Iraqi's wishes are no argument to leave troops in Iraq

[Skybird]

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/250.php?nid=&id=&pnt=250&lb=hmpg1


http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/images/sep06/Iraq_Sep06_graph1h.jpg

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/images/sep06/Iraq_Sep06_graph1d.jpg
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/images/sep06/Iraq_Sep06_graph1l.jpg


Still wanting to stay? If I were an America soldier, I would feel pissed from two directions: Washington and Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601721_pf.html


"There will be lakes of blood," Kassi said. "Of course we want the Americans to leave, but if they do, it will be a great disaster for us."

"I really don't know what I want. If the Americans leave right now, there is going to be a massacre in Iraq. But if they don't leave, there will be more problems. From my point of view, though, it would be better for them to go out today than tomorrow."

Eh? Still wanting to stay? What's wrong with you? Can't you listen? just killing time, maybe?

[mog]

The (democratically elected) Iraqi government wants US forces to stay. The US is obliged to comply until the Iraqi security forces are competent.

It's as simple as that.

[Onkel Neal]

We'll leave Iraq when Iran is good and ready to be invaded.

[Yahoshua]

Well then, I guess we have to respect the Iraqi wishes......

http://images.cafepress.com/product/54368900v4_240x240_Front.jpg

[Camaero]

Well then, I guess we have to respect the Iraqi wishes......

http://images.cafepress.com/product/54368900v4_240x240_Front.jpg

yahoo!:lol:

[Yahoshua]

On a more serious note, our time in Iran would be better spent in completely destroying the leadership system and military that is already in place.....let the warlords have it.

When the warlords have taken over, we can hit them again......in about 10 years or so Iraqis will invade Iran for us....no problems at all (for us that is).

[NEON DEON]

"Polling was conducted September 1-4 with a nationwide representative sample of 1,150 Iraqi adults."

So I am supposed to believe this poll is a good representation of what the Iraqi people want.:roll: :roll: :roll:

Why?

Is it because it is based on the opinions of 1,150 Iraqi's?

LIKE OH MY GOD!

LIKE THAT IS LIKE ONE ONE HUNDRETH OF A PERCENT (.01%) OF THE ENTIRE ADULT POPULATION OF IRAQ.

:nope: :nope: :nope:



What would really be kewl if they pin mark those 1,150 adult Iraqis who were polled on a map.

I am guessing they would range from the east end of Mosul to the west end. :D

91 % of Sunni polled want the U.S. to hit the road within the year.

What did the ousted Bath party consist of again?

I would also like to know if that wonderfully representative poll took the time out to make sure that only 35% of the Iraqi adults polled were Sunni.

[Skybird]

Wether a sub group of a given population is representative and allows projections and conclusions about the main population, or not, is not decided by the answer to the question if you subjectively have the impression that it is a huge or small number, but by statistical criterions that can be calculated.

And Mog, probably no one in Iraq has less to say than the government. Sunnis don't like it. Shias don't like it. Kurds don't like it. It is considered to be deeply corrupt and it's organs are infested with insurgent agents and sympathizers. It is comletely impotent. You may rate a government as more important than the people, and put it'S will over the will of the people. That is the definition of totalitarianism. I think the opinion of the people is more important than that of some (corrupt) leaders. That's what is called democracy.

"Until Iraqi security forces are competent." I like the sound of that. Admitted, it has the sound of eternity.

[mog]

And Mog, probably no one in Iraq has less to say than the government. Sunnis don't like it. Shias don't like it. Kurds don't like it. It is considered to be deeply corrupt and it's organs are infested with insurgent agents and sympathizers. It is comletely impotent. You may rate a government as more important than the people, and put it'S will over the will of the people. That is the definition of totalitarianism. I think the opinion of the people is more important than that of some (corrupt) leaders. That's what is called democracy.
A democratically elected government doesn't become totalitarian the minute it makes an unpopular decision. Of course the average Iraqi doesn't like the presence of US troops. They are ashamed by it. However, the fact is that your average Iraqi in the street isn't responsible for running the country. The government is, and they are very much aware that Iraq needs US troops to survive.

Far from totalitarianism, the system by which a government acts on behalf of the people, i.e. representative democracy, is the one employed by every free Western nation. If the Iraqis are so desperate to see US troops leave, then they will vote for candidates who will work toward that end.

[Skybird]

Whatever you say, Mog, whatever you say. the government in Iraq, like Bush, is cooking it's own little supper, and that has not much to do with what they originally have been elected for by their people, or the interests of their nations. This may not be of concern for you, but it is for me.

In the end you must justify your opinion not to me, but to those men and women you waste so willingly over there, all for nothing but a lost cause. You also need to justify yourself to the families of these people, who sometimes haven't seen their fathers or husbands since five years, or had only one short holiday from war in all this time. I find it disgusting when people try to give an impression of sense of duty, obligation, patriotism or honour and send soldiers into wars that have no more mission and cannot win anything good.

This war is not only useless, it has been totally counterproductive from day one on. Exactly the opposite of the mission objectives has been acchieved, and the enemy is not weaker, but stronger than before. History seems to already remember this war as one of the most stupid wars ever been fought.

And while Afghanistan also goes down the drain, some people already start talking about "attacking Iran", as if two major commitements are not already enough. :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: Reminds me of the sense of realism that Hitler showed when time and again he ruled out the much wiser advise of his generals after he had invaded Russia. We know how it ended - despite the Wehrmacht's superior leadership in the field.

[HunterICX]

:-? Are they stil there?

whats the point?

there will be a civil war, I,m sure of that.

[Skybird]

:-? Are they stil there?

whats the point?

there will be a civil war, I,m sure of that.
There already is, and since quite some time now. I argued already over a year ago that there is civil war.

[mog]

Whatever you say, Mog, whatever you say. the government in Iraq, like Bush, is cooking it's own little supper, and that has not much to do with what they originally have been elected for by their people, or the interests of their nations.
The elections were declared free and fair by international observers. You are claiming that between then and now the government has deteriorated into an oppressive, self-serving tyranny. So, the MPs from the various warring factions have put aside their differences and are now colluding to keep themselves in power? It will take more than unsubstantiated assertions to prove that.

In the end you must justify your opinion not to me, but to those men and women you waste so willingly over there, all for nothing but a lost cause. You also need to justify yourself to the families of these people, who sometimes haven't seen their fathers or husbands since five years, or had only one short holiday from war in all this time. I find it disgusting when people try to give an impression of sense of duty, obligation, patriotism or honour and send soldiers into wars that have no more mission and cannot win anything good.
The feeling is mutual. I'm disgusted that people would actually advocate plunging a country into open civil war that would kill untold thousands or even millions more than the current insurgency. Even if you don't care about innocent Iraqi civilians, how on earth do you think it wise to let Iraq become another terrorist state that would almost certainly back attacks against the West and Israel?

This war is not only useless, it has been totally counterproductive from day one on. Exactly the opposite of the mission objectives has been acchieved, and the enemy is not weaker, but stronger than before. History seems to already remember this war as one of the most stupid wars ever been fought.
It doesn't matter. Withdrawing from Iraq isn't going to turn back time. We are there now, and regardless of whether you supporting the war in the first place, the question is whether things would be better if we left.

[SkvyWvr]

Wether a sub group of a given population is representative and allows projections and conclusions about the main population, or not, is not decided by the answer to the question if you subjectively have the impression that it is a huge or small number, but by statistical criterions that can be calculated.

And Mog, probably no one in Iraq has less to say than the government. Sunnis don't like it. Shias don't like it. Kurds don't like it. It is considered to be deeply corrupt and it's organs are infested with insurgent agents and sympathizers. It is comletely impotent. You may rate a government as more important than the people, and put it'S will over the will of the people. That is the definition of totalitarianism. I think the opinion of the people is more important than that of some (corrupt) leaders. That's what is called democracy.

