President Bush

[devonin]

Originally Posted by hayatewillown

They reside in Iraq.

Proof other than "The guys in the army say so"?

One of the largest criticisms from the UN about the American actions in Iraq was their complete inabilty to forge a reasonable link between Saudi and Egyptian terrorists who carried out the attack, and Iraq. (As a humourous aside, a political cartoon printed during the time America was trying to convince the UN to give its blessing to military actions in Iraq depicted Colin Powell standing in front of a display board with the words "Al-Qaeda" and "Iraq" on it, with the Q in each word circled, and the caption "And you can clearly see the connection between the two groups")

Bin Laden and Hussein were commonly on the record as dispising each other to the point of encouraging hostile actions against each other's organisations.

Hussein thought that Al-Qaeda were ignorant, picking fights against entirely the wrong targets, and Bin Laden felt that Iraq was basically a lapdog of the United States, for the degree to which western culture had infiltrated the country. (This is, incidentally from -US Government- released tapes and videos coming from Bin Laden, and other high up members of both Al-Qaeda and Iraq)

The best defense is a good offense.

So when the terrorist group takes an offensive stance, they are horrible attacking evil people, but when America takes an offensive stance, it's defending itself?

I'm sorry but I fail to see how a group of people working for -years- with dozens of people on the inside working to bring this about managing to hijack three planes, take down a building, and kill a few thousand civilians out of the 300 million people living in America constitutes a threat on the order of "We must obliterate them from the earth or they will destory us outright, and any amount of civilian death and damage is well worth it"

Nobody in their right mind would take a nuclear strike against a country that possesses enough nuclear weapons to destory all life on earth a few dozen times. And if you want to argue instead that these people are just not in their right mind, do you really think that overthrowing the government in a country that -at most- didn't actively seek out and destory that organisation is going to let that stop them in the slightest?

[trillobyite]

Originally Posted by hayatewillown

To much of a literalistic idea. Won't work. Thats just BEGGING for a civil war.

First of all...
Don't pull out. If we stop stomping down the terrorists , they will grow in size and destroy us.

Dammit, I posted a response and then there was an error and now it's all missing. My major points were that the only way to defeat terrorism is through psychological and propoganda warfare, since terrorists have become homegrown, and staying in Iraq won't help the situation. I agree with Bush that staying on the offensive is safer than being on the defensive. But I feel the soldiers could be on a better mission right now than serving in Iraq, which is a whirlpool of **** in which fighters are being funded by Syrians and Iranians who want to destabilize the region due to centuries long rivalry with Iraq. The best interest for the USA is a puppet or ally in Iraq and I feel a Kurdish state could be a good ally.

Originally Posted by devonin

I'm sorry but I fail to see how a group of people working for -years- with dozens of people on the inside working to bring this about managing to hijack three planes, take down a building, and kill a few thousand civilians out of the 300 million people living in America constitutes a threat on the order of "We must obliterate them from the earth or they will destory us outright, and any amount of civilian death and damage is well worth it"

Dude, 9/11 isn't the only instance of terrorism in the past few decades. Madrid bombings, London bombings, the 1993 WTC bombing, and beyond dozens against Israel are only some, not even including terrorism against India, and Xinjiang province of China, and Dagestan, and the Chechnya school massacre where hundreds of little kids werre butchered in favor of a separate theocratic state, and also Al-Queda operations in Turkey and in Pakistan, Islamic separatists in Ethiopia that dragged it into a war with Somalia, the Darfur genocide whose government is quite possibly supported by terrorists, and right now Fatah in a Palestinian refugee camp fighting the Lebanese army... The sheer amount of terrorist sympathizers in the world and especially the Middle East is staggering, the amount of terrorist groups with thousands of members is enormous, the amount of homegrown terrorists who are caught planning attacks are high enough to be considered a threat. There are crowds of hundreds of thousands rallying often to chant hatred against America all over the world.

And God forbid just one tiny terrorist organization get their hands on a nuclear weapon.

[trillobyite]

Edit: Sorry for the double post...

