Why we invaded Iraq

[The.Jolly.Roger]

I wish everyone would get off the Bush bashing train and get real. I don't know if anyone remembers or not, but, not too long ago thousands of people were killed as was a great spectacle of American culture. This is not excusable, and someone had to pay.
Why wouldn't Saddam be suspected....he constantly spoke out against America, and you just can't do that in such a sensitive situation, or your country might get blown up.
Anyone who thinks Iraq did not have Weapons of Mass Destruction..is just fooling themselves. He didn't let inspectors in, he broke UN policy...other countries like France did not want in this war..Solely BECAUSE THEY HAD OIL INTERESTS/CONTRACTS in that country and invading it would compromise them.

This country stands for something very good--freedom/liberty etc....it also happens to be the most powerful country in the world by far--I think it is our responsibility to police the world in some fashion to prevent things like genocide, etc.....We cannot let the world go to #@%# around us until it caves in on us........as it did on 9/11...Iraq needed to be taken care of and Bush did that..we liberated that nation...the Bush Bashers only point out the bad things about what is going on in Iraq right now--nothing is perfect---they forget to mention all the good things happening there as a result.

Any soldier there will tell you that they are proud to be an American soldier, and that they are proud of what they are doing in Iraq.....they will also tell you that they are proud of their president and agree that their purpose is legitimate there. In times such as these...it's important that we rally behind our leader and trust the right thing is being done..I think it's great to liberate people from tyranny..and due to our status in the world...it IS our responsibility to make sure no humans have to go through that.....We are all human, no matter where we are in the world.

Bush is genuine and has a philosophy that he will not stray from no matter how the polls are looking. He says what he does, and does what he says.

Leave BUSH ALONE!!

[George Bush]

hahahahhaa. you are wrong on so many levels that i cant begin to name them all.
have fun in lala land .

[The.Jolly.Roger]

Oh yeah?....bring on the debate!! And lets see which knowledge of the subject is BIGGER

[Bobman]

Make up your mind. Is the vote about Bush or the Iraq invasion?

Fix your poll, then I'll have my say and leave.

[Eiger]

it's important that we rally behind our leader and trust the right thing is being done..

Bush is genuine and has a philosophy that he will not stray from no matter how the polls are looking. He says what he does, and does what he says.

Leave BUSH ALONE!!
I'm not going to get into the Iraq war thing much - we've been through that before a few times here and it's kinda old. Except, um, it's pretty certain there aren't any WOMD at this point - I believe Dubya was even looking under his desk for them the other day...

However, I will say that I am not a sheep and will never blindly rally behind anybody and trust that the right thing is being done - especially if politics is in any way shape or form involved.

Additionally, I do agree that Bush is genuine - a genuine idiot that is, and I have no intention of leaving him alone - quite the opposite I assure you...

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

1. This is not excusable, and someone had to pay.

2. Why wouldn't Saddam be suspected....he constantly spoke out against America, and you just can't do that in such a sensitive situation, or your country might get blown up.

3. This country stands for something very good--freedom/liberty etc....it also happens to be the most powerful country in the world by far--I think it is our responsibility to police the world in some fashion to prevent things like genocide, etc.....We cannot let the world go to #@%# around us until it caves in on us........as it did on 9/11...Iraq needed to be taken care of and Bush did that..we liberated that nation...the Bush Bashers only point out the bad things about what is going on in Iraq right now--nothing is perfect---they forget to mention all the good things happening there as a result.

4. Any soldier there will tell you that they are proud to be an American soldier, and that they are proud of what they are doing in Iraq.....they will also tell you that they are proud of their president and agree that their purpose is legitimate there.

5. In times such as these...it's important that we rally behind our leader and trust the right thing is being done..I think it's great to liberate people from tyranny..and due to our status in the world...it IS our responsibility to make sure no humans have to go through that.....We are all human, no matter where we are in the world.

6. Bush is genuine and has a philosophy that he will not stray from no matter how the polls are looking. He says what he does, and does what he says.

7. Leave BUSH ALONE!!

I numbered the points for the sake of defusing confusion.

1. Someone had to pay? Ok then, how about Osama... you know, the guy actually responsible for 911? Oh wait thats right, we pulled most of our forces out of Afganistan to take Iraq... without finding Osama first.

2. OMG! He constantly spoke out again the U.S. in a time of war???!!! The infidel! Ok then, by your logic we should now go invade France, Germany, Russia, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan... oh, and we also need to wipe out a very large % of our own country. Nice logic.

3. :lol:

4. You don't talk to many soldiers do you? Some would be more accurate. The extreme naivity of your statement is amazing. As far as proud of what they are doing there and supporting Bush that is.

5. :lol:

6. :lol: :lol:

7. Nope.

Edit: Oops. Sorry I forgot to add "Baaaaaaah!"

[The.Jolly.Roger]

This is the main thing Bush is associated with...and will be remembered by. You don't think Iraq harbored all kinds of terrorists....you really don't think they had WOMD....and uneducated liberal you must be...naive at that.

There isn't a politician that doesn't practice politics, but Bush is a more genuine person----he says what he does, and does what he says....

And fun is made of alot of things during those dinners...don't even.

[George Bush]

ya know i was gonna say what eiger said but he beat me to it.

if you want to debate and act like you have a bigger e-penis or something go find 1 of the 50 million political threads in the forum.

honestly i dont care enough to go look up posts and point you to them .

[Eiger]

Oh yeah?....bring on the debate!! And lets see which knowledge of the subject is BIGGER
Oooo, a challenge! I like it!

*rolls up sleeves*

*sets aside all other work for the day*

*turns on search engines*

I'm ready - where ya wanna start? Ya already lost the weapons of mass destruction thing, so how about "is America responsible for the welfare of the rest of the world thing". Nah, that's purely personal opinion and pretty boring.

Should we be the world's police? I'll let forum members of other nationalities weigh in on that one first...

How about "Bush is genuine and has a philosophy that he will not stray from no matter how the polls are looking. He says what he does, and does what he says."? Hmm, I could come up with a few examples of how he's changed according to polls - like Condi Rice testifying before the 9/11 Commission, but there's plenty of examples to the opposite - so that's just a test of who has the biggest bladder and can piss the longest.

Soldiers are proud to serve. I'll give you that one. They are and should be and we're damn proud of them and grateful for their sacrifices.

So what do you want to talk about - whether the war was/is a good thing? Please no, been there done that.

Anything else?

[The.Jolly.Roger]

Ummmm...you whole list doesn't make sense...you know exactly what I'm talking about....invade France...they didn't speak against us..they spoke against our actions...
Saddam is a genocidal maniac tyrant......he needed to be taken out of power POINT BLANK...and it is naive not to agree.

MOST soldiers are PROUD to be there...I have a brother, cousin, and 2 friends over there RIGHT now...and they are PROUD to be there.

SPREAD FREEDOM BABY!!!

[Carnage-DVS]

No connection has been found between Al-Quada and Saddam AT ALL. He had no part in the 9/11 attacks. Bush simply used that as an excuse to finish what his father couldn't. It was simply a revenge thing. WMD and liberating the Iraqis was just some ******** excuse.

By the way. Who do you think put Saddam in power?THat's right, the american government. Good work eh?

Grow up and stop watching Fox News.

[George Bush]

ohh ohh i kinow! lets talk about how if we want to get rid of terrorists so bad why we havent invaded saudi arabia!!!!!!!
or the fact that the bush administration has tried to blockade the 9/11 investigation!

YAY!

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

Ummmm...you whole list doesn't make sense...you know exactly what I'm talking about....invade France...they didn't speak against us..they spoke against our actions...
Saddam is a genocidal maniac tyrant......he needed to be taken out of power POINT BLANK...and it is naive not to agree.

MOST soldiers are PROUD to be there...I have a brother, cousin, and 2 friends over there RIGHT now...and they are PROUD to be there.

SPREAD FREEDOM BABY!!!

My lord. Ok here we go.

Many in France did indeed and still do speak against us. We are judged by our actions and many countries view us as hungry warmongers. I could go on and on about the things said about america in general but why waste my time? Watch some tv. Read the paper. Do an internet seach for crying out loud.

Indeed most soldiers are proud of being an american soldier. Again, do some research via one of the three methods listed above.

I'm waiting to see your VAST knowledge of the entire situation. So far I am seeing nothing but rambling and personal opinion.

[Eiger]

This is the main thing Bush is associated with...and will be remembered by. You don't think Iraq harbored all kinds of terrorists....you really don't think they had WOMD....and uneducated liberal you must be...naive at that.

There isn't a politician that doesn't practice politics, but Bush is a more genuine person----he says what he does, and does what he says....

And fun is made of alot of things during those dinners...don't even.Ok, you wanted to compare knowledge. To my knowledge it's been pretty well established that there weren't and aren't any weapons of mass destruction. Apparently, though you seem to have found them. Why don't you tell us where they are or were found. The world is dying to know.


This incredibly good link will tell you everything you need to know. It contains links to over 40 documents on the topic and has been recently updated: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/

And um, you're repeating yourself without providing any backup.

[Eiger]

ohh ohh i kinow! lets talk about how if we want to get rid of terrorists so bad why we havent invaded saudi arabia!!!!!!!
or the fact that the bush administration has tried to blockade the 9/11 investigation!

YAY!
Yup, that's my question. Why aren't we going after the real enemies and what's the total extent of Bush's connection to the Bin Laden family?

[Carnage-DVS]

Heh if you're jolly.roger you don't need facts, just faith!

[FireArc]

I wish everyone would get off the Bush bashing train and get real. I don't know if anyone remembers or not, but, not too long ago thousands of people were killed as was a great spectacle of American culture. This is not excusable, and someone had to pay.


I agree, someone had to pay. Specifically, that someone was Osama bin Laden. But, after invading afghanistan we backed out long before we could come close to acheiving that goal. Instead we went after Iraq.


Why wouldn't Saddam be suspected....he constantly spoke out against America, and you just can't do that in such a sensitive situation, or your country might get blown up.


Ah yes. If a country is against us they must die. Its that simple. So after iraq we pretty much have to destroy the entire middle east country by country. France and Canada have to go too, lord knows they are almost to the point of hating us so we cant tolerate that!


Anyone who thinks Iraq did not have Weapons of Mass Destruction..is just fooling themselves.


We'll then pretty much everyone is a fool including George Bush. Yeah, you heard me. You wanted to compare knowledge but you didn't know this fact? Thats sad. Look, I will clear it up for you. George Bush has admitted, on public television that they have found no evidence Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction. His words. If you want to compare knowledge you should read up on the subject first.


He didn't let inspectors in, he broke UN policy...other countries like France did not want in this war..Solely BECAUSE THEY HAD OIL INTERESTS/CONTRACTS in that country and invading it would compromise them.


Actually, some would say the opposite. In fact, most would. By invading and taking an oil heavy country we are in a prime position to set up a very U.S. friendly government and insure a greater access to oil. Additionally, having a place of military power/support would give us much greater influence over other oil countries. Make no mistake, if oil is your argument then the U.S. is coming out ahead.


This country stands for something very good--freedom/liberty etc....it also happens to be the most powerful country in the world by far--I think it is our responsibility to police the world in some fashion to prevent things like genocide, etc.....We cannot let the world go to #@%# around us until it caves in on us........as it did on 9/11...Iraq needed to be taken care of and Bush did that..we liberated that nation...the Bush Bashers only point out the bad things about what is going on in Iraq right now--nothing is perfect---they forget to mention all the good things happening there as a result.


Then I ask you, why Iraq? If our goal was to police Iraq and make it a good place to live then why did we first go in claiming baout WMD's but when they couldn't be found why did we only THEN care about the iraqi people? Or how about this question. Why not Saudi Arabia? Nearly ever humanitarian group in the world lists Saudi Arabia as a much greater personal rights violater then Iraq. They are concidered to be a much more supressive and evil regime. Additionally, most high-jackers in 9/11 were proven to have Saudi citizenship. So if they composed the bulk of the terrorists AND they have a more opressive government then Iraq then we should have attacked them. We didn't because bush is settling a personal score.


Any soldier there will tell you that they are proud to be an American soldier, and that they are proud of what they are doing in Iraq.....they will also tell you that they are proud of their president and agree that their purpose is legitimate there. In times such as these...it's important that we rally behind our leader and trust the right thing is being done..I think it's great to liberate people from tyranny..and due to our status in the world...it IS our responsibility to make sure no humans have to go through that.....We are all human, no matter where we are in the world.


I will agree, most soldiers probably support Bush and the war he is leading. But i hardly thing a group of people sworn to follow and obey Bush is a great place to poll this sort of thing.

As for the rest... that is yoru decision. Personally, I refuse to rally behind someone just because we are at war. I personally, like to make decisions for myself, not follow a president blindly because he says so. If you want to suppost Bush thats yoru choice but I hope you have a better reason then us living in "times such as these"


Bush is genuine and has a philosophy that he will not stray from no matter how the polls are looking. He says what he does, and does what he says.


Agreed, even when the polls say most americans do not want the war will he back down? Hell no. Democracy is for sissies!

Leave BUSH ALONE!!
No.

[SpiritWalker]

Bush is bad.. mmmkay.. don't vote bush.. mmmkay..




..mmmkay

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

Somewhere in this thread I see a great basis for another anti-drug commercial... :cheesy:

[Cale The Dark]

oh god. not this again. haven't we beat this to death? anyone who defends the war in iraq on these forums is gonna get jumped like wolves after a wounded deer. seriously. for one, while i think that the war in iraq had some good points (freeing the iraqi people) and some bad (the continued occupation where we aren't wanted and the terrorist attacks) trying to defend bush AND the war is flat out impossible now (without WOMD). therefore i will not debate this and this thread should just die and go away.
i will say though that it would really crack me up if like right before the election suddenly they found a huge stash of weapons under a cloaking shield or some **** like that. lol, never happen but i would LOVE to see em find that so i can laugh at all the endless threads on this subject.

[Eiger]

this thread should just die and go away.

Don't worry, it will. Everyone's just having fun. Mr. Jolly.Roger is learning a valuable lesson on what happens when someone loudly and publicly inserts their foot in their mouth. Hopefully, in the future he'll think first and shoot second.

[Andarcel]

As it looks to me like jolly.roger is busy trolling, I'm going to go ahead and actually answer the question the subject heading asks.

We invaded Iraq primarily for three reaons:

1)This administration has an obsessive focus on state actors. It regarded Iraq as far more threatening than al-Quaeda from the beginning and apparently continued to do so even after 9/11. At elast, that's the most charitable spin I can put on it. If they didn't think Iraq was more of a threat, then of course invading Iraq was phenomenally stupid even by their lights.

2)There's a strange new version of domino-effect theory among neoconservatives. They sincerely believe that forcibly instituting democracy in Iraq will somehow cause democracy to break out all over the Middle East. Thus, Bush said that invading Iraq will lead to more democratic government in Palestine (by a mysterious process, never elaborated on). I will leave you all to contemplate why this might happen, as it has me stumped.

3) Iraq is an impressive display of military power by *eh-hem* the world's finest army, which can be used to intimidate recalcitrant despots. Unfortunately, as we're seeing in Syria, Iran, and Palestine, this simply means that the people will demand still harder-line rulers even more anti-US

4) As the only remaining superpower, we arguably have the duty to help out nations suffering under tyranny. 32,000 Iraqis or so died each year due to UN sanctions under Saddam.

Not reasons we went into Iraq:

1)Oil. The US has remarkably low dependence on Middle Eastern oil (most of ours comes from Central and South America and Canada). On the other hand, those nations with the biggest oil stake in the region were Germany, France, and Russia. Does that suggest anything to you?

2)A distraction. Despite minor scnadals, Bush was riding high. He needed no distraction.

[Dementor]

*Sigh*

Jolly Roger: While this forum is quite lacking in strong conservative voices (there are a few, don't get me wrong.) I would suggest to you that you weaken your base more than you help it by making these irrelevant and poorly thought-out posts.

FYI, someone like you challenging Eiger to a debate is like playing Russian rulette with a loaded weapon. It's like a leper going swimming with hungry sharks. Don't do it; as much as I wish there was somone to balance out his liberalism, that person is not you bud.

You do little to dispell the image liberals have of conservatives; stupid hicks without the capacity for independant thought. If you really want to support the current administration, shut the hell up.

[BhsCrew]

By now it has been admitted by several members of the Bush Administration that they were planning on getting Saddam Hussain before 9/11. There are various reasons why to invade Iraq rather than some other country that poses a threat to us, but they really aren't important right now. My main problem is that we can't afford to rebuild Iraq. We are heavily in debt. We need about a trillion dollars to fix socail security for good (that's an actual estimate by Alan Greenspan and former Secritary of the Treasury Paul O' Niel). So in my mind we should be trying to figure out how to get $1,000,000,000,000 rather then spending many hundreds of billions invading and rebuilding Iraq.

Oh well its too late now. Now we have to rebuild Iraq and Afganistan as well as try to balance the budget and find enough cash to fix social security. The generations ahead are in for some tough times.

[Essex]

*Sigh*

Jolly Roger: While this forum is quite lacking in strong conservative voices (there are a few, don't get me wrong.) I would suggest to you that you weaken your base more than you help it by making these irrelevant and poorly thought-out posts.

FYI, someone like you challenging Eiger to a debate is like playing Russian rulette with a loaded weapon. It's like a leper going swimming with hungry sharks. Don't do it; as much as I wish there was somone to balance out his liberalism, that person is not you bud.

You do little to dispell the image liberals have of conservatives; stupid hicks without the capacity for independant thought. If you really want to support the current administration, shut the hell up.
I must say that this quoted post pretty much sums it up huh?

I honestly laughed at loud when I read this because there have been great debates between the likes of Eiger and Cale and others. I mean for some reason this fourm is almost a mini-america when it comes to politcal stances (all though it is heavily liberal)

Eiger vs Jolly would be like Mike Tyson vs a two year old.

oh boy I needed a good laugh today :)

[Johanass "Johan" Tassen]

I will now quote a definition I located with a quick Google search.

Weapon of Mass Destruction - (This term for a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon is older than you might think. It actually dates to 1937, before the existence of nuclear or biological weapons. It was first used by the London Times on 28 December of that year, "Who can think without horror of what another widespread war would mean, waged as it would be with all the new weapons of mass destruction?" The original reference is to aerial bombing of cities, which had become a reality that year in the Spanish Civil War, chemicals, and other modern weaponry.)

Hmm. Sounds like Iraq had some pretty serious stuff all right. Mr. President, did he have nukes? No? Well then surely biological weapons or mebbe chemical like nerve gas? I mean we did sell him that stuff in the late 80's right? None? Well uh, did he have aerial bombing capabilities? Russian Munitions from the Cold War? Sweet. We got us some WOMD guys!

Meh. Sorry for continuing the thread guys. Last I'll bother with this.

[Farstrand]

He didn't let inspectors in, he broke UN policy...

At first I thought you were speaking of US of A. They don't let UN Inspectors in, they brake UN policy and they have weapons of mass destroction.

And they have'nt signed the antilandmines treaty or the Treaty of human rights.


And you have the nerve too call someone else a bad egg?
Weird.

[Essex]

lol good point Far LOL funny when you think of it like that.

[Hitokiri]

Bush justs wants oil. Thats why he went to mars. OIL. LOL
if u want sum fun CLICK=====> http://www.bushorchimp.com/

[BhsCrew]

I will now quote a definition I located with a quick Google search.

Weapon of Mass Destruction - (This term for a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon is older than you might think. It actually dates to 1937, before the existence of nuclear or biological weapons. It was first used by the London Times on 28 December of that year, "Who can think without horror of what another widespread war would mean, waged as it would be with all the new weapons of mass destruction?" The original reference is to aerial bombing of cities, which had become a reality that year in the Spanish Civil War, chemicals, and other modern weaponry.)

Hmm. Sounds like Iraq had some pretty serious stuff all right. Mr. President, did he have nukes? No? Well then surely biological weapons or mebbe chemical like nerve gas? I mean we did sell him that stuff in the late 80's right? None? Well uh, did he have aerial bombing capabilities? Russian Munitions from the Cold War? Sweet. We got us some WOMD guys!

Meh. Sorry for continuing the thread guys. Last I'll bother with this.

It can be assumed that Hussain had at least some chemical and biological weapons left over from the ones we sold him during the Iran-Iraq war. The problem was that Bush went out of his way and said he had proof of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons when all he really had was some circumstantual evidence.
Because of the massive debt and Osama still at large in Afganistan, Bush had to give some reason to go after Saddam other then his origonal points that he discussed during the first year of his administration. The points are the following:
1) Saddam is a brutal dictator who kills his own people. While it is true that the US was the one who put him in power, that was not G. W. Bush's decision at the time and Bush seems to really dislike Saddams killing fields.
2) "Saddam tried to kill my dad." While this isn't a good reason for a country to go to war, it is a perfectly good reason for GWB to hate Saddam.
3) Saddam is weak. Basicially this boils down to that out of all the evil leaders that Bush could potentially kill, Saddam seemed to be one of the easier ones to defeat, both because of his weak army and because of his peoples' strong hatred of him.
4) It would free up oil. The idea here is that a friendly government in Iraq would give us oil once we had rebuilt the country.
5) It would make Israel happy. Saddam has caused many problems for Israel and removing him would make their lives less stressful.

Bush's problem was that none of these reasons seemed good enough for us to justify the massive cost and weakening our forces searching for Osama. So he came up with the weapons of mass distruction line which was good enough to get through congress, because Bush presented circumstantual evidence as fact.
To convince the people, Bush presented the link between Iraq and Al Qaida. This link is actaully quite unlikely because Saddam spent years killing fundamentalists like Al Qaida to secure his seat of power. Al Qaida hated Saddam almost as much as the US. Of course very few people in the US knew this fact and so the line was bought by many people.

I'm not sure why I started writing this post; I guess I was just trying to give some information. I'm too tired to fix the spelling so just assume that everything is spelled correctly. I'm going to take a nap.

[Eiger]

Speaking of weapons of mass destruction, it looks like we might actually have something to be fearful of out in that neck of the woods. I had hoped that this threat had been taken care of, but perhaps not. The Iranians scare me a lot more than Iraq ever did.

Amazing in another way that we went to war in Iraq when we've got more serious payback issues with Iran over the hostages back in 1979-80. That was a long time ago and seriously benefited Ronald Reagan's quest for the presidency, which is probably why he sold them arms later. So Iran probably wasn't even on Dubya's radar screen.

VIENNA (Reuters) - New intelligence on Iran has fueled suspicions the Islamic Republic has a secret uranium- enrichment program, possibly aimed at producing fuel for an atom bomb program, Western diplomats say.


The U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has been investigating Iran's atomic program ever since an exiled opposition group reported in August 2002 that Tehran was hiding a massive enrichment plant at Natanz.



