Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Guest $iLk

Desperate Iraqi Refugees Turn to Sex Trade in Syria

Recommended Posts

Guest $iLk

Mission Accomplished

quote:

Maraba, Syria - Back home in Iraq, Umm Hiba's daughter was a devout schoolgirl, modest in her dress and serious about her studies. Hiba, who is now 16, wore the hijab, or Islamic head scarf, and rose early each day to say the dawn prayer before classes.

But that was before militias began threatening their Baghdad neighborhood and Umm Hiba and her daughter fled to Syria last spring. There were no jobs, and Umm Hiba's elderly father developed complications related to his diabetes.

Desperate, Umm Hiba followed the advice of an Iraqi acquaintance and took her daughter to work at a nightclub along a highway known for prostitution. "We Iraqis used to be a proud people," she said over the frantic blare of the club's speakers. She pointed out her daughter, dancing among about two dozen other girls on the stage, wearing a pink silk dress with spaghetti straps, her frail shoulders bathed in colored light.

As Umm Hiba watched, a middle-aged man climbed onto the platform and began to dance jerkily, arms flailing, among the girls.

"During the war we lost everything," she said. "We even lost our honor." She insisted on being identified by only part of her name - Umm Hiba means mother of Hiba.

The story continues. Another example of the tragedy of war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the Women who were raped beaten and tortured by Saddam's men, I guess they kept their honor???

It's alarming to me how everyone seems to forget the millions that Saddam Tortured, Killed, Gassed, Jailed and other atrocities to stay in power. Yet because we went in to prevent more bloodshed and the bloodshed continues, NOW it's our fault!!!

If we would have never gone into Iraq, by now Saddam would have been all peaches and cream. A Cuddly, Wuddly little fellow that just blows kisses to everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

$ilk: You would gain much more credibility sticking to the larger picture rather than attempting to illustrate that the larger scope of things is "bad" because of small, personailized instances.

Maybe you aren't aware but for every story of an Iraqi that fell on hard times there are similar ones of Americans during the Revolutionary and Civil Wars. Perhaps you're suggesting that it would have been better to continue Colonial rule and slavery than it would have been to engage in conflict?

I highly doubt that.

For every conflict (just or unjust) there are innocents than suffer. For that reason, said suffering has little to do with whether or not a conflict is just and therefore attempting to make a point (such as your "Mission Accomplished" blurb) based upon personalized consequences (good or bad) would demonstrate a very limited understanding of the larger picture.

And, in the scope of war, the larger picture is the point.

quote:


FYI, the country that has the biggest penitenciary population in the world is... the US. Check for yourself if you don't believe me.

You may wish to retract that. The Russians probably don't lead this any longer due to the splitting of the USSR.

However, I find it HIGHLY UNLIKELY that you have access to accurate statistics regarding China, North Korea, Iran, etc.

And in the case of China, I have a "feeling" that you're not only wrong, but that you're not even in the ballpark. A VERY educated "feeling".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I HAVE to point this out:

quote:


The only point where I will concur is that Saddam was a ruthless dictator. But that US folks come and believe they play the good guys, when the US has showered said dictator during the very same years he commited all these atrocities with US taxpayer money, loan grants, logistic, military and intelligence support let me think that some folks in your country suffer rather severe memory disfunctions...

This is an absurd, emotionalized idea.

So, if a country should come to do what is right AFTER doing what is wrong, the "right" thing to do is no longer the RIGHT THING TO DO? HUH?

Also, the "right" thing to do is dynamic throughout time, in my belief.

However this illustrates the need for a process to peacefully transfer power in a nation, AND for a DEMOCRATIC process with which to govern.

Isn't it beautiful to be able to correct mistakes if they occur? Or should we just ignore that they ever happen because, hey - once you pick a side you're stuck with it...

Disclaimer: I do not believe that it was wrong to support Iraq in Iran/Iraq War due to political considerations. When faced with two distinct evils it is wise to support the lesser evil and hope that both wipe one another out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest $iLk

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

$ilk: You would gain much more credibility sticking to the larger picture rather than attempting to illustrate that the larger scope of things is "bad" because of small, personailized instances.

Maybe you aren't aware but for every story of an Iraqi that fell on hard times there are similar ones of Americans during the Revolutionary and Civil Wars. Perhaps you're suggesting that it would have been better to continue Colonial rule and slavery than it would have been to engage in conflict?

I highly doubt that.

For every conflict (just or unjust) there are innocents than suffer. For that reason, said suffering has little to do with whether or not a conflict is just and therefore attempting to make a point (such as your "Mission Accomplished" blurb) based upon personalized consequences (good or bad) would demonstrate a very limited understanding of the larger picture.

