The Iraq War Was a Mistake!

maineman said:
Dixie.... why must you take the low road like that? It is pretty clear by your own words that you are unable to distinguish between the various types of muslims and you you seem to think that killing them in Iraq has been a great idea... you applauded shock and awe... you pooh poohed Abu Ghraib and Haditha... they really are just dune coons to you...why don't you just admit it and not have to throw up slanderous pedophile shit like that as a screen?
Click to expand...


I don't now Maine, I didn't realize we were on the low road, someone must have detoured here while I wasn't looking, because the last I knew, we were miles away from the road to racists and pedophiles.

I can't distinguish between the 187 different "kinds" of Muslims in Iraq, nor do I need to. I can distinguish between regular Muslims and Radical Islamists who want to use terror to get their way, the radicals are the ones who are sawing off people's heads and blowing up innocent women and children, regular Muslims don't. For clarification, I generally don't apply the word "Muslim" to the radicals who have perverted Islam, I call them "Islamofascist" to denote a difference between them and the rest of the Muslims.

Now that we've cleared that up, I want to know why you continue to slander me with charges of racism? Do you enjoy being slandered with charges of pedophilia? It's the only explanation I can come up with.
 
but Dixie is so fucking illiterate on the subject of the middle east, that he thinks that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an arab nationalist.

Dixie...
wonk? no
redneck hater of all dune coons? most definitely
 
And to make some distinction between motivation and objective is pretty silly. People (and nation states) are motivated to achieve their objectives.... the motivations, therefore, of the US and USSR were identical in WW2.

Oh, it was Arnold who made the distinction, and claimed that two entities must share a mutual motivation. That's what it means when he said: "Because the two organsations motivations aren't the same." I was merely trying to understand what the mutual motivation was for us to assist Saddam at one time, or ally with the Russians in WWII. Certainly we DID ally with them, so according to Arnold, we must have had a mutual motivation.

This isn't MY argument, it is Arnold's! I don't believe we have to share a mutual motivation to share a mutual objective. As I said, Saddam and alQaeda's mutual objective was getting the US out of the middle east, they weren't required to have the same motivations for doing this, adversaries have done this time and time again.
 
our motivation to help Saddam was oil... and a shared hatred of Iran. Saddam had done NOTHING to indicate he would be anything other than an obedient arab client..... Regarding Saddam and OBL... OBL, on the other hand, had certainly indicated to Saddam and to the world, that Iraq's regime was worthy of toppling. If Saddam had expressed a desire to destroy America, I doubt that Rummy would have sold him the weaponry, don't you?
 
Last edited:
maineman said:
but Dixie is so fucking illiterate on the subject of the middle east, that he thinks that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an arab nationalist.

Dixie...
wonk? no
redneck hater of all dune coons? most definitely
Click to expand...

Well, I thought maybe you were a "wonk" but if they don't mess with little kids or threaten to rape people's daughters, I don't guess you are one.
 
maineman said:
our motivation to help Saddam was oil... and a shared hatred of Iran. Saddam had done NOTHING to indicate he would be anything other than an obedient arab client..... Regarding Saddam and OBL... OBL, on the other hand, had certainly indicated to Saddam and to the world, that Iraq's regime was worthy of toppling. If Saddam had expressed a desire to destroy America, I doubt that Rummy would have sold him the weaponry, don't you?
Click to expand...

Again, you are telling me what the individual motivations were... The US wanted Iraqi oil, and Iraq wanted US weapon technology and cash. That is illustrating how two adversaries will work together for a shared objective, although they have completely different motivations. This is my point as well, Saddam and alQaeda had a common objective, although they also had different motivations. Our motivation for allying with Russia in WWII, was certainly not the same as Russia's motivation to be able to oppress and control eastern Europe for the next 60 years, we merely shared the same objective of getting rid of Hitler.


As I said, adversaries do this all the time, and it defies logic to state that they must have the same motivations, as this is often not the case at all with 'adversaries'... (it's why they call them that!)
 
Sand n*&&%^s is the redneck term for all arabic people among racist rednecks here.
And that is all they want to know. Simpler that way I guess for their simple minds.
 
Last edited:
Dixie said:
Again, you are telling me what the individual motivations were... The US wanted Iraqi oil, and Iraq wanted US weapon technology and cash. That is illustrating how two adversaries will work together for a shared objective, although they have completely different motivations. This is my point as well, Saddam and alQaeda had a common objective, although they also had different motivations. Our motivation for allying with Russia in WWII, was certainly not the same as Russia's motivation to be able to oppress and control eastern Europe for the next 60 years, we merely shared the same objective of getting rid of Hitler.


