American Hand-Over of Iraq

[Pyro]

I thought that it was very smart of the American government to hand-over the power to the new Iraqi government early. Although I'm sure it came as a surprise to many people (I was watching it happen on CNN while CTV Newsnet was still saying that it was going to happen in two days time), it's actually a quite ingenious way to avoid terrorist attacks and un-needed, un-neccessary violence.

What are your opinions? :)

[Dick]

Wow Bush out-smarted the terrorists.

Bush out-smarted SOMEONE!!! holy crapola.

Good on him. Good idea, cudos to his advisors.

[Pyro]

Bush out-smarted SOMEONE!!! holy crapola.


LMAO! Priceless, classic, Dick! ;) :D

[Neo]

Bush didn't oursmart anyone, you are talking like its his idea... I highly doubt it...

Actually... this could be a victory of the Iraq Rebellion... everytime the US has to changeits plan due to a possible attack, it strengthens the morale of the Rebels.

[Pyro]

Actually... this could be a victory of the Iraq Rebellion... everytime the US has to changeits plan due to a possible attack, it strengthens the morale of the Rebels.

You could view it that way, but what would you prefer? The rebels feeling happy? Or more innocent people feeling dead.

[Earlam]

You could view it that way, but what would you prefer? The rebels feeling happy? Or more innocent people feeling dead.

Innocent deaths are better than rebel moral victory.

It is a pretty popular uprising. The only way to defeat it is to break their morale, as you're never going to root them all out and kill them.
A few innocent dead is an acceptable loss for even a small blow to the rebels' morale.


I don't think this handover of power is gonna do much. I can see it's not much in substance, and I'm sure Iraqis can too. The attacks will continue, because the US is still calling the shots, and American troops (NATO soon?) are still occupying their country.

[Dick]

Innocent deaths are better than rebel moral victory.
Woo! I'm putting you in charge of telling the families of the deaceased that!

:D

"Well ma'am we thought we'd let your son die so Osama wouldn't be happy today."

Ever thought that killing some innocent people would make terrorists happy as well?

[Pyro]

Innocent deaths are better than rebel moral victory.


Well, you're welcome to go join them. {!}

I understand why breaking the rebels' morale is important, but you never know what they could have been planning. For all we know changing the day may have saved the lives of all who attended the handover of power ceremony... :o

[Earlam]

Woo! I'm putting you in charge of telling the families of the deaceased that!

:D

"Well ma'am we thought we'd let your son die so Osama wouldn't be happy today."

Ever thought that killing some innocent people would make terrorists happy as well?


It's not pretty, but it's the situation now.
I'm not happy that innocent people (lots of them) have to die to stop terrorism (not that I think the fighters in Iraq are terrorists, for the most part), but that's the way it is.

The terrorists win either way. But giving in to them is the absolute worst thing you can do. And showing them your fear is a very close second.
I think this exchange of 'power' is showing fear. That's not how you fight terrorism.


Well, you're welcome to go join them. {!}

I understand why breaking the rebels' morale is important, but you never know what they could have been planning. For all we know changing the day may have saved the lives of all who attended the handover of power ceremony... :o

If I have to die in a terrorist attack, so be it.
We've all got to go sometime. If I get to do it beating terrorism (with the bittersweet moral victory of dying proud, not that anyone would ever know), maybe I'll get some extra points in Heaven.

It may well have saved lives, but it also showed fear.
I, for one, believe the only way to beat terrorism is to not be terrorized.
If you allow yourself to be terrorized, you lose (no matter what).

I'm going to continue to fly, and if I ever get the sudden urge to visit the middle east (and have the cash to do so), I'll do so. I refuse to be terrorized.
If it kills me, fine. I'll take solace in the fact that if terrorism kills me, I'll die without being terrorized. Even if they win, they'll lose the Battle of Earl Mitchell. And that's the only way to win.

[Pyro]

But giving in to them is the absolute worst thing you can do. And showing them your fear is a very close second.

The Americans didn't give in, and haven't yet. Nor have the other countries; that's why many of the people kidnapped by insurgents have been beheaded or killed - their demands weren't met.

As for showing their fear, this will have caught the rebels off guard, and with any luck thwarted any plans they had - thus helping to demoralize them. The US pulled the wool over their eyes and followed through with their promise to give Iraq back to its people, all at the same time.

[Earlam]

The Americans didn't give in, and haven't yet. Nor have the other countries; that's why many of the people kidnapped by insurgents have been beheaded or killed - their demands weren't met.

As for showing their fear, this will have caught the rebels off guard, and with any luck thwarted any plans they had - thus helping to demoralize them. The US pulled the wool over their eyes and followed through with their promise to give Iraq back to its people, all at the same time.

Time for a petty nit-picking argument.

Iraq hasn't been given back to its people. It hasn't even been given to the US-selected governing council. It's still controlled by the US.