Under fire over U.S. suspicions that its nuclear power program is a front for building atomic weapons -- a charge Iran denies -- Tehran agreed last year to submit to tougher IAEA inspections and suspend all enrichment-related activities.

But a group of Western diplomats who follow the IAEA said recent intelligence has provoked suspicion that Tehran moved enrichment activities away from Natanz to smaller sites that are part of a parallel program U.N. inspectors have not uncovered.

More here: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040331/wl_nm/nuclear_iran_dc_1

[Dementor]

BHs makes some good points. While this administration severly overstated two major points, Iraq's WMD capabilties and Iraq's ties to Al Queda, I have yet to decide that this war was a bad move.

For one thing, as far as wars go, this one was pretty clean as far as US casualties, civilian casualties, and collateral damage are concerned.

Also, while the Iraq invasion certainly doen't weaken the resolve of the terrorists themselves, it certainly makes the nations that support terrorists think twice, knowing that the United States is willing to take this kind of action against them. Same goes for the development of WMD. Yes, North Korea and Iran are still being shady about their weapons programs, but would they even be at the negotiations table if not for our actions in Iraq? I'd say probably not.

Basically, an example needed to be made, to show rogue nations that even if the UN isn't willing to take military action, the United States is. Economic sanctions don't touch the dictators of these countrys, so why would they care? But the US military physically removing them from power... that is something they can and should fear.

Saddam was chosen over any other rogue nation because he was weak. Surely, taking him out of power can't be a bad thing by itself, but to me its the effects on the rest of the world that matter. The UN is the body that's supposed to take these kind of actions, but it's proven ineffective and unwilling.

I can even sympathize with the WMD fibbing to a degree. That line was for the UN; essentially the United States was handing them a perfect reason to do what it should be doing anyway. and the fact remains that Saddam did have weapons unnacounted for, and they are still unnacounted for... the fact that they are not there anymore, simply means that they are someplace else.

And of course Saddam did suppot terrorists, if not Al Quida; he sent money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers at least. I'm sure he had nothing to do with 9/11 (and I've never heard any administration say otherwise) but as I said, his overthrow does send a message to other dictators, people who do support terrorists.

Why don't we go after North Korea? Because we would lose. Iran? Same. Besides, the example we set in Iraq seems to be sinking in. Lybia's been making a big show about reform, Iran is letting inspectors back in, and North Korea... well, they'll cave sooner or later.

Meh... just how I feel about the whole war thing. going back to work now...

-Dementor

[Essex]

anyone seen the pictures of what happened today in Iraq? Very disturbing pictures on Aljazzera (sp) I would provide the link but I don't want you guys to have to see it....

[BhsCrew]

Speaking of weapons of mass destruction, it looks like we might actually have something to be fearful of out in that neck of the woods. I had hoped that this threat had been taken care of, but perhaps not. The Iranians scare me a lot more than Iraq ever did.

Amazing in another way that we went to war in Iraq when we've got more serious payback issues with Iran over the hostages back in 1979-80. That was a long time ago and seriously benefited Ronald Reagan's quest for the presidency, which is probably why he sold them arms later. So Iran probably wasn't even on Dubya's radar screen.

VIENNA (Reuters) - New intelligence on Iran has fueled suspicions the Islamic Republic has a secret uranium- enrichment program, possibly aimed at producing fuel for an atom bomb program, Western diplomats say.


The U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has been investigating Iran's atomic program ever since an exiled opposition group reported in August 2002 that Tehran was hiding a massive enrichment plant at Natanz.



Under fire over U.S. suspicions that its nuclear power program is a front for building atomic weapons -- a charge Iran denies -- Tehran agreed last year to submit to tougher IAEA inspections and suspend all enrichment-related activities.

But a group of Western diplomats who follow the IAEA said recent intelligence has provoked suspicion that Tehran moved enrichment activities away from Natanz to smaller sites that are part of a parallel program U.N. inspectors have not uncovered.

More here: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040331/wl_nm/nuclear_iran_dc_1

I'm just glad that the Bush administration has no reason to invade Iran. We don't have the money, troops, or popular support for another invasion at the moment.
Of course Reagon sold weapons to Iran. He sold them to Iraq so selling them to Iran was only fair. In fact there was a split in Reagon's cabinet: some of his advisors wanted to back Iraq over Iran and others wanted to back Iran over Iraq. Reagon being the problem solver that he was decided to back both Iraq and Iran against each other. Sure it allowed a bloody ten year war that killed millions of people, but niether side won and we reduced our trade deficit. I'd call that a stunning victory for the US.

[SaroDarksbane]

And they have'nt signed the antilandmines treaty
That's because the US is pushing a far-more stringent approach to land mines:

Link (http://engforum.pravda.ru/printthread.php3?threadid=67118)

But don't let a little thing like the "whole truth" get in the way of your "teh US sux0rs!" ranting. :thumbsup:

[Eiger]

anyone seen the pictures of what happened today in Iraq? Very disturbing pictures on Aljazzera (sp) I would provide the link but I don't want you guys to have to see it....
Ya - I just put a full post and links in the Presidential Election thread - just to news - I didn't see any pics - AP has better taste thank heavens...

[Eiger]

That's because the US is pushing a far-more stringent approach to land mines:

Link (http://engforum.pravda.ru/printthread.php3?threadid=67118)

But don't let a little thing like the "whole truth" get in the way of your "Teh US sux0rs!" ranting. :thumsup:
Your link is to a thread in a forum. Is there a particular post you are referring to? I'm somewhat curious, but not enough to try to figure it out. But if you cut and paste it in, I'll read it...

My understanding is that the US still sees the need for land mines - especially in Korea's DMZ and that's the primary reason we haven't signed. I'm sure there's other aspects to the policy though I can't imagine that we want to be more stringent that the treaty offered. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

[Dragon's_Servant]

A political thread, so long unnoticed by me.
Hey guys, you know me, next time send me an icq msg, all right?
now lets go.
Here are some reasons to be against bush, and extra for jolly.roger and other patriots(in jolly's case chauvinist) i argue that bush is harming the US.
Now i need to support that: Let's see, how much money was it he wasted? I think i lost track. The Us has a greath depth, while it was just about to get out of it(Clinton administration, and couple before that).
Other thing: "No Child left behind"
Haha, they just cut again money from my school, especially the ESL programm lost several 1000 $.
Same thing happened all over the US.
Ok, these are just 2 reasons. Now extra for jolly.roger(if he still dares reading this thread) a little introduction into the forums:

Keep your mouth shut and you should be fine.
That was the easy way, here the more complicated one:
Research information, visit some international news pages to compare news, and respect other people's opinion.
Oh yeah, and start supporting your point with evidence. When you can't say anything new, don't say anything.

I had to learn the same lesson, so this is just a good advise.

[BhsCrew]

That's because the US is pushing a far-more stringent approach to land mines:

Link (http://engforum.pravda.ru/printthread.php3?threadid=67118)

But don't let a little thing like the "whole truth" get in the way of your "teh US sux0rs!" ranting. :thumbsup:

Heh. Just because a treaty is backed by a bunch of countries doesn't always make it good. Anyway as far as land mines go we are hardly the greatest abusers of them. Right now we're actually spending some money (not enough) to help clear the mines out of Afganistan. Our main problem is we bomb things and our bombs don't always completly explode and leave lots of explosive stuff around. Of course that's another issue and our bombing still isn't as bad as it was during World War Two or even Vietnam.

[BhsCrew]

A political thread, so long unnoticed by me.
Hey guys, you know me, next time send me an icq msg, all right?
now lets go.
Here are some reasons to be against bush, and extra for jolly.roger and other patriots(in jolly's case chauvinist) i argue that bush is harming the US.
Now i need to support that: Let's see, how much money was it he wasted? I think i lost track. The Us has a greath depth, while it was just about to get out of it(Clinton administration, and couple before that).
Other thing: "No Child left behind"
Haha, they just cut again money from my school, especially the ESL programm lost several 1000 $.
Same thing happened all over the US.
Ok, these are just 2 reasons. Now extra for jolly.roger(if he still dares reading this thread) a little introduction into the forums:

Keep your mouth shut and you should be fine.
That was the easy way, here the more complicated one:
Research information, visit some international news pages to compare news, and respect other people's opinion.
Oh yeah, and start supporting your point with evidence. When you can't say anything new, don't say anything.

I had to learn the same lesson, so this is just a good advise.

I just coudn't resist correcting one of your points. We weren't going to get out of debt any time soon (we still had 6 trillion to go). We did have a surplus which meant that each year we were gaining more money then we lost which could have eventually paid down the debt or been used to fix social security.

You are right that Bush did waste a lot of money, though much of that 10 year projection with the surplus was due to faulty math by Clinton to make himself look better. Bush used the same faulty math to propose his tax cut which was probably the worst thing he could have done with the money. Of course that doesn't matter now cause now the money is gone and we got many years of deficit in our future.

I agree that statements should be researched and thats why I couldn't leave that debt statement there.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

Okay...just got off work...just to come home and read all this liberal babble, naive nonsense.

First---
No matter how he got them---Saddam has had WMD...I still believe they are there....if they didn't get rid of them before we stormed in.

Second---
I don't really care about WMD---I think we were justified because he's a genocidal maniac and should have been taken out...bottom line.

Third---
Wrong...we do let UN inspectors in....yes we do have WMD...but we are AMERICA....we do not invade countries like Kuwait for no reason.

Fourth---
After he invaded Kuwait and we kicked his azz out---he had instructions ---which he did not follow

Fifth---
France does not speak against us as Saddam did...don't even try it..and YES France, Russia, Germany all had BIG stakes in oil there, and us invading DID compromise that...and that is why they didnt want it...bottom line.

Sixth---
Who in the hell said we are not looking for Osama still....OH YES>>WE ARE!!!

Seventh---
We got rid of the Taliban...another bull@## regime...did our job there...still there..still looking for Osama....we still have troops there..even though he is probably NOT there

Eighth---
Why Iraq? Genocide...tyranny....Iraq poses a threat to allies there...like invading other countries for no particular reason....

Ninth---
Its been documented that he DID have nerve gas, anthrax, etc....and he probably still did...but that doesn't matter..that's not the most important reason.

Tenth---
I never said he was a part of 9/11...i said that was a wrong time for him to be an enemy of the United States...b/c he DID harbor terrorists and he DID possess WMD..

11---
Why not Saudi Arabia...they do NOT committ genocide....they do NOT invade other countries for no reason

12---Everything I say is relevant...I'm right...you're wrong

[Dragon's_Servant]

I just coudn't resist correcting one of your points. We weren't going to get out of debt any time soon (we still had 6 trillion to go). We did have a surplus which meant that each year we were gaining more money then we lost which could have eventually paid down the debt or been used to fix social security.

You are right that Bush did waste a lot of money, though much of that 10 year projection with the surplus was due to faulty math by Clinton to make himself look better. Bush used the same faulty math to propose his tax cut which was probably the worst thing he could have done with the money. Of course that doesn't matter now cause now the money is gone and we got many years of deficit in our future.

I agree that statements should be researched and thats why I couldn't leave that debt statement there.

Hey, thx for the correction.
i think i once heard something about clinton making up numbers, but at that time i wasn't interessted in politics, so i just forgot it.

ok, i exxagerated, i meant how bush changed the surplus into a pile of dust, and made a whole lot more depth

[Eiger]

but we are AMERICA....
This is my favorite quote, taken out of context, but that kind of summed it all up for me.

Anyway, responding to you is clearly a worthless effort. You win.


Normally, I'd respond to your comments just because I have a thing about allowing bs to go unanswered (as many have noticed by now, hehe) and that an impressionable mind may be sucked in. However, there are plenty of others here who have already more than sufficiently rebutted your remarks, so it's not needed. Thanks however for a most entertaining afternoon.

[Essex]

Jolly DUDE

You do realize that most (if not all) of the 9/11 hijakcers were Saudi right?! Jesus man come on.

Secondly you say WMD aren't important but you listed that as your first reason damnit you really are just like bush. Make the first thing you list the most important.

North Korea was working on Nukes in fact probably still are. Japan and South Korea are great allies they don't like the idea of a nuclear North Korea (neither should we) I don't see any american soliders in North Korea.

You can't say "oh he has WMD" when we haven't found any. I can say I have 1 milllion dollars but I doubt a car dealership will let me take home a new car on that info alone. I can say they are stupid for not beliving I have 1 million dollars (god knows I've tired) but they haven't yet and probably won't give me a car

You can't say that if you take a quater of the troops we sent to Iraq put them on the Afghan Pakistani boarder that we wouldn't have had a better shot at finding Osama.

The terroists are in Iraq now, but Al-queada WAS NOT FRIENDS WITH IRAQ Osama bin Laden HATED Hussien. Al-queada is not in Iraq because WE ARE they wouldn't be there if we weren't. Name one terroist group that was based in Iraq I mean really I'm curious about that one...

Why did you repost everything you said has already be rebuked by people who's been in this game a lot longer than you have.

[Rthus]

Why should we go to war with Saddam? He only tortures/rapes/murders his own people. I could care less. What ever happened to liberals caring about the oppressed?

And about WMD's all of the evidence pointed to WMDs in Iraq (If you want the evidence just ask). It would have been a HUGE risk to not go to war with Iraq after pushing him for 10 years with the UN and passing a resolution warning we would go to war if he didn't comply.

Creating a stable democracy in Iraq will lead to peace and democracy in the Middle East. It is their only hope in fact. Once the government becomes free and stable the markets will flourish, and the Iraqis will have a quality of life they could never dream of. Then the people of the Middle East will realize all of the billions of dollars pumped into their countries everyday are being hoarded by the corrupt oppressive leaders and change will spread. They will demand democracy. It will take time and it will not be easy but good change will come.

Any liberals have a better solution to make life better in the Middle East?

[SaroDarksbane]

Your link is to a thread in a forum. Is there a particular post you are referring to? I'm somewhat curious, but not enough to try to figure it out. But if you cut and paste it in, I'll read it...

My understanding is that the US still sees the need for land mines - especially in Korea's DMZ and that's the primary reason we haven't signed. I'm sure there's other aspects to the policy though I can't imagine that we want to be more stringent that the treaty offered. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
Here's the original Link (http://www.iht.com/articles/511056.html).

The "Ban" is really only a partial ban, and not a very good one at that. Here's a snippet since you asked:

Beyond the Ottawa treaty
The Ottawa Convention is not a "mine ban treaty." In reality there are two partial bans. Each bans some mines and permits others.

The Ottawa Convention bans antipersonnel mines but permits antivehicle mines without restriction. Ottawa-compliant antivehicle mines can be persistent - that is, they may remain lethal for decades after emplacement. They can be made with little or no metal, to evade detection by humanitarian mine-clearance teams. They can have antidisturbance features so that they explode if a person walking along accidentally tilts one.

The main difference between antipersonnel mines and antivehicle mines is that the permitted mines are more powerful. They can wait undetected for decades, fully compliant with the Ottawa Convention, and then kill several people at once, regardless of whether they are on foot, in a school bus, or on a tractor.

The new U.S. policy is very different. It treats antipersonnel and antivehicle mines alike. It bans all mines that are either nonmetallic or persistent. It permits mines that are detectable and not persistent - that is, mines with timing mechanisms that self-destruct the mine in 30 days or less (usually four hours for present U.S. mines).

Permitted mines must also be self-deactivating - that is, they must be powered by a battery which will exhaust itself in 120 days or less if self-destruction fails. But such failure is most unlikely. In more than 65,000 tests under a wide variety of conditions, no activated U.S. self-destructing mine has failed to self-destruct.

Failure of self-deactivation is even less likely; batteries always die. This is not to say that it is impossible that an activated U.S. mine will not somewhere, sometime fail to terminate on schedule. But we know that all the persistent antivehicle mines stockpiled by Austria and other members of the Ottawa Convention are designed to sit ready to kill for decades after emplacement.

And:
Petritsch speaks of a "mine-free world" and "elimination of antipersonnel mines" as if they were synonymous. They are not. The post-combat threat to civilians is determined not by whether a mine is an antipersonnel mine, but by whether it is persistent.

All land mines threaten civilians when they are first laid. But some do it after the battle, and some do not. The U.S. policy draws the line between the two; the Ottawa Convention does not.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

What is it that I'm saying that isn't true...it's all true and you know it...
We are AMERICA...we are the parents of the world....we do not pose a threat to invade other countries for personal gain or power.....we have these weapons to protect us and our allies...we would not use them for any other reason--
We have to have them to keep he world in check...just be glad that this country exists...b/c if we didn't there would be chaos.

[Essex]

Rthus where is the proof that this "domino" theory will work? Who says that if Iraq becomes a democracy that the rest of it will spread?

I think the ousting of Saddam was great but not under the false pretenses that was given to us. If we had waited 30 more days like the UN asked they probably would have joined with us to go into Iraq and we wouldn't have even more "America just like to take over countires" **** that's being flung at us.

You'd be surprised how respected the UN is without the UN on our side I think we really really really look bad going into Iraq like we did.. I dunno it's a bad situation anyway you look at it

[Essex]

jolly are you not even going to respond to anything I said? Of course not its easier to ignore it. Just keep telling yourself "it's ok we're america, it's ok we're america, it's ok we're america," sadly this isn't the wizard of oz and you won't wake up in a world where everyone likes us and thinks as you do that it's "ok because we're america"

[Dragon's_Servant]

jolly, you need a serious bashing by elly, that can only do you good.

This is politics, if there was a "right" or a "wrong" we wouldn't have these discusions.

Agrred, Iraq had had WMDs.
But, where is you proof that they were still there, when bush had the first time the idea to invade iraq? I havn't seen it, have you?

Genocidal maniac... agreed, that's what saddam was
But a question: Why wasn't that the main reason bush used to invade Iraq?

oil: i don't know about any countries but germany you named, that's why i am only going to talk about germany.
Germany buys basicly all it's oil from the US.
Germany spoke out against the war, cause since WW2 they(or better "we") are very pacifistic.

Osama: Why aren't we getting any news on him?
oh yeah, i remember this one thing, a couple of months ago, that they think they have a track of him.
well, he's is still free, so that was probably false.

I am not going to respond to the rest, because you obviously didn't follow my advise.
Well i wish you a good time in the forums(which you won't have, with such an attitude)

[The.Jolly.Roger]

Essex....

It doesn't matter where the hijackers were from...as far as that part of the world goes....the Saudi govt does not support that terrorist group...that terrorist group is where these hijackers came from.

North Korea are wimps...and they know we would do the same thing to them if they messed with S Korea or Japan....they are not working on nukes anymore..they submit.

No matter what you say...or think...you cannot argue with the fact that genocide is just wrong and evil....and should be stopped..and we should stop it...bottom line..

[Essex]

jolly I agree that genocide should be stopped at all costs but most conservatives only seem to take that stance when it's their guy sending our troops to do it.

Where was that thinking from the Right wingers during Rowanda? where was it in Somalia, I still think North Korea is our biggest problem. People are still starving over there and Lil kim won't feed them doens't that qualify for a good ol fashion texas *** stomping from ol W?

And saying that the Saudi's don't support terroism is like saying Bill Clinton doesn't like a blow job

[The.Jolly.Roger]

Dragons servant......

that was a BIG reason we went there.....genocide

Germany has a BIG stake in oil ...IN Iraq...wtf are you talking about?

I'll just strike that whole thing you said..

Thank goodness liberals don't run this country.

[Reaver]

Well, one thing that you guys are missing is that Bush had no reason to lie about WMD. I mean think about it... He's going to lie about a country having WMD so we can invade the country and search the WMD that he knows aren't even there? The search for WMD was done by the US government and so Bush could have easily "found" some. But he didn't. Instead he had them earnestly search for them. So the reason for invading Iraq is pretty obvious... WMD. Even France, Germany and Russia believed that he had them as did the US and UK. So think about it... Terrorism has just shown itself to be a grave threat... the modern breed of terrorism comes from Middle Eastern Countries and everyone believes that Saddam has WMD... If you think about it, its pretty scary.
Overall I think Bush has many good policies and many bad ones. But I do believe that he has moral integrity and so everything he does, he does because he believes that its best for the USA.
Oh and anyone who thinks we attacked Iraq for the oil... what's wrong with that? Wouldn't you same people be complaining about Bush if there was an Oil crisis and Oil prices were through the roof? So why not secure the economic survivial of the US by ensuring that we have a source of Oil even without OPEC? Of course, I believe that Bush didn't do it for the Oil so to me, its moot.

P.S. The creator of this thread is obviously not a real conservative, hes simply trying to stir up trouble. So I apologize for bumping his thread but I just couldn't help it. Seeing people say things that I believe are false just drives me crazy.

[Rthus]

Rthus where is the proof that this "domino" theory will work? Who says that if Iraq becomes a democracy that the rest of it will spread?

I think the ousting of Saddam was great but not under the false pretenses that was given to us. If we had waited 30 more days like the UN asked they probably would have joined with us to go into Iraq and we wouldn't have even more "America just like to take over countires" **** that's being flung at us.

You'd be surprised how respected the UN is without the UN on our side I think we really really really look bad going into Iraq like we did.. I dunno it's a bad situation anyway you look at it
The "domino" theory has worked throughout history. Whenever democracy arises it comes in waves. After the American Revolution, Europe was inspired to democracy and I believe it was in the 1840's when there were the most revolutions in history bringing about democratic gov'ts throughout Europe (of course Europe wasn't ready and many of these failed). More recently after the Cold War, there was not a steady move to democracy over 20, even 10 years. A tidal wave of democracy swept across Eastern Europe. Same thing happened in Africa/South America when colonialism ended.

The point is when democracy begins in a nation it spreads like wild fire. People see the quality of life in democratic naitons and desire with their life. Now it could be difficult in the Middle East but even the people over their love American entertainment and technology. Democracy WILL spread in the Middle East, just like it has every where else.

[FireArc]

This is my last post because I have decided your an attention *****. Hence, after this you will get no more attention.

I have heard the pro-bush argument argued well. You are not doing it. Ever wonder why pro-bush supporters are seen as stupid? Your the reason. You broadcast opinion as fact. If you actually took the time to do research and site facts you might occasionally have a point. As it is your just reafirming the pro-bush stereo type. Go away.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

Essex.....

I said they don't support Osama ....

North Korea will get their eventually I think....but they never actually invaded another country..recently....they are not a threat to us...we would dominate them

North Korea has a nasty regime...but they do not committ genocide..they are a very poor country...and their dictator spends all of the money things other that what that country really needs.

We went after Iraq b/c they posed a dangerous threat to our interests and our allies there.....to our country....they were SUSPECTED of having WMD...genocide..etc....thats enough for me...that was enough for our government....liberals and conservatives....except when it comes to election time...then all the liberals start poll swaying looking for votes, speaking out against everything they voted for previously...like I said...thank goodness.

[GreenPenInc]

He can't use genocide to justify the invasion. If he did, he'd have to stop selling arms to all the other dictators and invade their countries too.