And, in the scope of war, the larger picture is the point.

I've taken this as an opportunity to put a human face on the grand crusade against 'evil'. This was a war of our choosing, and whatever consequences happen as a result of that choice are ours to bear.

As a Conservative I believe in taking personal responsibility. Not only should the administration take responsibility for the 'running water, open schools, etc.' but it is also important that the administration accept responsibility for the rise in pro-Iran Shiites to lead the country, the rapid decline in women's rights, and the terrible economic situation that was created.

Every choice we make leads to a responsibility to the consequences. You act as though our responsibility ended by toppling Saddam, and soon when the administration's talking points include the Iraqis "stepping up to the plate" for themselves - you will jump right on board, or so I predict.

Ultimately - I believe that we shouldn't have invaded in the first place. Unfortunately my opinion was well in the minority at that time... a search in the archives from 2002 here reveal that as a rabid pro-Republican at that time I still opposed the war in Iraq.

I believe that we have caused more problems than we have solved, and that we ultimately have made Iraq a breeding ground for terrorists rather than a field where they go to fight and die. Instead they go to train and learn how to cause mass murder. Within 10 years the United States will be attacked again, a long statement by Al Qaeda or whomever is responsible will say that "we did this because of your actions in Iraq."

Every single talking head in Washington and on Fox News and Sean Hannity and all the usual suspects will sound the trumpet of "NUH UH - THEY ATTACKED US BECAUSE OF OUR FREEDOM! WE WILL PASS PATRIOT ACT 2 AND REMOVE HABEUS CORPUS SO THAT WE CAN PROTECT FREE-DUMB."

Hopefully President Bush was right... "you you can't get fooled again."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Nomad:

.... there are approximately 400'000 individuals who disappeared. ....

Right, those are just the ones that disappeared. When you count all the ones that were jailed, beaten, tortured and so on, yes, it DOES add up to a couple of Million, hence the word "Millions".

Listen, I never said that the U.S. played the "Saint" here, sure we've made TONS of mistakes. What I AM saying however, is that the U.S. is the ONLY one being pointed to. Everyone knows the "EVIL PRES. BUSH", but when someone like Saddam goes on a killing spree, where's the worldwide outcry? Same for the WarLords responsible for the Darfor Massacres, do you even know the names of those leaders?

So basically this is how it works, every cruel dictator around the world that suppresses his populace by ANY means necessary gets a free pass. They can do whatever they want. Kill, Torture, Rape, Jail, Gas, whatever... it doesn't matter. The moment the U.S. gets involved everyone starts screaming bloody murder. Yeah, THAT makes a lot of sense.

quote:

Originally posted by Nomad:

Concerning China & Russia, it's not like if these countries are SECRETLY massively jailing people on a daily basis since they simply don't care about human rights complaints anyhow.

Except for the fact that after "Glasnost" in the old USSR, we found out that the USSR had jailed FAR MORE political prisoners than we ever thought possible.

quote:

Originally posted by Nomad:

... I've abandoned long ago the dream that any government might ONCE intervene somewhere based on genuine humanitarian grounds ...

Well, it's a good thing you abandoned that idea, because that will NEVER happen. Governments only do things that are in the best interest of themselves, or their own people and I highly doubt that will ever change. As for Iraq, in the climate after 911, yeah, they looked like they might be a threat so we went after them. Turns out we were behind the mark, but once we went in, well we had to finish the job so there.

What was that, don't tell me you're one of those that believes we went in for the oil wealth???? Blood for oil and all that!!!! We probably have MORE oil reserves here in the U.S. than IRAQ, but we CHOOSE not to drill for it, because of environmental and other reasons. The average American Family uses about 1000 Gallons of gas a year, at todays prices that's roughly $3000.00 a year. At our average family income of roughly $65,000.00 a year, that's NOTHING to us. That's why you HEAR people complaining about gas, but you don't SEE anyone actually buying smaller cars, hybrids or anything like that. It doesn't really matter to us. Besides that, the U.S. Government is spending so many Billions on this war, that we could NEVER recover what we've spent from Iraq's oil, that's just foolish thinking.

No we went in on a mistaken belief that Saddam was next in line, after Al-Quada to attack us, and this time, we weren't going to wait for it to happen. There was also a bigger picture that we were sending a message. Saddam had signed a cease fire agreement that he REFUSED to honor for over 10 years, we were sending a message that we weren't playing around anymore. It's the reason that Libya decided to have the U.S. come in and pick up their Nuclear program after we invaded, because they realized that Washington changed, there was no longer a paper tiger in the White House.

