supported by Iran. Bush's invasion of Iraq has united the Shiites of Iran with those of Iraq. Now the Shiites are stronger. And they are our enemies. They support Hezbollah.

Quote:

The reason your so called Islamo-murderers will still be around in two years 6 months is because of Bush and his policies. Bush isn't fighting terrorist, he's creating them. If Bush had not invaded Iraq Americans would not be getting killed by Sunnis insurgents. Instead Saddam's Sunnis would be fighting Shiites that were being supported by Iran. Bush's invasion of Iraq has united the Shiites of Iran with those of Iraq. Now the Shiites are stronger. And they are our enemies. They support Hezbollah.

So,Bush was responsible for the attack on the Israeli Olympic team in Munich?
Was Bush responsible for the first WTC attack?
How about the attack on the USS Cole?
How about the attack on the Khobar Towers?

What about all the airplanes hijacked by Islamic terrorists in the 1970's?

You claim that terrorism is the fault of Bush,so how was he responsible for the attacks I listed?

QUESTION: What did Iraq have to do with it?

BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?

QUESTION: The attack on the World Trade Center.

BUSH: Nothing.

Bush isn't fighting terrorist, he's creating them.

You claim that terrorism is the fault of Bush,so how was he responsible for the attacks I listed?

No, they don't stand, as they are irrelevant to the topic.

Your error lies here:

Quote:

You claim that terrorism is the fault of Bush,so how was he responsible for the attacks I listed?

Noone claimed that every piece of terrorism - Islaamic or regular - is Bush's fault. Just that his policies are perpetuating the cause of terrorism instead of solving them.

Cycloptichorn

OE,
Let me make this simple.

I was responding to this statement...

Quote:

Bush isn't fighting terrorist, he's creating them.

So,my questions stand.

If Bush had not invaded Iraq Americans would not be getting killed by Sunnis insurgents. Instead Saddam's Sunnis would be fighting Shiites that were being supported by Iran. Bush's invasion of Iraq has united the Shiites of Iran with those of Iraq. Now the Shiites are stronger. And they are our enemies. They support Hezbollah.

Can you/anyone link to what was originally written? I can't seem to find the comment.

Cycloptichorn

Thanks. MM, your reading comprehension is a little off; noone ever claimed that Bush was responsible for/created all terrorism, just that his policies are furthering the cause of terrorism and creating more new terrorists, while doing nothing substantial about the old ones.

Cycloptichorn

Then what do you think he should do about the "old ones"?

Quote:

Then what do you think he should do about the "old ones"?

He should play defense at home, offense abroad, but using more of our economic and cultural influences, and less of our military influences. And it has to be done legally.

There are definately instances when the military solution is the appropriate solution; see Afghanistan, a war that you never hear Liberals complaining about. Because it was obviously neccessary, the country was claiming responsibility for 9/11 thru Bin Laden and daring the US to attack then.

In cases where terrorists exist in countries which do not support their existence, careful thought must be placed into how to deal with the situation. Certainly blindly attacking without thought to the consequences is a poor strategy.

In cases where we feel that military force is neccessary, then we must get a world coalition behind us before attacking, even if that means making concessions. I don't understand what the current Republican aversion to negotiation and discussion with foreign powers is, even the 'evil' ones. I mean, hell, Reagan ended the cold war, not through force of arms, but through negotiation and discussion.

It is quite important, as well, to follow the law during our prosecution of terrorists. Our most powerful weapon for fighting terrorism is the promise of freedom that America offers; many people in other countries, upon being arrested, demand their rights, not realizing that they simply don't have any! But a lifetime of watching American media and listening to the promise of 'freedom,' to the American dream, leads them to believe that they do deserve those rights. To want them. To want their societies to be more like ours.

But when we break the laws, and do terrible things, in the name of 'justice' and 'fighting terrorism,' those same people in other countries lose faith in the American idea, and are much less likely to oppose terrorism against us or our allies. Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib are like throwing a powder keg on a fire, not helpful.

So, I would recommend more of a multi-lateral action, combined with respect for rights here at home and elsewhere, with military action as an absolute last resort.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Then what do you think he should do about the "old ones"?

He should play defense at home, offense abroad, but using more of our economic and cultural influences, and less of our military influences. And it has to be done legally.

There are definately instances when the military solution is the appropriate solution; see Afghanistan, a war that you never hear Liberals complaining about. Because it was obviously neccessary, the country was claiming responsibility for 9/11 thru Bin Laden and daring the US to attack then.

In cases where terrorists exist in countries which do not support their existence, careful thought must be placed into how to deal with the situation. Certainly blindly attacking without thought to the consequences is a poor strategy.

In cases where we feel that military force is neccessary, then we must get a world coalition behind us before attacking, even if that means making concessions. I don't understand what the current Republican aversion to negotiation and discussion with foreign powers is, even the 'evil' ones. I mean, hell, Reagan ended the cold war, not through force of arms, but through negotiation and discussion.

