"Since the Iraqi armed forces are not fully able to defend themselves the terrorists and insurgents will have no problem taking full control of the country."

Honestly, do you think a prolonged military presence in Iraq is going to help their armed forces?   I'd recommend you read this.

"The insurgents and terrorists will claim they have defeated the United States and claim victory and cite the fact that the United States gathered up all of its troops and ran back to the United States."

So what?  Would you prefer if the troops stayed longer until the point came when the insurgents and terrorists clearly had won?  How many lives are you willing to sacrifice before you can satisfactorily declare America the victor?  Anyhow, regardless of how the war turns out, the terrorists are going to say they won.

"The United States’ reputation as being the great military superpower will be blemished because of the fact it ran away from the insurgents and terrorists in Iraq."

Rest assured that continuing this farce of a war, regardless of how it turns out, will forever be one of the most embarassing blemishes in American history.

"And because the United States’ reputation of being the great military superpower will be blemished, other terrorist and potentially dangerous countries (such as Iran, North Korea, and China) will have the impression that the United States is nothing more than a paper tiger which will run away when faced with some resistance."

Dude, the world hates the U.S. because of the Iraq War.  The only hint of a chance it has of regaining geopolitical respect is to end the war as soon as possible.  The more resources wasted in Iraq, the clearer it will be that America is no threat to terrorism at all.

"The people of Iraq will suffer the most.  They will be the ones who will have to suffer the intolerable, brutal, and sadistic regime the insurgents and terrorists will put in place after they take full control of the country (and most likely they will take full control of the country if the United States and its allies withdraw)."

Nice try.  Consider this before using this argument again.  Anyhow, as Hamas' victory in Palestine has demonstrated, democracy is no deterrent to terrorism.

"And in a regime controlled by blood-thirsty terrorists, it would be expected for other blood-thirsty terrorists to arise and take up the jihad against the kafirs (in the every non-Muslim country and in some Muslims countries)."

Maybe if the U.S. stopped training and arming them...?

"And as a result, a newly refurbished terrorist regime will be born out of the ashes of the infant democracy the United States abandoned when it needed the U.S. the most."

I'd like to see some evidence that this wouldn't occur even if the mission in Iraq "suceeds" (that is to say, democracy is instituted).

In Christ, and for the gospel of the kingdom,
Brett

"Honestly, do you think a prolonged military presence in Iraq is going to help their armed forces?"

Honestly, yes I do.  Do you think walking away from Iraq, without a properly trained police force and military, is going to help the situation there?

“So what?  Would you prefer if the troops stayed longer until the point came when the insurgents and terrorists clearly had won?"

First of all, I do not think the terrorists will ever "clearly" win, because we will not let them.  Second, this war on terrorism is a psychological war as much as it is a physical war.  Retreating from Iraq and allowing terrorists to claim victory would be an enormous psychological morale booster for terrorist.  Which is something we cannot afford.

“How many lives are you willing to sacrifice before you can satisfactorily declare America the victor?”

The manner in which you pose this question is problematic.  It is not a matter of how many lives will satisfy me.  Rather it is a matter of finishing the job that countless soldiers have died for.  If we leave Iraq half finished, the lives of all those soldiers that died trying to complete their mission in Iraq will be in vain.  The only way to honor the lives of those who have fallen is complete what they started and finish what they had begun.

“Anyhow, regardless of how the war turns out, the terrorists are going to say they won.”

They will not be able to claim victory if we take care of them properly, that is by eradicating them.

“Rest assured that continuing this farce of a war, regardless of how it turns out, will forever be one of the most embarassing blemishes in American history.”

Are you sure, “regardless of how it turns out?” What if it turns out that going to Iraq was the wisest decision the United States could have made? And besides, it is too early to make such claims.  Give it some time my friend, give it some time.

“Dude, the world hates the U.S. because of the Iraq War.”

Europe, Canada, and other westernized countries may hate the United States because of the Iraq War, but rest assured every Muslim country hates the United States because it as perceived (and rightly so) as a Christian country.  Also, the United States was hated by Muslim countries long before the Iraq War was even conceived of.

Furthermore, countries can hate the United States and not want its annihilation, countries such as France, Germany, Canada, etc.  Such countries pose no terrorist threat to the United States, and therefore if they hate the United States it is (in a cynical way) ok for them to do so.  But, countries such as Iran, North Korea, etc hate the United States and want its annihilation.  It is the latter group of countries that we should worry about and they are the ones should have the knowledge that the United States is not a paper-tiger that will blow over when faced with some challenge.  Countries that sponsor or harbor terrorism should be the ones that should know that the United States will take action when challenged.