As for all the people we have in jail here, the majority are there over Drug charges. Yes we take that VERY seriously here in the U.S. We don't have the massive transportation systems here that you have in Europe and the Orient, so people must drive themselves around. If they do so while impared by drugs, then they can easily hurt or kill someone, so yes, we take that VERY Seriously.

You talk about how we fall for the BS that our government provides us, but you're just as guilty for falling for the BS that the media provides. Why is it that the Media doesn't do more to cover these BRUTAL dictators around the world, and all of their sob stories and all the stories of the heartbreak and degradation of living in those conditions. The reason is because YOU don't really care. I don't really care, my next door neighbors could give a rats ass. NO ONE cares that there's all this suffering on a daily basis. As long as it doesn't hit home. As long as it doesn't happen to us or someone we know. The rest of the world, especially Europe, is EXACTLY the same way. Unless of course, it's the BIG BAD U.S. OF A. Then everyone cares, everyone unites against us. No matter that the U.S. is the only one that had Europe's back in the last 2 World Wars. No matter that we've taken in Millions of European "Refugees" over the past several centuries. Personally, I think that the main reason is that here we've taken in Europe's "RifRaff" and made a greater country out of the "Scum" of Europe than any European country has ever been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


Instead they go to train and learn how to cause mass murder. Within 10 years the United States will be attacked again, a long statement by Al Qaeda or whomever is responsible will say that "we did this because of your actions in Iraq."

Yes, and those of your frame of mind will believe them because such a statement is clearly designed to empower those who believe in appeasement.

Fortunately, however, no one will buy into it. Islamic terrorism didn't start after we invaded Iraq. The fact then that certain terrorist elements will use Iraq as another excuse shows that they indeed know that what they are doing REQUIRES and excuse, and is therefore wrong.

Frankly this in and of itself shows the neccessity to fight them rather than attempt to appease them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Nomad:

Cool down Dark. To start with, you did not take millions of european "refugiees" over the centuries since it's that very people who created your country, so you could rather be thankful for those peeps who made the place you live in today.


Umm, I was being facetious here.

quote:

Originally posted by Nomad:

Second, in WW2, it's only after the USA got attacked in Pearl Harbour that your country entered the war...

Except that we were providing the UK with Guns and Ammunition during this time. The President DID want to enter the war, but, as usual, the Congress didn't want to act. Only after we were attacked did they finally do something.

quote:

Originally posted by Nomad:

.... why the hell do you have to fund, maintain and operate a military whose budget is bigger than all other military budgets combined of the over 200 nations that form the UN. ...

First, as a percentage of GDP, we actually spend less than Saudi Arabia (they spend 10%). This is a historical low for us, during WWII we spent upwards of 47% and during the Vietnam war, we spent about 9.5%. Just like the Average Vehicle price here in the U.S. is over 30K, everything in the U.S. is more expensive because of all the safety and technology features that we demand in our products and our military is no different.

Second. The world is a dangerous place. Just as the Cold War was winding down, war broke out in the old Yugoslavia. (Hmmm, why weren't the Europeans able to handle that on their own... Oh yea, not enough military resources). Shortly after that, there was the incident in the Middle East when Saddam tried to Annex Kuwait, which led to the Gulf War. Let's face it, as much as you liberals want to trumpet peace and say, "Hey can't we all just get along", it doesn't exactly work out that way. The moment the Romans started reducing the size of their military, they began to shrink and eventually faded away to nothing. I can guarantee you that if not for the U.S. and our "Oversized" military budget, the world would be an even more dangerous place.

quote:

Originally posted by Nomad:

Fifth, basically, what happens with the US attitude in the world is quite similar with past european powers, be it Portugal, Spain, Holland, France of the United Kingdom. Expansion, arrogance, militarism, ...

I only wish this were true. Hell, after WWII we could have annexed Germany and Japan and made them into the 51st and 52nd states of the U.S. But being the "Good Guys" we helped them rebuild and they're now one of our biggest competitors on the world stage.

If the U.S. would have continued it's expansionism that it started off with, all of the Americas today would now be part of the U.S.A. along with the Philipines and who knows what else. The Poverty and bleak lives that these people have today would never have happened and they would be living in relative prosperity today. Let's face it, even someone on Welfare and Food Stamps in the U.S. lives better than the Middle class do in many countries.

quote:

Originally posted by Nomad:

An excellent paper by Mr. Scheuer (former chief of the CIA's Osama bin Laden unit at the Counterterrorist Center) has been published in "The American Conservative", and I must agree with him.

