500 mustard and sarin gas shells found in iraq

Quote from traderNik:

Fascinating how the hard right wing around here just plugs its ears and keeps repeating 'the left doesn't care about our security, the left doesn't care about our security'. I love how these people take the rantings of a few moron PC lefties and then tar everyone who doesn't love Pat Robertson with the same brush.

From the beginning, concerned, patriotic people from both the right and left have been quietly asking the same questions -

1 ) Where does it end? Is Ahmadinejad less of a threat than Saddam? Will the U.S. wage preemptive wars against anyone who displayed Saddam's level of preparedness to do harm to the U.S? Will the U.S. wage preemptive 'war' against any country whose government might be capable of turning a blind eye to a terrorist training camp? It is absurd to suggest that the U.S. has less reason to invade Iran than it had to invade Iraq.

2) Does anyone really believe that the U.S. can take a billion-acre template labelled 'Democracy' and get a thousand Blackhawks and fly it over Iraq and drop it and turn Iraq into a Western-style democracy? Doesn't it occur to any of these militia-types that these countries are divided along cultural/tribal/ethnic/religious lines that have existed for thousands of years? There isn't one in twenty of the right- wing warmongers on here who can even define the difference between Sunni and Shi'a. Can they not look at the Russian experience in Afghanistan and realize that they will need to occupy the country forever to achieve their goals? Are they willing to do this?

3) Power in Afghanistan is already flowing back to the Taliban, because these are the dynamics that have existed for thousands of years. What the hell happened to the U.S. promise to stay on and foster the fledgling democracy there??

4) Let's look at things for the perspective of the U.S. fighting men and women, who got jerked around by their commanders and by those who sent them in there in the first place. Let's forget for a moment the lack of body armour and APCs. Outside of the U.S., all we see are interviews with U.S. personnel who are asking - 'What in the hell are we doing here? What is our mission? Is it to fight the 'insurgents'? The 'insurgents' are 'insurgent' BECAUSE WE ARE HERE!! As soon as we leave there is no insurgency. What's that? You say Iraq will descend into civil war if we leave? Sure, that may be right. So what does that mean? We stay here and get our limbs blown off in order to fulfill the mission of... the mission of.... our mission to fight the 'insurgents'... who are 'insurgent' because we are here??'

(I say - Let them kill each other in a civil war if they want- let them fight until every one of their men is dead in a ditch.)

5) How is it that anyone believes the US is any safer because of the efforts in Iraq?? It is dangerous and dishonest to suggest this. I would almost say that the effort has simply increased the number of young Muslim men willing to give their life in order to take out a few Americans, but the fact is that there are a long list of these people. Just imagine how much safer the U.S. would be today if all the money spent on this 'war' (and the amount is staggering) was spent securing the borders, gathering better intelligence, and infiltrating domestic organizations and carrying out small, super-targeted strikes on individuals and organizations worldwide who represent them biggest threats. I'm not saying that the US isn't safer from terrorist attack than it was pre-911, just that the 'war' in Iraq isn't the reason.

To be honest, in the past 6 months, here on ET, there has been a noticeable change in the tone of the hard right here. Guys seem to be starting to distance themselves from this 'war' and only a few maniacs are still shouting

'WMD are there and the war is right and dems are U.S. haters and we are winning and GWB will go down as the greatest U.S. president and the mission is clear and Gitmo is legal and the left are 'in a corner' '(??? - that one is really weird considering that the tide of informed opinion has turned against this 'war', even among the right).
More...


You tell us that we couldn't tell the diff between the sunni and the shi'a. You say this is relevant because they want to kill each other. You also say that they can have a civil war to do so. Then you tell us that the insurgents are only there because we are there. You don't see the utter stupidity in that remark? In case you don't, they are the EXACT OPPOSITE of each other. The minority sunnis held power by the point of a gun and now when the majority shia is elected, they can't stand for it. They want to blow everyone up rather than not be in power. Is that too much understanding for you? Now we come to the cruxt of the whole situation. The sunni inability to accept authority results in all the strife and attempts to kill off the majority party(shia), and the great humanitarians that you liberals are, you say "go ahead, let them all die". You've got much more pressing problems, like "oh, this global warming situation just frightens me so badly, we might die from it".
In other words, as always, to you liberals, "IT'S ALL ABOUT ME". The whole world can just die as long as you don't get a sunburn. Utterly disgusting.
 