“The only hint of a chance it has of regaining geopolitical respect is to end the war as soon as possible.”

I disagree because, as I have stated above, countries that hate the United States and do not want its annihilation are not really a threat, but countries that do want its annihilation are a threat.  And therefore, “regaining geopolitical respect” in the eyes of those countries that hate but do not want to annihilate the United States is pretty much pointless.  This is because what is the point of “regaining geopolitical respect” with countries that were of no threat to begin with? Well, you may say that they could be an important ally if they once again respect the United States, but my answer to that is what is the point of an ally that will not help when he is needed? France, Germany, etc really did nothing to help the United States in Iraq, what is the point of such allies.  I would say we are better of without them.

“The more resources wasted in Iraq, the clearer it will be that America is no threat to terrorism at all”

This makes very little sense to me.  Care to elaborate.

“Nice try.  Consider this before using this argument again.”

So are you saying that the United States and its collation are more brutal than terrorists would be if control in Iraq was handed over to them?

“Anyhow, as Hamas' victory in Palestine has demonstrated, democracy is no deterrent to terrorism.”

Tell me, than, how you would fight and defeat terrorism?

“Maybe if the U.S. stopped training and arming them...?”

Please explain further; this claim is a bit vague.

“I'd like to see some evidence that this wouldn't occur even if the mission in Iraq "suceeds" (that is to say, democracy is instituted).”

If the mission in Iraq is successful, the Iraqi military and police forces will be fully capable of fighting and deterring terrorism on their own.

God Bless.

[Since the Iraqi armed forces are not fully able to defend themselves the terrorists and insurgents will have no problem taking full control of the country.]

Terrorists already have full control of the country. And if you let their threat influence your nation's actions, then they are controlling your country as well.

[The insurgents and terrorists will claim they have defeated the United States and claim victory and cite the fact that the United States gathered up all of its troops and ran back to the United States.]

What would victory for the United States look like?

[The United States’ reputation as being the great military superpower will be blemished because of the fact it ran away from the insurgents and terrorists in Iraq.]

So?

[And because the United States’ reputation of being the great military superpower will be blemished, other terrorist and potentially dangerous countries (such as Iran, North Korea, and China) will have the impression that the United States is nothing more than a paper tiger which will run away when faced with some resistance.  Such as they did in Mogadishu (see the movie Black Hawk Down) when the United States left Somalia when it encountered some tough military resistance.  And therefore, Iran, North Korea, and etc. will have no problem with continuing their sponsorship of terrorism more boldly because they will have nothing to fear.  The once great United States will be nothing more than a bad memory in the minds of such countries.]

Remember that it was your nation's stuborn pride that got you into this mess anyways. It serves you right for pursuing impossible military aims.

Interesting observations!

Hope you had an awesome Thanksgiving! Thanks for your continued subscription to my site. I would be interested in any comments on my post today (November 24, 2006 AD). God bless! Pete

My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience. James 1:5

”Terrorists already have full control of the country.”

If “terrorists already have full control of the country [Iraq]” than how do you suppose millions of Iraqis were able to vote the elections that took place there? If “terrorists.... [had] full control” no free elections would ever have taken place.

“And if you let their threat influence your nation's actions, then they are controlling your country as well.”

Well, do you think we should just ignore the threat of terrorism all together than?

”What would victory for the United States look like?”

Victory in Iraq would be if Iraq would become a self-governing democracy that would be able to defend itself from threats.

”Remember that it was your nation's stuborn pride that got you into this mess anyways.”

I agree that it was the Untied States decision to go into Iraq, but I disagree that it was because of “stuborn pride.”  The United States went into Iraq because multiple intelligent agencies from all around the world believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mess destruction.  Now than, those reports and that information turned out to be not accurate, but nonetheless, winning in Iraq is still a prime objective in the war against terror.

“It serves you right for pursuing impossible military aims.”

You think a victory in Iraq is “impossible?”  If so, than why?

[Well, do you think we should just ignore the threat of terrorism all together than?]

Yes, there are more pressing security issues at hand. Terrorists are no threat to your safety in the US and the issue is undented in other nations by America's silly little excursion.

[Iraq is still a prime objective in the war against terror.]

Why does the "War Against Terror" sound exactly likt the "War on Drugs"? Somehow I know it's doomed to the same fate as an impossible feat which was at meant to really be achieved. Do you not realize that when your country wasn't at war or preparing for war it was in the throws of the Great Depression. The only way your economy can sustain itself is with endless "warfare". War today is merely a ploy for socialist countries to subdue the population with, Orwell's prediction is 100% true. There is no victory in Iraq, only dependancy on an enemy's existence. War has always been good for your government, enemies have always united the people as one. It is in the best interest of the country to be at war, however it is not in the best interest of the people in the country, which means you.