...

It was this type of thinking that led Carter to basically do nothing after the hostages were taken by Iran in the 70's. He felt that any Military Action they took, would only make things worse. Every attempt at appeasement was only met with more and more demands.

By Paradox, Regan PROMISED a swift military response the MOMENT he became president. He won by a landslide and within Hrs. of him being sworn in, the Hostages were released.

There are some who believe that a military response only creates more people "Mad at you" but it's my belief that a LACK of military response makes your enemies bolder. This is why the World Trade Center incidents happened, because our enemies wholeheartedly believed that the U.S. would NEVER come looking for them directly in another country. AND in addition, if we did come, as soon as a couple of body bags came home, we would turn tail and run.

Here's to hoping that the Americans have the resolve NOT to turn tail and run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


An excellent paper by Mr. Scheuer (former chief of the CIA's Osama bin Laden unit at the Counterterrorist Center) has been published in "The American Conservative", and I must agree with him...

I agree and have always understood that premise, but it IS oversimplified.

It's a similar concept to attacking a nation's nuclear launch capability without actually locating and attacking the silos themselves. It's not the same thing as completely DESTROYING said capability, but there can indeed be impacts.

The suggestion that the Iraq War hasn't impacted Al-Qaida is flat out wrong. Does it completely cripple terror cell capable of carrying out attacks against the west? No. But it DOES impact that capability and has been documented to do so.

But that's not really the point I was getting at anyway...

Darkling summed it up well:

quote:


It was this type of thinking that led Carter to basically do nothing after the hostages were taken by Iran in the 70's. He felt that any Military Action they took, would only make things worse. Every attempt at appeasement was only met with more and more demands.

By Paradox, Regan PROMISED a swift military response the MOMENT he became president. He won by a landslide and within Hrs. of him being sworn in, the Hostages were released.

There are some who believe that a military response only creates more people "Mad at you" but it's my belief that a LACK of military response makes your enemies bolder. This is why the World Trade Center incidents happened, because our enemies wholeheartedly believed that the U.S. would NEVER come looking for them directly in another country. AND in addition, if we did come, as soon as a couple of body bags came home, we would turn tail and run.

Here's to hoping that the Americans have the resolve NOT to turn tail and run.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest $iLk

quote:

Originally posted by Darkling:

By Paradox, Reagan PROMISED a swift military response the MOMENT he became president. He won by a landslide and within Hrs. of him being sworn in, the Hostages were released.

And no one ever took hostages again nor did Ronald Reagan's administration trade arms for hostages in what could have been known as the "Iran/Contra Scandal" were that to have occurred.

P.S. The hostages weren't freed because Ronald Reagan was going to come into office. They were freed because Jimmy Carter's administration promised the following on January 19, 1981 in the Algiers Accords:

quote:

* The US would not intervene in Iranian internal affairs

* The US would remove a freeze on Iranian assets and trade sanctions on Iran

* Both countries would end litigation between their respective governments and citizens referring them to international arbitration, namely the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal.

* The US would ensure that US court decisions regarding the transfer of any property of the former Shah would be independent from "sovereign immunity principles" and would be enforced

* Iranian debts to US institutions would be paid


Then again I'm sure it is more comfortable the way Hannity proclaims it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


Then again I'm sure it is more comfortable the way Hannity proclaims it.

Hannity hits the mark far closer than you would think.

Carter hardly had anything whatsoever to do with the Algiers Accords. In fact, negotiations for the accords weren't even started until AFTER the elections in January '81. Reagan was already talking tough to the Iranians although he hadn't been sworn in yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest $iLk

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

quote:

Then again I'm sure it is more comfortable the way Hannity proclaims it.

Hannity hits the mark far closer than you would think.

Carter hardly had anything whatsoever to do with the Algiers Accords. In fact, negotiations for the accords weren't even started until AFTER the elections in January '81. Reagan was already talking tough to the Iranians although he hadn't been sworn in yet.


The chief negotiator is a long-time Democrat who later went to serve under President Clinton and supervised Al Gore's recount battle. Reagan was indeed talking tough. Talking tough wasn't exactly (and isn't exactly) as useful as it sounds.

Pseudo-conservatives have taken the old "Walk softly but carry a big stick" and turned it into "Carry a big stick around, remind everyone constantly that you are carrying it, and whack someone randomly over the head every now and then or at least threaten to."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Nomad:

Can you travel with less restrictions ? No. Can we lover the degree of alert of our conterterrorism services ? No. Did we even remotely hurt the fundaments of the philosophy Al-Qaida relies on in order to get legitimacy in the eyes of the muslim populace ? Not at all. Did we even remotely hurt their recruitment capacity ? Nope. And so on. It's the contrary that is happening: counterterrorism chiefs worldwide are convinced that what Al Qaida has in mind for its next action in the US is bigger than what was 9/11.