By moving up the day, the US showed that it fears a rebel or terrorist attack. That is showing fear. Perhaps even a respect for their capabilities.
Not the way I would be running this war.
(Although, admittedly, if I were running the show, this war wouldn't be happening).

[Lance]

Its not pretty but its the situation now? Thats what you said right? Well well
well, last time I checked, you werent Bush's Advisor (thank god, innocent deaths are acceptable my ***), you werent in Iraq... ever (thats my guess, cause I dont think many families vacation there, and no schools go there for class trips), and you werent even an American Citizen. Although you'd probably be a good one.

By moving up the day, the US shows that it respects the lives of their troops and wants to relieve some of the danger that they have to deal with everyday. Its not showing fear if you give someone control of THEIR OWN country. Thats like me coming into your house, kickin your *** and throwin you down a flight of steps then tellin you to make me supper, and after that Id leave, and let you run your house. Its not fear, its relinquishing their control over someone else's country. Thats something theyve known theyd have to do for a long time. Now they're doing it. The US isnt scared. All theyd have to do is push a button and Iraq would become a radioactive crater on the face of the planet.


You really seem like you know a lot about this. but on the inside... you dont. No modern leader today in a 1st World Nation, will send innocent people to die without a just cause. There isnt a just cause in Iraq anymore. The stories over. Sorry, but your little war mongering dreams wont be fulfilled. Theyre stepping aside now. Its time to get over it Earl. Cause Iraq is just another page in your history text now. Try telling US Marines that youd like to see them innocently die so some 3rd world muslim wouldnt be happy... hed probably karate chop your leg and give you a compound fracture.

[Dick]

Try telling US Marines that youd like to see them innocently die so some 3rd world muslim wouldnt be happy... hed probably karate chop your leg and give you a compound fracture.bahahaha POST OF THE DAY!!!

POST OF THE DAY!!!

[Earlam]

Its not pretty but its the situation now? Thats what you said right? Well well
well, last time I checked, you werent Bush's Advisor (thank god, innocent deaths are acceptable my ***), you werent in Iraq... ever (thats my guess, cause I dont think many families vacation there, and no schools go there for class trips), and you werent even an American Citizen. Although you'd probably be a good one.

By moving up the day, the US shows that it respects the lives of their troops and wants to relieve some of the danger that they have to deal with everyday. Its not showing fear if you give someone control of THEIR OWN country. Thats like me coming into your house, kickin your *** and throwin you down a flight of steps then tellin you to make me supper, and after that Id leave, and let you run your house. Its not fear, its relinquishing their control over someone else's country. Thats something theyve known theyd have to do for a long time. Now they're doing it. The US isnt scared. All theyd have to do is push a button and Iraq would become a radioactive crater on the face of the planet.


You really seem like you know a lot about this. but on the inside... you dont. No modern leader today in a 1st World Nation, will send innocent people to die without a just cause. There isnt a just cause in Iraq anymore. The stories over. Sorry, but your little war mongering dreams wont be fulfilled. Theyre stepping aside now. Its time to get over it Earl. Cause Iraq is just another page in your history text now. Try telling US Marines that youd like to see them innocently die so some 3rd world muslim wouldnt be happy... hed probably karate chop your leg and give you a compound fracture.


Do I detect just a hint of hostility?

I'm not Bush's advisor (although I'd like to think I'm smarter than him).
I've never been to Iraq (and couldn't afford to if I wanted to).
I'm not an American citizen (are my views not 'Canadian' enough for you, Lance?). Although I thank you for the vote of confidence on that count. It's nice to have someone believe in you :P .
(And you say I would be a good American citizen, and call me a warmonger. Is this a reflection of your opinion of Americans in general?)

You seem to have misinterpreted some of my (admittedly, not completely clear if based on just this thread alone) comments. I'll set things straight on a couple counts.
i) It is showing fear, for reasons I've already outlined. It being the right thing to do doesn't even enter into the equation.
ii) It's the right thing to do, no doubt (not that this actually does much, but it's a nice idea). There really isn't a way to get out of it scott-free, as no matter what the US does, it's going to lose in some way.
iii) The US is definitely scared. They'd have to be crazy not to be. But showing the fear is the wrong thing to do. Strength is the only defence.
Just because they can nuke the world into an asteroid belt doesn't mean they are afraid of nothing. Did you see the headlines just after 9/11? They were scared ****less! Dazed, confused, and afraid as a nation. And rightly so. That kind of power just makes them a bigger target.
They can't use it because of something you've mentioned yourself: the public. Nuking some middle eastern country into oblivion is not an acceptable response to....... whatever it is that Iraq did against the US (although invasion, arguably, is equally unreasonable, if less harmful).

