THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

None of that evidence supports your claim in the slightest.

I weep for the time you must waste assembling this dreck.

Cycloptichorn

Nothing you've said here is evidence that al-Qaeda, as characterized by the compelling evidence I presented, is not an existential threat to the USA.

What you have said here is evidence that you have no evidence to support your opinion.

You remind me of a few acquaintenances of my Dad back in the late 1930s and early 1940s. They, like you about al-Qaeda, repeatedly argued that Nazi Germany was no threat to the USA. The Nazis, they claimed were only interested in righting the wrongs they alleged were caused by the European nations after WWI. The fact that Hitler repeatedly claimed, "Today Europe, tommorrow the world," carried zero weight with them.

And so it is today with you: Al-Qaeda's repeatedly claims the equivalent of Hitler's slogan, "Today Iraq, tommorrow the world." That carries zero weight with you.

My Dad was unable to convince those acquaintences of his even by 1945 (4 years after Hitler declared war on the USA). I bet I will not convince you or any of your fellows in my lifetime. But like my Dad did, I'll keep trying.

Of course, the easiest rebuttal to this is: Germany had a huge army, a huge economy, a mobilized nation, and the ability to invade and destroy opposing countries and their armies. Bin Laden and AQ have none of these things at all and zero ability to either invade in force OR destroy our military.

We are fighting a war with al-Qaeda despite the fact they are not a state and only inhabit states in which they have established sanctuary. We are fighting a war with al-Qaeda because it has declared war and is waging war against us.

Look, if push comes to shove, and we really are facing a threat from the Middle East, we can nuke them.

Yeah! Nuke al-Qaeda murderers wherever the hell they are. That's nuts!

I contend: The US is without doubt the dominant super-power in the world, enjoying massive leads in military technology, economic power, and relative geographic isolation.

Without showing evidence that someone is a threat to the continued survival of the US, it can be easily assumed that they - along with pretty much every other country on the Earth - are not, in fact, a threat to our survival.

They have as promised been killing Americans long before Americans came after them to stop them from killing Americans. They were a threat. They are a threat.

They do not have to conquer us in the classic sense of that word. They only have to render us emotionally, willfully impotent to resist our democratic republic evolving into a dictatorship.

You have not shown how AQ is a threat to the survival of the US in any way, shape, or fashion, and you know it! The worst attacks they could muster would not significantly harm us. You haven't shown how they could effectively attack our military, or destroy significant sections of our populace. Yet you talk about them as if they are in fact a threat to both of these groups.

Yes, I talk about al-Qaeda being a threat to our democratic republic. No! I do not talk about al-Qaeda being a threat to our military. Al-Qaeda is almost entirely a threat to the American people who when sufficiently intimidated will drastically reduce or even terminate their support of their military.

Either bring evidence showing how Al Qaeda, a band of terrorists, is a real threat to the continued survival of the US, or drop the point. And, please, enough with the Nazi comparisons.

I've done that repeatedly, all your denials not with standing. Look at the slaughter they have caused in Iraq, this "band of terrorists." What could they accomplish if they were to re-establish their sanctuary in Iraq. They trained 10 to 20 thousand in Afghanistan in 5 years. Look at the slaughters those trainees subsequently caused around the world.

When Hitler first formed his Nazis gangster group, they too were nothing more than a "small band of terrorists" who only wrote manifestos about what they intended to do--and subsequently did do. They nonetheless, rapidly grew into a large band of terrorists who replaced the then German government and with their own dictatorship of Germany. And then set about doing exactly what they said they would do.

Cycloptichorn

From the beginning of the Iraq war, Bush and company often repeated the threats by al Qaeda and Saddam. After about three years, all those orange and red alerts disappeared, and most Americans wised-up. There are still some like ican who hasn't outgrown the fear tactic, because that's all they have left of their Iraq war justification. Pretty sad.

