The War in Iraq, good or bad? speak your mind here!

[DingBat]

And concerning the terrorist leaders: Do you really think their only agenda is to "terrorize"? Well, that seems like propaganda to keep the people "ready and willing to fight" is 100 % at work.
They too have agendas beyond that, no doubt. Mostly they strive for power and money, but, especially in Isreal and Iraq, many are idealists that simply want their own nation that is not governed by Israelis or Americans and their puppets. They just use the religion in combination with the desperation of the people to draw them into this fight.

I was sort of with you up to this point, but now we have to part ways.

The point of a terrorist is to terrorize. That's their method. Destabilization via terror. So, yes, the top thing on their agenda is to terrorize.

I think many of the idealists you refer to are truly tired of the antics of the terrorist movements that claim to represent them. I suspect that many Palestinians would gladly rid themselves of these morons. Certainly, the average palestinian is more at risk from internecine squabbles between Hamas and Fatah than from the Israelis.

There was a real chance for peace a few years back but it was thrown away in the second intifadah. These groups don't care about Palestinian statehood, they simply care about keeping themselves in a position of power. If they get to kill Israelis, so much the better, but palestinians will do just fine too.

 

[Oberst Freitag]

Is it me, or are these arguments getting more and more rediculous as this thread moves along?

they are

especially since theres just as many europeans as Americans on these servers.

 

[masasa]

The point of a terrorist is to terrorize. That's their method. Destabilization via terror. So, yes, the top thing on their agenda is to terrorize.

Are you saying this:

Terrorizing is a way of terrorist to go for what they want. Terrorist are not terrorizing just because they feel like it, they have a motive.

If I eat a meatball with a fork my point is not to use the fork but to eat the meatball.

Or are you saying that point of terrorist is to terrorize because they happen to like doing it? "Lets go and shoot some people, yey!".

I think many of the idealists you refer to are truly tired of the antics of the terrorist movements that claim to represent them. I suspect that many Palestinians would gladly rid themselves of these morons. Certainly, the average palestinian is more at risk from internecine squabbles between Hamas and Fatah than from the Israelis.

The situation in Palestine is bad because of terrorist and because of Isreal. There is no way you can say that one of them is more quilty.

There was a real chance for peace a few years back but it was thrown away in the second intifadah. These groups don't care about Palestinian statehood, they simply care about keeping themselves in a position of power. If they get to kill Israelis, so much the better, but palestinians will do just fine too.

So these groups live in constant danger risking their lives just because they want to keep themselves in power? Can you tell me what kind of power could these people have?

 

[DingBat]

Are you saying this:

Terrorizing is a way of terrorist to go for what they want. Terrorist are not terrorizing just because they feel like it, they have a motive.

If I eat a meatball with a fork my point is not to use the fork but to eat the meatball.

Or are you saying that point of terrorist is to terrorize because they happen to like doing it? "Lets go and shoot some people, yey!".

I'm saying there's only so far you can go down the road of theorizing that terrorists are following a rational plan.

 

[hachichin]

Dingbat: I don't know if this was what you intended but one get's the feeling from your post that the Palestinians went into some unmotivated berserk "throwing" away all chance of peace. You fail to mention the overt and utterly arrogant provocation by Ariel Sharon that ignited the whole thing.

 

[DingBat]

Dingbat: I don't know if this was what you intended but one get's the feeling from your post that the Palestinians went into some unmotivated berserk "throwing" away all chance of peace. You fail to mention the avert and utterly arrogant provocation by Ariel Sharon that ignited the whole thing.

You do realize that that "provocation" was utterly, completely false?

That Sharon had PERMISSION from Arafat himself to make his visit?

 

[masasa]

I'm saying there's only so far you can go down the road of theorizing that terrorists are following a rational plan.

Right.

You conveniently avoided to answer the my other question about the Palestine terrorist groups "want for power" - motives. I would assume that you would back up that also if you would knew how.

 

[BuddyLee]

Still waiting for you BuddyLee and {YBBS}Sage to tell your views about how things go after the possible use of air strikes/nukes by US against Iran.

I know it takes ability think but I have fate in you guys, don't fail me!

