Insurgents offer to halt attacks in Iraq

[k]

As usual...Neverstop nailed it. This is a political move to get the U.S to state its intentions.

Thank you.

It seems one thing these groups realize is ALL of them will lose as long as the US remains.

 

[Sleeker]

Let's look at it like this...prior to the US invasion how many Iraqis were being murdered on a daily basis by other Iraqis? Even with the US occupation it fits the definition of a Civil War.

Many

Also by definition, there are NO "insurgents" in Iraq because there must first exist a government.

Well, one does exist.

So people who defend their Homeland are terrorists?

If they use terrorist tactics, then yes!

 

[Vylo]

The civil conflict in Iraq was triggered by the removal of Saddam and the Baath party that kept them at bay for so long. With him gone, they are free to duke it out. Not saying Saddam was a good ruler, but he did keep the different factions under thumb.

 

[dignitized]

The civil conflict in Iraq was triggered by the removal of Saddam and the Baath party that kept them at bay for so long. With him gone, they are free to duke it out. Not saying Saddam was a good ruler, but he did keep the different factions under thumb.

the best way to get people to cooperate is to give them a common enemy . . . . Saddam was that.

 

[Sleeker]

the best way to get people to cooperate is to give them a common enemy . . . . Saddam was that.

Isn't that a lose-lose situation though? Either you have Saddam oppressing everyone (lose), or you overthrow him, no longer have a common enemy, and fight among yourselves (lose).

 

[dignitized]

Isn't that a lose-lose situation though? Either you have Saddam oppressing everyone (lose), or you overthrow him, no longer have a common enemy, and fight among yourselves (lose).

Oh it's bound to be hard, but old dogs can learn new tricks.

 

[k]

Isn't that a lose-lose situation though? Either you have Saddam oppressing everyone (lose), or you overthrow him, no longer have a common enemy, and fight among yourselves (lose).

So, if it's a lose-lose doesn't it make more sense to choose the option that carries the least amount of death and destruction?

 

[dignitized]

So, if it's a lose-lose doesn't it make more sense to choose the option that carries the least amount of death and destruction?

If that were the case, Europe would be Nazi right now.

 

[k]

If that were the case, Europe would be Nazi right now.

It is intellectually dishonest to attempt any analogy or correlation between a War of Option in Iraq and the Holocaust.

Besides, would it really be argued that Hitler's "Final Solution" would cause less death that stopping him militarily?

 

[dignitized]

It is intellectually dishonest to attempt any analogy or correlation between a War of Option in Iraq and the Holocaust.

Besides, would it really be argued that Hitler's "Final Solution" would cause less death that stopping him militarily?

I'm not drawling a parallel between Iraq and the holicaust - I'm pointing out that our participation in WWII was not "the option that carries the least amount of death and destruction."

 

[k]

I'm not drawling a parallel between Iraq and the holicaust - I'm pointing out that our participation in WWII was not "the option that carries the least amount of death and destruction."

Im confused...but that's okay.

My point was invading Iraq was a long, long time goal of the people who run the Bush admin and it is just strange to claim invasion was absolutely necessary.

The US needs to pull ALL of its troops out of Iraq if there is any chance for it to be successful.

 

[Sleeker]

Because a civil war would is one of our goals that we are trying to succeed in, right? </sarcasm>

 

[dignitized]

Im confused...but that's okay.

My point was invading Iraq was a long, long time goal of the people who run the Bush admin and it is just strange to claim invasion was absolutely necessary.

The US needs to pull ALL of its troops out of Iraq if there is any chance for it to be successful.

That is your opinion. One you are entitled to, but not one that I share.

 

[k]

That is your opinion. One you are entitled to, but not one that I share.

No need to personalize the convo.

It is NOT an opinion that it has been a long time goal of the Bush admin to invade Iraq because there is much evidence proving this. Not the least is the letter they sent to Clinton in 98' begging him to invade.

Bush claimed diplomacy ran its course yet ever since he has been in office he has been unable to prove Iraq posed a Clear and Present Danger to the US.

The Pentagon itself reported not more than a few weeks ago that Resistance attacks in Iraq have increased to its highest point since the invasion.

There is a difference between mere opinion and educated positions.

 

[dignitized]

No need to personalize the convo.

It is NOT an opinion that it has been a long time goal of the Bush admin to invade Iraq because there is much evidence proving this. Not the least is the letter they sent to Clinton in 98' begging him to invade.

Bush claimed diplomacy ran its course yet ever since he has been in office he has been unable to prove Iraq posed a Clear and Present Danger to the US.

The Pentagon itself reported not more than a few weeks ago that Resistance attacks in Iraq have increased to its highest point since the invasion.

There is a difference between mere opinion and educated positions.

