Muslims

[Gunny]

The difference is that you're basing your reasoning on the notion that this conflict can be won militarily. If we can beat "them," then why not call them idiots. It only reinforces their position as the enemy.

I have made no argument to support this alleged "notion." I call IDIOTS "idiots." An enemy is defined by his deeds, not labels.

Personally, I don't think the war on terror can be won militarily. It's not that I don't want to win it militarily, I wish it were that easy. I look at this as something that needs to be resolved through diplomatic means. I know you probably think that that's impossible, but I don't. So, logically, to me, being sensitive to them and abandoning the hawkish tendencies inherent in the ethnocentric perception of patriotism is the first step in actually making long-lasting process-- not just patching up one region while the terrorists just run to another.

You cannot negotiate with a snake. You kill it or bites you. Wishful thinking otherwise changes that not one bit.

You might want to quit basing your entire argument on the notion that others (me in this case) just don't have quite the intellectual lock on the topic that you do. You ain't smarter than the average bear, and there really ISN'T anything new under the sun.

While it would require labotomies all around to get militant Islamic fundies to negotiate -- a highly unlikey event -- abandoning the tactics of fighting an enemy with shackles on could EASILY defeat that enemy by force.

 

[Gunny]

"If we abandon Iraq before it can protect its borders and have a semblence of Internal security we will be handing the Country, its people and its oil to terrorists controlled most likely by Iran."

what you CLAIM is most likely, and what I think is most likely are worlds apart.

Regardless, the GySgt's scenario IS the most likely result of abandoning Iraq before the government can sustain itself.

 

[Truthmatters]

http://www.middle-east-online.com/English/?id=20659

Just because our corporate press wont report it doesnt make it not true.

They voted to have us leave

 

[Truthmatters]

First Published 2007-05-11, Last Updated 2007-05-11 12:07:48


Iraqi MPs drum up support for timetable of US troop withdrawal

Iraq MPs gather votes to force US withdrawal


144 members of 275-seat national assembly have signed draft law that will set departure timetable for US troops.


By Dave Clark - BAGHDAD

Iraqi MPs are gathering votes to force their government to set a deadline for US forces to withdraw from the country and think they have a majority, a leading Shiite politician said Friday.


Baha al-Aaraji, a supporter of radical anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, said that 144 members of the 275-seat national assembly had signed a draft law that would set a departure timetable for US troops.


"The signatures have been submitted to the speaker of parliament and, after that, a committee chaired by me was formed," he said.


Aaraji's committee has asked Iraq's defence, interior and national security ministries to suggest a date by which their forces will be ready to take charge of security operations currently overseen by US forces.


"We've received two answers and now the committee is holding a series of meetings. We could finish within the next few days, and then the law will be discussed and voted on," Aaraji said.


"Many people support it. I signed it myself," said Kurdish MP Mahmud Othman, while insisting that most members regard the vote as a non-binding petition rather than a law that would require a withdrawal.


Othman said Sadr's supporters were focusing too hard on the withdrawal side of the bill while others, despite supporting the draft, were mainly seeking a role for the Iraqi parliament in making the eventual decision.


"They want to build Iraqi forces to take over when the Americans withdraw while they are withdrawing American forces. The two processes go hand in hand," he said, while confirming his support for a timetable.


"A majority of parliamentarians want this objective timetable agreed upon between Iraqis and Americans," he said.


The moves in Iraq's parliament mirror those in Washington, where a Democrat controlled Congress has attempted to force President George W. Bush to set a date to begin bringing home the 142,000 US troops in Iraq.


Thus far, however, both Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki have argued that withdrawal must depend on the conditions on the battlefield and said that it would be dangerous to set an arbitrary deadline.


Bush has already vetoed one US bill tying military funding to a timetable and Maliki could refuse to endorse any law passed by his parliament.


Both leaders, however, expend political capital every time they defy their elected legislatures.


Opinion polls show that a majority of both American and Iraqi voters favour a US troop withdrawal, although there must be some caution over the accuracy of surveys conducted amid the chaos in Iraq.


The US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, has promised to report back to Washington in September on whether his strategy of flooding an extra 28,000 troops into the Baghdad region is quelling the violence.


Although not intended as such by the military, this date has now become an informal cut-off point in Washington after which even Bush's Republican allies might find it hard to justify perpetuating a mission seen as failing.


Back in Baghdad, the next key date in the debate will be June 30, when Maliki's government will decide whether or not to ask the United Nations to renew its mandate for the US military presence in Iraq for six months.


Othman said he expected parliament to demand the right to have a say in this decision, but admitted that Maliki ought to be able to scrape together a majority to support it, even without the votes of Sadr's faction. Print Printer Friendly Version

 

[Truthmatters]

They want their country back , we do not have the right to refuse them.

