Terrorism (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter Zlatan
- Start date
- Status
The troops are not there soley because they care about Iraqi kids and the future of Iraq. The troops are there because they want to defend their countires. (which they are't doing).
If you mean Aid workers however, then yes, I agree 100%.
Nope.... they'd probibly gain support. Do you think mosques are only occupied by terrorists?
They're already losing their country, family, and friends to this war.
If you think more violence is the solution (not to mention the fact that your own government is the cause of all of this), then you're not any better than them.
I agree.
BTW, I doubt that the resistance is made from "forgeign" terror groups.
If you mean Aid workers however, then yes, I agree 100%.
Nope.... they'd probibly gain support. Do you think mosques are only occupied by terrorists?
They're already losing their country, family, and friends to this war.
If you think more violence is the solution (not to mention the fact that your own government is the cause of all of this), then you're not any better than them.
I agree.
BTW, I doubt that the resistance is made from "forgeign" terror groups.
Many Iraqis, at least in their own minds, are fighting a war against occupation. To them, the U.S. is just like England was 80 years ago. I can't blame them.
It's funny how removing Saddam from power is spun to sound so much like a humanitarian cause out of the generosity of our humble hears to the Iraqi people. The White House administration says it's against dictators publicly. But based on their actions -- it's pretty clear we're only against dictators that don't serve our interests. It just doesn't sound so philanthropic when you add that conditional. The whole "dictator" schtick is just a ruse.
It's funny how removing Saddam from power is spun to sound so much like a humanitarian cause out of the generosity of our humble hears to the Iraqi people. The White House administration says it's against dictators publicly. But based on their actions -- it's pretty clear we're only against dictators that don't serve our interests. It just doesn't sound so philanthropic when you add that conditional. The whole "dictator" schtick is just a ruse.
To help Iraq? These people invade Iraq, is on war with Iraq for God knows why and innocent civilians are killed and things in Iraq are proved NOT better with the US's occupation. So what did you really expect kids to do, be sad that their invaders are dead? And with that, did it not occur to you that taking hostages is only a desperate act for the Iraqis? They only ask for these troops to go off from their land, and they would've released the hostages. These hostages could have been saved if their countries would've negotiated or pulled off their troops and more lives can be saved for both parties. Imagine yourself in an Iraqi's shoes and try see what you will do to fight off your country's invaders. If you can come up with a better idea than taking hostages, please, we would all be glad to hear it.
OK well how about
1) not blowing up american tanks
2) not taking hostages and beheading them
3) giving up all the terrorist leaders
4) giving full support to the new iraqi government
doing all these things would make iraq a much less volatile place which, in turn would allow the coalition troops to leave!
1) not blowing up american tanks
2) not taking hostages and beheading them
3) giving up all the terrorist leaders
4) giving full support to the new iraqi government
doing all these things would make iraq a much less volatile place which, in turn would allow the coalition troops to leave!
1. I'll use the examp,e of the conflict that was making the news a while back. That cleric, Moqtada Al-Sadr I think was hiding out in a holy mosque and using it as a base to commit acts of terror. The sensible thing would have been to blow the place to hell, wiping out a hell of a lot of terrorists with it.
I'm not saying blow up random mosques, we should target ones that are known terrorist hideouts. Surely people will start to realise why they are getting destroyed and start co-operating with the US to get rid of the embaciles that are ruining their country. If not, then they're even more stupid than I thought.
I reckon btw the resistance is probably about half and half. They're certainly not all Iraqis, a lot of them probably from Saudi Arabia and surrounding countries, sent by OBL to stir things up. Thats my belief anyway
I'm not saying blow up random mosques, we should target ones that are known terrorist hideouts. Surely people will start to realise why they are getting destroyed and start co-operating with the US to get rid of the embaciles that are ruining their country. If not, then they're even more stupid than I thought.
I reckon btw the resistance is probably about half and half. They're certainly not all Iraqis, a lot of them probably from Saudi Arabia and surrounding countries, sent by OBL to stir things up. Thats my belief anyway
You're the one invading the country, and it's your people are taken as hostages. It's a no win situation. What else is there to do but negotiate? Unless you want more of your people to die, it's better to pull out your troops from Iraq. Not only innocent Iraqi civilians will live, but also there would be no more hostages killed etc and the number of casualties will dwindle down.
How can they stop bombing American tanks etc? Their country is being invaded by a foreign power. They can't just shut up and let it be, of course they have to fight against it. They won't give in, and personally I don't think they should. It won't happen.
I don't think Saddam is a good man at all, but I also honestly don't think the US wants to help Iraq. That's naive.
How can they stop bombing American tanks etc? Their country is being invaded by a foreign power. They can't just shut up and let it be, of course they have to fight against it. They won't give in, and personally I don't think they should. It won't happen.
I don't think Saddam is a good man at all, but I also honestly don't think the US wants to help Iraq. That's naive.
++ [ originally posted by Andy ] ++
Yeah good idea. Lets negotiate with the terrorists, and then they will leave us all alone. Absolutely brilliant.
And yes they are all morons.
Yeah good idea. Lets negotiate with the terrorists, and then they will leave us all alone. Absolutely brilliant.
And yes they are all morons.
We're the ones who need to leave them alone...
Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11 and this war isn't protecting the USA at all.
Again, think about who the agressor is in this case.
<sigh> Which is code to most people in the Middle East that directly translates to: "Puppet government that will best serve American interests."
I honestly would like to be optimistic about things for the future over there, but I just don't see that as possible. The U.S. says they want to support a democratic Iraq, but "democratic" comes with an asterisk and some fine print: there's no way in hell the U.S. administration is going to accept thousands of dead American soldiers and $120 billion in the hole if, for example, the Iraqi people put popular political support behind mullahs of an Iranian-style theocracy who rise up as their best resistance leaders. These are some of the biggest public figures in Iraq today.
So it's pretty clear that the U.S would only support a democracy that meets our own criteria of -- and more like it, our preference for -- a democracy. Which in effect becomes no real "democracy" at all. It illegitimizes any government we help put in power. We have enough experience with the former Shah of Iran to know what that means.
This is going to be one long, bloody ride.
I honestly would like to be optimistic about things for the future over there, but I just don't see that as possible. The U.S. says they want to support a democratic Iraq, but "democratic" comes with an asterisk and some fine print: there's no way in hell the U.S. administration is going to accept thousands of dead American soldiers and $120 billion in the hole if, for example, the Iraqi people put popular political support behind mullahs of an Iranian-style theocracy who rise up as their best resistance leaders. These are some of the biggest public figures in Iraq today.
So it's pretty clear that the U.S would only support a democracy that meets our own criteria of -- and more like it, our preference for -- a democracy. Which in effect becomes no real "democracy" at all. It illegitimizes any government we help put in power. We have enough experience with the former Shah of Iran to know what that means.
This is going to be one long, bloody ride.
- Status