DescentBB

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2004 12:43 pm**

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/o ... 8/19/iraq/

Looks like some members of bush's highly touted team would fight against our troops. I think we are losing the fight for the Iraqi's "hearts and minds".

So would you kill the Iraqi soccer team members? It sounds like Arol and woody would.

"I want the violence and the war to go away from the city," says Sadir, 21. "We don't wish for the presence of Americans in our country. We want them to go away."

Manajid, 22, who nearly scored his own goal with a driven header on Wednesday, hails from the city of Fallujah. He says coalition forces killed Manajid's cousin, Omar Jabbar al-Aziz, who was fighting as an insurgent, and several of his friends. In fact, Manajid says, if he were not playing soccer he would "for sure" be fighting as part of the resistance.

"I want to defend my home. If a stranger invades America and the people resist, does that mean they are terrorists?" Manajid says. "Everyone [in Fallujah] has been labeled a terrorist. These are all lies. Fallujah people are some of the best people in Iraq."

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2004 12:50 pm**

If the numbnuts was shooting at me, why wouldn't I want him dead?

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2004 1:56 pm**

We don't shoot our own senators and congressmen who fight against our troops, why start picking on the Iraqi soccer team? If you want to protect our troops start shooting right here at home.

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2004 2:26 pm**

How soon stupid people forget:

---------------------
Iraq was once the athletics mecca of the Middle East, but it has languished under the heavy hand of Uday Saddam Hussein. In a supposed attempt to inspire his athletes to new greatness, the head of the Iraqi National Olympic Committee allegedly has imprisoned some, tortured others and executed dozens more since 1984, an ESPN.com investigation reveals.
---------------------
"Being a well-known athlete can get you killed. Dozens of athletes and leaders in the Iraqi sports movement have been executed, in part because they were popular with the public."

â??Issam Thamer al-Diwan, former Iraqi athlete
---------------------
Link

With a wave of Uday's arm the manacled boxer was led into the room by Iraqi secret service. Sitting behind a dark wood desk beneath an oversized portrait of himself, Uday began his tirade. "In sport you can win or you can lose. I told you not to come home if you didn't win." His voice rising, he walked around the desk and gave the boxer a lesson. "This is how you box," he screamed as he threw a left and a right straight to the fighter's face. Blood dribbled from the athlete's nose as Uday launched another round of punches. Then, using the electric prod he was famous for carrying, Uday jolted the boxer in the chest.

Blood was streaming from a cut above the boxer's eye when Uday ordered his guards to fetch a straight razor. The boxer cried out as Uday held the razor to his throat, and as he moved the blade to the fighter's forehead, Uday laughed. He then shaved the man's eyebrows, an insult to Muslim males. "Take him downstairs and finish the job," Uday screamed.

Says Yahia, "They took him to the basement of the Olympic building. It has a 30-cell prison where athletes--and anyone else who is out of favor with Uday--are beaten and tortured. That was the last I ever heard of that boxer."

-Latif Yahia (Uday's body double)

Link

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2004 2:31 pm**

So you'd kill them, index.

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2004 2:44 pm**

If they were shooting at me? Without hesitation. If they were shooting at Iraqi troops? Without hesitation.

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2004 3:23 pm**

Obviously if they picked up arms and started firing at you, wouldn't you?

Hopefully this won't shock you Birds...but if you started to shoot at me, I'd kill you too.

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2004 4:10 pm**

I'm just guessing here but here goes..

My guess is Birdseye would prefer someone in charge would have said: "Let them have the Bradley we can't bomb it because some of those people down there are most likely innocent civilian types."

I think that is the wrong perspective to view this from.

Besides the fact that wouldn't do much for the morale of our guys who are watching the rebels throw a dance party on the battlefield celebrating our loss with impunity there are other reasons not to back off.

My take on it is that backing off wouldn't actually do anything for 'winning their hearts and minds' not nearly as much as showing a strong hand does at winning their capitulation which is, realistically, the most we can hope to achieve.

We can't afford to apply all of the same standards we hold civilian authority to here as a part of our military's rules of engagement over there. And don't bother mentioning the double standard because hypocrisy isn't recognized as a factor in battle and it actually holds very little sway in international relations.
When things break down so far as to lead to war then the rules change and might *is* right.

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2004 4:33 pm**

Nobody in america will stop and think for a second that maybe we should try to listen to the people we're supposedly liberating.

Posted: **Mon Sep 13, 2004 4:48 pm**

Which group?