"Until Iraqi security forces are competent." I like the sound of that. Admitted, it has the sound of eternity.

Projections. Is that like a WAG?

[tycho102]

I'm about ready for us to bail out of Iraq. Kurdistan probably deserves some debate, if they even care to have us there. Turkey can suck it, for all I care -- they were a fair-weather ally during the cold war, because the Russians would've drove there like nothing.

Let the Shi'a annhilate the Sunni, and then Kuwait, Oman, United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia can figure out just what the heck their "options" are. A Shi'a coalition will put some pressure on them.

However, I do think that Al-Sistani isn't going to adhere to the Iranian mullahs to the letter which they would prescribe. And there's ambitious imams like Al-Sadir that will play for any extra power they can get. Iraq would become an absolute blood-bath (hundreds of Sunni killed, every day), and then the Shi'a would be able to start fighting amongst themselves. Just like mafia gangs, if the enemy is too far away, they will revert to infighting.

However, if I was Iran, I would use the opportunity to lay down an "autobahn" across Iraq and into Syria. If the Americans pull out of Iraq, it would be an outstanding opportunity to put in a highway devoted to supplying Hamas and Hizbollah. Right now, the trucks make slow progress across Iraq, taking a week or more to transit. A good road would cut that down to under 2 days, and would be useful for years because once the Americans pull out, there's no one that would bomb it (other than Israel, and they'd catch hell from all the mujahideen in the United Nations).

[scandium]

Even if you don't care about innocent Iraqi civilians, how on earth do you think it wise to let Iraq become another terrorist state that would almost certainly back attacks against the West and Israel?

What you just don't get is that Iraq has already been turned into precisely just that; pre-invasion it was a weak, contained, sovereign and secular dictatorship. Saddam Hussein, whatever his other failings, had no love for religious extremism within his borders and took pains to ruthlessly crush and supress any kind of extremism in Iraq, religious based or otherwise since it posed a threat to his power. Now that he's been removed, and the Iraqi civil service and military disbanded, a power vacuum was instantly created with the U.S. military presence serving as a powerful rallying point for the Imans and Jihads to rally the ordinary Iraqis (and former, now unemployed soldiers) against and it also served as an ideal battlefield for foreign Jihadists to easily cross its porous borders and take the fight to the U.S.

Bad trade off for the Iraqis, who are dying in far greater numbers than under Hussein even when he was at his most brutal (while the rest are simply worse off in every way and ideal prey for Jihadi rhetoric), bad trade off for the U.S. which has invested 2600+ now dead true patriots and over a trillion dollars for nothing more than billions in no-bid contracts for Halliburton and Co., and bad trade for the region which has become further destabilized with new generations ready to be indoctrinated into Jihad and get live fire training to practice and perfect their tactics... and bad trade for all of us because they will export their new experience and methods and recruits to our soil soon enough.

Remove the U.S. military and if nothing else you remove the rallying cause, because keeping them there is already pointless. That war is already lost and was lost years ago.

[mog]

Even if you don't care about innocent Iraqi civilians, how on earth do you think it wise to let Iraq become another terrorist state that would almost certainly back attacks against the West and Israel?

What you just don't get is that Iraq has already been turned into precisely just that; pre-invasion it was a weak, contained, sovereign and secular dictatorship. Saddam Hussein, whatever his other failings, had no love for religious extremism within his borders and took pains to ruthlessly crush and supress any kind of extremism in Iraq, religious based or otherwise since it posed a threat to his power. Now that he's been removed, and the Iraqi civil service and military disbanded, a power vacuum was instantly created with the U.S. military presence serving as a powerful rallying point for the Imans and Jihads to rally the ordinary Iraqis (and former, now unemployed soldiers) against and it also served as an ideal battlefield for foreign Jihadists to easily cross its porous borders and take the fight to the U.S.

Bad trade off for the Iraqis, who are dying in far greater numbers than under Hussein even when he was at his most brutal (while the rest are simply worse off in every way and ideal prey for Jihadi rhetoric), bad trade off for the U.S. which has invested 2600+ now dead true patriots and over a trillion dollars for nothing more than billions in no-bid contracts for Halliburton and Co., and bad trade for the region which has become further destabilized with new generations ready to be indoctrinated into Jihad and get live fire training to practice and perfect their tactics... and bad trade for all of us because they will export their new experience and methods and recruits to our soil soon enough.

Remove the U.S. military and if nothing else you remove the rallying cause, because keeping them there is already pointless. That war is already lost and was lost years ago.
Better that the terrorists are attacking well armed and trained US soldiers than unarmed and defenceless US civilians. Remove the target in Iraq, and the Jihadists will simply move on to kill Americans somewhere else. Withdrawing won't solve anything.

[Skybird]

there wouldn't be so many terrorists wanting to strike at Westerner - if Iraq would not have b een crushed. I know that jihaddism was growing before, but it grew at much slower pace. AL has the same argument like you: that it is good to have terrorist's attemntion fixated to Iraq. But that is a complete nonstarter. first it is not that terrorists are only being active in Iraq: terrorist activity thorughout the West has massively increased, not decreased. second, withiout the war in Iraq there wouldn't be so many terrorists than there are today. Although some of them get killed, the recruit more young man in a given time than the loose in fighting. You are totally offtracks here, and additonally ignore the opinion of all 16 intel sevices of the US who also reported a grow, not a fall, in terror activity worldwide.

With every day you stay there, you actively assist in creating more terrorists. By your sheer presence. It is so very, very stupid. Like cutting heads off a hydra. but for each head falling, two new ones are raising. So - who is winning this: the sword-swinging hero, or the hydra?

It all is a giant miscalculation so far.

[August]

there wouldn't be so many terrorists wanting to strike at Westerner - if Iraq would not have b een crushed. I know that jihaddism was growing before, but it grew at much slower pace. AL has the same argument like you: that it is good to have terrorist's attemntion fixated to Iraq. But that is a complete nonstarter. first it is not that terrorists are only being active in Iraq: terrorist activity thorughout the West has massively increased, not decreased. second, withiout the war in Iraq there wouldn't be so many terrorists than there are today

A theory that is easy to claim since it relies upon fiction.

It's like saying Nazi Germany would have eventually become a peaceful nation and a benefit to the world if it had won the war and gotten the "lebensraum" it so craved, or that the Japanese "East Asian co-prosperity sphere" would have brought a new era of progress to the world. Maybe the victims of Soviet and Red Chinese aggression would agree with that.

But you yourself have many times said that Muhammedians do not respect weakness. Without the war in Iraq we could just as easily be facing not only increased numbers of terrorists but also a rearmed and aggressive Iraq. Prove otherwise.

[goldorak]

We'll leave Iraq when Iran is good and ready to be invaded.
Isn't that the plain and simple truth. :-j

[Fish]

We'll leave Iraq when Iran is good and ready to be invaded.
Isn't that the plain and simple truth. :-j

In the mean time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?search=&mode=related&v=RZlvLmBvOx8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HkiqC4NYz4&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SLfiCxlV8Y&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0rpr0Dgoi8&mode=related&search=

[Skybird]

A theory that is easy to claim since it relies upon fiction.
Prove that. And don't come with the many ridiculous statements that Bush has made and that he never cared to show up with evidence for. Iraq was no danger for anyone. It was unpleasant, it was a dictatorship, it was balking, but was unable to bite beyond it's borders. Iraq war had been written doen in neoconagenda roughly ten years before we even started to think about terrorism. you see yourself having no choice than to stick to these absurd views about WOT and how much good has been done when attacking Iraq - for you will never accept to admit that it was a mistake and that you followed your leaders on the basis of always unproven claims and unrealistic fantasies. And that huge dark spot you will not accept to ruin your jacket. we are talking about a hurt ego here.

