Who you voting for in the 2008 President election?

@Pure Vengeance

There are radical Christians.  Take for example the group that was protesting at the funerals of US soldiers who died in Iraq.  They were claiming the soldiers died because they were gay and God hates them.  Or consider the bombings of abortion clinics motivated by religious beliefs.  Another example would be hate crimes committed against homosexuals motivated by religous beliefs.

I could go on and on, and if you really want I can get into detail.

Now I will take issue with your characterization of Islam.  You ask how is it possible for someone to be a true muslim and not follow every part of the Quran litterally.  I could ask the same about Christians following the Bible, and some people would say you must follow and believe the text to be a true Christian/Muslim.  However, those people are radicals.

 

What ever happened to when Jews Christians and Muslims realized they weren't that different? Oh yeah that's right the 2nd century ended. Damn

 

Southern Spain used to be like that....Jews, Christians, and Muslims just chilled and lived together...then Ferdinand and Isabella decided to bring down their brand of holy hammer and brought in the Inquisition...tis the suxxors

 

I'm sorry that you don't believe what is in the Bible.

Um, your so called radical Christians may think of themselves as Christians but they aren't. Sinning to please God I would definitely be able to state isn't in the bible -.-

PS: the soldiers that died in Iraq could have died for any number of reasons but I know also in the passage of the bible that I quoted earlier it says that you should leave vengeance to God and not to judge others since you aren't perfect either.

PSS: There won't be need for more religion in this thread if you don't keep attacking me for believing in my beliefs

 

We're not saying its IN the Bible. We're saying that anybody could interpret the Bible as supporting violence...I'm sure you could pull some stuff from the Old Testament pretty quickly. It's the same way with the Qur'an, there isn't anything IN it that supports violence, just bad people manipulate it to support thei violence.


You're an ardent Christian aren't you?

 

Yes, I am a Christian that trys to live my life according to the Bible.

Now, back onto politics... you think the 5 page debate deturred people from looking at this thread?

 

Alright, that's cool. I myself am a Muslim/Buddhist, so no worries

Yea...I'm proud of this forum really, we've gone through both political and religious threads without being locked

 

@Paragon

Pooles strategy, about 120,000 US troops with 240,000 Iraqi army and police to secure baghdad and having 50,000 more US troops secure the rest of the country is not feasible. First, that would require 170,000 US troops and such levels can not be maintained, the current levels of about 150,000 cannot be maintained. Second, there aren't that many Iraqi army and police. Third, if there were that many, you wouldn't get that many who would be willing to guard baghdad or who would actually be loyal to the Iraqi central goverment and not one of the many militia factions.

Now I will get to the idea of foreign fighters turning Iraq into a safe heaven for training and such. Alanbar should be enough evidence to show that this senario is very unlikely. The people who become foreign fighters for groups like, Al-Qeada in Iraq, as you may imagine, aren't the type of people you would want as a neighbor. In Alanbar province, the Sunni militias are combating and defeating Al-Qeada in Iraq, and they are doing it with US support; although, this means we are likely arming the very people who will be fighting the Shia militias. The reason is that the Irai's don't want these groups in their country, at least not the majority of them. For foreign fighers to have safe heavens in Iraq they either need the support of the Irai's or the ability to oppress them. Since they currently have neither and are unlikely to obtain either it isn't likley that they will be able to make Iraq a safe haven.

Since the Iraqis seem to be able to deal with the small group of foreign fighters in their country I don't see why we need to stay. I am sure you will claim we need to be their to prevent genocide, however, who is going to commit genocide on who? None of the major ethnic groups in Iraq are helpless, especially since the populations have become very segragated. The worst that could happen would be an organized civil war between the Sunni and Shia with support from Saudi Arabi and Iran for the two sides and this need not happen as a result of a US withdrawl.

So the US should withdraw. It is far to costly to stay and of little to no benefit.

 

The worst that would happen would be Iran making Iraq a satelite state. Say what you want about Bush or such, but he is right on at least one thing...Iran really is a threat, and its not even just Bush saying this...Israel (for obvious reasons) calls them a serious threat along with the European Union, example being French PM Nicolas Sarkozy. That is probably the main reason we're still in there...in the event that the UN goes against Iran with military force if they don't back down on their nuclear program, we don't want a satelite state to deal with when we could have used that state as a foothold against Iran.

 

The Iraqi Army currently has 165,000 soldiers.
The Iraqi Police have around 300,000 on payroll so even if you assume that only half show up then it's still 150,000.
Both figures are enough.

