All we can do is pray for the war to be over and the soldiers get home safely. But wait.. has everyone forgotten about the country and it's people? Or is everyone just concerned about the U.S army. I'm not saying we shouldn't be concerned for all the soldiers dying, but I meen the country has been destroyed. Iraq was probably the greatest country in the world before the reign of Saddam. Everyone forgot that. Iraq will never be the same as it was before.

 

 

 

Also, on the day of the Virginia Tech massacre, a truck bomb was detonated in a busy market in Iraq. Nearly 43 people died. The thing is, no president flew over to Iraq to give a speech. The bomb wasn't front line news, as a matter of fact, I saw it on one of those news breifs at the bottom of the screen on CNN. It didn't get front-page on most newspapers and magazines with long articles.

1: should we be in iraq?

 

-No. I was against the war before it even began.

 

 

 

 

 

2: even if no, what is something we could improve apon in iraq?

 

-Maybe instate a state government system, since that's the only way to get any real stability in Iraq.

 

 

 

 

 

3: Should we make a complete and immediate withdrawal?

 

-We need to set up and follow a time table so we can leave in an organized manner.

 

anyway i dont get how anyone can support the religion of terrorism.

 

 

 

M4tty, terrorism is not a religion, it's a method used by people to incite fear in others.

 

But since you might want more concrete proof here are the definitions of the two:

 

terÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâ÷rorÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâ÷ism Pronunciation[ter-uh-riz-uhm]

 

ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãânoun

 

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

 

2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

 

3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

 

reÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâ÷liÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâ÷gion Pronunciation[ri-lij-uhn]

 

ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãânoun

 

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

 

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

 

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

 

4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.

 

5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

 

 

 

As you can see they have nothing to do with one another, so yes, "The Religion of Terrorism" is a moronic statement.

 

 

 

i could write more but its not really worth writing alot to a forum where the average age is around 14.

 

 

 

From what I've observed from watching the off-topic forum for some time is that the majority of the heavy posters don't play RuneScape and are quite clearly above the age of 14, if not 18.

 

 

 

--

 

 

 

As for the war in Iraq, as Hohto and many others have already stated it's such a complex issue to come up with an easy fool-proof solution. My aggressivness makes me want to think that sending more troops over to police and root out guerilla fighters would work, but I know that it would just make the people of Iraq more angry at the U.S. troops over there.

 

Forming the Iraqi police force was a good move on the part of the U.S. And even though the people volunteering for the police force are facing danger from guerilla fighters I feel it's a step in the right direction.

 

 

 

My drowsiness seems to be shutting down my brain at this time, so I may return later to offer more discussion on this topic.

Pull out? IMHO, atleast Canada. Personal reasons.

Pull out? IMHO, atleast Canada. Personal reasons.

 

 

 

This is Iraq not Afghanistan, Canadian troops aren't in Iraq.

1: should we be in iraq?

 

 

 

No. This is an issue for the Iraqi people, not the Bush Adminstration-lead coalition. Nor I do I see much purpose in you staying there.

 

 

 

2: even if no, what is something we could improve apon in iraq?

 

 

 

Allow Iraq to takes its own course. It is not your business organising the governments of other countries that have nothing to do with you. If the Iraqi people choose not to have a democracy, then that's their right to do so. And yes, those evil insurgents are Iraqis at the end of the day, and have a right in deciding the fate of their country. That's just politics - the balance of powers, not just putting on some fake election campaign.

 

 

 

3: Should we make a complete and immediate withdrawal?

 

 

 

Maybe not completely immediately, but certainly hastily and within the next year, slowly giving power to the Iraqi Army and UN peacekeepers.

 

 

 

4: If we stay, how should we support iraq?

 

 

 

N/A

1: should we be in iraq?

 

 

 

No. This is an issue for the Iraqi people, not the Bush Adminstration-lead coalition. Nor I do I see much purpose in you staying there.

 

 

 

2: even if no, what is something we could improve apon in iraq?

 

 

 

Allow Iraq to takes its own course. It is not your business organising the governments of other countries that have nothing to do with you. If the Iraqi people choose not to have a democracy, then that's their right to do so. And yes, those evil insurgents are Iraqis at the end of the day, and have a right in deciding the fate of their country. That's just politics - the balance of powers, not just putting on some fake election campaign.

 

 

 

3: Should we make a complete and immediate withdrawal?

 

 

 

Maybe not completely immediately, but certainly hastily and within the next year, slowly giving power to the Iraqi Army and UN peacekeepers.

 

 

 

4: If we stay, how should we support iraq?