Sorry, but I'm not inclined to buy into conspiracy theories. Dude - there have been plans on the books for ages about how to conduct the invasion of Canada - it's something that is done. AND - let’s not forget, most of those who are now saying it was the wrong move, were also saying beforehand that it was the right thing to do and a thing that MUST be done for all the same reasons the president named. I’m not about to rehash the same old tired argument over Iraq. You have your opinion and I have mine. BTW - an educated opinion is no less an opinion.

 

[k]

Sorry, but I'm not inclined to buy into conspiracy theories. Dude - there have been plans on the books for ages about how to conduct the invasion of Canada - it's something that is done. AND - let’s not forget, most of those who are now saying it was the wrong move, were also saying beforehand that it was the right thing to do and a thing that MUST be done for all the same reasons the president named. I’m not about to rehash the same old tired argument over Iraq. You have your opinion and I have mine. BTW - an educated opinion is no less an opinion.

It is NOT a "conspiracy theory" when it comes directly from the horse's mouth. In addition, by stating, "...not inclined to buy into conspiracy theories..." there is a direct implication/insult to others' views regarding the PNAC. If a recipe for cookies were to be posted would it be called a "conspiracy theory?"

Where are these plans to invade Canada and who made them?

There is only ONE person who helped draw the plans that has admitted it was wrong. Francis Fukuyama. Nobody else in the Bush admin/PNAC has recanted the position of invasion.

An educated opinion is what separates critical thinking from partisanship.

 

[Sleeker]

It is NOT a "conspiracy theory" when it comes directly from the horse's mouth.

Where did Bush say he was planning on taking over Iraq since before he was President, since you said it was "directly from the horse's mouth?"

In addition, by stating, "...not inclined to buy into conspiracy theories..." there is a direct implication/insult to others' views regarding the PNAC.

Not really.

If a recipe for cookies were to be posted would it be called a "conspiracy theory?"

Do the cookies contain a secret ingredient that makes people less aware of their surroundings so that world governments can take advantage and establish a dictatorial, worldwide rule over the cookie-eating people? If yes, then it's a conspiracy theory.

Where are these plans to invade Canada and who made them?

America has plans to invade nearly, if not all countries of the world.

 

[k]

Where did Bush say he was planning on taking over Iraq since before he was President, since you said it was "directly from the horse's mouth?"

One cannot separate "Bush" from the Bush Administration...he's not there by himself. Many people who make up the Admin sent a letter to Clinton in 98' begging him to invade.

Not really.

To call something a "conspiracy theory" when it is clearly not seems to actively avoid key issues while simultaneously making not-so-nice implications on others.

Do the cookies contain a secret ingredient that makes people less aware of their surroundings so that world governments can take advantage and establish a dictatorial, worldwide rule over the cookie-eating people? If yes, then it's a conspiracy theory.

No, the Bush admin has put their Imperial goals out for the world to see so there are no secrets.

America has plans to invade nearly, if not all countries of the world.

Once again, where are these Canadian invasion plans?

 

[Sleeker]

One cannot separate "Bush" from the Bush Administration...he's not there by himself. Many people who make up the Admin sent a letter to Clinton in 98' begging him to invade.

You sure as heck can seperate Bush and his administration. And just because they wanted Clinton to invade doesn't mean they wanted to invade Iraq just for being Iraq.

To call something a "conspiracy theory" when it is clearly not seems to actively avoid key issues while simultaneously making not-so-nice implications on others.

Well, when it qualifies as a conspiracy theory, I'll call it a conspiracy theory. I'm not a big fan of being "politically correct." I'll call the shots as I see them.

No, the Bush admin has put their Imperial goals out for the world to see so there are no secrets.

Really? Where has the Bush administration put their "goals out for the world to see?"

Once again, where are these Canadian invasion plans?

I would say locked up in a "Classified: Top Secret" folder in a bin in a secure office in the Pentagon, but that's just me.

I mean, did we even see the Afghanistan or Iraq invasion plans before they were initiated? Nope.

 

[k]

You sure as heck can seperate Bush and his administration. And just because they wanted Clinton to invade doesn't mean they wanted to invade Iraq just for being Iraq.


Well, when it qualifies as a conspiracy theory, I'll call it a conspiracy theory. I'm not a big fan of being "politically correct." I'll call the shots as I see them.


Really? Where has the Bush administration put their "goals out for the world to see?"


I would say locked up in a "Classified: Top Secret" folder in a bin in a secure office in the Pentagon, but that's just me.

I mean, did we even see the Afghanistan or Iraq invasion plans before they were initiated? Nope.

If one goes to newamericancentury.org one can easily see the plans for invading Iraq, installing permanent bases in the ME, oh, and the letter sent to Clinton in 1998 asking him to invade Iraq. Who are members? Rumsfeld and Cheney to name two...oh, and Jeb Bush has signed a few letters as well.

Like I said, when it comes directly from the horses mouth, it is not a "theory" but simply looking at the facts.