There's something where you got it all wrong: despite wearing all the marks of a terrorist group, Al Qaida has succesfully turned into a loose worlwide-phenomenon of anti-western suicidary guerilla which does NOT respond to a central command. .... I'm sorry dude, but what Al-Qaida does, it does it well. That's why we are still here talking about the matter, after... how many years of fighting, how many casualties and billions of USD ?

And yet, during the Clinton years, our lack of putting "Boots on the Ground" and pussyfooting around Al Qaida did NOTHING but to embolden them. Year after year we had attack after attack. First the WTC, then our embassy's, then the Cole incident, followed by attack after attack after attack.

Truth is though, we're fighting this half assed. I mean during WWII we had Millions of fighting men and were spending 40% of GDP. We fought to win, now, we're fighting "On the Cheap". We're fighting with the bare minimums. If anything, we need to do whatever it takes for a decisive victory, or get the hell out of dodge. Once we do though, we need to build a 20' tall wall around the entire U.S. topped with Barbed wire, because they WILL be coming after us.

[/QB]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest $iLk

quote:

Originally posted by Darkling:

As for Iran/Contra, get your facts straight, it had NOTHING to do with hostages. The scandal involved members of the White House illegally selling arms to Iran, and using the cash to fund the Contras Rebel movement against the Communists, since the Socialist Democrats here wanted to be buddy, buddy with the Communists.

"In 1983, members of Al-Dawa ("The Call"), an exiled Iraqi political party turned militant organization, were imprisoned for their part in a series of truck bombs in Kuwait. In response to the imprisonment, Hezbollah, an ally of Al-Dawa, took 30 Western hostages, [9] six of whom were American. Hezbollah demanded the release of the prisoners for these hostages. Members of the Reagan Administration claim they believed that by selling arms to Iran, Iran would influence the Hezbollah kidnappers in Lebanon to release their hostages. At the time, Iran was in the midst of the Iran-Iraq War and could find few western nations willing to supply it with weapons. [10] The sale of arms would also, according to National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane, improve strained relations with Iran.[1] For that reason, weapons were transferred to Iran."

Funny how we supplied both sides. To make sure Saddam held the edge we gave him chemical weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


The chief negotiator is a long-time Democrat who later went to serve under President Clinton and supervised Al Gore's recount battle. Reagan was indeed talking tough. Talking tough wasn't exactly (and isn't exactly) as useful as it sounds.

The chief negotiator for the Algiers Accords was Abdulkarim Ghuraib, and Algerian.

Oh, and the Iranians were not receptive to US negotiation at all throughout the crisis, until Reagan was elected.

Coincidence? Not likely.

I guess when you convert to liberalism you put on blinders to reality. It is quite accepted by both republicans and democrats alike that Reagan's election had a bit to do with bringing the Iranians to the table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest $iLk

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

quote:

The chief negotiator is a long-time Democrat who later went to serve under President Clinton and supervised Al Gore's recount battle. Reagan was indeed talking tough. Talking tough wasn't exactly (and isn't exactly) as useful as it sounds.

The chief negotiator for the Algiers Accords was Abdulkarim Ghuraib, and Algerian.

Oh, and the Iranians were not receptive to US negotiation at all throughout the crisis, until Reagan was elected.

Coincidence? Not likely.

I guess when you convert to liberalism you put on blinders to reality. It is quite accepted by both republicans and democrats alike that Reagan's election had a bit to do with bringing the Iranians to the table.


The United State's chief negotiator was Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher.

It is even listed on his bio that he is credited with negotiating the release of the hostages.

Who has converted to liberalism anyway? Isn't it the G.O.P. touting the pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, crossdressing New York liberal Republican as the front-runner?

Ron Paul all the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Nomad:

... Fighting Al-Qaida should foremost be a stealth job done by spec ops, with no publicity and with tons of intel. ...

I saw a special on the National Geographic channel that had something like this. They were following a group of Special Ops units trying to hold the line in Afganistan. Basically, they have a little Fort, manned by about 25 men, providing training and security for an area the size of Rhode Island. In the middle of filming, they went out to one of the areas kind of on the fringes of the area they're supposed to secure. It was so far out, that by the time they were on their way back, it was night time. The vehicle carrying the radio translater was hit by an IED, (they found 7 others but apparently missed this one since it was night time). 2 Special Ops guys died, 3 injured and 2 of the National Geographic guys were injured.