There is more terror activity worldwide and more people willing to act and participate in terror strikes than before, and the cause of that is directly linked to the Iraq war and the many mistakes being made there, and the ongoing American presence there. Which also has been a concolusion in the leaked parts of that intel community's report on assessements. That is no fiction, that is fact. We had several threads related to that in the last two weeks. I posted there. I am not repeating that all again. We also had reports from highest ranking officers of the army, and the community of 16 intel services coming to the same conclusions like what I say: Iraq's perspective is dark, there is more terror, not less. I even do not mention the many, many reports from individual soldiers reporting on low morale and growing anger and lacking orientation amongst troops in Iraq, as they have been seen in medias, newsppapers, amgazines, on TV, internet sources, for you would wave it off anyway as being "subjective" only, and individual voices only, and not officially representative.

You dream, and you believe Bush&Co. Both is not good. And fellow citizens of yours as well as millions of civilians in Iraq are paying the price for that murderous dreamdancing.

Senior military officers characterize the situation in Iraq as unwinnable. US Intel services agree of terror spreading, not declining. US commitee confirms that it has not found any links between 9/11 and Al Quaeda, and Saddam. Violance in Iraq is constantly increasing. Number of Iraqis (both Shia and Sunni) openly expressing their hostility at the Us occupation is constantly cliombing. they want the Sharia as constitution, no western-style laws. Hezbollah challenged Israel and brough Israel attack to a halt. Hamas and Al Mahdi army are reforming and re-supllying by the example of hezbollah. Oolice and intel agencies thorughout europe report increasing fundamentlaism in all Western countries, and a growing number of sleepers and potential terror cell.

WHAT ELSE DO YOU NEED; AUGUST...??? ;) ;) ;) I must prove you nothing. But you must proove that all these facts from reality are not true. and please, no Bush quotes. his reputation of seeing things realistic is not the best, to put it mildly.

Ah, better: no, don't care to take the time. we had this debate so often, and in vain. I have started to be bored of it. I only wish you would have sticked to Afghnaistan, and wpould have made sure that things are growing under your security umbrella. Instead you shifted forces and attacked Iraq, the orginally meant target, but then came 9/11. Look where Afghanistan is now, and don't tell me that things are improving.

[Dave Kay]

Probably not going to make many friends here by saying this, but as much as I care about the war and politics involved, I have to wonder; why is SubSim allowing itself to become a a politcal forum? And I digress...

[Skybird]

It's only allowed in the General Topics forum. ;) And usually all people obey that rule - voluntarily, or because mods enforce it. :lol:

[Perilscope]

...why is SubSim allowing itself to become a a politcal forum? And I digress...
Almost any websites with a forum have a general topic section, and it is about general talk. Almost anything goes. And since our daily life there is politics, well it won't escape our daily postings.:D

In addition, if you read the "terms of use" the owner does not endorse what's posted in the forum, among other things...

[August]

A theory that is easy to claim since it relies upon fiction.
Prove that.
Easy enough Skybird. What the world would, or will, be like had Saddam been allowed to remain in power is, and can be nothing but, pure speculation. You can make lengthy boring posts citing whichever so called experts happen to fit your opinions of the moment but it "proves" absolutely nothing.

The history of man is filled with prognostications from various "experts" just as authorative as those you anonymously cite, yet they were just as wrong.

A few examples i just happen to have on my computer:

•"I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that won't last out the year."
- The editor in charge of business books for Prentice Hall, 1957.

"Bell expects that the public will use his instrument without the aid of trained operators. Any telegraph engineer will at once see the fallacy of this plan. The public simply cannot be trusted to handle technical communications equipment. Bell's instrument uses nothing but the voice, which cannot be captured in concrete form… we leave it to you to judge whether any sensible man would transact his affairs by such a means of communications. In conclusion the committee feels that it must advise against any investment whatever in Bell's scheme."
- Minutes of a Western Union meeting, circa 1880

•"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
- Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977.

[Skybird]

Easy enough Skybird. What the world would, or will, be like had Saddam been allowed to remain in power is, and can be nothing but, pure speculation. You can make lengthy boring posts citing whichever so called experts happen to fit your opinions of the moment but it "proves" absolutely nothing.
If you don't have more than only nothing I wonder why you even show up and tell people they are all wrong and should prove what they say. Maybe I make lengthy boring posts, but you only have to say you beloieve this or that - and do not care to check if your beliefs cform a consistent system that is in congruence with other hints from other source, and macthes reality. Now you declare success of operation - for people not knowing what would have happened if Saddam would have been left alone. That is no logic, but circular argument only, a cheap trick only. at the same time when you say noone can know - you declare success the mess that was created. How can you do that when you say that nobody knows the alternative'S outcome - which means you cannot compare both alterntaives and thus judge which one is the better one...? you are contradicting yourself, only to evade amditting the total failure of the calculation towards the Iraq formula. If the military and intel guys would assist your beliefs, you would hail them, but since they violate your belief what it should have been, you declare all of them as incompetent fools who have to say nothing.

August - it is laughable what you do. Can't you see that yourself...?

Anyway, this part of the debate is a deja vu only. So forgive that I leave you alone with your private fancies.

[Happy Times]

I dont have anything against the invasion itself but the way it has been handeled. Also if they had to invade something, i would have liked it to been Saudi Arabia.:p But as i am a foreigner and have no political power i dont stress about it that much. Id rather have USA as the only super power than China, Russia and etc... And not all europeans are wussies. (Didnt mean Skybird, he could be even breaking some German laws with his analysis of Islam.)

[Yahoshua]

I think my post got lost in here somewhere but oh well......Good shooting by the Apache gunner.

[Iceman]

Even if you don't care about innocent Iraqi civilians, how on earth do you think it wise to let Iraq become another terrorist state that would almost certainly back attacks against the West and Israel?

What you just don't get is that Iraq has already been turned into precisely just that; pre-invasion it was a weak, contained, sovereign and secular dictatorship. Saddam Hussein, whatever his other failings, had no love for religious extremism within his borders and took pains to ruthlessly crush and supress any kind of extremism in Iraq, religious based or otherwise since it posed a threat to his power. Now that he's been removed, and the Iraqi civil service and military disbanded, a power vacuum was instantly created with the U.S. military presence serving as a powerful rallying point for the Imans and Jihads to rally the ordinary Iraqis (and former, now unemployed soldiers) against and it also served as an ideal battlefield for foreign Jihadists to easily cross its porous borders and take the fight to the U.S.

Bad trade off for the Iraqis, who are dying in far greater numbers than under Hussein even when he was at his most brutal (while the rest are simply worse off in every way and ideal prey for Jihadi rhetoric), bad trade off for the U.S. which has invested 2600+ now dead true patriots and over a trillion dollars for nothing more than billions in no-bid contracts for Halliburton and Co., and bad trade for the region which has become further destabilized with new generations ready to be indoctrinated into Jihad and get live fire training to practice and perfect their tactics... and bad trade for all of us because they will export their new experience and methods and recruits to our soil soon enough.

Remove the U.S. military and if nothing else you remove the rallying cause, because keeping them there is already pointless. That war is already lost and was lost years ago.

So you prove the wickedness of your own thinking here and can't even see it.If we behave like Saddam did and rule this immoral Muslim people with an Iron Hand and make them submit or die....this is the Roman mentality of the past.What you suggest is to abandon the women and children,the sick and elderly,the imfirmed and give them over to the wolf on a silver platter...is that what your superior thinking has lead you to believe Scandium or Skybird?

Your "I told you so" mentality is frankly a little annoying. It is easy to see what you see.You point out the obvious.You condemn my president on 9/11 in his reaction and yet he re-acted EXACTLY like ALL Americans did.We were arrogant in our thinking that this tradegy could never happen to America.It was our wake up call.We are awake now...and your call to abandon the Iraqi people now is worse than staying.It is unaccpetable to me to simply leave.We,Americans I think are not really concerned with what the rest of the World thinks we will act on our own behalf and go it alone if neccessary because that's who we are.We do not ask for your permission or help.We are survivors.We have survived all the past tribulations we will survive the ones to come.

