Why doesn't America just kill all the Iraqis? It'd be a lot cheaper and easier than, say, being their police force and trying to keep them from hurting each other.

A few nukes should do it.

Imagine if the Islamic nations had more military power than the U.S. and Israel, hey Sam, what do you think they would do in light of the fact that Islam mandates Global Islamic Theocracy?

Why doesn't America just kill all the Iraqis? It'd be a lot cheaper and easier than, say, being their police force and trying to keep them from hurting each other.

With over 600,000 dead and over 2 million displaced, they are getting there slowly but surely. Democracy will prevail, never fear.

Sam, no response to post #3?

With over 600,000 dead and over 2 million displaced, they are getting there slowly but surely. Democracy will prevail, never fear.

Mind you, the vast majority of deaths are caused by Shias and Sunnis targeting those with different beliefs than them. It's a good thing America is there to civilize them. Too bad we can't do it with more force.

What you need is someone like Saddam back.

I've been saying this for 4 years now. It's 3(or more countries). Kurdistan, Shitstan and Sunistan. Draw lines on a map, pull out and watch the shit-storm.

I would bet big money on Kurds. "Those willing to die", yep I'd place my money on them.

Why doesn't America just kill all the Iraqis? It'd be a lot cheaper and easier than, say, being their police force and trying to keep them from hurting each other.

What was our objective again?

Mind you, the vast majority of deaths are caused by Shias and Sunnis targeting those with different beliefs than them. It's a good thing America is there to civilize them. Too bad we can't do it with more force.

I bet you heard this on the news.

Sam, in light of the fact that the goal of Islam is Global Islamic Theocracy, what do you think should be done for Iraq?

And how can Global Islamic Theocracy be achieved when the Shiites and Sunnis are killing each other like fiends?

That's more of a long term goal and doesn't necessarily involve interfering with other nations. It's like Peace on Earth.

Is that what Muhammed had in mind when he was riding around submitting converts?

Not as practical these days.

I bet you heard this on the news.

As opposed to you actually visiting Iraq. Right. :rolleyes:

What was our objective again?

Who cares.

If America was half as bad as you foreigners and liberals pretend, there wouldn't be any Iraqis left. America has the power to obliterate the whole Middle East. It'd be way cheaper than spending all this money on precision weaponry, political machinery and translators.

Why doesn't America just kill all the Iraqis? It'd be a lot cheaper and easier than, say, being their police force and trying to keep them from hurting each other.

Wouldn't it be cheapest just to leave?

Wouldn't it be cheapest just to leave?

And have another 9/11? Let oil dollars become petro euros?
No.

Who cares.

If America was half as bad as you foreigners and liberals pretend, there wouldn't be any Iraqis left. America has the power to obliterate the whole Middle East. It'd be way cheaper than spending all this money on precision weaponry, political machinery and translators.

So I'm supposed to think Bush is a nice guy because he doesn't kill everyone? What a fucking accomplishment.

And have another 9/11? Let oil dollars become petro euros?
No.

None of the attackers on 9.11 came from Iraq.

None of the attackers on 9.11 came from Iraq.

So?

As opposed to you actually visiting Iraq. Right. :rolleyes:

No just having news sources other than white washed state controlled media.

http://www.iraqslogger.com/index.php/post/2181/More_Sunni_Tribes_to_Fight_Al-Qaeda_in_Iraq

So?
So, why kill Iraqis?

And have another 9/11?
Well it seems the US is doing its best to stir up another one with the debacle in Iraq.

Mind you, the vast majority of deaths are caused by Shias and Sunnis targeting those with different beliefs than them. It's a good thing America is there to civilize them. Too bad we can't do it with more force.

No. The economic sanctions alone killed 500.000 Iraqi children. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions#Effects_of_the_sanctions

Why doesn't America just kill all the Iraqis? It'd be a lot cheaper and easier than, say, being their police force and trying to keep them from hurting each other.

Funny you say that. I bet Osama Bin Laden asked that same question about America. Congratulations on taking your first steps towards becoming a global terrorist.

