Torture Poll

[Glenn]

All of them? Wow... How do you know?

Allah is an enemy to unbelievers. - Sura 2:98

On unbelievers is the curse of Allah. - Sura 2:161

Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. - 2:191

Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. - 2:216

(different translation: ) Prescribed for you is fighting, though it is hateful to you.

But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever you find them. - 4:89

O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Those of you who make them his friends is one of them. God does not guide an unjust people. - 5:54

Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme - 8:39

O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there are 20 steadfast men among you, they shall vanquish 200; and if there are a hundred, they shall rout a thousand unbelievers, for they are devoid of understanding. - 8:65

It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he has made slaughter in the land. - 8:67

Allah will humble the unbelievers. Allah and His apostle are free from obligations to idol-worshipers. Proclaim a woeful punishment to the unbelievers. - 9:2-3

When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. - 9:5

[Guest justme]

War is still ugly, still bloody. Go take a Hummvee ride through Afghanistan or Iraq if you think otherwise...

To think we should be fighting an enemy with no state, in a war with no front lines, in the same way we fought WWII 75yrs ago is ignorant at best.

You're already engaged in two such wars right now-Afghanistan is 1, and Iraq is 2--the front lines are already there, we're just not willing to admit it.

What is ignorant is to trying to say that we're fighting a real war--and yet refuse to fight it as such...and that is why we're going to lose--I mean when a bunch of goatherders can fight off two of the three most powerful countries in the world in the space of 30 years? And that is exactly what the Afghan militias are doing...they have held us at bay now, for 8 years....8 years--and the Russians were almost 11 years in that country--and it broke them, and it has just about broken us. We just never learn from our history...

[Guest justme]

We have not been, nor will we ever be the aggressor!

I would address the remainder of your post, but I don't have time right now--so I will do with this.

What you wrote in the above is in fact a fallacy--Iraq...we invaded a sovereign nation, deposed the legitimate ruler--regardless of whether we agreed with him, or liked him or hated him--he was the legitimate ruler of Iraq and it was the responsibility of the Iraqi people to rise up against him and depose him. It would be no different than if Russia invaded the US, went to the white house, pulled down the stars and stripes and run up the flag of Canada or Russia and installed their own government...

So we attacked a sovereign nation that had not done anything to the US--Iraq was not involved in 9/11, Iraq had no WMDs--a fact told to the Bush White House many times, Iraq was not a threat to the US--Israel yes, but Israel could have wiped Iraq out many times over and made it glow in the dark for decades....

So the bottom line is--we were the aggressor in Iraq, we had no legitimate basis for attacking that country, we had no legitimate basis for deposing Hussein or hanging him....and yes we hanged him--we handed him over to a puppet government that we installed, and it was the hand of the US that pulled that lever on the gallows just as much as it was an Iraqi....It is the fault of the United States government that a guerrilla war is being waged in Iraq right now--we thought they would welcome us as "liberators"--boy did the war planners mess that one up...

So here you're definitely wrong.

[Smith]

I would address the remainder of your post, but I don't have time right now--so I will do with this.

What you wrote in the above is in fact a fallacy--Iraq...we invaded a sovereign nation, deposed the legitimate ruler--regardless of whether we agreed with him, or liked him or hated him--he was the legitimate ruler of Iraq and it was the responsibility of the Iraqi people to rise up against him and depose him. It would be no different than if Russia invaded the US, went to the white house, pulled down the stars and stripes and run up the flag of Canada or Russia and installed their own government...

So we attacked a sovereign nation that had not done anything to the US--Iraq was not involved in 9/11, Iraq had no WMDs--a fact told to the Bush White House many times, Iraq was not a threat to the US--Israel yes, but Israel could have wiped Iraq out many times over and made it glow in the dark for decades....

So the bottom line is--we were the aggressor in Iraq, we had no legitimate basis for attacking that country, we had no legitimate basis for deposing Hussein or hanging him....and yes we hanged him--we handed him over to a puppet government that we installed, and it was the hand of the US that pulled that lever on the gallows just as much as it was an Iraqi....It is the fault of the United States government that a guerrilla war is being waged in Iraq right now--we thought they would welcome us as "liberators"--boy did the war planners mess that one up...