*The Iranian fundamentalists-pretending-to-be Iraqi's
*the Bathist Party-used-to-be Saddams-pets-Iraqis
*the local Shia Iraqi's
*the Sunni Iraqi's
*the Happy-the-U.S.-is-here-Iraqi's
*the Happy-the-U.S.-is-here-until-they-blew-up-my-cousin- Iraqi's
*the Fox News interview Iraqi's
*the CNN interview Iraqi's....

Posted: **Tue Sep 14, 2004 8:12 am**

HAHAHA.. right on the money Birds! There is too much action and not enough thought

Posted: **Tue Sep 14, 2004 8:58 am**

Do you suppose that all of these disparate terrorist groups will cease operations en masse once we offer to come to the table? What happens when negotiations reach a sticking point and one of the terror organizations decides to bomb a school or a nightclub in response? How many are you willing to sacrifice to the alter of negotiation? Where do you draw the line with regard to capitulation to terrorist demands, is there anything you would consider to be "off the table" or should we keep making concessions until they are satisfied? Are you willing to give them EVERYTHING that they ask for if they refuse to compromise and restart bombing operations? How do you deal with the new generation of crazies once they realize that a sustained campaign of violence and murder will cause their ideological enemies to give in to their demands?

Some feel that the only language that this particular enemy respects IS action. Aside from lending legitimacy to their tactics, some feel that even offering to negotiate with these folks will be seen as a sign of weakness on our part and embolden the enemy to re-double their efforts. Just because people come to different conclusions than you and Birds does not mean that there is "not enough thinking" taking place.

Posted: **Tue Sep 14, 2004 9:06 am**

Should we kill the Iraqi Olympic soccer team?

Sure, why not?

Posted: **Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:56 am**

Well the Iraqi people are being mislabeled in America. Clearly many of them should be labeled freedom fighters, rather than "insurgents" since some of them are fighting to protect their home.

I am sure this would start playing differently in public if everyone realized that many of the fighters aren't insurgents but people protecting their hometown.

What really struck me about the article was that Bush highly touted this soccer team, but it sounds like the team doesn't want us there and doesn't like Mr. Bush.

The media hardly covered this. That must mean it has a conservative bias!!!! (joke on whiney conservatives who claim liberal bias on every aspect of human life)

Anyway, if we are going to listen to someone, I think it ought to be some ordinary Iraqi citizens. The Iraqi Olympic Soccer Team is a good place to start. Why are you fighting us? We are trying to liberate you, what can we do differently to diffuse the situation? How can we help you better?

Posted: **Tue Sep 14, 2004 12:21 pm**

Well, when Bush used them in a commercial it was ok because they were heroes from a repressed world, now they're the enemy.

Posted: **Tue Sep 14, 2004 12:30 pm**

Pebkac wrote:Do you suppose that all of these disparate terrorist groups will cease operations en masse once we offer to come to the table?...

it's so easy to kill a bunch of people, but do you think there is such a thing as a neat and clean war?

will they cease operations en masse? ★■◆● no.
it takes hundreds of times more effort to mend a ★■◆● up, than to just go and destroy whomever will avenge it <-- and then go and destroy whomever will avenge that <-- on and on and on.

the cycle of reactionary killings & wars & hate, is great for the arms industry.

'thinking' - it's murder for the ecconomy

.
just say no to thinking.

Posted: **Tue Sep 14, 2004 1:35 pm**

will they cease operations en masse? **** no.
it takes hundreds of times more effort to mend a **** up

Ok then, how long do you think it will take for them to calm down and meet us at the table? How many will die while we wait for this? What would you believe to be an acceptable level of death and destruction? What happens if they are past the point of negotiating? Should we surrender to their demands because we're "wrong"? Afterall, fighting them just makes them want to fight back.

just say no to thinking

Once again, just because some reach different conclusions than you doesn't mean they aren't thinking. You have no way of knowing whether or not your way is the right one either.

Posted: **Tue Sep 14, 2004 1:52 pm**

what i'm saying is that you guys have got yourself into this mess, you reap what you sow. are there ANY foreign problems that can't be traced back to some past fuckup? it's like no-one wants to actually FIX anything, because that would involve admiting that you actually DID fuckup in the past. some kindof sick "no apologys" policys at work, just digging the hole deeper and deeper and deeper.

i ment 'thinking' as being opposite to acting.
i'm implying that there is too much action going on, with not enough thinking (incl thinking beforehand).

to coin the term: "shooting and asking questions later".

but i'm still not sure if you'll ever get to the 'asking questions' part, 'later' or not.

it seems more of a "shoot back, and just accuse them of shooting first". repeat rinse.

Posted: **Tue Sep 14, 2004 2:54 pm**

Roid:

On behalf of all people, living or dead, who choose, have chosen, or will choose to live in the United States of America, I do hereby affirm that America has made many, many mistakes with regard to foreign policy. Please accept my most sincere and humble apologies for any and all stupid ★■◆● committed by my country from its inception to the present day.