After the strike...

a)Tac-Nukes dropped on in the hopes of comletely disabling Irans nuclear program. Turkey feels the pressure from funamentalists...the Kurds in N.Iraq see this as an oppertunity for the foudation of an Independant Kurdistan with the unifacation of all local tribes in Turkey,Iran and Iraq.Turkey is now at the brink of civil war.

Pakistan has the same troubles with fundamentalists, Musharif is either assasinated..or is forced to leave the country. US forces in the area are forced to sieze control of Pakistans nukes. And mount an Alamo-type defence of these facillities. Specialists are needed to destroy all warheads in place, before falling into fundamentalist hands. India arms all nukes..braces for a launch on their sworn enemies. And nervously waits.

Israel sweeps through Gaza, and the west bank. The Arab Street goes berserk. Israel vows total destruction on any county that attacks the State.Syria launches balliatic missles at Israel and American forces in the area...they retaliate with force...maybe nuclear. We retaliate with complete destruction of their infrastructure.

Civil unrest and riots in the streets of Saudi Arabia, Royal Family guns down thousands of their own civilians to maintain iron-fisted control over its people. It is only a matter of time before they are in full scale civil war.

Russia and China freak out, but are not willing to fight directly with American Forces. They prefer to send gear and pilots to defend their economic interests in Iran. They condemn USA and call for imidiate withdrawl of all US troops in Mid-East. Our allies turn their backs on us,NATO is Kaput. Our policies change from our current ones. We are now in a full scale war with Islam. Hundreds of thousands of Islamic Facists crawl out of the woodwork, only to be killed with cluster bombs and Marines as they approach our troops in the green zone, we have announced that all traffic entering Iraqs borders will be destroyed.

the World spirals into the Abyss. In America we contiue to eat Cheerios and Taco-Bell. If radicals attack USA with WMD's we vaporize anyone who ever looked at us cross-eyed. Nuclear weapons have by then already been used...a few more would not be out of the ordinary, and less outragous after what has transpired in recent months.

I need more time to form a b) scenario... will finish after a break.

 

[hachichin]

I'm saying there's only so far you can go down the road of theorizing that terrorists are following a rational plan.

I would agree with you in most cases but there are exceptions. Take Israel for example and the Jewish terrorism before the formation of Israel. It was largely successful, and 'rational' from a very cynical perspective.

And we still have the problem with defining terrorism. The partisans that the German WW2-leaders called terrorists, were they really terrorists? The 'heroes' listed on the homepage of JDL, are they really heroes or are they terrorists? Baruch Goldstein was a JDL-member and killed 29 praying Muslims at the Cave of Patriarchs in 1994.

The FBI lists JDL as a right-wing terrorist organization, yet it's stated goals is to protect the Jewish people, not explicitely attack a defined enemy.

 

[hachichin]

You do realize that that "provocation" was utterly, completely false?

That Sharon had PERMISSION from Arafat himself to make his visit?

Why would the provocation be false just because he had permission from Arafat to go there?I don't care if he so had permission from God (or G-d). Why did he go? He is (or I guess was) not a stupid man. I saw the footage from his little stroll and he had a very smug smile on his face. If that's not a provocation I don't know what is.

 

[DingBat]

Right.

You conveniently avoided to answer the my other question about the terrorist groups "want for power" - motives. I would assume that you would back up that also if you would knew how.

??

Terrorist groups want power. That's their motive. They want to change the system to fit their vision of the way the world should be. It's the same for most of them, including the Red Brigades, Baader Meinhoff, Hamas, Hezbollah, whatever.

I'm not aware of too many examples where terrorist groups have won power, so I'm therefore not aware of too many examples of where they calmly relinquished it once their goals were achieved. Perhaps you know of some.

But anyway, perhaps you can also explain what your point is with your question?

 

[DingBat]

Why would the provocation be false just because he had permission from Arafat to go there?I don't care if he so had permission from God (or G-d). Why did he go? He is (or I guess was) not a stupid man. I saw the footage from his little stroll and he had a very smug smile on his face. If that's not a provocation I don't know what is.

Why should he not go? There's very little space in Jerusalem where sacred sites of various religions are not co-mingled.