[BhsCrew]

Okay...just got off work...just to come home and read all this liberal babble, naive nonsense.

First---
No matter how he got them---Saddam has had WMD...I still believe they are there....if they didn't get rid of them before we stormed in.

Second---
I don't really care about WMD---I think we were justified because he's a genocidal maniac and should have been taken out...bottom line.

Third---
Wrong...we do let UN inspectors in....yes we do have WMD...but we are AMERICA....we do not invade countries like Kuwait for no reason.

Fourth---
After he invaded Kuwait and we kicked his azz out---he had instructions ---which he did not follow

Fifth---
France does not speak against us as Saddam did...don't even try it..and YES France, Russia, Germany all had BIG stakes in oil there, and us invading DID compromise that...and that is why they didnt want it...bottom line.

Sixth---
Who in the hell said we are not looking for Osama still....OH YES>>WE ARE!!!

Seventh---
We got rid of the Taliban...another bull@## regime...did our job there...still there..still looking for Osama....we still have troops there..even though he is probably NOT there

Eighth---
Why Iraq? Genocide...tyranny....Iraq poses a threat to allies there...like invading other countries for no particular reason....

Ninth---
Its been documented that he DID have nerve gas, anthrax, etc....and he probably still did...but that doesn't matter..that's not the most important reason.

Tenth---
I never said he was a part of 9/11...i said that was a wrong time for him to be an enemy of the United States...b/c he DID harbor terrorists and he DID possess WMD..

11---
Why not Saudi Arabia...they do NOT committ genocide....they do NOT invade other countries for no reason

12---Everything I say is relevant...I'm right...you're wrong

Well I don't share Eiger's opinon. I actually believe it IS worth my time to respond to you so here goes:
1) Saddam probably did have WMD, but we still don't have concrete proof that he still had them, and Bush made it sound like we did. Anyway there are dozens of countries with WMD, so that alone can't be a good reason to invade.
2) He is a maniac and the world is probably better off with him gone but that isn't the entire issue. There are lots of things that would be better off happening and we have to decide which ones are worth our time and energy. In this case we were already in debt, so we sure don't have enough money to do this right now.
3) You're right in that we do let weapons inspectors in and we do have WMD. That's all correct. We don't even invade small countries for no reason. Usually (like in the case of Panama or Chile) we invade a small country if there is some benifit in it for us. Mabye we want to get rid of a leader who doesn't like us or we want some resources that they aren't letting us have. The same was true with Iraq and Kuwait. Saddam wanted Kuwaits oil and riches.
4) This point is yours. He had instructions and he didn't follow them. No argument there.
5) Oil wasn't the only reason that France and Germany didn't want to go in there. The leaders of France and Germany realized that their populations were heavily pacifist (mostly cause of all the deaths from France and Germany killing each other), and they could gain massive pollitical support by opposing our invasion of Iraq. In the case of France it is also a desire to still feel important in the world even though they aren't any more. Russia opposed us because Saddam owed them money and contracts and Russia is a little broke at the moment.
6) We are still looking for Osama, but we had to reduce the resources and troops that we had looking for him because of Iraq.
7) We did get rid of the Taliban and we had every right to do it as they attacked us first. I do wish that Bush had gotten a Declaration of War first though. He could have easily and it would make everything seem more official.
8) There are many reasons why Iraq. I've gone over them already in a previous post so I'll just paste them here.

Reasons Bush had for going into Iraq before 9/11.
1) Saddam is a brutal dictator who kills his own people. While it is true that the US was the one who put him in power, that was not G. W. Bush's decision at the time and Bush seems to really dislike Saddams killing fields.
2) "Saddam tried to kill my dad." While this isn't a good reason for a country to go to war, it is a perfectly good reason for GWB to hate Saddam.
3) Saddam is weak. Basicially this boils down to that out of all the evil leaders that Bush could potentially kill, Saddam seemed to be one of the easier ones to defeat, both because of his weak army and because of his peoples' strong hatred of him.
4) It would free up oil. The idea here is that a friendly government in Iraq would give us oil once we had rebuilt the country.
5) It would make Israel happy. Saddam has caused many problems for Israel and removing him would make their lives less stressful.

9) You're right he did have WMD, but you already made this point in #1
10) You're right it was a wrong time for him to be the enemy of the United States. I bet he wishes he hadn't been right now. Oh well. Hindsight is 20/20.

And just a note it is important not to just dismiss a persons points even if you think they are stupid. If the points are stupid then you should be able to refute them easily. If you can't then its time to learn more information or re-examine your opinions.

[Andarcel]

Oh yes, democracy will make the IRaqi economy flourish and everything will be hunky-dory. Because it worked for Egypt and Iran and all those African states, after all. :roll eyes:

Seriously, that's unrealistic, rosy-eyed twaddle. The people of other Islamic countries will demand leaders who are as anti-Western as possible. They already are, as we can see in Iran. Hurray for more fundamentalist regimes!

As for "Saddam tried to kill my dad" - there's no evidence of this at all. None. I could be generous and call it speculation, but it's really outright propoganda.

[Cale The Dark]

I must say that this quoted post pretty much sums it up huh?

I honestly laughed at loud when I read this because there have been great debates between the likes of Eiger and Cale and others. I mean for some reason this fourm is almost a mini-america when it comes to politcal stances (all though it is heavily liberal)

Eiger vs Jolly would be like Mike Tyson vs a two year old.

oh boy I needed a good laugh today :)


i feel there have been a couple times when i have presented a half way decent conservative post, but this is not a subject i am going to touch. whether or not i agree with his views (i disagree to all with the exception of maybe one or two issues) i will be the first person to say that Eiger's debating skills outshine us all. the only person who has stepped up to challenge him is AoA and even then the common folk can't understand him so he wins by default. lol.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

What have I said that isn't factual...look at the facts.


Saddam-genocide----fact
Saddam, at some point had WMD----fact
Saddam harbored terrorists----fact
Saddam invaded Kuwait-----fact
Saddam didnt follow UN policy----fact
Saddam posed a threat to our interests and allies there-----fact
Germany, Russia, France all had oil stakes there----fact

It's all fact people....and if you say it isn't .....then you're living in a separate reality than myself.

Quit being liberal just to be liberal.....think for yourself...look at the facts...and the best fact I do KNOW is:

Genocide is wrong and evil,,,and should be stopped---fact

Just admit it....quit arguing...its all fact...you want a bibliography on this?

[Essex]

I think I'm with Firearc on this one this guy is giving me a head ache.

Just read this article about North Korea Jolly http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,1136483,00.html

there i'm done, gonna get me something to eat.

[Eiger]

1) Why should we go to war with Saddam? He only tortures/rapes/murders his own people. I could care less. What ever happened to liberals caring about the oppressed?

2)And about WMD's all of the evidence pointed to WMDs in Iraq (If you want the evidence just ask). It would have been a HUGE risk to not go to war with Iraq after pushing him for 10 years with the UN and passing a resolution warning we would go to war if he didn't comply.

3)Creating a stable democracy in Iraq will lead to peace and democracy in the Middle East. It is their only hope in fact. Once the government becomes free and stable the markets will flourish, and the Iraqis will have a quality of life they could never dream of. Then the people of the Middle East will realize all of the billions of dollars pumped into their countries everyday are being hoarded by the corrupt oppressive leaders and change will spread. They will demand democracy. It will take time and it will not be easy but good change will come.

Any liberals have a better solution to make life better in the Middle East?
I numbered your comments to make the response easier.

1) I could argue the point, but when do Americans in power care about the downtrodden of other countries? Only when they want to go to war there.

2) Sorry, got the straight poop right here:This incredibly good link will tell you everything you need to know. It contains links to over 40 official documents on the topic and has been recently updated: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/ (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/)

3) I disagree that democracy in Iraq will spread to other countries in the middle east. A real functioning democracy requires an educated populace, an ability to work with those you fundamentally disagree with, a willingness to allow the winners to be in power for their term without attempting to overthrow them, a good economy helps, etc. I'm not too conversant here, but I generally believe that a culture needs to be ready and to want to have democracy which is fundamentally the sharing of power. I don't see that in the middle east - at least not on the necessary scale. I hope I'm wrong though...

[GreenPenInc]

It's all fact people....and if you say it isn't .....then you're living in a separate reality than myself.

Agreed. What planet are you from?

[BhsCrew]

Oh yes, democracy will make the IRaqi economy flourish and everything will be hunky-dory. Because it worked for Egypt and Iran and all those African states, after all. :roll eyes:

Seriously, that's unrealistic, rosy-eyed twaddle. The people of other Islamic countries will demand leaders who are as anti-Western as possible. They already are, as we can see in Iran. Hurray for more fundamentalist regimes!

As for "Saddam tried to kill my dad" - there's no evidence of this at all. None. I could be generous and call it speculation, but it's really outright propoganda.

All I said was that was one of the reasons Bush had for origonially going into Iraq. I believe supposedly there was a bomb or something that was supposed to have been planted by Hussain to kill Bush Sr. It doesn't really matter.

[Graav Wolfsong]

I really dont want to get into the Iraq thing.
I'll just say it was a big mistake by the Bush administration that will hurt the whole western world not just the US and leave it at that.

Sidenote: The fact that USA has the power to ignore the UNs wishes and get away with it without any significant punishment is slightly unsettling. No other country in the world would have gotten away with that.


What I want to touch on is the US handling of al Qaeda, while they did take the fight to them in Afganistan they really dropped the ball when they turned around and started focusing on Iraq. If Bush had really done the job right and kept his eye on the ball Bin Laden would never have gotten away from Tora Bora.
Sure enough, the US have taken down alot of al Qaeda leaders but letting Bin Laden and more importantly Dr. Ayman al-Zawahri slip through their fingers have and will hurt the entire world in the long run.
Now, Bin Laden is just a figure head with money, al-Zawahri is the brains and the man in control. (Didnt Pakistanian forces have him surrounded a few weeks ago? what happened with that ? I guess I missed out on something there)

The war in Iraq has only fanned the flames of hatred for the US in the middle east, people flock to al Qaeda and terrorist organizations like it like never before. (hence the 'big mistake' lead in) If anything this war has really hurt the war on terror, wich is supposed to be the #1 issue.
Not to mention the loss of many allies and the strained relationship to well ... most of the world.

Like Richard A. Clarke said in his 60 minutes interview, Bin Ladens propaganda was always that the US is islams enemy and that they would try to invade and occupy an oil rich middle eastern country.
And that is precicely what the US did with Iraq, Bush played right into his hands.
I havent read Clarkes book yet but I plan to.

The fact that Bush is making the war against terror the senterpiece of his re election campaign boggles the mind.
That a president who basically cheated his way into the white house, downplayed and almost ignored the terrorist threat until 9\11, cut funding on lots of important projects and wasted those billions of dollars and the lives of American soldiers on a unnescessary war that worsened an already weakened US economy and actually managed to keep a 50%+ approval rating (mostly) and thinks he can be re elected is ... surreal, its like were living in a twilight zone.

Sure, Bush has done some good things too (cant name any off the top of my hat tho') but whatever way you look at it, the bad far far faaaar outweighs the good.
That man should be in jail, not rule the free world. :rant:

*phew* That was some rant, I really should just try not to click on any political threads.

I would like to point out that despite my decidedly anti-American statements I dont hate the US, only its current government.

Edit: wow, about ten posts appeared in the time it took to write this :cheesy:

[Rthus]

Oh yes, democracy will make the IRaqi economy flourish and everything will be hunky-dory. Because it worked for Egypt and Iran and all those African states, after all. :roll eyes:

Seriously, that's unrealistic, rosy-eyed twaddle. The people of other Islamic countries will demand leaders who are as anti-Western as possible. They already are, as we can see in Iran. Hurray for more fundamentalist regimes!

As for "Saddam tried to kill my dad" - there's no evidence of this at all. None. I could be generous and call it speculation, but it's really outright propoganda.
Democracy in Eqypt and Iran??? Are you kidding me? And you obviously didn't read my first post. The reason it will work where it did not in Africa is that Iraq and the most of the Middle East has billions of dollars a day rolling in from oil. There is ENORMOUS potential for growth. The reason the people are poor is because suppressive leaders hoarde the wealth.

As proof of the potential I present Qatar. A country where the gov't takes care of the people. The people are ridiculously wealthy, the have free health care and FREE HOUSING. The rest of the Middle East will have the wealth Qatar has.

[Dragon's_Servant]

ok, i tried to remeber, what usetted me the most about iraq war.
In the beginning i just thought that bush was a little hyperactive and too paranoid.
Nobody but terrorists is stupid enough to start arguing with the super power.

What upsetted me, was, that bush just ignored the UN.
Saddam had started to give in, actually did let in some inspectors(who did find no evidence on weapons).
Now the info is getting cloudy.
Did bush invade Iraq because he didn't want Saddam to be able to get rid of his WMD's in time?
The UN was with him with inspections and if Saddam had any WMD's most of them agreed, that Saddam should be forced to get rid of them.

But bush went in, ignoring the UN's opinion.
The problem is, that you have a president ignoring international negotiations.
Now tell me, is such a president suited to govern the greatest power in the world?

I am german, and i deffinetly know more about german economy than you do.
I took my correction about the US economics, now take yours.

[BhsCrew]

What have I said that isn't factual...look at the facts.


Saddam-genocide----fact
Saddam, at some point had WMD----fact
Saddam harbored terrorists----fact
Saddam invaded Kuwait-----fact
Saddam didnt follow UN policy----fact
Saddam posed a threat to our interests and allies there-----fact
Germany, Russia, France all had oil stakes there----fact

It's all fact people....and if you say it isn't .....then you're living in a separate reality than myself.

Quit being liberal just to be liberal.....think for yourself...look at the facts...and the best fact I do KNOW is:

Genocide is wrong and evil,,,and should be stopped---fact

Just admit it....quit arguing...its all fact...you want a bibliography on this?

All those are true to a degree, you're right on that. The question was about Bush. Did he lie to get us in there? Did he give congress false evidence?
The other part to this is that we don't have the resources to go after every dictatorship with WMD and a genocidal policy there's just too many of them. We are basicially out of money and we can't save everyone in the world.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

Ok....none of those things I said in the last post are true...
Sorry...what planet am I from....from planet I HATE LIBERAL BULL####

Look...everything I said is true and not refutable...you can't ...don't try.
I hope you people aren't going to vote for someone like John Kerry...remember....he voted for all this...

He's disagreeing with it now...but..hey that's a liberal for ya!!

[Rthus]

3) I disagree that democracy in Iraq will spread to other countries in the middle east. A real functioning democracy requires an educated populace, an ability to work with those you fundamentally disagree with, a willingness to allow the winners to be in power for their term without attempting to overthrow them, a good economy helps, etc. I'm not too conversant here, but I generally believe that a culture needs to be ready and to want to have democracy which is fundamentally the sharing of power. I don't see that in the middle east - at least not on the necessary scale. I hope I'm wrong though...[/QUOTE]

I agree, it will be extremely difficult but it is worth it. Have you read my posts supporting the spread of democracy? If this will not work do you have a better solution?

[Essex]

ugh I can't stay out of this thing and I'm hungry yet I keep coming back.

Iran does have elections I remember just a few years ago a slightly progressive guy was almost elected I do belive. Lots of student riots on the streets for a few days.

If Qatar is such a great beacon of democracy in the Middle east then why hasn't it already spread? Simply a size thing perhaps? And anyone want to move to Qatar now? I sure as hell do :) (maybe it's like southern france only a bit more aird)

[Dragon's_Servant]

Saddam-genocide----fact
Saddam, at some point had WMD----fact
Saddam harbored terrorists----fact
Saddam invaded Kuwait-----fact
Saddam didnt follow UN policy----fact
Saddam posed a threat to our interests and allies there-----fact
Germany, Russia, France all had oil stakes there----fact

just a question:
where are your facts from.
I've never heard of them as facts, and if you would start supporting your points with evidence you could make it very far in these forums.
Give me your sources.
And if you want, i will give you mine(even though some of them are in german)

For now, take all the stuff posted by eiger(his links). I don't have the time right now to re-research all my info, but i will state at least some of it.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

Look...this thread is now ending...I WIN!!!

I will now create a liberal/democrat bashing thread for all to enjoy!!!!
All in good humor ...of course :innocent:

[The.Jolly.Roger]

Dragon!!!!

I Strike You From This Thread>>>>>be Gonnneeee!!!!!

[Essex]

Look...this thread is now ending...I WIN!!!

I will now create a liberal/democrat bashing thread for all to enjoy!!!!
All in good humor ...of course :innocent:
Ok you keep saying "that's a liberal for you" well that quote is a conservative for you. Takes all his toys and goes home (or gets the Supreme Court to name him President)

Btw why don't we all go to the worldofwar chat room and have a big ol discussion about this. I'd love to hear these things in real time instead of refreshing every five seconds

[BhsCrew]

Ok....none of those things I said in the last post are true...
Sorry...what planet am I from....from planet I HATE LIBERAL BULL####

Look...everything I said is true and not refutable...you can't ...don't try.
I hope you people aren't going to vote for someone like John Kerry...remember....he voted for all this...

He's disagreeing with it now...but..hey that's a liberal for ya!!

I'M WRITING THIS IN CAPS SO MABYE YOU SEE IT. I AGREE THAT THE FACTS YOU SAID ARE TRUE. READ MY POSTS. And please stop insulting people it doesn't help any. The problem is that the world isn't so black and white. We have a limited amount of resources to accomplish everything.

[Cale The Dark]

i hate to cross threads but a populace ready for democracy does not drag corpses through the streets and hang them from bridges when the people are there to HELP THEM.

[Rthus]

How did we ignore the UN? We tried for a decade to get Saddam to comply, he did not. He ignored the terms of the cease-fire. That means the Gulf War NEVER ENDED. Before we invaded Iraq we tried and tried to go the diplomatic route, but Saddam refused. The UN passed a resolution telling Saddam he had a deadline to comply before war was resorted to. He did not meet that deadline. What more did the UN need? A final final resolution?

[Andarcel]

Wow, keeping up with this thread requires incredibly fast typing skills.

Eastern Europe moved to democracy for two reasons: 1) There was a great, sucking vacuum with the collapse of the Soviet Union, and with the world's most pwoerful countries being democratic democracy was a temporary default, and 2) We plied those countries very carefully with tantalizing economic offers. Neither applies to the Middle East. Vicious hatred of all things Western applies to the Middle East. In a recent poll, over 90% of all Arabs hate the US. Care to guess what recent event might have suddenly elevated this intense, terrorist-breeding loathing to historic levels?

Eiger:
1) Saying powerful Americans care nothing about the downtrodden except "when we want to go to war" is misleading AND untrue, a real two-for-one. First, it implies that suffering is invariably an excuse for going to war, rather than a reason for it. I invite to think about Somalia, the Balkans and Kosovo.

Secondly, America gives immense amounts of aid to developing countries without any military conflict. Oh, and there's Clinton's AIDS relief foundation, established while he was POTUS, which is making remarkable progress against third-world HIV. And the Marshall plan. Really, when you think about it, America does a remarkable amount of helping the downtrodden without going to war.

Bhs, Jolly has proven himself absolutely immune to logic, reason, or fact. He's been refuted several times, and ignored the refutation. In short, arguing with him is absolutely useless.

[Essex]

to invade a country Rthus yes you need to take as much time with it as you possibly can. Espeically given the heated environment a year (or was it two) after 9/11. You can't blame the UN for wanting to wait... again it looks like they were right no WMD.

The Un wanted 30 more days couldn't we have eaisly have started this **** in april instead of march?

[Rthus]

Look...this thread is now ending...I WIN!!!

I will now create a liberal/democrat bashing thread for all to enjoy!!!!
All in good humor ...of course :innocent:

Jolly, I'm arguing your side but I must say you are either young and dont have a lot of info or are just an idiot.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

Oh.....is it an insult now to call someone a liberal?

Gotten that bad huh...sorry...I'll refrain from using that bad word anymore...

libe@#!...is that okay?

[Essex]

Wow, keeping up with this thread requires incredibly fast typing skills.

Eastern Europe moved to democracy for two reasons: 1) There was a great, sucking vacuum with the collapse of the Soviet Union, and with the world's most pwoerful countries being democratic democracy was a temporary default, and 2) We plied those countries very carefully with tantalizing economic offers. Neither applies to the Middle East. Vicious hatred of all things Western applies to the Middle East. In a recent poll, over 90% of all Arabs hate the US. Care to guess what recent event might have suddenly elevated this intense, terrorist-breeding loathing to historic levels?

Eiger:
1) Saying powerful Americans care nothing about the downtrodden except "when we want to go to war" is misleading AND untrue, a real two-for-one. First, it implies that suffering is invariably an excuse for going to war, rather than a reason for it. I invite to think about Somalia, the Balkans and Kosovo.

Secondly, America gives immense amounts of aid to developing countries without any military conflict. Oh, and there's Clinton's AIDS relief foundation, established while he was POTUS, which is making remarkable progress against third-world HIV. And the Marshall plan. Really, when you think about it, America does a remarkable amount of helping the downtrodden without going to war.

Bhs, Jolly has proven himself absolutely immune to logic, reason, or fact. He's been refuted several times, and ignored the refutation. In short, arguing with him is absolutely useless.
I think what Eiger was talking about was how conservatives only seem to want to do that when there's something in it for them. The balkins somalia all that was under Clinton right? So was the aids foundation.

America has done nice things under Bush like helpiing in natural distasters, even when Iran refused the aid, but there's also a lot of not nice things going on that make us look bad.

[BhsCrew]

Oh.....is it an insult now to call someone a liberal?

Gotten that bad huh...sorry...I'll refrain from using that bad word anymore...

libe@#!...is that okay?

I was trying to argue against people insulting you, but you aren't making it very easy for me. I give up. If you want to respond to my posts then please do. Otherwise I'm going to ignore you.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

Just end it people....

All the points that could be made were made....its over....
And, Rthus.....I've been insulted about 37 times in this thread just while making my argument/no rhetoric/liberal talk..don't point those comments just at me...no no

[Andarcel]

Egypt and Iran holds elections. The people use them to elect ultra-conservative leaders. (And yes, it is the people, not a collection of government stooges). That's the type of democracy the Middle East is developing. Something I'm sure we all want to see flourish.

Hehe. I can't help up but derive guilty pleasure in watching Bhs' frustration. Still willing to try and respond to Jolly?

[Rthus]

to invade a country Rthus yes you need to take as much time with it as you possibly can. Espeically given the heated environment a year (or was it two) after 9/11. You can't blame the UN for wanting to wait... again it looks like they were right no WMD.

The Un wanted 30 more days couldn't we have eaisly have started this **** in april instead of march?
I agree you can never be too quick. But look at how it played out (in short hand)
UN: Saddam let us in or we go to war.
Saddam: I don't care.
US: He ignored us. He knows we will attack! He is delaying to attack us first!!!
UN: We have to give him more time.
US: He has not complied, he WILL not comply. We gave him his last chance, he is delaying for a reason.
UN: More time....

