War on Terror is Unwinnable - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-02-2004, 10:15 PM   #61
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Salome
hey, I was in favour of the war against Iraq back then
and I still am
so if you want to label my ignorance then at least pick something that I can agree with

the war in Iraq itself was partly a result of backing Iraq against Iran
so don't act as if we haven't replaced evil by evil before

I have good hopes for Iraq
but I don't think terrorism was dealt too heavy a blow when Sadam was removed
Iraq was a client state of the SOVIET UNION during the Iran/Iraq war. The United States did not want to see Iraq overrun by Iran because of the potential threat it would pose to the Persian Gulf region. But the amount of aid it sent to Iraq was tiny, and would not even rank in the top 10. The United States did not send or sell any weapons to Iraq during the war although it did send 2,000 TOW I missiles to Iraq's enemy Iran in the arms for hostages deal.

Saddam's military capability, both in equipment, training and doctrine was almost completely the result of the Soviet Union. I have the statistics, weapon systems and transfers to prove it and it is a long list.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-02-2004, 10:20 PM   #62
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Klaus
Salome

And don't forget that we created the Iran monster too in our fight against communism (and this wasn't even the most dangerous monster we created when we thought we fought for good)
The United States did not create Saddam or his military capability. Iraq was a client state of the Soviet Union pure and simple. One does not need to look further than the Soviet Union to find where Iraq received the majority of its military capability. It is true that Iran was a client state of the United States, but it was far weaker in raw military strenth and capability than the Soviet Union's Iraq. What turned Iran into a monster were the radical muslims in the country.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-02-2004, 10:28 PM   #63
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by cydewaze

Interesting. So it's now the US's job to invade every country with a leader it deems evil, and replace it's leader with a government we install? Not mentioning, of course, that the original reason for the invasion wasn't even about freeing the people.



That's assuming we ever allow them to elect their own leaders, and chance that they might elect someone we don't like.



It's already failed, so the question is moot.
Its the US job to help protect national and global security from those that would harm it.

The United States military already follows the many of the orders of the interim Iraqi government. Elections are going to be in January. Economic and political development takes time. In regards to elections, Iraq is moving at a much faster pace than Germany or Japan ever did.

Already failed? Most people in Iraq according to the latest polls say their life now is better than it was under Saddam. Billions of dollars have been spent rebuilding much of the country. US military personal including my friends always discuss the great progress they are making.

If you think its failed, I'm afraid you misunderstand the scale of the task involved and what actually constitutes success or failure based on that.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-03-2004, 12:09 AM   #64
New Yorker
 
Flying FuManchu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Used to live in Chambana. For now the Mid-South.
Posts: 3,153
Local Time: 05:32 PM
STING2... what polls say people think life is better? I know someone who will be stationed in Samarra and someone in Falluja. From what I understand, life there is scary as hell as a marine or US soldier...
__________________
Flying FuManchu is offline  
Old 09-03-2004, 12:47 AM   #65
Refugee
 
cydewaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 1,256
Local Time: 06:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2 Its the US job to help protect national and global security from those that would harm it.
My point was, based on the precedent we've set in Iraq, the US can now invade just about any country in the middle east, or whoever else it decides it doesn't like.



Quote:
Originally posted by STING2 Already failed? Most people in Iraq according to the latest polls say their life now is better than it was under Saddam. Billions of dollars have been spent rebuilding much of the country. US military personal including my friends always discuss the great progress they are making.
But that wasn't the question. My answer was (and always will be) based on the original reasons for the invasion - the WMD and the ties to Al Queda. We've not found either, so the original mission is a failure.



Quote:
Originally posted by STING2 If you think its failed, I'm afraid you misunderstand the scale of the task involved and what actually constitutes success or failure based on that.
Not at all. I simple won't be duped. If I set out to build a boat, and I come back with a piece of lawn furniture, my mission to build a boat has failed, no matter how nice the piece of lawn furniture turns out.
__________________
cydewaze is offline  
Old 09-03-2004, 04:54 AM   #66
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 11:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
[B]

The US military and coalition forces are absolutely necessary in the war on terrorism
Right, but they are not the key to success.
For example:
military is necessary for foreign policy but the diplomats are the key to success.

Quote:
Japan wanted to fight to the last man for their dictator. It was not a country that was on the verge of democracy at the start of the World War II. It was a very different culture and the United States enforced a change. The constitution Japan uses today was written by the United States.
Even before the Worldwar they had a different mindset than the arab people today.
They were willing to learn from others just to become the best. Foreign wasn't a synonyme for evil anymore.
This made it possible to go that step to democracy and also to modern industry. With this in mind it's just logical that they copy the good things (and make them even better).

But how much more difficult is it to convince people in the arab world that our system (democracy) is the better one when large parts of the population look at the western world and see "the big satan"? It's not like in the former days that they don't know us.
Look at the 9/11 hijackers, they lived for a long time in our world and they still were convinced that destroying this system is worth dying for!