That said, you may be right. Perhaps terrorism itself is the result of US meddling. A whole generation of Muslims driven to madness and violence. These are indeed errors that should be corrected. Some might say that the WOT is exactly that, a giant correction of a half-century of mistakes. We created a big, ugly monster, and now we're going to try to kill it. Aside from that, imagine if a democratic Iraq were to be achieved. Imagine a democratic Afghanistan. These scenarios also help facilitate a reduction in terrorism. If these things seem impossible to you, then you are too pessimistic and you underestimate the inhabitants of those countries.

As for thought over action, well, you're dealing with a loosely organized consortium of psychotics who were raised in a world where honor killings and public executions weren't considered abnormal. Why do so many refuse to entertain the notion that, in some places, action is the only language that garners respect? That even asking for a ceace-fire to begin negotiations would be seen as a sign of weakness.

Anyway, as for Australia taking their dog out of the hunt, I honestly hope that it works out for you. America is paying for it and providing nearly all the manpower (as we should), so the loss of the Aussie contingent won't hurt too bad. I still don't see how the vast majority of your country could be so against siding with the US and still re-elect PM Howard, though.

Posted: **Tue Sep 14, 2004 3:44 pm**

Just a few headlines to address the kill, kill, kill myth:

April 10, 2004
U.S. Seeks Truce With Fallujah Militants Link

April 12, 2004
Shaky Fallujah truce holds as more hostages taken in Iraq Link

April 14, 2004
Iraq truce crumbles amid heavy gunfire Link

Aug. 8, 2004
Sheikhs agree to peace deal with coalition troops Link

Aug. 14, 2004
Iraq government endorses Najaf peace deal Link

Aug 26, 2004
Iraq's top cleric gets peace agreement in Najaf Link

Powell praises Najaf peace agreement, role of U-S troops Link

Aug 26, 2004
Dozens killed' as mortar hits mosque near Najaf Link

And so it goes. It makes it just a little hard to negotiate peace when some (many of whom aren't even Iraqis) are working very, very hard to make sure it doesn't happen. Anyone who says we aren't trying, just isn't paying attention.

Posted: **Tue Sep 14, 2004 5:41 pm**

Birdseye wrote:Nobody in america will stop and think for a second that maybe we should try to listen to the people we're supposedly liberating.

Interesting that you didn't even post about the Iraqi soccer team until 2 months after the comments. Were you listening? I can't believe you'd be listening to the people we're liberating, and yet not have heard about this for almost 2 months.

Do you read anything written by Iraqis? Iraq the Model is a good place to start, and it links to a lot of other Iraqi blogs. Omar (one of the ItM writers) had some comments about the soccer team on Aug 20-21 -- essentially, don't listen to the one idiot backup player who said he'd fight the US. He's one guy on a team of dozens and a country of millions, and most of them are pretty happy with us.

Mohammed's comments on August 5 about Al-Sadr also address your point about "freedom fighters" vs "insurgents" fairly well. "These militant groups have betrayed Iraq by their collaboration with other countries to destabilize the situation in Iraq while the true sons of Iraq are working to build their country." These people aren't fighting to protect their homes -- they're fighting to break stuff and destabilize Iraq.

So, to answer the thread title: no, don't kill the Iraqi soccer team. If the one moron joins the insurgence and shoots at us, shoot back. But keep supporting the team, and keep rebuilding.

Posted: **Wed Sep 15, 2004 12:19 am**

The Australian military flew the iraqi soccer team to athens so they could compete

They ended up kicking our ass to boot!

Posted: **Wed Sep 15, 2004 12:49 am**

Lothar wrote:So, to answer the thread title: no, don't kill the Iraqi soccer team. If the one moron joins the insurgence and shoots at us, shoot back. But keep supporting the team, and keep rebuilding.

Can I at least throw a tomatoe at the one guy?

j/k

Good point Lothar.

Posted: **Wed Sep 15, 2004 6:42 am**

Pebkac wrote:Roid:
Perhaps terrorism itself is the result of US meddling. A whole generation of Muslims driven to madness and violence. These are indeed errors that should be corrected. Some might say that the WOT is exactly that, a giant correction of a half-century of mistakes. We created a big, ugly monster, and now we're going to try to kill it. Aside from that, imagine if a democratic Iraq were to be achieved. Imagine a democratic Afghanistan. These scenarios also help facilitate a reduction in terrorism. If these things seem impossible to you, then you are too pessimistic and you underestimate the inhabitants of those countries.

nono, i think that is a noble cause to persue.
if that actually IS what this 'war on terror' is all about though (: mending past fuckups), then perhaps we'd have heard a statement to that effect.
we havn't, so if this IS the underlying reasoning behind the war on terror then you're never going to win. because you don't defuse longterm idealiogical wars with lies. they are defused with things like truth and trust.