[BhsCrew]

Egypt and Iran holds elections. The people use them to elect ultra-conservative leaders. (And yes, it is the people, not a collection of government stooges). That's the type of democracy the Middle East is developing. Something I'm sure we all want to see flourish.

Hehe. I can't help up but derive guilty pleasure in watching Bhs' frustration. Still willing to try and respond to Jolly?

I'm done trying. The ball is his now. He can respond to one of my posts if he wants. Otherwise I'm done with him.

[Andarcel]

Because of course Saddam was all set to attack the US, with the supersecret Deathstar he'd been secretly building. Oh wait: he had zero capacity to do anything to the US. In fact, he was in the same holding pattern he'd occupied for the last decade. So why were we in a hurry to drop Afghanistan like a hot rock and enrage the entire Middle East again?

[Essex]

I understand where you coming from Rthus I do but... Iraq wasn't like Soviet Russia.

I have a feeling that if Iraq was planning on a big *** attack like the one your post seems to described not only would our intellegence have picked up on it but sevral other countires would have too. Then we would have been totally justified for going in.

As it stands right now we are the boy who cried wolf, then went in and blew up the forest looking for the wolf, when find the wolf has went vegetarian and doesn't eat sheep anymore we point out how he's a horrible person and should be killed anyway.

Either way the next time this happens do you really think the UN is going to belive us? Would any country?

[The.Jolly.Roger]

Oh...and everyone...quit kissing up to Eiger...its disgusting....what do you get prizes for how many brownie points you accrue?

[GreenPenInc]

Ok....none of those things I said in the last post are true...

Look...everything I said is true and not refutable...you can't ...don't try.


So, who needs to refute you? You're doing a pretty good job yourself.


Sorry...what planet am I from....from planet I HATE LIBERAL BULL####


Well, the rest of us intelligent liberals and conservatives are having a rather interesting debate here on planet earth. Perhaps you might consider applying for a guest pass?

[BhsCrew]

I agree you can never be too quick. But look at how it played out (in short hand)
UN: Saddam let us in or we go to war.
Saddam: I don't care.
US: He ignored us. He knows we will attack! He is delaying to attack us first!!!
UN: We have to give him more time.
US: He has not complied, he WILL not comply. We gave him his last chance, he is delaying for a reason.
UN: More time....

The weapons inspectors wouldn't have found anything regardless of whether he had weapons or not, simply because there weren't enough of them and Saddam was always leading them around. Bush still should have instituted a massive inspection program and given them one more deadline just because it would have helped his cause. However the UN is only good for aid distribution and diplomacy. It was created to prevent WWIII, that is really all its good for. At some point it would have been shown that the security council in the UN is obsolete, but Bush didin't need to be so blunt about it. He needed to not anger members for no other reason then we need financial help rebuilding Iraq.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

I'm not responding to refutations because you can't possibly refute that genocide is wrong and evil....unless you're Saddam or Hitler..

It needed to be stopped and it was....and we did it....Sure, we can't go after every country that committs these atrocities.....but Iraq met the "criteria"...he posed dangers to our interests (oil) and allies (Israel/Kuwait)
I do not need to cite this...everyone knows it is true....what is wrong with what I'm saying...
You people just hate it because you can't possibly refute it.

[BhsCrew]

Because of course Saddam was all set to attack the US, with the supersecret Deathstar he'd been secretly building. Oh wait: he had zero capacity to do anything to the US. In fact, he was in the same holding pattern he'd occupied for the last decade. So why were we in a hurry to drop Afghanistan like a hot rock and enrage the entire Middle East again?

As far as I could tell Bush was planning to start the whole Iraq bit right before 9/11 happened. After the taliban fell he felt he could get back to his origonal plans. 9/11 wasn't the cause of Bush invading Iraq, it was actually an interruption.

[Andarcel]

Actually, the UN is also good for something else: legitimacy. The vey thing the US needs above all else at the moment, and a commodity that will only become more valuable with the passage of time.

The UN is not obsolete. It's scarcely begun to come into its own.

[Dragon's_Servant]

Dragon!!!!

I Strike You From This Thread>>>>>be Gonnneeee!!!!!

cute

i take this as a "i am too stuborn and narrowminded to give any reasonable arguments"

I tried it with reason, i tried it with good advise
you're hopeless.
i really like discussing politics with other people.
They make good points, support them, and most of them listen to what i have to say, and if i don't act like a total *******(like specific other people do), they politly and nicely correct me if i am wrong in my resoning.
you, on the other hand, repeat yopu self, have a god complex, and are a pitiful chauvinist(if you don't know what that means, look it up, that hopefully gets you to do ome research)

[GreenPenInc]

Oh.....is it an insult now to call someone a liberal?

Gotten that bad huh...sorry...I'll refrain from using that bad word anymore...

libe@#!...is that okay?

Not to get off-topic, but what an utterly terrible parser! Even the barest of regular expression engines can tell that apart from an email address. It's almost as bad as the forums that parse "awwww...." as a URL! I'm not ripping on the admins, as they had nothing to do with the coding. But that's just sickening to me as a web dude. :)

[Essex]

Jolly there's five pages of people refuting you, it doesn't count if you choose not to read them.

[GreenPenInc]

I'm not responding to refutations because you can't possibly refute that genocide is wrong and evil....unless you're Saddam or Hitler..

It needed to be stopped and it was....and we did it....Sure, we can't go after every country that committs these atrocities.....but Iraq met the "criteria"...he posed dangers to our interests (oil) and allies (Israel/Kuwait)
I do not need to cite this...everyone knows it is true....what is wrong with what I'm saying...
You people just hate it because you can't possibly refute it.

You've disabled that straw man quite effectively. Care to take on a real argument?

[The.Jolly.Roger]

Rthus...Iraq would never attack us..

How could they?
They might send anthrax in the mail or something....or attack Israel or Kuwait...but not us.

Sorry, I had to disagree with that.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

Umm...how is that not a real argument?

You're just mad b/c its a justifiable means to invade and you can't refute it.
Deal with it.

I don't need to cite things that are true..and that everyone knows are true.

[BhsCrew]

I'm not responding to refutations because you can't possibly refute that genocide is wrong and evil....unless you're Saddam or Hitler..

It needed to be stopped and it was....and we did it....Sure, we can't go after every country that committs these atrocities.....but Iraq met the "criteria"...he posed dangers to our interests (oil) and allies (Israel/Kuwait)
I do not need to cite this...everyone knows it is true....what is wrong with what I'm saying...
You people just hate it because you can't possibly refute it.

I know I said I would stop doing this but I can't help myself.
Ok.
The problem is that at the time Bush wanted to invade Iraq we were short on money because of the tax cut and the stock bubble bursting.
We were short on troops because we were trying to crush Osama and rebuild afganistand which badly needs to be done.
Bush needed the world to be with him in crushing Al Qaida and rebuilding Afganistan and when he attacked Iraq he angered allies that we need to provide funds and troops.
Hussain is evil but there are lots of evil men in the world and it takes finess and timing to effectively get rid of them without jepordizing our interests in the world.
Bush didn't use any finess and his timing was bad, so we are now worse off then before we invaded.

[Bobman]

Have we scared him off?

Aww... Didn't even get to show how spending all that money on a missile defense system really paid off in the end.


Jolly, if you haven't caught on yet, we've been through these threads before. Everyone here has had enough of them, but if called upon we can look 'em up and pull up pages of data to use. Don't get this started again.

[Essex]

this has just quickly became something funny not a real debate. Jolly is either a very very bad debater, or a very good jokester because I'm really starting to think he doesn't belive a damn thing he's saying.

He's just getting a kick out of getting upset at each other.

It was a nice debate for a while there (sans jolly) so good night all :)

[Andarcel]

OK, fine. We have wasted billions and will be spending still more, not to mention over five hundred American lives, in an invasion that has alienated the entire world and created the ideal situation for terrorist recruitment, all for a threat that never existed. Iraq could no more successfully attack Iran or Kuwait than it could mount an extrasolar space program. We have deepened an already atrocious budget deficit and wasted lives to promote hardline anti-US governments and supercharge al-Quaeda recruiters. Deal with THAT argument, o Jolly.

[BhsCrew]

Actually, the UN is also good for something else: legitimacy. The vey thing the US needs above all else at the moment, and a commodity that will only become more valuable with the passage of time.

The UN is not obsolete. It's scarcely begun to come into its own.

I don't believe that the UN is obsolete. Its just the security council with its five veto members (the five countries that were on the winning side of WW2) that I find useless. It could be usefull again it just needs to be updated. Today these aren't the five most powerful countries in the world today. And you're right. The UN is needed for legitimacy, which is something that most people don't see us having at the moment.

[Ander]

Bush wants to finish the job that his father started a few years ago. The US government funded Al-Qaeda for 9/11 so that they could finally try to make a connection between Al-Qaeda & Saddam since they are sooo evil. When 9/11 happened, Bush started a war on everything evil (lol) & decided to go in Iraq to get Saddam & his weapons of mass destruction (his what? oh yea there were no WMDs in Iraq. The main goal was to capture Saddam & by the same time liberating the Iraqi people who nobody cares about). Man WW2 was like this. Japan did a surprise attack (lol surprise), Hitler did that, Nero did it, Bush is doing it. The US government wants more power over their people, they create crisis so that you people give them more money for "counter-terrorism" & crap. The main goal is control... if you don't take microchips you better get ready for that next big attack by terrorists, I mean the US governments & it's "allies" (read al-qaeda). I think we should make a pool on when the next attack will occur. 911 days after 9/11 gave 3/11 I think (madrid) I say that the next attack will be 311 days after madrid.. dunno if it will be in the US though.. I'd say it will be around the day that the new US president gets in office which is in January I think.. It's actually around 311 days after 3/11 so who knows.

[Andarcel]

No, I thought that might be the case originally, but subsequent analysis suggests that Jolly is quite sincere. If not, it just means he's a troll, which is hardly an elevated form of humor.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

ESSEX....

YOU CANNOT REFUTE THAT GENOCIDE IS EVIL!!!

They are refuting by saying...
Youre not making a good argument...youre not a good conservative..yada yada.....I have been making the same argument the whole time

The only way you can refute it is to say
Genocide is not wrong and evil.....
Saddam did not harbor terrorists....
Saddam did not commit genocide...
Saddam did not pose a threat to our allies and interests
And if you said that.....well...that just wouldnt be true.
You can't refute a FACT
you cannot debate a FACT
Tell me how are these things OPINIONS
It is not anyone's opinion that Saddam committed genocide...its FACT.
and SO ON....
go ahead...say the same thing over again...be a good liberal

[Andarcel]

Oh, and Saddam was hated by al-Quaeda, as you would know if you actually read the posts which have ripped your feeble argument to shreds.

[Essex]

One more quick joke lol south park fans will get this one.

But ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. That does not make sense! Why would a Wookiee - an eight foot tall Wookiee - want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!

If Chewbacca lives on Endor, Then Bush was justifed in going to war with Iraq

[BhsCrew]

ESSEX....

YOU CANNOT REFUTE THAT GENOCIDE IS EVIL!!!

They are refuting by saying...
Youre not making a good argument...youre not a good conservative..yada yada.....I have been making the same argument the whole time

The only way you can refute it is to say
Genocide is not wrong and evil.....
Saddam did not harbor terrorists....
Saddam did not commit genocide...
Saddam did not pose a threat to our allies and interests
And if you said that.....well...that just wouldnt be true.
You can't refute a FACT
you cannot debate a FACT
Tell me how are these things OPINIONS
It is not anyone's opinion that Saddam committed genocide...its FACT.
and SO ON....
go ahead...say the same thing over again...be a good liberal

Jolly I hate to break it to you. I, BhsCrew, am not a liberal. I raised points about cost and our ability to police the world. I questioned Bush's timing and diplomacy. I argued against Bush's habit of alienating our allies and jepordizing our search for Bin Laden. Please touch on those points.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

Phhssssshhh lol

That was just dumb Essex

Anyways....almost every liberal in government voted on this...how to explain that...because they go with the flow....fairweather...poll hangers...whatever...

Look
I'm not gonna say it over again...you can't win
I WIINNNN>>>>>I WIIINNNNNNNNNNN

[Dragon's_Servant]

now, here are some sources of mine.
Unfortunatly they are in german.
Some of them are pretty much anti-US, so i don't agree entirely, but the make some good points.

http://www.uni-kassel.de/fb10/frieden/regionen/Irak/strutynski2.html

http://www.uni-kassel.de/fb10/frieden/bewegung/krieg.html

probably only few of you will undertsand this.
But i wanted to make the point, that i do research info. Just so nobody puts me one the sam low level where jolly is right now.

[Andarcel]

I'm not gonna say it over again...

Oh, it's much, much too late for that.

[Essex]

ESSEX....

YOU CANNOT REFUTE THAT GENOCIDE IS EVIL!!!

They are refuting by saying...
Youre not making a good argument...youre not a good conservative..yada yada.....I have been making the same argument the whole time

The only way you can refute it is to say
Genocide is not wrong and evil.....
Saddam did not harbor terrorists....
Saddam did not commit genocide...
Saddam did not pose a threat to our allies and interests
And if you said that.....well...that just wouldnt be true.
You can't refute a FACT
you cannot debate a FACT
Tell me how are these things OPINIONS
It is not anyone's opinion that Saddam committed genocide...its FACT.
and SO ON....
go ahead...say the same thing over again...be a good liberal


sure thing. Genoside is wrong and evil I'll be damned if you didn't get one right there good for you here's a cookie.

Guess what buddy boy SADDAM DIDN'T HARBOR TERROISTS the terroists that are there now came after the war. If you can provide me with a real piece of evidence that shows that he harbored terroists then I will take that back but until then I'm taking away your cookie. (I will say Saddam did give money to the families of sucide bomers that was pretty crappy but that doesn't mean that he harbored them)

The major genoside event that people refer to is the gassing of a Kurdish town in 1988 while that is horrible why was nothing done before then by Bush the first? (in fact it happened June-September of 88 that falls under Reagans watch too) so yes he did it, but why did we have to go in now? Why wait nearly twenty years to do something about it? Not saying it's ok to let that slide but please answer me that or were you even alive in 1988?

Saddam didn't really pose a thread to us or our allies. He didn't have the resources to do that, like many have pointed out here. The sanctions not to mention the *** whiping he got in the Gulf War prevented Saddam from being a real honest to god threat. Trust me you ask Isreal who is the biggest thread to them and Iraq was pretty low on that list.

Our intersters are Oil and it's already be stated in this thread that a MAJORITY of our oil comes from SOUTHER AMERICA so no he wasn't hurting our intersters anyway. Besides we've been sucking the Saudi's cocks for oil for so long we didn't need Iraq was it a nice benfit yes but just that a perk.

[Essex]

oh and by the way don't call me dumb :( it hurts my lil liberal bleeding heart feelings.


That's sarcasim by the way jackass, figured you needed that pointed out to you as well.

[Dragon's_Servant]

I'm not gonna say it over again...you can't win
I WIINNNN>>>>>I WIIINNNNNNNNNNN
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

yes, you guessed right, this quote was by the person, who is the resons, why so many people think that conservatives are dump.

Last time i heard someone making an argument like that, was when i tried to teach my 5 year old cousin chess(he wanted to learn it) and defeated him badly.

Another good advise: if you write like that everyone knows that you're dump, unable to support your points, ignorant and naive(you like that word, don;t you?)

again, i ask where you get your info from?

[Carnage-DVS]

I think Jolly watches a bit too much of Fox News.

FACT. Saddam did not harbor terrorists.
FACT. Saddam had no ties with AL-Queda
FACT. Saddam had no capability to attack the U.S and posed no danger.
FACT. The Liberals supported the initiative to attack Iraq based on false information given to Bush. Once they learned the information was false, they went against it.

Refute that.

[BhsCrew]

I was just wondering if my posts were invisible. Mabye Jolly can't read my font. Someone tell me that I exist. Please.

[Essex]

you exisit BHS don't worry dude.

BTW is that a gnome in your avatar? if it is that's the most pissed off looking Gnome I've ever seen.

[Dragon's_Servant]

one more thing, before i go off, to get some work done.

Saddam did have WMD's at some point, right after the 1st gulf war.
So when he had them all the time(a not proven statement, btw) and he didn't do anything, why was he now, all of a sudden, a threat when he wasn't the last couple of years, nothing in iraq has really changed in that time.

since jolly is not going to make a reasonable response to this, i would like the other coservatives to give me their thought.

This is not another of my arguments to support my point, but just something i was wondering about.

Oh, and i have an idea. Let's ignore Jolly and show him how a sophisticated thread looks.

this post is supposed to be the beginning.
please, everyone prove me again, that a moron like that can't upset us permanently.

[BhsCrew]

one more thing, before i go off, to get some work done.

Saddam did have WMD's at some point, right after the 1st gulf war.
So when he had them all the time(a not proven statement, btw) and he didn't do anything, why was he now, all of a sudden, a threat when he wasn't the last couple of years, nothing in iraq has really changed in that time.

since jolly is not going to make a reasonable response to this, i would like the other coservatives to give me their thought.

This is not another of my arguments to support my point, but just something i was wondering about.

Oh, and i have an idea. Let's ignore Jolly and show him how a sophisticated thread looks.

this post is supposed to be the beginning.
please, everyone prove me again, that a moron like that can't upset us permanently.

But Jolly's the only Pro-war person here.
Fine.
This thread is closed until a pro-war person other than Jolly answers.

[Dragon's_Servant]

ok, everyone give me their thoughts, and ignore jolly

[Rthus]

You guys are just funny. Your opposition hasn't posted in a while now and your just going on and on. Hey, Bhs, I've been trying to get you guys to ignore Jolly, and if you haven't noticed I AM THE OTHER PRO-WAR PERSON HERE. Have you been reading this thread or just d#cking around with Jolly.

Anyways, we are never going to agree. And it really doesn't matter if we ever do, I just have to ask you guys. As liberals, what solution do you present for the Terrorism problem? How would you make life better in the Middle East? I honestly want to know if you guys have a better solution or just like sticking to your idealogy.

[Carnage-DVS]

Not invade countries based on half *** intelligence would be a start

[Rthus]

Ok, more negativity. Lets say I agree with everything you have to say and Bush is bad. What should he have done instead. We're talking long run here, what is the solution to the problem?

[BhsCrew]

You guys are just funny. Your opposition hasn't posted in a while now and your just going on and on. Hey, Bhs, I've been trying to get you guys to ignore Jolly, and if you haven't noticed I AM THE OTHER PRO-WAR PERSON HERE. Have you been reading this thread or just d#cking around with Jolly.

Anyways, we are never going to agree. And it really doesn't matter if we ever do, I just have to ask you guys. As liberals, what solution do you present for the Terrorism problem? How would you make life better in the Middle East? I honestly want to know if you guys have a better solution or just like sticking to your idealogy.

Sorry I thought you had signed off. Anyway...

Working with our present situation.
I believe that we can work with other countries to root out Al Qaida and of course rebuilding Afganistan is a good start to convince people that our intentions are sincere.
I believe that our best bet is probably apologize to our old allies for the faulty intelligence and ask them to help us from a more humble standpoint. Of course our troops are still going to be in Afganistan and Pakistan looking for Al Qaida. While I don't like the UN, having UN troops in Iraq would help diffuse some of the tensions in the place at the moment.
The main reason we can't get our allies in the Middle east to encourage more freedom in their countries is that the fundamentalists would dispose them if there ever were elections. Our best bet is to try to get Israel to make everything outside of their giant wall a Palistinian state. Even though it's not fully what the Palistinians want it would again help to soften anger against the US and Israel.
Our main objectives in the middle east should be to try to convince the people that we aren't their enemy so that freedoms can be allowed without causing massive revolutions. The main thing is to try to give the people in that region as much pride as possible. Every time people talk in that region they talk about US and Israel shaming them. They have lost a lot of wars to Israel and the US and there is still a lot of anger about that.

Right now other then getting some kind of Palitinian state and getting some peacekeepers in UN or NATO uniforms into Iraq there isn't much we can do for the western half the middle east.
In the eastern half we rebuild afganistan and try to root out the rest of Al Qaida.
The Saudi's should be able to help us as they and the Bin Ladens are old friends of the Bush family and the republican party and they would be the most likely leaders to start introducing democratic reforms into their countries if we asked them to.

[BhsCrew]

Ok, more negativity. Lets say I agree with everything you have to say and Bush is bad. What should he have done instead. We're talking long run here, what is the solution to the problem?

What he should have done is waited on Iraq until we had more money and we had gotten some foundation built in Afganistan. We still have Al Qaida to fully destroy and we need to work out some kind of Palestinian state. All could have been done without attacking Iraq.
Iraq would have had to fall eventually I just believe his timing and finess were off.

[Rthus]

I was just trying to stir the hornet's nest back up. Im watching something with Kerry on it on MTV so I'll respond in a minute.

[Rthus]

Nevermind its over. So I got a lot of ideas that everyone agrees on: Palestinian state, finishing Al Qaida, changing the culture in the Middle East. The question is how? Bush is taking a dramatic step by trying to democratize and economically develop a large, culturally significant nation. How would the liberals do it? Do the same thing but at a later date? Sacrifices needed to be made, it has to be done now. There will never be a perfect time.

So what specific solutions do people offer. I say it starts in Iraq, if Iraq works it will be a beginning and it will spread. I know you guys dont agree so I just want to know what you have to offer.

[Graav Wolfsong]

You make a valid point Rthus.

But a nation that basically embodies everything Iraqi people hate forcing democracy on them when they so obviously arent ready for it will just cause trouble.

You obviously dont know much about the troubles in the middle east aside from the 'American point of view' that youve seen on TV or read in the newspapers. Wich in my opinion is a very nearsighted, tunnelvision point of view.

This isnt just about Irak, who in fact is one of the more peaceful countries in the middle east.

The middle east has been in total chaos for what ? The last couple of thousand years ? (you know what I mean)

There is NO obvious, viable solutions to the trouble in the middle east.
Even if democracy spread to every last one of the middle eastern countries they would still hate each others guts and fight openly.
Dictatorships arent the root of the troubles in the middle east!
This has little to do with dictators or governments or countries or borders or oil, its about the fact that the different breeds of people have been taught to hate each other for years.
They have a deep rooted hatred for each other thats been passed down from generation to generation for hundreds and hundreds of years.
There is no rational thought put into any of that hatred, ask them why they hate eachother they will answer "because XXX killed XXX and my father hates them so I will hate those filthy dogs", ask them why they started fighting in the first place sooooo long ago most will say "I dunno".

The only ting the US can possibly attain is to give them a common enemy.

The way to 'fix' the middle east and make it a better place to live is for them to simply stop hating each other. And that wont happen any time soon, if ever.
And it definately is not a thing a western country can force on them.
They will all have to work it out between themselves and until they are ready to do that things will never be good in the middle east.