Funny you say that. I bet Osama Bin Laden asked that same question about America. Congratulations on taking your first steps towards becoming a global terrorist.
Often, to defeat an enemy, you must become him. That's war. If we need to temporarily become terrorists to defeat terrorists, so be it. When the fightings done, we'll go back to being sane. Whereas our opponents feel compelled by their twisted view of religion to continue with this crap until they, or we, are dead. I choose them.

As I've said before, the only reason we're still fighting is the damned Islamists stirring up trouble. If they truly wanted the evil occupiers out, all they'd have to do is play nice for a while so we can declare victory and go home.

But they don't want that. They want to prove their devotion to their insane ideology by fighting the infidel.

If that's what they want, that's what we should give them. But give it to them for real. No holds barred. Kill them and kill them until no more are left. Or until those few remaining give up the fight.

PS It's funny that Roman is suggesting the policy often used by......the Romans! Ever hear of Romania? It didn't used to be called that. But that country (Delcia? I think) was giving Rome crap, so they pretty much killed them all and even renamed the place after themselves.

Sam, in light of the fact that the goal of Islam is Global Islamic Theocracy, what do you think should be done for Iraq?

Dear IAC,

I hope all is well with you.

it is disappointing that you are trying to bait another memeber of Sciforums, however I think Christianity before the renasance and all that to beleive in one world under the banner of christianity.. Dont worry Islam change to secular-humanism will come and the changes will be more swift than in Christianity.

As for Iraq, the US should pull out and stop the house of Saud arming/funding/supporting the Sunni who are killing Iraqis and Amricans