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

first, thanks ging for answering the question exacty as i asked.

 

 

 

#1

 

When we invaded iraq i was under the impression that Saddam had WMDs lying round in the backyard of his palace and all we would have to do is swoop down and pick them up, maybe shoot a few bad guys and that would be that. mind you, this was several years ago and i was nowhere near as mature as i am now. after all these years of mess i have changed my mind dramatically. i wish we had never gone to iraq.

 

 

 

#2

 

In your opinion we should let these people fight it out until the side that kills all of the other side first wins. Yes, this would work in a natural envirement like that of a herd animal, the dominent male would beat the others into submission. BUT WE ARE NOT ANIMALS ARE WE? we really cant let them tear each other apart like you are suggesting. i personally belive that in staying and fighting on we have more of a chance of saving lives than allowing an all out civil war.

 

 

 

#3

 

 

 

You are more right in this, i am more than happy hearing a withdrawel plan of MOST of the troops in iraq.

You suffer from the liberaltarian point of view of politics I'm afraid. Whoever said politics was about preserving the most life as possible, or doing merely 'what's nice'? Politics is simply the balance of power between two or more parties. In a democratic society such as ours, that battle is fought in an election, where the mass population has the power to elect a certain few into power who they feel best represent their interests. That doesn't mean to say it's the same everywhere.

 

 

 

That battle can just as easily take place with guns. I would be a fool if I was a Marxist and then believed my interests could be best served through Democracy. See, you have a problem. What if the majority of those who hold power in Iraq wants to fall into civil war? You can't support that, because you'd be seen as someone who made a mess of things in Iraq, but you can't deny it either, because that would compeltely against the principles of Democracy.

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but I'm of the firm belief this war isn't being won, nor can it be won. Therefore, I don't see any logic in staying there, especially when all your presence does is aggrovate more people than it saves.

1: should we be in iraq?

 

 

 

No. This is an issue for the Iraqi people, not the Bush Adminstration-lead coalition. Nor I do I see much purpose in you staying there.

 

 

 

2: even if no, what is something we could improve apon in iraq?

 

 

 

Allow Iraq to takes its own course. It is not your business organising the governments of other countries that have nothing to do with you. If the Iraqi people choose not to have a democracy, then that's their right to do so. And yes, those evil insurgents are Iraqis at the end of the day, and have a right in deciding the fate of their country. That's just politics - the balance of powers, not just putting on some fake election campaign.

 

 

 

3: Should we make a complete and immediate withdrawal?

 

 

 

Maybe not completely immediately, but certainly hastily and within the next year, slowly giving power to the Iraqi Army and UN peacekeepers.

 

 

 

4: If we stay, how should we support iraq?

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

=D>

You suffer from the liberaltarian

 

that's not a real word

You suffer from the liberaltarian

 

that's not a real word

 

 

 

kinda what i was thinking.

 

 

 

sorry if im not ready to condemm thousands of people to death.

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but I'm of the firm belief this war isn't being won, nor can it be won. Therefore, I don't see any logic in staying there, especially when all your presence does is aggrovate more people than it saves.

 

 

 

hmm, interesting logic, it sounds like you would rather people die than us make them unhappy.

 

 

 

life>happieness

You suffer from the liberaltarian

 

that's not a real word

 

 

 

kinda what i was thinking.

 

 

 

sorry if im not ready to condemm thousands of people to death.

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but I'm of the firm belief this war isn't being won, nor can it be won. Therefore, I don't see any logic in staying there, especially when all your presence does is aggrovate more people than it saves.

 

 

 

hmm, interesting logic, it sounds like you would rather people die than us make them unhappy.

 

 

 

life>happieness

 

Since both of you are incapable of picking up on typing errors, allow me to help you:

 

 

 

liberaltarian -> libertarian

 

all your presence does is aggrovate more people than it saves -> all your presence does is alienate more people into becoming terrorists, thus killing more lives than it saves

 

 

 

Also, this point makes me laugh from someone who initially supported the war:

 

 

 

sorry if im not ready to condemm thousands of people to death.

 

Why did you go to war then? Did you expect a war where people don't die?

 

 

 

hmm, interesting logic, it sounds like you would rather people die than us make them unhappy.

 

You miss the point completely. They're going to die anyway, your presence there is doing nothing to save them, you're just delaying the inevitable.

You suffer from the liberaltarian

 

that's not a real word

 

 

 

kinda what i was thinking.

 

 

 

sorry if im not ready to condemm thousands of people to death.

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but I'm of the firm belief this war isn't being won, nor can it be won. Therefore, I don't see any logic in staying there, especially when all your presence does is aggrovate more people than it saves.