Thats my 2 cents anyway.

[Rthus]

Good point. All over the world societies hated each other for no reason. Look at Europe in the past century, millions of people were killed. Why? France and Germany hated each other? Hitler hated the jews? It is a fact that democratic nations go to war with eachother less that other nations. When the economies are strong they practically never go to war.

The Middle East can be both democratic and economically strong (from oil). Once people see their life will be better under democracy and the free market they will cast off their oppressive fundamentalist leaders who steal all their oil income. It will be long and difficult but it will happen.

Anyways, this thread is dead. Liberals just want to bicker and criticize. I have challenged them to put forth some constructive ideas and they have not. Why is the conservative the one standing up for the goodness of humanity? The liberals seem to think the people of the Middle East are hopeless. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

[BhsCrew]

Nevermind its over. So I got a lot of ideas that everyone agrees on: Palestinian state, finishing Al Qaida, changing the culture in the Middle East. The question is how? Bush is taking a dramatic step by trying to democratize and economically develop a large, culturally significant nation. How would the liberals do it? Do the same thing but at a later date? Sacrifices needed to be made, it has to be done now. There will never be a perfect time.

So what specific solutions do people offer. I say it starts in Iraq, if Iraq works it will be a beginning and it will spread. I know you guys dont agree so I just want to know what you have to offer.

I had no problem with Bush going after Iraq. There was enough of a surplus to do one big thing. Bush chose a trillion dollar cut of the income and estate taxes along with a reductiion of taxes on dividends. A long term Iraq plan and fixing social security were both other things that could have been done but Bush chose his tax cut. For him to pretend that we still have money to carry out the other two plans is either ignorant or false.

The Al Qaida thing is unconnected. It was something that was forced upon us. It is unrelated to Iraq and no matter what we spent the surplus on we would still have to deal with it.

The main thing Bush needs is a little humility. I realize that it is nice to rub your success in people's faces but it means that our allies will be few and our enimies will be more inspired. He chooses to take a heavy fist to whatever he does whether it is needed or not.

As for the liberals I can't speak for them. I used to be what we called a conservative until Bush redefined the term.

[Rthus]

The rest of the world was developing a dislike for the US long before Bush came along. Europe hates that US is the hegemon and basically runs the world (exaggeration). Everything we do seems ignorant and meant to rub it in their noses.

[GreenPenInc]

That a ragtag group of random forum-goers can't immediately provide a better solution, in no way validates the actions in question.

The Bush Administration went in with an excellent plan for deposing the government and winning the war. They apparently gave no thought to winning the peace. While the overthrow was something that had to be done eventually, it most certainly should not have been done without thought to the consequences. Only after a solid, workable, long-term plan had been formulated, should invasion even have been considered.

[Rthus]

They probably were short-sighted, but I propose the idea that they anticipated that the 'peace' would be deadly. They knew they would have tough times ahead but decided it must be done to bring about change. Afterall the people did welcome change, but once the minority of terrorists and insurgents starting attacking Iraqis instead of soldiers the people shut up real quick and are now afraid for their lives.

The long-term plan was to make sacrifices in order to make the world a better place. The transfer of power to the Iraqis is still taking place.

[BhsCrew]

The rest of the world was developing a dislike for the US long before Bush came along. Europe hates that US is the hegemon and basically runs the world (exaggeration). Everything we do seems ignorant and meant to rub it in their noses.

To an extent this was true but we had a great outpouring of sympathy after 9/11 especially in Europe. Bush somehow managed to squander it and now he has a negative approval rating in almost every country of the world. (except this one. Yet.) The trick was to not rub their noses in the fact that they were obsolete.

[GreenPenInc]

If they anticipated things being as they are now, and still invaded, then we move from negligence to malice.

[George Bush]

you know. i still wonder why he would choose Iraq instead of saudi arabia .

saudi arabia is horrible compared to iraq.

wanted to add this as well.
mabey he was settling an old vendetta instead of actually going and getting the terrorists in every place they are.

fact is the war WAS ill-advised to happen at the time it did because it SPLIT OUR FOCUS.
we go in and blow up everything looking for this insane idiot osama and then hey ! lets go blow up iraq and move the bulk of our forces there! :cheesy:

we shouldve finished the job in afganistan well before we ever did anything ANYWHERE ELSE. and then when we went somewhere else we shouldve went to SAUDI ARABIA.

[Rthus]

you know. i still wonder why he would choose Iraq instead of saudi arabia .

saudi arabia is horrible compared to iraq.
How so? You mean in terms of how they feel about us or what they do to their own people?

[GreenPenInc]

How about what they do to our people? Like, flying our planes into our buildings?

[BhsCrew]

you know. i still wonder why he would choose Iraq instead of saudi arabia .

saudi arabia is horrible compared to iraq.

He gave some reasons back before 9/11. These were just his personal reasons not the ones he told congress or the UN. I already posted them and offered my comments before so here it is.

1) Saddam is a brutal dictator who kills his own people. While it is true that the US was the one who put him in power, that was not G. W. Bush's decision at the time and Bush seems to really dislike Saddams killing fields.
2) "Saddam tried to kill my dad." While this isn't a good reason for a country to go to war, it is a perfectly good reason for GWB to hate Saddam.
3) Saddam is weak. Basicially this boils down to that out of all the evil leaders that Bush could potentially kill, Saddam seemed to be one of the easier ones to defeat, both because of his weak army and because of his peoples' strong hatred of him.
4) It would free up oil. The idea here is that a friendly government in Iraq would give us oil once we had rebuilt the country.
5) It would make Israel happy. Saddam has caused many problems for Israel and removing him would make their lives less stressful.

[BhsCrew]

you know. i still wonder why he would choose Iraq instead of saudi arabia .

saudi arabia is horrible compared to iraq.

wanted to add this as well.
mabey he was settling an old vendetta instead of actually going and getting the terrorists in every place they are.

fact is the war WAS ill-advised to happen at the time it did because it SPLIT OUR FOCUS.
we go in and blow up everything looking for this insane idiot osama and then hey ! lets go blow up iraq and move the bulk of our forces there! :cheesy:

we shouldve finished the job in afganistan well before we ever did anything ANYWHERE ELSE. and then when we went somewhere else we shouldve went to SAUDI ARABIA.

The families of Saud and Bin Laden are old friends of the Bush's and the republican party.
Besides, there is no proof that either of Saudi's main families had any connection with Osama and his plans.

[Dragon's_Servant]

too many posts, not enough time.
ok, i stated my point, and since it is probaby not gonna change, this will be my last post.

just what i think to something Rthus said.
What the US should now do, is to withdraw. They shouold keep close negotiations with Iraq, still support it, but withdraw the troops.
I mean, most people in Iraq are glad about the US being there(we just don't hear about it, because it isn't interessting, and therefore not on the news), but the troops still provoke a lot of violence and the biggest part is directed directly against them.
From now on let the iraqis handle their own buisness.
Sadam and most of his close officers and so on are captured. There is no danger of a new regime, only of more aggression against US troops.

this is the end of my (hopefully) last post, i hope i can withstand the urge to enter again and swear at and about jolly

[Rthus]

So if we had gone to war with Saudi Arabia you guys would have been happy? Ok, lets just go to war with Saudi Arabia next!!!!! Yeah!

You guys are delusional. You would be 10 times more pissed if we invaded Saudi Arabia. Since I started arguing this thread you have died off, your arguments are lame.

[Rthus]

too many posts, not enough time.
ok, i stated my point, and since it is probaby not gonna change, this will be my last post.

just what i think to something Rthus said.
What the US should now do, is to withdraw. They shouold keep close negotiations with Iraq, still support it, but withdraw the troops.
I mean, most people in Iraq are glad about the US being there(we just don't hear about it, because it isn't interessting, and therefore not on the news), but the troops still provoke a lot of violence and the biggest part is directed directly against them.
From now on let the iraqis handle their own buisness.
Sadam and most of his close officers and so on are captured. There is no danger of a new regime, only of more aggression against US troops.

this is the end of my (hopefully) last post, i hope i can withstand the urge to enter again and swear at and about jolly
Withdraw?!?!? That is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard. The gov't in Iraq isn't even established! It is anarchy. I cant even imagine what would happen if we withdrew. Once they have a gov't then we should withdraw.

[George Bush]

hey how bout a nice big cup of shut the **** up?
re-read my post. we had OTHER CONCERNS AT THE TIME THAT WE SHOULDVE TAKEN CARE OF FIRST INSTEAD OF SOME VENDETTA BUSH HAD.

idiot.

[Cale The Dark]

Actually, the UN is also good for something else: legitimacy. The vey thing the US needs above all else at the moment, and a commodity that will only become more valuable with the passage of time.

The UN is not obsolete. It's scarcely begun to come into its own.


the problem is that we either need a stong UN or no UN at all. what we have is a UN that is afraid to act for fear of starting the types of conflicts that they are there to prevent. a very small part of the blame for the war lies with the UN. if they had been more assertive it would have ruined bush's support for the war at home. i mean admit it, you anti-war guys were the minortiy right before we invaded all the way until it became clear that there were no WOMD. if the UN had said "ok, we are gonna give sadam more time, but if he still doesn't comply we are gonna invade and take him out of power" then bush would have been more or less forced to wait. personally i would prefer a stronger UN so that america doesn't have to be the world police anymore.

[BhsCrew]

Hey we don't need any insults from either side here. Just state your points and your arguements and be done with it. Insulting the other guy doesn't just makes people angry.

[BhsCrew]

the problem is that we either need a stong UN or no UN at all. what we have is a UN that is afraid to act for fear of starting the types of conflicts that they are there to prevent. a very small part of the blame for the war lies with the UN. if they had been more assertive it would have ruined bush's support for the war at home. i mean admit it, you anti-war guys were the minortiy right before we invaded all the way until it became clear that there were no WOMD. if the UN had said "ok, we are gonna give sadam more time, but if he still doesn't comply we are gonna invade and take him out of power" then bush would have been more or less forced to wait. personally i would prefer a stronger UN so that america doesn't have to be the world police anymore.

I like the idea of the UN, but right now the security council is controlled by the VETO members (France, Britian, USA, Russia, China). Adding the UN really just means adding the other three members of the security council that aren't already there (France, Russia and China). I frankly would want those three policing the world even less then I'd want the US to do it. The UN needs some kind of redisctricting if that is possible.

I would like it if NATO was reorganized to become a UN for all the democracies. The UN could still be there to prevent WWIII but we could have a force that represented all the democracies. It kind of does that now, but it could add aid and it could be expanded to fill the whole left by the now defunct security council of the UN.

[Danny5]

This will be the only thing I'll address.. I'm not going to waste anymore of my time.

Originally Posted by Essex
to invade a country Rthus yes you need to take as much time with it as you possibly can. Espeically given the heated environment a year (or was it two) after 9/11. You can't blame the UN for wanting to wait... again it looks like they were right no WMD.

The Un wanted 30 more days couldn't we have eaisly have started this **** in april instead of march?

Well, there's actually a pretty simple answer to this. We sent special forces in quite awhile before any of our visible, showoff, parade troops went in.

So while everyone tried to pursuade us at the last minute to pull out, no-one realized we had already gone in. It would have been pretty hard to remove the offered bribes, sniper teams, etc.

Now, personally, I think this was an incredibly brilliant strategy. Giant thumbs up to our military. I'm just a bit muddled on the reasons behind it.

Source, and very interesting read: http://www.forrelease.com/D20030413/nysu012a.P2.04132003114948.21333.html

[Reaver]

I like the idea of the UN
I don't. The more consolodated (sorry about the spelling, I'm just really tired right now) government becomes, the more corrupt it becomes. That's a Fact. I think the whole debate boils down to whether or not you think that Bush is competent and a man with morals or an idiotic a-hole with no regard for anything. Depending on your point of view you will interpret the facts accordingly. If you think hes a liar, the fact that there's no WMD means hes an SOB. If you think he has morals then he didn't lie and was simply going on the fact that Saddam was a major threat because there was the chance he had WMD. Personally I believe he simply acted in the best interests of America. We pulled no troops out of Afghanistan (at least not to my knowledge if you have info to the contray please post) if there was even a chance Saddam had the kinds of weapons we thought he had then we should have attacked him FAR quicker. It's better to be safe than sorry. Plus we get the added bonus of changing the middle east and freeing the Iraqis from an oppresive regime (again, not sure about the spelling).
It boils down to if you think Bush is an idiot everything you see is going to back that up and things that don't you're not going to see. If you think he's a good person everything you see is going to back that up and things that don't you're not going to see. Of course most people are probably not as extreme as that but you get the general idea.

[BhsCrew]

I don't. The more consolodated (sorry about the spelling, I'm just really tired right now) government becomes, the more corrupt it becomes. That's a Fact. I think the whole debate boils down to whether or not you think that Bush is competent and a man with morals or an idiotic a-hole with no regard for anything. Depending on your point of view you will interpret the facts accordingly. If you think hes a liar, the fact that there's no WMD means hes an SOB. If you think he has morals then he didn't lie and was simply going on the fact that Saddam was a major threat because there was the chance he had WMD. Personally I believe he simply acted in the best interests of America. We pulled no troops out of Afghanistan (at least not to my knowledge if you have info to the contray please post) if there was even a chance Saddam had the kinds of weapons we thought he had then we should have attacked him FAR quicker. It's better to be safe than sorry. Plus we get the added bonus of changing the middle east and freeing the Iraqis from an oppresive regime (again, not sure about the spelling).
It boils down to if you think Bush is an idiot everything you see is going to back that up and things that don't you're not going to see. If you think he's a good person everything you see is going to back that up and things that don't you're not going to see. Of course most people are probably not as extreme as that but you get the general idea.

Oddly enough when it comes to Bush, everyone I know is at one extreme or another. Something about the man doesn't leave much middle ground.
For me it all boils down to economics and I see a massive deficit, a President who fired the most trusted non-partisan secritary of the Treasury we've had in a while (Paul O'Niel) and replaced him with a nobody, and mostly I see a president who while is supposedly econimicially conservative but can't stop spending money.

Just out of curiousity does anyone realize that when president Bush spends massive amounts of money on everything from medicare to rebuilding foreign countries, this money doesn't come out of thin air?

I mean sure he's cutting taxes now, but eventually we are going to have to pay all this back. Most of the people on the forums are at the age where we are going to be just getting our careers started at the same time our taxes are going to triple just because this President can't figure out how to veto a spending bill.

Mabye I'm just imagining things. Mabye all the debt will magicially vanish one day and we'll all live happily ever after, but I don't think so.
Simply put I can't afford another four years of Bush. I never thought I'd say this but I'd vote for a liberal for President over Bush simply because the party fighting between a Democratic President and a Republican congress would keep spending low. As far as I'm concerned Bush is about as economicially conservative as Ralph Nader. At least Ralph Nader is honest about it.

[Chrizzle]

I'm Chrizzle and I'm new to these forums.

I was skimming down the pages and I noticed some interesting things here. Other than a strong democratic majority, I've seen that many of you aren't really researching what you're speaking of.

I've heard mentioned a few interesting untruths, such as the particularly misguided one that stated "the UN should have been more assertive." Even though the UN really has very little power over nations, I'd like to make it perfectly clear that we didn't completely ignore their requests. UN inspectors (incompetent in my mind) were sent to Iraq to search for WMD's but they left of their own free will. Remember that one of the contingencies of the UN resolution we agreed upon was to allow inspectors to search before we went to war.

Also, remember that Bush didn't take us to war, congress did per Bush's request. Giving Bush power to declare war on his own accord was no doubt a mistake. Though I am a Republican and I approve of the war, I think what congress did underminds Montesquieu's checks and balances that make this country work. Once again, let it be perfectly clear that the Iraqi war was bipartisanly approved.

That's all for now. I look forward to some interesting conversations with you, especially your pack leader, Eiger.

Out~

[theseus]

When I first read this i seriously thought that this was a joke. :lol:

The reason for the war, is because, the world is a better place for it. No honestly guys war helps the world. (catch the sarcasim?)

In my opinion 9/11 wasn't really a "big" event, sure it was sad and because people died, but It didn't effect me. Now the reason why it affected people some much was because it strike close to heart. Maybe you knew some who work there, heck it could have been you. Now i wonder how many people die in africa from aids a YEAR? Dont have the figures on hand but i'm sure its in the millions.

Ok rewind. 3000 white americans dead vs a million africans a year. hmmmm
the key world is "white americans". Who cares if black or colored people die, but if white americans die its a terrible tradgey.

Sorry to break it to your, but america isn't the best country in the world, nor does the fact that america have the ability to carpet bomb any nation into oblivion make to 'right'. In fact there are far more chines and indians than americans, but that right they're poor and colored.

Now i've read that killing Saddam was the good thing to do right jolly.rogers? Wrong, now He did do many bad things and deserved to be trialed (in a UN court not a biased Bagdad one) but was killing thousands of innocent iraqis the right thing to do? As well the iraqis now hate the west (gee thanks guys for making the rest of us look bad) and want to kill us, theres aleast 2 bombings in Iraq a week that I hear of, americans hear less becuase of the propaganda you guys get over there(could be wrong on that one),

Saddam was the most western ruler in the m.east, women were treated much better there than elsewhere in the m.east. Which is a good thing BTW

[theseus]

I'm Chrizzle and I'm new to these forums.

I was skimming down the pages and I noticed some interesting things here. Other than a strong democratic majority, I've seen that many of you aren't really researching what you're speaking of.

I've heard mentioned a few interesting untruths, such as the particularly misguided one that stated "the UN should have been more assertive." Even though the UN really has very little power over nations, I'd like to make it perfectly clear that we didn't completely ignore their requests. UN inspectors (incompetent in my mind) were sent to Iraq to search for WMD's but they left of their own free will. Remember that one of the contingencies of the UN resolution we agreed upon was to allow inspectors to search before we went to war.

Also, remember that Bush didn't take us to war, congress did per Bush's request. Giving Bush power to declare war on his own accord was no doubt a mistake. Though I am a Republican and I approve of the war, I think what congress did underminds Montesquieu's checks and balances that make this country work. Once again, let it be perfectly clear that the Iraqi war was bipartisanly approved.

That's all for now. I look forward to some interesting conversations with you, especially your pack leader, Eiger.

Out~


So the fact that the majority of a bunch of rich white men agreed makes it OK? don't think so.

BTW how big is congress?

Has anyone found ANY womd? No, just because the inspectors left doesn't mean that there are womd, in because they left of there own accord indercates to me that there aren't any.

EDIT: stupid phrase ole' the day, "Bush isn't that bad, he's just confused. Give a few decades and he'll come right"

[Danny5]

Or that they just didn't care...

And I'm going to take a wild guess here, theseus, but I'm willing to guess your black, mexican, or arabic. I don't bother with the actual ethnicities, since there are far to many. Instead, I just cram them all into 4 categories. Works quite well.

Or.. you're European.

"BTW how big is congress? "

Please, use google. And stop with the abbreviations.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

A million Africans a year die because they can't stop getting it on and spreading a disease.....noone is attacking them...this is self inflicted....
I don't know if there is any way out of it...except a cure....but we do help Africa with financial aid, food, medicine, etc.

And didn't I mention that your government voted on this war?....Now they don't agree with it...b/c they are trying to get votes.(liberals)

Did you ever watch their debates...when the question was asked....all of them supported it...except that Kusinich(mispel I know)....now..I might have voted for him---he stuck to his guns..I want a president that has a philosophy and sticks to it..
But why Kerry...he's an idiot.
How many issues did he vote for..that he is now speaking out against...
Many

[The.Jolly.Roger]

Umm...lets not make comments like that....

That bunch of rich men are YOUR government....they were chosen by US....what the hell are you talking about....how else do you govern?

I was wondering....why did they find so many gas masks?
Ummmm...I do think Bush did actually think there were WMD over there....
They just weren't sitting around saying....
"HMmmmm...lets think of an excuse to invade Iraq"
There is a thing called the CIA...and there was a strong indication from that agency that there were WMD. It has been documented that he has had anthrax..and mustard gas.
Ever heard of Persian Gulf Syndrome?
There were many reports from soldiers going through gas/chemical clouds during the first war.
So...what..did Saddam just turn over a new leaf and say..
"oh lets just get rid of these WMD..."
My opinion...I don't think so.

[Chrizzle]

Theseus, when you stated that we killed Sadam, I discounted any lingering credibility of your post, but you really aren't making sensible arguments to begin with. That African AIDS comment was completely misguided. Anyone familiar with demographic trends can tell you that trickle-down-induced demographic transition has historically been far more beneficial to the development of countries then colonialism. Whether it be through social Darwinism (thank God that's over) or the type of representative or economic colonialism you suggest, the detrimental qualities of dependency would far outweigh any benefits.

Anyone that isn't familiar with these subjects, please research them. Knowledge of these concepts is very important to every aspect of governmental debate. If you don't have the time to do research, request the information from me via a reply and I'd be happy to assist.

Out~

[The.Jolly.Roger]

Sorry I thought you had signed off. Anyway...

Working with our present situation.
I believe that we can work with other countries to root out Al Qaida and of course rebuilding Afganistan is a good start to convince people that our intentions are sincere.
I believe that our best bet is probably apologize to our old allies for the faulty intelligence and ask them to help us from a more humble standpoint. Of course our troops are still going to be in Afganistan and Pakistan looking for Al Qaida. While I don't like the UN, having UN troops in Iraq would help diffuse some of the tensions in the place at the moment.
The main reason we can't get our allies in the Middle east to encourage more freedom in their countries is that the fundamentalists would dispose them if there ever were elections. Our best bet is to try to get Israel to make everything outside of their giant wall a Palistinian state. Even though it's not fully what the Palistinians want it would again help to soften anger against the US and Israel.
Our main objectives in the middle east should be to try to convince the people that we aren't their enemy so that freedoms can be allowed without causing massive revolutions. The main thing is to try to give the people in that region as much pride as possible. Every time people talk in that region they talk about US and Israel shaming them. They have lost a lot of wars to Israel and the US and there is still a lot of anger about that.

Right now other then getting some kind of Palitinian state and getting some peacekeepers in UN or NATO uniforms into Iraq there isn't much we can do for the western half the middle east.
In the eastern half we rebuild afganistan and try to root out the rest of Al Qaida.
The Saudi's should be able to help us as they and the Bin Ladens are old friends of the Bush family and the republican party and they would be the most likely leaders to start introducing democratic reforms into their countries if we asked them to.

Keep dreaming......give em a baloon and an ice cream...and say please with sugar on top....

[The.Jolly.Roger]

Theseus.........