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


The United States did not create Saddam or his military capability. Iraq was a client state of the Soviet Union pure and simple. One does not need to look further than the
The US supported Saddam because their puppet the Iraq was out of control, the US also inspired Bin Laden in the idea of a holy war against russia and because of that set the roots for al-quaida.

What turned the arab world into a monster? The US, the USSR or religous fanatics?
The dangerous combination of all of them.
While fighting for good we didn't recognize that we are not trustworthy if we win the games with "dirt".
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 09-03-2004, 05:23 AM   #67
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 08:32 AM
The US did not inspire Bin Laden to Jihad, that was done by Bin Laden himself using the substantial ammount of money a young man of his position had access too. Bin Laden was one of the arab afghans who went there in the 80's to fight the Soviet Union, he used Saudi money. He was not a creation of the US, he would have continued the fight with or without and support and he did so. The US backed the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan broadly, but the operational support was not directed to these groups that already had access to funding.

Saddam Hussein was most certainly not a US puppet. He was a Soviet backed dictator whom was given very minor support during the Iraq/Iran war after it had started, he did not do bidding for the US in the region, he was only taken off the list of terror sponsering states for a relatively brief period in the 1980's so as to allow

The Arab world was turned into a monster by two things. Oil and Religion - if it were not for the various schools of thought about Islam being the one true faith and having to be spread all across the globe, violently if neccisary combined with the oil wealth created in the 20th Century it would not be an issue. As a rule of thumb during the Cold War the Arab world was backed by the Soviet Union while it was Israel that recieved US support. Europeans however were in bed with the Arabs especially the French who sold Saddam fighter planes, weapon systems and nuclear power plants (Rumsfeld shakes hands with Saddam its a "shocking" thing but Chirac walking Saddam through a nuclear plant is alright!), German companies sold him chemical and biological weapon synthesising equipment and the Soviet Union sold him tanks, guns, rockets, biological and chemical weapons and pretty much everything else in his arsenel.

Democracy is only one side of the coin, without liberty nobody rights are guaranteed.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 09-03-2004, 05:47 AM   #68
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 11:32 PM
A_Wanderer

just a few buzzwords: 1980, US secret services, Prince Turki al-Faisal, 285.000.000 $ per year from the US, Mudschahidin "freedom fighters" against the soviets
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 09-03-2004, 06:00 AM   #69
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 08:32 AM
Another Set

Pakistani ISI --> Maktab al-Khadamat --> Osama Bin Laden
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 09-03-2004, 07:16 AM   #70
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 11:32 PM
A_Wanderer
what do you think of the following link?

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.pht...sama_bin_Laden
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 09-03-2004, 08:41 AM   #71
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by cydewaze

My point was, based on the precedent we've set in Iraq, the US can now invade just about any country in the middle east, or whoever else it decides it doesn't like.




But that wasn't the question. My answer was (and always will be) based on the original reasons for the invasion - the WMD and the ties to Al Queda. We've not found either, so the original mission is a failure.




Not at all. I simple won't be duped. If I set out to build a boat, and I come back with a piece of lawn furniture, my mission to build a boat has failed, no matter how nice the piece of lawn furniture turns out.
The United States went to war to remove Saddam because he failed to VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD per the 1991 UN Gulf War Ceacefire and multiple UN resolutions. Saddam failed to account for, over 1,000 liters of Anthrax, hundreds of pounds of mustard gas, hundreds of pounds of sarin gas, over 20,000 bio/chem capable shells just to name a few things. Saddam was in violation of 17 UN RESOLUTIONS passed under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations.

Saddam's failure to verifiably disarm of all WMD made the invasion to remove him a necessity. The goal of the war was to insure that SADDAM's regime was disarmed of all WMD and in that goal the war has been a 100% success!

It is not surprising that the WMD has not been found yet or will ever be found as the ability to conceal and hide such material far exceeds the ability to detect it. No matter though, because the regime as been destroyed and disarmed, regardless of where the WMD is and what condition it is in.

The United States and other coalition countries are still helping Iraqi's build a new country. How long did it take to build democracy and society in Germany and Japan after World War II? Your analogy fails because no one has come back saying their done yet. It does appreciate the scale of the task involved. Its a bit like if you were changing a tire and I came up to you after 10 seconds and told you, you failed to accomplish the job of changing the tire.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-03-2004, 08:48 AM   #72
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Flying FuManchu
STING2... what polls say people think life is better? I know someone who will be stationed in Samarra and someone in Falluja. From what I understand, life there is scary as hell as a marine or US soldier...
ABC news along with other organization conducted the largest nationwide survey in Iraq of Iraqi citizens back in the spring of 2004. The results are somewhere in the WAR forum. A Majority of Iraqi's say life is better now than it was before the war.

Falluja and Samarra are definitely sore spots, but they are far from being representive of the entire country. The Sunni Triangle represents a small percentage of the country. I have friends there in the Marines, currently on the ground.