 

 

 

hmm, interesting logic, it sounds like you would rather people die than us make them unhappy.

 

 

 

life>happieness

 

Since both of you are incapable of picking up on typing errors, allow me to help you:

 

 

 

liberaltarian -> libertarian

 

all your presence does is aggrovate more people than it saves -> all your presence does is alienate more people into becoming terrorists, thus killing more lives than it saves

 

 

 

Also, this point makes me laugh from someone who initially supported the war:

 

 

 

sorry if im not ready to condemm thousands of people to death.

 

Why did you go to war then? Did you expect a war where people don't die?

 

 

 

hmm, interesting logic, it sounds like you would rather people die than us make them unhappy.

 

You miss the point completely. They're going to die anyway, your presence there is doing nothing to save them, you're just delaying the inevitable.

 

 

 

i would rather delay and not give up hope than condemm them all.

You suffer from the liberaltarian point of view of politics I'm afraid.

 

 

 

liberaltarian -> libertarian

 

 

 

I always thought the libertarian point of view of politics was against the Iraq war and against aggressive interventionism in general. :?

 

 

 

Maybe you're thinking of the "neoconservative" point of view of politics... Because I suffer from the libertarian point of view of politics and was against this war from the start.

Libertarians maintain the doctrine of free will, this doesn't mean they are anti-interventionist. It could be very much argued from their point of view that going to war in Iraq to remove an evil tyrant and free the Iraqi people is a prefectly justifiable reason for declaring war. I doubt neoconservatives would support the war...

 

 

 

I was more referring to their vision that for anyone to be free, they must live under a Democracy, which is certainly a belief I seem to pick up from talking to these people. I just personally disagree with that. Take Russia for example. The majority of people decided to overthrow the Democratic Provisional Government and elect Lenin as their new Socialist Leader, but I wouldn't say from that point they ceased to be free. Maybe later on, but not at the point they lost their Democracy.

I was more referring to their vision that for anyone to be free, they must live under a Democracy, which is certainly a belief I seem to pick up from talking to these people.

 

 

 

I disagree, democracy allows for tyranny of the majority and in the end if the majority deems a minoritys action wrong then the minority are not free. Take for example gay marriage. Gay people arn't free to get married because the majority don't want to allow it. Whereas if you had a liberal dictator who set the lines that as long as an action doesn't harm another you are free to do it then the majority doesn't get to control the minority under the guise of democracy and the dictator doesn't get to control anyone since they have and beleive in a free society. In theory the system would cater for everyone, in democracy the theory only caters for the majority of people and in representative democracy it only caters for the bourgeoise. Democracy only gives you the ability to vote for who can control your actions whereas this system would not control anyone in their private actions. Showing that a dictatorship can allow you to be more free than a democracy. Unless of course the democracy only voted on issues which blurred the line between whether an action was harmful or not, in terms of personal freedom that is.

I disagree, democracy allows for tyranny of the majority and in the end if the majority deems a minoritys action wrong then the minority are not free. Take for example gay marriage. Gay people arn't free to get married because the majority don't want to allow it. Whereas if you had a liberal dictator who set the lines that as long as an action doesn't harm another you are free to do it then the majority doesn't get to control the minority under the guise of democracy and the dictator doesn't get to control anyone since they have and beleive in a free society. In theory the system would cater for everyone, in democracy the theory only caters for the majority of people and in representative democracy it only caters for the bourgeoise. Democracy only gives you the ability to vote for who can control your actions whereas this system would not control anyone in their private actions. Showing that a dictatorship can allow you to be more free than a democracy. Unless of course the democracy only voted on issues which blurred the line between whether an action was harmful or not, in terms of personal freedom that is.

 

 

 

Would also want to add the current situation to this. Is it democracy when we can pick from chosen people? Look at the upcoming US president elections for example. You can't chose the best alternative, you have to vote for the best one out of chosen candidates. In better multiparty states than US, the problem comes in money: the ones who can pay biggest advertises and get their faces to important places, get time from medias and so on are most likely to win.

 

 

 

Is democracy also the best way? The difference between majority and minority might sometimes be almost inexistant, so is it ok that the small majority holds tyranny? What I've seen with my own eyes and heard with my own ears, it's somewhat easy to manipulate the majority of people. This Iraq situation is a good example. Still many people are here claiming some stuff about WMD's, dethroning Saddam, 911 and war on terrorism. Yet, they don't seem to know things. Does it make war on Iraq acceptable if majority of misinformed people say it is?