So...you basically just said..

paraphrasing here

" Kill Saddam?! Just because he killed thousands of his own people...WRONG"

That just doesn't sound right.
He needs to be dealt with.
All in all....Saddam wasn't much of a threat...I'll give you that.
But like I said...it was not a good time to be an enemy of the U.S.....
When 9/11 happened.....generally, the american people wanted payback...they wanted a response...and if you're George Bush and this kind of thing happens on your watch....something has to happen...just wasn't a good time to be an enemy....they should have done exactly as they were told to start with, and none of this would have happened

[The.Jolly.Roger]

sure thing. Genoside is wrong and evil I'll be damned if you didn't get one right there good for you here's a cookie.

Guess what buddy boy SADDAM DIDN'T HARBOR TERROISTS the terroists that are there now came after the war. If you can provide me with a real piece of evidence that shows that he harbored terroists then I will take that back but until then I'm taking away your cookie. (I will say Saddam did give money to the families of sucide bomers that was pretty crappy but that doesn't mean that he harbored them)

The major genoside event that people refer to is the gassing of a Kurdish town in 1988 while that is horrible why was nothing done before then by Bush the first? (in fact it happened June-September of 88 that falls under Reagans watch too) so yes he did it, but why did we have to go in now? Why wait nearly twenty years to do something about it? Not saying it's ok to let that slide but please answer me that or were you even alive in 1988?

Saddam didn't really pose a thread to us or our allies. He didn't have the resources to do that, like many have pointed out here. The sanctions not to mention the *** whiping he got in the Gulf War prevented Saddam from being a real honest to god threat. Trust me you ask Isreal who is the biggest thread to them and Iraq was pretty low on that list.

Our intersters are Oil and it's already be stated in this thread that a MAJORITY of our oil comes from SOUTHER AMERICA so no he wasn't hurting our intersters anyway. Besides we've been sucking the Saudi's cocks for oil for so long we didn't need Iraq was it a nice benfit yes but just that a perk.

Essex...get real...there were **** houses , people were murdered,,,there wasn't just one instance of genocide in that country...Saddam had many people murdered....are you trying to take up for Saddam?

Umm...what the hell?.....He may have paid suicide bombers families...but he didn't harbor them....I won't even comment on that..that was dumb..

He DID harbor terrorists...its an understood fact...and if you're gonna make me work and go find some stupid source on it..then FINE I WILL

He was a threat to kuwait and Israel....only because he tried to invade one...and he's right by the other one..and they are allies..which makes him a threat.

I never said anything about OUR interests in oil...wtf are you talking about...you need to get past your rage and stick to the issues...quit that liberal babble....I can tell you're mad because your typing is all messed up.

Did I call you dumb?...sorry..this is just a fun debate..lets not call names

[Ander]

Who cares if Saddam was a threat to Kuwait or Israel.... nobody cares about them anyway. Bush wanted to get Saddam cuz his daddy didn't do the job right... not because he wanted to hunt for WMDs lol get real

[The.Jolly.Roger]

That a ragtag group of random forum-goers can't immediately provide a better solution, in no way validates the actions in question.

The Bush Administration went in with an excellent plan for deposing the government and winning the war. They apparently gave no thought to winning the peace. While the overthrow was something that had to be done eventually, it most certainly should not have been done without thought to the consequences. Only after a solid, workable, long-term plan had been formulated, should invasion even have been considered.


Oh sure...they just packed up their bags and said...LETS GO..
I think they did think it out....and it ends up the same way either way you go....because you cannot change fanatics...people who will blow themselves up to kill you...you have to start with the tyrannical leadership get rid of that....provide the new government with the ways and means for a better way of life...and we are doing that...there is more energy in that country than they've ever had...more schools are open now then there have ever been..there will be a new democratic government taking over soon...we have a democratic government in the middle east now...those are just some of the good things happening as a result..and they will only get better....sure there are still fanatics and unrest..but that was unavoidable ..NO MATTER WHAT

[The.Jolly.Roger]

How about what they do to our people? Like, flying our planes into our buildings?


They were terrorists...no matter what country they are from they are TERRORISTS....do you think al-qaeda is composed of people from just one country...please get real.

[Direik]

The country;

- Inprison people without trial
- Is rampant with crime
- Where only the richest can afford to get into political power
- Needs to impose their own greatness on the rest of the world
- Is flooded with weapons
- Has weapons of mass-destruction, under the control of ONE man, the head of state
- Is ruled by fear

Yes, thats right, the glorious United States of America.

[Andarcel]

Well, that pretty much killed the thread. A breif rally by the forces of sanity before a tidal wave of sludge submerged it all.

[Mastgrr]

- Inprison people without trial

Good point. But in defence, Dick Cheney said "It's not like they're in for a petty car theft. It's terrorism."

- Is rampant with crime

The crimerate in the United States is of average when compared to other industrial countries. I have a source to back up my claims, just that I'm at work now.

- Where only the richest can afford to get into political power

As it is with the European Union? Face it, the three tops: Political, Militant and Industrial tops all consist of rich people. They're there because they're rich. Sad truth, but it's so in every industrial country. Hell, that even applies to China which consider itself to be communist.

- Needs to impose their own greatness on the rest of the world

It's under debate. Sure, fighting communism can be considered bad. But I don't think doing stuff like bringing Milosevic down or spreading the joy of free trade is bad at all.

- Is flooded with weapons

"Flooded" is a bad word. While guns obviously are more common in the US, not everybody in the US own a gun as many seem to think.

- Has weapons of mass-destruction, under the control of ONE man, the head of state

As does Japan, France, United Kingdom, Russia, North Korea...

- Is ruled by fear

...which is getting more and more common in other industrial countries too. As it is with obesity. The only difference is that the United States got it first and the rest of us are a bit behind, but we're closing in.

My town of 100 000 people is becoming more and more like the United States everyday. We have white suburbs, getting more and more supermarkets (forcing the small ones to close down) and everybody's getting fatter. It's just something that's inevitable.

[Reaver]

Oddly enough when it comes to Bush, everyone I know is at one extreme or another. Something about the man doesn't leave much middle ground.
For me it all boils down to economics and I see a massive deficit, a President who fired the most trusted non-partisan secritary of the Treasury we've had in a while (Paul O'Niel) and replaced him with a nobody, and mostly I see a president who while is supposedly econimicially conservative but can't stop spending money.

Just out of curiousity does anyone realize that when president Bush spends massive amounts of money on everything from medicare to rebuilding foreign countries, this money doesn't come out of thin air?

I mean sure he's cutting taxes now, but eventually we are going to have to pay all this back. Most of the people on the forums are at the age where we are going to be just getting our careers started at the same time our taxes are going to triple just because this President can't figure out how to veto a spending bill.


Well most spending measures are introduced and pushed by the democrats. Bush and the rest of the Republicans are just pushovers on many issues. So I'm not sure what would happen if there was a large Republican majority. Frankly, I would NEVER vote for Kerry, he seems like a waffling, arrogant, special interest cave-in, SOB. But thats a discussion for another time.

[Graav Wolfsong]

I just wanted to touch on some of the things said here in no particular order:

Forgive me if my train of thought is running out of control and I come up with some incoherent babbling, I'm tired and probably shouldnt post this but I will anyway because I'm bored. :cheesy:

And I will stray far far away from the topic at hand from time to time so feel free to completely ignore this post.

It simply baffles me when people rally behind their government without ever questioning its motives and morals.
Of all the countries in the world, the US has been the prime example of how a government can push public opnion in its favour because people just do what theyre told instead of making up their own mind, choosing blind patriotism and declaring its country the paragon of truth and justice. If they scratched the surface, they would see that it is not.
It is the peoples right and duty to question their leaders.

This is not a shot a conservative people in this forum btw, with the exeption of Jolly maybe. Its just another rant about the stupidity of SOME, not ALL pro war conservatists that buy into everything theyre told.


The US has more WOMD than anyone, Russia is about the only country even close and theyre pretty broke and more of an ally than a threat to western society.
Yet the US is picking on every one but its closest allies about WOMD because in its opinion only the US and its allies can have WOMD.
Naturally I have no proof of this but I would be surprised if the US has been true to the START treaty.
If you look at the last 100 years you will see that next to previously mentioned Russia(Soviet Union), North Korea and Israel, the US is among the most agressive nations in the world. I could mention other countries but most have been taught a valuable lesson and become deeply pacifistic.
The US have had a hand in just about every significant conflict in the world since WWII.
Sure, you can say, "But were America, we fight for all things good and just" but that just isnt true.
The US fights for its interests, good or bad, theyre just being hypocrits about it and is skilled at putting a nice spin on things by telling lies or half truths to its people and the world at large.
The US government has a nasty history with its "were right and everyone who disagrees is wrong" attitude.

Example: The Cold War.

In its quest to abolish communism the US spread false propaganda like "Communism is evil !", mainly because comminsm takes away alot of freedom in order to create a stable society.
This was the motivation for the Vietnam war, wich from a military standpoint the US won by the way but when they pulled out the NVA gained control and turned Vietman into a communist country anyway a few short years later.
That sure was money and lives well spendt.

The US even persecuted its own citizens if someone was even suspected to have any ties to communistic society, forcing them to 'name' others.
This is one of the darkest times in US history imo but it just goes to show what atrocoties the US govermnet has and is willing to commit.

How many people realized that communism had nothing to do with 'evil' during the cold war?
Or even now?

Its an economic ideology that, if guilty of anything is that its naive and idealistic to a fault. The root of communism is simply that people give up on some freedoms in order to work together for the greater good.
Communism in its purest form, without the corruption and opression many eastern leaders has brought to it is by many across the world, is considered a utopian society.

I did a quick search and picket the first links I found:

Link: http://www.geocities.com/~johngray/
Link: http://www.instant-essays.com/economics/capitalism-and-communism.shtml

However it has been pretty much established that communism just doesnt work without some capitalistic touches here and there, China is the only country thats been moderately successful.
Even Cuba has adopted a few capitalistic traits.

Captalism on the other hand is set up for the rich to get richer and for the strong and talented or flat out ruthless people to rise above the weak.
Personally I am against the extreme capitalistic system the US employs, even if it is extremely lucrative from a purely financial standpoint.
In my opinion the two things are equally bad.
Most countries have adapted an 'in between' stance (for some reason I cant remember what its called atm) wich is imo the right way to go.

Anyway: My point is, The US is not always 'the good guy', they just try to make themselves out to be, this long post was just to make ONE example. The US governments hands are just as dirty as the worst of dictators. The US was wrong then and they will be wrong again, and imo they are wrong now.
The war in Iraq was unnescessary and Saddam would not have been such a 'threat' if the US hadnt backed him in the first place. The Iraq war stinks of 'cleaning up their own mess' rather than 'Fighting for freedom and justice and liberation of an opressed people', once again we see obvious lies and half truths leading up to and during the war.

Oh man, I completely got lost along the way, but I'll post this anyway 'cus I'll be damned if I wrote all this for nothing.
I need a beer. :drink:

[ScytheNoire]

i thought political threads were banned??

this whole thing was about oil.
oil prices are sky high, Bush's oil partners, those who gave him the money to do this, are getting even richer.
Bush did this for one thing, money.
the President of the United States should not be doing things to simply make himself and his largest contributors richer while the rest of America and many other countries end up suffering.
Bush is evil, based on his self-rightous, greedy actions.

[Andarcel]

i thought political threads were banned??

this whole thing was about oil.
oil prices are sky high, Bush's oil partners, those who gave him the money to do this, are getting even richer.
Bush did this for one thing, money.
the President of the United States should not be doing things to simply make himself and his largest contributors richer while the rest of America and many other countries end up suffering.
Bush is evil, based on his self-rightous, greedy actions.
Really? And you do have some proof of this right? I'd hate to see idealogy put before the facts...

I think by now conservatives on this thread have been amply revenged for the humiliation dealt them by Jolly. Stupidity seems pretty even-handedly distributed.

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

i thought political threads were banned??

this whole thing was about oil.
oil prices are sky high, Bush's oil partners, those who gave him the money to do this, are getting even richer.
Bush did this for one thing, money.
the President of the United States should not be doing things to simply make himself and his largest contributors richer while the rest of America and many other countries end up suffering.
Bush is evil, based on his self-rightous, greedy actions.

I have to disagree with any links of Iraq to oil. If there were a surplus of oil, as in we went to Iraq to get their oil, prices would be lower not higher. Gas is much higher now and throught to rise over a dollar more during the summer.

The oil companies did not need Iraq in order to raise prices either. They can raise prices at pretty much any time they feel, which they have actually done many times.

Traditionally gas prices skyrocket anyway in times of war.

Was oil a factor? More than likely. Was it THE factor? Did Bush attack Iraq to steal their oil? Doubtful. Something like that is too easy to see if true. Bush, while being an idiot, still has an image to protect. The world would(further) be on the U.S. if we were running around taking down governments to steal their natural resources. The only countries who have ever done so are mainly impoverished countries. The U.S. certainly can't be considered impoverished even with our current trillion dollar defecit. We don't need oil that badly.

[Cale The Dark]

"This is the thread that never ends,
it just goes on and on my friends.
some people started reading it not knowing what it was,
and now they're stuck here reading it forever just because
this is the thread that never ends,
it just goes on and on my friends.
...
...
..."

~Lambchop on the War in Iraq threads

i've never seen a thread get this long this quick. 8 pages in like a day and a half. one thing these kind of threads do is show the shameful ignorance and thoughtlessness that goes into posting on BOTH sides. we have our jolly roger (and others) and you have your ScytheNoire (and others).

[Eiger]

3) I disagree that democracy in Iraq will spread to other countries in the middle east. A real functioning democracy requires an educated populace, an ability to work with those you fundamentally disagree with, a willingness to allow the winners to be in power for their term without attempting to overthrow them, a good economy helps, etc. I'm not too conversant here, but I generally believe that a culture needs to be ready and to want to have democracy which is fundamentally the sharing of power. I don't see that in the middle east - at least not on the necessary scale. I hope I'm wrong though...

I agree, it will be extremely difficult but it is worth it. Have you read my posts supporting the spread of democracy? If this will not work do you have a better solution?
Yes, I've read your posts and I generally agree with you. I don't have a better solution. I tend to believe that a certain combination of things are required for democracy to spread - in general these are an educated populace, an emerging middle class (wealth spread out somewhat), and a secular political system, in brief. The middle east in general fails on these for the most part. It'll be a long haul for democracy over there and I'm just wondering if it's even possible much less likely that a reasonable number of those countries can attain democracy in the next 100 to 200 years. How much effort is it going to take to get them there?

[Eiger]

Eiger:
1) Saying powerful Americans care nothing about the downtrodden except "when we want to go to war" is misleading AND untrue, a real two-for-one. First, it implies that suffering is invariably an excuse for going to war, rather than a reason for it. I invite to think about Somalia, the Balkans and Kosovo.

Secondly, America gives immense amounts of aid to developing countries without any military conflict. Oh, and there's Clinton's AIDS relief foundation, established while he was POTUS, which is making remarkable progress against third-world HIV. And the Marshall plan. Really, when you think about it, America does a remarkable amount of helping the downtrodden without going to war.

Bhs, Jolly has proven himself absolutely immune to logic, reason, or fact. He's been refuted several times, and ignored the refutation. In short, arguing with him is absolutely useless.
I know - you're right. You caught me spouting. I just feel that way sometimes.

And it's very clear that Jolly put up this thread for his own amusement and we all fell for it.... hehe

[Eiger]

I think what Eiger was talking about was how conservatives only seem to want to do that when there's something in it for them. The balkins somalia all that was under Clinton right? So was the aids foundation.

America has done nice things under Bush like helpiing in natural distasters, even when Iran refused the aid, but there's also a lot of not nice things going on that make us look bad.
Actually, Essex is correct in summing up my intent with those comments. I was trying not to generalize all conservatives so I put in "powerful Americans" instead. My bad - just didn't have the time to think of a way to state it better. Thanks Essex.

[Eharbad]

ive been avoiding this thread like the plague because i suspected it would contain reams of tripe about topics *many* of the writers are not in a position to talk about

but its now reached its 8th page with no end in sight!

any chance this thread could die?

and jolly.roger i hope someone decides to educate you someday, mayeb you and bush should take classes together because clearly you have the combined iq of a peanut...

i shall refrain from actually critising any particular or group of points because i could write for a page myself - plus i really cant be bothered to read all 8 pages... after i 1st i despaired...

anyway why not concentrate at the issues at hand? WoW!

p.s. jolly.roger please please please go to some kind of impartial political forum and repeat your arguements there... better yet write to the UN! im sure they would consider themselves more of a World Police than the US... eek began to venture down one of those points... must refrain from speaking mind... :drink: :drink: :drink: there calmed down a bit now

[Eiger]

BTW how big is congress?


There are 535 members in Congress. 100 in the Senate (2 from each of the 50 states) and 435 members in the House of Representatives (at least one from each state and DC, the rest based on population). Currently, the republicans hold majorities in both the Senate and the House.

Sorry if someone answered this already - I haven't read down to the last page yet.

[Eiger]

Well most spending measures are introduced and pushed by the democrats. Bush and the rest of the Republicans are just pushovers on many issues.
Hehe, sorry, popular misinformation courtesy of the Republican National Committee among others. Democrats haven't been the big spenders since Ronald Reagan took office. It's the republicans who've run up the budget deficit and the national debt. And I'd hardly call Bush or the rest of the republicans pushovers. They've proven themselves to be most wily and tenacious - time and again.

[George Bush]

eiger should clone himself and populate the earth.

[Rthus]

Yes, I've read your posts and I generally agree with you. I don't have a better solution. I tend to believe that a certain combination of things are required for democracy to spread - in general these are an educated populace, an emerging middle class (wealth spread out somewhat), and a secular political system, in brief. The middle east in general fails on these for the most part. It'll be a long haul for democracy over there and I'm just wondering if it's even possible much less likely that a reasonable number of those countries can attain democracy in the next 100 to 200 years. How much effort is it going to take to get them there?
I agree, it really does look pretty hopeless. But we cannot solve the terrorism problem or make the Middle East a better place unless we try. I think that if we put in enough effort (time and money) it will work out in the long run

[Eiger]

I agree, it really does look pretty hopeless. But we cannot solve the terrorism problem or make the Middle East a better place unless we try. I think that if we put in enough effort (time and money) it will work out in the long run
Ya, probably. But my question is - how much time and money? And who pays for it? I'm all for democracy in the middle east, no doubt. But I'm not willing to throw good money after bad, so to speak. I hope I'm wrong, but I just don't see it happening in our lifetimes.

I'm pessimistic on this one - I'd really hate to see us pour a bunch of money in there only to have a coup or a theocracy negate it all in 10 years.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

Why can't we just look at it like this.....
Maybe, just maybe, Bush was trying to do something good.

I'll tell you this...when 9/11 happened...Bush probably started licking his chops at the thought of the historical impact this would have...not to mention, during his tenure.
Every president wants to remembered for something great....I truly believe that this is mainly HIS attempt to engrave himself as a noted president in the annals of American history...and I believe his intentions are good...I'm sure he doesn't want to be remembered for something awful...so his intentions must be good.
This issue is split straight down the line, and no matter what arguments are made....liberals and conservatives will never come together on this...
Conservatives won't because they actually believe this war is RIGHT.
Liberals won't....because they are here to disagree with conservatives to get more votes..
Oh and Essex...that 1988 genocide thing you were saying....was the only genocidal act committed by Saddam?

No...if I remember correctly...during the first war....we kicked their azz and got out of dodge...quickly.
Now during that war...the Shiites started rebelling against Saddam...per U.S. infuence....and then we left...then they were slaughtered..thousands..
Now, granted ...we left them on their own...but isn't that what everyone wants?...and I think the 1st Bush was a bad president..so don't try to argue that point...I think GW is a good president and he WILL be reelected.

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

1) "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"

2) Please, PLEASE! Stop using... after everything... you... say. It... makes reading... through your posts... filled with pointless... dot placement... a chore. I'm not... trying to be rude here... but am genuinly asking you. Do you see... what reading a post... is like with these?

Periods and commas work just fine.

3) Saddam needed to be removed from power, no doubt about it. However filling the worlds heads with blatant lies and half truths is not the way to go. I would imagine Bush would have had much more world support if he merely made Saddam the target in this war, not some as of yet unfound weapons. If he would have worked the Saddam angle, he would have had plenty of proof of Saddams wrongdoings.

[Andarcel]

The Kurds rebelled. Saddam put them down. If that's genocide, so was the Civil War.

[Eiger]

Why can't we just look at it like this.....
Maybe, just maybe, Bush was trying to do something good.

I'll tell you this...when 9/11 happened...Bush probably started licking his chops at the thought of the historical impact this would have...not to mention, during his tenure.
Every president wants to remembered for something great....I truly believe that this is mainly HIS attempt to engrave himself as a noted president in the annals of American history...and I believe his intentions are good...I'm sure he doesn't want to be remembered for something awful...so his intentions must be good.
This issue is split straight down the line, and no matter what arguments are made....liberals and conservatives will never come together on this...
Conservatives won't because they actually believe this war is RIGHT.
Liberals won't....because they are here to disagree with conservatives to get more votes..
Oh and Essex...that 1988 genocide thing you were saying....was the only genocidal act committed by Saddam?

No...if I remember correctly...during the first war....we kicked their azz and got out of dodge...quickly.
Now during that war...the Shiites started rebelling against Saddam...per U.S. infuence....and then we left...then they were slaughtered..thousands..
Now, granted ...we left them on their own...but isn't that what everyone wants?...and I think the 1st Bush was a bad president..so don't try to argue that point...I think GW is a good president and he WILL be reelected.
Sounds like you're trying to convince yourself that Bush's intentions are good. It seems you really want to believe that. You'll figure it out eventually. Hopefully, prior posts in this thread have given you some food for thought.

As for the Gulf War aftermath - I believe you're referring to the Kurds. We might've done that to the Shiites, too, but I don't remember off the top of my head.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

Sounds like you're trying to convince yourself that Bush's intentions are good. It seems you really want to believe that. You'll figure it out eventually. Hopefully, prior posts in this thread have given you some food for thought.

As for the Gulf War aftermath - I believe you're referring to the Kurds. We might've done that to the Shiites, too, but I don't remember off the top of my head.

Yes it happened...I'm referring to the Shiites....I think it happened in Bosra?...but it did happen..look it up.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

The Kurds rebelled. Saddam put them down. If that's genocide, so was the Civil War.


No...THE SHIITES....and it wasn't a civil war...it was GENOCIDE.
You people...quit taking up for Saddam Hussein...wtf!!

[The.Jolly.Roger]

1) "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"

2) Please, PLEASE! Stop using... after everything... you... say. It... makes reading... through your posts... filled with pointless... dot placement... a chore. I'm not... trying to be rude here... but am genuinly asking you. Do you see... what reading a post... is like with these?

Periods and commas work just fine.

3) Saddam needed to be removed from power, no doubt about it. However filling the worlds heads with blatant lies and half truths is not the way to go. I would imagine Bush would have had much more world support if he merely made Saddam the target in this war, not some as of yet unfound weapons. If he would have worked the Saddam angle, he would have had plenty of proof of Saddams wrongdoings.