[devonin]

Dude, 9/11 isn't the only instance of terrorism in the past few decades.

His whole point to which I was responding was the necessity of -America- responding to attacks -On America- or -America- would be "destroyed"

I'd love to see Bush extend his war on terror into Belfast, but somehow I doubt that will be happening any time soon.

[trillobyite]

Originally Posted by devonin

His whole point to which I was responding was the necessity of -America- responding to attacks -On America- or -America- would be "destroyed"

I'd love to see Bush extend his war on terror into Belfast, but somehow I doubt that will be happening any time soon.

The organizations behind and claiming responsibility for many of the bombings or instances I listed are extremely anti-American and are a considerable threat if you ask me.

[devonin]

Fair enough, I'm pretty sure that none of those organizations are called "Iraq" though.

[trillobyite]

I just want to update my position. I was thinking that if Kurds were given more power than the Sunni and Shia states, Iran would, already having its agents operating in the area and providing funding (specifically to cause instability- Iran has hated Iraq for centuries), be able to completely take over two thirds of Iraq and create a pseudo "greater Iran". I would think this can be counterbalanced with a heavily armed Kurdistan, but its border would be right next to Turkey- and the Turks hate the Kurds AND the persians. Considering a UN force in the area is worthless (Hezbollah rearms under their nose in the Israel-Lebanon border and they packed up and left at request of Nasser before the 67 war in the Egypt-Israel border), I really can't think of a good idea.
I think everyone is just ****ed.

[marxandlennon]

Originally Posted by trillobyite

I just want to update my position. I was thinking that if Kurds were given more power than the Sunni and Shia states, Iran would, already having its agents operating in the area and providing funding (specifically to cause instability- Iran has hated Iraq for centuries), be able to completely take over two thirds of Iraq and create a pseudo "greater Iran". I would think this can be counterbalanced with a heavily armed Kurdistan, but its border would be right next to Turkey- and the Turks hate the Kurds AND the persians. Considering a UN force in the area is worthless (Hezbollah rearms under their nose in the Israel-Lebanon border and they packed up and left at request of Nasser before the 67 war in the Egypt-Israel border), I really can't think of a good idea.
I think everyone is just ****ed.

There is no real answer for the people of the middle east, because the west will only care about what happens there until the oil stops flowin'. Now, oil independence is the pefect solution for us, since the oil money that goes to fund these terrorist groups will stop, however, it will be hell on the people of the mideast with no other infrastructure in place to support them, and things will get worse. Civil war, genocide, crime, and pretty much general chaos will be the order fo the day, and the West won't do a damn thing about it. The middle east will become the new Africa.

[trillobyite]

Originally Posted by marxandlennon

There is no real answer for the people of the middle east, because the west will only care about what happens there until the oil stops flowin'. Now, oil independence is the pefect solution for us, since the oil money that goes to fund these terrorist groups will stop, however, it will be hell on the people of the mideast with no other infrastructure in place to support them, and things will get worse. Civil war, genocide, crime, and pretty much general chaos will be the order fo the day, and the West won't do a damn thing about it. The middle east will become the new Africa.

As cruel as this is to say, and I want to make note that I grew up in the Middle East (Iraq, in fact) and have followed its politics in detail for years; I really couldn't care less. The reason so many people there suffer is because oil money goes to make the Saudi family richer and fund terrorism through the back door. The same exact situation exists in Gaza; when Hamas was elected, they spent what little aid money they did get to fund Qassam launches against Israel. Before, when Fatah was the ruling party, Arafat gave billions in aid from all over the world, to his wife in Paris. The Middle East is pretty much characterized by leaders exploiting their own people for monetary gain, and disseminating anti-american and anti-semitic propoganda in a fundementalist context to the masses to convince them that the fault of their poverty lies in the West. Africa is also characterized by leaders exploiting their people for monetary gain, but they at least don't launch a mass hatred and demonization campaign. If you've ever watched the movie "Blood Diamond," there is one scene in which, after the journalists describe how diamonds, a natural resource, have led to civil war and infighting rather than economic prosperity, the main character says "Good thing we don't have oil, then we would face REAL problems".