As I said, adversaries do this all the time, and it defies logic to state that they must have the same motivations, as this is often not the case at all with 'adversaries'... (it's why they call them that!)
Click to expand...

could you show me how we had defined Saddam as an "adversary" during the time when we were buying his oil and selling him weapons? Could you show me where Saddam had defined US as HIS adversary during the same time frame.

Our motivation for allying with the soviets in WW2 was the elimination of Hitler.

Do you get dizzy trying to keep all this stuff straight?
 
and Dixie....have you figured out that Iran is populated primarily with persians and not arabs yet?

I know...I know... it's tough for racist rednecks like you to tell those ragheaded dune coons apart.... right?

I guess it really is asking a lot.
 
and not only does he hate them all.... he is perfectly willing to send OTHER braver Americans to die in the process of invading, conquering, and occupying their countries, whether they are a threat to America or not.....
 
maineman said:
could you show me how we had defined Saddam as an "adversary" during the time when we were buying his oil and selling him weapons? Could you show me where Saddam had defined US as HIS adversary during the same time frame.

Our motivation for allying with the soviets in WW2 was the elimination of Hitler.

Do you get dizzy trying to keep all this stuff straight?
Click to expand...

You are confusing motive with objective. We allied with Russia for the mutual objective of eliminating Hitler, our motivations were quite different from the Russians. The same is true with the US/Saddam alliance of the past, it was not done because the US and Saddam had the same motives. We had the mutual objective of remaining oil trade partners, but our motives for that objective were never mutual, and didn't have to be. This is the point I am making, and you are not refuting, rather, proving.

Arnold claimed that Saddam and alQaeda couldn't possibly work together, because they had different motives. You've made this point as well, and neither of you can explain this illogical viewpoint. Clearly, adversaries who have differing motivations, will work together all the time for a mutual objective. History is full of such cases, and rarely, if ever, is it the case, the motives are the same for both parties.
 
I say again:

could you show me how we had defined Saddam as an "adversary" during the time when we were buying his oil and selling him weapons? Could you show me where Saddam had defined US as HIS adversary during the same time frame.
 
and Saddam and AQ could not work together, regardless of the fact that they both had grudges against the United States, because the overwhelming fact that AQ's purpose in life was the elimination of Saddam's secular government would have prevented it.

and prior to WW2, the US and USSR were not diametrically opposed on the world stage. Stalin had yet to bring the iron curtain down anywhere on any of our allies.... we were NOT adversaries prior to the onset of the cold war.
 
maineman said:
and not only does he hate them all.... he is perfectly willing to send OTHER braver Americans to die in the process of invading, conquering, and occupying their countries, whether they are a threat to America or not.....
Click to expand...


I have never stated any such desire to hate all Muslims, or want them all dead. I have not used the racial epithets to describe Arabs or Muslims, you and uscidiot have used those inflammatory words at every opportunity. I have repeatedly tried to stay away from discussions about your penchant for little boys, and past verbal aggressions toward children, but you seem intent on continuing to slander me with the charge of racial bigotry.

I can only conclude, you do not wish to remain civil with our discussions, and only seek to establish a double standard, by which you can slander me with racist remarks, while I continue to exhibit self-control. My patience has run thin, and I fear that our mutual objective of reasonable dialogue is in jeopardy. I suggest you cease and desist with the slanderous remarks you are directing at me, because reprisal will be swift and harsh.
 
maineman said:
I say again:

could you show me how we had defined Saddam as an "adversary" during the time when we were buying his oil and selling him weapons? Could you show me where Saddam had defined US as HIS adversary during the same time frame.
Click to expand...

We didn't share a common motivation, did we? That's what I thought!
 
"Clearly, adversaries who have differing motivations, will work together all the time for a mutual objective. History is full of such cases, and rarely, if ever, is it the case, the motives are the same for both parties."


Then surely you can provide evidence that Saddam and Al Qaeda had developed an alliance.

I posted the bipartisan Senate Intelligence report from 2006. The american Intelligence community, after years of occupying and scouring iraq, found that Saddam's regime had only ever met once with al qaeda, and Saddam subesquently rebuffed all offers to meet with al qaeda, and he NEVER provided assistance or training to them.

So where's your evidence to back up your assertion. Surely, you're not gonna claim you started a trillion dollar war based on your "gut feeling" that al qaeda and saddam were allies, right?
 
Then surely you can provide evidence that Saddam and Al Qaeda had developed an alliance.

Why would I need to show this to argue they worked together on a common objective with different motives? The US certainly never formed an "alliance" with the Russians, when they cordoned off Germany and built the Iron Curtain. Saddam and alQaeda didn't need to have the same motives, or be "in alliance" with one another, to be cooperating with each other in a mutual objective. Certainly, the Saddam regime was not stupid enough to leave behind records of their associations, and if you are expecting me to produce that, I'm sorry, I doubt that can ever be produced, since the documentation never existed, and the dealings were done in secret.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top