The War in Iraq

[boranchistanger]

This thread is to discuss the current war in Iraq. Please state your opinions but also back them up with hard-core facts. Happy debating.

 

-Boran

[ET Warrior]

I have been against this war from the beginning. I do not feel any of our reasons for waging war were good enough to justify attacking a sovereign nation. I agree 100% that Saddam Hussein was an evil, evil man. But that was NEVER mentioned as cause for war when we originally went in. The entire justification for going into Iraq was that Saddam Hussein had weapons of Mass destruction and was an immediate threat to the United States, which was and is complete bullocks.

 

It was only AFTER we'd been in Iraq for a long time and still have no WMD's that we started flouting our invasion as a big liberation effort and our entire purpose was to oust Saddam and bring Democracy to Iraq.

 

Furthermore, I didn't like the lies perpetuating the myth that this invasion was connected to our war on terror, which is also bull. There is no evidence to support the accusation the Saddam Hussein supported terrorists, and furthermore it is unlikely that Osama Bin Laden even LIKED Hussein. Saddam is not a religious man, and Osama is an Islamic Fundamentalist.

[Doomie]

Damn ET, how do you do it? When i clicked this thread the post number was still at 0. you always beat me one second! Anyway, i think the Americans biggest mistake was that they were expecting everybody to stand aside the road with flowers to salute their saviours, but instead there are a bunch of terrorrist who keep saying everything was better when saddam was there. Wich it was, cause then there weren't any suicide bombers around. But it also wasn't. anyway, you get the point. I think Bush is a maniac that would bomb his own grandma if he could find some lies to back it up...

[B1GC]

You ever heard the phrase you give a mouse a cookie and hell want a glass of milk?

 

That is what the situation is like overthere. Most agree that Saddam should have ben taken out of office, I mean its no lie that he killed millions of people in his own country. But we help the people with that and it just wasnt good enough, they want more.

 

Should we have been there, no. But we are, so deal with it, and lets come up witht the best possible answer to get out of it.

 

But what no one is talking about is only the biggest scam in world history. The UN was given 6 BILLION dollars to give aid to the Iraqy people, but not a cent made it to Iraq. The UN is a but of lieing cheating scum bags that no one is talking about.

[boranchistanger]

You guys are ignorant if you don't see the real reason we went to war. Going into a country because of WMD's is no reason and as for enforcing UN Resolutions, well, that's also a pretty shakey reason.

 

The simple reason we went into Iraq, along with 30+ countries, was to establish a democracy in the middle of the Middle East. Terrorism cannot prosper in a true stable democratic nation. That is why we don't have terrorist camps in the US, Britain, Spain, Germany, Japan and so forth. Since the Middle East doesn't have a stable democratic nation then terrorism can take root and prosper.

 

So, in order to combat terrorism, which is what this war is about, we needed to establish a democracy in the Middle East. But it couldn't be anywhere. It needed to be in a place where the population was diverse and where it could spread rapidly afterwards. Iraq meets both criteria. And that is why Iraq was chosen for this special country.

 

Think about it. Iraq is surrounded by Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria and Turkey. All of those countries have very unpopular and oppressive dictators. So, when democracy fully takes root in Iraq, which will take time and unfaltering resolve from the US and the 30+ country coalition, it will spread rapidly. Already the Iranian people are starting to rebel with Iraq as their example and a rebellion has already begun in Syria.

 

As for the way the Iraq war has been executed I am amazed at how few casualties we have had along with the fact that we have had even limited amounts of security. You would figure that with foreign Christians marching into a country in which the people hate the US and have been having propoganda punched into their heads by their leaders and Al Jazeer that they are crusaders that you woulg have mass revolution. There has been none of that. All we have are a few scattered and relatively small militias with isolated terrorists attacks. And also consider that in an environment where most everyone has an AK-47 and in an environment where you can look out your window and shoot an American that there have only been 800 deaths! While 800 deaths are 800 too many that is still nothing compared to past wars and nothing compared to what was expected.

 

Now, to address a few points made earlier.