Anyway, as for Australia taking their dog out of the hunt, I honestly hope that it works out for you. America is paying for it and providing nearly all the manpower (as we should), so the loss of the Aussie contingent won't hurt too bad. I still don't see how the vast majority of your country could be so against siding with the US and still re-elect PM Howard, though.

oh, we havn't taken our dogs outof the war. australia's leaders are still supporting it just as much as they ever were afaik.
taking the dog outof the hunt while the hunted animal is wounded and therefore dangerous is not a good idea.
iraq was a fuckup, atm it's a cleanup phase, with insurgencys ALREADY attacking so soon, we're fucked.

we will never win this. by destabalising Iraq we have handed it to the Islamic militants, unless we want to stay there FOREVER fighting them off. sorry

(we told you so)

index_html those news headlines are always a ray of sunshine. but they are the exception, not the rule.

crap, this is the iraqi soccer thread. are we offtopic? i'm not sure!

Posted: **Wed Sep 15, 2004 7:43 am**

roid wrote:...those news headlines are always a ray of sunshine. but they are the exception, not the rule....

I believe that is your perception not the reality. I believe the millions of Iraqi's who are now putting their lives back on track under a new democratic type government are the rule and the minority that are fighting or dying are the exeption. The problem is the exceptions get all the news coverage.

Posted: **Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:58 am**

ok ok. you're right.

(omgomg flipfloppy)

Posted: **Wed Sep 15, 2004 11:43 am**

Actually, yes I was lothar

I saw the article when it first came out, but you didn't hear about it because of the obvious conservative media bias.

I heard it when it came out but I didn't post it until now.

If the one moron joins the insurgence and shoots at us, shoot back. But keep supporting the team, and keep rebuilding.

After posting on this subject several times and being caught not reading it once, you're caught a second time. There were 2 guys in the article. Coach Hamad, and one player.

Birdseye

Posted: **Wed Sep 15, 2004 5:03 pm**

Birdseye wrote:Actually, yes I was lothar ;) I saw the article when it first came out, but you didn't hear about it because of the obvious conservative media bias.

Actually I read about it on IraqTheModel the day it came out, or possibly the day after. I also saw it on espn.com and cnn.com. I didn't have to google for IraqTheModel -- I remembered Omar's Aug 21 comment, so I opened up the page and looked for comments around the same date as the article you linked.

If the one moron joins the insurgence and shoots at us, shoot back. But keep supporting the team, and keep rebuilding.
After posting on this subject several times and being caught not reading it once, you're caught a second time. There were 2 guys in the article. Coach Hamad, and one player.

I read it when it came out. I might be a little shaky on the details, but here's what I remember:

- there was one guy who actually said he'd be fighting against us.
- there were several guys who said they'd rather not have Bush use the soccer team politically.

Now, rereading the article, let's see how that plays out:
- guys who say they'd fight us: Ahmed Manajid
- guys who talk about the US killing Iraqis: Ahmed Manajid, Adnan Hamad
- guys who say they'd rather not have Bush politicize them: Salih Sadir

So, when I talked about ONE moron shooting at us, I was correct based on the article: only Manajid said he'd be shooting at us. Other guys had complaints, but none of them said they'd be fighting us.

Now, Birds, answer my question: Do you read anything written by Iraqis? Since you say we should be listening to them, I'm going to press this point -- are you listening to them? Do you really think reading one SI article means you know more about what Iraqis want than the US military, which interacts with them every day?

By the way, today's IraqTheModel entry on "hearts and minds" should give you something to think about.

Posted: **Wed Sep 15, 2004 5:28 pm**

Here's the thing:
Hamad, the coach, easily could be a celebrant caught up in one of the US bombs. Say he isn't picking up a weapon, but he is caught in a celebration ala the Dancing in the Streets thread. Participants in that thread concluded that even someone not firing a weapon but celebrating near a US death are fair game to be killed.

I have read some of the blogs, especially when they are brought up on the board (Bash particually seems to post them).

I am a huge skeptic. I know I err on the side of negativity frequently, but I have concerns of the blogs being used to gauge overall feelings of the Iraqis.