I'm not defending Sharon, or Israel. In fact, I'd prefer it if we all just avoided the kneejerk "well, they did it too" reaction to any comment about terrorists, especially palestinian terrorists. The bottom line is that there was a fork in the road at that time and Arafat chose the one that led to more war and terror. Now we're virtually back where we started and the palestinians are going to get about the same deal they did back then, except now more are dead. I fail to see how the groups supposedly "leading" the palestinians have worked to their benefit.

 

[BuddyLee]

Well said rattus you hit the nail on the head . Apart from the education point for iraq. Saddam is a biogted arrogent genocidal maniac but he did one thing right and that was education to university level for free (not many people know that). Not many people realise that a few months after the liberation of Iraq the armys stopped handing out food which was the one reason why they liked us being there after saddam was captured. In afganistan there isnt that problem because the fields wernt posioned by a dictator and there people still have places where they can work. Iraq's utilitys where smashed to bits in the bombing, Radar stations no longer exist, the iraqi millitary is almost non existant. The only few people that have jobs and businesses in iraq are jernolists, hotels, the police, heavy machinery rental and the limited areas of farm land that can actaully grow food. Teachers havent been paid in months, taxi drivers can hardly afford the black market petrol to run their cars and when they can wait in line get some they get blown up or shot. Meanwhile the iraqi government gets food, protection and money from the forces they have asked to stay to protect them.

Buddy Lee one thing im going to say to you. Google oman, malaysia, and veitnam. Take a look at those wars who was there and who was the only force that took the offencive in Vietnam on the behalf of the Americans. Take a look at the response the Soviet union had after Britian fought for the Falkands against troops that had smilar equimpent and outnumbered ours four to one. If your under the illusion that the UK need american protection during the cold war your majorly mistaken your millitary fought once and ran away the UK fought constantly and won. Unlike the US the UK actually outright fought communism in the coldwar by doing it on two fronts one is supporting the people and making them indipendant and capable of supporting themselves and the other its taking out the known leaders of the groups and the major supporters. Thats whats needed in Iraq until we ge the iraqi public on our side by providing them with food for free we cant fix their industry. Even then we shouldnt use contracters that arnt iraqi unless there arnt guys availble. That is where its going wrong.

edit:
read these interviews with Iranians you might learn something
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4736080.stm

I understand your patriotism, but to say UK stood on its own and defeated communism is TOTALLY_FALSE. The Pope did more to fight communism than UK did.

UK has never in the last 100 years fought an enemies with their S*** together like the Vietnamese, not even Germany... you followed behind us, and acctually prolonged the war with Monteys Incompetence. TEA ON THE BEACHES OF NORMANDY...while German reinforcements came pouring in. And further more UK had the cake-walk beaches on their invation list in Normandy give me a break...puhleeeze. My Uncle scaled the cliffs at point du hawk... while y'all drank tea.

We fought against over 1 million men in Vietnam, and I respect the people of Vietnam they were great patriots and fighters for their cause. They were very wel equiped with the latest and greatest gear from a never-ending supplys streaming in from China. They were better equiped than the Gemans in late '44.

Japan was far more deadly than the German Army. Few ever surrendered, they were fanatics...far more of a fighting force than the beaten and battered retreating German Army who surrendered in mass to western forces rather than face the mighty Russians. We were forced to Nuke Japan before they quit, and that almost was not enough to pursuade them.

nuff said.

 

[BuddyLee]

So these groups live in constant danger risking their lives just because they want to keep themselves in power? Can you tell me what kind of power could these people have?

Arafat became a billionaire from the situation...money=power.

 

[DingBat]

Arafat became a billionaire from the situation...money=power.

Someone once characterized the differences in corruption in the west and the east. It's still somewhat true to this day...

In the west, the corrupt use money to buy power. In the east, the corrupt use power to steal money.

 

[DingBat]

UK has never in the last 100 years fought an enemies with their S*** together like the Vietnamese, not even Germany... you followed behind us, and acctually prolonged the war with Monteys Incompetence. TEA ON THE BEACHES OF NORMANDY...while German reinforcements came pouring in. And further more UK had the cake-walk beaches on their invation list in Normandy give me a break...puhleeeze. My Uncle scaled the cliffs at point du hawk... while y'all drank tea.