This is the best we can do. We're the frikin U.S. of A. I mean come on, we can't do any better than a 25 unit task force to secure an area the size of Rhode Island? It's like I said before, we're not winning because we're doing the ABSOLUTE BARE MINIMUM. We don't want to disrupt the economy, we don't want to anything that will put our military spending anywhere near 5% of GDP. (Keep in mind even Saudi Arabia spends 10%). We don't want to do anything that will require a draft, or anything that will create any kind of shortage of goods or supplies. We're fighting this war on the cheap and THAT is the reason why things are not going well.

Oh and BTW, if you think the villagers WANT the Taliban back in power, you're mistaken. Elders from at least 25 villages came and BEGGED them for more security, but how is that going to work? They tell them that many times they have NO CHOICE but to do what the Taliban wants because otherwise, they will kill them! But you know, we should just pack it up, bring our troops home because we're not doing this thing the "Right" Way so we might as well give up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


The United State's chief negotiator was Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher.

Ah, clarification. The *US* chief negotiator.

He had, what, a YEAR to negotiate a release and it didn't happen until AFTER Reagan was elected. My point on this one stands.

quote:


It is even listed on his bio that he is credited with negotiating the release of the hostages.

...but in most historical accounts he's a mere footnote (if that).

quote:


Who has converted to liberalism anyway? Isn't it the G.O.P. touting the pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, crossdressing New York liberal Republican as the front-runner?

Not sure what GOP you're referring to here, but CNN and the NY Times don't qualify. It's kinda like a year and a half prior to the 2000 elections when they touted McCain and Bush was the odd man out.

Most conservatives seem to be jumping on the Fred Thompson bandwagon these days (myself included).

quote:


Ron Paul all the way.

Have fun with that, Skippy. Even IF you agree with what the guy says regarding the war on terror, it doesn't mean he's qualified to run the country.

Hell, he should be GREAT at foreign relations - he only managed to piss off more than half the country in his first debate (some because what he said was assinine and ill-informed and some because he over simplified it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest $iLk

Who really oversimplified things?

The guy who quoted the CIA and the 9/11 Commission report - or the guy who said "they hate us for our freedom."

Keep drinking the kool aid.

P.S. - I agree with Ron Paul on the War in Iraq - which should never be misconstrued as being part of the war on terror as opposed to a war of choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


The guy who quoted the CIA and the 9/11 Commission report

From what I recall, the 9/11 Commission report was just under 600 pages long. And he managed to "quote" it in under, what, 30 seconds?

More like he quoted a snippet FROM the report. The 585 page report.

That would be simplifying.

*Passes Kool Aid*

quote:


P.S. - I agree with Ron Paul on the War in Iraq - which should never be misconstrued as being part of the war on terror as opposed to a war of choice.

And I disagree wholeheartedly with Ron Paul (I also have a natural distrust for anyone with two first names, but alas...).

The War in Iraq has EVERYTHING to do with the War on Terror, partly due to that, from the beginning, we've been fighting the same cultural elements that have allowed terror to cultivate in the first place. Also we've been fighting the mechanisms of terror itself.

The ONLY difference between Saddam Hussein and your average terrorist is that Saddam has done more of it.

PS: By the way, I think we should be gearing up to leave Iraq soon as the purpose of the war has been fulfilled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest $iLk

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

PS: By the way, I think we should be gearing up to leave Iraq soon as the purpose of the war has been fulfilled.

Empowering an Iran-friendly radical Islamic Shiite majority to govern Iraq, fostering a hotbed of terror training, and removing a secular dictatorship which opposed Islamic extremism?

"The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to terrorize himself." ÔÇö George W. Bush, Grand Rapids, Mich., Jan. 29, 2003

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." ÔÇö George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nomad, please read my posts and take them for what they actually say. I (unlike you) don't imply things as I find it quite simple to say exactly what I mean.

quote:


LMAO !!! Frankly, do you really believe what you just said ? Are you aware that if the principles expressed in your post were to be objectively applied, it's Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, NK and Iran which the USA should have invaded, instead of destroying a secular regime which acted as buffer between Bush's oil buddies and Iran ?

That rant is nothing more than liberal nonsensical garbage.

The fact remains that Iraq WAS a terrorism hotspot. That it was so as long as it fit Saddam Hussein's ends is irrelevent.

Sure, other countries are breeding grounds for terrorism as well, but we had other reasons to invade Iraq.