Anything worth a damn is worth fighting for.Peace is worth fighting for.Freedom is worth fighting for.Fighting against evil is worth fighting for.The men I see calling for the utter destruction of Israel and America are Evil.I have yet to see President Bush call for the destruction of Afghanistan or Iraq or Iran or North Korea....

You live in the fantasy land you choose to Scandium or Skybird....a spade is a spade.These men who blow themselves up in the name of God need to be met head on....I myself prefer to meet them in they're own lands now instead of my own.I agree there is no easy solution they're never is is there but leaving is not an option.I agree the extreme Muslims will NEVER change...and to stay will most surley bring more innocent deaths on all sides but to leave is more insane than staying and you gotta know that.

[Happy Times]

Iceman, the Iraqi people, men, women and children, you are talking about.. They hate you. Sorry to have to tell you this so bluntly.

[Immacolata]

We'll leave Iraq when Iran is good and ready to be invaded.

Hehe, the exit strategy? From Iran it is a short jog to Jalalabad anyhow ^_^ Might pay old Ozzie Sinbin a courtesy visit.

[Immacolata]

Easy enough Skybird. What the world would, or will, be like had Saddam been allowed to remain in power is, and can be nothing but, pure speculation. You can make lengthy boring posts citing whichever so called experts happen to fit your opinions of the moment but it "proves" absolutely nothing.

I think the world would have done absolutely nothing. There's always another conflict that threatens to turn into a conflagration. Perhaps not going into Iraq would have made it possible to really clean up Afghanistan!

[Skybird]

Even if you don't care about innocent Iraqi civilians, how on earth do you think it wise to let Iraq become another terrorist state that would almost certainly back attacks against the West and Israel?

What you just don't get is that Iraq has already been turned into precisely just that; pre-invasion it was a weak, contained, sovereign and secular dictatorship. Saddam Hussein, whatever his other failings, had no love for religious extremism within his borders and took pains to ruthlessly crush and supress any kind of extremism in Iraq, religious based or otherwise since it posed a threat to his power. Now that he's been removed, and the Iraqi civil service and military disbanded, a power vacuum was instantly created with the U.S. military presence serving as a powerful rallying point for the Imans and Jihads to rally the ordinary Iraqis (and former, now unemployed soldiers) against and it also served as an ideal battlefield for foreign Jihadists to easily cross its porous borders and take the fight to the U.S.

Bad trade off for the Iraqis, who are dying in far greater numbers than under Hussein even when he was at his most brutal (while the rest are simply worse off in every way and ideal prey for Jihadi rhetoric), bad trade off for the U.S. which has invested 2600+ now dead true patriots and over a trillion dollars for nothing more than billions in no-bid contracts for Halliburton and Co., and bad trade for the region which has become further destabilized with new generations ready to be indoctrinated into Jihad and get live fire training to practice and perfect their tactics... and bad trade for all of us because they will export their new experience and methods and recruits to our soil soon enough.

Remove the U.S. military and if nothing else you remove the rallying cause, because keeping them there is already pointless. That war is already lost and was lost years ago.

So you prove the wickedness of your own thinking here and can't even see it.If we behave like Saddam did and rule this immoral Muslim people with an Iron Hand and make them submit or die....this is the Roman mentality of the past.What you suggest is to abandon the women and children,the sick and elderly,the imfirmed and give them over to the wolf on a silver platter...is that what your superior thinking has lead you to believe Scandium or Skybird? [/quote]

That must be the climax of cynism. First starting something that creates a situation where these " women and children,the sick and elderly,the imfirmed" are given "over to the wolf on a silver platter" as a matter of fact, duer to one's own stupid and inadequate actions - and then complaining about others not participating in it. Cynism.

Your "I told you so" mentality is frankly a little annoying. It is easy to see what you see.You point out the obvious.You condemn my president on 9/11 in his reaction and yet he re-acted EXACTLY like ALL Americans did.

No, that is not tue, there were many americans who did not buy the 9/11-Iraq link from the beginning, and it is even more today.

We were arrogant in our thinking that this tradegy could never happen to America.It was our wake up call.We are awake now...and your call to abandon the Iraqi people now is worse than staying.It is unaccpetable to me to simply leave.We,Americans I think are not really concerned with what the rest of the World thinks we will act on our own behalf and go it alone if neccessary because that's who we are.

Such pathos makes my teeth hurting. If you really were so glorious than i wonder why your action directly created the situation in Iraq today which you no longer have under control, why there is more toprture and violance than under Saddam and why you have made jihaddism and Antiamericansim stronger and stronger, increasing the level of terrorist acticity throughout the world immensily. you say yourself: you are not concerned with the rest of the world, you are phantastic, strong, just, light-led americans, you do not fail, you must not listen - and in case of Iraq you even must not think. Look how wonderful you have failed and others pay the price for your monumental arrogance. disgusting, what you say, simply disgusting. Not a trace of glory in your words, just two-eyed blindess. Usually I simply ignore you postings, but this one has been too much.

We do not ask for your permission or help.We are survivors.We have survived all the past tribulations we will survive the ones to come.

And after you had left Vietnam, the killings amongst your former allies begun. You let it happen. After you were finished with Saddam, the suffering of the civil population begun. you let it happen, and reduce troop presence on the street and in villages more and more, for "they" have pinned you down and the public does not like high loss ratios - and they hurt the election chances. And that you call "help"...!?!?! In the medieval it was considered to be helpful to burn people - to help to purify their souls.

when the war was dawning, many warned you: "don't". the situation you have now has been laid out in all clearity. Once you were in, I (and others said), okay, damage is done, let's try to make the best of it: get those f###ing troop levels up, get rid of these fool Rumsfeld. Troops got reduced some time late. Now even the remaining last chances have died since long ago, and again people say: two giant mistakes are enough, you messed it nup, you canT win anymore, now get out, if for not anything else than the sake of your own people in unfiform. Iraqis themselves tell you they prefer the prosect of violance after our leaving to your ongoing presence. Obviously you know better what they want than they do themselves. Your sheer presence fuels growing and growing resistance, and international terrorism that dirctly deroves from the level of arrogance you showed in Iraq. you are a provocation simply by being there, and each month it gets worse and worse. But no, you are "Americans", you "are not really concerned with what the rest of the World thinks we will act on our own behalf", and you "go it alone if neccessary because that's who we are." And that'S exactly what led to the desaster in Iraq. you must be a hatefilled man and must have a quarrel with all mankind if you dare to call that "help". such is a kind of help that only suicide candidates would wish for.

Anything worth a damn is worth fighting for.Peace is worth fighting for.Freedom is worth fighting for.Fighting against evil is worth fighting for.The men I see calling for the utter destruction of Israel and America are Evil.I have yet to see President Bush call for the destruction of Afghanistan or Iraq or Iran or North Korea....

I don't see you risking to pay any price for that biblic fights of yours. Your family is not at stake. It's easy to kick other people into the plunges of civil war with a wave of a hand when sitting in a living room ten thousand miles away and call that a fioght of the light against darkness. Let'S see what you would do if the ongoing inadequate military acting of the US would not put other people's family in anger, but your own. And don't come with 9/11. You have greater chances to get killed in a traffic accident on this very day than by a terror strikes in the West.

You live in the fantasy land you choose to Scandium or Skybird....a spade is a spade.These men who blow themselves up in the name of God need to be met head on....I myself prefer to meet them in they're own lands now instead of my own.I agree there is no easy solution they're never is is there but leaving is not an option.I agree the extreme Muslims will NEVER change...and to stay will most surley bring more innocent deaths on all sides but to leave is more insane than staying and you gotta know that.