Unfortunately then we will have to let them fight themselves until a resolution. once the excuse of America is not their then things should quieten down after a bit.

~~~~~~~~~~
take it ez
zak

When the fightings done, we'll go back to being sane.

Yep. It's just that easy to wash blood from your hands isn't it?

Moron.

Tell that to all the Vietnam vets who still wake up screaming and are drugged up today.

Often, to defeat an enemy, you must become him. That's war. If we need to temporarily become terrorists to defeat terrorists, so be it. When the fightings done, we'll go back to being sane. Whereas our opponents feel compelled by their twisted view of religion to continue with this crap until they, or we, are dead. I choose them.

As I've said before, the only reason we're still fighting is the damned Islamists stirring up trouble. If they truly wanted the evil occupiers out, all they'd have to do is play nice for a while so we can declare victory and go home.

But they don't want that. They want to prove their devotion to their insane ideology by fighting the infidel.

If that's what they want, that's what we should give them. But give it to them for real. No holds barred. Kill them and kill them until no more are left. Or until those few remaining give up the fight.

PS It's funny that Roman is suggesting the policy often used by......the Romans! Ever hear of Romania? It didn't used to be called that. But that country (Delcia? I think) was giving Rome crap, so they pretty much killed them all and even renamed the place after themselves.

Funny. Osama probably thought the same thing. No wonder you got along so well.

No. The economic sanctions alone killed 500.000 Iraqi children. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions#Effects_of_the_sanctions

oh how quickly we like to forget our own atrocities.
:p

Funny you say that. I bet Osama Bin Laden asked that same question about America. Congratulations on taking your first steps towards becoming a global terrorist.

It's a rhetorical question, goofball. If America was as bad as you think it was, there wouldn't be an Iraqi left on the face of the planet.

No just having news sources other than white washed state controlled media.

http://www.iraqslogger.com/index.php/post/2181/More_Sunni_Tribes_to_Fight_Al-Qaeda_in_Iraq

Good to see that Al Qaeda (in Iraq) is in Iraq, and not America.
Thanks for prooving my point, Sam.

Good to see that Al Qaeda (in Iraq) is in Iraq, and not America.
Thanks for prooving my point, Sam.

Getting free training from the US Army at your expense.

Wow, what brainiacs!:p

Getting free training from the US Army at your expense.:p

I think America can live with the training (http://www.lo.redjupiter.com/images/braden/DeadTerrorist.jpg).

I think America can live with the training (http://www.lo.redjupiter.com/images/braden/DeadTerrorist.jpg).

Thats what they said about the mujahideen in the 1980s and the Savak in the 1950s

Oops I did it again! <---US foreign policy

This time we're killing mujahideen.

This time we're killing mujahideen.

Oh? do they have green hair? Are they purple in color with neon flashing signs that tell their origins?:rolleyes:

Oh? do they have green hair? Are they purple in color with neon flashing signs that tell their origins?:rolleyes:

Are you finally beginning to understand!?!?

Let oil dollars become petro euros?
No.

Oups. You let the truth slip out...

By the way why is it worse to kill for religion than to kill for corporate greed?

(I don't really expect an answer.)

Killing for religion doesn't have many rewards. The only one I can think of- preventing your people from worshipping the gods of other people. Of course, this only works if your ideal form of government is a theocratic one. Maybe sam would be better suited to explain this one. She's the muslim, after all.

Killing for religion doesn't have many rewards. The only one I can think of- preventing your people from worshipping the gods of other people. Of course, this only works if your ideal form of government is a theocratic one. Maybe sam would be better suited to explain this one. She's the muslim, after all.

Nobody kills for religion. War is always about power.

Nobody kills for religion. War is always about power.

YES YES YESSSSSSSSSSS. Let's at least be honest about war. The truth is simple, it is always about(key word ABOUT - wonderful choice) power. Some attempts ARE misguided and foolish of course. Perhaps all attempts if broken down. Even winners are often the big losers in war.

There are different types of power. The sort of power that a religious war fights over is different than one a resource war is fought over.

They're often couched in the same rhetoric, and the passions that convince people to go to war follows the same emotional pathways.

Nobody kills for religion. War is always about power.

Why don't you ask some jihadis about that?

Why don't you ask some jihadis about that?

Whats a jihadi? A silly media hype of a word with many meanings. omyfuckinggod a jihadist!!:eek:

An islamofascist! an educated American! Arrrrrgggghhhh!

Fine. Mujahideen, which happens to be derivative of jihad.

Fine. Mujahideen, which happens to be derivative of jihad.

so whats a mujahideen? literally it means a struggler.

omigawwd! a struggler!

:shrug:

Foreign sounding words are so much better, especially to an uneducated populace.

You do realise the Americans were helping extremist fundamentalists against secular groups in Afghanistan?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen

Like I said, so much better, than saying extremists who don't want secular communists in power.

Arabic words usually have triliterals, which are triconsonantal (three-consonant) roots. The root of mujahidin is J-H-D (ج-ه-د), meaning "effort or sacrifice" ("Jihad" can mean to struggle and "Mujahideen" can mean struggler.) However, the particular verb stem of J-H-D from which both jihad and mujahid are derived means "to exert effort against" or "to struggle". Mujahid is originally, therefore, "someone who struggles". The term has, even in Arabic, taken on meanings that are specifically religious, or specifically military or paramilitary, or both.