I know as much about this as you do, and I think more (although I'm sure you think the same visa versa). Neither of us knows everything. We take the information available to us, toss it in a bucket with our ideals, and blend it into opinions, arguments, and views. That's the way it works.

War mongering dreams?
Well, that seems to be a personal insult. As such, the appropriate response, Lance, is this: Go to Hell.
Try attacking my arguments. Or is that too complicated?

Iraq is still very real. So is US involvement in Iraq. Check out the terms of this new 'handover of sovereignty' (sovereignty the US claimed earlier to have not taken from Iraq's people, I'll point out). You'll find that very little has actually changed. It's a small step in the right direction. It is far from the end (I predict another decade or so of US involvement in Iraq, though not on the current scale).
Hell, we should be getting more worried about Iraq, not less worried. Possible NATO involvement. Guess who's in NATO? That's right, Canada.
The history text you refer to might have to be revised to include numbers of Canadian dead. So worry about Iraq, Lance. It's still very real indeed.

No 1st world nation's leader would cause innocent deaths without just cause?
We're discussing Iraq, right?
I don't think I have to say anything more.

I would like to point out that US Marines are not innocents. They are combatants. If a US Marine is killed in Iraq, he dies a soldier (whether on duty or not, he's there as a soldier).
Besides, risk of death is part of a Marine's job. I know it's tough for us to realize this, but soldiers are paid to risk death, and, sometimes, to die.
Hell, some of the civilians killed in Iraq are borderline combatant.

If the Marine chose to assault me, I would be on the ground. And I would be telling him (in between screams of pain) that he was in denial, and that he should check his job description.

[Pyro]

WOAH!!! Earlam, Lance, tone it down. Yes these issues are very important, and lives are on the line - but there is no need for tit for tat personal attacks, or use of profanity - that's how threads are closed.

*ahem* Back to the matter at hand - remember, these are personal opinions, and although we may step over the line from time to time (I'll admit that in an instant), CW is supposed to be a peaceful place where cadets are able to come together and discuss/debate anything and everything. We can't control these things from our keyboards, so although we feel strongly about it, there are more important things - like not making feuds. Please don't get mad at me, I'm not trying to annoy you guys :o

For the lives it may well have saved, as I said in the beginning, I feel that this was a smart move for the Americans. They are opposing the rebels in different ways, and I don't feel that readily providing them with an opportunity to devastate the Americans, and the plans they have for restoring the country to peace is the best way to bring them down. I admit, I don't know all, and I don't yet know the safest way to do it, but letting innocent people die for naught is NOT the way. :(

[Lance]

No, that was definately not my view of American Citizens in general, just their Leader. Whats to misinterpret about your posts? You seem to think that killing people so other people dont feel happy is alright. You know, Ive never even heard that before today... ever. Thats the completely wrong way to look at this. Sure, the US probably wants to **** off the Iraqis, and Al Qaida members, and all those other terrorists, I would too, Im not saying I wouldnt. Im just saying that the idea that innocent deaths are alright for the sole purpose of ******* someone off is completely retarded.

I still cant see how giving Iraqis sovereignty over their OWN country is being scared. I just cant wrap my mind around it... if I walk away from a fight am does that mean Im scared? Nope, it means Im choosing the right choice. Who makes everyone in the world terrorists anyways? The US. US Propaganda, US citizens who criticize these people based on religious beliefs, traditions and customs, beliefs, and their all around way of life. Have you ever thought about the fact the the US Military IS a terrorist threat... to anyone. Theyre not scared, theyll do what they want no matter who is backing them. We learned that after France vitod them, remember that? After 911. Of course the right thing enters the equation, it always does. You can be calm and do the right thing. They're not scared. Dont be foolish. Bush hasnt backed down until now. Hes not scared.

Now, of course they were scared after 911, if I crash a plane into your garage are you gonna be like "whoah, what did I do last night?" and go back to sleep or freak out. Youre probably gonna freek and grab a shotgun, right? Yeah, same thing the US did, and I dont blame them. But they made these terrorists who they are.

Dont even doubt my knowledge on this topic. Because Im guessing I know quite a bit about it. And of course I know Canada is in NATO. But NATO is becoming more of a peace keeping force everyday, instead of a Military Task Force.

Im prepared to see Canadian casualties in Iraq, but not as innocent deaths that just happened in the process of ******* off some Iraqi Militants. Thats not an acceptable way to deal with anything. Maybe YOU should read a Marine's job description. Nowhere does it say that they have to be a sacrifice to **** off a 3rd world threat. Get with the program.

I think you do need to say more actually, why would the Leader of the US of A send innocent people to death? There was a just cause in sending troops into Iraq in the beginning, now theres not. So theyre turning it over to Iraq, and just sticking around. He didnt send them to die so he could **** off Saddam. He sent them to fight the good fight. To corrupt a Tyrant's regime.