The Middle East is already characterized by civil war (In Gaza and the Palestinian territories right now, in Lebanon there were clashes between Christians and Muslims, as well as the Lebanese army vs Fatah el-islam, and Iraq is in a state of civil war, pretty much), genocide (Black September- Jordanians massacred thousands of Palestinians, Saddam had gassed Kurds [which is why I have a personal hatred of Saddam]), crime (well, maybe not so much petty crime due to harsh punishments, but looting and rioting is common), and war (Iran-Iraq War is only one example of over 100000 dead, and of course the intifadahs).

If it were up to me, the USA should fund ANYONE willing to build infrastructure, and maintain at the very least, luke-warm relations with the West, and strengthen them (and, as devonin helped point out, should have a decent human rights record for the people in its own country). This means Israel, this means a Kurdish state, this means the UAE (though they don't need help), Egypt (Second largest recipient of US foreign aid), possibly Jordan (The king of jordan is pretty moderate and I respect him, but the country is piss-poor) and Qatar (The USA has built universities there). Iraq should be abandoned. But then that leads to what I said above, since Turks would never allow an independent Kurdistan on their border.

[Orch_Dork]

Originally Posted by DARKSAMUS

Bush is making a right choice. But think about what kind of pussys we would be leaving this war and allowing al-queda to continue bombing other countries (including us) Terrorist can't be left around killing everyone. If we back out of this war now like the Liberals want, this whole war then would probably be pointless like you had said before adam.

im not a big fan of bush but i agree with ^ completely. if we pull out like little pussys were going to get stoped on by some terrorests. if that happens were going to regret ever ending the war

[devonin]

trillobyte, I find it interesting that one of your stronger examples of what is wrong with the middle east is the leadership practice of the saudis to wit: "The reason so many people there suffer is because oil money goes to make the Saudi family richer and fund terrorism through the back door."

And yet Saudi Arabia is one of the countries with the -best- relations with the west, one of the greatest desires to build infrastructure, both of which were requirements for you to want to see the US support them.

I'm just curious how you can reconcile the United States blatanly backing a country that you seem to feel is very indicative of all the problems facing the middle east.

[marxandlennon]

Originally Posted by devonin

trillobyte, I find it interesting that one of your stronger examples of what is wrong with the middle east is the leadership practice of the saudis to wit: "The reason so many people there suffer is because oil money goes to make the Saudi family richer and fund terrorism through the back door."

And yet Saudi Arabia is one of the countries with the -best- relations with the west, one of the greatest desires to build infrastructure, both of which were requirements for you to want to see the US support them.

I'm just curious how you can reconcile the United States blatanly backing a country that you seem to feel is very indicative of all the problems facing the middle east.

To save the middle east, the only possible solution is something approaching another Marshall Plan. One of the greatest successes in the war on terror had nothing to do with military might, rather, money. After the tsunami hit, Bush (in one of his rare moods) gave a few hundred million dollars in aid to the people of Indonesia. The reaction was immediate: the greatest outpouring of US support we've seen from a Muslim country in over 50 years. The US still has fanatical backing in the mostly-Muslim Albania thanks to our reconstruction efforts there. That's the key. Money, for the express purpose of the building of infrastructure, public education, housing, and the like.

Hold up Turkey as the example: A secular, democratic Muslim-majority nation. A good example, remaining so due to economic benefits, namely, those Turkey would get if allowed to join the EU. We need more Turkeys, and the only way to do that is economicaly. All the bombs in the world won't help us achieve that.

[hayatewillown]

Originally Posted by devonin

So when the terrorist group takes an offensive stance, they are horrible attacking evil people, but when America takes an offensive stance, it's defending itself?

First of all. Yes. It is defending itself. Unless you have had actual experience out in the field, your data, given by the community and media, is invalid. The community is not always right, and hell, definitely not the media.

If we stop attacking, then other countries will find out that we are being little wimps, and attack us, even if we are interfering with a "holy war".