People with daily internet access tend to be more wealthy. Usually in times of crisis, the poor are hit the worst when instability hits. I am very pleased many Iraqis are happy with us. I hope the feeling spreads to 100%. We are on the same page in that regard.
You do need to remember that someone with daily or almost daily internet access obviously has not had their home blown up. To me it seems like they are overall less likely to be adversely affected by the US occuptation. If you are poor with no computer and you can't find a job because of the fighting, or if your town is in shambles because of bombs, obviously you don't have internet access.

Now, the soccer team certainly does not represent an overall opinion. However, it does bring up clear evidence that not everyone fighting the US is an "insurgent" as reported by US media. My friend recently returned from Turkey, where everyone is calling the "insurgents" "freedom fighters."

It is a real struggle finding what the actual overall sentiment is. Please keep me updated with any good links you have.

Posted: **Wed Sep 15, 2004 5:37 pm**

To address the topic, yes, any soccer player, Iraqi or otherwise, who picks up a gun to fire at coalition troops should be killed as quickly as possible.

roid wrote:if that actually IS what this 'war on terror' is all about though (mending past ****ups), then perhaps we'd have heard a statement to that effect.
we havn't, so if this IS the underlying reasoning behind the war on terror then you're never going to win. because you don't defuse longterm idealiogical wars with lies. they are defused with things like truth and trust.

To address your first point, I honestly do believe that this is what this war is about. This is primarily because I don't believe Bush or any of his administration to be evil or stupid or bent on world domination. I believe that they are doing what they feel is in the best interests of this country. Even IF they are wrong, it doesn't make them stupid or evil. Few administrations have had to deal with the issues that this one has faced.

Furthermore, you will never hear Bush or any other President say that "we are correcting past mistakes", because to do so would be to besmirch the legacies of his predecesors, who actually made those mistakes. That's not going to happen.

We "win" the war on terror if Afghanistan and Iraq can be successfully rebuilt as functioning members of the international community. Poverty and oppression breed the hatred that motivates the terrorist. Give a sane man the ability to take care of his family and live his life in peace, and he will not become a terrorist. I don't believe these goals to be unattainable, just difficult, painful, and slow to achieve.

As to winning not with lies (which is a weak, weak charge) but with truth and trust, through past mistakes we've long since lost any hope of gaining the trust of our enemies. We've long since passed the point where we could expect the enemy's requirements for ceace-fire to be reasonable. They think killing us gets them into heaven, they are no longer rational.

In short, we've crossed a point of no return. These groups filled their ranks over the years to the point of a global reach. The most efficient method to stop, or at the very least slow down, the frequency of global terrorist acts is to reduce their numbers in the short-term and eradicate the breeding grounds further reducing membership in the long-term. Negotiation would take years and years and there is the strong possibility of attacks on civilians each time one of these groups loses patience with the process. Not to mention the possibility of talks lasting years, only to break down thus putting us back at square one. It's just not worth it.

roid wrote:taking the dog outof the hunt while the hunted animal is wounded and therefore dangerous is not a good idea.
iraq was a ****up, atm it's a cleanup phase, with insurgencys ALREADY attacking so soon, we're ****ed.

Whether or not Iraq was a fuckup is still up in the air. I would expect insurgencies to pop up right after the invasion, when the security of the country is at its most vulnerable. Were you expecting some sort of grace period? You seem to believe that these people represent the majority of Iraqi citizens, which they do not. I hear that Syrians and Iranians are also there working their mojo. It's very bad now, yes, but there was a time in the American west when a trip to the bar to play cards could result in you getting shot and killed. The country was still forming and some areas were still lawless, much like Iraq is right now. As Afghanistan and Iraq get their ★■◆● together, the insurgencies will stop, either through negotiation or through violence.

roid wrote:we will never win this. by destabalising Iraq we have handed it to the Islamic militants, unless we want to stay there FOREVER fighting them off. sorry

The stable Iraq of before was lead by a wet turd of a human being, violent and belligerent to his people and his neighbors. By destabalising Iraq, we have given Iraq its first chance for TRUE stability in decades. I can't help you with your generally negative attitude and woefully pessimistic outlook on the situation, but you are right about one thing.

No offense, but it is the prevalence of negativity and pessimism such as yours which will lose this war. Right now, you are in the minority, in your own country and globally.

"We can't do this."
"We will never do that."
"That's impossible."
"We're fucked!"

What solution are you advocating? Should we give up? Because giving up means surrendering to all their demands, no matter how ridiculous. Why should they let us have any concessions? We've lost the stomach to fight. We will appear weak, and we will have only rented peace for a while. Fight them now, or fight them later.

Posted: **Wed Sep 15, 2004 6:41 pm**

Participants in that thread concluded that even someone not firing a weapon but celebrating near a US death are fair game to be killed.

The aforementioned participants are wrong.