You fool. Everyone is a combatant in this war. 5 year olds can still pull triggers too. Im not denying the fact that marines are combatants. But why should they have to die JUST to **** someone off? Thats bull.

In closing, your statement that people should die in order to make someone mad is completely off the ball. There are other ways than that...

[Earlam]

WO2 Pyro, I respectfully disagree with your conclusions.
I understand and respect your not wanting the thread to be closed.
Which is why I'm not going to respond to the personal insults in the post I'm now going to respond to. Although my earlier response to them stands.



No, that was definately not my view of American Citizens in general, just their Leader. Whats to misinterpret about your posts? You seem to think that killing people so other people dont feel happy is alright. You know, Ive never even heard that before today... ever. Thats the completely wrong way to look at this. Sure, the US probably wants to **** off the Iraqis, and Al Qaida members, and all those other terrorists, I would too, Im not saying I wouldnt. Im just saying that the idea that innocent deaths are alright for the sole purpose of ******* someone off is completely retarded.

I still cant see how giving Iraqis sovereignty over their OWN country is being scared. I just cant wrap my mind around it... if I walk away from a fight am does that mean Im scared? Nope, it means Im choosing the right choice. Who makes everyone in the world terrorists anyways? The US. US Propaganda, US citizens who criticize these people based on religious beliefs, traditions and customs, beliefs, and their all around way of life. Have you ever thought about the fact the the US Military IS a terrorist threat... to anyone. Theyre not scared, theyll do what they want no matter who is backing them. We learned that after France vitod them, remember that? After 911. Of course the right thing enters the equation, it always does. You can be calm and do the right thing. They're not scared. Dont be foolish. Bush hasnt backed down until now. Hes not scared.

Now, of course they were scared after 911, if I crash a plane into your garage are you gonna be like "whoah, what did I do last night?" and go back to sleep or freak out. Youre probably gonna freek and grab a shotgun, right? Yeah, same thing the US did, and I dont blame them. But they made these terrorists who they are.

Dont even doubt my knowledge on this topic. Because Im guessing I know quite a bit about it. And of course I know Canada is in NATO. But NATO is becoming more of a peace keeping force everyday, instead of a Military Task Force.

Im prepared to see Canadian casualties in Iraq, but not as innocent deaths that just happened in the process of ******* off some Iraqi Militants. Thats not an acceptable way to deal with anything. Maybe YOU should read a Marine's job description. Nowhere does it say that they have to be a sacrifice to **** off a 3rd world threat. Get with the program.

I think you do need to say more actually, why would the Leader of the US of A send innocent people to death? There was a just cause in sending troops into Iraq in the beginning, now theres not. So theyre turning it over to Iraq, and just sticking around. He didnt send them to die so he could **** off Saddam. He sent them to fight the good fight. To corrupt a Tyrant's regime.

You fool. Everyone is a combatant in this war. 5 year olds can still pull triggers too. Im not denying the fact that marines are combatants. But why should they have to die JUST to **** someone off? Thats bull.

In closing, your statement that people should die in order to make someone mad is completely off the ball. There are other ways than that...

It's not about being happy or not. It's about believing they've made a difference. They only way to beat terrorism (even though it's not an actual, coherent enemy) is to absorb a certain amount of casualties without being terrorized. That's what I'm saying.
The only way to win is to refuse to be terrorized.

Are you implying that Iraqis, in general, are terrorists? (I started in this thread as a nitpicker, and I shall continue in that role).
If so, I disagree. I disagree that most of the anti-US fighters in Iraq are terrorists. Heck, I disagree that a good chunk of the 'terrorists' in Afghanistan were terrorists, and I thought that was a legit target for attack.

In this kind of war, innocent lives are currency. You've gotta win some to lose some, lose some to win some.
Alot of people die for the sole purpose of ******* someone off. Wars have begun that way, thousands have died because of it. Stay in touch with reality...... you remember... that ugly, cold, uncaring world you wish you didn't live in?

You can't see how giving Iraqis' sovereignty over their own country is being scared?
Then you seem to have not read my post, or you missed every point I made.

The Iraqis should have sovereignty over their own country. I agree unequivocally. But the manner of it being given to them should have been different (not that this is an actual transfer of power, as I've already mentioned).

As I've said, Iraq is a no-win situation. What the US is doing may well be the best way out of it, but it still has its problems. I'm pointing out those problems.

I know very well that the US media decides who is a terrorist and who is not. I think I've made that clear..... but hey, maybe I'm dillusional.

I don't like the term "terrorism". Terrorism, by dictionary definition, is a standard foreign policy tool. So yes, the US military (and every other military worth its salt) is a terrorist threat.
Of course I've considered this! In the pre-invasion days, it was one of my favourite cards to play, actually...... nobody can respond to it, because nobody can disagree 100% (reasonably).