 

The entire justification for going into Iraq was that Saddam Hussein had weapons of Mass destruction and was an immediate threat to the United States, which was and is complete bullocks.

 

I agree with you that going into a country for the simple reason you suspect that they have WMD's is no reason to go to war. However, you are listening to what the media was blaring out. If you listened to Bush's speaches before the war you will hear much more than just they have WMD's. You will hear their threat to their neighbors, their horrible human right's record along with their refusal to comply with the UN. And lets face it, the reason I gave above which is the true reason the US invasion of Iraq would not fly with the UN. I think that the UN right now is worhtless, as is seem with their inaction for the genocide going on in the Sudan. If I was Bush I would be projecting the real reason we went to war, stated above, and taken my chances with the rest of the world.

 

It was only AFTER we'd been in Iraq for a long time and still have no WMD's that we started flouting our invasion as a big liberation effort and our entire purpose was to oust Saddam and bring Democracy to Iraq.

 

Agreed in part. There was credible evidence from all over the world which showed that Saddam had WMD's and moved them to Syria where I personally believe they are.

 

Furthermore, I didn't like the lies perpetuating the myth that this invasion was connected to our war on terror, which is also bull. There is no evidence to support the accusation the Saddam Hussein supported terrorists, and furthermore it is unlikely that Osama Bin Laden even LIKED Hussein. Saddam is not a religious man, and Osama is an Islamic Fundamentalist.

 

Umm, then how do you explain the Al Queda training camp in northern Iraq? How do you explain the close connection between Bin Ladin and Zarquowi? Use common sense here. Saddam hates America. Terrorists hate America. Saddam hates Israel, terrorists hate Israel. I don't care what petty religious disagreements you have you are going to work together to accomplish your common goal. And Saddam has publically supported terrorists groups in Israel and even giving them money to strap bombs to kids and blow themselves and other innocents up.

 

it was, cause then there weren't any suicide bombers

 

Ya you're right. Under Saddam it was better. I mean, who wouldn't want to be constantly living in an environment of fear in which you could be killed for simply being a Kurd or a Shiite. Man, those torture chamvers were completely nice especially when they were filled up with bones, like they usually were. And those mass graves, gorgeous!

 

Come'on. How many Iraqis died every year under Saddam? Over 100,000. Not even half that many have died during the entire war. And you are over-propogantisising (New word!) the insurgency. The total insurgency is around 20,000 fanatics, over half of them foreigners.

 

I think Bush is a maniac that would bomb his own grandma if he could find some lies to back it up...

 

I hate it when people say this. It is so stupid that it's funny. Lets see, warmongering Bush has led us in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. For both the wars congress, made of republicans and democrats, overwhelmingly supported the president along with the majority of the population. Give me a break.

 

-Boran

[Luke'sMaster]

Well americans elected him.....(1 state [Florida]{which took about 10,000,000,000 years to get the vote counted right})

[boranchistanger]

So now your accusing Bush of not being the rightful president? He won 40 out of 50 states and his opponent couldn't even win his home state. Come'on.

 

-Boran

[PanzerTekk]

Fascism?

 

Subtle domination?

 

 

I suppose that could sum it up.

 

In no way was the "war" (I say that loosely) started to SAVE the Iraqi people. Thats fluffy topping for the black oily cup cake underneath.

Not to mention all the contracts for re building etc etc.

They needed a target and they found one.

Anyone who tries to defend this latest act of terrorism by the united states by saying that we helped soooooooo many of those poor iraqis is just..I dont know....they have a flacid brain.

Sure Saddam persecuted people and killed them, but for the most part they were the fundementalist forces within....now that he's stopped killing them they are trying to grab a piece of the pie. Most of these damn attacks that are going on are most likely from these groups, not X Iraqi soldiers or militants.

(anyone pay attention to that huge pipe line they built from the mountainous regions to the sea in afghanistan while the iraq war was in full swing?)

 

Anyways...I fell off the topic boat.

They cant justify this selfish act in a sane and moral manner. You cant. Stand blindly by your country if you want, I dont blame you. The amount of poisonous media being jammed down your throat is truly amazing.