Quote from fhl:
You tell us that we couldn't tell the diff between the sunni and the shi'a. You say this is relevant because they want to kill each other. You also say that they can have a civil war to do so. Then you tell us that the insurgents are only there because we are there. You don't see the utter stupidity in that remark? In case you don't, they are the EXACT OPPOSITE of each other. The minority sunnis held power by the point of a gun and now when the majority shia is elected, they can't stand for it. They want to blow everyone up rather than not be in power. Is that too much understanding for you? Now we come to the cruxt of the whole situation. The sunni inability to accept authority results in all the strife and attempts to kill off the majority party(shia), and the great humanitarians that you liberals are, you say "go ahead, let them all die". You've got much more pressing problems, like "oh, this global warming situation just frightens me so badly, we might die from it".
In other words, as always, to you liberals, "IT'S ALL ABOUT ME". The whole world can just die as long as you don't get a sunburn. Utterly disgusting.
More...
I've been around here long enough to know that there are two types of crackpot right wing nutbags. I've never seen your byline so I don't know which you are: the type who willfully twists the content of posts in order to attempt to defend an indefensible position or the type who just doesn't have the reading comprehension skills to parse meaning out of written English.

I never said that the relevance of the Sunni/Shi'a distinction is that they want to kill each other - try re-reading my post when you're sober. You imputed this to me because you need to jump to conclusions that support your position. I said that it is impossible to impose our form of government/society on a people who have thousands of years of history, and that 99% of you right wing nutbags don't know the difference between Shi'a and Sunni.

The people that are killing your young men and women are mostly the ideologically disenfranchised who resent the presence of the U.S. in their country. And what... are you telling me that your main concern is to help the poor downtrodden Sunni minority find their place in Iraqi society? Are you claiming that the killing of U.S. troops is a part of the overall struggle of the Sunnis vs. the Shi'a? Please, okay? You couldn't give a flying fuck if Sunnis and Shi'a killed each other until every one of them was dead. You argue as if the presence of the U.S. in Iraq is somehow going to make the difference between the adoption of a Western-style democracy and the return to a theocracy, of whatever type. The only thing that is clear now is that that is never going to happen. The insurgents killing your forces are doing so out of a hatred of the fact that a foreign power is occupying their land.

You said
Quote from fhl:
"The sunni inability to accept authority results in all the strife and attempts [SIC] to kill off the majority party(shia)..."
More...
You call this the "cruxt" of ths situation. I assume you meant "crux' and not "crust". Too bad the 't' is nowhere near the 'x'. You could claim a typo.

Let us set aside for a moment the bad spelling, and grammar. (Is it the Sunni inability to accept authority that is attempting to kill off the majority party??). I am used to it out of you guys by now. So am I to understand that you think the reason all your young men and women are coming home with no legs and faces and arms is that the Sunnis are somehow not stepping up to the plate? If that is the case then what the hell are you doing there? You think that's going to change? Are you going to stay there and hold their hands for the next... what, 5 years? 10 years? Again, look at Afghanistan to see what happens when the occupiers leave - business as usual. And then what? Iran is clearly a more dangerous place for the US - they openly foment hatred against the West. So what if the minority Sunnis held power by the point of a gun. It's THEIR COUNTRY, moron. There are BILLIONS of people being governed right now by autocrats who hold their power at the point of a gun. The first and main point of my post (which you conveniently ignored) is this - what are you going to do - invade them all??

Next, I didn't say that I was sure there would be a civil war, I said that the argument being used by those who started this is that if they leave now, there will be a civil war. I then said that if they have one and kill each other, so be it. I personally do not believe that there would be a protracted civil war if the U.S. pulls out of Iraq completely tomorrow.

Lastly... yes, the liberal welfare mentality, in which the resources of those who produce a lot can be tapped in order to help those who cannot produce enough for their wants represents an 'IT'S ALL ABOUT ME" mentality.

Yes, I can see how that works... yes, that's clear....ummmm... uhhh (cough) (hack)... huh? You have to admit, that is a bizarre accusation, without the caveat that you are speaking of the equivalent of the right wing nutbag, that is, the left wing PC nutbag for whom everyone is a special interest group of one.

btw... what's with the whole global warming thing??

I notice that you completely failed to address any of the other points in my post, aside from the ones that you misrepresented here. Probably because you are unable to do so.

Woth regard to this
Quote from fhl:
The whole world can just die as long as you don't get a sunburn.
More...
I am sorry that you are having problems, man. This is just bizarre.

I have said enough times on here that I abhor the kind of murderous, despotic thugs that come to power in these countries.
 