The right thing enters into the 'grand scheme' equation.
It doesn't enter into the equation of our argument (since we both agree it's the right thing to do, we just disagree on how it should be gone about).

Bush isn't backing down in one big step, but he got himself into this mess. This mess is impossible to get out of without backing down, or killing most of the people of Iraq. He's not doing it in a big step, but he's got his toe in the door, and is quietly trying to edge his way out of it.
If Bush isn't scared, he's crazy (or overconfident, which might be a degree of insanity).

Your garage analogy isn't disputed from over here. And I know full well that the US made these terrorists. Just because I disagree with you on some points doesn't mean I've put blinders on to the world (I think my major problem here is calling it like I see it, which is a little too cynical and realistic for some people's tastes. Heck, I agree with alot of what you say, except for the whole 'Bad things don't have to happen'-ish bit).

I don't doubt your knowledge in general, but I do doubt your knowledge in large chunks (which happen to be what we're arguing). NATO is definitely becoming more a peacekeeping force than a military-combat task force. With the USSR gone, it's good that it still has a role. But that's another topic, I think.

I'm not prepared to take Canadian casualties in Iraq with the current situation. If things changed (fairly drastically), I would be willing to lose Canadians. But not now. Most definitely not now.
We don't seem to be on the same channel, Lance. Because I'm right with my program. It's called 'Reality'. In this particular program, people die for stupid reasons, bad stuff happens alot more often than good stuff, and everybody twists everything to their own ends. Welcome to the world.

Military personnel are enlisted by their country to serve however that country sees fit. If that country decides they should invade a foreign nation, they invade it. If that country decides they have to die, they die. For whatever purpose.
The Military is an arm of foreign policy.

I agree that there was a just cause in sending troops to Iraq (although I find all the lying and propaganda a little distasteful...... but what am I to do?) (and that just cause is still debatable).
But with all the supposed reasons, there really is no way to get out and not lose face.
To corrupt a tyrant's regime?
I'm not sure I completely understand that thought (I have a couple ideas, but if I'm wrong, I'll be debating against nothing, which I'd rather not do).

EVERYONE is a combatant? I must disagree completely.
I'm not sure exactly what war you're thinking of ("War on Terrorism", War in Iraq......?), but no matter, I still disagree.
I'm a warmonger, but EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING is a combatant?
That kind of cuts down your own argument, don't you think?

Nowhere did I say that "people should die just to make someone mad".
Where did you get this, exactly?
There's a subtle difference between 'people should die to make someone mad', and 'these people may have to die for victory'.

[DVessey]

Kudos for keeping this thread somewhat tame.. and interesting at the same time... :)

The main reason/justification the US used to go into Iraq was WMD's and terrorist links. The US's own committee on 9/11 stated that they could find no links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. I believe they even found that Osama asked to set up a training camp there, and Saddam refused. We're all still waiting for these WMD's to be found...
They WERE justified in going into Iraq to rid the world of a horrible dictator, yes. But are they going to get rid of ALL the horrible dictators in the world? So how justified they were in being there is debatable...

As for the transfer of power... both sides have good arguments. As soon as I heard about it, I was like "Wow! SURPRISE Iraq! you're SOVEREIGN!!", with Bush jumping up from behind a couch with a party hat on in the Iraqi PM/President's (not sure which) office.
The US kept saying that the transfer would take place June 30th. It could be seen either way, as fear or as a smart move to put the insurgents/terrorists/enemy off their game.
There really isn't a good way to get out of Iraq at the moment. I just hope for the best for the future of Iraq and I'm glad I'm not the one calling the shots.

[Pyro]

I just hope for the best for the future of Iraq and I'm glad I'm not the one calling the shots.

Amen to that, David! :o

[DMCorrigan]

Its not pretty but its the situation now? Thats what you said right? Well well
well, last time I checked, you werent Bush's Advisor (thank god, innocent deaths are acceptable my ***), you werent in Iraq... ever (thats my guess, cause I dont think many families vacation there, and no schools go there for class trips), and you werent even an American Citizen. Although you'd probably be a good one.

By moving up the day, the US shows that it respects the lives of their troops and wants to relieve some of the danger that they have to deal with everyday. Its not showing fear if you give someone control of THEIR OWN country. Thats like me coming into your house, kickin your *** and throwin you down a flight of steps then tellin you to make me supper, and after that Id leave, and let you run your house. Its not fear, its relinquishing their control over someone else's country. Thats something theyve known theyd have to do for a long time. Now they're doing it. The US isnt scared. All theyd have to do is push a button and Iraq would become a radioactive crater on the face of the planet.