So here you're definitely wrong.

Yet again i will correct you. Desert Storm was the initial conflict in which we came to the support of a sovereign nation being invaded by Iraq and threatening yet another ally in Saudi Arabia. The conditions of the Iraqi surrender and our subsequent exit from the theater was Iraq's compliance with the terms. Over many years Iraq was found to be in numerous violations of the terms as well as outright defiance of the surrender. The terms also dictated that violation of said terms would result in furter military actions. IMO we waited far too long to bring Saddam into compliance and as such escalated the current effort.

[E4 No More]

Yet again i will correct you. Desert Storm was the initial conflict in which we came to the support of a sovereign nation being invaded by Iraq and threatening yet another ally in Saudi Arabia. The conditions of the Iraqi surrender and our subsequent exit from the theater was Iraq's compliance with the terms. Over many years Iraq was found to be in numerous violations of the terms as well as outright defiance of the surrender. The terms also dictated that violation of said terms would result in furter military actions. IMO we waited far too long to bring Saddam into compliance and as such escalated the current effort.

Not to mention the missles they fired at our aircraft patrolling the No Fly Zone.

[Guest slothful1]

Not to mention the missles they fired at our aircraft patrolling the No Fly Zone.

That's just what I was about to post -- routinely shooting at our planes does not equal "we attacked a sovereign nation that had not done anything to the US." Now, of course one can shift the debate further back and argue about whether the Gulf War was justified, but Iraq was certainly not abiding by the ceasefire agreement.

[Good_Steward]

Yet again i will correct you. Desert Storm was the initial conflict in which we came to the support of a sovereign nation being invaded by Iraq and threatening yet another ally in Saudi Arabia. The conditions of the Iraqi surrender and our subsequent exit from the theater was Iraq's compliance with the terms. Over many years Iraq was found to be in numerous violations of the terms as well as outright defiance of the surrender. The terms also dictated that violation of said terms would result in furter military actions. IMO we waited far too long to bring Saddam into compliance and as such escalated the current effort.

Please try not to confuse these guys with facts. lol

[poak]

Now, of course one can shift the debate further back and argue about whether the Gulf War was justified, but Iraq was certainly not abiding by the ceasefire agreement.

I suppose one could argue that, but the mass graves and gassing of Kurdish men, women, and children is enough to justify it for me.

[Guest justme]

Yet again i will correct you. Desert Storm was the initial conflict in which we came to the support of a sovereign nation being invaded by Iraq and threatening yet another ally in Saudi Arabia. The conditions of the Iraqi surrender and our subsequent exit from the theater was Iraq's compliance with the terms. Over many years Iraq was found to be in numerous violations of the terms as well as outright defiance of the surrender. The terms also dictated that violation of said terms would result in furter military actions. IMO we waited far too long to bring Saddam into compliance and as such escalated the current effort.:D

Let me correct you--Desert storm was in 1991...we were in 2003 when we Invaded a sovereign nation without provocation. If you are trying to say the war we began in 2003 against Iraq was because of 1991--you are naive to. This was never about 1991 or the so called "UN" mandate....

Bush Sr. said there were 3 things that would happen by the 1991 war--Hussein removed from power was one of those that was not accomplished, and yet it was a stated goal of the Bush Sr. White House...the reason they left him was purely political....they knew Hussein, they knew what he would do--remove him from power, create a power vacuum, and they had no idea who would assume control....

They had ample opportunity to remove Hussein under Clinton--again did not do so...This war was about Bush Jr. wanting to solve a vendetta and remove a black mark from his family name--as well as get even with Hussein for the alleged Iraqi plot to assassinate Bush Sr. after he had already left office...

We attacked a sovereign nation and did so without any provocation whatsoever...we were the aggressor--you simply can't admit it.

[Guest justme]

Please try not to confuse these guys with facts. lol

we are talking about the 2003 war where we attacked Iraq with no provocation--not the 1991 Gulf War...

[E4 No More]

Someone needs to step away from the crack pipe!

To clarify: I do believe retribution was a factor: however, not the sole reason.

Edited June 11, 2009 by SWJewellTN

[Smith]

It is justyou. BTW you may want them to check the reactor. It may be leaking close to your water supply.