Por Que ? Why ? IRAQ SURGE

[Cobalt_Kid]

cobalt- Do you think all this 'support the troops' nonsense is reasonable? Those people are choosing to be there and the ones that are getting shot at are probably the ones who are most gung-ho to kill others. If I was an American I would choose to not have anything to do with that immoral and illegal war. Maybe it calls for a little more consideration due to the fact that if people continue to be conned into supporting the troops they in fact have to support the war effort. Rather, if you are against the war would it not be wise to say you support no part of it and anyone who signs up should not be supported because they have put a job ahead of morality? And then of course, if they are war supporters, IMO they deserve what they get as the Iraqi people fight back to rid their country of the occupiers.

I can tell you people quite clearly, I don't support what our troops are doing in Afghanistan and I don't run around trying to convince people that they should support Canada's troops. I find it best to be silent on the matter at least and that way I don't lend any credibility to their war.

Does it help to think of WW2 and the fact that not all Germans supported their war, but needed to be silent on it for the sake of not being persecuted? Is there really any difference? Is this Iraq war any less immoral and evil?

I'm hoping to get some other opinions on this issue.

I admit I can't be objective about the American troops in Iraq. I've got two cousins serving there and I'm scared ****less they may never come home. Or if they do they may be disabled for life.

They're really good kids and believe in what they're doing, I just think they're being deluded by the Bush admin.

 

[darkbeaver]

That's convenient, darkbeaver.

Took me awhile to figure that out Jim. .Thought it was a cryptic reply.:laughing7::laughing7::wave:

 

[jimmoyer]

You make it sound as though Al Quaeda popped out of nowhere for nothing and started hating the West for no reason.
----------------------------------------------Avro----------------------------------------------------------

Let's get deep.

Ready ?

Boots on ?

We all have reasons to hate.

Now what's the next step ?

Your ball.

Mix a metaphor with me.

 

[lieexpsr]

jimmoyere asked:




So what was 9/11 about ?

Was al Qaeda thankful for our helping them in Afghanistan against the Soviets ?
Was al Qaeda attacking America for Saddam suffering under NO FLY ZONES ?

Did 9/11 happen before this war in Iraq ?

Did al Qaeda list Israel as its top reason among the 11 reasons why they attacked America ?

Did not al Qaeda this week promise to attack Canada and Mexico ?

ARe you still used to hearing people who don't believe what they say ?

If they attacked Madrid for helping America, why do you think they don't mean to attack
Canada for exporting oil to United States ?

911 was a revenge attack just as they explained it. In part it was for the U.S. presence on the Arabian peninsula, the Gulf war in Iraq, the U.S. support of the apartheid regime against the Palestinian people, and other injustices against Muslims and Arabs. Did you think it was because they are jealous of our television sets and our way of life?

AlQueda probably took into consideration the U.S. and British implemented no-fly zones. along with the sanctions against Iraq, which cost the lives of hundreds of thousands in Iraq and the fact that the excuse was used to bomb and destroy Iraq's infrastructure under the pretence that the U.S. was protecting the Kurds. Nonsense jim!

911 happened before this war in Iraq but of course we all know now in Canada that 911 had nothing to do with Iraq. About 50% of Americans still think it did! But the Gulf war and the apartheid regime in Israel happened before 911, along with other injustices against the Arab Muslim people.

The Israeli Zionist regime is most definitely one of Al Queda's greivances and it's quite legitimate too.

Al Queda has threatened to attack Canada and other countries who align themselves with the U.S. The U.S. has made it clear through their moron that if we weren't with them then we were considered to be with the enemy. I would think that Al Queda would therefore be expected to think that everyone with the U.S. must be with their enemy. That's not even worth discussing further.

"Al Queda attacked Spain for aiding their enemy and they may attack Canada for the same reason. It's the price we pay for going to war with the U.S. Of course we never should have got involved in their wars because those wars are not for the purpose they claim they are for.

I hope that helps to answer some of your questions jim.

 

[tracy]

cobalt- Do you think all this 'support the troops' nonsense is reasonable? Those people are choosing to be there and the ones that are getting shot at are probably the ones who are most gung-ho to kill others.

You must not know anyone in the military if you think that. Someone I care about will be heading to Iraq in a couple of weeks. He doesn't exactly want to, but he doesn't get to pick where he gets sent. That's life in the military. He most certainly isn't eager to kill people.

 

[jimmoyer]

"Al Queda attacked Spain for aiding their enemy and they may attack Canada for the same reason. It's the price we pay for going to war with the U.S. Of course we never should have got involved in their wars because those wars are not for the purpose they claim they are for.
---------------------------------------------lieexpsr--------------------------------------------------------

Look a little deeper.


First, Spain.
Interesting that they attacked the Spanish population, Spanish citizens on a train
who all thought the war wrong, where the US is unpopular and you attempting to explain
with reason al Qaeda rationale. Irony, n'est pas ? I'm sure they all understood it wasn't
against them but rather their government.

And it is further irony that you patiently explain this all to a dumb American
who understands that your understanding does not lead you to do what al Qaeda does.

It is also never a good idea for a peoples or a nation to be bullied by terrorism into
changing policy. That sets precedent. And who does that favor ?


Secondly,Canada.

al Qaeda gave the reason (most recently) for attacking Canada because
of their oil commerce with the States, not for reasons of Canadian assistance in war.

 

[darkbeaver]

It's very hard to discuss terrorism when we haven't agreed on a definition. When we limit the definition to the narrow street meaning we excuse the uniformed state terrorist from consideration.
I cannot see Al-Kayduh connducting an attack in spain against the people, I can see other agencys connducting an attack and using the Al-Kaduh fairy tale to garner public outrage against the Muslims.:wave:

 

[jimmoyer]

Uniform Terrorism:
An action by a government, comprised of usually more than one person.
Because it is more than one person usually, debate good or bad ensues to challenge
various members in the decision process.

