So Far, Iraq Worse Than 'Nam

[Nbadan]

Question... If Iraq was in the state it is currently in, and it were not a cause of any US Military action, would we be justified in taking action to try to bring stability? Would the UN?

I don't really have an opinion on this but I'm curious to hear some of your opinions.

There are countries, even in the ME, with bigger structural problems than Iraq. I will repeat what I said in 2001 - going into Iraq without first solving the Palestinian crisis is foolish.

[RandomGuy]

There are several hundred thousand military personnel involved in the Iraqi and Afghani operations, painting our entire military and its administration with the brush of a few idiots is irresponsible. Idiots, I hasten to add, that have been held accountable for their actions and are now suffering the consequences.

I don't agree with the thesis that our troops are monsters. They are far from it. They are some of the best we have to offer, period.

The sad reality is that we are all much less safe because of Bush Administration f***-ups. Turn off the spin machine please, I want a dose of reality.


painting our entire military and its administration with the brush of a few idiots is irresponsible.

pfft: answer this one question:

Do our enemies care about what is responsible?

[RandomGuy]

Acts of War and Criminal Acts are different and, therein lies the fundamental difference...

Mr. Emperor, you have have no clothes...

When wars end, we free the combatants.

When we will win the war and free these men?

[Yonivore]

Mr. Emperor, you have have no clothes...

When wars end, we free the combatants.

When we will win the war and free these men?

When the enemy is defeated or surrenders unconditionally.

[RandomGuy]

When the enemy is defeated or surrenders unconditionally.

"the enemy?"

Which government will sign the surrender?

How many years will this war take?

[RandomGuy]

What cons utes "defeated"?

[Yonivore]

What cons utes "defeated"?

Unconditional surrender or a forced cessation of hostilities through aggressive military action (translation: Kill 'em all).

[RandomGuy]

Unconditional surrender or a forced cessation of hostilities through aggressive military action (translation: Kill 'em all).

How do we know when they are all killed?

What if aggressive military action creates more enemies than it kills?

Is this "war" 100% winnable?
Our own president has said it isn't. Are you calling him a liar?

[RandomGuy]

Everybody who reads this knows you can't answer the questions.

You can't answer the questions because logic and morality is simply not on your side, but you are too stubborn to admit it. You can't handle the truth.

[Yonivore]

"the enemy?"

Which government will sign the surrender?

Ah, well, this is a non-traditional enemy -- isn't it? I'd take a surrender signed by Mullah Omar, Osama bin Laden, and Zarqawi along with their call to all Jihadies to lay down their arms and cease all terrorist acts.

It also wouldn't hurt if all the Mad Mullahs around the globe would cease their instruction of hate in the Madrassas (sp?) and would also come out and openly condemn acts of terrorism, admit the error of seeking a global caliphate, and recognize non-Muslims as human beings.

That'd be a start -- and, I'd certainly consider releasing, to their countries of origins, those detainees that would affirm their compliance to these calls for a cessation of terrorism from the "surrendering" terrorist leaders around the globe.

We've already defeated the Taliban and the Ba'athist regimes of Afghanistan and Iraq so, their surrender is no longer required. And, we've gained a measure of compliance from Libya, Syria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.

I'd say the end of the war is closer today than it was on September 11, 2001.

How many years will this war take?

As many as it takes.

[RandomGuy]

Once again:

What government will sign the surrender?

How many years will this "war" take?

[RandomGuy]

Ah, well, this is a non-traditional enemy -- isn't it? I'd take a surrender signed by Mullah Omar, Osama bin Laden, and Zarqawi along with their call to all Jihadies to lay down their arms and cease all terrorist acts.

This will never happen and you know it.

SO

You are saying that we detain these men forever without a trial.

Then in the same breath you say that Saddam was wrong for detaining people without trial.

The noun hypocrite has one meaning:

Meaning #1: a person who professes beliefs and opinions that they do not hold
Synonyms: dissembler, phony, phoney, pretender

Which belief do you hold?

It is OK to deny people trials or it isn't?

[Yonivore]

Once again:

What government will sign the surrender?

How many years will this "war" take?

Can't help you there. You apparently want an answer that fits into your breadth of understanding.

[RandomGuy]

We've already defeated the Taliban and the Ba'athist regimes of Afghanistan and Iraq so, their surrender is no longer required. And, we've gained a measure of compliance from Libya, Syria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.

I'd say the end of the war is closer today than it was on September 11, 2001.

If we were fighting "Libya, Syria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia." I might agree with you.

You can't even define who we are fighting, let alone how long it would take or what it will take to win.

If you say you can do any of those things to any certain degree, please let the government in on this special insight, I am sure they could use it.

[Yonivore]

This will never happen and you know it.

No, I don't know that. There were people who thought the Japanese would never surrender -- but, they did. Ditto the Germans.

SO

You are saying that we detain these men forever without a trial.

If that keeps them from rejoining their fellow terrorists and re-engaging Coalition troops on the battlefield? Yep.

Then in the same breath you say that Saddam was wrong for detaining people without trial.

I guess that would depend on his justification for doing so. It would also depend on whether or not we agreed with his justification for doing so.

The noun hypocrite has one meaning:

Meaning #1: a person who professes beliefs and opinions that they do not hold
Synonyms: dissembler, phony, phoney, pretender

Which belief do you hold?

You're a simple-minded man, aren't you?

It is OK to deny people trials or it isn't?

War/Crime. There's a difference...

