Dale 2.0 (Or the Revenge of Robert?)

[Elok]

How was it a good decision? We were already fighting in Afghanistan. Saddam posed no imminent or even distant threat

Al Qaida and muslim radicalization was all based upon the presence of American soldiers in Saudi Arabia (Being the holy land for Islam b/c of Mecca/Medina).
This army presence was the reason for Al Qaida to be formed! (first against the Saudi government b/c it cooperated with America and let American troops stay on Saudi soil).

After 9/11 something had to be done about this Status Quo.
Without American presence the Kurds, the Saudi and Kuwait would not be save.
With the American presence more Muslims would sympathize with Al Qa'ida.

And the other reason of course was SH's support of Hammas terrorism, supporting the problems in the other problematic situation in the same regio.
But the Saudi-Status Quo was the main reason. And it's a very valid reason.

No, it isn't. Even if we knock Iraq out completely, that still leaves Iran as a potential threat against Saudi Arabia. Plus various other regional instabilities. If anything, we've made the region more unstable by knocking out Saddam; he was sitting on an ethnic-strife firecracker. We've reduced the Sunni-Shiite boil to a simmer, but it's anyone's guess how long it'll stay that way once we pull out. Even if we hadn't bungled the occupation horribly, we would still face our present problem: Iraq is a political fiction, engineered by the British decades ago and held together largely by Saddam's jackboots and cult of personality. Its people are still Sunnis, Shiites or Kurds first, Iraqis second if at all, and they act like it.

Also, you're assuming that AQ's original rationale still holds. They now have a lot of "crusader" rhetoric to wield, and it's not like they're an ideologically pure organization to begin with. If they were all that fanatically Muslim, they wouldn't be making so much money growing and selling dope. They'll take any excuse we give them to recruit more disaffected youth and increase their power.

[Elok]

DP! A pox on your server!

[Robert]

@Mobius:

I see that you're shocked by actual real arguments that make sense, and that you in response decide to leave all counter-arguments that are about the issue behind and just yell.

The Iran argument is a sophism of the same class as "No, you can't jail me for shoplifting because there are people out there who murdered someone and they're not in jail yet."

[MOBIUS]

@Mobius:

I see that you're shocked by actual real arguments that make sense, and that you in response decide to leave all counter-arguments that are about the issue behind and just yell.

The Iran argument is a sophism of the same class as "No, you can't jail me for shoplifting because there are people out there who murdered someone and they're not in jail yet."

PWNED!

My work is done here!

[Robert]

Also, you're assuming that AQ's original rationale still holds. They now have a lot of "crusader" rhetoric to wield, and it's not like they're an ideologically pure organization to begin with. If they were all that fanatically Muslim, they wouldn't be making so much money growing and selling dope. They'll take any excuse we give them to recruit more disaffected youth and increase their power.

When SH was first removed, majority of the Muslims were happy about that. It was only when the Americans weren't able to stop the civil war and thousands of civilians being murdered, that the opinion changed. So that again is a part of the poor execution problem I already posted.

AQ is a pure organization. Selling dope is a way to achieve their goals. It's not against their principals, not to mention that muslims from the AQ background believe that any mean is allowed if it serves the greater goal.
If AQ was after power, then they would not have done 9/11 since that was a suicidal attack, both for the 'pilots' and for the organization. (And the knew it! they had already anticipated the invasion of Afghanistan by the USA).

And Iran only b/c a serious problem (of SH size) after Ahmadinejad became president in 2005.
Ahmadinejad is the one who has the strong Mahdi believe.

Even if we hadn't bungled the occupation horribly, we would still face our present problem: Iraq is a political fiction, engineered by the British decades ago and held together largely by Saddam's jackboots and cult of personality. Its people are still Sunnis, Shiites or Kurds first, Iraqis second if at all, and they act like it.

I would support splitting Iraq up in 3 parts.
Of course that'll not be accepted by the Turks. But it's not as if under SH the Sunnis/Shiites/Kurds issue wasn't a problem. Saddam used WMD against the Kurds, and they could only survive b/c of the no fly zones, which were already for about 11 years controlled by American armies. (not by Russians, Chinese or German armies!!) (no, not by French armies either, of course).

The Shiite/Shuni/Kurd problem would erupt one day or another day.
Now we had a chance to let it erupt at least a bit controlled. But that's where we failed.

The current situation in Iraq would have come anyway. After SH'd death or after the death of his sons.
You can't blame that totally on the USA.
You can blame GWB / Rumsfeld though for invading Iraq with so few troops. And especially GWH for failing that hard diplomatically to get more support from the rest of the world.

[SlowwHand]

Not disagreeing with you there, obviously.

But don't try changing history by justifying the US' squalid little illegal war as regime change. Nope, you and all the other rabid right-wing loons on this forum got sucked in by the lies of your war criminal govt about WMDs who fought an unnecessary war - spending over a trillion dollars in the process and getting tens of thousands of US soldiers killed or wounded (often gruesomely!) or permanently mentally ****ed up from PTSD!!!

