cicerone imposter wrote:ican, Study your history; the Sunni-Shia battle has been going on long before al Qaida went into Iraq.
Yes, it's true. More than 625,000 Iraqis were
mass murdered in the 11 years 1992 - 2002. That is more than 56,000
mass murdered per year. In 2006, more than 60,000 were
mass murdered.
So what's different now? An organization calling itself al-Qaeda that has declared war against the US and has worldwide
mass murdered more than 3,000 Americans, has caused that increase in the Iraq
mass murder rate.
The reason they have declared war against the US was caused by Bush's illegal preemptive war against a sovereign country.
Many Iraqis have now given their blessings to kill American soldiers.
ican, You will never "get it."
ican, We're talking about a country at war, Iraq, vs the US.
That's the standard Soros malarky. Iraq is not at war with the US. Iraq is at war with its neighbors and itself. +
FYI, most of the US soldiers getting killed in Iraq is by iraqis.
Murder rates because of the sectarian violence/civil war should be obvious.
They are obvious. What's your point?
You wrote: The mass murder rate in the US in 2006 was less than 1,000 per year, while the mass murder rate in Iraq in 2006 was greater than 60,000 per year. Failure to solve the mass murder rate problem in Iraq will lead to a huge increase in the mass murder rate in the US.
My response was made to your claim that their violence(murder) will eventually reach our shores. You still believe that Bush's fear tactic still works, but only a few like yourself continue to spread that rhetoric.
It's not Bush's rhetoric I believe. It's not Bush's rhetoric I spread. It's al-Qaeda's rhetoric that I believe and spread because of al-Qaeda's deeds. Shall I repost here all of al-Qaeda's rhetoric again?
From the president's web site: But, no, you're right, this is a -- they're a central part of creating instability, trying to stop reformers from realizing dreams. And the question facing this country is, will -- do we, one, understand the threat to America? In other words, do we understand that a failed -- failed states in the Middle East are a direct threat to our country's security? And secondly, will we continue to stay engaged in helping reformers, in working to advance liberty, to defeat an ideology that doesn't believe in freedom?
The murder rate in the US is one of the highest in any industrialized country. Show this to be wrong.
What is the US murder rate for any one of the years 2003, 3004, 2005, or 2006? Do you know?
ican, I'm not talking about the US murder rates by years. Read my statement again.
The murder rate in Iraq cannot be solved with 150,000 US troops.
Why do you think so?
Simple: past surges did not decrease the violence. Iraqis are now being killed on average about 100 pd.
ican wrote: The mass murder rate in the US in 2006 was less than 1,000 per year, while the mass murder rate in Iraq in 2006 was greater than 60,000 per year. Failure to solve the mass murder rate problem in Iraq will lead to a huge increase in the mass murder rate in the US.
Please explain to us how this will happen?
if anyone would look back at the wars within europe from let's say about 1400 to 1700 , i think you might be surprised at the number of people who were killed in those wars .
some of those wars were territorial wars , others were religious wars - christians against christians (namely catholics against protestants ) .
if you throw in the number of people who died of starvation following those wars , the people murdered in a variety of not very nice ways , those death rates - considering the size of the population - were much higher than the death rates in the iraq war .
imo the middle-east is now going through the process that europe went through centuries ago .
eventually , the european nations were able to reduce the religious wars , but still found plenty of reasons to start bloody wars - perhaps have a look at the period of 1800 to 1900 - not much peace in europe in that century .
perhaps in the middle-east the sunnis and shias will eventually begin to see the futility of their inter-faith battles .
if memory serves me right , SH had been able to make sunnis and shiites to live together in reasonable peace .
if you argue that he killed many people in the process , i would ask you to consider how many people were killed in europe in the process of reducing wars between catholics and protestants .
we might also remember that under SH women had a lot more freedom than now . they certainly were not required to wear a veil or worse .
let me sum it up :
imo the united states has two choices
1) they put in the total effort required to establish a safe and secure environment for the people of iraq or
2)they get out .
did i miss a third and fourth option ?
hbg
hbg, The first option is not available; the US doesn't have enough soldiers.
sorry , c.i. :
you may be required to dust off your old uniform !
hbg(standing right BEHIND you - after all , what's a few thousand miles as long as you know i'm BEHIND you
)
The Iraqi bad guys are still Iraqis.