You really seem like you know a lot about this. but on the inside... you dont. No modern leader today in a 1st World Nation, will send innocent people to die without a just cause. There isnt a just cause in Iraq anymore. The stories over. Sorry, but your little war mongering dreams wont be fulfilled. Theyre stepping aside now. Its time to get over it Earl. Cause Iraq is just another page in your history text now. Try telling US Marines that youd like to see them innocently die so some 3rd world muslim wouldnt be happy... hed probably karate chop your leg and give you a compound fracture.

This post has two problems with it.

Firstly, it breaks House Rule 1 regarding blanking out of curse words with symbols. (See the first two boldings I've put in the above quote.).

Secondly, you've put a lot of personal attacks on Earlam in there. DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT engage in personal attacks on other users! It is completely unnecessary and inappropriate! This is friendly debate, not word sniping wars! Keep that in mind, please.

Kindly watch what you write, and review it before you push "Submit Reply".

[DMCorrigan]

Do I detect just a hint of hostility?

I'm not Bush's advisor (although I'd like to think I'm smarter than him).
I've never been to Iraq (and couldn't afford to if I wanted to).
I'm not an American citizen (are my views not 'Canadian' enough for you, Lance?). Although I thank you for the vote of confidence on that count. It's nice to have someone believe in you :P .
(And you say I would be a good American citizen, and call me a warmonger. Is this a reflection of your opinion of Americans in general?)

You seem to have misinterpreted some of my (admittedly, not completely clear if based on just this thread alone) comments. I'll set things straight on a couple counts.
i) It is showing fear, for reasons I've already outlined. It being the right thing to do doesn't even enter into the equation.
ii) It's the right thing to do, no doubt (not that this actually does much, but it's a nice idea). There really isn't a way to get out of it scott-free, as no matter what the US does, it's going to lose in some way.
iii) The US is definitely scared. They'd have to be crazy not to be. But showing the fear is the wrong thing to do. Strength is the only defence.
Just because they can nuke the world into an asteroid belt doesn't mean they are afraid of nothing. Did you see the headlines just after 9/11? They were scared ****less! Dazed, confused, and afraid as a nation. And rightly so. That kind of power just makes them a bigger target.
They can't use it because of something you've mentioned yourself: the public. Nuking some middle eastern country into oblivion is not an acceptable response to....... whatever it is that Iraq did against the US (although invasion, arguably, is equally unreasonable, if less harmful).

I know as much about this as you do, and I think more (although I'm sure you think the same visa versa). Neither of us knows everything. We take the information available to us, toss it in a bucket with our ideals, and blend it into opinions, arguments, and views. That's the way it works.

War mongering dreams?
Well, that seems to be a personal insult. As such, the appropriate response, Lance, is this: Go to Hell.
Try attacking my arguments. Or is that too complicated?

Iraq is still very real. So is US involvement in Iraq. Check out the terms of this new 'handover of sovereignty' (sovereignty the US claimed earlier to have not taken from Iraq's people, I'll point out). You'll find that very little has actually changed. It's a small step in the right direction. It is far from the end (I predict another decade or so of US involvement in Iraq, though not on the current scale).
Hell, we should be getting more worried about Iraq, not less worried. Possible NATO involvement. Guess who's in NATO? That's right, Canada.
The history text you refer to might have to be revised to include numbers of Canadian dead. So worry about Iraq, Lance. It's still very real indeed.

No 1st world nation's leader would cause innocent deaths without just cause?
We're discussing Iraq, right?
I don't think I have to say anything more.

I would like to point out that US Marines are not innocents. They are combatants. If a US Marine is killed in Iraq, he dies a soldier (whether on duty or not, he's there as a soldier).
Besides, risk of death is part of a Marine's job. I know it's tough for us to realize this, but soldiers are paid to risk death, and, sometimes, to die.
Hell, some of the civilians killed in Iraq are borderline combatant.

If the Marine chose to assault me, I would be on the ground. And I would be telling him (in between screams of pain) that he was in denial, and that he should check his job description.

Earlam, please recall House Rule #1 regarding the use of symbols to blank out letters in curse words.

As well, the paragraph that I bolded was COMPLETELY unnecessary. Comments like telling him to "go to hell" are inappropriate. We have moderators to settle things like this. Please, use the report post function. That's what we're here for.

[DMCorrigan]

Earlam and Lance, a warning to you both. Upon reading even further, I've found BOTH of your levels of hostility rapidly on the rise. Please calm the rude and sarcastic comments in general.

Both of you are excellent debaters. Set the example and follow the rules.

[Lance]

Personal insults? I dont think I insulted you in my last post...

Lives are currency? I seem to remember reading about something like that before... it was called slavery. Where lives were traded. Maybe you should choose your words better. Im starting to understand what youre trying to sya more and more, but I still maintain that its not acceptable to give up a human life in order to anger someone.

"Innocent Deaths are Better than Rebel Moral Victory" that more or less says, "people will die to **** someone off." Its a given they may have to die for victory, but not that they have to die to lower the morale of Iraqi soldiers.