You are a product of subtle fascism.

Freedom is an illusion.

You are free to do what they will let you do.

 

Good day.

[B1GC]

i would just like to say that I competly agree with boranchistanger. Everything you said makes complete since. Thank you.

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by boranchistanger

Use common sense here. Saddam hates America. Terrorists hate America. Saddam hates Israel, terrorists hate Israel. I don't care what petty religious disagreements you have you are going to work together to accomplish your common goal. And Saddam has publically supported terrorists groups in Israel and even giving them money to strap bombs to kids and blow themselves and other innocents up.

 

And you apparently don't realize that the religious disagreements aren't PETTY to fundamentalists. Their entire lives are devoted to and submersed in religion. It is logical that Al-Qaieda hated Saddam as much as anyone else did.

[boranchistanger]

these islamic fundamentalists are not religious. They USE religion as an excuse for their hideous actions. Do you honestly believe that the scum usama Bin Ladin is a religious man? You go up to every muslim and I can guarantee every one who has read the Koran and actually knows what makes a muslim will tell you that they aren't really muslims.

 

-Boran

[ET Warrior]

FUNDAMENTALIST is the key word there. Fundamentalists will do some CRAZY things in the name of their religion, and feel that they have the backin of God. Ever heard of the Crusades? Salem Witch Trials? Countless Jihads in Islamic countries? I can go on, but I think you get the picture. The fact is that while YOU may not see them as religious, they are in fact doing what THEY feel is right by THEIR God.

 

It's easy to just say, well, phhh, they aren't REALLY religious, they're just using it as an excuse. It makes it easier to assume that they'd be willing to work with someone they probably hate for religious reasons.

[Guest Jed]

We may have had genuine reasons (or not) for going over there, but at this point we're doing more harm than good. Don't think anyone can disagree with that.

 

*keeps it short and sweet*

[PanzerTekk]

There are other areas of the world that needed more help.

Lets take the congo for example. Roving bands of cannibalistic militia men slaughtering whole villages of people.....

OH ya...all good stuff.

There is a far more selfish reason that they went into iraq then a selfless, "help your common man" was not on their mind.

The powers to be that got that war rolling didn'tt give a rats ass about helping people or freeing them from oppression.

Its an added bonus once the war goes on. People support the war if they think that they are helping people and that they were directly threatened and it had to be done.

Very similar to Germany, 1939.

 

 

"Of course the people don't want war... That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

 

-- Hermann Goering, Adolf Hitler's Deputy Chief and Luftwaffe Commander, at the Nuremberg trials, 1946 from "Nuremberg Diary" by G M Gilbert.

[boranchistanger]

FUNDAMENTALIST is the key word there. Fundamentalists will do some CRAZY things in the name of their religion, and feel that they have the backin of God. Ever heard of the Crusades? Salem Witch Trials? Countless Jihads in Islamic countries? I can go on, but I think you get the picture. The fact is that while YOU may not see them as religious, they are in fact doing what THEY feel is right by THEIR God.

 

Alright, let me get this straight, you feel that Usoma Bin Ladin is a religious man? You honestly think that he believes that crashing planes into building which means death for thousands of people is what God wants? Do you honestly think Yasser Arafat is a religious man? He straps bombs to little children, telling them if they blow themselves up in a supermarket they will go to paradise?

 

Now, still on Arafat. In the 90's, Israel proposed a treaty with the PLO which would of forced Israel to give up ALL conquered land that Israel has done since 1948. What did Arafat say? No. You know why he said no? Because with israel weak he is out of buisiness. It's all politics. And also remember, follow the money.

 

And even the crusaders worked with those who didn't believe in what they did. The Catholic crusaders worked with the Orthodox Byzantines in order to successfully retake the holey land. The Catholic and Orthodox churches could not stand each other, yet when they both had a common goal they worked together. That is Saddam and Bin Ladin.

 

We may have had genuine reasons (or not) for going over there, but at this point we're doing more harm than good. Don't think anyone can disagree with that.