[If “terrorists already have full control of the country [Iraq]” than how do you suppose millions of Iraqis were able to vote the elections that took place there? If “terrorists.... [had] full control” no free elections would ever have taken place.]

That's not what I meant by control and you should have known that. Their presence and threat control political decisions and through small acts of violence they are capable of manipulating the behavior of the world's largest countries. That's a lot of control. And besides, this war is a culture war. It's angry, suicidal fundamentalists with nothing to live for but a cause vs. pampered, sheltered fundamentalists with nothing to live for but a churro. So long as the cultures are affronted, your soldiers are going to keep dying. Unless the US erradicates the entire population of Iraq, colonizes it with Americans and errects a Starbucks in central Baghdad, the battle is not won. Keep in mind that the only successful terrorist attack on US soil ever was executed by (Assuming it wasn't the US government) a formerly US sponsored organization. As in thier money came from the US. As in they couldn't have done it without your money. As in if you leave the problem, bring your troops home, accept that you aren't God's Unstopable Alliance of Altruistic Problemsolvers and stop sponsoring terrorist organizations, you can worry about other things. Like 8 trilion dollars of debt. Like obesity. Like rampant cancer. Like widespread environment detriment. Like teaching Biology instead of believing for the sake of believing. Like reversing the carbon dioxide build-up which threatens to drown the earth. Like using non-renewable energy sources instead of clinging to the same price-fixing, manipulative industries we know are doomed to implosion. Like Lynching Monsanto's lawyers for crimes against democracy, free press, Vietnamese children, Vietnamese parents, vietnamese war veteerans, North American farmers and Indian farmers. That'd good for a start instead of fixating on an insurmountable problem that kills less people annually than the flu or dogbites.

”Yes, there are more pressing security issues at hand. Terrorists are no threat to your safety in the US and the issue is undented in other nations by America's silly little excursion.”

What the hell? What world do you live in man? What the hell are you talking about “terrorists are no threat to…[our] safety [here] in the US.”  Do you not remember September 11, 2001 at all?

“Why does the ‘War Against Terror’ sound exactly likt the ‘War on Drugs’? Somehow I know it's doomed to the same fate as an impossible feat which was at meant to really be achieved. Do you not realize that when your country wasn't at war or preparing for war it was in the throws of the Great Depression. The only way your economy can sustain itself is with endless "warfare". War today is merely a ploy for socialist countries to subdue the population with, Orwell's prediction is 100% true. There is no victory in Iraq, only dependancy on an enemy's existence. War has always been good for your government, enemies have always united the people as one. It is in the best interest of the country to be at war, however it is not in the best interest of the people in the country, which means you.”

What you just said is so idiotic it makes me really not want to respond to it, but I have to I suppose.  First of all, if you do not think we can defeat the terrorists should we than just lay down and offer ourselves to the terrorists, so they may do with us as they please?  Second, the United States has been prosperous in times of war and in time of peace.  During the Clinton presidency there were no major wars (wars such as WWI, WWII, Vietnam, etc) but the United States still prospered, most noticeably economically.  And lastly, the United States has not always been united in times of war.  The most notable times are the Vietnam War and the current Iraq War, which is pretty unpopular here in the Untied States.  So, before you go on another idiotic rant please take a deep breath and drink a glass of water, it might clear your mind.

”That's not what I meant by control and you should have known that. Their presence and threat control political decisions and through small acts of violence they are capable of manipulating the behavior of the world's largest countries. That's a lot of control. And besides, this war is a culture war. It's angry, suicidal fundamentalists with nothing to live for but a cause vs. pampered, sheltered fundamentalists with nothing to live for but a churro. So long as the cultures are affronted, your soldiers are going to keep dying. Unless the US erradicates the entire population of Iraq, colonizes it with Americans and errects a Starbucks in central Baghdad, the battle is not won. Keep in mind that the only successful terrorist attack on US soil ever was executed by (Assuming it wasn't the US government) a formerly US sponsored organization. As in thier money came from the US. As in they couldn't have done it without your money. As in if you leave the problem, bring your troops home, accept that you aren't God's Unstopable Alliance of Altruistic Problemsolvers and stop sponsoring terrorist organizations, you can worry about other things. Like 8 trilion dollars of debt. Like obesity. Like rampant cancer. Like widespread environment detriment. Like teaching Biology instead of believing for the sake of believing. Like reversing the carbon dioxide build-up which threatens to drown the earth. Like using non-renewable energy sources instead of clinging to the same price-fixing, manipulative industries we know are doomed to implosion. Like Lynching Monsanto's lawyers for crimes against democracy, free press, Vietnamese children, Vietnamese parents, vietnamese war veteerans, North American farmers and Indian farmers. That'd good for a start instead of fixating on an insurmountable problem that kills less people annually than the flu or dogbites.”