It is defending itself. Just because you have a "smart" choice of words, doesn't mean that you are smart, or that it still makes sense. How the hell would a terrorist group attack evil people? Could you please be more freaking specific? You mean to them, we are being infidels, right? And that term, the way they use it, is anyone that does not believe what they believe, and I right? So the terrorists that reside in Iraq, who were already involved in a "holy war", decide to attack us. Funny enough, the terrorists, who are based on Palestinians and Islams. Imagine that. Underline Palestinians for me please, when you reply with a good answer. Anyways, the Palestinians are basically the "bad guys", and the Israelites are the "good guys". This is because the Palestinians and the Muslims were mostly terrorist groups, and the Palestinians are destined to fight over the land.

This is why we are on the Israelites side, and why we are sending our troops to war. Including the fact that we were BOMBED!

Hundreds of people died! Do you know what thats called? MASS GRAVES!

Quit thinking that " That was you know, a few years ago! " . Too bad. We get bombed, America needs to get it's ass in gear and kill some freaking terrorists.

Since the terrorist groups resided in Iraq, who also belonged to the Palestinians, and since the Israelites are our friend, we are helping the Israelites. We are also eliminating the terrorists.

P.S:
Quit posting your crappy reasons for pulling out or to help fight in the war! I doubt It would work!

[devonin]

Originally Posted by hayatewillown

First of all. Yes. It is defending itself. Unless you have had actual experience out in the field, your data, given by the community and media, is invalid. The community is not always right, and hell, definitely not the media.

I'll agree to stop stating opinions of the United States wartime efforts on these grounds provided that you promise to never, ever, under any circumstances state an opinion on anything about which you do not have immidiate and personal first-hand experience. That means no comments amount music you can't also play, movies you can't also star in, write and direct, art you can't make. Also, please do not state any opinions about things that can fly, lay eggs, are transparent, or have anything to do, ever, with countries you have not personally visited within the last 6 months. Hopefully you can see how arrogant and absurd your claim that nobody is ever allowed to talk about things they aren't experiencing first hand is.

If we stop attacking, then other countries will find out that we are being little wimps, and attack us, even if we are interfering with a "holy war".

Eh-Hem...what did you just tell me to do? You aren't allowed to state opinions about how terrorist groups will react to things unless you are a terrorist. Are you a terrorist? If you are, I guess you're allowed to have an opinion about how terrorists will react to things.

It is defending itself. Just because you have a "smart" choice of words, doesn't mean that you are smart, or that it still makes sense.

This is very true. I haven't once held someone's incredibly stupid way of saying things against them, if what they said had any kind of merit.

How the hell would a terrorist group attack evil people? Could you please be more freaking specific? You mean to them, we are being infidels, right? And that term, the way they use it, is anyone that does not believe what they believe, and I right? So the terrorists that reside in Iraq, who were already involved in a "holy war", decide to attack us. Funny enough, the terrorists, who are based on Palestinians and Islams.

Um...Palestine is a geographical place, Islam is the proper name for a religion. Many Palestinians are not muslims, many muslims are not Palestinians. Please stop confusing types of thing by grouping them together nonsensically.

Imagine that. Underline Palestinians for me please, when you reply with a good answer. Anyways, the Palestinians are basically the "bad guys", and the Israelites are the "good guys". This is because the Palestinians and the Muslims were mostly terrorist groups, and the Palestinians are destined to fight over the land.

Please do some basic research on the creation of the nation of Israel in the aftermath of the second world war, and the way that Israel has been actively encouraged by the United States, who supported them directly with arms and training, to launch unprovoked attacks on other nations that had been supported, with arms and training, by the Soviet Union to serve as proxies for the cold war. There is -just as much- of an argument for the extent to which Israel is the "bad guy" in that particular conflict, which has a) nothing to do with anti-american terrorists b) nothing o do with Iraq and c) nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

This is why we are on the Israelites side, and why we are sending our troops to war. Including the fact that we were BOMBED!

Hundreds of people died! Do you know what thats called? MASS GRAVES!