 

I disagree big time. You understand that right now the coalition troops ar ethe only security Iraq has right now? The Iraqi force is still being formed, trained and armed. That akes a long time. A pullout by the coalition now means the complete undoing of all work which has been done of the past year along with a bloody civil war which wouls take the lives of at least a million Iraqis.

 

Coalition troops will be needed until at least the beginning of 2005. Hopefully by the time of the Iraqi elections the Iraqi government will have sufficient police and military force to partially defend themselves. This means that coalition troops can begin being pulled out. I estimate that by 2007 all coalition troops will be out of Iraq and Iraq will be secure and stable along with democratic.

 

Lets take the congo for example. Roving bands of cannibalistic militia men slaughtering whole villages of people.....

OH ya...all good stuff.

 

Along with most of Africa. But remember, Africa has no US interests in it. African countries pose no threat to American security. We are fighting a war on terrorism, not a war against tyranny and human rights violations. The UN is in charge of places like Africa, not the US. The Middle East is where the greatest terrorist threat to the United States is along with other interests like oil and Israel. Both are essential to the US.

 

Remember, US foreign policy rightfully revolves around two things in the proper order:

 

1. US interests

2. Promoting democracy and improving the world

 

If the first part is missing the US should never go in another country. It is the job of the UN to take care of the second one. The US cannot and will not police the world!

 

Unfortinately this is looked over by Democrat presidents. Clinton sent our troops into Bosnia, an operation in which there was absolutely no US interests involved. Hundreds of Americans died for nothing except a country which is screwed up to this day.

 

There is a far more selfish reason that they went into iraq then a selfless, "help your common man" was not on their mind.

The powers to be that got that war rolling didn'tt give a rats ass about helping people or freeing them from oppression.

 

it is the UN's job to "help the common man." The US and other countries should never send their men and women oversees unless what they are doing is in their country's interests.

 

Iraq is in the interests of the United States because once the operation in iraq is completed, which may take awhile, the War on Terror will begin to turn to our side. A democratic and free Iraq will be a crushing blow to the terrorists like I described in a past post. And oil production will increase with the introduction of some capitalism and that will also benefit the US, along with every other country in the world.

 

Its an added bonus once the war goes on. People support the war if they think that they are helping people and that they were directly threatened and it had to be done.

 

Did Iraq have to be done? No. Iraq wasn't going to invade the US or anything. Was it a good thing to do? Definately.

 

And there have been other wars in which we didn't have to go in. Vietnam, World War I, Spanish American War, Mexican War and the War of 1812 to name a few. Yet it was always the right thing to do to go to war. And I am very optimistic about the future because of Iraq.

 

Very similar to Germany, 1939.

 

this is nothing compared the Germany in 1939. Nothing. It is a slap in the face when you sday that. You guys acvt like Bush is a facist for god's sake.

 

-Boran

[yaebginn]

I support the war. I dont like to call it the war in Iraq, becasue its not. its the war on terror. we've been sittin gidly by long enough. The terrorists have gotta learn, you mess with america, and america's gonna mess with you.

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by yaebginn

I support the war. I dont like to call it the war in Iraq, becasue its not. its the war on terror. we've been sittin gidly by long enough. The terrorists have gotta learn, you mess with america, and america's gonna mess with you.

 

AND THIS, is where the American propoghanda has apparently done it's job. The war in Iraq has NOTHING to do with the war on terrorism, they aren't related. Show me actual proof that Saddam is in any way connected to our war on terrorism. It's not there.

[VanLingo]

ET Warrior, I dare you to invite a military friend of yours to read what you've posted.

 

I have several friends in the military. One -- Gary M. -- is in the Army airborne division and just returned from Iraq. Another -- Robbie C. -- is a Humvee driver who also recently returned from Iraq.

Either one of these fellows wouldn't think twice before punching you in the mouth.

 

People like you constantly whine, "Mr. Bush sent troops to Iraq, oh my God!" and, "We wasted soooo much money helping people who don't need it!"

Let me ask you this: how many pairs of socks did drop off to be sent to the troops?