Quote from fhl:

You tell us that we couldn't tell the diff between the sunni and the shi'a. You say this is relevant because they want to kill each other. You also say that they can have a civil war to do so. Then you tell us that the insurgents are only there because we are there. You don't see the utter stupidity in that remark? In case you don't, they are the EXACT OPPOSITE of each other. The minority sunnis held power by the point of a gun and now when the majority shia is elected, they can't stand for it. They want to blow everyone up rather than not be in power. Is that too much understanding for you? Now we come to the cruxt of the whole situation. The sunni inability to accept authority results in all the strife and attempts to kill off the majority party(shia), and the great humanitarians that you liberals are, you say "go ahead, let them all die". You've got much more pressing problems, like "oh, this global warming situation just frightens me so badly, we might die from it".
In other words, as always, to you liberals, "IT'S ALL ABOUT ME". The whole world can just die as long as you don't get a sunburn. Utterly disgusting.
More...

Wait a minute...

Are you an Iraqi Shi'a or a Shi'a Muslim?
 
nik said: "Woth regard to this "


Thanks for pointing out my spelling mistakes, nik. It's really the same with all of your various critisisms, namely hypocrisy.
The point of my speaking of your remarks on sunni and shia is that you said: "they have thousands of years of history". Well, the thousands of years of history they have is hatred and fighting. Didn't you know that? So, when you say that "there wouldn't be any insurgents if we weren't there", it is pattently ridiculous.

The reason I said your position is "let them all die, I don't want to get a sunburn", is because you said, "I say - Let them kill each other in a civil war if they want- let them fight until every one of their men is dead in a ditch".
That, combined with the well known liberal screed that man's worst enemy is global warming, led me to combine the two into it's logical conclusion. You liberals are scared witless of death. You are not about to risk your lives to help others escape death, and you are deathly worried of the environment killing you. Make sense to you now, brainiac?
As to answering any of your other slanderous accusations, since when do I have to.
 
Quote from fhl:

So, when you say that "there wouldn't be any insurgents if we ...
More...

I'll disregard all the nonsense that comes after this, the whole thing about correlating global warming with belief in the Iraq war and liberal fear of death... you're obviously having dosage problems this week.

I'll just say that it is brutally dishonest to claim that the 'insurgency' that is responsible for killing U.S. troops is identical to any theoretical 'insurgency' that might have arisen on its own in Iraq. Of course, there was no insurgency pre-invasion, was there? Sure, they theoretically may have common members but it is absurdly simplistic to speak of 'the insurgency' as including those who are fighting the U.S. troops and those who may or may not like the change in government. But then absurd simplification is what people like you specialize in. The fact that they have been fighting for thousands of years is exactly my point.

Bottom line - the U.S. is now talking withdrawal from the country; its generals have realized that they are in a no-win situation and are ready to cut their losses. The whole thing is a disaster. And all but the pathologically misguided understand that after the U.S. leaves, it is anyone's guess whether those who assume the reins of power will be better or worse than Saddam, or whether they will be better or worse for the U.S.
 
Quote from traderNik:

I'll disregard all the nonsense that comes after this, the whole thing about correlating global warming with belief in the Iraq war and liberal fear of death... you're obviously having dosage problems this week.

I'll just say that it is brutally dishonest to say that the 'insurgency' that is responsible for killing U.S. troops is identical to any theoretical 'insurgency' that might have arisen on its own in Iraq. Of course, there was no insurgency pre-invasion, was there? Sure, they maye have common members but it is absurdly simplistic to speak of 'the insurgency' as including those who are fighting the U.S. troops and those who may or may not like the change in government. But then absurd simplification is what people like you specialize in.
More...


Then just what was the all the high minded talk about "thousands of years of history" about? It was an obvious reference to the fact that they have been fighting for that period of time. In case you don't know what the definition of insurgency is, I suggest you look it up, and perhaps you will cease from making inane distinctions which have no basis in fact. That, unfortunately, is the kind of thing you guys seem to specialize in. It kind of goes with the territory among liberals who think thery are the smartest person in the room. It is a very unattractive quality, indeed.
 
Quote from fhl:
It kind of goes with the territory among liberals who think thery are the smartest person in the room. It is a very unattractive quality, indeed.
More...

Well...sorry to say it, but this exchange has made it clear that I'm smarter than you, hasn't it? I mean, you would have to agree with that, wouldn't you?

C'mon now, tell the truth...:)

To be honest, you're right; the left often sees the hard right as uneducated bulletheads who love easy ways of thinking like '40% of blacks are idiots' or 'liberals are afraid of death and that's why they feel global warming is more important than the war on terrorism'. I will admit that this charge of stupidity is often levelled falsely, in fact, quite often. In this case, however...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top