Note that what I said was "if the one moron joins the insurgence and shoots at us, shoot back." The coach who might be celebrating? Leave him alone.

Posted: **Wed Sep 15, 2004 6:52 pm**

Fair enough.

Posted: **Wed Sep 15, 2004 9:24 pm**

I don't know that I can say that it's right to kill them, but dang, how far is it between cheering so energetically and picking up a gun themselves when it's convenient?

Posted: **Thu Sep 16, 2004 7:43 am**

Good post Pebkac, but do these people want our help? They really don't like what we stand for, do you think honestly, they will all become just like America in the end? Or is this all going to turn into another helicopter pulling someone off the roof off a building in Saigon?

Posted: **Thu Sep 16, 2004 9:15 am**

Pebkac wrote:To address the topic, yes, any soccer player, Iraqi or otherwise, who picks up a gun to fire at coalition troops should be killed as quickly as possible.

roid wrote:if that actually IS what this 'war on terror' is all about though (mending past ****ups), then perhaps we'd have heard a statement to that effect.
we havn't, so if this IS the underlying reasoning behind the war on terror then you're never going to win. because you don't defuse longterm idealiogical wars with lies. they are defused with things like truth and trust.
To address your first point, I honestly do believe that this is what this war is about. This is primarily because I don't believe Bush or any of his administration to be evil or stupid or bent on world domination. I believe that they are doing what they feel is in the best interests of this country. Even IF they are wrong, it doesn't make them stupid or evil. Few administrations have had to deal with the issues that this one has faced.

when you say "best interests of this country" what country are you referring to, USA or Iraq?
- If Iraq, then why the special interest in Iraq? i smell Kuwait, i smell Israel, i smell arms, i smell oil, i smell cash... i smell lies, can't you smell lies too?
- If USA, then my original point stands of not being able to win a war (i should have said 'hearts and minds' really) with lies.

Furthermore, you will never hear Bush or any other President say that "we are correcting past mistakes", because to do so would be to besmirch the legacies of his predecesors, who actually made those mistakes. That's not going to happen.

you expect omnipotence from your rulers? do you bury them in Pyramids too?
omnipotent rulers... dude that's pretty fucked right there.

We "win" the war on terror if Afghanistan and Iraq can be successfully rebuilt as functioning members of the international community. Poverty and oppression breed the hatred that motivates the terrorist. Give a sane man the ability to take care of his family and live his life in peace, and he will not become a terrorist. I don't believe these goals to be unattainable, just difficult, painful, and slow to achieve.

As to winning not with lies (which is a weak, weak charge) but with truth and trust, through past mistakes we've long since lost any hope of gaining the trust of our enemies. We've long since passed the point where we could expect the enemy's requirements for ceace-fire to be reasonable. They think killing us gets them into heaven, they are no longer rational.

you give up on diplomacy, almost (not quite) as fast as i give up on military action.
i think that, in our day and age of intel gathering and advanced underground military strategys, we are a LONG way from being able to win any wars anymore by conventional means.

one answer is to be SURE of the wars you want to fight, don't just go into war sighting any old reason. it should be good and it shouldn't be lies.

unless you are trying to prove something (badly).

Posted: **Thu Sep 16, 2004 12:34 pm**

zuruck wrote:Good post Pebkac, but do these people want our help? They really don't like what we stand for, do you think honestly, they will all become just like America in the end? Or is this all going to turn into another helicopter pulling someone off the roof off a building in Saigon?

Well, I don't know for sure if they want our help, just like you don't know for sure whether or not they like what we stand for. As is common in most situations, the insurgents (which I believe to be a minority of Iraqis and a smattering of other nationalities mixed in) are being heard more loudly than the common man on the street. I believe that the good people of Iraq who just want to live, would prefer we stay through until the end regardless of whether or not they disagree with our being there in the first place. Whether or not they like the style of government that we want to implement, I'm quite sure they don't want someone like al-Sadr in charge either. And maybe it won't look like America, it doesn't have to, but I do feel it will be better than what was there before.

roid wrote:when you say "best interests of this country" what country are you referring to, USA or Iraq?

The USA, although Iraq (as well as the rest of the planet) will benefit in the long run as well if we are successful.

If Iraq, then why the special interest in Iraq? i smell Kuwait, i smell Israel, i smell arms, i smell oil, i smell cash... i smell lies, can't you smell lies too?

I don't smell lies so much as I smell overactive imaginations. I debate so many people over here who believe that everything Bush does is motivated by evil intentions. Don't you see how irrational that is? Relax man, if Bush actually did/does something illegal, the Democrats will dig it up and he will be impeached. Until then, the fact that Bush's enemies are now down to manufacturing evidence against him, I don't think they've found anything that will stick yet.