How many cans of peaches did you send?

How many letters did you write?

Because I can guarantee you that not only did you not lift a finger to help the troops, they are the ones that needed it the most.

 

The difference between you and the people that did send socks, canned food, letters, gloves, sunglasses, etc. is that you are unwilling to help anyone not in direct consequence to you.

 

Final note: if you truly believe that Iraq was in no way a direct threat to America, you need a serious reality slap. After 9/11, the Florida car bomb scare, the brainwashed kid who flew into a bank tower, and the shoe bomb attempt, I'd say that the terrorist regime was pretty intent on attacking again.

Once again, the difference appears: while I don't believe myself to be in real danger, I do fear for the security of other Americans. You think that just because you're safe America should pull a Clinton and de-militarize.

[B1GC]

Hey VanLingo you hit the nail on the head. I also have friends that are in training right now to go to Iraq and I also have frineds in Iraq. I send them letters on occasion and every time they right back they just want more letters cuz they have no contact to the outside world other than letters.

 

Yes I do believe that the war in Iraq is an attack against terroism. We took the war to them and yes sadly now they are going after our troops withtheir suicide bombers, but I think it is safe to say they are a little more prepared witht heir M16's than we are.

 

boranchistanger once again I am totally on your page. Finally I found a thread where people are not a bunch of cowards who hate everything going on, especially Bush. I think Bush is doing a pretty good job, it could be better I am not doubting that, but by all means he is not as nearly as bad as Clinton!!

[boranchistanger]

AND THIS, is where the American propoghanda has apparently done it's job. The war in Iraq has NOTHING to do with the war on terrorism, they aren't related.

 

They're one in the same.

 

Show me actual proof that Saddam is in any way connected to our war on terrorism. It's not there.

 

Let's see here. We got Zarquowi along with an Al Queda training camp in northern Iraq prior to the war along with Saddam's armament of terrorists along with his actions of INVTITIN terrorists into the country just prior to the war.

 

Now, Zarquowi fought for Al Queda during Operation Enduring Freedom (That's the war in Afghanistan for all you Eskimos out there) and was badly wounded. Now, he got a DIRECT invitatyion from Saddam inviting Zarquowi to Iraq in order to recieve medical treatement and Zarquowi has stayed there ever since. Now, Zarquowi is no normal Joe in Al Queda though. He was a key planner for 911 along with I think 4th in command of Al Queda.

 

Now, the Al Queda training camp, which has trained countless terrorists. That was located just south of Kurdistan and was very active according to intel reports from the US, Britain, Russia, Germany, France, China and many many others. When all of those countries say the same thing about the camp it's most likely there.

 

And, finally, Saddam's invital of the terrorists. Over 50% of these thugs who call themselves "freedom fighters" are foreign TERRORISTS. In other words, they strap bombs to themselves and blow up in a grocery store in the name of almighty Allah. Prior to the war, Saddam invited them in, gave them some AK-47's and paid them big bucks.

 

That's quite a few links to terrorism.

 

I have several friends in the military. One -- Gary M. -- is in the Army airborne division and just returned from Iraq. Another -- Robbie C. -- is a Humvee driver who also recently returned from Iraq.

Either one of these fellows wouldn't think twice before punching you in the mouth.

 

I'm glad they have returned safetly. Could you tell them that Boran thanks them so so much for protecting this great country please?

 

You think that just because you're safe America should pull a Clinton and de-militarize.

 

That was un disaster Grande! (Or, a big disaster for all you eskimos out there). Our military is now a million strong, nothing compared to the Cold War era. I find it quite a shame, especially since we can now lose a war if we were ever pittet up against certain countries simply because we don't have the number of soldiers. A war with China right now would be a DISASTER as the Chinese could assemble countless millions, all defending their country. Russia would be a similar mess to fight with simply because of numbers. What a shame, good job Billy.

 

-Boran

[PanzerTekk]

""""this is nothing compared the Germany in 1939. Nothing. It is a slap in the face when you said that. You guys act like Bush is a facist for god's sake."""""

 

Bush is a fascist.