Time to tone it down somewhat, Buddy. This paragraph is... shall we say, not totally in synch with the facts?

The discussion isn't about the relative contributions of the US or the UK. The fact is that the relationship between the US and the UK is a special one not replicated anywhere else in the world.

 

[hachichin]

BuddyLee: I'm sorry but your A-scenario is kind of worthless as it fails to grasp the importance of oil. More than 20 million barrels passes the Strait of Hormuz every day. This is a strait approx 40 km wide, and very easily blocked using sea-mines and missiles. If Iran is attacked not only can they shut off their own production, which would be enough to send the world into an shocking energy-crisis and lead to oilprices at +150 dollars per barrel (in effect practically shutting down the world's economy and probably most likely crashing the stockmarkets), they could shut off almost all oil exports from the Middle East.

You could not continue eating your Tacos in this situation. You would soon have riots in the streets and empty gas-stations. If it's prolonged your entire food supply dependant on just-in-time delivery would break down and starvation would commence. A city like Los Angeles has a 3 DAY FOOD SUPPLY. If the dieseltrucks stop delivering to the Wall-Marts and the 7/11's anyone near that city, and most other metropolitan areas in the U.S, is screwed.

New Orleans during the worst floods will look like a picturesque day at the amusement park compared to that.

We are at a critical point in history. These times are much more intense than the years leading up to WW2. The stakes are so much higher this time around.

 

[masasa]

??

Terrorist groups want power. That's their motive. They want to change the system to fit their vision of the way the world should be. It's the same for most of them, including the Red Brigades, Baader Meinhoff, Hamas, Hezbollah, whatever.

I'm not aware of too many examples where terrorist groups have won power, so I'm therefore not aware of too many examples of where they calmly relinquished it once their goals were achieved. Perhaps you know of some.

But anyway, perhaps you can also explain what your point is with your question?

Oh boy.

1. We were talking about the situation in Palestine.
2. We were talking about the terrorist groups acting in Palestine.
3. You said that these terrorist groups in Palestine don't care about the Palestinian people but are terroririzing so they could KEEP themselves in a position of power.

So you are saying that they(terrorist) have power, and they terrorize so they could keep themselves in power.

I wondered why these people want to live in constant danger risking their lives just to keep themselves in power(since I doubt that living in constant danger is considered as power)? I asked you to explain to me what kind of power these terrorist groups have.

 

[BuddyLee]

BuddyLee: I'm sorry but your A-scenario is kind of worthless as it fails to grasp the importance of oil. More than 20 million barrels passes the Strait of Hormuz every day. These is a strait approx 40 km wide, and very easily blocked using sea-mines and missiles. If Iran is attacked not only can they shut off their own production, which would be enough to send the world into an shocking energy-crisis and lead to oilprices at +150 dollars per barrel (in effect practically shutting down the world's economy and probably most likely crashing the stockmarkets), they could shut off almost all oil exports from the Middle East.

You could not continue eating your Tacos in this situation. You would soon have riots in the streets and empty gas-stations. If it's prolonged your entire food supply dependant on just-in-time delivery would break down and starvation would commence. A city like Los Angeles have a 3 DAY FOOD SUPPLY. If the dieseltrucks stop delivering to the Wall-Marts and the 7/11's anyone near that city, and most other metropolitan areas in the U.S, are screwed.

New Orleans during the worst floods will look like a picturesque day at the amusement park compared to that.

We are at a critical point in history. These times are much more intense than the years leading up to WW2. The stakes are so much higher this time around.

Times would be tough, as for my food supply, I could kill 50 wild pigs in my back yard. So could many other american households. America has always perservered, we are all suvivors. Our diversity in culture is our greatest strength. We would pull through... just as we always have.

 

[[-project.TwentY3-]]

Times would be tough, as for my food supply, I could kill 50 wild pigs in my back yard. So could many other american households. America has always perservered, we are all suvivors. Our diversity in culture is our greatest strength. We would pull through... just as we always have.

I am sorry, do not ridicule yourself. I highly doubt you could survive like that. And btw, what happens after the 50 pigs are gone? Eat trees?