If USA, then my original point stands of not being able to win a war (i should have said 'hearts and minds' really) with lies.

Well, once again, I believe that the "lies" charge is the product of jumping to conclusions due to an irrational hatred of the Bush administration. Also, as I said to Zuruck, you actually have no hard evidence to prove that we're NOT winning the hearts and minds of the average Iraqis. You have flimsy evidence that suggests we are not, and I have flimsy evidence that suggests we are. One of us is wrong. Time will bear out which one of us it is.

you expect omnipotence from your rulers? do you bury them in Pyramids too?
omnipotent rulers... dude that's pretty ****ed right there.

No, that's you jumping to conclusions and flying off the handle. A sitting President standing up and saying that all of his predecessors were wrong, going back to FDRoosevelt and probably farther, would be "politically incorrect" for lack of a better term. It has nothing to do with omnipotence. It has to do with trampling a man's legacy when he's in the grave and cannot defend himself. It has to do with the fact that, right or wrong, the best intentions of this country were at the heart of those previous administrations' actions. You do not let a man do the best job that he can and then rub his face in the mistakes he made once he's out of office/in the grave. It is not done.

you give up on diplomacy, almost (not quite) as fast as i give up on military action.
i think that, in our day and age of intel gathering and advanced underground military strategys, we are a LONG way from being able to win any wars anymore by conventional means.

one answer is to be SURE of the wars you want to fight, don't just go into war sighting any old reason. it should be good and it shouldn't be lies.

unless you are trying to prove something (badly).

I gave up on diplomacy the minute I read a manifesto from the enemy stating that killing certain people, "both civil and military is the duty of every Muslim who is able to do so" and that this will get you into heaven. I don't know about you, but I think that's ★■◆●ing crazy. You can't negotiate with crazy people. As to the war, we won the "conventional" war pretty quickly. It only took a couple of weeks to get to Baghdad. I'm confident that the ensuing guerilla army we now face will also be put down, mostly because it doesn't represent the feelings of the average Iraqi. Psychos from neighboring countries have come in and joined with the power-hungry locals to try and take over. In time, the insurgency will be put down through negotiation, an Iraqi security force growing in strength, and continued assaults by coalition troops.

As to the last part, I can't convince you that Iraq is not based on "lies." If you would just change "lies" to "faulty intelligence" then I could at least meet you halfway. You see the devil in everything this administration does, and you see nothing but hopeless failure as the result of the WOT. To me, that's an irrational belief that colors your judgement on just about every topic relating to it.

Posted: **Thu Sep 16, 2004 3:27 pm**

Pebkac wrote:Do you suppose that all of these disparate terrorist groups will cease operations en masse once we offer to come to the table?

Nope. I do, however, feel that if we stop bothering them, it'll stop getting worse. Bush is endangering American lives by trying to control the world.

Posted: **Thu Sep 16, 2004 3:28 pm**

Pebkac wrote:Well, I don't know for sure if they want our help, just like you don't know for sure whether or not they like what we stand for.

I think if they start shooting you they probably don't want your help. Chances are they don't like what you stand for either. It's even possible that they want you to go away altogether.

Posted: **Thu Sep 16, 2004 3:58 pm**

Suncho wrote:Nope. I do, however, feel that if we stop bothering them, it'll stop getting worse.

Really? How long has Sweden been "bothering" the Islamists? Sweden has "lost control" of one of their major cities, Malm. If there is a poster here from Sweden, perhaps he/she can shed more light on it.

Muslims rule major Swedish city - September 09, 2004

from http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/

An exclusive series of translations from the Swedish press, made for Jihad Watch by Ali Dashti, who writes:

Sweden is one of the worst hit countries in Europe of Muslim immigration and Political Correctness. Now, the police themselves have publicly admitted that they no longer control one of Sweden's major cities. I have made some exclusive translations from Swedish media. They show the future of Eurabia unless Europeans wake up.

I've seen the future of Eurabia, and it's called 'Sweden.' Malm is Sweden's third largest city, after Stockholm and Gothenburg. Once-peaceful Sweden, home of ABBA, IKEA and the Nobel Prize, is increasingly looking like the Middle East on a bad day.