When was America bombed? You had some planes crashed into some buildings, with a death toll that equals roughly the number of children in the world who starve to death in an hour, while America spends enough money to feed each and every one of them for a year, in about 1 month, to fund efforts that kill more civilians, destroy more civilian property and generally make the problems you are purporting to solve much worse.

Quit thinking that " That was you know, a few years ago! " . Too bad. We get bombed, America needs to get it's ass in gear and kill some freaking terrorists.

Right...the Saudi and Egyptian terrorists...maybe ifyou did something about the countries the terrorists came from, you could claim to be doing something about the attacks.

Since the terrorist groups resided in Iraq, who also belonged to the Palestinians, and since the Israelites are our friend, we are helping the Israelites. We are also eliminating the terrorists.

The terrorists were from Egypt and Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. The American government claimed that the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq were -actively- protecting members of Al-Qaeda, though both governments (rightly) insisted that the United States had but to actually prove such people were present in their countries and they would be happy to assist in bringing them to justice, but were not willing to spend their own money and manpower to scour the countryside simply because the US -figured- that's where they were.

Also...how is invading Iraq, toppling its leader, doing nothing but encourage -more- terrorists and anti-American sentiment, and slowly reducing the cradle of civilization to rubble helping Israel?! Israel's problems have not one damn thing to do with Iraq.

P.S:
Quit posting your crappy reasons for pulling out or to help fight in the war! I doubt It would work!

Um...this is the Critical Thinking forum, for discussion and debate. Are you seriously going to come into a discussion forum, make grandiose and unsupported claims, and then -tell- someone else that they aren't -allowed- to continue to discuss? What right do -you- have to dictate a damn thing to anyone about what they can or cannot say in this forum?

[NarutoFoxDemon]

My, so interested in this "President Bush" Thread are we?Seriously though, he has less than 2 years left.

[hayatewillown]

Ho-crap I mean suicidal pilots sorry. Not bombers.

Any yes Devonin, I did have a first hand experience out in the field. I believe I know what I am talking about. The question is, do you?

[devonin]

Originally Posted by hayatewillown

Ho-crap I mean suicidal pilots sorry. Not bombers.

Any yes Devonin, I did have a first hand experience out in the field. I believe I know what I am talking about. The question is, do you?

First hand experience as a terrorist? You told me that I wasn't allowed to question or have an opinion on American Military actions in Iraq unless I was taking part in American Military actions in Iraq. So holding you to your own standard, your opinion on a terrorist response to an American withdrawl from Iraq woudl require you to have experience as a terrorist in order to be able to have an opinion.

[hayatewillown]

Originally Posted by devonin

First hand experience as a terrorist? You told me that I wasn't allowed to question or have an opinion on American Military actions in Iraq unless I was taking part in American Military actions in Iraq. So holding you to your own standard, your opinion on a terrorist response to an American withdrawl from Iraq woudl require you to have experience as a terrorist in order to be able to have an opinion.

No. Why would a terrorist be on a site that hates terrorist. More-so, why would I be on a site called "flashflashrevolution". Come on Devonin, think harder. NO I am not a terrorist. I'm saying that I have had experience in the field.

And I can hold an opinion if I did, but you cannot ask me what field I'm in. That would be breaking a law here in America.

[trillobyite]

Originally Posted by devonin

trillobyte, I find it interesting that one of your stronger examples of what is wrong with the middle east is the leadership practice of the saudis to wit: "The reason so many people there suffer is because oil money goes to make the Saudi family richer and fund terrorism through the back door."

And yet Saudi Arabia is one of the countries with the -best- relations with the west, one of the greatest desires to build infrastructure, both of which were requirements for you to want to see the US support them.

I'm just curious how you can reconcile the United States blatanly backing a country that you seem to feel is very indicative of all the problems facing the middle east.

The thing is, Saudi Arabia seems to back the West solely because of the oil money, not the other way around, so I wouldn't be so quick to call it a country with any sort of special relationship with the West. Also, for a country its size, SA's GDP is not particularly impressive. If you add this to the country's crappy human rights record, it doesn't make it worth all the money it receives, which is why I didn't include it in the list of nations that deserve funding.