Good-and-Evil-thinkers have caused more bloodshed and cruelty in mankind'S history than anyone else. You share striking similarities with those you condemn. I also have seen people like you before, and they and you all have one thing in common: they talk of love, and have a cold heart for others if they do not believe in their religious beliefs. You are a cynic, Iceman. Maybe a cynic with strong dogmatic fantasies, but nevertheless a cynic. your morale causes exactly the opposite of what you say you do, because you are blinded. If I wouldn't know it better I would say that the follwing had been written by me exactly with you in mind:

To have the good intention, to feel the wish to become a better human, to become free – all this taken for itself definitely does not seem to be sufficient to gain freedom indeed. And as we have seen, especially in a religious context good-doing alone bears dangers, namely the danger of blind and untested imitation without sufficiently knowing what it is that one is imi-tating, and the danger of undisciplined dilettantism that is trying a lot of different things but does not one single thing right (es-pecially not when that would take the reorganization of beloved old habits). It al-ready seems as if the precondition for right acting – is to have already the right attitude of mind. On the other hand, good-doing not auto-matically leads to good-being – we can act rightly and do good deeds without knowing what our true and divine self really is.
As long as we do not have true self-knowledge, our wish to act rightly often cre-ates nothing but problems. Because in our blindness we act within a world that by its appearance we still perceive as a dualistic one, and with our well-meant good deeds we try hard to give expression only to one of the two poles in every pair of opposites. What we con-sider to be of light, we try to make everlasting, and we reject what we believe is of darkness. But by that we behave exactly like the being that we believe we are: our ego has polarized ourselves as being “good”, by that it keeps on to increase the dualism and the imagined polar-ity in the world as we see it.
At the same time we are convinced that this dualistic acting by which we split the world - is our true self. In best intention and with the conviction that we are “good” or need to try to be “good”, we ourselves create many conflicts of the world that we perceive as a dualistic diversity, and afterwards we have no answer to the question, where the many problems and conflicts with other human beings that try as hard as we do to act rightly, do come from. The origin of “evil” remains a mystery to us, although by our misjudgement of the unique-ness and omni-presence of the Absolute we create it ourselves. We think we still do not try hard enough for the good quality in our deeds, so we press even harder for it –and by that even deepen the roots of the problem, frustrate ourselves in useless wastes of strength and effort. We are like a rabbit with our head in a sling, and the harder we try to free ourselves, the sooner we strangle ourselves. At one time, our good deeds create and support what is good in our society – and at other opportuni-ties, the same well-meant deeds bring ruin and disaster upon it. This way, fates and lives get fulfilled in good and in bad, cultures raise and fall down again – the eternal cycle of Sam-sara’s alternation of developing, and passing."

And:


The letting go of all ideas of God and all reli-gious thoughts one is fond of is an absolute prerequisite for true mystical experience. […] But experience has shown that the letting go of personal idols and religious symbols is espe-cially difficult for those, whose personality structure shows the strongest egocentricity and focussing on themselves. They are afraid to lose everything, and therefore they cling to their small, mortal self with all their might. When one is looking closer to it, one will rec-ognize that most people are not about a living experience of the divine essence, but are more about a maintaining of their personal ideas of God they are fond of, and about wallowing religious feelings. But true mystic has nothing to do with emotional rapture and inappropri-ate holiness, these belong to the realm of mysticism, which only is a distortion of true and pure mystic.

I had such people by the dozens. And almost all of them in one way or the other displayed a hard and cold heart for everybody outside their porivate little dogmas, and lived their lifes at the cost of others, and sometimes even caused pain to others and called that well-deserved divine justice. Nevertheless they lectured others day in, day out about the meaning of love, caring for one's next, the forces of light, and how good it is to be a "religious" person.

To me, you have more in common with some Islamic fundamentalists than you will ever be able to realize. You are a product of the medieval that by mistake has molten up again in the present. Go and tell somebody else how much you care for somebody - while you make his word a mess and watch him drowning in his blood. I call you a cynic who has become a cynic by blindness, and that is all you get from me. Noone believs a man talking about light - if that man has no eyes.

[August]

If you don't have more than only nothing I wonder why you even show up and tell people they are all wrong and should prove what they say.

Maybe it's because you are the one who made the assertion here Skybird, not me, so defend it and stop trying to evade. In any discussion the burden of proof is upon the person making the statement of what is, not the one who questions that theory. Besides, I didn't say that your beliefs were wrong, I only pointed out, as people have told you in the past, that your opinions are just that, opinions, not fact.

As for evading "amditting the total failure of the calculation towards the Iraq formula", I have evaded nothing. I only pointed out that "expert" prognostications about the future have been proven wrong many times thoughout human history, so any argument that relies soley upon them, like yours, is an argument that is built upon shaky foundations. If you don't believe me ask my former boss Ken Olsen, founder and chairman of the second largest computer manufacturer of its day, now defunct, whether his expert opinion that people would never want a computer in their homes was correct.

I also earlier quoted TR, who quite aptly points out that in any situation it is always better to dare great things, even if you fail, than to sit and do nothing and hope it all works out for the best. Action versus inaction, strength versus impotence. The classic difference between our two countries it seems.

Removing Saddam from power in Iraq was our origninal objective. We have done that. Anything else we do above and beyond it is nothing more than another attempt to help a defeated people back on their feet, just like we did to your country 60 years ago.

Yeah we did it for selfish reasons, we were tired of having to go over there and expend the blood of our sons and daughers to help sudue you people again, and yeah we're having a more difficult time of it than we did with you, but I for one, and i'm not the only one, still feel the effort is worth it.

[Skybird]

August,
that is all circular reasoning. you remind me of an old cartoon that I once have written for a school magazine back in the early 80s. It went roughly like this:

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/8158/bild1ey4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Since it is you rejecting the obvious, it is up to you to give proof any evidence for that. I have given my complete chain of thought and argument, referred to all authorities that share these views, and I see myself in total congruence with reality. and honstely, I think it is a bit better than just to descrobe it as my personal belief. At least it also is the belief of your own intel community, roighly one half of your own people, many of your senior commanders and soldiers in Iraq, most observers and correspondents in Iraq, and the clear ,majirity of all mankind on this dman globe ;) So do us a favour: call it OUR belief, if you want to stick to that word. I simply describe what everyone can see when opening his eyes and reading around, watching TV, reading magazines. You have the better arguments and info? You know it better than the feedback from your own people? Then put it up.

But all you say is : "you can't prove that my belief that the world has been created in seven days is wrong, that's why your evolution theory and what speaks for it obviously must be wrong." That is absurd!

And is it an obsession in America that so many of you time and again compare back to the third Reich to silence unwanted opinions? french are all cowards, germans are all unthankful, and sinner by birth so they better shut up and regret what has happened? Iraq and post-war Germany reall have NOTHING in common. If you make that comparsion then you only illustrate the scale of ignorrance for that very different society and culture as well as basic historical facts. You think in chliches here. You must not like that differerent society over there, nor do I like it. but that doesn't make it - and the historcial events leading to it all - any less different from Germany, and europe, and european recession and Versailles and German-Italian fascism and differing mentality and temperament and Prussia'S influence and european history of the centuries before. Iraq and the Third Reich are worlds apart.

Second World war, and Iraq. Hahahahha... maximum absurdity. The Third Reich posed a threat. Iraq did not. Hitler was potent. Saddam was not. Germany was militarily strong. Iraq was not. The Nazis were fascists. Bathists are not. germany had a growing economy after hitler took over, and a raising military industry. Iraq had not The european history leading to WWII - has no parallel to the neocon's vision of a new american world order in which an Iraq under Saddam had no place. WWII took the US several years to get involved. In Iraq 2003 it was the attacker, and it was not in danger, it was not under attack by anything related to Saddam and Iraq, nor was it under any other kind of threat related to Iraq and Saddam, neither directly nor indirectly. Saddam knew he was sitting on a hot seat. He balked and provoced and was a pain in the UN's a$$. But he avoided carefully everything that could seriousl provoke a majore war that woudl exceed the occiaisonal air strikes and some-days-air campaigns with limited forces that we had seen..

and you are wrong, the orginal goal, as stated by Bush, was not to replace saddam, but to get rid of the threat Iraq posed by it's vast quantities of WMD. :D some month later the original goal was to prevent the terrorist threat that was not there, but now is. then the original goal again was changed to have been about Saddam's link to the 9/11 events, which never existed. Not before then Bush made his last stand iwith his most minimal defense left, saying that removing Saddam "was a good thing" in general and helped to make the world more safe. Failure teaches modesty, it seems... :lol:

and no, the world is not more safe, but there is more terrorist cell-building in all the West than ebfore, and jihaddism has been fueled and accelerated massively.