All following links to major Swedish newspapers, with a brief
translation:

http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/s ... 10,00.html

Malm , Sweden. The police now publicly admit what many Scandinavians have known for a long time: They no longer control the situation in the nations's third largest city. It is effectively ruled by violent gangs of Muslim immigrants. Some of the Muslims have lived in the area of Roseng Rd, Malm , for twenty years, and still don't know how to read or write Swedish. Ambulance personnel are attacked by stones or weapons, and refuse to help anybody in the area without police escort. The immigrants also spit at them when they come to help. Recently, an Albanian youth was stabbed by an Arab, and was left bleeding to death on the ground while the ambulance waited for the police to arrive. The police themselves hesitate to enter parts of their own city unless they have several patrols, and need to have guards to watch their cars, otherwise they will be vandalized. "Something drastic has to be done, or much more blood will be spilled" says one of the locals.

http://w1.sydsvenskan.se//Article.jsp?article=10092861

The number of people emigrating from the city of Malm is reaching record levels. Swedes, who a couple of decades ago decided to open the doors to Muslim "refugees" and asylum seekers, are now turned into refugees in their own country and forced to flee their homes. The people abandoning the city mention crime and fear of the safety of their children as the main reason for leaving.

http://w1.sydsvenskan.se/Article.jsp?article=10090830

ALL of the 600 windows at one of the schools in Malm have been broken during the summer holiday. Window smashing alone costs the city millions every year. City buses have been forced to avoid the immigrant ghetto, as they are met with youths throwing rocks or bottles at them if they enter. Earlier this year, a boy of Afghan origin had made plans to blow up his own school.

http://w1.sydsvenskan.se//Article.jsp?article=10093267

People working at the emergency ward at the major hospital in Malm
receive threats every day, and are starting to get used to it. Patients with knives or guns are commonplace. They have discussed having metal detectors at the emergency entrance, but some fear this could be seen as a provocation.

http://w1.sydsvenskan.se//Article.jsp?article=10093495

Lisa Nilsson has lived in Manhatten, New York City, for 25 years. After moving back to Malm , Sweden, she now misses the safety of New York. She never walks anywhere in Malm after dark, but takes a taxi everywhere she goes.

http://www.expressen.se/index.jsp?a=180423

Rapes in Sweden as a whole have increased by 17% just since the beginning of 2003, and have had a dramatic increase during the past decade. Gang rapes, usually involving Muslim immigrant males and native Swedish girls, have become commonplace. Two weeks ago, 5 Kurds brutally raped a 13-year-old Swedish girl.

http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/s ... 63,00.html

22-year-old Swedish woman going out for fresh air gang raped by three strange men. The only said one word to her: "*****!"
(w h o r e)

Ali Dashti comments: "Stories like this are in Swedish newspapers every week. Swedish media usually take great care not to mention the ethnic background of the perpetrators, but you can usually read it between the lines."

One more: how have Swedish politicians reacted to the chaos caused in one of their major cities because of Muslims of whom even the police seem to be afraid? By making it easier for Muslims to enter Sweden:

http://www.cphpost.dk/get/81008.html

Sweden's politicians view arranged marriages as a positive tradition: a cultural pattern that immigrants should be allowed to preserve even in Sweden. The Swedish government feels that interfering in arranged marriages is an encroachment upon private life. In addition, immigrant couples can apply for family reunification in Sweden even if they've never seen each other before - as long as the marriage is entered in a culture with a tradition of parents arranging marriages on behalf of their children. A 2002 study by V xj University economics professor Jan Ekberg found that immigration cost Swedish taxpayers DKK 33 billion that year, compared to just DKK 10 billion in Denmark. And while one might assume that the rise in costs would result in knee-jerk opposition to immigration, just the opposite has happened in Sweden. A Swedish government commission has proposed abolishing the so-called "seriousness requirement."

Now, I'm not saying you're wrong, but evidence doesn't support your conclusion. Both France and Russia, two countries who were vehemently opposed to our actions, have also been affected by these madmen. How do you rationalize that with your statement?

Suncho wrote:I think if they start shooting you they probably don't want your help. Chances are they don't like what you stand for either. It's even possible that they want you to go away altogether.

That may be true if you believe that the people shooting at us represent the majority population of the country. Do you have any evidence that this is the case? I'm betting you don't. If EVERYONE in the country shared the insurgency's goals, we wouldn't even be able to set foot on Iraqi soil as EVERYONE would start shooting at us. How does the evidence of Syrian and Iranian fighters among insurgent ranks fit in with your assessment?

We each have our perceptions, and like I said, time will tell who's right and who's wrong.

Bush is endangering American lives by trying to control the world.

You're dangerously close to stepping over the line of rationality.

Posted: **Thu Sep 16, 2004 4:52 pm**

Suncho, since you seem to think you know what "they" want, answer the question I've asked others:

Do you read anything written by Iraqis? Do you talk to anyone who's in Iraq, or has been there in the past few months? Or are you just repeating what the TV told you "they" want, and not questioning who "they" even are?