Originally Posted by devonin

Please do some basic research on the creation of the nation of Israel in the aftermath of the second world war, and the way that Israel has been actively encouraged by the United States, who supported them directly with arms and training, to launch unprovoked attacks on other nations that had been supported, with arms and training, by the Soviet Union to serve as proxies for the cold war. There is -just as much- of an argument for the extent to which Israel is the "bad guy" in that particular conflict, which has a) nothing to do with anti-american terrorists b) nothing o do with Iraq and c) nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Israel is definitely not perfect, and I can list dozens upon dozens of my personal criticisms of the country, but I just want to point out that, besides the Suez Crisis which is quite complicated, Israel NEVER launched an unprovoked attack on an enemy army funded by the USSR. In 1948, Israel was waging a war for independence and survival after surrounding armies rejected a UN mandate, using Napoleonic era smuggled Czech artillery and receiving no help from the US at all. In 1967, Israel launched a preemptive strike because every surrounding nation was massing troops on the border, making direct threats against Israel and alliances between each other, blasting radio propoganda in Hebrew laughing about how they will rape all the Israelis and burn them to ash, and closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping (if you watch a good documentary, I prefer "Six Days in June," you'll see how in 1967, Israel's attack was not unprovoked), almost all under direct orders from the USSR (so in fact, it was the opposite of what you said), and in 1973 Israel was invaded by surrounding countries again.

Originally Posted by hayatewillown

Since the terrorist groups resided in Iraq, who also belonged to the Palestinians, and since the Israelites are our friend, we are helping the Israelites. We are also eliminating the terrorists.

WHAT?
The Iraqis may sympathize strongly with the Palestinian cause, but the ones firing at US troops there are NOT Palestinian, have no relation with them at all, and certainly don't receive funding from them! They receive funding from Syria and Iran, Iran because it would prefer to see the region destabilized, and Syria is a very anti-US country. People from all surrounding nationalities, including Jordan and even as far as Somalia in Africa, join the attacks on US troops and ESPECIALLY Iraqi guards and police who literally have done nothing wrong. If you watch any interview with captured terrorists, they couldn't care less whether they killed an American or an Iraqi policeman. These people aren't "defending" anyone.

You're making the very, very flawed assumption that all Islamic terrorist groups have some connection to the PLO or Palestinian cause, when that is not the case. They may all support them, but their individual objectives tend to differ in numerous ways. The Thai terrorists who want a theocratic state, the rebels in Northwest China, the Chechen anti-Russian terrorists, the Somalian terrorists at war with Ethiopia, the ones operating in Iraq targetting both US troops and either Sunni or Shia, whichever they hate, and hell the PKK are all terrorists of the same ideology that have no connection to the Palestinians.

Also, if you read any statement by the Israeli government, they have determined that the situation in Iraq is in fact a detriment and not of any aid. There is now a haven for terrorists to operate, and modern gaza is becoming a microcosm of Iraq. Most of the people who believe the USA went to war for Israel also believe the Jews did 9/11. That stuff is bull****.

[Kit-]

Originally Posted by hayatewillown

No. Why would a terrorist be on a site that hates terrorist. More-so, why would I be on a site called "flashflashrevolution".

By your statement, how would you know what a terrorist would do if you're not a terrorist?

Originally Posted by hayatewillown

Come on Devonin, think harder. NO I am not a terrorist. I'm saying that I have had experience in the field.

Except the field in question is terrorism. So you're claiming to be either a terrorist or part of an agency which deals with counterterrorism.

Originally Posted by hayatewillown

And I can hold an opinion if I did, but you cannot ask me what field I'm in. That would be breaking a law here in America.

Congratulations. In addition to making yourself look like an idiot, you just destroyed your credibility with a flimsy, half-baked lie. If what you said were true, you just revealed yourself to be involved in counterterrorism, breaking your so-called law.