Wow, another idiotic rant not worth responding to, but I will nonetheless just to make you feel somewhat important.  First, you contradict yourself.  First you say that we should not confront terrorists because there are other problems, and than you go on to describe how dangerous and powerful the terrorists can be when you say, “their [the terrorists] presence and threat control political decisions and through small acts of violence they are capable of manipulating the behavior of the world's largest countries. That's a lot of control.”  So, should we confront them or not? Second, it was not the Untied States’ money that enabled the terrorists to plan and execute 9/11, it was actually the billionaire Osama Bin Laden’s money, which has ever since been cut off.  And lastly, the problems that you listed towards the end of your paragraph are being delt, but none of those problems are greater than the problem of Islamic terrorism.  So, please take my advice, take a deep breath and drink a glass of water, it might clear your mind.

God Bless.

[Do you not remember September 11, 2001 at all?]

I remember it quite well. I also remember a parade of evidence that the attacks were orcestrated by government administrations. And even under your closed premise that they did, I also said that the only successful terrorist attack was from a group capacitated to do so by the United States.

[First of all, if you do not think we can defeat the terrorists should we than just lay down and offer ourselves to the terrorists, so they may do with us as they please?]

The elimination of offensive initiatives does not mean defensive initiatives can't still be upheld. You pre-suppose they can't when you say your country would be offering itself to the terrorists by ending offensive initiatives against their homeland.

[And lastly, the United States has not always been united in times of war. ]

I must say, you are the most rudimentary, single-tracked thinker I have ever encountered. (I mean that of course matter-of-factly and not just to be derogatory.) Simply because every single citizen wasn't united doesn't mean that a common enemy didn't on the whole better unite the population. And you seem to think i meant unison as in citizens with each other. It's an understandable assumption, but is really only secondary. The primary effect and the effect I meant was unison of citizen with state in face of a supposedly common enemy.

Furthermore, simply because an intention behind an action failed doesn't mean the intention couldn't have been. Keep in mind that simply because these people can't predict the future doesn't mean they weren't intending towards a different outcome. Wheter war successfully unites and subdues the population is irrelevant, the inclination remains that proposing a common enemy will unite the people with their government.

[First, you contradict yourself.  First you say that we should not confront terrorists because there are other problems, and than you go on to describe how dangerous and powerful the terrorists can be when you say, “their [the terrorists] presence and threat control political decisions and through small acts of violence they are capable of manipulating the behavior of the world's largest countries. That's a lot of control.”]

I never said "dangerous" and I never so much as even inncinuated towards the word either. It is by confronting terrorists that they control you, it is provokation they seek. I said they had power over your afairs when YOU ALLOWED THEM TO. The controlling influence only exists in the response. And I mean that very specifically when I say CONTROLLING influence, not to be confused with the immediate influence of, well, fetelities.

[So, should we confront them or not?]

You should not confront them. I repeat that there is a dinstinction between offensive and defensive initiatives against a threat.

[it was actually the billionaire Osama Bin Laden’s money, which has ever since been cut off. ]

Assuming of course he executed the attacks, Osama Bin Laden got his money primarily from the US. These grants from the US were in the Billions, and that much money doesn't take long to run out for an organisation in the third world.

Anybody who thinks that we should not confront terrorists when they are killing innocent people all around the world is clearly fool.  I do not understand how anybody with a human brain can say something so stupid such as the threat of terrorism is not dangerous.

I see no purpose in having a discussion with a fool who cannot acknowledge an obvious truth.

God bless.

I'll take it as a compliment that you evade my arguments and have to put words into my mouth in order to revert back to your previous oversimplification of the argument. Maybe we can try this another time when you'll hopefully be a wee bit less intransigent.

"I'll take it as a compliment that you evade my arguments and have to put words into my mouth in order to revert back to your previous oversimplification of the argument."

Ok than acknowledge that terrorism is a threat to billions of lives around the world, because that is not what you said when you stated “terrorists are no threat to your safety in the US…”

[1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.

3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in America.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license.

10. Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.]

I'm curious to see if you can answer any of  these arguments without evasion or distortion. 

Hii, I'm new to Xanga! I'm just a lonely Christian girl looking to meet new people. I like your blog

Whats up guys, it's Tom from the Plain White T's, help welcome us to xanga and support the band by getting complimentary ringtones on our site. Plus, subscribe to our blog to get our exclusive pictures and videos from on the road.