There is indeed a lot of unfinished work in Falluja. With the Iraqi military and police force growing quickly now, it is hoped they will go in to finally flush out the terrorist there. It is felt this would be more acceptable to the Iraqi population because the fighting is likely to be much more intense than anything seen in Najaf.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-03-2004, 09:02 AM   #73
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Klaus


Right, but they are not the key to success.
For example:
military is necessary for foreign policy but the diplomats are the key to success.



Even before the Worldwar they had a different mindset than the arab people today.
They were willing to learn from others just to become the best. Foreign wasn't a synonyme for evil anymore.
This made it possible to go that step to democracy and also to modern industry. With this in mind it's just logical that they copy the good things (and make them even better).

But how much more difficult is it to convince people in the arab world that our system (democracy) is the better one when large parts of the population look at the western world and see "the big satan"? It's not like in the former days that they don't know us.
Look at the 9/11 hijackers, they lived for a long time in our world and they still were convinced that destroying this system is worth dying for!



The US supported Saddam because their puppet the Iraq was out of control, the US also inspired Bin Laden in the idea of a holy war against russia and because of that set the roots for al-quaida.

What turned the arab world into a monster? The US, the USSR or religous fanatics?
The dangerous combination of all of them.
While fighting for good we didn't recognize that we are not trustworthy if we win the games with "dirt".
I question that the mindset in Japan was really significantly different than in much of the Arab world today. Japanese people were far more fierce and willing to take certain measures as a people to fight for their dictatorship. They were willing to committ suicide on a mass scale, even down at the civilian level. Just look at what happened in Okinawa. Over the past 20 years, Japanese military personal have been found in the Jungles of South East Asia and the Pacific still holding out for the Emporer. I don't see that level of committment in the Arab world to a one single cause. Japan had this though and the United States changed it. I would say the Arab world of 2002 has had far greater exposure to the west than the Japan of the 1940s.

The United States sent minor support to Saddam because they did not want to see the Iranians overrun Iraq and then push into Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. The support though was so minor that its questionable whether it actually had any impact on the war at all. The Soviet Union was doing all the arming and supplying.

Bin Ladin was inspired to go to Afghanistan by his own beliefs and play a minor role if any during the war there.

The Arab world is not a monster. Certain people in the Arab world are monsters and they have benefited from the heavy supply of weapons from the Soviet Union. Name the conflict and just look at what types of weapons the arab military's are armed with.

If you want a clear example of the United States arming and supplying a monster, look no further than the largest single aid program in the history of the human race, the lend-lease supply program of World War II for Stalins Soviet Union. But the fact is, that program helped save the Soviet Union and the world from the Axis powers. Dispite the distaste in helping someone like Stalin, it was necessary to win the war.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-03-2004, 09:04 AM   #74
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Klaus
A_Wanderer

just a few buzzwords: 1980, US secret services, Prince Turki al-Faisal, 285.000.000 $ per year from the US, Mudschahidin "freedom fighters" against the soviets
285 million dollars is a drop in the bucket. Most of the Mujahdeen freedom fighters went on to form the Northern Alliance who were are allies against the Taliban in 2001.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-03-2004, 10:05 AM   #75
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 11:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


I question that the mindset in Japan was really significantly different than in much of the Arab world today.
The connecting logic i can see in japan is their will to be superior and they were also willing in the times of their dictator to get western knowhow.
Since they found out that democracy works better it was their will to become a democracy to improve, when they compared their economy to the us and the russian economy they could see that free market was the superior thing.

But you're right, Japanese people loved their country much more and because of that also their leader than anything we can see in the arab world.
We can see that logic in europe and the US too - if our country is attacked we rally behind our leaders no matter if we supported them before.

Quote:
The United States sent minor support to Saddam because they did not want to see the Iranians overrun Iraq and then push into Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. The support though was so minor that its questionable whether it actually had any impact on the war at all.
Well i wouldn't call this minor also the USSR sent more conventional weapons to Iraq there was strong support of the western world (not only US) to stop the evil commis from their march to the oilfields.
Saddam played his West vs. East game pretty good and got support from all sides.

Quote:
Bin Ladin was inspired to go to Afghanistan by his own beliefs and play a minor role if any during the war there.
It is reported that Bin Ladin wasn't verry religious when he was young. Later he became religious but not political. We (the western world) thought we could instrumentalize this man and use him as a weapon against communism.

Quote:
The Arab world is not a monster. Certain people in the Arab world are monsters
Yes, i agree with you here, sorry for that sentence

Quote:
and they have benefited from the heavy supply of weapons from the Soviet Union.
let's say they benefited from the cold war.

Quote:
Name the conflict and just look at what types of weapons the arab military's are armed with.
Following that logic Stalin was never supported by the US.

There are tons of documents which show us that there was support of these men but:
I don't think that the US government supported any of the men we mentioned because they love to support dictators but because of rational reasons.
And you're not able to see how it ends.
There were hundreds of dictators supported either by USSR or the US in the cold war just for strategic reasons.
After the fall of the communist block there's some of this mess left, some of them are gladly history.
__________________

__________________
Klaus is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com