I believe we did make Saddam a prime target in this war....along with about fifty other of his constituents. Am I wrong?

[The.Jolly.Roger]

1) "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"

2) Please, PLEASE! Stop using... after everything... you... say. It... makes reading... through your posts... filled with pointless... dot placement... a chore. I'm not... trying to be rude here... but am genuinly asking you. Do you see... what reading a post... is like with these?

Periods and commas work just fine.

3) Saddam needed to be removed from power, no doubt about it. However filling the worlds heads with blatant lies and half truths is not the way to go. I would imagine Bush would have had much more world support if he merely made Saddam the target in this war, not some as of yet unfound weapons. If he would have worked the Saddam angle, he would have had plenty of proof of Saddams wrongdoings.


Furthermore, I believe you have it totally backwards. I don't think he could have just worked the "saddam angle" and made this happen. We can't just go around toppling regimes we do not like; they would have to be a danger to us, allies, interests, etc.
Hence, suspected WMD....SUSPECTED being the key word there, danger to our allies and interests, etc.,
But, targeting him and the rest of the demons in his regime WAS a prime goal of this war.
Where you been at?

[Eiger]

We can't just go around toppling regimes we do not like; they would have to be a danger to us, allies, interests, etc.
Hence, suspected WMD....SUSPECTED being the key word there, danger to our allies and interests, etc.,

Hehe, what's the difference? "Suspected" being the key word there. Sounds like going around toppling to me. WOMDs were as you say, only suspected, Saddam was hardly a danger to us, so I'd say toppling works pretty well. Thanks for helping to make that point.

[Eiger]

Yes it happened...I'm referring to the Shiites....I think it happened in Bosra?...but it did happen..look it up.Yes, you're correct. It was Basra in 1991. Though your comment that anyone around here is taking up with Saddam over a piddly little question is pretty obnoxious.

Here's the Basra story:
The 1970s brought the rise of the secular Sunni Muslim leader Mr. Hussein. He climbed to power against the backdrop of growing revolutionary fervor among the Shiite Islamic clergy, especially in neighboring Iran. Launching a vicious crackdown, Iraq murdered five senior Iraqi Shiite clerics in 1974, eight more in 1977, and killed the country's senior Shiite cleric and his sister in 1980.

All the while, Iraqi troops deported some 200,000 suspected Shiite activists to Iran, summarily dumping them over the border and stripping them of their property and nationality. Thus, many Shiites were overjoyed when, after ousting Mr. Hussein's forces from Kuwait in 1991, President Bush's father called on Iraqis to rise up and depose the dictator themselves. They assumed this meant U.S. troops already on hand would protect them. Instead, Mr. Hussein's army was permitted to quell the uprising with helicopters and heavy weapons, killing an estimated 20,000 Shiite fighters.

The rest of the article, which is a pretty good summary of Shiites history of betrayal in Iraq as far as I can tell, can be found here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/881834/posts

[Andarcel]

Like I said, if that's genocide so was the Civil War.

[BhsCrew]

Like I said, if that's genocide so was the Civil War.

The Kird thing wasn't genocide because Saddam never actually tried to kill every Kird in existence. He just put down a rebellion.

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

I believe we did make Saddam a prime target in this war....along with about fifty other of his constituents. Am I wrong?

Afterward yes. The reason for our invasion was Saddam harboring terrorists and WMDs. After neither could be found, Saddam was evil and needed to be removed from power. His weapons posed a threat. Bushs arguements in the U.N. 90% pertained to WMDs.

Furthermore, I believe you have it totally backwards. I don't think he could have just worked the "saddam angle" and made this happen. We can't just go around toppling regimes we do not like; they would have to be a danger to us, allies, interests, etc.
Hence, suspected WMD....SUSPECTED being the key word there, danger to our allies and interests, etc.,
But, targeting him and the rest of the demons in his regime WAS a prime goal of this war.
Where you been at?

I didn't say we wanted to kill him because we didn't like him. He has numerous crimes against humanity and his own people under his belt. THAT should have been the angle here. Not suspected WMDs.

[Dark Knight]

:cheesy:I wish everyone would get off the Bush bashing train and get real. I don't know if anyone remembers or not, but, not too long ago thousands of people were killed as was a great spectacle of American culture. This is not excusable, and someone had to pay.
"LOL"

:cheesy:Why wouldn't Saddam be suspected....he constantly spoke out against America, and you just can't do that in such a sensitive situation, or your country might get blown up.
"LOL" and "WTF".

Anyone who thinks Iraq did not have Weapons of Mass Destruction..is just fooling themselves. He didn't let inspectors in, he broke UN policy...other countries like France did not want in this war..Solely BECAUSE THEY HAD OIL INTERESTS/CONTRACTS in that country and invading it would compromise them.
Where are they?

:cheesy:This country stands for something very good--freedom/liberty etc....it also happens to be the most powerful country in the world by far--I think it is our responsibility to police the world in some fashion to prevent things like genocide, etc.....We cannot let the world go to #@%# around us until it caves in on us........as it did on 9/11...Iraq needed to be taken care of and Bush did that..we liberated that nation...the Bush Bashers only point out the bad things about what is going on in Iraq right now--nothing is perfect---they forget to mention all the good things happening there as a result.
Okay I'm generally worried now. Every time I think the quality of "politics" posts in this forum can go no lower, I am disproved.

:cheesy:Any soldier there will tell you that they are proud to be an American soldier, and that they are proud of what they are doing in Iraq.....they will also tell you that they are proud of their president and agree that their purpose is legitimate there. In times such as these...it's important that we rally behind our leader and trust the right thing is being done..I think it's great to liberate people from tyranny..and due to our status in the world...it IS our responsibility to make sure no humans have to go through that.....We are all human, no matter where we are in the world.
Go read 1984. Wars dont automatically make your government "right", and people who have other opinions on said wars aren't automatically unpatriotic or subversive. "Someones gonna pay -tehy aer foreiners get thenm!!!111" isn't a particularly intelligent viewpoint.

[Cale The Dark]

As much as i would like to believe otherwise, do any of you truly believe that if bush had only focused on what sadam did to his people that america would have supported him? i mean, killing innocents is bad, but when it is an innocent half-way around the world vs. your son/husband/friend going to war i don't think the majority would have been able to support that. The UN has known what was going on (as have we) for years and they did nothing. i don't see why that would have changed. fact is that unless sadam was a threat to us or another country...we couldn't touch him. that is why bush had to give sadam the appearence of a threat.

what do you think?

edit~ at some point someone has said that we made up propaganda to make communism evil when it wasn't (can't remember who). Joseph Stalin killed more people than hitler and you wonder where we got the idea?

[BhsCrew]

As much as i would like to believe otherwise, do any of you truly believe that if bush had only focused on what sadam did to his people that america would have supported him? i mean, killing innocents is bad, but when it is an innocent half-way around the world vs. your son/husband/friend going to war i don't think the majority would have been able to support that. The UN has known what was going on (as have we) for years and they did nothing. i don't see why that would have changed. fact is that unless sadam was a threat to us or another country...we couldn't touch him. that is why bush had to give sadam the appearence of a threat.

what do you think?

edit~ at some point someone has said that we made up propaganda to make communism evil when it wasn't (can't remember who). Joseph Stalin killed more people than hitler and you wonder where we got the idea?

While you're completly right about us knowing about the atrocities and the WMB (we sold them to him), I have to disagree that Bush had to lie to us. There are lots of good things we could do that people won't support because we all care about ourselves first. However if an idea (like going to war in Iraq) is really a good idea then it should be possible to convince congress and the US populace that it is a good idea based on the facts and merits of the case.

Bush could have made a reasonable case to invade Iraq based on the various actual reasons to do so. Instead he chose to lie and make up new reasons. The main problem with the attack on Iraq is that America tries to not attack other countries unless they attack us. We've had lots of fake attacks to get us into war, but until now we hadn't had a blatent act of regieme change by the US army (usually we go through the CIA or another country).

[theseus]

In my opinion we must agree to disagree. Its obvious that no one is going to back down.

"Only a fool agrues with a fool"

[BhsCrew]

In my opinion we must agree to disagree. Its obvious that no one is going to back down.

"Only a fool agrues with a fool"

I'm going to have to disagree with your statement. As people disagree with me and give reasons they cause me to try to prove their reasons wrong. This causes me to rexamine my beliefs and become a more intelligent human being. Were I forced to stop arguing altogether then my opinions would stagnate and my beliefs would never be challenged. I would cease to learn and adapt and at some point my ideology would come up against something that it couldn't prove wrong.
However at this point I would be so locked into my set of beliefs that I would either pretend that the problem didn't exist or it would cause me to have a mental breakdown.

The day I stop debating, learning, and refining my opinions will be the day I die. It is because of this that I must not agree to disagree and I welcome all debate.
So I'm sorry Thesues but I can't agree to disagree, and therefor I will have to disagree with you.

[Danny5]

Well, I'm too lazy right now to read the other 2 pages of the thread... so I'll respond to Graav Wolfsong, and point out a few of the "discrepencies" I saw.

"This was the motivation for the Vietnam war, wich from a military standpoint the US won by the way but when they pulled out the NVA gained control and turned Vietman into a communist country anyway a few short years later."

Yes, from a military standpoint we actually had quite a victory. And we didn't just "Pull Out" and leave them to fend for themselves. We signed an international peace treaty, as did the NVA. After this was secured, we left the country.
Ooops, guess what, the NVA didn't do a damn thing it said it would.


"China is the only country thats been moderately successful."

China.. Communist... Succesful... Hahahahaha.
The Chinese make more of a mockery of Communism than we ever had in our Cold War days. As did the Russians....


"The US was wrong then and they will be wrong again, and imo they are wrong now. "

Aha, now here is a very nice phrase. But really, as they say, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt." Yeah, that definately applies here. It's one of the reasons I have problems with protestors. They never actually get anything done.

[Andarcel]

Cale, I highly doubt Americans would have supported the war for those reasons. But think about it: that means that, if Americans had actually been informed about Iraq, it would have been highly unpopular. The war was never actually approved by a knowledgeable American public, or a knowledgeable Congress for that matter. T o my mind, that makes it undemocratic and unconstitutional. Now, whether Bush was equally misled is another topic altogether.

Bhs -

In peacetime, you might have been right. But it's hard to imagine worse-timed war than Iraq. Or one worse-conceived.

You've referred to Europe a obsolete a number of times. Sorry, they're the only thing keeping China from surpassing us. Without them as trading partners, Organski's projections look likely to come true.

[BhsCrew]

Cale, I highly doubt Americans would have supported the war for those reasons. But think about it: that means that, if Americans had actually been informed about Iraq, it would have been highly unpopular. The war was never actually approved by a knowledgeable American public, or a knowledgeable Congress for that matter. T o my mind, that makes it undemocratic and unconstitutional. Now, whether Bush was equally misled is another topic altogether.

Bhs -

In peacetime, you might have been right. But it's hard to imagine worse-timed war than Iraq. Or one worse-conceived.

You've referred to Europe a obsolete a number of times. Sorry, they're the only thing keeping China from surpassing us. Without them as trading partners, Organski's projections look likely to come true.

I'm against the war in Iraq, you must have missed the last 8 pages of this thread. Anyway I agree that the war was badly times and badly concieved.

Europe isn't obsolete, but countries like France, Britian, or Belgium don't have nearly the power that they used to. Of course they're still important, but the governments of those countries need to realize that they don't have the size or the resources to be as powerful as they want to be. Most of Europe figured that out a long time ago and countries that focus on themselves like Switzerland, denmark, sweeden, and so forth aren't having the same problems as the ones that are still trying to influence the world.

[Andarcel]

No, Bhs, I was refering to

While you're completly right about us knowing about the atrocities and the WMB (we sold them to him), I have to disagree that Bush had to lie to us.

There's no way Bush could have sold Iraq with accurate information.

[BhsCrew]

No, Bhs, I was refering to



There's no way Bush could have sold Iraq with accurate information.

You're right. My point is that if there's no way to sell something without lying it means that whatever your selling shouldn't be bought. Bush's best arguments wouldn't have sold the war which means that the war was probably not in the best interest of the American people.

[Eiger]

As much as i would like to believe otherwise, do any of you truly believe that if bush had only focused on what sadam did to his people that america would have supported him? i mean, killing innocents is bad, but when it is an innocent half-way around the world vs. your son/husband/friend going to war i don't think the majority would have been able to support that. The UN has known what was going on (as have we) for years and they did nothing. i don't see why that would have changed. fact is that unless sadam was a threat to us or another country...we couldn't touch him. that is why bush had to give sadam the appearence of a threat.

what do you think?

edit~ at some point someone has said that we made up propaganda to make communism evil when it wasn't (can't remember who). Joseph Stalin killed more people than hitler and you wonder where we got the idea?
Can't argue with the main point on Saddam.

The edit thingy - only thing I have to say is don't confuse ideology with the man. Joseph Stalin was not a good representative for communist ideology, just a butcher who happened to live in the Soviet Union at a time when it was Communist. Just as you wouldn't say Jimmy's Swaggart and Bakker are good representatives of Christian ideologies.

We got the idea that Communism is evil because it's an atheist ideology - which gives our politicians and businessmen the perfect way to exploit public opinion in a religious nation against it.

Disclaimer - I'm a dyed in the wool capitalist - just making a comment to keep the record straight.

[Eiger]

I'm going to have to disagree with your statement. As people disagree with me and give reasons they cause me to try to prove their reasons wrong. This causes me to rexamine my beliefs and become a more intelligent human being. Were I forced to stop arguing altogether then my opinions would stagnate and my beliefs would never be challenged. I would cease to learn and adapt and at some point my ideology would come up against something that it couldn't prove wrong.
However at this point I would be so locked into my set of beliefs that I would either pretend that the problem didn't exist or it would cause me to have a mental breakdown.

The day I stop debating, learning, and refining my opinions will be the day I die. It is because of this that I must not agree to disagree and I welcome all debate.
So I'm sorry Thesues but I can't agree to disagree, and therefor I will have to disagree with you.
Hear! Hear! Well said!

[Rthus]

No, Bhs, I was refering to



There's no way Bush could have sold Iraq with accurate information.
Well the information was accurate at the time. Even the UN agreed war was needed (they passed a final resolution warning Saddam) but they wanted one more resolution and a little time. There is of course no reason for this extra time but it did allow Saddam more time to prepare for the inevitable invasion, inevitable because that final deadline had been passed.

Why did the UN approve this deadline for war? Because all the evidence pointed to Saddam having WMDs. Either Saddam destroyed or moved the WMDs out of country or he thought he had WMDs because his scientists/military lied to him about their capabilities to save their butts. Maybe if Clinton hadn't practically disabled the CIA we would have had the human inteligence to know this. As it was all the evidence pointed to WMDs and the UN acknowledged this.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

[QUOTE=Dark Knight]"LOL"


"LOL" and "WTF".


Where are they?


Okay I'm generally worried now. Every time I think the quality of "politics" posts in this forum can go no lower, I am disproved.


Go read 1984. Wars dont automatically make your government "right", and people who have other opinions on said wars aren't automatically unpatriotic or subversive. "Someones gonna pay -tehy aer foreiners get thenm!!!111" isn't a particularly intelligent viewpoint.[/QUOTE

Look....the point is...don't f**k with the United States...
And Bush made that point quite well
And lol...wtf...youre dumb
I'm a nationalist....as nationalist as nationalist can be....I have a radical pride for this country...
Besides....get real...everyone wanted this war..they were itching for it.
I bet all your eyes were glued the the T.V. for about five months..cmon

[BhsCrew]

[QUOTE=Dark Knight]"LOL"


"LOL" and "WTF".


Where are they?


Okay I'm generally worried now. Every time I think the quality of "politics" posts in this forum can go no lower, I am disproved.


Go read 1984. Wars dont automatically make your government "right", and people who have other opinions on said wars aren't automatically unpatriotic or subversive. "Someones gonna pay -tehy aer foreiners get thenm!!!111" isn't a particularly intelligent viewpoint.[/QUOTE

Look....the point is...don't f**k with the United States...
And Bush made that point quite well
And lol...wtf...youre dumb
I'm a nationalist....as nationalist as nationalist can be....I have a radical pride for this country...
Besides....get real...everyone wanted this war..they were itching for it.
I bet all your eyes were glued the the T.V. for about five months..cmon

I'm curious why you put all the ... in your posts. You don't need them and they break up your sentances making you seem less eloquent.

Not everyone wanted this war as there were a significant number of protestors around the country. Personially I can say that my life didn't stop for 5 months so I could watch us bomb some third world country into the ground.

[theseus]

The day I stop debating, learning, and refining my opinions will be the day I die. It is because of this that I must not agree to disagree and I welcome all debate.
So I'm sorry Thesues but I can't agree to disagree, and therefor I will have to disagree with you.

Dude its theseus not thesues ok? ones a hero, ones a figment of your imagination. Also its obvious that the war was wrong so I guess the pro war crowd are just arguing to save face.

Either that or they're warmongering meglomanics. (spelling??)

[Carnage-DVS]

[QUOTE=Dark Knight]"LOL"


"LOL" and "WTF".


Where are they?


Okay I'm generally worried now. Every time I think the quality of "politics" posts in this forum can go no lower, I am disproved.


Go read 1984. Wars dont automatically make your government "right", and people who have other opinions on said wars aren't automatically unpatriotic or subversive. "Someones gonna pay -tehy aer foreiners get thenm!!!111" isn't a particularly intelligent viewpoint.[/QUOTE

Look....the point is...don't f**k with the United States...
And Bush made that point quite well
And lol...wtf...youre dumb
I'm a nationalist....as nationalist as nationalist can be....I have a radical pride for this country...
Besides....get real...everyone wanted this war..they were itching for it.
I bet all your eyes were glued the the T.V. for about five months..cmon


You sir, are why condoms are necassary in this day and age.

[Adonis]

I'm from New Zealand (aka Middle Earth.. god.. the level of patriotism in this country has SKYROCKETED since those films, it's quite disgusting). The thing that worries me (and the majority of the rest of the world, ie not America) is just how much fanatacism is attached to your political system. Before anyone gets any ideas about what I'm actually talking about, this is not an anti-American rant. J.R. keeps saying, "This is AMERICA" we stand for freedom and liberty and well.. all the good stuff really. Fine and dandy, but democracy doesn't make people free. Are you free from money? are you free to do whatever you like, whenever you like? sprout wings and fly to canada maybe? Freedom and liberty aren't quite the easily definable subjects that such casual use of words that I've seen used would lead poeple to believe.

Last night on the news I saw images (edited images, but still really disturbing, and I'm not easily disturbed) of a mob that had blown up some American CIVILIAN suv's.. dragged their burning corpses from the wreckage, mutilated, and strung them up. Those people.. were'nt interested in democracy. Bush.... ****'ed up, but that's not the point, the point is that somehow an idiot like him was elected in the first place. The people of Iraq people would have liberated themselves when they were ready. Remember the USSR?

My point? not everyone has the view that democracy is this big mystical thing that solves everybodies problems. Actually I think that while it is the best availiable at the moment, it's quite outdated and someone needs to come up with something new.. quickly for preference. Of course this would require the grass roots of all the countries in the world to undergo quite a revolution, your constitution would have to go for starters.

The **** party was popular in germany through the use of propaganda, and for a large portion of a populations public opinion pretty much comes down to a propaganda war. If you're still not convinced.... I'd just like to say... <arny voice> "I'll be back" </arny voice>

I LOVE watching the West Wing, brilliant show, I really wish it worked like that, but it doesn't. My country has it's share of stupid politicians who get in by minipulating public opinion as well, luckily our size limits the amount of stupidity. Plus we don't have a military. Yea.. you can invade us if you like.. you can have our.. umm.. sheep.. just don't take Peter Jackson!

Go ahead, be proud to be who you are, and yes, even be proud to be an American, just don't be proud of some peice of paper that some people cooked up a few hundred years ago.

Democracy can't SOLVE problems, it's the result of PROBLEM's that have ALREADY been solved.

If you're American and don't have the "yay democracy" sentiment I apologise for generalising. If the CIA are reading this.. no.. I'm not a Terrorist.. FREEDOM AND LIBERTY! FREEDOM AND LIBERTY! :buddies: ..


*edit* OMG! the word N A Z I is banned? that's a little bit... anal? isn't it? of course I'm sure the forum will prolly filter out that word as well.

*edit#2* OK... that's WEIRD. Anal's allowed, but not ****. I'll stop commenting on the rules of the forum now.

[Drakeon]

I have nothing to add to this debate, just thought it was freaking astounding that this thread got to 11 pages long (i have 20 posts per page) in around 2 days.

[the_guse]

I never read through to all the posts, cuz damn ppl 9+ pages?!
heres my opinion:
Bush aside, Iraq HAD WMD's. that is a fact. he used them against Iran. He used them against his ppl. where are they now? there's only one person who knows the answer to that, and the bastard keeps saying they are all gone. That's hopefully true. I would be happy knowing the evil tyrant used up all his WMD's and no longer has them. Sadaam is an evil man. This is a fact. He murdered hundreds of thousands of ppl. I didn't say hundreds of ppl, or thousands of ppl. I said hundreds of thousands of ppl. I'm not going to get into his opression, and torture of his own ppl.
--What I don't agree on:
First, the timing of the war. We should of removed Sadaam from power 13 years ago during the first gulf war. We should of concentrated more on Bin Laden. I still think We should. Second, I'm not happy with the way the war was handled. The first thing I would of done if I were incharge of the war would be to close down the borders. then, after the capital fell, i would of appointed an Iraqi as the speaker of the occupation. That didn't happen untill just reciently. Third, there was an obvious faliure on intelligence. Someone needs to take responsibility. That someone should be the person in charge. The person who made the decision to goto war with Iraq. That person should be Bush. Instead of doing this, he launched an investigation on the reason for the intelligence failure. Then pointed fingers at his Election opponent saying if Kerry were in charge, the intelligence would of been worse. I think he should stop pointing fingers at everyone else, and do what a commander in chief should do: take responsibility for those under your command.

[TheDagdaMor145]

well, i just wrote a post that was several pages long, and it took so long to write that i was logged out. instead of writing it all again, ill just summarize.

i think that the nearly 4,000 dead iraqi civilians who were killed before the 'end of the major conflict' would disagree about everyone wanting the war. by the way, another 10,000 iraqi troops were killed in that time. it took us a few months to kill far more iraqis than saddam did in 20 years.

the point is, there is a reason war is only used as a last resort. and there is a reason the world didnt want to go to war. the ravages of a war are not limited to what you see on tv. the 600 coalition members are not the only ones who have died.

and the weapons inspectors for the UN were not idiots. they do not simply look through papers and walk around plants doing nothing. these people take tests of the air, metals, glass, soild, pretty much everything else around that they can test, looking for any of the tell tale signs of the trace elements that are left behind by making the agents of wmd.

if you want an example of how sensitive these tests are, remember a few months ago when the senate was shut down because a letter tested positive for poisonous materials? they found out that the poisonous materials were actually just a biproduct of the normal manufacturing of the PAPER, and was within safety standards. these are highly sophisticated tests that are very accurate.

i do not think that george bush understood the consequences of his actions before the war. and he certainly did not even bother to look at the evidence that the world and his own cia provided him.