Just because we chose Iraq and not other suspects to invade does NOT render unjustified. It merely says that we haven't attacked the other problems yet.

Man walks in with a broken arm and broken leg. Doctor decides to work on arm first. But the leg is still broken. Doesn't mean that arm wasn't broken in first place.

quote:


You seem to be as realistic as a painting of Dali. Ever lived in the ME ? I mean lived, socialized and interacted with locals as a friend, not confined in a base just to get out in mission praying not to get a bullet... Do you speak arabic ? Or at least french ? It would help you understand the content of original documents and speeches instead of having to resort to what a third party deemed interesting enough (under which set of values ?) to translate (have you the capability to assess if said translations are faithful ?).

Total irrelevent garbage.

Stick to the facts.

quote:


Lemme see: The iraqi government is not even able to be cohesive at a time you have 150K soldiers in the country and providing financial support. What makes you even remotely think that said cohesion will improve when you leave ?

Did I SAY any of that?

Nope.

Do me a favor and stick to the actual topic and STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH.

quote:


There's an axiom that seems to escape your mind. Put in simpler terms of physics, you master energy, but the enemy masters time and space. You won't be able to beat them by physical means as long their rethoric and recruitment is so successful on ALL continents.

...and I haven't contradicted that point either.

Are you that desperate for debate here that you MAKE UP arguments from others?

Try blogging.

quote:


You are afraid of WMD proliferation ? Then go after Khan. After all, he's the guy who sold out knowhow and technology to a whole array of so-called "rogue" states. Ahhh... But no, since he's buddy with your pal Musharraf. Musharraf where you are comitting the same error you did with the Shah. Ever been in Pakistan either ? How long do you think Musharraf would hold power without the support of the army ? Hell, the guy only controls major cities of the country. You don't even need to go in Waziristan to feel how the whole nation is soaking of radical islamism, starting with those who will ultimately replace Musharraf when time and context suits them: the ISI, which still gets a nice share of all the help you are providing to Pakistan.

Wow, so you're an advocate of solving EVERY problem in the world or solving ABSOLUTELY NONE of them.

See, if you have 5 problems and can only realistically solve 2 of them, to me it makes sense to tackle those 2 problems.

Now I know that in the liberal world we should keep *****ing about how the solutions to those 2 problems don't matter because there are still 3 more but in the real world we are still better for it.

quote:


What a paradox: Part of your taxpayer money still actually lands in the pockets of the very people which impulsed (jointly with the saudis) the establishment of madrass schools, trained and armed the talibans, talibans who DIRECTLY helped Al-Qaida, and you have the irresponsability to make statements like the quote mentioned above ?

The quote mentioned above (stating that the War in Iraq has EVERYTHING to do with the War on Terror) stands.

You have yet to demonstrate otherwise. Instead you rant and rave about how wrong it must be while your logic is merely that there are other hotbeads of terror.

Liberal: Gee, Syria has a lot of terrorists but we're attacking Iraq.

Realist: Yes but Iraq has terrorists too.

Liberal: How can you say that if there are terrorists in Syria?

quote:


You must get really desperate to think that the situation is unfolding the right way.

I never said that.

quote:


Heh.

Concerning Iraq, you are leaving an anarchic society which will serve as battleground to turkish, saudi and iranian influence. If this is a success, then I would be delighted to hear your definition of failure.

Success for US and success for peace in Middle East are two different things. I'm concerned primarily with only one of them.

Sorry.

But if you'd like to debate that premise, start another thread. I'll gladly take you on.

quote:


You should get the Guiness of Miscalculations. Like Bin Laden, the CIA-trained moudjahidin operating in Afghanistan who blew up in your face 20 years later. But some people never learn.

I'm glad your foresight is 20/20 along with everyone else's hindsight.

That's what I find most interesting about people like you; content to live on the sidelines, offer no solutions but complain about every move made by others.

You may think that it's enlightened. I think it's cowardice.

quote:


Empowering an Iran-friendly radical Islamic Shiite majority to govern Iraq, fostering a hotbed of terror training, and removing a secular dictatorship which opposed Islamic extremism?

Ah. So you think we should stay now. Interesting...

quote:


"The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to terrorize himself." ÔÇö George W. Bush, Grand Rapids, Mich., Jan. 29, 2003

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." ÔÇö George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004


Using quotes taken out of context do not serve to illustrate a point.

They only serve to show a lack of one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest $iLk

My point being is that I have spent my life believing in the just war theory - the belief that a nation should only go to war when attacked. Iraq has never attacked the United States. Iraq never threatened to attack the United States. Iraq did not have the capability to attack the United States.

