I mean, yea they are killing Americans on a regular basis. BUT Can you blame them? We invaded there country on what many consider to be false pretenses, I mean come one, we preemptively attacked a nation that posed no real threat to our security. (I don't know any one in 03 who truly felt threatened by big bad sadam) Not only did we invade unprovoked, but we have been occupying there country them for 5 years. Not only that, but even things like basic services have not been restored. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23664728/) I must say that if an some one invaded destroyed services, and then hung out for 5 years and only built army basis, as well as gunpoint elections. Honestly who is in the wrong, the US for invading unprovoked and destroying Iraq without rebuilding it, or are the angry Iraqis wrong for being mad that they got invaded and there already ****ty country became even ****tier?s
Are Iraqi insurgence really terrorist??
- Thread starter TheMontashu
- Start date
You know, if you read the thread title and image Bush saying it, it actually makes our glorious war criminal leader sound smarter...
Jesus Christ...
Jesus Christ...
Terrorist is just a word representing a person or act from one side... In the 80's when the Afghan mujahdeen (sp?), Bin Laden among them, fought against the USSR with our help, we trained them in "low-intensity conflict" I think it was called by the CIA. Essentially the same style of fighting that Al Qaeda and the Iraqi insurgents use today. Then it was CIA-backed low-intensity conflict, now it's terrorism because its used against us.
There's always a reason behind the words a government uses.
There's always a reason behind the words a government uses.
Yea, we did it so the USSR could have their own Vietnam. I think it was some one under Carter is now admitting that we essentially instigated the entire Afghan/Russian war
Terrorists aren't the problem. It's those guys that know how to choose wallpaper.
Yes. We are entering the new dark ages.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/04/02/national/a112522D34.DTL&hw=homosexual+agenda&sn=001&sc=1000
Yes. We are entering the new dark ages.
just listen to obama's main strategy cack sucker, Zbigniew Brzezinski
edit: he was part of the Carter admin.
Perhaps a custom title is in order.....
Me and my friends were talking about this and I asked them what they would do if WE were occupied and our infrastructure was being destroyed. The answer was "hide in the bushes with a gun."
"a cvnts hair smarter than bush, but not by much."
they are also forming death squads & killing their own for political means. doesn't exactly make them minutemen
i can understand those few who were living well under saddam's loyalty that we are harbingers of equality (not our primary mission i understand), but i cannot understand those from other countries who snuck in to fight in order to "defend islam"
was afghanistan a threat to our security? iraq the first go-around in 1990? vietnam? korea? sparta?
there are other legitimate casus belli other than someone getting up in our ****.
bechtel alone was awarded $1.4B in 2004 in contracts for iraqi rebuilding effort, so you'll have to tell me: what infrastructure & services that they have built, are re-building, and will build/restore are being used for if not the iraqi people? moving sidewalks in the green zone? for a time (since past) re-building was put on hold in order to bring security (think: "surge"). the news is currently flooded with distinct stories of iraqi rebuilding by the u.s. alongside iraqis. please don't choose to ignore this. we haven't sucked one drop of oil or other natural resources. maybe you don't fully understand why we're there, but can you anticipate what others would say? and why are there other countries still there with us? did we blackmail them, or to some extent do they see a need to be there?
i'll think you'll find few people even within the deployed ranks are "pro-war"
Maybe it does. We didn't exactly treat loyalist all that well. They were raped, murdered and driven out of the country without any of their worldly posessions. Not nearly on the same level as blowing up randome people in a public market but not exactly the freedom loving hugfest most people think of.
I know a bunch of people who are armed, ready and dare I say looking forward to such a day.
good point. i don't remember reading about people standing on barrels debating the merits of british loyalty, to only be met by jeers. so i guess "allah akhbar" = "long live the king" then?
except these modern day minutemen defend a magic carpet riding spaghetti monster, not the freedom of men to live and optionally worship a god of their choosing.
They take issue with our policies toward islamic countries, so they have come to drive us from their lands. Bin Laden's issue with the west are something along the lines (recalling from memory here):
- Our unconditional support of Isreal
- Our policy of supporting repressive regimes in the middle east
- The way we have worked with the repressive regimes to keep oil prices artificially low for our own benefit
There was an interview with a CIA guy on frontline who laid out his issues with us. So my guess would be that ppl are coming in to fight us because of the above reasons and the fact that we are occupying two middle east countries
please explain these in a little more detail. i'm not sure the first one would be noticed, and the second one doesn't square with dubai (& other UAEs) and saudi arabia. it also ignores both the will of the free market & opec
this phrase "occupying" is so subjective these days. is it to mean "not as a guest of the ruling government"? i assume so. but then this calls into question the legitimacy of the argument.
in other words, what would you anticipate the response would be by the ruling govts in iraq & afghanistan if we started to pack up?
Going off what I've read, and I'm not taking a side one way or the other, OPEC countries (read: Saudi Arabia) have been cautious to comply with calls for reduction in oil production; basically taking the muscle out of OPEC. Here is where I read that
http://www.newsweek.com/id/119895
I shouldn't have used the term occupying, we invaded two middle east countries and our presence (whether at the request of the government or not) remains. I suspect if the Iraq government asked us to leave we wouldn't though
Lets not forget that the majority of the terrorist insurgents are not Iraqi...Syrians, Saudis, Pakis and Afghanis among others.