[Graav Wolfsong]

The edit thingy - only thing I have to say is don't confuse ideology with the man. Joseph Stalin was not a good representative for communist ideology, just a butcher who happened to live in the Soviet Union at a time when it was Communist. Just as you wouldn't say Jimmy's Swaggart and Bakker are good representatives of Christian ideologies.

We got the idea that Communism is evil because it's an atheist ideology - which gives our politicians and businessmen the perfect way to exploit public opinion in a religious nation against it.

Disclaimer - I'm a dyed in the wool capitalist - just making a comment to keep the record straight.

Yes ! I think you explained it a lot better than I would have. Thank you.

Cales comment on Stalins actions making Communism evil kind of proved my point on the misinformation given to the public.


"China is the only country thats been moderately successful."

China.. Communist... Succesful... Hahahahaha.
The Chinese make more of a mockery of Communism than we ever had in our Cold War days. As did the Russians....

China has considered themselves a Communist country a long time, so I dont understand your 'mockery' comment. In recent years it has opened up a lot for free trade and such but is still considered communist.
You also seem to imply that China is not a successful country wich is just plain wrong. The average persons quality of life in China is not very good but the country itself has made huge leaps forward, especially after the cold war ended.

I realize this is completely beside the point we were debating so there is really no need to point that out.

[Evil Git]

Lol jolly.roger :lol:

How naive can one person be allowed to be? I mean, you're saying that bush has a philosophy, maybe, but is it a good one? dubya's new industrial plan is going to raise the CO2 level in the atmosphere by 30% over what it was for about forty years ago and not 6% under as it was the deal in somekind of treaty (sorry can't remember the name of it at the present)

You're saying that there are womd but i haven't seen 'em yet.... Please give us all some documentation on that the weapons are there if you're so certain. :spy:

And now i'm gonna leave this thread and never look back ( as you said in an earlier thread but i'm prolly as good at saying one thing and doing the other as you and dubya are) :bow:

P.S: This post was not made to insult anyone...

[Eiger]

Well the information was accurate at the time.
Reference is to WoMDs prior to Iraq War.

Logical fault - Inaccurate information can never have been accurate. I'd say a better wording would be "best available information at the time". Nevertheless, the more important issue is whether or not the best info available was sufficiently vetted and corroborated and whether it was good enough information to go to war on. Many would argue that in order to support a war, it would have been prudent to get better information than was available at that time before proceeding with war.

[Eiger]

Go ahead, be proud to be who you are, and yes, even be proud to be an American, just don't be proud of some peice of paper that some people cooked up a few hundred years ago.
While I can see the point of much of your post, this part really caught my eye. I'm assuming that you are referring to our constitution which forms the basis of our democracy and form of government. While every form of government certainly has its flaws, I'll take democracy any day of the week. What are the alternatives? Despotism, Communism, Anarchy, Fascism, a theocracy perhaps?

Anyway, I'm not a nationalist - at all, however, I am very proud of our constitution which provides for as free and open a society as the world has known and seeks to minimize the government's power over its people's daily lives. Now it's certainly not without fault, as no document can be, and interpretations of it have varied significantly over the years. But with this more than 200 year old document as a basis we have had a very stable government and society with a strong common basis in values - as a nation, which has allowed us to evolve policy, progress, and thrive. Our founders "cooked up" a damn fine piece of paper in my mind...

[The.Jolly.Roger]

You know, I really hate the argument that......people die in war?
You're saying that we should not go to war because people die in war?
That just happens, and a soldier knows what his duty is, and the risk involved.
Their purpose was legitimate, so they did not die pointlessly.
You know, if we can liberate a country with only losing 500 soldiers---what else could you want?
It's not like WW2 or Vietnam, where we lost so much more.
Oh, and that reminds me----France blows----how many times do we have to bail them out. They should be at our feet in every decision we make.
And if you don't know how we've bailed them out....then don't respond to this post and get out of the thread.


And please, don't cut on the "document" that has made this country the most thriving and powerful country today.

BUSH ROCKS!!!! CHH CHINGG

[TheDagdaMor145]

You know, I really hate the argument that......people die in war?
You're saying that we should not go to war because people die in war?
That just happens, and a soldier knows what his duty is, and the risk involved.
Their purpose was legitimate, so they did not die pointlessly.
You know, if we can liberate a country with only losing 500 soldiers---what else could you want?

perhaps i did not do a good job in explaining my point. im sure i did it better in the version that was accidentally lost in cyberspace.

great, a soldier dies in war. they knew what they were doing, and they fought bravely. that was not what i was talking about.

i was talking about the 4,000 iraqi CIVILIANS that died in 2 months by us bombing the hell out of iraq from a distance. they never signed up to fight. they never wanted to die for this 'cause'. the military and government chalks it up to normal accidental casualties. but if it is so normal, we should have considred that before we decided to go to war. but honestly, the government doesnt even care that what was done.

and on the ideological standpoint of liberating the country, that is just wrong. great, they no longer have saddam to fear. they only have to fear going to work, driving down the road, and stepping out of their homes now. we have put their civilian population at a much greater risk than they were before. i do not call that 'liberation'.

[Carnage-DVS]

perhaps i did not do a good job in explaining my point. im sure i did it better in the version that was accidentally lost in cyberspace.

great, a soldier dies in war. they knew what they were doing, and they fought bravely. that was not what i was talking about.

i was talking about the 4,000 iraqi CIVILIANS that died in 2 months by us bombing the hell out of iraq from a distance. they never signed up to fight. they never wanted to die for this 'cause'. the military and government chalks it up to normal accidental casualties. but if it is so normal, we should have considred that before we decided to go to war. but honestly, the government doesnt even care that what was done.

and on the ideological standpoint of liberating the country, that is just wrong. great, they no longer have saddam to fear. they only have to fear going to work, driving down the road, and stepping out of their homes now. we have put their civilian population at a much greater risk than they were before. i do not call that 'liberation'.

I don't know why you people are still trying to hold an intelligent conversation with this guy here. It's clear to me that he's an immature brat.

Anyway, Bush wanted to remove Saddam from power and used the CIA's faulty intelligence to do that. Now all of a sudden he's backtracking, saying he never said they posed an imminent threat blah blah blah.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

perhaps i did not do a good job in explaining my point. im sure i did it better in the version that was accidentally lost in cyberspace.

great, a soldier dies in war. they knew what they were doing, and they fought bravely. that was not what i was talking about.

i was talking about the 4,000 iraqi CIVILIANS that died in 2 months by us bombing the hell out of iraq from a distance. they never signed up to fight. they never wanted to die for this 'cause'. the military and government chalks it up to normal accidental casualties. but if it is so normal, we should have considred that before we decided to go to war. but honestly, the government doesnt even care that what was done.

and on the ideological standpoint of liberating the country, that is just wrong. great, they no longer have saddam to fear. they only have to fear going to work, driving down the road, and stepping out of their homes now. we have put their civilian population at a much greater risk than they were before. i do not call that 'liberation'.

You don't call it that? Was that country not liberated from a tyrannical regime? Civilians die in war, war is hell. But, I don't think that WE are just to blame for that. I'm pretty sure that they had something to do with that as well. In fact, we went out of our way not to hurt civilians---it just happens. Lets get this straight----their soldiers hide inside civilian areas as a shield, they dress up like civilians----whose wrong here?
Noone had a big problem with killing thousands of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki---on purpose. We did not go into Iraq killing indiscriminately---their army is probably more to blame for that. It's their fault they hide missile silos inside civilian hospitals.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

Furthermore, what makes you think Iraq was not a threat to us? Maybe not in the form of a great army storming the east coast, but in the form of people walking down the street like you and me, flying airplanes, sending anthrax letters.
If you really do NOT believe Saddam was associated with terrorism---please get real.

Oh, immature brat? That's a new one----maybe you're the immature brat, by calling me the immature brat. I haven't been calling people names and insulting have I?
What's everyone getting mad about?

[Eiger]

Furthermore, what makes you think Iraq was not a threat to us? Maybe not in the form of a great army storming the east coast, but in the form of people walking down the street like you and me, flying airplanes, sending anthrax letters.
If you really do NOT believe Saddam was associated with terrorism---please get real.

He wasn't involved in the incidents that you noted. No connection has been established for 9/11 or anthrax. I've gotten real, why don't you give it a try? hehe.

[TheDagdaMor145]

you are right carnage, this will be my last post here.

civilians do die in every war. that does not make it right. if america declared the war, and the civilians died because of it, what does that tell you? as for iraq using civilians as shields, what did you expect, them to just paint a target on themselves and say 'bomb here'? you are right, war is hell. that is why it is used as the last possible option. and the world knows that going to war was not our last option.

to answer your other questions:
1) the head of the cia, george tenet, publicly stated that iraq was no threat to the US. moreover, he said that he never told george bush anything of the kind. that is how i know that iraq was not a threat to us.

2) going from a tyrranical regime to a society where you could die at any moment because of zealots who blow themselves us is not a great leap forward. hell, one of the most targeted places for bombings has been and will be voting stations.

3) you have no idea what you are talking about when you say people dont care about hiroshima and nagasaki. people from all over the world march and protest war and violence every year on the anniversary of those days. another example is when the enola *** (which i guess is starred out) was put into the national airspace museam, people protested for months ahead of time. believe me, many people care.

[Cale The Dark]

you are right carnage, this will be my last post here.

civilians do die in every war. that does not make it right. if america declared the war, and the civilians died because of it, what does that tell you? as for iraq using civilians as shields, what did you expect, them to just paint a target on themselves and say 'bomb here'? you are right, war is hell. that is why it is used as the last possible option. and the world knows that going to war was not our last option.

to answer your other questions:
1) the head of the cia, george tenet, publicly stated that iraq was no threat to the US. moreover, he said that he never told george bush anything of the kind. that is how i know that iraq was not a threat to us.

2) going from a tyrranical regime to a society where you could die at any moment because of zealots who blow themselves us is not a great leap forward. hell, one of the most targeted places for bombings has been and will be voting stations.

3) you have no idea what you are talking about when you say people dont care about hiroshima and nagasaki. people from all over the world march and protest war and violence every year on the anniversary of those days. another example is when the enola *** (which i guess is starred out) was put into the national airspace museam, people protested for months ahead of time. believe me, many people care.


just a couple things.

first of all, can anyone name a war in which civilians did not die? just curious. i mean, bloodless wars must happen all the time right? since civilians died in this one this surely must mean that america did it on purpose right?

secondly, the majority of iraqis that are dying now are either 1. terrorists or 2. being killed by the terrorists....their own people or at least people other than americans. the logic behind people trying to blow up our soldiers and killing their own people is somehow our fault....yeah. i mean i can see how civilians killed by our bombs or by accident can be laid at our feet, but those killed by other iraqis? i just know that some person is going to say "well if we weren't there than they wouldn't be dying." my question is still, how is that our fault? if an american went over to iraq and they all got so insulted that they had a nationwide suicide, would it be the american's fault?

so you are saying that since a small radical percentage of the population is dead set against democracy that they need to just give up and sink back to the ****-hole level that is pretty much uniform among the surrounding countries? the only way that iraq is ever going to get better is through some kind of democracy that takes power and puts it in the hands of many people. i think that a better future is worth weathering the present storm.

[Andarcel]

And an addendum to Cale's post: more Iraqis died in the average month under Saddam due to the embargoes then have died during the entire invasion and occupation. It's very hard for me to see civilian casualties as a compelling argument against that war.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

you are right carnage, this will be my last post here.

civilians do die in every war. that does not make it right. if america declared the war, and the civilians died because of it, what does that tell you? as for iraq using civilians as shields, what did you expect, them to just paint a target on themselves and say 'bomb here'? you are right, war is hell. that is why it is used as the last possible option. and the world knows that going to war was not our last option.

to answer your other questions:
1) the head of the cia, george tenet, publicly stated that iraq was no threat to the US. moreover, he said that he never told george bush anything of the kind. that is how i know that iraq was not a threat to us.

2) going from a tyrranical regime to a society where you could die at any moment because of zealots who blow themselves us is not a great leap forward. hell, one of the most targeted places for bombings has been and will be voting stations.

3) you have no idea what you are talking about when you say people dont care about hiroshima and nagasaki. people from all over the world march and protest war and violence every year on the anniversary of those days. another example is when the enola *** (which i guess is starred out) was put into the national airspace museam, people protested for months ahead of time. believe me, many people care.

Hey, no matter what you say...using civilians as a human shield is wrong.

People died from zealots and by Saddam's hand before we ever got there.

I was involved in a debate in my English class during my freshman year in college. Whether dropping the atomic bomb was right or wrong, I was on the side of WRONG---and I wasn't just debating the point, I truly believe it was wrong. I'll tell you one thing though---everyone in that class thought it was right. I've seen polls---American Polls---of whether AMERICANS thought it was right or wrong, and the majority thought it was right. That's where I come to that conclusion. However, I will concede that many people do think it was wrong--but I'm speaking in American terms.
We did not go to Iraq and bomb indiscriminately---civilian casualties were an accident in this war, and can mostly be racked up to Saddam's underhanded bull####.
Hiding weapons, supplies, etc. in civilian areas
"soldiers" dressing in civilian clothes
Using civilians as human shields
And even then we did our best to avoid civilian casualties.

Oh, but it's okay for them to do this----what else could they do?
Cmon--get the f##k out of here.

[Rthus]

I got a true story for you about civilian casualties:

A soldier was driving through a crowded market place in an Afghan town (can't remember which one) when a grenade flew through the window of his Humvee. Instead of tossing it back out the window, injuring and possibly killing innocents, he grabbed it, and put it under his seat. Luckily there was enough shielding that it didn't kill him but it tore up his back and legs pretty good.

This stuff happens all the time in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we dont hear about it. You can argue whether or not Americans are defending us overseas, but you can be sure they are defending Iraqi and Afghan civilians every chance they get.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

Would everyone like to congratulate me on one of the most successful threads ever in this forum?
I know you're gonna say this thread sucks, but hey, you love to hate it!!!
Or, is it, you hate to love it?

[Rthus]

I think everyone else has slowly abandoned it though. I guess at 10 pages it should be about finished.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

But how many threads have got to ten pages in 3 days?
Shouldn't I get an award for this?

[Graav Wolfsong]

Hey, no matter what you say...using civilians as a human shield is wrong.

Uuuhhh, wow. That really cracked me up.

Did TheDagdaMor145 say the Iraqi forces using civilians as human shields were right ?
I'm sorry, I must have missed that.

Jolly is a prime example of someone who hears only what he wants to hear and knows only what he heard.

He tried to explain how a hard pressed army will do what it has to do in order to protect its country.
Thats right, I said protect, from an Iraqi point of view they were attacked by a hostile force looking to take over their country, not an army there to 'liberate' the Iraqi people.

For arguments sake, say an enemy army vastly superior to the American forces were to attack the US, do you not think the US army would take similar actions to give themselves a better fighting chance?

Secondly, the Iraqi people is hardly liberated, they live with a lot more fear now than under Saddam.
This war has created an enemy they cannot fight, an enemy within.
With Saddam, at least they had someone to point to and say "There he is, thats the bad guy!", now they live with the possibility that their neighbours would blow them up in protest of the American occupation.

And it is a horrbile misconception that Iraq will be all hunky dory any time soon, even when they finally establish an Iraqi democracy they will still face crippling problems, beside the internal conflicts they also face huge damages to their infrastructure, they have a problem with power shortage in many cities, clean water is hard to come by, prices on food has shot through the roof and their police lacks both the manpower and equipment to enforce any kind of law.
So the US soldiers has to take care of keeping the peace, problem with that is they attract so much trouble and hostility that their precence actually defeats their purpose.

The US has even resorted to re hiring the same corupt police that terrorized the populace before the invasion in many cities.

But I will agree that the US simply cant leave everything to the Iraqis at this point, the US passed the point of no return a long time ago and all it can do now is do its best to help rebuild and restore peace, wich will be a long and painful process for both the Iraqi people and the allied forces.


I dont understand Americas reluctance to let the UN in on the rebuilding of Iraq tho', Bush actually had the nerve to ask for financial aid but still refuse to give up overall control or even share control of Iraq with the UN.

If someone has some insight on this please enlighten me.

[windwalker]

Sorry if I'm wrong about this Graav, but you said that at least with Saddam the Iraqis had someone to point a finger at, right? Well, isn't that a reason right there, for us to go help them? I mean a lot of people argue that we went in there for the wrong reasons and they didn't really want us, but if everyone was pointing at him and saying he was the bad guy, then who can blame the U.S. for wanting to help them? I was(and still am) opposed to the war, but that little bit kind of annoys me.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

Uuuhhh, wow. That really cracked me up.

Did TheDagdaMor145 say the Iraqi forces using civilians as human shields were right ?
I'm sorry, I must have missed that.

Jolly is a prime example of someone who hears only what he wants to hear and knows only what he heard.

He tried to explain how a hard pressed army will do what it has to do in order to protect its country.
Thats right, I said protect, from an Iraqi point of view they were attacked by a hostile force looking to take over their country, not an army there to 'liberate' the Iraqi people.

For arguments sake, say an enemy army vastly superior to the American forces were to attack the US, do you not think the US army would take similar actions to give themselves a better fighting chance?

Secondly, the Iraqi people is hardly liberated, they live with a lot more fear now than under Saddam.
This war has created an enemy they cannot fight, an enemy within.
With Saddam, at least they had someone to point to and say "There he is, thats the bad guy!", now they live with the possibility that their neighbours would blow them up in protest of the American occupation.

And it is a horrbile misconception that Iraq will be all hunky dory any time soon, even when they finally establish an Iraqi democracy they will still face crippling problems, beside the internal conflicts they also face huge damages to their infrastructure, they have a problem with power shortage in many cities, clean water is hard to come by, prices on food has shot through the roof and their police lacks both the manpower and equipment to enforce any kind of law.
So the US soldiers has to take care of keeping the peace, problem with that is they attract so much trouble and hostility that their precence actually defeats their purpose.

The US has even resorted to re hiring the same corupt police that terrorized the populace before the invasion in many cities.

But I will agree that the US simply cant leave everything to the Iraqis at this point, the US passed the point of no return a long time ago and all it can do now is do its best to help rebuild and restore peace, wich will be a long and painful process for both the Iraqi people and the allied forces.


I dont understand Americas reluctance to let the UN in on the rebuilding of Iraq tho', Bush actually had the nerve to ask for financial aid but still refuse to give up overall control or even share control of Iraq with the UN.

If someone has some insight on this please enlighten me.

A hard pressed army protecting their country, or tyrannical regime? And, yes, he justified it by those means.
I doubt they live in more fear than they did before the war, wtf are you talking about?
I said it once, I'll say it again....There were zealots/suicide bombers there before we got there.
We hired corrupt police that terrorized the populace before?
First---can you provide your source on this
Second---- you made a point for me there...the force that terrorized
before....oohhhh, but they live in much more fear now.
Our army doesn't protect a tyrannical regime, and, no I do not believe we would use human shields to protect our soldiers.
These people have always lived with the fear of suicide bombers AND Saddam.
I strike your post from the record, because it sucked.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

Oh, and the UN?
The UN...LOL...do you actually think it would be the right thing to do to give full control to the UN?
Furthermore, do you think they would actually take it?
We were hard pressed to get any Red Cross workers or UN people there to start with.
We have given alot of our own money to help this country rebuild also.
As this will probably benefit many countries, what is wrong with asking for aid?
I do have a problem with lending so much financial support to this, I do think we should solicit more countries to help financially, as they will eventually benefit from this.
If we can get a democratic government in there and working, IT WILL benefit many many countries.

[Adonis]

While I can see the point of much of your post, this part really caught my eye. I'm assuming that you are referring to our constitution which forms the basis of our democracy and form of government. While every form of government certainly has its flaws, I'll take democracy any day of the week. What are the alternatives? Despotism, Communism, Anarchy, Fascism, a theocracy perhaps?

Anyway, I'm not a nationalist - at all, however, I am very proud of our constitution which provides for as free and open a society as the world has known and seeks to minimize the government's power over its people's daily lives. Now it's certainly not without fault, as no document can be, and interpretations of it have varied significantly over the years. But with this more than 200 year old document as a basis we have had a very stable government and society with a strong common basis in values - as a nation, which has allowed us to evolve policy, progress, and thrive. Our founders "cooked up" a damn fine piece of paper in my mind...

If you look back I said that I thought democracy IS the best alternative, so you have no arguement with me there.

Your second statement is flawed though. As free and open society as the world has ever known? Being a bit melodramatic there aren't we? Beleive it or not even though my country is part of the commonwealth we have just as free and open society as America, without the constitution, and I'm sure countries all over the world are just the same. It's not all a socialist nightmare just because we still have a royal family. It hasn't impeded our social evolution one bit. IMO, your constitution doesn't form the basis of your democracy, having an educated and willful population does.

[Carnage-DVS]

Who do you think imposed the embargoes? Thats right, America. So shouldn't it be held partly responsible for all the people who die because of those embargoes? Or are you simply going to brush that point off?

[The.Jolly.Roger]

Who do you think imposed the embargoes? Thats right, America. So shouldn't it be held partly responsible for all the people who die because of those embargoes? Or are you simply going to brush that point off?

When are you people gonna start learning and stop responding to this guy. Its easy to see that he's an immature brat!!!

[Rthus]

Who do you think imposed the embargoes? Thats right, America. So shouldn't it be held partly responsible for all the people who die because of those embargoes? Or are you simply going to brush that point off?
The embargo was imposed by the UN. American ships did help to carry it out, but it was UN-approved. The embargo was necessary because Saddam refused to cooperate with the UN and he blatantly ignored the terms of the Gulf War cease fire, which among other things required him to submit to weapons inspectors. Do not blame America. The UN had to impose the embargo as one of its only ways to try to bring Saddam back into line.

[Rthus]

Bringing up another subject, why do you think the embargo didn't work? Because nations like France and Russia were doing billions of dollars of business with Iraq. When we invaded Saddam owed them tens of billions of dollars. Not to mention when we invaded we found French and Russian weapons. You think France wanted us to know that the Iraqis were using French made GPS jammers against us? Against our pilots flying watch over UN imposed no flight zones? You have to ask yourself why did they oppose the war so strongly? Who really was in it for oil? Maybe France and Russia who stood to lose all that money and be embarassed in the eyes of the US government.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

Haven't I been making this point?