Foreigners are basically paying for many of the insurgents to continue fighting in addition to training them. They take any issue with someone from the outside giving them weapons and training. So some Sunni militias are fighting against other insurgent groups. Good for them. They aren't even a major problem. The Badr Brigade and Mahdi Army are much bigger concerns.

And no, I don't think Iraq would turn into a genocide. That was a separate discussion brought about by some other thing that was said.
And so there it is again, since we don't benefit to you then we should not be there. I guess the idea of averting deadlier wars is lost to you.

 

you know i cant vote.

 

I know that this thread is terribly old, but:
I read over everything It took like 2.5+hrs :upset: but it was very interesting. I'm amazed at the level of intelligence and learnedness of some of the posters.

Raynor and Paragon, please read the comments I wrote, they are thought out, and hopefully sensible (for I started reading these at 3:00am and began typing at 6:00am)

I don't like it when people attack other people's religions. You defended yourself with something that you would not allow others to defend themselves with. Christianity and Islam share a lot in common, they come from the same source, and the Koran has many quotes from Jesus as well. You would be impressed by what they both say, if you got the chance to learn about it. My family is christian, but I learned about islam in several college courses. It is definitely worth looking into
======================

@Raynor
I agree with a lot of the facts you brought up about the state of Iraq, and the reality of war, conquest, and intervention. Although, one thing that you mention is very interesting: letting others handle their own problems; that can be a hard pill to swallow, and is rarely heard from someone in our age group. World weary adults are often faced with the decision of, whether or not to help when: people will suffer regardless, you can help, thus hurting yourself and others, or you can not help, and watch others get hurt, and suffer from your inaction. In the former, you risk your life, while the latter mostly offers pain of a different sort...
You see our actions for what they truly are, and what effects they have. I have more faith in our ability (world wide, not just the US) to work to achieve great things. I think we need to leave Iraq, but I also believe that if we built civil society, rather than military focused construction, that the people would favor us. Too many atrocities are being committed, and an inadvertent atrocity is still an atrocity; the majority of people gain nothing from our presence, if we gave them schools, hospitals, and reliable electricity, the people would have something to live for. Now they civilians have no one to turn to, for destruction comes from everywhere. Insurgents would be stamped out, If they were preventing stabilization, infrastructure. You mention the Iraqi national pride, infrastructure would appeal to that, and even if insurgents or others destroyed it, they would then be destroying their livelihood 'pride'.
Like Paragon, I believe in "entangling alliances", as long as good can come of it.


@Paragon
You are very knowledgeable as well. You have a strong sense of justice, and a firm belief in using strength to aid those that suffer from a lack of strength. Unfortunately, I do not think you see politics for as ugly as they truly can be and often are... When you mentioned the US/France/Vietnam, the Rwandan Genocide, and the USSR/Afghanistan/US Cold War conflict, I could read a lot of faith in the US, coupled with a good analysis of facts. What was missing, was a criticism of US intentions. I'm a strong believer of the idea that: if you truly care about something, you are willing to acknowledge its positive and negative traits. This country has done, and is doing both horrible and wondrous things. You and I think alike, more so than Raynor and I, but our knowledge basses differ greatly.

I tend to think of governments in general as a bit sinister, while people are largely peace loving, and sadly governments and people are generally distinct entities. Raynor is trying to get you to look at the actual human sacrifice that is occurring right now, whereas you are looking at the future, and what could/should be. Sadly, many people with strong idealism are taken advantage of by politicians. Wanting to help and intervene can be very good, just remember that the politicians may not have the same agenda as yourself.
A lot of the people who support staying in Iraq believe the total war's civilian death toll is around 50,000-57,000 deaths, and this number is reported by the AP Associated Press (I read this in the news a few weeks ago). Whereas many international organizations point a Iraqi civilian death toll of 550,000-750,000. Many people who support Raynor's position of leaving, believe this larger death toll number.

I'm shocked that Raynor and I share a large knowledge base about american foreign politics, and yet Paragon and I share the same urge for idealistic outlook, although Paragon and I disagree strongly about the motives and innocence of the US (I'm also a Citizen), and I disagree with Raynor's emphasis on a more isolationist foreign policy. I am still impressed with your sources and quotes, it is rare to find such depth.

 

Im sorry to do this to you Anansi_Tragoudia but this is a topic that should have been resurected and it even is now a good chunk off topic. If its any consolation though Raynor hasn't logged on for 2+ weeks and paragon probably won't be returning, so I doupt you would get a response.

Either way Topic Locked