[Yonivore]

If we were fighting "Libya, Syria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia." I might agree with you.

You can't even define who we are fighting, let alone how long it would take or what it will take to win.

If you say you can do any of those things to any certain degree, please let the government in on this special insight, I am sure they could use it.

I think it is you that doesn't recognize the enemy...Not all wars are fought on the battlefield.

[RandomGuy]

I think it is you that doesn't recognize the enemy...Not all wars are fought on the battlefield.

REALLY?

So when you said that we would win through "aggressive military action" you were just talking out your ass?

[Yonivore]

REALLY?

So when you said that we would win through "aggressive military action" you were just talking out your ass?

You're a boring twit RG.

Aggressive military action WHERE and WHEN necessary. Obviously, it didn't require that to bring Libya into line; and, it appears Syria may self-destruct. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are still playing a balancing act between being Western-friendly and Islamo-fascist-facilitators.

Continue being dense...you and I have been down this road before and, this time, I'm leaning toward putting you in the ban box with Nbadan and boutons.

[RandomGuy]

You're a boring twit RG.

Aggressive military action WHERE and WHEN necessary. Obviously, it didn't require that to bring Libya into line; and, it appears Syria may self-destruct. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are still playing a balancing act between being Western-friendly and Islamo-fascist-facilitators.

Continue being dense...you and I have been down this road before and, this time, I'm leaning toward putting you in the ban box with Nbadan and boutons.

I am only a boring twit because I am right.

Your arguments are morally and logically weak. As much as you may attack me, that will not change and everbody who reads this knows it.

[Yonivore]

I am only a boring twit because I am right.

Your arguments are morally and logically weak. As much as you may attack me, that will not change and everbody who reads this knows it.

No, you're a boring twit because you talk in circles and use illogical arguments.

I'm satisfied with my responses to your nonsense and perfectly willing to let them stand to be read by all.

[RandomGuy]

You're a boring twit RG.

Aggressive military action WHERE and WHEN necessary. Obviously, it didn't require that to bring Libya into line

What brought Libya into line wasn't the invasion of Iraq.

Libya was brought into line because it's oil infrastructure was on the verge of complete collapse. Qadaffi Duck knew this and rather than have the country in an open revolt because the oil dollars stopped, he gave up his programs. Simple economics and self-survival, but hardly fear of the US.

[Yonivore]

What brought Libya into line wasn't the invasion of Iraq.

Libya was brought into line because it's oil infrastructure was on the verge of complete collapse. Qadaffi Duck knew this and rather than have the country in an open revolt because the oil dollars stopped, he gave up his programs. Simple economics and self-survival, but hardly fear of the US.

What brought Libya into line was the invasion of Iraq.

[Yonivore]

Here, read for yourself:

Lessons from Libya and North Korea’s Strategic Choice: Questions and Answers

QUESTION: Could you elaborate on the role played by … (inaudible) Kim of Korea University. I want you to elaborate on the roles played by the U.K. in the negotiations between Libya and the U.S. and, particularly, whether you have some kind of relevant application of the role in the case of North Korea, for example, whether Japan can play such a (inaudible)-taking role in the negotiations between the U.S. and North Korea.

UNDER SECRETARY BOLTON: I think the role played by the United Kingdom was critical. In fact, it was the United Kingdom that Libya first approached just a very short time before the onset of military force against Saddam Hussein in Iraq, saying basically that he didn’t want to have happen to him what was about to happen to Saddam Hussein. So, really the role of the British was most important from the outset. Of course, the relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom with respect to Libya had a number of elements in common, not the least of which was the fact that the Pan Am 103 was blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland, and that a number of unfortunate civilian victims were killed on the ground as well as U.K. citizens killed in the crash itself. We had worked very closely with the United Kingdom over the years in trying to resolve not just Pan Am 103, but a range of other terrorist actions that the government of Libya had committed.

Perhaps the most significant aspect of the relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom was the joint work that our intelligence communities had been doing for several years and following the Khan proliferation network and watching its intimate connection with Libya and other countries and the danger that the continuing activity of Khan’s network posed. So that our action through the Proliferation Security Initiative to interdict the shipment of uranium centrifuge equipment bound for Libya in late October 2003 was a critical element in convincing Qaddafi that we knew what he was doing.

I think the most significant political aspect was that the United States and the United Kingdom came to share the judgment that the Libyan government had made this strategic decision to give up the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. It was that shared assessment that allowed us to stay closely together in the negotiations. I think it’s fair to say that, so far, in the case of Japan and the Republic of Korea in particular, there’s a shared assessment on the position that the North has taken in the negotiations and the position that we have that we want the complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantlement of the North’s weapons of mass destruction programs.

[RandomGuy]

No, you're a boring twit because you talk in circles and use illogical arguments.

I'm satisfied with my responses to your nonsense and perfectly willing to let them stand to be read by all.

Let's try logic then.

I will present a logical arugment and you try to refute it.

A--detaining people forever without trials is bad.
B--Saddam detains people forever without trials.
C--The USA detains people forever without trials.

(1) If Saddam detains people forever without trials, then Saddam is bad.

(2) If the US detains people forever without trials, then the US is bad.

This is very simple logic. You admitted that you agreed with premises A, B, and C. So therefore both conclusions 1 and 2 must be logically correct.

[RandomGuy]

What brought Libya into line was the invasion of Iraq.

Please offer proof for this assertion.

I will offer proof for mine momentarily.