In February 1998, the 40-year-old Saudi exile Usama Bin Ladin and a fugitive Egyptian physician, Ayman al Zawahiri, arranged from their Afghan headquarters for an Arabic newspaper in London to publish what they termed a fatwa issued in the name of a "World Islamic Front." A fatwa is normally an interpretation of Islamic law by a respected Islamic authority, but neither Bin Ladin, Zawahiri, nor the three others who signed this statement were scholars of Islamic law. Claiming that America had declared war against God and his messenger, they called for the murder of any American, anywhere on earth, as the "individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it."1

Three months later, when interviewed in Afghanistan by ABC-TV, Bin Ladin enlarged on these themes.2 He claimed it was more important for Muslims to kill Americans than to kill other infidels. "It is far better for anyone to kill a single American soldier than to squander his efforts on other activities," he said. Asked whether he approved of terrorism and of attacks on civilians, he replied: "We believe that the worst thieves in the world today and the worst terrorists are the Americans. Nothing could stop you except perhaps retaliation in kind. We do not have to differentiate between military or civilian. As far as we are concerned, they are all targets."
...
Plans to attack the United States were developed with unwavering single-mindedness throughout the 1990s. Bin Ladin saw himself as called "to follow in the footsteps of the Messenger and to communicate his message to all nations,"5 and to serve as the rallying point and organizer of a new kind of war to destroy America and bring the world to Islam.

When Bin Laden gets elected to lead a country who has an army which can challenge the US in any way, shape or fashion, Ican, you let me know, and then I'll start worrying.

I don't believe this will happen! Specifically for example, I don't believe bin Laden will get elected to lead a country.

I want to get your position straight: we must defeat Al Qaeda, b/c if we don't, they will attack the US with wave after wave of suicide bombings and other attacks, all carefully designed to get the US populace to give up support for our Democracy, and institute a dictatorship?

Wow! You almost have it right. I'll partially reword what you wrote to make it correct.

We must defeat Al Qaeda, b/c if we don't, they will attack the US with wave after wave of suicide bombings and other attacks, all carefully designed to get the US populace to give up trying to protect our democratic republic, and allow those in America who seek a dictatorship (e.g., Islamic dictatorship) to institute a dictatorship.

...
Cycloptichorn

So, you predict that the people of America would just give up, allow the Islaamics to come in and take the place over?

Do you share your low opinion of them, with each and every person you meet? I'm relatively sure that 90% of Americans would die to keep that from happening; but you seem to believe that terrorism could convince us all that it just isn't worth it to protect our country?

I don't understand where you got the idea that we were so weak! You have a lower opinion of America then I have ever seen.

Cycloptichorn

Hot damn, ican is crazy!

Iraq progress report


A major political event unfolding Monday will be the report to President Bush by Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander in Iraq, and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan C. Crocker.


A senior military officer said there will be no written presentation to the president on security and stability in Iraq. "There is no report. It is an assessment provided by them by testimony," the officer said.


The only hard copy will be Gen. Petraeus' opening statement to Congress, scheduled for Monday, along with any charts he will use in explaining the results of the troop surge in Baghdad over the past several months.


That testimony will follow the meeting of the president, Gen. Petraeus and Mr. Crocker at the White House.


Gen. Petraeus is expected to tell the president the surge is working but that more work is needed. He is not expected to recommend withdrawing significant numbers of U.S. troops, as the U.S. troop presence is still needed to bolster the slowly growing Iraqi security forces' capabilities.


The picture presented by Mr. Crocker will be critical of the new Iraqi government for not doing more to foster political stability.

My apologies to general Petraeus.

Petraeus eyes troop drawdown in spring By PAULINE JELINEK, Associated Press Writer
58 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - Previewing a widely anticipated report to Congress, the top U.S. commander in Iraq says some troop withdrawals may be possible next spring, and military progress has been hampered by futile attempts at political reform in Baghdad.

"It has not worked out as we had hoped," Gen. David Petraeus wrote U.S. forces in a letter Friday summarizing the results of the troop increase President Bush ordered last winter.

Praise him for being honest and brave enough to tell the truth.

ican:
Well I am crazy enough to believe I can make heavier than air machines fly.

Have you not heard of the Wright Brothers yet? LOL

The Cycle of Democracy
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasur[y]. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.

UPDATE

We must defeat Al Qaeda, because if we don't, they will attack the US with wave after wave of suicide bombings and other attacks, all carefully designed to get the US populace to give up trying to protect our democratic republic, and allow those in America who seek a dictatorship (FOR EXAMPLE, Islamic dictatorship, SOROS GANG DICTATORSHIP, ET CETERA) to institute a dictatorship.

Alexander Tyler in 1778, wrote:

The Cycle of Democracy
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasur[y]. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.

The Cycle of Democracy
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasur[y]. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.