It's all about heating up the air to create a flir in the sky behind which the many mistakes of Iraq-related assumptions and policy can be hidden. It's a Fata Morgana, raising phantom pictures that hide the real sight of the landscape. Fascinating maybe, but not real.

[August]

At least it also is the belief of your own intel community, roighly one half of your own people, many of your senior commanders and soldiers in Iraq, most observers and correspondents in Iraq, and the clear ,majirity of all mankind on this dman globe ;) So do us a favour: call it OUR belief, if you want to stick to that word.
It's defining who makes up "our" that is at issue here. You freely use words like "one half", "many of", "most", "majority" all relying on polls conducted by those seeking a particular reply, partial leaks of carefully selected quotes from working notes and agency reports by disaffected individuals for personal reasons having nothing to do with getting at the "truth".

In this information age there is a wealth of material available to pick and choose from to back up any argument, pro or con, for any situation. I provided a couple selected quotes i had on hand from historical events to show you examples of how currentagendas can effect personal and offical opinions.

I simply describe what everyone can see when opening his eyes and reading around, watching TV, reading magazines. You have the better arguments and info? You know it better than the feedback from your own people? Then put it up.
Firstly the TV and magazines you mention, especially the foreign ones, all are subject to the same limitations i have mentioned above. Secondly, why should i bother posting opposing viewpoints, essentially duplicating the work others have already done here, just so you can again arrogantly dismiss it as biased, while simultaniously proclaiming your opinions as gospel?

But all you say is : "you can't prove that my belief that the world has been created in seven days is wrong, that's why your evolution theory and what speaks for it obviously must be wrong." That is absurd!

A very weak strawman argument Skybird. We aren't discussing evolution nor would that be my opinion on the subject, so please don't insult me by using such beginner debating tactics.

And is it an obsession in America that so many of you time and again compare back to the third Reich to silence unwanted opinions? french are all cowards, germans are all unthankful, and sinner by birth so they better shut up and regret what has happened?

Bull Skybird. I never said the French are cowards, nor the Germans, of which i am one half by blood, are "sinners" (another weak attempt by you to cast me as some religious radical), so your whole lengthy paragraph is irrelevant. I think my last post concerning the French amply illustrates that.

I used the nazi reconstruction example because it is just that, an example of American post war reconstruction efforts. It needs no further definition by anyone especially you. I might also note that you conveniently fail to mention my other reconstruction reference, that of post war Japan. The truth is that we Americans have been trying to do this for our defeated enemies for quite a long time, with varying degrees of success of course. Has Germany, Imperial, Nazi, or Democratic, EVER helped reconstruct a defeated enemy in your entire history? No. Your people historically prefer to leave your foes in ruin and chaos.

Iraq and post-war Germany reall have NOTHING in common. If you make that comparsion then you only illustrate the scale of ignorrance for that very different society and culture as well as basic historical facts. You think in chliches here. You must not like that differerent society over there, nor do I like it. but that doesn't make it - and the historcial events leading to it all - any less different from Germany, and europe, and european recession and Versailles and German-Italian fascism and differing mentality and temperament and Prussia'S influence and european history of the centuries before. Iraq and the Third Reich are worlds apart.

Unlike you Skybird, i don't hold the opinion that Muslims as a group are any less able live peacefully with the rest of the world than any other group. Europeans are no better than anyone else and i reject your implication to the contrary. Your words smack of racism, Sir, i wonder if you even realize it.

and you are wrong, the orginal goal, as stated by Bush, was not to replace saddam, but to get rid of the threat Iraq posed by...

All personified in Saddam, and his henchmen, as the driving force behind it. You cannot separate the two.

and no, the world is not more safe, but there is more terrorist cell-building in all the West than ebfore, and jihaddism has been fueled and accelerated massively.

"More" or just "more apparent"? There hasn't been another 9-11 in the US in 5 years, in spite of repeated threats by our enemies and predictions by our critics. For all this fuel and accelleration you trumpet the fact is i'd rather have the Jihadists fighting and being killed in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, and yes in Lebanon too, rather than them fighting here.

You want to talk about fueling the Jihadists? Well, what about opinions like yours where all muslims are basically 14th century savages bent upon world domination? There's a saying in my country. "Might as well be shot for a lion as a lamb". Don't you ever realize such polarizing attitudes like yours do as much damage to muslim-western relations as any amount of military action?

Maybe you ought to think about it.

[NEON DEON]

Skybird,

Irag did pose a threat. It started two wars in the Middle east threating world oil supplies. Those two wars alone killed over 1 million people.

[Skybird]

I thought it couldn't get any queerer. I was wrong.

Okay August, sleep well. I'm sure you will have no problems to sleep very well indeed. Against such determination to deconstruct what I say and put the pieces together again in totally different contexts I am helpless. And even me can get bored by these things.

O, and just two final hints: Islam is no race, but an ideology, that'S why it is emotionally effective to call me a racist, neverthelss it is absurd: ypou better ask the question for racism those who ordered Abu Ghraib to take place; and the Marshal plan was welcomed by a people that shared your own cultural roots and wanted to get back onto Western civilized tracks and had the same longtermstrategic interests like you, while the US "help" in Iraq is rejected by a people with whom you do not have any culture in common, whose strategic interests are directly opposite and even hostile to yours, and that you have alienated from day one on with highly questionable policies and strange priorities. Germans wanted democarcy (and had no choice anyway since they had no will and no wepaons left to fight the occupation), but Iraqi want sharia as a constitutional basis, and they have the means and tools left to resist you. That is the difference between Germany and Iraq I talked about.

[NEON DEON]

Yes facts are queer.

[Skybird]

Skybird,

Irag did pose a threat. It started two wars in the Middle east threating world oil supplies. Those two wars alone killed over 1 million people. Yes. That was pre-1991. Post 1991, it was no more a threat, and not more than an annoying irritation, at best. Nothing that was worth to kick the people into such a bloody, muderous chaos. Also, freeing them from saddam hasgiven them the freedom to truly become the enemies of the West and America that you claim they had been before, saddam-spomnsored terror and such. Nonsens. . Iranian influence is high, religious feelings are spiking. The revolutionary guards are alraedy acting inside Iraq. A complete counterproductive effort, like you said "More Democracy!" to Egypt and immediately the ultra-orthodox muslim brotherhood jumped from below 1% two 20% of parliamentary seats. Like europeans say to Turkey: "Less military, more democracy!" and a fundamentlist like Erdogan and his fundamentalist party suddenly are in office.

Iraq: you haven't fought the devil - you have created it. Only a question of more bloodshed and more years until you realize it. That will not free us from having to pay for the conseqeunces - and we will pay heavy for that.

[NEON DEON]

2001 and beyond.

Iraq still has one of the largest standing armies in the Middle East.

Iraq is still in control by Sadman Insane.

Iraq defies the U N by not allowing weapons inspectors free reign.

U S warns Iraq that it must comply with U N resolution.

U S can not prove Iraq has no WMDs.

U S has just had a major terrorist attack aimed at them and can no longer afford the luxury of doubt when it comes to WMDs.

Iraq still fails to comply.

U S invades Iraq based on the fact that it is in violation of U N resolutions.

Iraq was a threat.

[tycho102]

U S can not prove Iraq has no WMDs.