THAT'S what you and your moronic friends supported - you should be ****ing ashamed of yourself with all that blood on your hands! If you see an Iraqi war vet amputee - can you even look them in the eye? Because you and all the other people who supported the war did that to him, Slowwie...

You said the toppling of the regime was good, then went on to bash going in to do the toppling. You're a damned hypocrite that tries to cover all bases of an argument and fails miserably.
As far as your "concern" over troops, give it a rest. You don't give a ****.

[Robert]

PWNED!

My work is done here!

I must salute you for recognizing that you're powned and actually admit it.
It takes balls to do that Well done.

[MOBIUS]

You said the toppling of the regime was good, then went on to bash going in to do the toppling. You're a damned hypocrite that tries to cover all bases of an argument and fails miserably.

No I didn't, you thick sack of ****!

I said the only thing they achieved successfully well was the actual military component of taking out Saddam's regime in the space of literally a few days! Every thing else was a total **** up! You can still appreciate a job well done - even if you are utterly opposed to everything it stands for. Not to mention the fact that it meant minimal US and UK casualties - until Bush declared "Mission Accomplished", that is...

It's like admiring the German Blitzkrieg tactics of WWII while utterly despising everything that the Third Reich stood for.

Are you REALLY that much of an idiot, Slowwie, that you can't comprehend basic English written on a computer monitor - that I have to spell everything out to you...?

As far as your "concern" over troops, give it a rest. You don't give a ****.

I would say it is you that doesn't give a **** about your troops - after all the policies you supported are the ones that put them in harm's way in Iraq in the first place. I'm surprised you can sleep at night, knowing that their lives were so casually wasted by people like you...

[MOBIUS]

I must salute you for recognizing that you're powned and actually admit it.
It takes balls to do that Well done.

Dude, I've systematically proved that:

A) You have no respect whatsoever for international law

B) That you're a bully who would rather squash a harmless cockroach than face up to the really nasty kids on the block like Iran, NK, etc...

C) That you couldn't care less about the fates of one million fellow Christians - half of whom used to live peacefully in Iraq for well over a thousand years

D) That you're happy to piss away over a trillion dollars on making the world a far more dangerous place for the West and preside over the deaths of thousands of US and NATO troops FOR ABSOLUTELY NO USEFUL REASON WHATSOEVER!!!

E) That you'd rather attack a virtually defenceless tinpot dictator than actually go after the real terrorists who actually were responsible for 9/11: Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda

F) That someone less retarded than you would have learned their lessons from 7 years ago!

PWNED!

[Robert]

lol

a: international law was a farce. SH is proof for that. So are Russia/France for dealing with SH.
b: sophism, not to mention that Iran wasn't that big of a problem by then, which I already explained: Ahmedinejad wasn't in charge yet.
c: I blame that to poor execution of the war.
d: lol, did I say that?
e: lol, did I say that?
f: most retards follow the group thinking and the mass opinion :P

Dude, the PWNED argument only comes in place when you actually PWNED someone. When you use it out of place, it makes you look kinda.... silly

[Robert]

Oh, and of course you completely ignore the core of my argument.

[giblets]

How was it a good decision? We were already fighting in Afghanistan. Saddam posed no imminent or even distant threat

Al Qaida and muslim radicalization was all based upon the presence of American soldiers in Saudi Arabia (Being the holy land for Islam b/c of Mecca/Medina).
This army presence was the reason for Al Qaida to be formed! (first against the Saudi government b/c it cooperated with America and let American troops stay on Saudi soil).

After 9/11 something had to be done about this Status Quo.
Without American presence the Kurds, the Saudi and Kuwait would not be save.
With the American presence more Muslims would sympathize with Al Qa'ida.

And the other reason of course was SH's support of Hammas terrorism, supporting the problems in the other problematic situation in the same regio.
But the Saudi-Status Quo was the main reason. And it's a very valid reason.

You think the Iraq War could have led to Al Qaeda being less pissed at the United States? That's pretty insane. How is occupying another muslim country supposed to pacify Al Qaeda? And I have trouble believing that American support for Israel wasn't enough to piss off Al Qaeda.

[MOBIUS]

lol

a: international law was a farce. SH is proof for that. So are Russia/France for dealing with SH.

So you admit it too!

Saddam was supported by the US to begin with and was a willing stooge of theirs (Iran - Iraq war!?) - if anyone is to blame for Saddam, it's the US!

b: sophism, not to mention that Iran wasn't that big of a problem by then, which I already explained: Ahmedinejad wasn't in charge yet.

Who cares about Ahmedinnerjacket!? Ali Khamenei is the real power: Elected 1989.

c: I blame that to poor execution of the war.

No, the war was executed just fine - it was the peace that was a cluster****! But then, if Saddam was such an evil bastard, why were the Christians safe under him and in mortal danger under their new 'liberators'!!?

d: lol, did I say that?