A ferkin greedy warmongering fascist and if he gets elected again you better bet that draft will be coming your way, then you try and defend that ass and his sole desire to get in the history books.( Does everyone just forget that he ignored the UN and told them to SHOVE IT. In that aspect he's as bad as saddam for ignoring UN rulings on weapons etc)

They are already hurting for troops and they h ave stopped rotating them out of combat zones because of such a need. If bush dupes you all again....then you better believe the draft is on the way.

 

NOW onto the link between germany and the present day US.

 

The US attempted to justify an invasion by saying that the US WAS threatened...you know...what with the whole "THEY GOT DA NUKES!" and all. If you FOOL the pppulation into believing they are in danger, they will support military action.

Germany, 1939.

Hitler was not in supreme control of Germany though he had the LOTS Of power. He contacts the powers that be an informs them that german citizens are being oppressed and butchered in poland and that he has sent armed forces to free such citizens. The paper work is done yadda yadda. Hitler gets the reigns.

The people think it needs to be done... and support action,they were FOOLED.

Bush and his flunkies made it out that they NEEDED to go into Iraq so that weapons of mass destruction would not fall into terrorist hands..or...something along those lines.

People thought they were in danger...and that bad **** could go down....so...

JUSTIFICATION in the eyes of the blind propaganda poisoned populace.

 

It isn't a DIRECT parallel, but you MUST see the connection.

Do not sip from the spoon they feed you and accept what they dangle in front of you. There are far to many yes men in this world.

 

Frankly Germany 1939 was a better model for a nation that actually worked then the US will ever be in my life time.(apart from the whole jew fiasco. That wasn't a very good thing at all.)

[B1GC]

Your opinions of Bush concerning the UN are completly ludacris. The Un is a bunch of liers anyway, they are worse than saddam and Bush. Have you even heard of teh oil-for-food scandal? The media is trying to downplay it but basically...

 

"The United States General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, told Hyde's committee recently that $10.1 billion of the estimated $60 billion handled by the United Nations under the program was paid in kickbacks, bribes and set-asides to Saddam and his cronies. "

 

"It called the scandal "without precedent in U.N. history" and urged Annan to make his response "equally unprecedented." Annan has announced that he will name an independent panel to investigate. "

 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38040

 

anything concerning the UN is a lie, maybe thats why Bush did not care what they did

 

Bush might not be the best president ever or even the best leader in the world today. But you can not blame everything on him, there are other liers and cheaters in other organizations (that you might think good) around the world

[PanzerTekk]

sure there are...but you are playing smoke and mirrors saying its OKAY for bush to do it if other people are. YA the UN is not perfect, but what the US did was illegal in international law. Straight up illegal. Lesser nations are brought up on war crimes for similar actions.

Bush is far from a leader....he is an opportunist.

[ET Warrior]

Wow VanLingo, I'm sure glad I have you here to tell me what I do and don't do. Firstly, who would I write letters to? I have no friends in the armed forces, so should I just write a random letter to a random soldier?

 

And for the record, I bought 5 cans of peaches to be sent to the soldiers in Iraq. I realize that 5 cans really isn't very much, but I'm a college student, and I dont have a lot of spare cash, so instead of buying more goods, I donated time, helping my girlfriend's community service group make gift-baskets for the soldiers.

 

And now you're thinking "WTF? You said you were against the war in Iraq? OMGWTFBBQCAKE you couldn't have sent soldiers things if you are against the war!!!!!!?!?!?!?!!?"

 

Oh noes, you caught me. Because it seems that it's impossible to support the troops and NOT support the war they're fighting in. Or IS IT? Just because I think the government is full of liars who started a war based on false pretenses and perpetuated lies convincing us that this war somehow aided our war on terror does NOT mean I do not have immense respect for the men and women who are willing to put their lives on the line for our country.

 

So, now I'll give you a few minutes to take your foot out of your mouth.

[yaebginn]

I dont particualrly trust you. IMO, you're just saying you bought the peaches to WOW Van Lingo and the other supporters of the war, (boran, myself).