Don't forgets that only a small percentage of fighters in iraq are from other countries. http://www.infowars.com/articles/iraq/myth_of_foreign_fighters.htm
Afghanistan the first round, no, it was also a war we should have stayed out of, along with Korea and Vietnam. Notice in the first gulf war we were defending a nation that had been invaded, we didn't go into Iraq. We simply pushed the Iraqi army our of Kuwait
Halliburten spent something like 2 billion of the money used to rebuild Iraq to build PERMENANT US bases. Lets not forget most of the contracts in rebuilding Iraq were single bid contracts, awarded to companies with close ties to the white house, this sounds illegal to me, if not illegal SUPER SHADY.
I fully understand why we are there, there is this thing called peak oil. We might be hitting it we might not, but we are getting close. We are securing that oil for the future and not only that we are preventing countries like china from getting that oil and threatening our power. Lets not forget that US foreign policy states that we will do anything to protect the US's status as the most powerful nation, and to prevent other countries from threatening that.
that is fine, and I am entitled to believe that the reason they are fighting is criminal, and the current regime in this country is extremely corrupt.
Look at who we have and still do support in the middle east, Sadam against Iran, we supplied him with WMDs. We still support the Soudies, who continue to treat women like **** and who continue to fund and support terror. Pakistan, we are supporting a dictator who overthrew a democratically elected president, not to mention supporting and funding terrorists.
as pointed out in earlier posts, that is flat out wrong. Estimates range from 4-10%
no you just didn't
what does a temporary base look like?
no bid contracts have already been covered, and it comes down to this:
- in order to have the privilege to bid, certain criteria must be met; namely demonstrable ability (think about it: why won't the gov't entertain bids by you or me?)
- schlumberger is the next most capable company, yet are prevented from bidding due to gov't policy disallowing companies from certain countries openly unsupportive of the iraq war (would you want a company from a country hostile to iraq doing "rebuilding"?)
how close was iraq for 40 or so years? (hint: oil-for-food program)
"getting that oil" looks to me like "china will have access to the free market and use their purchasing power", but i could be wrong
which policy paper cites this, even if indirectly? would it be a modern-day manifest destiny?
regime? you mean the democratic-controlled congress, supreme court, and the executive branch?
"flat out wrong"? perhaps this number should also mention the previous foreign fighters have been killed or captured, or blew themselves up (almost w/o exception suicide bombers were foreign recruits).
We did send some troops into iraq, but we never slammed through to Baghdad
tents, or civilian building
I still think its funny how connected the companies are to the administration. If the other companies were so unable to rebuild, shouldn't they have had a chance to place bids and then get rejected on thoes grounds?
Peak oil has to do with the idea that oil will reach a point where it will no longer be economically viable to to take out of the ground
The white house policy on national security talks about it
www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/nss2006.pdf
Check it out I find it a bit scary.
Don't forget as well, it talks about spreading democracy. We openly support many dictatorships
So does that mean we start calling the PLO insurgents instead of terrorists?
try again....
doesn't this acknowledgment significantly undermine one of your original premises?
you would have our military & support personnel housed in tents in a warzone?
hmmmm....george bush is the president...the president is also known as the "commander in chief" (i prefer "decider")...who commands the military....he chose dick cheney as his running mate based upon both his experience & civilian bona fides...and we the people elected them to office.
say....that IS funny!
are you suggesting that mcdonald's should have been considered in the bidding on the food contract in a warzone because they serve food?
or more precisely, it's a global event where the demand exceeds the supply (of refined petroleum).
does not square with this:
TheMontashu said:
like....
I stand corrected
warzone, I thought we won? My point is the money going to rebuild iraq isn't going to rebuilding of iraq, it's going twards building bases
using wikipedia as a source??
come on.. even my 8th grader knows better than that!
http://www.peakoil.net/about-peak-oil
using wikipedia as a source??
come on.. even my 8th grader knows better than that!
Wow. I have to give you credit for a stunning change of mind, it appears.
Can you go through the process of what caused that, exactly?
I started looking at issues from both sides. I realized that 100 years ago there was no Israel. There are arabs that still remember a time without and Israel, and I can understand how the arabs think they have a claim to the land. On the other hand I still understand that in 48 the land with mostly jews was Israel and the mostly arab land was Palistine. I think the mostly arab areas should be controlled by arabs, they are also poor so I don't understand why Israel wants the land.
My only fear is that when this does happen (I do think in the next 20 years there is for the first time going to be a state of Palestine) that the extremist Palestinians will continue attacking Israel wanting the entire area. If this is so I will fully support the Israeli army coming down HARD on the arabs.
Bottom line is the arab peoples in "Israel" do have a claim to much of the land and should be able to have control of it. On the other hand the arabs need to acknowledge Israel as a state and let the Israeli people live there lives.
i'm assuming you mean the geopolitical boundary known as the state of israel, and not the nation of israel, which goes back a bit north of 100 years.
even got a book that chronicles it. (get it? "chronicle"?)