In a sense, yes, Iraqi's are terrorists. The beheading of the captive, the execution of another marine just recently. To me, those are acts of terrorism. But those are only a few of the Iraqi citizens. I dont view them all as terrorists, just some of them, because some of them are. But then again, I see George Bush Jr as the biggest terrorist threat in the world... so I dont know...

I live in reality. You live a hundred years ago where lives are currency and theyre easily sacrificed with even feeling a hint of guilt. Todays reality is this. Every life is worth something (believe it or not), and to send someone to die, just to lower the morale of a terrorist is just plain inhumane.

No, i read over your post quite thoroughly actually, and it still doesnt make me think theyre scared. Youve never once given an actual, backed up reason to show why theyre scared. Youve said theyre scared and that theyd have to be crazy not to be, you said they were scared after 911 (given), and you said that YOU see an exchange of power as being scared. I dont have to be blind to not agree with your opinion, because thats all youve given here. I do not agree with the fact that the United States Armed Forces is scared of the Iraqi threat at this point and time.

Not everyone is a combatant, sorry, I generalised big time. But potentially everyone is a threat. That baby in her mother's arms might have a granada under her blankets, that man at the fish market might have an AK under the table. Not every combatant is in a uniform in this war.

Well at least we see eye to eye about the US being a potential terrorist threat.

I never said bad things dont have to happen. I just said that in order to lower the morale of the enemy, people shouldnt have to day. Thats why we have air raids.

I beg your pardon? Are you telling me Im out of touch with reality because I dont want to see bad things happen? Im not disputing the fact that they will happen, Im just saying there are other ways. I see everything that you see on CNN, I just look at it from a different point of view, but its still in reality buddy.

The US went in there to overthrow (edited, overthrow makes more sense than corrupt) a tyrant's regime. Saddam Hussein was openly a Tyrant. He killed thousands upon thousands of his own people (the Kurds for example), he was developing Chemical Weapons, he had to be stopped. So they stopped him. Thats what I meant by corrupting a tyrants regime. Just for a bit of clarity.

[Lance]

Earlam and Lance, a warning to you both. Upon reading even further, I've found BOTH of your levels of hostility rapidly on the rise. Please calm the rude and sarcastic comments in general.

Both of you are excellent debaters. Set the example and follow the rules.

arent warnings supposed to be issued via PMs?

[DMCorrigan]

It's not an official warning, it's simply a friendly reminder to keep the hostility down and to play nice. My point remains the same.

[Lt(N) Jean Cyr]

arent warnings supposed to be issued via PMs?

They are... He's new ;)

Just keep it cool guys :)

J

[Earlam]

Personal insults? I dont think I insulted you in my last post...

Lives are currency? I seem to remember reading about something like that before... it was called slavery. Where lives were traded. Maybe you should choose your words better. Im starting to understand what youre trying to sya more and more, but I still maintain that its not acceptable to give up a human life in order to anger someone.

"Innocent Deaths are Better than Rebel Moral Victory" that more or less says, "people will die to **** someone off." Its a given they may have to die for victory, but not that they have to die to lower the morale of Iraqi soldiers.

In a sense, yes, Iraqi's are terrorists. The beheading of the captive, the execution of another marine just recently. To me, those are acts of terrorism. But those are only a few of the Iraqi citizens. I dont view them all as terrorists, just some of them, because some of them are. But then again, I see George Bush Jr as the biggest terrorist threat in the world... so I dont know...

I live in reality. You live a hundred years ago where lives are currency and theyre easily sacrificed with even feeling a hint of guilt. Todays reality is this. Every life is worth something (believe it or not), and to send someone to die, just to lower the morale of a terrorist is just plain inhumane.

No, i read over your post quite thoroughly actually, and it still doesnt make me think theyre scared. Youve never once given an actual, backed up reason to show why theyre scared. Youve said theyre scared and that theyd have to be crazy not to be, you said they were scared after 911 (given), and you said that YOU see an exchange of power as being scared. I dont have to be blind to not agree with your opinion, because thats all youve given here. I do not agree with the fact that the United States Armed Forces is scared of the Iraqi threat at this point and time.

Not everyone is a combatant, sorry, I generalised big time. But potentially everyone is a threat. That baby in her mother's arms might have a granada under her blankets, that man at the fish market might have an AK under the table. Not every combatant is in a uniform in this war.

Well at least we see eye to eye about the US being a potential terrorist threat.

I never said bad things dont have to happen. I just said that in order to lower the morale of the enemy, people shouldnt have to day. Thats why we have air raids.

I beg your pardon? Are you telling me Im out of touch with reality because I dont want to see bad things happen? Im not disputing the fact that they will happen, Im just saying there are other ways. I see everything that you see on CNN, I just look at it from a different point of view, but its still in reality buddy.