 

[Gunny]

http://www.middle-east-online.com/English/?id=20659

Just because our corporate press wont report it doesnt make it not true.

They voted to have us leave

Just because our left-leaning press DOES report it doesn't make it true.

 

[Truthmatters]

So your whole plan is to just deny facts?

Wow no wonder you love Bush

 

[Gunny]

So your whole plan is to just deny facts?

Wow no wonder you love Bush

See, the problem here is you're just about as half as sharp, and half as shiny as the new tack you think you resemble.

I neither "love Bush," nor do I deny fact. I just don't accept at face value the word of someone who has proven himself so far to have little to no objectivity where politics are concerned.

Especially when one's "facts" come from an Arab rag.

 

[Truthmatters]

yeah stoop to insults when confronted by facts.

I see that all the time from consevitives these days.

 

[Gunny]

yeah stoop to insults when confronted by facts.

I see that all the time from consevitives these days.

What facts? Corroborate you so-called "facts" with a couple of news sources accepted as legitimate. THEN you can begin to try and call it fact. Until then, it's unsubstantiated Arab propoganda.

 

[Truthmatters]

why do you not consider this one legit?

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=37368

Im sure you dont consider some on this list legit yet they have the most knowledgeable views

 

[Truthmatters]

http://www.middle-east-online.com/English/


Go look at their home page and see if there is any problem.

Is it you just think those AY-RABS are evil and cant tell the truth?

 

[Truthmatters]

http://tinyurl.com/2dmawd

 

[Gunny]

http://tinyurl.com/2dmawd

Okay. Now please go find one of my many posts on this topic and tell me where it differs in principle from anything reported. But I can save you some time ....

You won't. You will not find one instance where I oppose turning responsibility of Iraq over to the Iraqi gov't when they are able to handle it.

THAT is what Iraqi lawmakers voted for, according to YOUR WP link. Not the misleading "they want us out" you keep parrotting.

 

[Truthmatters]

The draft bill proposes a timeline for a gradual departure, much like what some U.S. Democratic lawmakers have demanded, and would require the Iraqi government to secure parliament's approval before any further extensions of the U.N. mandate for foreign troops in Iraq, which expires at the end of 2007.

now tell me again how the Dems plan is about surrender?

You see its about being true the the American principles that people have a right to self rule.

The Bush team has been pretending they Iraq people dont want to rule themselfs and they do.

 

[Gunny]

The draft bill proposes a timeline for a gradual departure, much like what some U.S. Democratic lawmakers have demanded, and would require the Iraqi government to secure parliament's approval before any further extensions of the U.N. mandate for foreign troops in Iraq, which expires at the end of 2007.

now tell me again how the Dems plan is about surrender?

You see its about being true the the American principles that people have a right to self rule.

The Bush team has been pretending they Iraq people dont want to rule themselfs and they do.

There is a BIG difference between a proposed timeline solely to support internal US politics, and the Iraq government deciding on their own timeline. It's THEIR country. I'm more than willing to let them have it when they're ready to take it.

 

[Gunny]

http://www.middle-east-online.com/English/


Go look at their home page and see if there is any problem.

Is it you just think those AY-RABS are evil and cant tell the truth?

I trust the Arab media to be just as biased as the US and Western media is. I don't trust single-source US media, and I'm not going to trust single-source Arab media.

 

[CSM]

There is a BIG difference between a proposed timeline solely to support internal US politics, and the Iraq government deciding on their own timeline. It's THEIR country. I'm more than willing to let them have it when they're ready to take it.

Amen. I wold also suggest that Iraq is sending mixed messages... they want us "out" but then send an emissary to ask the US congress for patience. I have stated my position on this before: get the heck out and leave the smessage: "If we come back there will be no Iraq."

 

[Truthmatters]

That is why you cannot be a fair judge of anything the Dems do or sugest.

You hate them, you hate me and I and they are your fellow Americans.

You impune my motivations as if I and they have no right to disagree with your ideas.

I just gave you solid reasons why the Majority of Americans want put of Iraq and all you can do is imply BAD motives to it.

Why ,why do you think our motives are not the solid sensible ones I gave?

Why do you so desperately want to see your fellow Americans as evil?

 

[Annie]

That is why you cannot be a fair judge of anything the Dems do or sugest.

You hate them, you hate me and I and they are your fellow Americans.

You impune my motivations as if I and they have no right to disagree with your ideas.

I just gave you solid reasons why the Majority of Americans want put of Iraq and all you can do is imply BAD motives to it.

Why ,why do you think our motives are not the solid sensible ones I gave?

Why do you so desperately want to see your fellow Americans as evil?

Who is 'you'? Where did anyone say they hate you, democrats, or anyone else?

It seems to me that you are setting up a false premise, in a failed attempt to 'win' an argument.