 

 

 

Take Russia for example. The majority of people decided to overthrow the Democratic Provisional Government and elect Lenin as their new Socialist Leader

 

 

 

Lenin took the leadership with power and fought a civil war to stabilise it. I don't see that as majority's decicion.

 

 

 

When we invaded iraq i was under the impression that Saddam had WMDs lying round in the backyard of his palace and all we would have to do is swoop down and pick them up, maybe shoot a few bad guys and that would be that.

 

 

 

Before starting the war, many American officers warned not to go there and WMD's were their main reason why not. The reasons why not were that if they had them, it would be most likely that some of them got into wrong hands during the chrisis. This could have gone into a situation of WMD's being used against America or coalition troops. Good thing they didn't have them as it was obvious before the war. Another reason was that it could have been a good sign for other non-US-friendly countries to get nukes. It can be argued what was the last reason why South Korea got nukes, but war on Iraq most likely didn't at least positively affect to their motives.

 

 

 

In your opinion we should let these people fight it out until the side that kills all of the other side first wins. Yes, this would work in a natural envirement like that of a herd animal, the dominent male would beat the others into submission. BUT WE ARE NOT ANIMALS ARE WE? we really cant let them tear each other apart like you are suggesting. i personally belive that in staying and fighting on we have more of a chance of saving lives than allowing an all out civil war.

 

 

 

Your current actions should aim to stop the chaos. However it doesn't. The best way would be to reduce US troops and get international peacekeepers there with UN troops. After that all the major group leaders (political leaders, "gang" leaders, etc) should be gathered around the same table and start negotiations. The peace must be brought by them, not to them.

Actually, the majority of people did support Lenin. That argument would only be true if the majority were fighting against Lenin. Since Lenin's target was predominantly the bourgeousie, which had been heavily smashed after three wars of war with Germany and Austria, I doubt it could be argued Lenin was fighting against the majority. The action of storming the palace itself may have been a coup, but the actions that followed were populist movements.

 

 

 

Anyways, back on-topic, America wants to set up a losting peace in Iraq as a beacon to the rest of the Middle-East. However, it cannot possibly hope to acheive this while it's trying to force political leaders to the negotiating table. Now, these terrorist cells in Iraq aren't only consisting of a few hundred people, they reporesent a significant proportion of the population. If what America wants is Democracy, then these poeple's views will have to be taken into account, or else it would cease to be Democracy.

 

 

 

The fact is, these people hold some power in Iraq's future, and if what you've chosen is a Democractic government to replace Saddam, then these people will have to be persuaded to join negotiations. Or else Democracy fails in Iraq. Hence why the American-Style "Shoot 'em first, ask questions later" form of combat isn't working, and won't ever work on this one...

Actually, the majority of people did support Lenin. That argument would only be true if the majority were fighting against Lenin. Since Lenin's target was predominantly the bourgeousie, which had been heavily smashed after three wars of war with Germany and Austria, I doubt it could be argued Lenin was fighting against the majority. The action of storming the palace itself may have been a coup, but the actions that followed were populist movements.

 

 

 

At 1917 constitutional law votings Bolsheviks got 25% of votes and weren't the biggest party. Social-Revolutionary Party for example got 40%. Note that those elections were after the revolution. Of course the more time passed, the less anti-Lenin thoughts there were: it was either accept or die.

 

 

 

Anyways, back on-topic, America wants to set up a losting peace in Iraq as a beacon to the rest of the Middle-East. However, it cannot possibly hope to acheive this while it's trying to force political leaders to the negotiating table. Now, these terrorist cells in Iraq aren't only consisting of a few hundred people, they reporesent a significant proportion of the population. If what America wants is Democracy, then these poeple's views will have to be taken into account, or else it would cease to be Democracy.

 

 

 

The fact is, these people hold some power in Iraq's future, and if what you've chosen is a Democractic government to replace Saddam, then these people will have to be persuaded to join negotiations. Or else Democracy fails in Iraq. Hence why the American-Style "Shoot 'em first, ask questions later" form of combat isn't working, and won't ever work on this one...

 

 

 

The problem is that USA most likely won't accept anything else than pro-american goverment, a bit same style as was in Poland or Czechoslovakia(sp?) during cold war when they were under the red hammer. Many major cells there most likely won't accept this kind of of a goverment. To solve it, we need to find out compromises which please both sides. If we go for pro-USA goverment, the Iraqian cells will keep doing what they are doing atm. If we go for their stylish anti-USA goverment, USA has lost this war and would have gained nothing. In the other words: both sides need to work together and accept some unwanted things if they want peace.