It's called "dual use" chemicals. The new direction of guerrila warfare.

It's like when the coppers break down your door and find thousands of pre-paid cell phones. You could be using them to make remote detonators on the analog/GMS band, or you could be reselling them.

In Iraq, they use a lot of cellular detonators. It's very easy, actually. You just re-route the speaker to the detonator. Give the phone a call, it rings, and blows the living Christ Jesus Almighty out of whatever Amerikaner that happend to be rolling by at the time.

Same thing with the chemicals. You can make mustard gas and sarin out of a few different ones. Give it a google -- the specific chemicals are listed, but the ratios aren't.

Well, anyway, British and American troops going through Iraq found several hundred of these mobile "pesticide" labs. The funny thing is that they had steel pipes running out of the labs, into an underground bunker nearby. No electricity needed for the liquids to flow. The bunkers had hollowed artillery shells, and the necessary adapters to hook them up to the liquid lines.

Inside the liquid lines, there were STATIC MIXERS (http://www.lenntech.com/static-mixers.htm). This is a basic tool of chemical engineering, where you need to be able to mix liquids while regulating thermal transfer and maintenance. And it just so happens that, when the few chemicals are mixed, they would produce sarin and mustard gas. There just so happened to be hollowed artillery shells nearby. And there just so happened to be a couple hundred of these lab/bunker setups dispersed around Baghdad.

The chemicals are also precursors to pesticides. Just not when they are mixed together and put into artillery shells.




Weapons of Mass Destruction is a retarded designation, though. They (mustard, sarin, VX, chlorine) are Weapons of Mass Murder. The WMD's are with Hezbollah. 40,000 ball bearings wrapped aroung 100kg of explosives causes "mass destruction". Certainly not to the scale of nukes, but just the same, I wish that our fighting women and men were employing the same WMD's that were being used upon them.

[NEON DEON]

U S can not prove Iraq has no WMDs.

It's called "dual use" chemicals. The new direction of guerrila warfare.

It's like when the coppers break down your door and find thousands of pre-paid cell phones. You could be using them to make remote detonators on the analog/GMS band, or you could be reselling them.

In Iraq, they use a lot of cellular detonators. It's very easy, actually. You just re-route the speaker to the detonator. Give the phone a call, it rings, and blows the living Christ Jesus Almighty out of whatever Amerikaner that happend to be rolling by at the time.

Same thing with the chemicals. You can make mustard gas and sarin out of a few different ones. Give it a google -- the specific chemicals are listed, but the ratios aren't.

Well, anyway, British and American troops going through Iraq found several hundred of these mobile "pesticide" labs. The funny thing is that they had steel pipes running out of the labs, into an underground bunker nearby. No electricity needed for the liquids to flow. The bunkers had hollowed artillery shells, and the necessary adapters to hook them up to the liquid lines.

Inside the liquid lines, there were STATIC MIXERS (http://www.lenntech.com/static-mixers.htm). This is a basic tool of chemical engineering, where you need to be able to mix liquids while regulating thermal transfer and maintenance. And it just so happens that, when the few chemicals are mixed, they would produce sarin and mustard gas. There just so happened to be hollowed artillery shells nearby. And there just so happened to be a couple hundred of these lab/bunker setups dispersed around Baghdad.

The chemicals are also precursors to pesticides. Just not when they are mixed together and put into artillery shells.




Weapons of Mass Destruction is a retarded designation, though. They (mustard, sarin, VX, chlorine) are Weapons of Mass Murder. The WMD's are with Hezbollah. 40,000 ball bearings wrapped aroung 100kg of explosives causes "mass destruction". Certainly not to the scale of nukes, but just the same, I wish that our fighting women and men were employing the same WMD's that were being used upon them.


Oh no. They were just going to use that stuff for mosquito control.:88) :88)

[SubSerpent]

If I lived in any foriegn country I would feel threatend by the US. After all, the US seems to be the only one that is allowed to carry WMD in its arsenal and if you try the US will just send in the military to kill you off.

Funny how the 1 and only country that was crazy enough to actually use WMD is the 1 and only country that is trying so hard to make sure no one else has any except itself!:hmm:

I smell world takeover coming on within the next 100 years or so!

[August]

After all, the US seems to be the only one that is allowed to carry WMD in its arsenal and if you try the US will just send in the military to kill you off.

That's not true but then again you knew that before you posted it.

[ASWnut101]

maby hes just forgetting the others:

Russia, China, India, France, UK, Germany is not supposed too, North Korea, Possibly Israel, Iran.

These are the ones that do have them.
But you wouldn't belive that, now would you?

[ASWnut101]

If I lived in any foriegn country I would feel threatend by the US.


I wonder if The Avon Lady feels threatened?
I wonder if Taiwanese feel threatened?
I wonder if South Korea feels threatened?

[Skybird]

If I lived in any foriegn country I would feel threatend by the US.
I wonder if South Korea feels threatened?Yes. Many of the young fear that the US could provoke a war with NK - that would be fought at the cost of the people in the south as well as the noeth, on Korean soil. That is why they wish the US so badly out of the country since long time now. they also have not forgotten nor forgiven that the US have supported some very grim dictators and military tyrants in south korea or even helped to bring them to power over the past decades which costed the people dearly (Rumsfeld having been one of the key CIA figures in getting these things arranged ;) ) For a first brief summary of Korea I recommend chapter 4 of Chalmers Johnson: "Blowback. Costs and Consequences of the American Empire." One of the most hated books and authors on this board :lol: :-j

[ASWnut101]

never heard of him.....

[SubSerpent]

never heard of him.....

Yeah, he is a bit above the 2nd grade reading level! You wouldn't understand!

[Sea Demon]

never heard of him.....

Yeah, he is a bit above the 2nd grade reading level! You wouldn't understand!

Actually the correct answer is..you ain't missing much. Typical anti-American BS. This man wishes the collapse of America and wishes to create hysterical fear in his readers. I read Nemesis, and half of Blowback. They were almost the same book in that regard.

[Skybird]

never heard of him.....

Yeah, he is a bit above the 2nd grade reading level! You wouldn't understand!

As you can see in SD'S comment, Johnson really is hated by hardcor-pro-americanists :lol: as I already indicated. That does not change much in that what SDs says is more an indication of his own blind anger than an indication of Johnson's blindness. If I have to judge who is the more clever guy with the better informational basis, SD or Johnson, then I must not think long :lol:


Chalmers Ashby Johnson is an author (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Author) and professor emeritus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor_emeritus) of the University of California, San Diego (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California%2C_San_Diego). He is also president and co-founder of the Japan Policy Research Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Policy_Research_Institute), an organization promoting public education about Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan) and Asia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia). He has written numerous books including, most recently, two examinations of the consequences of American empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire), Blowback and The Sorrows of Empire.
Johnson was born in 1931 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1931) in Phoenix, Arizona (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix%2C_Arizona). He earned a B.A. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_of_Arts) degree in Economics in 1953 and a M.A. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master%27s_degree) and a Ph.D. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Philosophy) in political science in 1957 and 1961 respectively. All of his degrees were from the University of California, Berkeley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California%2C_Berkeley). During the Korean War, Johnson served as a naval officer in Japan. He taught political science at the University of California from 1962 until he retired in 1992. He was best known early in his career for scholarship about China.
From 1967 until 1973, Johnson was a consultant to the Office of National Estimates (O.N.E.) within the CIA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency). He largely dealt with issues involving communist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist) China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China) and Maoism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maoism). From 1967 until 1972, he also served as chairman of the Center for Chinese Studies at Berkeley.
His book Blowback (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_%28intelligence%29) won an American Book Award (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Book_Award) in 2001 from the Before Columbus Foundation, and was re-issued in an updated version in 2004. Sorrows of Empire, published in 2004, updated the evidence and argument from Blowback for the post-9/11 environment. Johnson was featured in the Eugene Jarecki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Jarecki)-directed film Why We Fight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_We_Fight_%282005_film%29), which won the 2005 Grand Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundance_Film_Festival).
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chalmers_Johnson&action=edit&section=1)]