You supported the policy that caused it to happen - are you saying that you do not take responsibility for your beliefs!? Are you also a coward?

e: lol, did I say that?

You supported the policy that caused it to happen - are you saying that you do not take responsibility for your beliefs!? Are you also a coward?

f: most retards follow the group thinking and the mass opinion :P

Which is why group thinking and mass opinion in 2003 was to invade Iraq - you're even admitting to be a ****** now!!!

Dude, the PWNED argument only comes in place when you actually PWNED someone. When you use it out of place, it makes you look kinda.... silly

Nope, I'd say I'd exceeded even my own wildest dreams!

As far as I can tell, your core argument is that you're a ****** - because not much else is making sense!

[Robert]

You think the Iraq War could have led to Al Qaeda being less pissed at the United States? That's pretty insane. How is occupying another muslim country supposed to pacify Al Qaeda? And I have trouble believing that American support for Israel wasn't enough to piss off Al Qaeda.

Iraq is no Saudi Arabia. Baghdad is no Mecca/Medina.
For muslim like OBL 'infidel' armies in SA is like muslim armies on the temple mount of Jerusalem for Jews.

Israel was never a part of Al Qa'idas message (untill later, for PR reasons).
Al Qa'ida was fighting the Saudi government exactly for the reasons I specified. You can look it up.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda
"In the face of a seemingly massive Iraqi military presence, Saudi Arabia's own forces were well armed but far outnumbered. Bin Laden offered the services of his mujahideen to King Fahd to protect Saudi Arabia from the Iraqi army. The Saudi monarch refused bin Laden's offer, opting instead to allow U.S. and allied forces to deploy troops into Saudi territory.[75]

The deployment angered Bin Laden, as he believed the presence of foreign troops in the "land of the two mosques" (Mecca and Medina) profaned sacred soil. After speaking publicly against the Saudi government for harboring American troops, he was banished and forced to live in exile in Sudan."

and

"In 1996, al-Qaeda announced its jihad to expel foreign troops and interests from what they considered Islamic lands. Bin Laden issued a fatwa (binding religious edict),[94] which amounted to a public declaration of war against the U.S. and its allies, and began to refocus al-Qaeda's resources on large-scale, propagandist strikes. In June 1996, the Khobar Towers bombing took place in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, attributed by some to al-Qaeda, killing 19 and wounding 372."

Of course the American presence in Iraq was also not very going to help, but it was at least a temporarily problem, compared to the status quo with SH.
With the removal of the SH government, there was sight on removing the troops from the Middle EAst all together (if executed well.)

[Robert]

Saddam was supported by the US to begin with and was a willing stooge of theirs (Iran - Iraq war!?) - if anyone is to blame for Saddam, it's the US!

Too blame is too much.
But today we know that using locals to fight an enemy that's considered to be more dangerous, is not a very good strategy on the long term. I hope it'll not happen again indeed.
That doesn't change the fact that the USA isn't responsible for SH's actions.

Who cares about Ahmedinnerjacket!? Ali Khamenei is the real power: Elected 1989.

He's the religious power indeed. But Ahmedinejad is the one who starts war and decides upon nuclear weapons, etc.
Of course the ayatollahs are in the end the biggest problem, but that doesn't change the fact that before Ahmedinejad became in charge, IRan was not as much of a problem as SH-Iraq.

And: still sophism.

No, the war was executed just fine - it was the peace that was a cluster****! But then, if Saddam was such an evil bastard, why were the Christians safe under him and in mortal danger under their new 'liberators'!!?

I do not end the war at the moment that GWB said that the war had ended.
Removing SH was the easy part. Getting the 3 groups in Iraq to live together in peace: that was the real problem, and the USA admin was not prepared at all for that.

SH lead a secular government.
He did not care for the religion of his people. That's why the christians were as 'safe' as muslim under his reign.
But it was a reign of terror under which nobody was safe and he killed 500,000 - 1,000,000 people.

Having said that, it's terrible what happens to the christians right now in Iraq. In fact it's terrible what happens to all civilians in Iraq. But no the USA are to blame for that, but terror groups that fight eachother over the bodies of women and children.

Which is why group thinking and mass opinion in 2003 was to invade Iraq - you're even admitting to be a ****** now!!!

You forget that I'm from Holland.
I was in a small minority here back then. About nobody supported the invasion overhere

I think in the USA it was more 50/50 back then.

Nope, I'd say I'd exceeded even my own wildest dreams!

Dude, you should really work on your wild dreams.
In my mild wild dreams powning you is not even a subject :P
As a matter of fact, you've never ever even been a part of my dreams. (they're all about making AAHZ's life hell on earth, to bring this thread back on topic for a brief second)

As far as I can tell, your core argument is that you're a ****** - because not much else is making sense!

You can't even tell the difference between my core argument and my mental state