Like the concept and title Ghazi, it has been used in formal titles of Muslim leaders who prided themselves on (and legitimated their conquests by) Jihad bis saïf, holy war in the name of establishing Islamic rule, even at very high political level: no lesser ruler than Sultan Murad Khan II Khoja-Ghazi, sixth Sovereign of the House of Osman (1421–1451), had as full style 'Abu'l Hayrat, Sultan ul-Mujahidin, Khan of Khans, Grand Sultan of Anatolia and Rumelia, and of the Cities of Adrianople and Philippolis, including the formal title "Sultan of mujahideen".
In English, the word is recorded since 1958, in a Pakistani context, adopted from Persian and Arabic, as the plural of mujahid "one who fights in a jihad", in modern use, for "Muslim guerilla insurgent".
In the late 20th century and early 21st century, the term "mujahideen" became the name of various armed fighters who subscribe to militant Islamic ideologies, although there is not always an explicit "holy" or "warrior" meaning of the word.

Arabic words usually have triliterals, which are triconsonantal (three-consonant) roots. The root of mujahidin is J-H-D (ج-ه-د), meaning "effort or sacrifice" ("Jihad" can mean to struggle and "Mujahideen" can mean struggler.) However, the particular verb stem of J-H-D from which both jihad and mujahid are derived means "to exert effort against" or "to struggle". Mujahid is originally, therefore, "someone who struggles". The term has, even in Arabic, taken on meanings that are specifically religious, or specifically military or paramilitary, or both.
Like the concept and title Ghazi, it has been used in formal titles of Muslim leaders who prided themselves on (and legitimated their conquests by) Jihad bis saïf, holy war in the name of establishing Islamic rule, even at very high political level: no lesser ruler than Sultan Murad Khan II Khoja-Ghazi, sixth Sovereign of the House of Osman (1421–1451), had as full style 'Abu'l Hayrat, Sultan ul-Mujahidin, Khan of Khans, Grand Sultan of Anatolia and Rumelia, and of the Cities of Adrianople and Philippolis, including the formal title "Sultan of mujahideen".
In English, the word is recorded since 1958, in a Pakistani context, adopted from Persian and Arabic, as the plural of mujahid "one who fights in a jihad", in modern use, for "Muslim guerilla insurgent".
In the late 20th century and early 21st century, the term "mujahideen" became the name of various armed fighters who subscribe to militant Islamic ideologies, although there is not always an explicit "holy" or "warrior" meaning of the word.

They were "freedom fighters" remember?:p

So its guerrilla insurgents now, huh? *sigh* how the mighty have fallen.

Regardless, they fight for Allah.

Nobody kills for religion. War is always about power.

Left to their own devices this would be true.

America continues to suffer from its massive political stupidity at the hands of George W. BUsh.

Saddam Hussein knew EXACTLY what he was doing when he had control of Iraq....no explosions every 5 seconds, Al-Qaeda was nowhere in sight (never welcomed by Saddam or his people), and definitely a check for the extremist religious fanatics that are a plague in the Middle East. We should have never gone into Iraq without massive support from the UN and the world.

Now look at us. An explosion just occurred in IRAQ's PARLIAMENT. WOW!!!!
Now what? Lets face it, USA is not the same military power as it used to be...we can't even control a country the size of California, how can we even THINK about going into Iran?

George W. Bush= the worst president in American history, HANDS DOWN.

YES YES YESSSSSSSSSSS. Let's at least be honest about war. The truth is simple, it is always about(key word ABOUT - wonderful choice) power. Some attempts ARE misguided and foolish of course. Perhaps all attempts if broken down. Even winners are often the big losers in war.

very true, Europe is still suffering from the colonialism it gave to the whole world through plunder and exploitation. The populations European society has exploited and plundered for hundreds of years (The Pope's words, not mine, but still true) will haunt Europe forever....immigrants from the nations Europe basically enslaved (3rd world nations) now come to Europe in higher and higher numbers....natural born white Europeans are also losing their population worldwide, with Islam soon becoming the dominant religion in Europe in about another 50 years.

What goes around comes around....

Regardless, they fight for Allah.

Sure and there were WMDs in Iraq.

Why doesn't America just kill all the Iraqis? It'd be a lot cheaper and easier than, say, being their police force and trying to keep them from hurting each other.

We do not have a high energy neutron bomb yet that can vaporise human flesh but leave the buildings and refineries standing.

Realistically, Americans underestimated the hatred of Shites and Sunnis with each other. Our Kurdish friends did not think that would happen. Everyone thought that the Irqis will wait it out until America leaves the place and start the separation process.

By the way, the Kurdish Muslims do not kill Americans - in fact that is the safest place now. So one wonders what is wrong with the Shites and Sunis?

Why doesn't America just kill all the Iraqis? It'd be a lot cheaper and easier than, say, being their police force and trying to keep them from hurting each other.To kill all the Iraqis? That's Genocide!

The problem with religious wars when it is an intolerant religion is the tendency toward a totalitarian regime which includes virtually all religion.

Religion becomes a tool to garner support and followers. Hence, when they gain power they simply cite their figurehead and conjured despotic figures in the guise of prophets, the chosen etc as justification for a prejudicial regime. They can justify the demonizing of those who hold other ideologies for exploitation and expansion.

Of course this has been done without religion but it is definitely a convenient white fleece.