It is quite important, as well, to follow the law during our prosecution of terrorists. Our most powerful weapon for fighting terrorism is the promise of freedom that America offers; many people in other countries, upon being arrested, demand their rights, not realizing that they simply don't have any! But a lifetime of watching American media and listening to the promise of 'freedom,' to the American dream, leads them to believe that they do deserve those rights. To want them. To want their societies to be more like ours.

But when we break the laws, and do terrible things, in the name of 'justice' and 'fighting terrorism,' those same people in other countries lose faith in the American idea, and are much less likely to oppose terrorism against us or our allies. Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib are like throwing a powder keg on a fire, not helpful.

So, I would recommend more of a multi-lateral action, combined with respect for rights here at home and elsewhere, with military action as an absolute last resort.

Cycloptichorn

All of this I can agree with,and I do.

Now,how do you negotiate with or otherwise deal peacefully with groups or nations whose sole objective is your death?

Hamas,Hezbollah,and Iran are all on record as saying they want Israel totally destroyed,and the Jews driven into the sea.
Nothing anyone says to them has changed their minds,or their positions.

How does Israel deal with them,or how do we deal with them?
There is no way to negotiate with them,so there is no way to peacefully deal with them.

As far as Iraq goes,we actually did have a world coalition.

I know you dont think it was much of one,but it was a coalition.
We didnt have UN approval,but nothing says we have to have one.

I wont get into another argument about the war being neccessary or not,we have different opinions about that.
We did,however,have a coalition,even if many choose to deny that.

You are correct,Reagan DID win the cold war without firing a shot.
The difference however,is that the Soviet leadership knew he would if it was required.

I am all for diplomacy and talking,but there comes a time when talking accomplishes nothing and causes more problems.
For Example,Neville Chamberlain once declared "peace in our time" with regards to the Nazi regime.
After all,he had a promise from them that they wouldnt start a war,they didnt want war.
Instead,they used that time to build their forces,and finally started WW2.
Now,if force had been used then,when Germany was relatively weak,then WW2 could have been averted.
WW2 did not have to happen,it happened because the countries of Europe were afraid to act on what they saw happening.

In many ways,the same can be seen now with Iran.
They claim they want to talk,and they claim they dont want nuke weapons,and all of that MAY be true.
But,when you look at their past history and statements,and you look at their refusal to allow the UN inspectors in,you can safely conclude that their words dont mean much.

While I would prefer we not go to war,countries like Iran must know that we arent afraid of it.

...

Quote:

People lose what liberty they have when they are murdered.

No, they don't. You sound like a coward. Better to live free and die, than to live under chains a little longer.
Tell that to your fellow Americans on the Left. Americans on the Right, the Afghanistanis, Iraqis and Israelis, already understand that!

If our founding fathers could hear some of you cowards on the Right, they would puke...
I think you mean: "hear some of you cowards on the Left, they would puke...

Cycloptichorn

Aug 22 (Reuters) - Following are security and other developments in Iraq reported on Tuesday, as of 1630 GMT.

Asterisk denotes new or updated item

*MOSUL - Gunmen killed a family of five, including two children, after entering their home in the al-Zanjeeli district of Mosul 390 km north of Baghdad, a hospital source said.

MADAEN - The bodies of eight fruit traders were found with their throats slit by a road in Madaen, 40 km (25 miles) south of Baghdad, said Ahmed Diabil, a spokesman for Najaf province. The men, who were from Najaf, died on Monday.

RAMADI - Gunmen killed one of the bodyguards of the governor of Anbar in a drive-by shooting in the restive Sunni stronghold, west of Baghdad, police said. The governor was not present during the attack.

MUQDADIYA - Fifteen people were wounded in a mortar attack on a market in Muqdadiya, 100 km (60 miles) northeast of Baghdad, police and hospital sources said.

NEAR KIRKUK - Gunmen killed two people on the main road near Kirkuk, 250 km (155 miles) north of Baghdad, police said.

BAGHDAD - The body of Dawoud Salman, an employee in the Shi'ite Endowment, a religious foundation that cares for mosques, was found in the southern Saidiya district of Baghdad, police said.

NEAR HILLA - The body of a man with gunshot wounds to the head was found near Hilla, 100 km (60 miles) south of Baghdad, police said.

BAQUBA - Gunmen killed a police major and seriously wounded his driver as he was heading home in Baquba, 65 km (40 miles) north of the capital, police said.

MOSUL - Gunmen killed a man in the northern city of Mosul, 390 km (240 miles) north of Baghdad, police said.

YUSUFIYA - A civilian was killed and two wounded when a roadside bomb went off near a police patrol near Yusufiya, 15 km (9 miles) south of Baghdad, police said.

OTHER DEVELOPMENTS

BAGHDAD - The trial of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein and six co-defendants resumed on Tuesday. All defendants were present. Saddam faces charges of genocide after the killing of tens of thousands of Kurdish villagers in a campaign that devastated northern Iraqi in 1988.

BAGHDAD - A former Iraqi electricity minister was detained on corruption charges on Tuesday and an arrest warrant issued for his successor, a spokesman for Iraq's Commission for Public Integrity said.