No uniform terrorism:
An action by a single individual. No process of debate. All thought and
debate is internalized and unchallenged
within the mind of that sole individual.

 

[darkbeaver]

uniformed= dressed in a uniform, green is popular:wave:

 

[jimmoyer]

Spiffy. Glib. Light hearted. Pithy without the pithe.

Darkbeaver posted : uniformed= dressed in a uniform, green is popular:wave:

Let us resume again, class !! The essential difference
between uniform and non-uniform terrorism is easily ignored and glossed over
by those who understand terrorist rationale yet strangely do not feel compelled to do
the same actions as that of the terrorist.

Class begin. Repetez vous.

Uniform Terrorism:
An action by a government, comprised of usually more than one person.
Because it is more than one person usually, debate good or bad ensues to challenge
various members in the decision process.

No uniform terrorism:
An action by a single individual. No process of debate. All thought and
debate is internalized and unchallenged
within the mind of that sole individual.

 

[Blackleaf]

Why should the British and Americans surrender in Iraq?

If the British surrendered during the Blitz in 1940 when we fought alone against the Germans the whole world, including the United States, would be speaking German now.

Ignoring evil by doing nothing about it doesn't make it go away.

 

[Blackleaf]

You presume to much about what we feel about Iraq. You are blind to reality, you have destroyed Iraq and destroyed it for generations. What kind of care includes one and a half million dead men women and children and two-hundred thousand unregistered tortured prisoners.

How could anyone destroy Iraq?

Can you remember who was in charge of that country before the Anglo-American invasion?

If you can, then it's stupid to say that anyone has destroyed Iraq.

 

[darkbeaver]

How could anyone destroy Iraq?

Can you remember who was in charge of that country before the Anglo-American invasion?

If you can, then it's stupid to say that anyone has destroyed Iraq.

He was an amateur small fry tyrant compared to the criminal monsters now in country, and in any case he was elevated to that position of power by the very same pricks who hanged him. You're confused between the two words destroyed and salvation. How do you save a country by inflicting starvation ,disease, DU, sectarian violence, destruction of it's infrastructure, assasination of the intellectuals, mass exodus of homeless civilians, installing a puppet government and theft of its hydro-carbons. Why can't you mouth the word conquest BlackLeaf?

 

[jimmoyer]

I'm suspicious about the good reports of this SURGE working so far.

The Shia Mahdi militias of Sadr have melted back into the shadows, leaving only
Sunni insurgents.

Are American soldiers doing the dirty work for the Shia and cleaning out Sunni ?

Maybe none of this matters.

Maybe history has gone this far and that Sunni and Shia can no longer live together
for now in Baghdad.

 

[mabudon]

I stil think at least SOME of the problem is being created by some sort of special ops, call me crazy, but the RIDICULOUS notion about how 'they' "just want ot keep killing each other" has been so well built up that it would almost be folly to NOT continue it. It is a good line to feed the masses, as such a construct makes little to no sense, thus rational thought is trumped by fear, leading the gullible along to mouth the "'they' hate 'our' freedoms" BS and keep anyone from any sort of actual rational evaluation.

So far, the "surge" really doesn't seem to be having much of an effect past it's impact on the US war budget, and I really don't forsee that changing anytime soon.
Iraq is lost for the West. I really do think this is a Pandoras Box situation. Whatever the initial reasoning behind it was, it seems safe to say that it has gotten out of hand (tho who knows, I have read enough suggesting that the huge mess is exactly what was hoped for... somehow I don't think that's 100% accurate, but I'm sure it's true to some extent)

 

[darkbeaver]

I'm suspicious about the good reports of this SURGE working so far.

The Shia Mahdi militias of Sadr have melted back into the shadows, leaving only
Sunni insurgents.

Are American soldiers doing the dirty work for the Shia and cleaning out Sunni ?

Maybe none of this matters.

Maybe history has gone this far and that Sunni and Shia can no longer live together
for now in Baghdad.

The estimate for suspension of violence in the wake of a coalition departure is put at 2 to 4 weeks by the insurgents, the factions have already begun talks.

 

[darkbeaver]

http://www.globalreserch.ca/printarticle.php?articleid=5004

This is a short interview which explains the situation from an Iraqi perspective.There are many fine Iraqi analysts of the occupation, they are a very educated people.:wave:

 

[jimmoyer]

the RIDICULOUS notion about how 'they' "just want ot keep killing each other" has been so well built up that it would almost be folly to NOT continue it. It is a good line to feed the masses,
----------------------------------Mabudon-------------------------------------------------------------

Overall I liked your thoughtful post.

But on the part I quoted above I think needs more analysis.

Originally both Sunni and Shia lived well together in Baghdad before the war. On this there is
no doubt. Underneath were some strains typical of any neighborhood
having ethnic or cultural differences but overall it was peace-able.

We do know that the now dead Zarqawi wanted to sew violence between the 2 groups,
and that originally al Qaeda did not like the idea of killing fellow Iraqis instead of killing
Americans.

Then the Sunni neighbor states containing rich sponsors worried over Shia and Shia Iran
establishing a Shia Crescent from Iran all the way to Lebanon. Saudi sponsors of
Sunni insurgents, Pakistani sponsors, and even Bahrain is worried, for it is the only other
state to have a Sunni minority rule over a Shia Majority.

Is this in-fighting in the Muslim Middle East a fake propaganda ploy for the
western masses' consumption ?

I don't think so. There are many more levels to this.