Again, I'm not talking about rates. It's about country y vs country x.
Since "maybe" is the key word; how can it be worth more American livds? Would you volunteer or send your family members for this "maybe?"
hamburger wrote:
...
let me sum it up :
imo the united states has two choices
1) they put in the total effort required to establish a safe and secure environment for the people of iraq or
2)they get out .
did i miss a third and fourth option ?
hbg
Amen! Verily!
While there are other choices like keep repeating what historically has not worked, those are the only two net choices.
If we get out, choice (1) will simply convert to
put in the total DOMESTIC effort required to establish a safe and secure environment for the people of AMERICA.
ican, You probably won't see any problems with the following article.
By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer
42 minutes ago
TALLIL AIR BASE, Iraq - Gen. George Casey, the top American commander in Iraq, said Friday it's possible some of 21,500 additional troops that President Bush ordered to Baghdad won't be needed there more than just a few months.
If you can, please explain to us why this information sharing is good or bad?
cicerone imposter wrote:mm, You are a simpleton with no hope to realize what the 'REAL" world is like. We have one of the costliest justice systems on this planet, and we still have the highest crime rates amongst the industrialized world.
It's not that simple to get rid of criminals.
Actually,yes it is,it would be very easy to do.
But,that is the subject for a different thread.
If you care to start one,I will be glad to explain how it could be done.
mysteryman wrote:Actually,yes it is,it would be very easy to do.
Wow. Thousands of jurist, sociologists, criminologists etc have thaught about such since more than 2,000 years - and you have the solution
Walter Hinteler wrote:mysteryman wrote:Actually,yes it is,it would be very easy to do.
Wow. Thousands of jurist, sociologists, criminologists etc have thaught about such since more than 2,000 years - and you have the solution
Yes,I do.
It jusat means having the guts to implement it.
Politicians have been to afraid to because they want votes instead of doing whats right.
Quote:It jusat means having the guts to implement it.
Politicians have been to afraid to because they want votes instead of doing whats right.
seems that the politicians in the united states are afraid that they won't get re-elected if they don't play "nicely-nicely" with the criminals .
i did not know that there are enough criminals in the united states to spoil an election - i'm learning something new every day !
hbg
hamburger wrote:Quote:It jusat means having the guts to implement it.
Politicians have been to afraid to because they want votes instead of doing whats right.
seems that the politicians in the united states are afraid that they won't get re-elected if they don't play "nicely-nicely" with the criminals .
i did not know that there are enough criminals in the united states to spoil an election - i'm learning something new every day !
hbg
You missed my point.
If politicians did the right thing concerning crime,the people that oppose the death penalty,the people that think criminals are just "misunderstood" and the people that want to blame society for the actions of criminals wont vote for them.
Politicians want votes instead of doing the right thing.
ALL politicians are that way,irregardless of their party affiliation.
mysteryman :
you still have the death-penalty in many of your states states ; your prison sentences are probably the harshest of any civilized nation .
at the same time you have one of the highest crime rates in the world .
why do you think that executing even more people and handing out stiffer sentences will reduce the crime rate ?
i have to admit , i'm sometimes baffled by - what i perceive to be - light sentences for horrid crimes . i'm also baffled at times by the stiff sentences given for what i would call "crimes of passion" .
i still find it difficult to believe that simply being more heavy-handed is the solution .
getting back to iraq :
a few years ago i met two ladies who had just come back from iraq .
one was the young wife of a canadian officer attached to some U.N. mission in baghdad .
the other was a lady in her seventies who had come back from visiting her son (a bell canada employee working in iraq) .
both were full of praise for the iraqi people and iraq (this was under SH regime) .
they said that they could walk around day or night on their own without ever feeling threatened or even uncomfortable .
they spoke of the wonderful evenings they had with iraqi families who at night would take their whole families outside the cities were they would eat and celebrate in the fresh air .
the older lady was particularly impressed with the courtesies she was shown by muslim men - young and old .
i wish i could meet those ladies again , and ask them how they feel about what's being done to iraq and the iraquis now .
hbg