The US went in there to overthrow (edited, overthrow makes more sense than corrupt) a tyrant's regime. Saddam Hussein was openly a Tyrant. He killed thousands upon thousands of his own people (the Kurds for example), he was developing Chemical Weapons, he had to be stopped. So they stopped him. Thats what I meant by corrupting a tyrants regime. Just for a bit of clarity.

There was the whole "You fool" thing, but don't worry, I forgive you ;).

Lives are currency. You know I'm not talking about slavery.
Since the beginning of time, people have died so some king, duke, or president could make a point. Life and death is traded.

People dying for victory is acceptable to you, but people dying to lower enemy morale is not?
In my opinion, lowering the Iraqi fighters' morale is the only way to defeat them. So if they die lowering their morale (or even preventing it from rising), they are contributing to victory.
Because, like I said before, the Iraqi fighters are not going to be defeated with tanks and M16s. It's not that kind of war (unless the US wants to commit genocide, which wouldn't look too good come election time).

Some Iraqis are terrorists, definitely (although some of the incidents you consider terrorist acts I think are reasonably legit, like the Marine).
GWB is a 'terrorist' as well, of course (as I said before, anybody who's somebody is a terrorist threat).

The world hasn't changed so much from a hundred years ago. Our society in the West has changed enormously. We don't want to see the world anymore.
Check out Ethiopia. Sierra Leonne, Israel/Palestine, heck, China isn't a shining beacon of hope, and we trade with it constantly.
If you want to get into the completely literal bit, slavery is still a pretty big industry, even in Europe.
People die all over the place for alot of things. Land, food, diamonds, a leader's ego, and they die for no real reason at all.
Inhumane? Probably. But the world isn't a humane place.
And does inhumanity make the point any less valid?

A couple words: Patriot Act.
The US is definitely scared. Have you seen the security measures they've been implimenting lately? If they weren't scared, most of the 'detainees' in Cuba would be released (having done nothing wrong), and brown people wouldn't be searched at every border crossing or airport.
I at no point said that giving Iraq back to Iraqis showed fear.
Transferring power early, though, does.
I admit that it might be the best thing to do, as there's no clean way out of Iraq. But it has problems.

I doubt if even 10% of Iraqi fighters/Mujahideen wear any kind of uniform. Like I said, it's not that kind of war. It's not the US military against the Iraqi military, it's the US military against the Iraqi people (not all of the Iraqi people, but you know what I mean).

Air raids?
Just because a tool is effective doesn't mean you throw out everything else in the toolbox.

There are usually other ways to solve things (with regards to people dying and bad things happening). Usually.
Even when there is, though, people dying is often the most convenient solution.

Overthrow...... I get it now. I thought that was what you meant.....
Now that I get it, I agree with your last point (although not 100%, but that's just because I have a problem with people invading other people, imprisoning and killing their leaders, and occupying their country, all the while calling anyone who opposes the occupation a "terrorist").

[HammerOfHope]

That was a lot of words you wrote, but let me reiterate something:

Nobody wants Iraqi Sovereignty Day commemorated with a 21-suicide bomb salute.

[Dick]

Nobody wants Iraqi Sovereignty Day commemorated with a 21-suicide bomb salute.
Osama would!!!

And we can't let him have his way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Earlam]

That was a lot of words you wrote, but let me reiterate something:

Nobody wants Iraqi Sovereignty Day commemorated with a 21-suicide bomb salute.

True, we don't want 'Iraqi Sovereignty Day' to be the target of a successful terrorist attack. Of course not.

But is telling the terrorists we're afraid of them worth it?

I think it would be better to absorb a little damage than to tell the enemy that we fear them. With a megaphone.

But what's done is done. We'll see how it plays out
(I hope I'm wrong, I really do).

[piper]

Well, the Americans have tried to rebuild the country for a rather ungrateful population, and they keep getting attacked as they try to rebuild. So, I think the US should just pull out completely now, call up Syria, Iran, Israel, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, and cooperate on sealing off the border, no one leaves, and only basic humanitarian supplies get in, and let Iraq work itself out. Two things will happen, Iraq will either somehow form a functioning country (unlikely) or will just self destruct (likely). This way, with the borders sealed, the Iraq problem is contained until either a nation is born or all the terrorists are killed off in the ensuing civil war and then someone else can come back and try to rebuild that god-forsaken place again.

[HammerOfHope]

That would involved admitting a mistake for the US and it's gonna take at least 20 years for that to happen. Either way, the situation isn't pretty - I doubt the rebels and suicide bombers are just going to drop their RPGs and apologize. It may well take a civil war or something equally bloody to install a Hussein-like regime to keep them under control. I don't think the agigator population is about to switch to democracy mode because they're told they should.