Pre-Emptive war is a scary policy and an un-Constitutional policy when carried out without a declaration of war by the United States Congress. As Ron Paul stated - "Only a tyrant can take a nation to war without the consent of its people."

I believe we should look at what we've caused in Iraq as just another in a long-list of lessons about our foreign policy that has and will come back to bite us in the butt.

As far as quotes go - I found a good one:

"Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

(The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor is a good example of pre-emptive war.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


My point being is that I have spent my life believing in the just war theory - the belief that a nation should only go to war when attacked. Iraq has never attacked the United States. Iraq never threatened to attack the United States. Iraq did not have the capability to attack the United States.

This is where you and I differ.

Who was it that said, "All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."?

There are times when a moral obligation to wage conflict exists, and to not do so destroys a sovereign nation's ability to make just demands and expect concessions from those who are unjust.

What you're saying is that a despotic leader could commit genocide and ignore our pleas to stop without consequences.

Dialogue is useless unless it has a benefit. Sometimes that benefit is to prevent a war. If you take away that consequence (often the only one that people fear) then there are often times in which dialogue is useless.

I think you should re-examine your position on that.

quote:


Pre-Emptive war is a scary policy and an un-Constitutional policy when carried out without a declaration of war by the United States Congress. As Ron Paul stated - "Only a tyrant can take a nation to war without the consent of its people."

Yeah. That's why Ron Paul shouldn't be president.

He obviously forgot that we went to war WITH the consent of the people. Heh.

quote:


I believe we should look at what we've caused in Iraq as just another in a long-list of lessons about our foreign policy that has and will come back to bite us in the butt.

What a liberal defeatist statement!

Funny how this "long list of lessons" that "come back to bite us in the butt" has made us the most prosperous and powerful nation on the planet - one where even the poorest of us has color television and running water.

I find that statement absurd and unpatriotically motivated by politics.

quote:


As far as quotes go - I found a good one:

"Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing." - Dwight D. Eisenhower


He was wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest $iLk

quote:

Originally posted by aramike:

Who was it that said, "All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."?

Edmund Burke

There are times when a moral obligation to wage conflict exists, and to not do so destroys a sovereign nation's ability to make just demands and expect concessions from those who are unjust.

I don't understand a "moral" obligation to bring war to a people that has killed tens of thousands of Iraqis. We have Darfur where millions are dying. We have North Korea where hundreds of thousands are dying. We have other African nations where millions are dying. Most of the people who were dying in Iraq were dying due to sanctions that were brought by us. The thousands of Kurds who died did so because of gas that we provided Saddam with.

What you're saying is that a despotic leader could commit genocide and ignore our pleas to stop without consequences.

Dialogue is useless unless it has a benefit. Sometimes that benefit is to prevent a war. If you take away that consequence (often the only one that people fear) then there are often times in which dialogue is useless.

I think you should re-examine your position on that.

I have re-examined it. According to the Constitution under Article I Section 8 Congress holds the power: "To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;"

If it was such a moral obligation - our representatives have the moral obligation to declare war.

Yeah. That's why Ron Paul shouldn't be president.

He obviously forgot that we went to war WITH the consent of the people. Heh.

Not if Congress did not declare war. We went to war with the consent of the President. Ron Paul offered a resolution to have Congress declare war. It was rejected.

What a liberal defeatist statement!

Funny how this "long list of lessons" that "come back to bite us in the butt" has made us the most prosperous and powerful nation on the planet - one where even the poorest of us has color television and running water.

I find that statement absurd and unpatriotically motivated by politics.

I look at 30 years of terrorist attacks where we have been told it was as a consequence of our presence in the Middle East. I look at our presence in the Middle East and notice that it is primarily for control of strategic resources such as oil. I look at our foreign policy in which we brought war against Vietnam (today we trade with them) and other countries to no gain. Then I look at people who wrap themselves in the flag and tell us that "they hate us for our freedom." Republicans generally have well thought out statements and points to make about everything except Iraq. On Iraq they take the liberal tactic of emotion, chest beating, and namecalling.

quote:

"Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

He was wrong.


America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

I guess John Quincy Adams was also...

War is never just and righteous in the end. The fact that things devolve into a war is a failure for all of humanity. We should never clamor for war, whether the head of state of a country is 'evil' ultimately it is the people of that country who will pay the price of our involvement. I believe that war is sometimes necessary - but I will never delude myself into thinking that it was the only course.

Maybe Jesus was wrong?

Matt. 26:52 "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."

You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. (Mat.5:33-41).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×