Bibliography

Conspiracy at Matsukawa (1972)
Peasant Nationalism and Communist Power (ISBN 0-8047-0074-5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Booksources&isbn=0804700745))
Revolutionary Change (1982) ISBN 0-316-46730-8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Booksources&isbn=0316467308)
MITI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MITI) and the Japanese Miracle (1982)
An Instance of Treason: Ozaki Hotsumi and the Sorge Spy Ring (1990)
Japan: Who Governs? -- The Rise of the Developmental State (1995)
Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire (2000, rev. 2004) ISBN 0-8050-6239-4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Booksources&isbn=0805062394)
The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic (2004) ISBN 0-8050-7004-4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Booksources&isbn=0805070044)[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chalmers_Johnson&action=edit&section=2)]

External links

Articles by Chalmers Johnson (http://www.allannoble.net/articles_by_chalmers_johnson.htm)Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalmers_Johnson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalmers_Johnson)"


http://www.amazon.com/Blowback-Costs-Consequences-American-Empire/dp/0805075593/sr=8-2/qid=1159874486/ref=pd_bbs_2/104-1757020-2512709?ie=UTF8&s=books

http://www.amazon.com/Sorrows-Empire-Militarism-Secrecy-Republic/dp/0805070044/sr=8-1/qid=1159874486/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-1757020-2512709?ie=UTF8&s=books

[fredbass]

I skipped most of the posts in here, so this probably was stated in so many words already.

We really don't know what Iraqi's want or don't want. And it would depend on who you talk to since their views are so diverse. Of course they want us out as soon as possible because we are outsiders. That's a given.

It's all about control and usually forceable control for them as I see it. The U.S. isn't really the issue at all. All we do is attempt to control the violence and try to help the government and country go forward peacefully. We could have been gone a long time ago if their own government could keep the peace without us. Unfortunately that hasn't been the case.

[SkvyWvr]

never heard of him.....

Yeah, he is a bit above the 2nd grade reading level! You wouldn't understand!

And you got upset over the bumper sticker I posted on the "9-11" thread.:nope:

[SubSerpent]

never heard of him.....

Yeah, he is a bit above the 2nd grade reading level! You wouldn't understand!

And you got upset over the bumper sticker I posted on the "9-11" thread.:nope:

Was that post directed at you SkvyWvr? No, it wasn't it! Your post to me in the "9-11" thread was directed at me however and I stated right away that I was offended. Apparently ASWnut101 wasn't offended by my statement to him since he continued to post after it without a mention of it being insulting to him. Then again, if he admitted to be insulted by it, it would show that he is at the 2nd grade reading level - else why be offended by something that isn't true? :hmm:

[SkvyWvr]

never heard of him.....

Yeah, he is a bit above the 2nd grade reading level! You wouldn't understand!

And you got upset over the bumper sticker I posted on the "9-11" thread.:nope:

Was that post directed at you SkvyWvr? No, it wasn't it! Your post to me in the "9-11" thread was directed at me however and I stated right away that I was offended. Apparently ASWnut101 wasn't offended by my statement to him since he continued to post after it without a mention of it being insulting to him. Then again, if he admitted to be insulted by it, it would show that he is at the 2nd grade reading level - else why be offended by something that isn't true? :hmm:

Just showing how rude you can be. :hmm: I guess it worked.

[SubSerpent]

never heard of him.....

Yeah, he is a bit above the 2nd grade reading level! You wouldn't understand!

And you got upset over the bumper sticker I posted on the "9-11" thread.:nope:

Was that post directed at you SkvyWvr? No, it wasn't it! Your post to me in the "9-11" thread was directed at me however and I stated right away that I was offended. Apparently ASWnut101 wasn't offended by my statement to him since he continued to post after it without a mention of it being insulting to him. Then again, if he admitted to be insulted by it, it would show that he is at the 2nd grade reading level - else why be offended by something that isn't true? :hmm:

Just showing how rude you can be. :hmm: I guess it worked.

Oh well, you tomoto and I say tomato ;)

[SkvyWvr]

Oh well, you tomoto and I say tomato ;)

Hey, I've never said tomoto.;)

[SubSerpent]

Oh well, you tomoto and I say tomato ;)

Hey, I've never said tomoto.;)

Whatever! :roll:

[Sea Demon]

never heard of him.....
Yeah, he is a bit above the 2nd grade reading level! You wouldn't understand!
As you can see in SD'S comment, Johnson really is hated by hardcor-pro-americanists :lol: as I already indicated. That does not change much in that what SDs says is more an indication of his own blind anger than an indication of Johnson's blindness. If I have to judge who is the more clever guy with the better informational basis, SD or Johnson, then I must not think long :lol:



I don't think you really want to compare resumes with me, Skybird. From what you've said of your own past job history in here, I think I've got you beat on a professional level. ;) :p

[SubSerpent]

never heard of him.....
Yeah, he is a bit above the 2nd grade reading level! You wouldn't understand!
As you can see in SD'S comment, Johnson really is hated by hardcor-pro-americanists :lol: as I already indicated. That does not change much in that what SDs says is more an indication of his own blind anger than an indication of Johnson's blindness. If I have to judge who is the more clever guy with the better informational basis, SD or Johnson, then I must not think long :lol:



I don't think you really want to compare resumes with me, Skybird. From what you've said of your own past job history in here, I think I've got you beat on a professional level. ;) :p


Why are you comparing professional levels? Who's to judge who has the most professional level here? I could be a rocket scientist working for NASA right now, you just don't know.

BTW, your ignorance just shows that you are the type of guy that compares penis size as a means of measurement. If this is the case then black men would be every doctor, lawyer, politician, etc. in the world... Dude, do me a favor and grow up! You act like a little boy on here!

[Sea Demon]

Why are you comparing professional levels? Who's to judge who has the most professional level here? I could be a rocket scientist working for NASA right now, you just don't know.

BTW, your ignorance just shows that you are the type of guy that compares penis size as a means of measurement. If this is the case then black men would be every doctor, lawyer, politician, etc. in the world... Dude, do me a favor and grow up! You act like a little boy on here!

On the contrary, it wasn't me who started flashing resumes on this site as a way to measure someone's cognitive ability to see and judge current events. ;)

And I know for sure you're no rocket scientist. That's as obvious as gravity. :)

[SubSerpent]

Why are you comparing professional levels? Who's to judge who has the most professional level here? I could be a rocket scientist working for NASA right now, you just don't know.

BTW, your ignorance just shows that you are the type of guy that compares penis size as a means of measurement. If this is the case then black men would be every doctor, lawyer, politician, etc. in the world... Dude, do me a favor and grow up! You act like a little boy on here!

On the contrary, it wasn't me who started flashing resumes on this site as a way to measure someone's cognitive ability to see and judge current events. ;)

And I know for sure you're no rocket scientist. That's as obvious as gravity. :)

WOW! I'm impressed! You came up with that all on your own? Amazing! :roll:

[ASWnut101]

so impressed because you could never come up with it.

[SubSerpent]

so impressed because you could never come up with it.


Yeah, whatever sparky! :rotfl:

[NEON DEON]

GENTLEMEN!

GENTLEMEN!

THIS IS THE WAR ROOM!

YOU CAN'T FIGHT IN THE WAR ROOM!:huh: :huh: :huh:

[ASWnut101]

so impressed because you could never come up with it.


Yeah, whatever sparky! :rotfl:


oooo, im sooo insaulted:rotfl:

[SubSerpent]

so impressed because you could never come up with it.


Yeah, whatever sparky! :rotfl:


oooo, im sooo insaulted:rotfl:


:lol: Now your the funny looking medic :rotfl:

Make up your mind on what you want! :lol:

[ASWnut101]

I try......

[August]

in before the lock. :up: