Islam: a Plan for World Domination?

[Dan J 277]

I am sure there are a lot of dead civilians who are very glad to hear that.

i'm sure a lot of our service men & woman would be thrilled to know you think of them as crazy barbarians. especially since they are fighting a war to keep your azz safe & free to bash them on an internet message board.

What makes an American life anymore valuable than a life of an Iraqi?

[Heracles 417]

Just because the other side isn't part of it, doesn't release us from our responsibilities under the Geneva convention.

But because we are a state, and part of international law, our actions within those laws can affect our relationships with other countries. We take out the nukes? there will be hell to pay. Not only that, you will basically destroy relationships with any Arab country, which will cut us off for significant supplies of oil. An action that would have costs beyond the battlefield.

Any significant action in violation of international law on our part will have repercussions all across the middle east, and likely the world.

Lol. The Arab world hates and will America no matter what. It did so prior to going to Iraq. Hence sept/11. We have just become fools and are being played by them. So many on the left prefer to deny the constant threats and their use of violence to intimidate us..

Lets take Indonesia for example. Indonesia warmly welcomed Australia's $200 million to protect their forests but has asked for more. All while they just spent $1.2 billion on new military hardware. Point being, the naive need to wake up and smell the coffee and games others are playing..

Edited September 13, 2007 by Boo-Yah!

[smoke20 0]

Likewise your argument is stock standard left wing rhetoric. War is bad and wrong. No sh!t.. but is also inevitable unless you have your head in the sand. You know like-minded people had the same attitude in WWII. Hence why 50,000,000+ people ended up dead..

Many on the left also fail to accept Bin Laden's own quote, "We love death. The US loves life. That is the difference between us two.".. So whether you accept war and violence or not, others will bring it to your door step. The worst thing a nation can do is sit there, like a naive idiot, and take it. Much like being a victim of bullying. Until someone fights back the bully will never ever stop.

Which would work if there was an agressor in the first place...but I seem to remember the reason we went into Iraq was to look for WMD's...or prevent Israel from starting a war (which is a theory I need to research more). Either way, it's hard to argue that the US was a victim of anything. Mind you, war is inevitable and all that...

no we went to war because saddam repeatedly thumbed his nose at countless UN inspections & UN sanctions. and the intellegence avalible to us lead us to believe he had & would use them. the house & senate voted to go to war on the same evidence. (including the dems)

[The_dip_sticks 0]

First of all the usa started an ILEGAL war or have you forgotten that, over lies proclaiming sadam Hussain had WMD's.

the intel services of many different countries believed he had them also.

The child mortality rate is now as it was in the 60s due to the lack of medical care and babies are being born deformed because of the spread of Uranium from US weapons.

i'd like to see something that backs that up. the only ammunition that i know of that is made from depleted uranium are tank rounds and some cannon rounds (a-10).

Chemical weapons used in Fallujah with 50,000 civillians in there was not by the book, rapes of Iraqi girls is not by the book.

what chemical weapons are you referring to?

No running water, no electricity, no real medical care, the economy is destroyed, mortality rate for children is up.

got a source for that?

You occupied a country with no plan, did you people pay no attention to history Algeria, vietnam, ireland...

there was a plan, probably not the right one but it's not a fly by the seat let's play it as it goes what's a plan type of operation. i don't know what military you're familiar with, but the us military does have a plan for dang near anything

The US has no where near enough men to take control of a country with 25 million people, standard militry doctrine will tell you that, you need half a million soldiers at least

really? where did you dig up that number from? i'm certainly unfamiliar with any table that indicates X population needs X amount of soldiers.

You take out lone gunmen with bombs from 40,000 feet,

i'd like to see a source for that too. because it's false.

the US has never ever won a gorilla warfare and you just dont have the stomach for it.

i suppose the revolutionary war....the pacific campaign in ww2...forgot about those?

Ok since you seem very illetirate about simple facts and have the audacity to claim them as false (pure ignorance at its best), I will enlighten you. Hope this helps.

first:

the intel services of many different countries believed he had them also.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-rice-wmd.wmv

In this video you can see COLIN POWELL admitting in feb 2001 IRAQ HAD NO WMD's

Second:

the only ammunition that i know of that is made from depleted uranium are tank rounds and some cannon rounds (a-10).

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/133581_du04.html

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0330-02.htm

http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/anderkel.html

these are just a few from DOZENS of others

Third:

what chemical weapons are you referring to?

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle...ticle325560.ece

As you can see this is from the INDEPENDANT. Theres also a video of US SOLDIERS THEMSELVES ADMITTING IT ON TAPE!!

Fourth:

No running water, no electricity, no real medical care, the economy is destroyed, mortality rate for children is up.

got a source for that?

http://www.nsnetwork.org/node/152

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2005/s1458969.htm

http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/articles...es+And+No+Water

Fifth:

there was a plan, probably not the right one but it's not a fly by the seat let's play it as it goes what's a plan type of operation. i don't know what military you're familiar with, but the us military does have a plan for dang near anything

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/13/...in2177031.shtml

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1031-05.htm

again dozens more

Sixth:

really? where did you dig up that number from? i'm certainly unfamiliar with any table that indicates X population needs X amount of soldiers.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/20/rad...sses/index.html

if you dont want to read the whole thing, heres a statement from within:

Bush, he said, sloughed off the advice the "top military brass who said that at least 500,000 troops were needed to secure Iraq. The president committed only one-fifth of that force to the war."

This was also admitted by a british general in the Telegraph.

seventh:

i'd like to see a source for that too. because it's false.

A commanding officer admitted on BBC that airstrikes are carried out on sometimes 2 or 3 individuals at a time. If you search hard enough you will find videos proving his point.

i suppose the revolutionary war....the pacific campaign in ww2...forgot about those?

Im talking about recent warfare not a defeated regime in WW2. Look at vietnam, on a microcosmic scale somalia and now as in Iraq... sorry but the US has lost already the goal of quashing Al queda has only concluded with the opposite effect.

Thanks.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I am sure there are a lot of dead civilians who are very glad to hear that.

i'm sure a lot of our service men & woman would be thrilled to know you think of them as crazy barbarians. especially since they are fighting a war to keep your azz safe & free to bash them on an internet message board.

Well you did say that you think its ok to shoot a guy holding a baby (presumably with automatic weapons) if he was shooting at you.

Now imagine you're the guy holding the baby...

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Likewise your argument is stock standard left wing rhetoric. War is bad and wrong. No sh!t.. but is also inevitable unless you have your head in the sand. You know like-minded people had the same attitude in WWII. Hence why 50,000,000+ people ended up dead..

Many on the left also fail to accept Bin Laden's own quote, "We love death. The US loves life. That is the difference between us two.".. So whether you accept war and violence or not, others will bring it to your door step. The worst thing a nation can do is sit there, like a naive idiot, and take it. Much like being a victim of bullying. Until someone fights back the bully will never ever stop.

Which would work if there was an agressor in the first place...but I seem to remember the reason we went into Iraq was to look for WMD's...or prevent Israel from starting a war (which is a theory I need to research more). Either way, it's hard to argue that the US was a victim of anything. Mind you, war is inevitable and all that...

no we went to war because saddam repeatedly thumbed his nose at countless UN inspections & UN sanctions. and the intellegence avalible to us lead us to believe he had & would use them. the house & senate voted to go to war on the same evidence. (including the dems)

Heck, even the Frogs thought he had nukes.

Only difference was, Bush thought {Saddam has nukes ==> must kick azz} while the Frogs thought {Saddam has nukes ==> must kiss azz}.

[Ban Hammer 14,273]

As you said you hate war. Whereas I am not afraid to fight what I stand for. Many of you fail to realize or accept most nations where built and secured through means of war and not by blogs or forums.

Some great rhetoric and some failure to understand what I say, but no attempt to construct any form of argument, which leaves us where exactly?

Likewise your argument is stock standard left wing rhetoric. War is bad and wrong. No sh!t.. but is also inevitable unless you have your head in the sand. You know like-minded people had the same attitude in WWII. Hence why 50,000,000+ people ended up dead..

Many on the left also fail to accept Bin Laden's own quote, "We love death. The US loves life. That is the difference between us two.".. So whether you accept war and violence or not, others will bring it to your door step. The worst thing a nation can do is sit there like an idiot and take it. Much like being a victim of bullying. Until someone fights back the bully will never ever stop.

Actually all that was being pointed out was that people assume that the enemy always fight 'dirty' while the military fight 'clean'. Given the complexity of urban warfare (a person doesn't need to be a military genius to have at least some grasp of the incredible chaos of an urban battlefield) its not clear how such a determination can be made that doesn't rely on self-righteous ideological assumptions.

on one side a professional soldier with training on the laws of land warfare, geneva convention and others, restricted with rules of engagement, oversight by a chain of command and clear cut penalties should any of the previous be broken. basically, a professional soldier a legal box to operate in.

on the other side someone with no training whatsoever on the legal aspects of war, no compunction, reservation, or penalties - what's a war crime to the western world probably does not cause the untrained armed insurgent any loss of sleep. in fact, it fits into his agenda........

[Heracles 417]

Likewise your argument is stock standard left wing rhetoric. War is bad and wrong. No sh!t.. but is also inevitable unless you have your head in the sand. You know like-minded people had the same attitude in WWII. Hence why 50,000,000+ people ended up dead..

Many on the left also fail to accept Bin Laden's own quote, "We love death. The US loves life. That is the difference between us two.".. So whether you accept war and violence or not, others will bring it to your door step. The worst thing a nation can do is sit there, like a naive idiot, and take it. Much like being a victim of bullying. Until someone fights back the bully will never ever stop.

Which would work if there was an agressor in the first place...but I seem to remember the reason we went into Iraq was to look for WMD's...or prevent Israel from starting a war (which is a theory I need to research more). Either way, it's hard to argue that the US was a victim of anything. Mind you, war is inevitable and all that...

yes because "at the time" Iraq was perceived to have WMD, which was a huge threat when considering Sept 11. Yes the information turns out to be incorrect. Now what. Do we just pick up and leave??

Edited September 13, 2007 by Boo-Yah!

[smoke20 0]

I am sure there are a lot of dead civilians who are very glad to hear that.

i'm sure a lot of our service men & woman would be thrilled to know you think of them as crazy barbarians. especially since they are fighting a war to keep your azz safe & free to bash them on an internet message board.

What makes an American life anymore valuable than a life of an Iraqi?

who said it was? but, if you ask me an American life is worth more. but, thats a proud Americans opinion. what your opinion on that since you asked the question?

[Dan J 277]

Just because the other side isn't part of it, doesn't release us from our responsibilities under the Geneva convention.

But because we are a state, and part of international law, our actions within those laws can affect our relationships with other countries. We take out the nukes? there will be hell to pay. Not only that, you will basically destroy relationships with any Arab country, which will cut us off for significant supplies of oil. An action that would have costs beyond the battlefield.

Any significant action in violation of international law on our part will have repercussions all across the middle east, and likely the world.

Lol. The Arab world hates and will America no matter what. It did so prior to going to Iraq. Hence sept/11. We have just become fools and are being played by them. So many on the left prefer to deny the constant threats and their use of violence to intimidate us..

Lets take Indonesia for example. Indonesia warmly welcomed Australia's $200 million to protect their forests but has asked for more. All while they just spent $1.2 billion on new military hardware. Point being, the naive need to wake up and smell the coffee and games others are playing..

What does Indonesia have to do with this? Going on a wild tangent again?

We have allies in the region, they give us oil. If we do some really stupid stuff like violate the rules of war on our end. We get no more oil.

[smoke20 0]

I am sure there are a lot of dead civilians who are very glad to hear that.

i'm sure a lot of our service men & woman would be thrilled to know you think of them as crazy barbarians. especially since they are fighting a war to keep your azz safe & free to bash them on an internet message board.

Well you did say that you think its ok to shoot a guy holding a baby (presumably with automatic weapons) if he was shooting at you.

Now imagine you're the guy holding the baby...

i wouldn't be holding a baby & shooting. then again i'm not a coward either.

[Dan J 277]

Likewise your argument is stock standard left wing rhetoric. War is bad and wrong. No sh!t.. but is also inevitable unless you have your head in the sand. You know like-minded people had the same attitude in WWII. Hence why 50,000,000+ people ended up dead..

Many on the left also fail to accept Bin Laden's own quote, "We love death. The US loves life. That is the difference between us two.".. So whether you accept war and violence or not, others will bring it to your door step. The worst thing a nation can do is sit there, like a naive idiot, and take it. Much like being a victim of bullying. Until someone fights back the bully will never ever stop.

Which would work if there was an agressor in the first place...but I seem to remember the reason we went into Iraq was to look for WMD's...or prevent Israel from starting a war (which is a theory I need to research more). Either way, it's hard to argue that the US was a victim of anything. Mind you, war is inevitable and all that...

yes because "at the time" Iraq was perceived to have WMD, which was a huge threat when considering Sept 11. Yes the information turns out to be incorrect. Now what. Do we just pick up and leave??

It was known before the war that Saddam was a paper tiger. But why let petty facts ruin the nationalism?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

We have allies in the region, they give us oil. If we do some really stupid stuff like violate the rules of war on our end. We get no more oil.

They don't give us oil, they sell us oil. If they don't sell us oil, they don't get paid. For a bunch of economies as dependent on oil revenues as those in the ME, choosing to not sell us oil just isn't a good choice.

At least not until Chinese demand is high enough where we pale in comparison and no longer matter.

Drive those SUVs! Maintain American leverage!

[smoke20 0]

Just because the other side isn't part of it, doesn't release us from our responsibilities under the Geneva convention.

But because we are a state, and part of international law, our actions within those laws can affect our relationships with other countries. We take out the nukes? there will be hell to pay. Not only that, you will basically destroy relationships with any Arab country, which will cut us off for significant supplies of oil. An action that would have costs beyond the battlefield.

Any significant action in violation of international law on our part will have repercussions all across the middle east, and likely the world.

Lol. The Arab world hates and will America no matter what. It did so prior to going to Iraq. Hence sept/11. We have just become fools and are being played by them. So many on the left prefer to deny the constant threats and their use of violence to intimidate us..

Lets take Indonesia for example. Indonesia warmly welcomed Australia's $200 million to protect their forests but has asked for more. All while they just spent $1.2 billion on new military hardware. Point being, the naive need to wake up and smell the coffee and games others are playing..

Going on a wild tangent again?

steven isn't here don't use his catch phrases

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

on one side a professional soldier with training on the laws of land warfare, geneva convention and others, restricted with rules of engagement, oversight by a chain of command and clear cut penalties should any of the previous be broken. basically, a professional soldier a legal box to operate in.

on the other side someone with no training whatsoever on the legal aspects of war, no compunction, reservation, or penalties - what's a war crime to the western world probably does not cause the untrained armed insurgent any loss of sleep. in fact, it fits into his agenda........

A few points:

1) Your theoretical insurgent may or may not have military training.

2) Incidents like Haditha have happened so the theoretical constraints on professional soldiers can break down or otherwise be disregarded (though by no means would i suggest that this is a common occurrence).

3) However you rationalise it there is no such thing as a 'clean' war. That rationale relies on certain political assumptions: not least that the US action itself (i.e. the unilateral invasion of a sovereign country) is always justifiable.